From today's CNN poll (the previous comparison was from the Quinnipiac poll): Clinton 49, Trump 47 Cruz 48, Clinton 46 Rubio 49, Clinton 46 According to CNN, both Cruz and Rubio lead Clinton nationally. Also, the RCP poll averagefor a Clinton vs Cruz matchup is Clinton by 0.8% , which is a dead heat, and we still have over 10 months to go until election day. It should be becoming very clear to everyone that Ted Cruz (or almost any Republican candidate) is going to be a tough challenge for Hillrod or Bernie Sanders to overcome, and not the easy win that the leftist echo chamber keeps telling itself is already as good as done.
Again, Hillary has been worn out and torn to pieces many times. I despise her but even I'm tired of hearing it. Unless Republicans come up with something new, there isn't much more damage left to inflict. On the other hand, none of the potential GOP nominees has been raked yet. They are all fresh meat. It will be nasty and whoever it is will be wounded and knocked down several pegs. Only then will head to head polls be worth anything. Head to head polls in any political race that are taken months in advance don't mean much because they don't reflect the environment in which people vote. If you honestly think Hillary vs. Trump would be close because of the poll above, keep drinking Kool Aid. As for Cruz, I really want to see what's left of him after the GOP establishment makes him bleed. I agree he hasn't peaked yet, but we have no idea if he and his campaign can handle being THE front-runner (assuming it gets to that).
And 2 weeks before election day, you had Romney at +4.5 as Obama cruised to an easy win 4 years ago. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7257408&postcount=2499
The polls are certainly not predictive, especially not this far out. But this information effectively debunks the suggestion that the Democrats are howling runaway favorites in this race who are guaranteed to win this and every other presidential contest, now and forever, debate over. Also, Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama, as even most of the Democratic left seems to be painfully aware. In fact, it may well be premature to pencil her in as the Democratic nominee. If she flubbed it in the primary this cycle, it certainly would not be the first time that she has done that.
This is not about declaring a done deal. This is about debunking Libo hype machine that Cruz is unelectable.
That poll does not debunk anything. If you took a poll in November/December 2003, Howard Dean seemed electable. Cruz won't prove anything to me until he gets past the honeymoon phase (likely won't happen until Trump drops out) and proves he can withstand the scrutiny that is to come.
Are y'all familiar with the electoral college? Are y'all familiar with the results of the 2012 election? Familiar with the work of Nate Silver, who many of the cons here in the BBS were tearing apart for his biased work back in 2012, who then correctly predicted the outcome of every single state in the union, using predictive models based on 2008 turnout plus demographic changes? I just keep repeating myself, but heck, it's relevant: In 2012, with the economy still slumping badly, and Obama with very high negatives, and with a reasonable opponent in Romney, the republicans still lost handily. Romney could have taken FL and OH and still lost, easy. The universal analysis from the right and the left afterwards was that the minority vote sunk the repubs, and the demographics of minorities vs. white votes would only veer further and further against them with time. The diagnosis from every corner was: the repubs must find some way to win minorities over, at the very least courting the Hispanic vote through immigration reform. Fast forward to the present day. The economy has recovered, the demographics have shifted significantly further away from conservatives, and Hillary has no worse negatives than Obama did in 2012, and what has the GOP done to reverse the damage from 2012 and court the minority vote? Immigration reform has been repeatedly canned by the GOP. The leading GOP candidate is an openly racist fascist. The moderate "establishment" picks in the race can barely break single digits. So explain to me: when the wheels meet the road in Nov 2016, how on God's green earth are the republicans going to win a general election? Seriously. With Rubio y'all could at least flip FL and win a couple percentage points of the Hispanic vote, but even then, mathematically, you're screwed. You'll keep majority in the House for years to come, but the presidency? And you're touting Ted freaking Cruz as a presidential candidate. A far-right Tea Partier who has the personal appeal of a used car salesman with a side of condescension, who is despised by the most powerful people in his own party. Seriously?
I agree with you. The only thing stopping Hillary from winning by 5-6% is a new major scandal. She's like a rock buried deep in the mud that is near-impossible to budge. Her upside vs. downside is a very narrow range IMO. If the Republicans had a strong, charismatic candidate with the potential for wide appeal beyond their core, we could have a nail-biter. But I just don't see anyone remaining that fits the bill.
I still think the money is happy with the situation. They want to own The House with gridlock the goal. They need to be able to run their gerrymandered Congressional candidates against the President on national social hot button issues rather than the real nitty-gritty of local interest and having their Presidential candidates set the tone and narrative promotes that. If GOP Congressional candidates had to run on their effect on their constituents quality of life rather than guns and God they would lose. GOP and wide appeal are oxymorons because they by definition are for selective benefits: a selected religion and robber barons mostly.
Here is what is really going on: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/b...t-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html Playing politics is always about the money.
Rafael Eduardo Cruz is raking in the donations, from both small and large donors. Cruz is showing that he has lots of resources available to tap and is well positioned financially to fund a long primary campaign, apparently unlike Jeb Bush. And so far Marco Rubio has been doing most of his campaigning by television. That is expensive. Is Rubio in position to slog it out over the long haul?
