For what it’s worth here’s what PredictWise has right now:
Hillary Clinton DEM 53 %
Marco Rubio GOP 11 %
Jeb Bush GOP 9 %
Bernie Sanders DEM 8 %
Donald Trump GOP 7 %
Ben Carson GOP 3 %
Chris Christie GOP 2 %
Ted Cruz GOP 2 %
Joe Biden DEM 1 %
Carly Fiorina GOP 1 %
John Kasich GOP 1 %
Mike Huckabee GOP 1 %
all others 0%
The Biden announcement put Clinton over 50% for the first time that I can recall.
Do I approve of Ms Clinton, from my position on the conservative wing of the extreme left? No, not really. Will I vote for Ms Clinton, given the dog’s breakfast of Republican candidates? Oh, yes. Definitely, absitively, posolutely yes.
Hey adaher, if you have the time I’d love to see the rough percentages you’d put on the various candidates (to win their party primary, and to win the general if they do win the primary) like I suggested in post #60. If you’d like to participate, of course.
I’d like to, I’m just not sure what I’d base them on. At this point all I can do is divide candidates into “can win”, and “can’t win”, and “could win if a lot of surprising things to their way”, which is a category I place Clinton in right now. Clinton wants Trump so bad you can taste it.
Okay. I would put Clinton into the “can win” category. Considering that she has by far the greatest likelihood of any candidate from either party to actually get to the general election, probably by a factor of 5 or more, then it seems very reasonable that she has the best chance of any single candidate to actually be president. For her to not have the best chance, that would mean that I’d have to believe that there was a Republican candidate with a 5 to 1 advantage (about 83-17, roughly) over Hillary, and I think that’s totally bonkers.
I would have said that pre-email, but her handling of that issue reminded everyone of what her problem was after a mostly scandal-free tenure at State.
Now I think she’s severely damaged and has little chance. She can only win if the Republican does even worse.
Okay, we’ll see. FTR, I think “little chance” is absolutely ridiculous at this point, but we’ll see.
I know she is severely damaged, I read about it in the Adaher Report. To such a degree, she must somehow face and defeat such sterling examples of American politics as Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Must she then face Steven Hawking in a mambo dance contest? Take on Jabba the Hutt in the fifty yard dash?
Doom, certain doom.
She’s got universal name recognition and she’s got 45% of the vote and a 50% disapproval rating. Where does she find enough people not currently willing to vote for her to get her to a majority? And against Bush, who also has universal name recognition but isn’t as odious as Trump, she’s only getting 43% of the vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html
Bush has actually led her in four of the last five polls. I see no reason why an attractive new face like Marco Rubio or a successful governor without the Bush baggage like Kasich can’t outperform Bush substantially.
In this thread, I recommend we refrain from mocking adaher – he’s gracious enough to share his predictions with us, and I’d like to keep this thread around and active until we can evaluate their accuracy with results.
I think lots of people who “disapprove” of her will vote for her. I’m not entirely sure I would answer “approve” – I’m not a big fan. I know that several of my friends and family strongly dislike her but are looking forward to voting for her. What motivates me, right now, is defeating the Republicans, because as they exist right now they are so damn terrible for the country.
Either that, or you want it handy for nose-rubbing time. Perhaps you are a much nicer person than I am. You could hardly fail on that count, so I will take your suggestion under advisement.
Then you shouldn’t ignore the polls that show Sanders performing better against Republicans. Now it could be that Sanders would be more vulnerable once his platform was picked apart by the Republicans, especially on the tax issue. Clinton is obviously the safe pick. She’s not likely to implode, but there’s not much upside either. But do you really want to be in the position of hoping the Republicans make themselves unpalatable to the majority? That was the hope in 2014 and it didn’t happen. It does seem like they’ve learned their lessons from 2010 and 2012. She’s not going to face Trump and probably not Carson either. Rubio seems the likeliest bet and I just can’t see her gaining ground against him. Plus she doesn’t learn: she’ll bring out that same “3 am” playbook and it’ll work for her about as well as it worked last time.
This early, I ignore all general election polls. They’re all meaningless this early. And I think Republicans “being unpalatable to the majority” seems a safe bet, to me. I’m far from certain, but I think Hillary has a better chance to win than Sanders. I think Rubio is near an empty suit and not formidable at all – if he’s gaining ground right now, it’s only because Jeb looks even worse, I think.
But we’ll see, as always.
Rubio is a guy with brains and potential but is not ready to be President. That being said, he might become President, so let’s hope he learns quickly should that happen.
I don’t see the “brains and potential”, but I’m certainly biased. We’ll see.
Yay, a new adaher prediction!
You can also count Christie and Kasich as winners if they go head to head with her.
While we’re predicting things that can never be tested, who do you think would win between Napoleon and Freddy Mercury?
Bonaparte or Dynamite?
Actually, Mercury beats either of them handily. He’s a Killer Queen!*
*I am very sorry, but I just couldn’t help myself.