Sounds easy right? At this time Hillary is 47% Bush 44% in the early polls as reported on ABC GMA this morning.
Well, 90-10% in the early SDMB voting. Not exactly a thundering shock, I’ll wager.
This poll will close on 10-27-2016 at 05:30 PM
I’ll answer sometime between now and then. Maybe after the conventions are complete next year and we know if either pulled a Palin for VP choice.
BTW, ABC polling was not very good in the previous election, when compared with other polls it is Ron Paul who is doing better against Clinton, but still a few points behind. (June 15)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Bush is also helped a lot with an outlier FOX poll. If it was not for that Bush would be less than 5 points below Clinton that is +5.2 in the aggregate.
I’m actually surprised the results are that strongly one-sided.
Happy, gratified, delighted, and in full approval. But surprised.
Neither. I hate it when people buy into the deliberately propagated lie that the Democrats and the Republicans are the only options, so being slightly less terrible than one particular candidate is a good enough reason to vote for them.
Why? Most SDMB posters are liberal.
The Democrats and Republicans are the only realistically-likely-to-win options.
Your logic is arse-backwards. You do not vote for people because they are likely to win, people are likely to win because you vote for them.
It’s not a lie; it’s a reality of demographics. Come back when you actually have a third party with a chance of winning.
You can realistically claim that it’s a limitation, a shame, a sin, a strait-jacket, and the denial of opportunities and rights. But it is not a “lie.” The word is simply not applicable.
Sure, I knew that. I just didn’t know that the proportions were as strongly one-sided as they are. From discussion and debate threads, I would have thought it was something like 60-40 or maybe 65-35. 90-10? Wow!
ETA; the numbers have changed since I looked: now, they’re more like 85-15. Not as one-sided as they were, but still more than I ever would have guessed.
I had to think twice about whether the poll was asking which one you’d want to win or which one you’d expect to win, and even so I’m not sure I’m interpreting it correctly.
I didn’t think twice once I opened the thread and saw more than the title. I read it entirely as about expectation.
I curious to see how Jeb’s strategy of distancing himself from his own last name is going to work with the family values crowd.
I somehow get the sense that this strategy is going to bite him in the ass.
Didn’t Jeb’s Mom say, when asked, last election cycle, something to the effect of there having been enough ‘Bush’s’ in the White House already. And it was time for someone else.
I seem to recall this.
Yes, but she also recanted those words of course.
How’d that go? “I was only joking?”, “I didn’t really mean it!” “Oops, I forgot about Jeb’s.”
Look at the electoral map from last time. Show me states Obama carried that Hillary won’t. I’m not seeing them. You can pretty much color these states in right now, and I think that is being charitable to Jeb. I’m just not seeing the path to a Republican president.
Only one needs a quarter to go downtown and have a rat gnaw that mole off his face.
And I like my quarter.
The poll is who people THINK will win, not who people WANT to win.
Hillary gets my vote here - but Martin O’Malley does IRL.