Rubio/Kasich or Kasich/Rubio is the most compelling ticket and the one Democrats seem to fear the most, so yeah. The argument against Kasich is that he wouldn’t succeed Rubio due to age, whereas Pawlenty would still be young enough.
The same Dem talkers also admit being mystified by Trump and Carson being far out in the lead for the Reps, so that, combined with their being unengaged by actual campaigns, means you don’t need to take them all that seriously. If they were referring to a GOP still controlled by sane adults, they might be right, but the evidence is that it isn’t the case anymore. There also isn’t really a relevant historical precedent for how to oppose a party that’s been taken over by proud ignorance and bigotry, other than to simply depend on a sane-adult majority to simply defeat it.
We heard this same tripe when Reagan was running for President. Democrats are becoming disconnected from public opinion. They think Clinton’s honest and Republicans are unelectable. And while I acknowledge that polls this early are not predictive, they do have meaning. They say that as of Nov. 17, 2015, the public is quite willing to give Republicans total control of the government, at least if Clinton is the nominee and the Republican nominee isn’t Trump or Cruz.
There does get to be a point where you overthink things. Sanders is outperforming Clinton in nearly every poll. At some point you have to acknowledge that your candidate has a serious problem. Republicans are cognizant of their problems. We know who the crazy guys are and who the electable ones are, and we’re currently having a healthy argument between ideological purity and anger vs. compromise and bipartisanship. If the former wins, I suspect most us know what will happen. But it amazes me how clueless Democrats are about the path they headed down. And their view of the Republicans is so caricatured(they are all just like Trump and Cruz!) that they can’t imagine that we’ll sneak an electable candidate by them.
No they don’t. No matter how many times you say this, it still isn’t true. They are as meaningful now as they were in 2011 and 2007 – totally zero.
This tells us nothing this early. Totally meaningless.
Pretty sure you’re exaggerating here, not that it matters this early.
Yes – if there is bad general election polling once the primaries are done, then there would be good reason to think there might be a problem. At this point? No, it would be stupid and counterproductive to do so.
It amazes me how you continue to be unable to separate wishful thinking from actual analysis. It’s possible Clinton will lose. Right now, there’s no more reason to believe she will than to believe Obama would in 2011 (or either in 2007).
How are you liking the Romney Administration so far? :rolleyes:
The polling in 2012 was extremely stable. There was never a point where Romney sustained a lead as long as the Republicans have sustained leads over Clinton. You’d better hope this year is volatile.
But they were all skewed then, remember? If you’re having trouble remembering that, there are a host of posts from you still on the server, yanno.
There is no “sustained lead” over Clinton (not that I accept your 2012 assertions without a cite).
DIdn’t you cite Nate Silver’s post? Did you read it?
Jesus Christ, dude, do you just make stuff up to comfort yourself? Here are literally the first three results when I googled “2011 polls republican vs obama”:
Shows Romney with a 2 point lead over Obama in Aug 2011: Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul
Obama 1 point lead over Romney in September 2011: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/26/cnn-poll-perry-still-at-top-but-romney-stronger-vs-obama/
Generic Republican holding six point lead with consistent track record (four of last five polls), Oct 2011: "Generic" Republican Continues to Lead Obama in 2012 Vote
The polling in 2011 is exactly like what we’re seeing now: the generic Republican beats the presumptive Democratic nominee (always easier to beat a real person with a caricature), while the leading Republican in the establishment lane (Rubio and Romney) is neck-and-neck, leading in some polls, trailing in others.
By the way, here’s the Clinton vs. Rubio data: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton.
That Quinnipiac poll really looks more like an outlier when you pull in the full polling history. Of course, a right-leaning outlier is basically an adaher beacon, so I’m unsurprised you’ve homed in on it.
I’m not going to accept your claim of a “sustained lead” without a cite. I don’t recall Silver saying much at all about general election polls, except about how useless they are this early.
You mean like Romney?
Rubio has as much chance in MN as Hillary has in Idaho. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? VERY doubtful.
Pawlenty isn’t a popular figure in Minnesota. He never was. He won both terms as governor with under 50% of the vote because there were three major candidates both times.
What’s more, he kind of kissed off politics when he became a lobbyist for the banking industry.
On the plus side, he does one hell of a southern accent!