No. It just means that she’ll hang around 45-46% until a Republican emerges as the nominee, at which point she’ll stay right at 45-46% throughout the campaign. I’m sure you know how that ends.
And I’d point out that Democrats underperform registered voter polls. Even in Presidential years. Once a likely voter screen goes into effect, she’ll lose a couple more points.
I’m sure* you’re* sure *you *know. Prior results have not been pretty for you, though.
Seems I did fine last November. How’d you do?
There really was a 2012, I keep telling you. You made your trademark predictions about the last presidential election, then simply disappeared for a few months, bewildered and uncomprehending. Seriously, you could look it up.
I’m not seeing a trend that I would call a free fall in there. First there are only 8 RV polls in there from 2015. The most recent poll from 2014 is the Ramussen poll from June of that year. I think we can agree that a poll that old and older ones don’t really mean anything.
So of the RV polls in 2015, Clinton has a double digit lead in exactly one, and this is a massive outlier in this data. It’s more than twice as large a lead than shown in any other poll.
If we look at the trend lines in this data set, we do see a trend in Rubio’s direction of about one twentieth of a point per day over 60 days. This is closely split between a drop in Clinton’s number and a gain in Rubio’s.
Is this what you meant by “free fall”? Dropping 1/40th of a point per day over 60 days while a relative unknown gains about the same amount each day as people hear about him.
Edited to add: The R^2 values are shit on all these trendlines so we really can’t say with confidence which way the needle is moving.
A *Rasmussen *poll? That’s what passes for data in that argument?
Hillary is not in freefall. adaher is fooling himself if he believes this – there is no evidence of this.
With her inauguration.
Actually what I see in these numbers, and the Bill Clinton counter-example is more like this …
“Yes” to “is honest” generally tops out in the upper 40s with rare exceptions while “no” increases the more a candidate is known.
Voters are cynical enough to not expect a politician to be honest and vote more based on things like what vision for the future the candidate articulates (and if they believe the candidate believes that) and how strong of a leader they think the candidate will be.
Bill was perceived as not honest … but we all believed that he believed in his articulated vision for the future and him to be a strong leader.
HRC has time to articulate her vision, get us to share it, and to do it in a believable way. Maybe she will fail at that. Don’t know. She is already perceived to be a strong leader (blows away the competition). Whoever the competition ends up being also has their vision to express although will have to have one that sells to a small subgroup - likely GOP primary voters, a more conservative crowd in several different dimensions than most, and that also sells to the public at large.
A ways to go …
And that’s why he lost so badly when he came up for re-election. IN BIZARRO WORLD. FDR was far more in touch - and did far more - for the “working man” than his opponents, which was why there was (or at least may have been, depending on your views on the matter) a cabal of very wealthy people looking to oust him.
He lost because he couldn’t articulate one coherent policy position about anything. Remember his nonsensical 9-9-9 plan? Apart from sounding like one of his pizza deals, it was ludicrously unrealistic as economic policy. He also stammered through anything that vaguely resembled serious questioning. I really wanted to like the guy but he sank his own ship.
OK, I don’t know the backgrounds of the rest of them off the top of my head, but “son of a senator” is “working-class background”?
You-Becky-Becky-Becky-Becky-Stan-Stan
He really does seem personally likeable. Qualified to lead anything other than a pizza chain, no. But he made a good Front Window Negro while it lasted. Even took his turn as their leading candidate, after Bachmann.
My astonishment is not that he* lost* first place, but that he was ever in first place. If Cain can lead the field, leading the field means nothing.
Son of a Congressman, and one who served only a short time. Rand was 13 when Ron went to Congress.
Rand attended a diverse school in Texas that was far from a rich kids’ school.
While I’ll concede that the son of a doctor might not qualify as “working class”, it’s still more modest than your usual Presidential candidate.
I forgot to ask …
Your list *used *to be Christie and Jindal, not long ago.
But it never included Rick Scott, Republican governor of the largest state that has one. You know his work better than you know any of the others. Is that why?
Rick Scott isn’t running and in any case wouldn’t be considered a very serious candidate due to ethical concerns and his general unpopularity.
However, he did run two campaigns. And won both of them.
My list doesn’t say who I support, just who I think can plausibly with the nomination.
Neither are most of the guys on your list. No ducking.
As opposed to, say, Christie? *He *made your cut. Seriously, apply those standards to your list and see who’s left. Try it.
By the standards you keep telling us matter to you, he’s profoundly successful.
Please. You’ve made it very clear you’ll support anybody who can beat Hillary.
For those you enamored of polls, [a new on came out this morning:
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_POLL_5_THINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-02-03-13-43)
Like I said, the GOP’s tactic of “Look how bad Hillary is” won’t work, because Hillary’s already successful selling point is “I’m not nearly as bad as any of the Republicans”.
The Republicans are mostly unknown. Think out of like ten guys, not one will emerge that the public likes and trusts?
I think that’s extremely likely. But we’ll see.