Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

But the Republicans will still compete there. They will spend $50 million there and drop $100 million in Wisconsin. Johnson and Toomey will be supported till the bitter end.

If the Republicans are really doomed as some suggest in here, why dont they go all out and nominate a really far right candidate? If they are going to lose anyway, why not go all out? Why go for another moderate establishment like Bush that the base does not want?

Hillary is not Obama. The "Obama Coalition" did not turnout in 2010 and 2014 when Obama was not on the ballot. Will they turnout for Hillary? Would they turn out for Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee?

You're ignoring the fact that midterm voter paritipation is significantly lower than general election turnout. Obama's base will turn out solely due to demographics. 13-14% of the electorate will be black regardless of whether Obama is on the ballot. Hispanic turnout will be similar to 2012, again simply due to demographic increases.

Meanwhile the white vote will decrease again, and we can safely assume Hillary will do better with whites than Obama. Not by some huge margin of course, the white vote was low for Kerry too. But she'll do a few points higher than Obama which is more than enough to matter.

 

[pigeon]

Reagan won them all in 1984 except for MN.

Reagan won by 18 percent of the popular vote in 1984. Guess what? That isn't going to happen again any time soon.

Here are the percentage margins for Reagan for those four states:

PA 7.35%
MN -0.18%
WI 9.18%
MI 18.99%

Michigan was further to the right, but very close to the national center. All three other states were almost ten points more Democratic than the rest of the country. Those are not swing states. Swing states are states that track very closely to the national center of gravity.

To put this another way: yes, if a Republican candidate won by 20 points, then they'd win all four of those states, because they'd win almost every state. And if a Democratic candidate won by 20 points, they'd win all kinds of solid Republican states. Everything except Utah would be in play. But in either case, those states will be irrelevant -- they'll just be running up the score. Presidential elections just don't often get won by margins like that.

Bush came close in 2000 and 2004.

Once again, all four of those states were left of the national center in both 2000 and 2004.

Are you suggesting that Obama's election in 2008 pulled those states further left on a presidential level?

I am suggesting that those states have always been further left on a presidential level than you seem to realize.

If a Republican wins in 2016, would we treat it as an anomaly?
If Democrats won the House and Senate in 2018, would we treat it as an anomaly?

Obviously not. But neither would I make any decisions or claims about it without looking at the actual data driving those victories.

 

[Oblivion]

Texas is always number 1 when it comes to jobs!


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/04/02/...but-firms-still-say-12800-jobs-will-get-axed/

whoopsie

This will do nicely.

 

[ivysaur12]

Texas is always number 1 when it comes to jobs!


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/04/02/...but-firms-still-say-12800-jobs-will-get-axed/

whoopsie

But the Texas Dream can't become a California Nightmare!

Also, incredibly powerful cover that also highlights the diversity of the North Dakota legislature:

Note: Pamela Anderson D-Fargo.

 

[Wilsongt]

I haven't seen so many old white men since tonight on the 6 o clock news when they talked about Congress being pissy about the Iran deal.

 

[pigeon]

If the Republicans are really doomed as some suggest in here, why dont they go all out and nominate a really far right candidate? If they are going to lose anyway, why not go all out? Why go for another moderate establishment like Bush that the base does not want?

As you may have noticed, they have been doing just that in all of their elections below the presidential level recently, with some success.

As a party coalition breaks down there is indeed a tendency towards more extreme candidates, which is tempered and fought by the pragmatic politicians that are trying to actually win elections. The GOP has its share of pragmatists, and so far they've managed to select candidates that are more moderate, in the hopes that they might be able to eke out another win. It's not like the far right candidates aren't running! But the party leaders are selecting them out. As always, it is not easy to convince people that they are doomed to failure and should give up.

At some point I believe that the GOP will end up nominating a wildly far right candidate and imploding before finally trying to rebuild. That's what happened with the Democrats in 1968, after all.

Hillary is not Obama. The "Obama Coalition" did not turnout in 2010 and 2014 when Obama was not on the ballot. Will they turnout for Hillary? Would they turn out for Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee?

This is really depressingly faulty reasoning on your part. Can you think of any other differences between 2010 and 2008 that might explain the difference in turnout?

As to the Obama coalition, well, the people who turned out for Obama were the same people who've always voted for Democrats. They might've turned out a little bit more, but they're not fundamentally different. There just happen to be a lot more of them then there were in the 90s. Democrats aren't winning because Obama is black. Democrats are running a black candidate for President because the demographics of America say it's worth doing.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I am suggesting that those states have always been further left on a presidential level than you seem to realize..

You realize that. I realize that now and yet the Republicans compete in these "swing states". They look at 2014 and say "We can compete in blue states". Political pundits say "2014 tells us nothing about 2016". Which is it? Are the Republican strategist fools for trying or hoping to strike gold if the situation arises?

They can nominate Ted Cruz if grass roots mattered and money didnt. The establishment wont let that happen and they should. We cant go 8 more years of crazy.

 

[B-Dubs]

You realize that. I realize that now and yet the Republicans compete in these "swing states". They look at 2014 and say "We can compete in blue states". Political pundits say "2014 tells us nothing about 2016". Which is it? Are the Republican strategist fools for trying or hoping to strike gold if the situation arises?

They're fools. Outside a few very specific scenarios they've got no chance in those places. It's as simple as the people in charge wanting to stay in charge.

 

[pigeon]

You realize that. I realize that now and yet the Republicans compete in these "swing states". They look at 2014 and say "We can compete in blue states". Political pundits say "2014 tells us nothing about 2016". Which is it? Are the Republican strategist fools for trying or hoping to strike gold if the situation arises?

Yes.

 

[Coriolanus]

You realize that. I realize that now and yet the Republicans compete in these "swing states". They look at 2014 and say "We can compete in blue states". Political pundits say "2014 tells us nothing about 2016". Which is it? Are the Republican strategist fools for trying or hoping to strike gold if the situation arises?

They can nominate Ted Cruz if grass roots mattered and money didnt. The establishment wont let that happen and they should. We cant go 8 more years of crazy.

"why yes, of course we can take Cali on a presidential election! Just give me the money and we'll do it!". Strategists will gladly take money from hopeful imbeciles.

Cruz got his senate seat in '13. He ain't to blame for the state of things. He just knows which way his bread is buttered. Cray opposition will continue to happen with or without him.

 

[theprodigy]

This thread is always gonna be the 2016 presidential election discussion thread isn't it?

Spoiler

you avatar copycat!

 

[NeoXChaos]

They're fools. Outside a few very specific scenarios they've got no chance in those places. It's as simple as the people in charge wanting to stay in charge.

So why do they spend all that money on a lost cause? Why not spend resources on turnout instead in Ohio, Florida, & North Carolina? States they have to win to stand any chance of winning the presidency. Why blow $100 million in PA every cycle for 24 years if it hasnt produced the result they want? Why not spend that money on minority outreach?

Chris Chrisite can put New Jersey in play they say. "Jeb Bush can compete in NM" DId I mention he and his wife speaks fluent spanish"? Latinos will flock to the man in droves and help him win 45% of the Hispanic vote. Is it all a bunch of BS spouted by the establishment to rake in money knowing full well none of this crap they spew is true?

Then again, they have been doing the bolded for 6 years.

 

[HylianTom]

The sad thing for Republicans is that they need a transformational figure in order to win. They have all pretty blah candidates.

Nominate Jeb? Sure, he might make-up among Hispanic voters a few percentage points over what Romney did, but his base loathes him and Hillary's going to be a few points stronger among women and whites. And this is before we get to the issue of his last name.

Nominate Walker? Hispanic voters will stick with the Democrats in similar margins, unions will go all-out to see to it that he doesn't win a contested midwestern state, and Hillary will still do well among her groups. That, and Walker (unlike Bush) seems to be not-ready-for-primetime.

Their field is always touted as being so very wide, but it's an inch deep and full of really flawed candidates.

The Republicans' theme for 2016: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Hillary's theme? Just don't fuck this up.

 

[theprodigy]

The sad thing for Republicans is that they need a transformational figure in order to win. They have all pretty blah candidates.

Nominate Jeb? Sure, he might make-up among Hispanic voters a few percentage points over what Romney did, but his base loathes him and Hillary's going to be a few points stronger among women and whites. And this is before we get to the issue of his last name.

Nominate Walker? Hispanic voters will stick with the Democrats in similar margins, unions will go all-out to see to it that he doesn't win a contested midwestern state, and Hillary will still do well among her groups. That, and Walker (unlike Bush) seems to be not-ready-for-primetime.

Their field is always touted as being so very wide, but it's an inch deep and full of really flawed candidates.

The Republicans' theme for 2016: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Hillary's theme? Just don't fuck this up.

but that's why it's going to be fun to watch!

 

[Coriolanus]

Why not spend that money on minority outreach?

And how would one do that without antagonizing all the racists in the base?

Heck, reps can't help but go all ouroboros whenever someone in the party doesn't take a completely fuckstupid position on immigration. Gods help the poor fucker that tells someone like Giuliani to jump off a bridge.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I just don't see how Jeb can win Hispanics, even though a President Jeb Bush scenario would probably be the only way an immigration bill could be passed in the next 5-10 years.

Under normal circumstances I could see Bush winning Hispanics. However his stances on Obama's executive actions will make that hard. The devil's advocate argument would be that Bush could argue Obama's executive orders have not been effective overall and are half measures compared to an actual bill; last November's big executive order was shitcanned by the courts for instance. Bush could argue that only he could pass a bill. Getting it through the senate wouldn't be a problem, and all he'd need to do is get Boehner to hold a vote.

TBH a Bush presidency might be the best thing for America long term. I can't imagine Hillary getting a single thing of worth done with republican obstruction. Jeb Bush could get immigration and infrastructure, likely at the cost of spending cuts or lower taxes.

 

[Konka]

So why do they spend all that money on a lost cause? Why not spend resources on turnout instead in Ohio, Florida, & North Carolina? States they have to win to stand any chance of winning the presidency. Why blow $100 million in PA every cycle for 24 years if it hasnt produced the result they want? Why not spend that money on minority outreach?

Chris Chrisite can put New Jersey in play they say. "Jeb Bush can compete in NM" DId I mention he and his wife speaks fluent spanish"? Latinos will flock to the man in droves and help him win 45% of the Hispanic vote. Is it all a bunch of BS spouted by the establishment to rake in money knowing full well none of this crap they spew is true?

Then again, they have been doing the bolded for 6 years.

I have absolutely no idea what you are even trying to argue at this point.

Why do they spend all that money? What else are they supposed to do? Those states are their best chance, but that doesn't mean there best chance is actually any good for them. You have to go the path of least resistance, even if there is a giant concrete wall on that path.

Why not focus solely on Florida, Ohio and NC? Because winning those three states means jack shit for them. They win those and still lose. Then what?

Are you seriously asking why the Republicans aren't spending that much money on minority outreach? Really?

Yes, they are spouting BS all over the place. Are you having a fundamental issue coming to terms with that?

TBH a Bush presidency might be the best thing for America long term. I can't imagine Hillary getting a single thing of worth done with republican obstruction. Jeb Bush could get immigration and infrastructure, likely at the cost of spending cuts or lower taxes.

smh.

At the cost of a Republican Supreme Court for decades. You've already voted for him, haven't you.

 

[BertramCooper]

I really want to see another Karl Rove meltdown on election night.

Honestly, I think the GOP's only shot at winning Ohio is if they nominate Kasich. And that's obviously not happening.

If the GOP nominates Walker, he'll get obliterated in Ohio. Ohio has forgiven Kasich for SB5, but it's definitely not forgotten. It's probably the biggest reason why Kasich has become such a prudent governor. He learned his lesson and hasn't dared to take on organized labor since. Occasionally you hear some rumblings from the General Assembly about right-to-work, but it never gains any traction at all.

Walker's anti-labor bullshit would never fly in Ohio. If he were Ohio's governor and pulled the same shit he has in Wisconsin, pretty much all of it would be quickly reversed by ballot initiatives, like SB5 was.

 

[Yellowtail]

I just don't see how Jeb can win Hispanics, even though a President Jeb Bush scenario would probably be the only way an immigration bill could be passed in the next 5-10 years.

Under normal circumstances I could see Bush winning Hispanics. However his stances on Obama's executive actions will make that hard. The devil's advocate argument would be that Bush could argue Obama's executive orders have not been effective overall and are half measures compared to an actual bill; last November's big executive order was shitcanned by the courts for instance. Bush could argue that only he could pass a bill. Getting it through the senate wouldn't be a problem, and all he'd need to do is get Boehner to hold a vote.

TBH a Bush presidency might be the best thing for America long term. I can't imagine Hillary getting a single thing of worth done with republican obstruction. Jeb Bush could get immigration and infrastructure, likely at the cost of spending cuts or lower taxes.

No Republican is able to win Hispanics, that's crazy talk. There would have to be a 45+ state landslide for that happen. The ceiling is somewhere between 35-40%. Reagan in 1984 only managed 37% and W. got just above 35% in 2004. Jeb could do well against a generic D candidate, but he wouldn't be facing a generic D he'd be facing Hillary, who has a higher approval rating than Obama among Latinos and beat him 2-1 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary (her appeal to white women aside this is probably her greatest strength in holding together the Obama coalition). The Clintons have had entrenched ties and support in Hispanic circles for decades, and she's already agressively hiring and reaching out to Latinos with a whole year's headstart before Jeb can even make it out of a bitter primary, in which Republicans will do everything to alienate minorites. Even with muh hispanic wife I can't see Jeb getting higher than 33% against her.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I just don't see how Jeb can win Hispanics, even though a President Jeb Bush scenario would probably be the only way an immigration bill could be passed in the next 5-10 years.

Under normal circumstances I could see Bush winning Hispanics. However his stances on Obama's executive actions will make that hard. The devil's advocate argument would be that Bush could argue Obama's executive orders have not been effective overall and are half measures compared to an actual bill; last November's big executive order was shitcanned by the courts for instance. Bush could argue that only he could pass a bill. Getting it through the senate wouldn't be a problem, and all he'd need to do is get Boehner to hold a vote.

TBH a Bush presidency might be the best thing for America long term. I can't imagine Hillary getting a single thing of worth done with republican obstruction. Jeb Bush could get immigration and infrastructure, likely at the cost of spending cuts or lower taxes.

1.Under the current Republican Party? You cant be serious? Jeb Bush is the last person that needs to be sitting in the oval office in 2017. That family has done enough damage to this country despite a few I admit good things they did in Africa.

2. I guess my point is this and it started with Aaron. There is going to be a lot of spending money by both sides to reach voters who after months of negative ads will be tired of it. Some will be very apathetic and not vote which is what the Republicans want. They will drop $50 million in PA to help Toomey and suppress turnout/drive Hillary's numbers down. I guess I am wondering and hopping that Hillary and her campaign is ready with the money and PACs to defend herself.

3. Its a shame all this money has to be spent in the first place. At some point in those millions of dollars, the return on investment will be null due to oversaturation.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I used to think MN might eventually get to a point where it would start moving right, but after 2014 I'm not so sure. Dayton and Franken both won by significant margins by running as straightforwardly liberal, and the Twin Cities outvoted the rest of the state. The GOP is making up ground in the rural areas which is troublesome for local elections, but as far as statewide and presidential politics are concerned I think it will stay pretty solidly blue.

I'm just glad Emmer didn't win in 2010 - he would have had a trifecta and we'd be in the exact position as Wisconsin.

MN & NM are states that are both transforming into hard blue. Surprising, but welcome developments.

 

[Diablos]

"Hard Blue" makes for a great JRPG/anime title.

 

[Coriolanus]

3. Its a shame all this money has to be spent in the first place. At some point in those millions of dollars, the return on investment will be null due to oversaturation.

I`m sure that the guys running the printing presses disagree. Printers, artists, webdesigners, baristas, steakhouses, guys who sell those fried dongs that american politicians are so fond of eating.... nearly everybody that ain't donating money benefits from all the spending.

 

[The Technomancer]

MN & NM are states that are both transforming into hard blue. Surprising, but welcome developments.

I mean, on a presidential level Minnesota hasn't voted red since what, the 70s? You just get some dumbshit congresspeople like Bachmann from the crazy parts

 

[BertramCooper]

I think Minnesota's consistent blueness is largely attributable to the DFL being an unusually effective state political party—one that has maintained a strong populist appeal that other state Democratic parties and the national Democratic Party have struggled to replicate.

 

[benjipwns]

Wisconsin voted against their own rep as the VP in 2012, if they go red in 2016 something weird is up

He wasn't Wisconsin's representative, he was the 1st districts. Which voted for Romney after voting for Obama in 2008.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sharon Angle is considering another bid.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's approval rating is 50-46 on Gallup today. Iran bump?

 

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/RIFSnobs/status/584201129874948096
https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/584382632621907968

 

[Link]

Sharon Angle is considering another bid.

Oh man, this just keeps getting better and better.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Obama's approval rating is 50-46 on Gallup today. Iran bump?

Looks good. Now hopefully he can keep it that way.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Looks good. Now hopefully he can keep it that way.

Lately his approval ratings have been almost a complete inversion of what they were in the early years of his presidency, where people gave him low marks on the economy and high marks on foreign policy. Now it's the reverse, the economy is doing well but you have Da'esh and unrest in the Middle East and things that are generally out of his control, but he still gets blamed for. Having a major foreign policy victory under his belt would help.

Not just for his approval ratings either, major foreign policy victory is one of the keys to the White House!

 

[Yellowtail]

Not just for his approval ratings either, major foreign policy victory is one of the keys to the White House!

That would be a BFD.

According to the keys model, losing six keys means Democrats lose the White House. They've already lost:

1) Party Mandate, by losing seats in the midterm
2) An incumbent president
3) No major domestic policy change
4) The incumbent party's nominee lacks charisma (unless Bill and Hillary have had a personality transplant) (although the historic nature of her candidacy does help Democrats here).

We now know there won't be a serious primary contest, since Warren has confirmed she's not running, avoiding the loss of a fifth key. If a successful Iran Deal counts (which it probably should, especially taken with the normalisation of relations with Cuba) that might actually mean even one of: a short-term economic recession/foreign policy disaster/huge scandal (all of which are highly unlikely anyway) would be unable to stop Democrats holding the White House.

Lichtman's said in the past what counts is the political clout of getting major policy change passed, not how popular it proves to be, which turns this key. That would surely apply to an Iran Deal. Will be interesting to hear him weigh in.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think we might need to rethink how that theory fits given the nature of this Congress and the GOP. Unless they can manage to find a strong challenger, of which they have none, I doubt they have much of a chance--short total economic meltdown.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I've also heard some people argue the ending of the Afghanistan War could count as a foreign policy victory, but the Iran deal would be a clearer one.

Anyway, the keys is a good theory but doesn't really infer anything the poll watchers can't. But it would be nice to have one more thing behind us and it's more substantial than say, the Redskins rule (which has been wrong twice now anyway).

 

[Touchdown]

Sharon Angle is considering another bid.

The thing I remember most about Sharon Angle is when Joy Behar basically called her out and called her a bitch on live tv. Good times.

 

[Trouble]

The Keys Model is a bullshit model that works until it doesn't. There are countless similar if x happens, then y happens "rules" out there that simply stopped working at some point.

 

[B-Dubs]

The Keys Model is a bullshit model that works until it doesn't. There are countless similar if x happens, then y happens "rules" out there that simply stopped working at some point.

Basically every hard and fast rule has situations where it doesn't work, nothing is absolute. Especially in politics.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Its hard for the incumbent party to win a third term but we discussed that theory already. I think Hillary can break it.

 

[thepotatoman]

That would be a BFD.

According to the keys model, losing six keys means Democrats lose the White House. They've already lost:

1) Party Mandate, by losing seats in the midterm
2) An incumbent president
3) No major domestic policy change
4) The incumbent party's nominee lacks charisma (unless Bill and Hillary have had a personality transplant) (although the historic nature of her candidacy does help Democrats here).

We now know there won't be a serious primary contest, since Warren has confirmed she's not running, avoiding the loss of a fifth key. If a successful Iran Deal counts (which it probably should, especially taken with the normalisation of relations with Cuba) that might actually mean even one of: a short-term economic recession/foreign policy disaster/huge scandal (all of which are highly unlikely anyway) would be unable to stop Democrats holding the White House.

Lichtman's said in the past what counts is the political clout of getting major policy change passed, not how popular it proves to be, which turns this key. That would surely apply to an Iran Deal. Will be interesting to hear him weigh in.

First i've heard of that, but to quote the wikipedia article on it, "Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections."

Democrats lost 5 seats between the two midterms, but the big gerrymander happened in between the two midterms. The popular vote swung democrat's way. How is that supposed to be calculated?

 

[Aaron Strife]

First i've heard of that, but to quote the wikipedia article on it, "Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections."

Democrats lost 5 seats between the two midterms, but the big gerrymander happened in between the two midterms. The popular vote swung democrat's way. How is that supposed to be calculated?

I'd count it against them just to be safe.

 

[HylianTom]

So this poll..

Hillary Clinton is killing it with women and young voters — even more than Obama did in 2012
http://fusion.net/story/114427/hillary-clinton-polls-2016-campaign-young-voters-women/

They broke-down margins among female voters. I keep thinking the gender gap is going to help greatly, but didn't anticipate such numbers. These are remarkable.

•58-36 over Bush
•61-33 over Cruz
•60-33 over Walker
•59-33 over Rubio

I don't harbor any delusions about these margins holding until November 2016, but hollllllly hell!
#WeekendAtAntonins

 

[Yellowtail]

This is hilarious:

Jewish donors also remain angry at Mr. Bush for a March 23 speech that Mr. Baker, who was secretary of state under Mr. Bush’s father, delivered to J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group. Mr. Adelson, perhaps the single largest Republican donor, quickly complained to Mel Sembler, a Florida developer who has long supported Mr. Bush. And Mr. Bush was pressed again about Mr. Baker’s speech at another California event last week.

In defending himself, Mr. Bush, who has described himself as “my own man” on foreign policy, pointed out that his brother had a strong record of support for Israel, one attendee said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/us/politics/jeb-bush-as-inevitable-choice-republicans-say-not-so-fast

 

[thepotatoman]

I'd have to say I'm not as bullish on the economy as you guys are. Bubbles are formed around ideas that you can't lose money on an investment, leading to people using credit to over invest. And "you can't lose money if you invest in a college education" is something we've been hearing for a while now. There are already plenty of stories about student loan debt being a problem is already showing up while the common knowledge that "you can't lose money if you invest in a college education" still goes strong.

I think one of the biggest reasons the stock market and the economy has done well for so long is that we've been on QE for so long. With QE finally slowing down that would be a likely trigger for a correction, which tend to bring an economy's flaws to light, such as this student loan problem.

 

[Link]

So this poll..

Hillary Clinton is killing it with women and young voters — even more than Obama did in 2012
http://fusion.net/story/114427/hillary-clinton-polls-2016-campaign-young-voters-women/

They broke-down margins among female voters. I keep thinking the gender gap is going to help greatly, but didn't anticipate such numbers. These are remarkable.

•58-36 over Bush
•61-33 over Cruz
•60-33 over Walker
•59-33 over Rubio

I don't harbor any delusions about these margins holding until November 2016, but hollllllly hell!
#WeekendAtAntonins

Women was a given, but young people is very surprising to me.

 

[benjipwns]

Similarly in Fox's poll which I just learned is no longer Opinion Dynamics but now:

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).

Women:
54 Hillary - 39 Bush
57 Hillary - 34 Walker
55 Hillary - 36 Cruz
56 Hillary - 34 Paul
57 Hillary - 37 Rubio

Fox did "Under 35"
53 Hillary - 34 Bush
57 Hillary - 29 Walker
57 Hillary - 30 Cruz
55 Hillary - 36 Paul
54 Hillary - 33 Rubio


And Marist's last one:

Women:
55 Hillary - 38 Rubio
53 Hillary - 39 Walker
56 Hillary - 36 Perry
52 Hillary - 38 Bush
53 Hillary - 37 Paul
55 Hillary - 38 Cruz

18-29:
60 Hillary - 29 Rubio
57 Hillary - 30 Walker
63 Hillary - 27 Perry
63 Hillary - 28 Bush
67 Hillary - 27 Paul
68 Hillary - 27 Cruz

Recent races:
Women:
55 Obama - 44 Romney
56 Obama - 43 McCain
51 Kerry - 48 Bush
46 Reagan - 45 Carter

18-29:
60 Obama - 37 Romney
66 Obama - 32 McCain
54 Kerry - 45 Bush
43 Reagan - 43 Carter

The Fox and Marist polls aren't really too big of difference on average compared to recent results.

 

[B-Dubs]

Women was a given, but young people is very surprising to me.

Not really, I mean other than the Lewinski thing the Clinton years were very good. Their parents weren't worried about making ends meet, in general, and people weren't going off to war and not coming back. Yea young people were kids at the time, but there was a general feeling of security growing up in the 90's. The world felt very solid. Young people these days will remember that and Hilary will benefit from it.

Plus there's the whole, first woman president thing. That's going to boost her numbers among young people quite a bit. Young people, in general, are a pretty progressive bunch and the thought of being able to elect the first woman president, especially one that is mostly with them politically, will appeal to them.

 

[Link]

Not really, I mean other than the Lewinski thing the Clinton years were very good. Their parents weren't worried about making ends meet, in general, and people weren't going off to war and not coming back. Yea young people were kids at the time, but there was a general feeling of security growing up in the 90's. The world felt very solid. Young people these days will remember that and Hilary will benefit from it.

Plus there's the whole, first woman president thing. That's going to boost her numbers among young people quite a bit. Young people, in general, are a pretty progressive bunch and the thought of being able to elect the first woman president, especially one that is mostly with them politically, will appeal to them.

I meant in comparison to Obama's numbers, not in general.

 

[PhoenixDark]

55 Obama - 44 Romney

Was anything more asinine than the GOP campaign for women in 2012, plus the nonstop "actually women care about x which is why Romney is winning the female vote" nonsense?

Granted I expect all of Hillary's numbers to drop once the race starts, in part because she's not a great candidate and because numbers always drop when the race starts.

 

[Trouble]

Women was a given, but young people is very surprising to me.

Against all the potential GOP candidates? Not surprising to me at all.