Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colorado voters back any leading Republican contender over Clinton by wide margins:
Rubio over Clinton 52 - 36 percent;
Carson leads Clinton 52 - 38 percent;
Cruz tops Clinton 51 - 38 percent;
Trump beats Clinton 48 - 37 percent.
And?
It also said what I posted.
Clinton is viewed as having the "right kind of experience" for the office of president by a large margin.
Yep, those same voters who prefer another candidate still believe she best meets the qualifications required.
Again, directly from the Quinnipiac link:
"Colorado voters say 56 - 43 percent that Clinton has the right kind of experience to be president, the best rating for this quality, followed by 50 - 35 percent for Rubio and 50 - 38 percent for Cruz. Trump has the lowest rating on experience, a negative 35 - 62 percent, with negative ratings of 37 - 54 percent for Carson and 43 - 46 percent for Sanders."
So, I'll say again, on some level, those same voters who prefer another candidate still believe that she is the best qualified compared to their preferred candidates.
A fascinating contradiction.
While I'm at it, another fascinating finding:
"Colorado voters say 67 - 30 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy and 57 - 37 percent that Trump is not honest. Rubio has the best score for honesty, 58 - 28 percent, with Sanders at 56 - 30 percent, Carson at 57 - 33 percent and Cruz at 50 - 35 percent. "
What does it say about the populace as a whole when the front runners are perceived as the least honest overall among this sample of this very important swing population?
Just thought I'd use string of logic to discredit the OP's certainty. I'm not saying Trump will or won't be POTUS, but to profess certainty of an election a year in the future is ridiculous. Most of the fickle swing voters aren't paying much attention, so don't read too much into the polls right now.
Have to agree that polls don't mean a whole lot right now, but they don't mean nothing. Trends from week to week and month to month are important to note. If they had no importance at all, candidates would pay no attention to them all, and of course they do.
We're all just playing a parlor game here (those of us on both sides of the aisle) because the election is still so far out. But I'd rather play that game with folks on this page who are generally more informed than the rank and file public. Keep on keeping on.
While Democrats have secured in Michigan, WI, MN and PA, they need less and less states like Colorado to win, and if in fact the Virginia enter in Democratic bloc, practically is game over for GOP
Have to agree that polls don't mean a whole lot right now, but they don't mean nothing. Trends from week to week and month to month are important to note. If they had no importance at all, candidates would pay no attention to them all, and of course they do.
We're all just playing a parlor game here (those of us on both sides of the aisle) because the election is still so far out. But I'd rather play that game with folks on this page who are generally more informed than the rank and file public. Keep on keeping on.
The problem is that most of the respondents are so irrational that their interpretation of the outlook makes them arguably less informed than the general public or if you just predicted using a groundhog.
For example, far right repubs were delusional about polling results just a week or two before the 2012 presidential election. Far left Dems were delusional about the polls heading into the 2014 midterms and the litany of excuses they've made glosses over the general fact that they've gotten clobbered everywhere but in the presidential race since 2008.
I think the big wildcard is that people here are assuming Hillary will just follow in Obama's footsteps.
That ignores everything we learned in the 2008 primaries and elections. Obama is a charismatic generally likeable guy. Hillary (to some extent it's unfair it matters so much) has NEVER had that working for her and is now quite frankly old.
She also has a track record that is directly at odds with many of her current positions. NAFTA, her massive walls street connections, big oil campaign donations.....Obama didn't have that baggage and his campaign comments weren't as dismissible as empty talk. Lastly, Hillary alienated a number of black voters during the bitter 2008 primary.
I'm not making any predictions, but she's no Obama in terms of electability. Maybe it will still be enough, too early to tell.
Wow, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP candidates were beating Hillary in CO, but the magnitude of the margin is rather incredible. Quinnipiac is a pretty good polling outfit, but it looks like a possible outlier in light of other polls. Definitely going to be viewed as a bad news by the Hillary camp and DNC. It's alarming for sure.
Doesn't matter much, the Democrats have a number of ways to 270 with or without Colorado.
that is only if they can pull off Ohio, VA, Fl as well as Colorado. Don't get too excited yet. As for Trump being ahead in Colo, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in any polls right now. 3 1/2 months from now, after the big March primaries we will see a true picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
