ADVERTISEMENT

Looks like Hillary is toast

WVPATX

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,017
11,296
698
A new poll shows Hillary losing to three Republican candidates in the key swing states of Iowa, Virginia and Colorado. Her favorable ratings are under water in those states by 21, 23 and 9% respectively.
 
A new poll shows Hillary losing to three Republican candidates in the key swing states of Iowa, Virginia and Colorado. Her unfavorable ratings are under water in those states by 21, 23 and 9% respectively.
I'd caution you to remember that it is July of 2015. In July of 2007, Hillary was the anticipated nominee for the Dems. A lot can change, and not just with respect to her, between now and Nov 2016.
 
Colorado is a fairly liberal state. Virginia is on the fence. I really have suspicion about that poll to show numbers that big. I believe the number for Iowa. You should really question the impartiality of your source. And like mule said, the election is still 16 months away. I don't understand how "they" figure Iowa, Virginia and Colorado are three key "swing" states. I also question the impartiality of your source considering there were several polls done last week that showed Hillary winning by around 10% and the only thing that has happened in the last week is the Donald had a nice diet of shoe leather.
 
I don't doubt the poll results, but we are talking degrees of unfavorable numbers. You also can't discount anything and everything that happens on the national and international scenes over the next year and change, nominations as well as everything else. Attitudes can change dramatically based on tons of factors.

With respect to Colorado's politics, I wouldn't call it a fairly liberal state. You see pockets of all sorts of politics in CO. Denver is the more traditional D area, with Boulder being the extreme left crowd. There are pockets of left leaning folks in other areas of the state, but you also have a lot of right leaning folks spread out in the state as well. The greater Colorado Springs area is definitely pitched pretty far right with Manitou Springs being the haven for the left - think little Boulder. The split is fairly even when push comes to shove.
 
Colorado is a fairly liberal state. Virginia is on the fence. I really have suspicion about that poll to show numbers that big. I believe the number for Iowa. You should really question the impartiality of your source. And like mule said, the election is still 16 months away. I don't understand how "they" figure Iowa, Virginia and Colorado are three key "swing" states. I also question the impartiality of your source considering there were several polls done last week that showed Hillary winning by around 10% and the only thing that has happened in the last week is the Donald had a nice diet of shoe leather.
You should question the qunnipiac poll. That was the source.
 
A new poll shows Hillary losing to three Republican candidates in the key swing states of Iowa, Virginia and Colorado. Her favorable ratings are under water in those states by 21, 23 and 9% respectively.
Well, I guess that's it. She should drop out now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVUCOOPER
You should question the qunnipiac poll. That was the source.

Yes, just saw the poll. I also just realized he mixed two different stats in one post. The larger numbers are the favorable/unfavorable rating and the actual polling numbers (who would you vote for) are closer, which is believable.

Being non-partisan, it's pretty sad when you take a poll and ask a simple question like "is your view of this candidate favorable or unfavorable" and the results are less than 50% favorable for every candidate, D or R, which includes a field of 16 Rs and 3 or 4 Ds from a population of approximately 300 million.
 
Yes, just saw the poll. I also just realized he mixed two different stats in one post. The larger numbers are the favorable/unfavorable rating and the actual polling numbers (who would you vote for) are closer, which is believable.

Being non-partisan, it's pretty sad when you take a poll and ask a simple question like "is your view of this candidate favorable or unfavorable" and the results are less than 50% favorable for every candidate, D or R, which includes a field of 16 Rs and 3 or 4 Ds from a population of approximately 300 million.

It'll be hard to change those numbers. She's very well known and not able to change many minds.
 
Yes, just saw the poll. I also just realized he mixed two different stats in one post. The larger numbers are the favorable/unfavorable rating and the actual polling numbers (who would you vote for) are closer, which is believable.

Being non-partisan, it's pretty sad when you take a poll and ask a simple question like "is your view of this candidate favorable or unfavorable" and the results are less than 50% favorable for every candidate, D or R, which includes a field of 16 Rs and 3 or 4 Ds from a population of approximately 300 million.
Nobody has given us a reason to vote for them yet.
 
Nobody has given us a reason to vote for them yet.
Based on what Perry, Kasich, and Walker have done in their respective terms as Gov has given me very much to take notice of. Hillary has also done plenty for me to take notice of albeit in the opposite direction.
 
Based on what Perry, Kasich, and Walker have done in their respective terms as Gov has given me very much to take notice of. Hillary has also done plenty for me to take notice of albeit in the opposite direction.
Right now i like walker. I have alwas liked Kasich. I am not going to limit options this early but i agree with you on those two.
 
Right now i like walker. I have alwas liked Kasich. I am not going to limit options this early but i agree with you on those two.
Don't think I would vote for Perry but as Gov. He did some pretty interesting things from a business jobs/economy perspective.
 
Right now i like walker. I have alwas liked Kasich. I am not going to limit options this early but i agree with you on those two.
Back when Kasich was in the House in the early 90s, I thought he was a bit nutty. And I don't agree with his position on abortion and his stance on unions. But relative to the rest of the kooks in the GOP today, he's a sane, rationale person who is willing to work with the other side. He'll compromise to get things done. Politics is not a zero sum game to him-at least it appears that way. Wingnuts don't like him because of his position in helping the poor. Kasich doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve as much as he actually performs acts of compassion for the common good. He took a lot of flack from fellow repubs because of his Obamacare position in expanding Medicaid in Ohio and basically told those who criticized him that this is WWJD. He lives it. I respect that. Other than his appointments to the Supremes, I could live with him as Prez.
 
Back when Kasich was in the House in the early 90s, I thought he was a bit nutty. And I don't agree with his position on abortion and his stance on unions. But relative to the rest of the kooks in the GOP today, he's a sane, rationale person who is willing to work with the other side. He'll compromise to get things done. Politics is not a zero sum game to him-at least it appears that way. Wingnuts don't like him because of his position in helping the poor. Kasich doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve as much as he actually performs acts of compassion for the common good. He took a lot of flack from fellow repubs because of his Obamacare position in expanding Medicaid in Ohio and basically told those who criticized him that this is WWJD. He lives it. I respect that. Other than his appointments to the Supremes, I could live with him as Prez.

He's one of the few I could see voting for.
 
Back when Kasich was in the House in the early 90s, I thought he was a bit nutty. And I don't agree with his position on abortion and his stance on unions. But relative to the rest of the kooks in the GOP today, he's a sane, rationale person who is willing to work with the other side. He'll compromise to get things done. Politics is not a zero sum game to him-at least it appears that way. Wingnuts don't like him because of his position in helping the poor. Kasich doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve as much as he actually performs acts of compassion for the common good. He took a lot of flack from fellow repubs because of his Obamacare position in expanding Medicaid in Ohio and basically told those who criticized him that this is WWJD. He lives it. I respect that. Other than his appointments to the Supremes, I could live with him as Prez.
Kasich and Walker have been my 2 leading guys since Feb.

Not really concerned with their religious beliefs but I love what they've done in their respective states.
 
Kasich and Walker have been my 2 leading guys since Feb.

Not really concerned with their religious beliefs but I love what they've done in their respective states.
Regarding religion, I don't have any issue whatsoever with anyone's beliefs. But I do take issue with pols who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else-like Santorum. A lot of these GOP candidates bend over backwards to show the kook base how god-fearing they are. In the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit how god fearing they are. Can you do the job.

The GOP primary has become a most religious contest (including Biblical prophesy regarding Israel) especially in whacky Iowa where their straw poll is dominated by evangelicals. It's crazy stuff. But the kooks have their religious litmus test....ergo, Huckabee won there last time. Probably will again. What a bunch of nuts.
 
Regarding religion, I don't have any issue whatsoever with anyone's beliefs. But I do take issue with pols who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else-like Santorum. A lot of these GOP candidates bend over backwards to show the kook base how god-fearing they are. In the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit how god fearing they are. Can you do the job.

The GOP primary has become a most religious contest (including Biblical prophesy regarding Israel) especially in whacky Iowa where their straw poll is dominated by evangelicals. It's crazy stuff. But the kooks have their religious litmus test....ergo, Huckabee won there last time. Probably will again. What a bunch of nuts.

What a ridiculous argument. Pols always try to impose their values, whether secular or religious, on others. It depends on who's ox is being gored. Don't claim for a moment the secularists don't try and impose their beliefs on others.
 
Isn't ridiculous at all, just look at the primaries for the GOP the last two times and now. You have 16 or so people all trying to be the one who says the same thing the strongest whether it makes sense to anyone other than their base or not. But the monster Fox news created caught up with them this time! The Trumpenator to the GOP Base, Trumptastrophe to the GOP mainstream. Unfortunately, your mainstream became the minority and the rubes have taken over. But that's just mine and the Wall Street Journals opinion.
 
Isn't ridiculous at all, just look at the primaries for the GOP the last two times and now. You have 16 or so people all trying to be the one who says the same thing the strongest whether it makes sense to anyone other than their base or not. But the monster Fox news created caught up with them this time! The Trumpenator to the GOP Base, Trumptastrophe to the GOP mainstream. Unfortunately, your mainstream became the minority and the rubes have taken over. But that's just mine and the Wall Street Journals opinion.

Rubes? Sanders is an avowed socialist and has captured the energy in the Dem primary. Warren is anti capitalist and libs are begging her to run. The Dem party is so far left of Bill Clinton.
 
Rubes? Sanders is an avowed socialist and has captured the energy in the Dem primary. Warren is anti capitalist and libs are begging her to run. The Dem party is so far left of Bill Clinton.
I told you the HC response to the question about renewable energy, and many who lean to the right said that it was a reasonable plan. Sanders is very far to the left, and there is some energy in his campaign, but he's still not the front runner by a long shot. His entry silenced the Warren crowd. Don't forget Jim Webb either. He's seeking the Dem nomination as well.
 
I told you the HC response to the question about renewable energy, and many who lean to the right said that it was a reasonable plan. Sanders is very far to the left, and there is some energy in his campaign, but he's still not the front runner by a long shot. His entry silenced the Warren crowd. Don't forget Jim Webb either. He's seeking the Dem nomination as well.

Webb is a centrist with no chance. Hillary just announced support for a 40% capital gains tax rate. Moving far left very fast. Terrible policy.
 
Webb is a centrist with no chance. Hillary just announced support for a 40% capital gains tax rate. Moving far left very fast. Terrible policy.
Sanders is very far left and also has no chance.
 
Webb is a centrist with no chance. Hillary just announced support for a 40% capital gains tax rate. Moving far left very fast. Terrible policy.

CG Tax rate is one that I have struggled with on making a decision what my opinion is for years. It is not a simplistic topic as you and others will make it out to be. It has a huge economic impact. But the fact is she is proposing a 39.6% rate on CG held for less than two years. So, it is not a complete revamp of this part of the code and personally I would have to understand the economic modeling of the effect before I dare to comment on whether or not I would support it and a reasonable person should as well. But I expect you to continue posting right wing slanted half truths like you always do.
 
CG Tax rate is one that I have struggled with on making a decision what my opinion is for years. It is not a simplistic topic as you and others will make it out to be. It has a huge economic impact. But the fact is she is proposing a 39.6% rate on CG held for less than two years. So, it is not a complete revamp of this part of the code and personally I would have to understand the economic modeling of the effect before I dare to comment on whether or not I would support it and a reasonable person should as well. But I expect you to continue posting right wing slanted half truths like you always do.

There is no debate of the fact that raising cap gains tax rates will reduce income to the treasury and stifle investment. bad economic policy.
 
CG Tax rate is one that I have struggled with on making a decision what my opinion is for years. It is not a simplistic topic as you and others will make it out to be. It has a huge economic impact. But the fact is she is proposing a 39.6% rate on CG held for less than two years. So, it is not a complete revamp of this part of the code and personally I would have to understand the economic modeling of the effect before I dare to comment on whether or not I would support it and a reasonable person should as well. But I expect you to continue posting right wing slanted half truths like you always do.
Couple of things. It stifles investment and further locks you in on something you might be losing your ass on due to the taxes being more than the loss.
 
Did you really just say that? smh.

About 50% of cap gains are in stocks. Stocks are a critical means of capital formation for businesses who use the capital to grow and expand. Stocks are risky but you want and need investors. You are punishing them for risk taking and will therefore get less of it. Very bad policy.
 
About 50% of cap gains are in stocks. Stocks are a critical means of capital formation for businesses who use the capital to grow and expand. Stocks are risky but you want and need investors. You are punishing them for risk taking and will therefore get less of it. Very bad policy.
It's cool dude. He has a 401k and an etrade account. He's got it down!
 
There is no debate of the fact that raising cap gains tax rates will reduce income to the treasury and stifle investment. bad economic policy.

There is a debate. If you only look at things through one eye which you do, I can understand why you don't ever see other perspectives and conflicting conclusions.
 
There is a debate. If you only look at things through one eye which you do, I can understand why you don't ever see other perspectives and conflicting conclusions.

Pot calling kettle black, lol. Raising this tax pleases the far left but is not sound economic policy especially with our very tepid economy.
 
Pot calling kettle black, lol. Raising this tax pleases the far left but is not sound economic policy especially with our very tepid economy.
I am as right as anyone. I majored in business. As I understand the purpose for offering Cap Gains Tax, was an incentive to invest in risky start-up companies and incentive to grow businesses to produce and employ more. Someway the law covers things that do not fit that criteria.

IPO and capital expansion to grow plant and equipment are about the only areas that are applicable. Would not have a great problem with a product offering financing to strengthen a company that is about to go under..

I do not see that exchanging stock for a profit meets that criteria. Really struggle with holding precious metals and rare paintings. Need help in explanation for the reason to include so many things, and that may include house as residence or second house.
 
A new poll shows Hillary losing to three Republican candidates in the key swing states of Iowa, Virginia and Colorado. Her favorable ratings are under water in those states by 21, 23 and 9% respectively.

I wasn't impressed with Hillary the first eight years she ran the White House........
 
ADVERTISEMENT