Quinnipiac poll
 

According to the most recent (Aug 27) "Q" poll, in a general election right now, Clinton would beat ALL Republican challengers; Biden would beat ALL Republican challengers and Sanders would beat ALL Republican challengers except Rubio. The poll has Rubio winning by 1 percent.

Doesn't look too good for Republicans at this point in time, does it?

Since the election isn't being held today, it's meaningless.

Dear Guest: The polls coming out now are as valid as pre-season NFL games. its all about nothing er, actually ratings.

This campaign like all competition is about the last man standing and we have some 15 months to go a lifetime in politics

Personal Best Regards:

How many times a day do you have to drink or take the stuff that makes one act and talk like that?

Kind of comical, isn't it - The Republicans:girlneener: tout polls as being Gospel truth when the polls show Mrs. Clinton losing ground to Sanders - but when the polls show that ALL Republicans would lose to Mrs. Clinton, VP Biden, or Sen. Sanders - all of a sudden the polls are meaningless! :a20:

Less than you do, troll.:girlneener:

Speaking of Quinnipiac Poll....

"WASHINGTON, D.C. (WFSB) -
The latest Quinnipiac Poll on Thursday played a little game of presidential “Word Association.”
While the poll offered up the latest numbers, researchers asked voters what they really thought about the candidates.

When it came to democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, the word that came to most people’s minds was “liar.”

Runner up words were “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”


Clinton still leads the democratic pool with 45 percent, but her lead continues to drop by at least 10 points since June."

Read more: Latest Quinnipiac Poll asks voters what they think about candida - WFSB 3 Connecticut

Those who seem to be addicted to theses polls so early in the game should at least be HONEST enough to post the entire poll. All polls can bring out bad on both sides and for every candidate.

Doing what this OP is doing is akin to writing on the bathroom wall.

Right back at you!
Further reading of the article says "arrogant" is the word used for Trump and for Jeb Bush is just "bush". The poll shows Trump would be beat by Biden and that Jeb Bush is favored by just 7 percent of Republicans.

Hey, Clinton has already won the election. That's what she thinks too. So, all you Dems can just sit back and let your money ride on here as you spin that roulette wheel. Take that chance. Hey, you said it yourself, she has already won. Good luck.

I doubt you will get half the Democrat voter turn out this election. Clinton is the worst candidate you liberals could hope for. You won't have the black vote. You are losing the female vote and you won't get half the Independent vote. I's say that all the Republicans have to do is place a name on the ballot and he/she will win. Just like congress did. Americans can be fooled but they aren't stupid. They do learn by their mistakes eventually. The turn over in congress proved that.

But, keep trolling. It's raining out there and I like to be entertained. I really like it when you get upset and start calling names like a petulant school girl.

I have never been "polled". Do you know of anyone who has been "polled?"

I do hope you have the guts to remain on the board after Clinton steps aside.
Highly unlikely based on your past performance.

We get polled every few weeks it seems.

That's right the Republicans have a deep bench running for President. No! What they have is a lot of single hitters entered in a home run derby. Clinton isn't taking anything for granted. She trying to convince Biden not to from run. That makes sense.

I can't stand anyone running for president based upon their name. She been running since the early nineties based up her husband's name.

It is early in the election process. If nothing is proven in the server, or Benghazi cases, she will yell that these were nothing more than politics by the Republican party. She will have a strong case.

When the election comes down to hopefully issues, she can get back support of the people that currently have left her.

When entering a presidential election now that is 15 months is considered too late, that is a real problem.

What does that mean? I AM anti-Clinton. My comment was my being facetious, in case you were wondering. I too hope that Clinton takes a hike, off a high cliff.

Plenty of time left. By the time the polls are somewhat meaningful Hillary could be in jail. I have some favorites on the Republican side that I would like to see get the nomination, and a few I hope will not, but if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination I will vote Republican no matter who is running.

I personally believe this is exactly what the DNC is most concerned about.
The fear that she may get to be the candidate but unable to win.......just like the 2008 conclusion when she was not as shady a character!

Clinton is polled at 11% of Dems saying "No way" would they vote for her.

I'd be interested in seeing a poll of just the Independents regarding who they would vote for. Bet Clinton would not get enough to be elected.

A lot of folks have suggested that it's too late for Biden to enter the race. That he doesn't have the money for the campaign or he's waited too long to get any good campaign time in. I think that what they overlook is the fact that he is already well known to most Americans. Better than any of the other candidates. He need not even enter campaign mode to beat Hilary, as indicated by several polls. Well, actually they show a bigger lead against the Republican candidates than Hilary, but who's counting?

From all the posts that have been placed on this forum with the illegal things done by Obama, the malfeasance of his team in the Administration and the general dissappointed with Democrat policies for the past 7 years - it would seem to me that Republicans have absolutely no worries about a Presidential victory in 2016.

So, since obviously all Americans know that Hillary is a liar and should be in prison, why continue to berate her?

Wouldn't a better use of time, effort and money be to find the perfect Republican nominee who will do the very best for the USA?

...and the perfect Republican nominee who would be the best for the USA would be ------ and the reason that he/she would be the best for the country is -----.

It does not matter who it is they could not :censored: it up anymore than Obama has to date!!!
And it does not matter who it is they would rise head, shoulders and entire body above Clinton.

Really, that was not a mature post whatever.

You say you do not care which Republican gets to be President because they could not foul the country up anymore than Obama? Does this mean you do not care if the country is fouled up for the next 4-8 years just as bad as Obama did but you would rather have a Republican do the fouling?

The question was a legit question. Who - of the 17 or so Republican candidates - do you think would make the best President and why?

Obviously unable to answer. No problem.

I just love the way some churn and burn when they do not get an answer they expect or one not in agreement.

Some categorize it as a no answer....which is one opinion but incorrect.

Another goes ape by exptrapolating so far out in left field noboby can see, hear or understand.

Just because it was mentioned nobody could screw it up anymore than Obama does not mean, not even close, that somebody else could continue screwing it up.

Or how about a real stretch for some of you....it really means the worst of the litter can do better than Obama.

First of all most of the American people know who the candidates are. Nobody knew BHO when he was in the Clinton shadow.

It is terrible to be constrained by narrow thinking!

Your point will be missed in this forum. We have gone by the tipping point where more people are living off taxes than paying them. When this happened true conservative polititians went the way of the dinosaur. As long as polititians can spend money without raising taxes there will be no change. Right now there are no losers, except the younger generation, when this obsecene spending spree continues. Until Hillary, Jeb, Trump, or any of the others have to look people in the eye and say "you'll have to pay more taxes because of this spending I support" we will continue towards the edge of cliff. A real balanced budget requirement would change politics as we all know it.

Alright then, which of the 17 candidates do You think is best for the country and why? No right or wrong answer but just reasonable justification would be nice to see.

We can all agree that a Republican is far better than the Democratic candidates but which one?

Mitt Romney with Carli FIvorian VP.

Fiorina that is!

Who is all? Sounds exclusionary.

Dear Guest: I happen to agree withe second part of your question that any Republican nominee would be better than any Democratic nominee essentially because the socialist policies of Obama would continue ( actually forced) under any Democratic Administration and we simply can't continue down this path of self-destruction.

The first part of your question needs to be refined to what you mean by "is best for the country?" More to the point the "best"candidate.

The popularity of Trump, Carson, Fiorina and yes even Sanders clearly illustrates that voters are no longer going to tolerate the status quo. They are weary and wary of the same old same old promises and essentially believe that in most cases the political class (career politicians) all belong to an old boy/girls club and it will be business as usual if any one of them gets elected. This frustration is what is driving the polls. Even a nut case like Sanders is looking good because he is preaching populous propaganda.

This is the sentiment now. Will it continue? If so anyone of the aforementioned candidates can walk away with the nomination.

Personal Best Regards:

Are you asking the questions now? You never answer questions, but you seem to think that you are moderating this thread and deem yourself worthy of directing but not answering questions.

Allow me to answer that question, even though I can't speak for the person you are currently questioning.

Yes, ANY of the Republicans would be a better replacement for Obama. Yes, it is true that not one of the eligible candidates would be as bad or hose the country up as bad as Obama. Not one of them would be as divisive, including Trump.

I can not speak for the other poster as for the best candidate for president, but in my opinion, I could support any of the current contenders, on the Republican side.....the right side :icon_wink:. It's way too early to decide on a choice.

Who do I favor at this point?

Huckabee - my favorite but not a chance
Kasich - need to hear more
Fiorina - not being given enough media coverage
Walker - need to hear more, but pretty solid
Carson - very intelligent but America is gun shy after first black president failure.

Not in that order, but those are my personal favorites right now and that can change as we get closer to the primaries.

Starting to rule out of my choice:

Bush - too moderate/liberal
Cruz - too out spoken and can't get along with his own party members
Rubio - jury is still out, but he's a bit green
Santorum - admire his faith but he's got a job to do, not preach.
Paul - too libertarian
Pataki - has been
Christie - Not electable
Jindal - good speaker, not electable
Graham - don't trust him
Gilmore - has been

Trump - a category of his own. I think he will drop out but is getting the party hyped up and motivated.

None of this matters to the left, and they will either support Clinton because she is a woman, first woman possible and they don't care if she is good for the country. Or, they will lay out during this election and not vote.

Independents will probably lean toward the right in this election. I doubt they will support Clinton.