Yahoo Poll: Reagan beats Obama, Clinton beats Romney, Clinton over Reagan

[Tender Branson]

Poll is already 1 month old, but the Reagan/Clinton/Obama/Romney results have been released today. That same poll had Obama ahead by 4 against Romney, right at the time of the DEM convention.

http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-yahoo-news-poll-1112

[Eraserhead]

Good to see Bill was able to put down Zombie Reagan.

[Comrade Funk]

Good to see Bill was able to put down Zombie Reagan.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Good to see Bill was able to put down Zombie Reagan.

[dirks]

If term limits did not exist (and they shouldn't), Bill Clinton right now would be on the cusp of being elected for the 6th time.

2000 vs. Bush...easy win. Not sure who they would've propped up in 2004, but if it's McCain in 2008 Clinton would've destroyed him as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I'm positively surprised.

[King]

If term limits did not exist (and they shouldn't), Bill Clinton right now would be on the cusp of being elected for the 6th time.

2000 vs. Bush...easy win. Not sure who they would've propped up in 2004, but if it's McCain in 2008 Clinton would've destroyed him as well.

Well, without term limits, then a lot would have changed prior to Clinton.  I think Eisenhower would have run and won again in 1960.  Kennedy maybe gets elected in 1964, but if not then America loses Clinton's inspirational figure.  Nixon never gets elected without Johnson, which never leads to a reformist against corruption in Carter, whose struggles never invoke the conservative rebirth of Reagan.  New Deal Democrats likely continue into the 1990s and Clinton doesn't really get to the top of the pecking order in that scenario.

[dirks]

If term limits did not exist (and they shouldn't), Bill Clinton right now would be on the cusp of being elected for the 6th time.

2000 vs. Bush...easy win. Not sure who they would've propped up in 2004, but if it's McCain in 2008 Clinton would've destroyed him as well.

Well, without term limits, then a lot would have changed prior to Clinton.  I think Eisenhower would have run and won again in 1960.  Kennedy maybe gets elected in 1964, but if not then America loses Clinton's inspirational figure.  Nixon never gets elected without Johnson, which never leads to a reformist against corruption in Carter, whose struggles never invoke the conservative rebirth of Reagan.  New Deal Democrats likely continue into the 1990s and Clinton doesn't really get to the top of the pecking order in that scenario.

true...I was just thinking, if term limits were wiped out somewhere between 88 and 92

I doubt Kennedy would run in 60 against Ike since he'd get crushed and wouldn't want to tarnish his image for 64...Humphrey loses to Eisenhower. Eisenhower is too old to run again in 1964, so we get Nixon vs. Kennedy 4 years later

[Umengus]

Obama +10 on Mccain so completely biased... So Reagan would beat Clinton.

[memphis]

The GOP would have crucified Clinton after 9/11. He would've gone down as the worst president ever.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Good to see Bill was able to put down Zombie Reagan.

[Simfan34]

Obama +10 on Mccain so completely biased... So Reagan would beat Clinton.

Is this what the results show? If so then this poll is ludicrously skewed. The topic itself is fairly junk but this would mean it's pure poppycock.

Also, apparently Obama leads 50-54 with men and 49-48 with women? I blame the use of cell phones and the exhibition of general public statistics, Obama only leads by 4% with LV as opposed to 13% with GP , LV voted 48-42 Obama in '08 (which was the actual margin), but 8% didn't vote in 2008- indicative of a poor sample or higher turnout? LVs would vote for Clinton over Romney 61-36, Reagan over Obama 51-44, and Reagan over Clinton 49-47.

MOD EDIT: For shame! You should know better than to use such crude language.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Good to see Bill was able to put down Zombie Reagan.

[Alcon]

Obama +10 on Mccain so completely biased... So Reagan would beat Clinton.

Is this what the results show? If so then this poll is ludicrously skewed. The topic itself is fairly junk but this would mean it's complete c--p.

1. 10% is not that far from Obama's popular vote margin (7.3%) -- that finding is way within the margin of error

2. I imagine that people are more apt to mis-remember or falsely claim that they voted for the winner, instead of the loser

3. The people who have died within the last four years, a small number as they are of the overall electorate, were probably disproportionately McCain

The last two are pretty marginal effects -- I just think the marginal effects would likely lead to an overestimation of Obama responses more than of McCain responses.  The most important thing is that a 2.7% error on percentage margin, which corresponds to like a 1.35% error on any given candidate...in a poll with a MoE much larger than that.  You're both being silly.

[SPC]

If term limits did not exist (and they shouldn't), Bill Clinton right now would be on the cusp of being elected for the 6th time.

2000 vs. Bush...easy win. Not sure who they would've propped up in 2004, but if it's McCain in 2008 Clinton would've destroyed him as well.

You don't think being an entrenched incumbent during the worst economic crisis in 80 years would have harmed Clinton in 2008?