WaPo/ABC National: Trump +2, Clinton +2 w/ Romney

[MT Treasurer]

This is interesting.     The Hillary hacks on here were talking about this election being 1964 lol

It might still be a 1964-esque landslide.  We have 5 and a half long months until election day.

[Fusionmunster]

This is interesting.     The Hillary hacks on here were talking about this election being 1964 lol

It might still be a 1964-esque landslide.  We have 5 and a half long months until election day.

Have you just gone into full on troll mode now?

[MT Treasurer]

^No, but saying that this election will be a 1964-style landslide is pretty ridiculous. This nation is way too polarized for that to happen, with both candidates being as popular as Ebola.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hillary's numbers with whites are brutal.

Who would have thought that maybe running a year long campaign insinuating that your primary opponent's supporters were all sexist and racist white males might not have been the best strategy?

When specifically has Clinton or her surrogates come anywhere near insinuating this?

Oh give me a break, that's about everything that comes out of Blue Nation Review, which is owned by David Brock, whose SuperPAC directly coordinates with the Hillary campaign. They insinuate that every white male who doesn't support Hillary must be a racist and sexist. Such a disgusting campaign.

And BNR and that connection are both known nationally? Even I had never heard of BNR or David Brock prior to this post.

[LLR]

Romney @ 22%? And getting a substantial amount of democrats? What?

[heatcharger]

Republicans combining for almost 60% is not believable at all. I think at least half of the undecideds are Bernie voters, let's see if she gets a bump after the Democratic primary is over. Also I'd rather see more state polling than national honestly.

[EliteLX]

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

[The Mikado]

Clinton will obviously rise a bit after she finally puts Bernie to bed in early June, but it's been pretty clear that her campaign is slow to realize the danger that Trump poses her. If they don't start taking this challenge seriously, they'll find themselves seriously on the wrong foot here.

Trump is an absolute master of both new and old media and one of the most gifted self-promoters ever. He is not to be trifled with.

[Comrade Funk]

She is the worse possible candidate for 2016. People don't want someone who has been in the upper echelon of elite society for 25 years. The Democratic Party establishment is so out of touch. Only 1 competitor, and he was a 73 year old socialist. People are angry, and she doesn't get it.

I hope this makes Democrats take a hard look in the mirror, and realize you actually have to court white working voters instead of demonizing them as racist morons.

[Mehmentum]

Whats the lowest % of male vote vote you win and still win the election?


Hillary is getting crushed among men.

Mathematically?  0% if one wins 100% of women.

[Reaganfan]

She is the worse possible candidate for 2016. People don't want someone who has been in the upper echelon of elite society for 25 years. The Democratic Party establishment is so out of touch. Only 1 competitor, and he was a 73 year old socialist. People are angry, and she doesn't get it.

I hope this makes Democrats take a hard look in the mirror, and realize you actually have to court white working voters instead of demonizing them as racist morons.

She's off message, as well. The country says the economy and national security are the top issues, and she's out there discussing gun control (which is a much a losing issue for Dems as gay marriage was for GOP).

[IceSpear]

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

You're a Trump hack now? That was quick, lol.

[IceSpear]

Clinton will obviously rise a bit after she finally puts Bernie to bed in early June, but it's been pretty clear that her campaign is slow to realize the danger that Trump poses her. If they don't start taking this challenge seriously, they'll find themselves seriously on the wrong foot here.

Trump is an absolute master of both new and old media and one of the most gifted self-promoters ever. He is not to be trifled with.

What? Her campaign has known from the start this was going to be a fierce battle. It's all the pundits and the rank and file that thought it would be a lock. Hopefully that fiction begins to get dispelled.

[henster]

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

[henster]

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

Udall ran a terrible campaign, but he hardly got "blown out" on election day. He lost by 2 points, even though he "should" have lost by more 5.

He lost men by 17, won women by 8. Hick lost men by 8 points and one campaign focused solely on women issues.

[IceSpear]

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

Udall ran a terrible campaign, but he hardly got "blown out" on election day. He lost by 2 points, even though he "should" have lost by more 5.

He lost men by 17, won women by 8. Hick lost men by 8 points and one campaign focused solely on women issues.

Considering the GE campaign has barely even begun, perhaps it's a tad premature to argue what her campaign has focused too much on and/or not enough on.

[Ebsy]

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

Why do you hate Hillary Clinton?

[MK]

Whats the lowest % of male vote vote you win and still win the election?


Hillary is getting crushed among men.

Mathematically?  0% if one wins 100% of women.

She's not winning 100% of women.    Like others have pointed out shes losing men by soo much that its going to be irrelevant of this "trump is sexist " 

[Ebsy]

Something to note: the survey's sample seems to dislike Obama a lot more than other recent survey samples have; his approval is sitting at -4.

[Seriously?]

Whats the lowest % of male vote vote you win and still win the election?

Hillary is getting crushed among men.

Mathematically?  0% if one wins 100% of women.

She's not winning 100% of women.    Like others have pointed out shes losing men by soo much that its going to be irrelevant of this "trump is sexist " 

This war on women nonsense that the Democrats are trying to trump on Trump is utter nonsense.

For starters, he in glass houses should not throw stones. Bill Clinton is the white Bill Cosby when it comes to sexually assaulting/harassing women. Hilary has done nothing other than enable his behavior.

Secondly, women get paid 37% less on average than their male counterparts at the Clinton Foundation.

Most importantly, Trump promoted women in a predominately male field of construction/construction management when promoting women into positions of power was honestly unheard of in NYC.

I really don't get how it's a winning issue. It failed in Colorado. It also will backfire in the Presidential election of 2016.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary's numbers with whites are brutal.

Who would have thought that maybe running a year long campaign insinuating that your primary opponent's supporters were all sexist and racist white males might not have been the best strategy?

When specifically has Clinton or her surrogates come anywhere near insinuating this?

Oh give me a break, that's about everything that comes out of Blue Nation Review, which is owned by David Brock, whose SuperPAC directly coordinates with the Hillary campaign. They insinuate that every white male who doesn't support Hillary must be a racist and sexist. Such a disgusting campaign.

And BNR and that connection are both known nationally? Even I had never heard of BNR or David Brock prior to this post.

You really never heard of David Brock? Well, he's the white male who slimed Anita Hill saying "she's a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" who runs Correct The Record, which likes to insinuate that Bernie supporters are all racist and sexist white males. He really should stop projecting.  

He's been running a gutter campaign for Hillary right up there with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.  There can be zero unity with him running a SuperPAC that directly coordinates with the Hillary campaign.

Oh, and it turns out David Brock was responsible for the lie that Michelle Obama railed against whitey.   No self respecting Bernie supporter will support a campaign with someone that vile as part of their campaign.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

I see that you don't even pretend now and you're just copying and pasting RNC and Fox News talking points.
Well done.

[Dr. Arch]

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

You're a Trump hack now? That was quick, lol.

Pretty much what Ice Spear said, but I'll add a little more.

Building a wall won't secure the border. A more realistic approach to it would be address the issues causing the immigration, such as people like Trump who employ them when they cross, and the issues they face at home that force them to cross to begin with. There are tunnels and complex systems developed and can quickly adapt to such a simplistic "securing" method.

Since when does killing families and supporting torture and widespread religious political branding actually count as a "realistic" approach to any of our complex foreign policy issues?

Your actual reform remark was actually pretty weak. Trump has no political experience of any kind, and has made more than a number of questionable moves within his own area of expertise, business. He doesn't understand the issues, much less how to address them. What he's selling to you, is an idea, that you can shape into whatever you think is applicable for our contemporary issues, but he has no substance and no methods as to how to implement them. I can comment more on this snarky remark if you actually provide more details. So much for that.

[MK]

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

You're a Trump hack now? That was quick, lol.

Pretty much what Ice Spear said, but I'll add a little more.

Building a wall won't secure the border. A more realistic approach to it would be address the issues causing the immigration, such as people like Trump who employ them when they cross, and the issues they face at home that force them to cross to begin with. There are tunnels and complex systems developed and can quickly adapt to such a simplistic "securing" method.

Since when does killing families and supporting torture and widespread religious political branding actually count as a "realistic" approach to any of our complex foreign policy issues?

Your actual reform remark was actually pretty weak. Trump has no political experience of any kind, and has made more than a number of questionable moves within his own area of expertise, business. He doesn't understand the issues, much less how to address them. What he's selling to you, is an idea, that you can shape into whatever you think is applicable for our contemporary issues, but he has no substance and no methods as to how to implement them. I can comment more on this snarky remark if you actually provide more details. So much for that.

You're right, Trump doesn't have the "political experience" and time in washington to know whats going on.  The alternative that you are suggesting we "wake up" to is Hillary R Clinton who can become presdent and finish selling out the middle class and working class Americans to the highest bidder.  So the issues that are screwed up now with regards to immigration, healthcare, income etc.. can continue with the same folks running the show.  Gee.. all that "political experience" is sure helping things right now.

Its funny how you admit we have issues that need fixing yet advocate continuing more of the same.   

[Dr. Arch]

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

You're a Trump hack now? That was quick, lol.

Pretty much what Ice Spear said, but I'll add a little more.

Building a wall won't secure the border. A more realistic approach to it would be address the issues causing the immigration, such as people like Trump who employ them when they cross, and the issues they face at home that force them to cross to begin with. There are tunnels and complex systems developed and can quickly adapt to such a simplistic "securing" method.

Since when does killing families and supporting torture and widespread religious political branding actually count as a "realistic" approach to any of our complex foreign policy issues?

Your actual reform remark was actually pretty weak. Trump has no political experience of any kind, and has made more than a number of questionable moves within his own area of expertise, business. He doesn't understand the issues, much less how to address them. What he's selling to you, is an idea, that you can shape into whatever you think is applicable for our contemporary issues, but he has no substance and no methods as to how to implement them. I can comment more on this snarky remark if you actually provide more details. So much for that.

You're right, Trump doesn't have the "political experience" and time in washington to know whats going on.  The alternative that you are suggesting we "wake up" to is Hillary R Clinton who can become presdent and finish selling out the middle class and working class Americans to the highest bidder.  So the issues that are screwed up now with regards to immigration, healthcare, income etc.. can continue with the same folks running the show.  Gee.. all that "political experience" is sure helping things right now.

Its funny how you admit we have issues that need fixing yet advocate continuing more of the same.   

Yes, I am aware of the issues of the current system, but Trump is not the answer to any of these. He's a power-hungry man with no discipline and, frankly, with no concern for any of us in any way. Trump would not only make things worse through sheer inexperience and ignorance, but would also worsen other areas in which we have made improvements, such as certain social rights and healthcare (albeit flawed, improved).

I would much rather put up with a détente on change, than have change for the worse, where Trump is clearly representative of the latter.