Head to heads are only indicative at the moment. By the time the GOP field winnows out a bit we would have a better view of who has been damaged and who has gained from all the mud and boasting of the campaign.

And to be fair, Sanders is less of a "known" than Hillary so may be getting more of the benefit of the doubt.

But this also puts pressure on any centrist or moderate Democrat to make a decision soon.

danivon

Head to heads are only indicative at the moment.

Yes. But whats important about this particular poll is how it affects the Democratic primaries. One of the narratives from the Clinton camp is that Sanders can't win....
This is evidence that, yeah he can..... And maybe that swings people in Nevada, Michigan etc.

I think either Clinton or Sanders may be better head to head campaigners than most of the republicans . Judging from the bumper sticker debates and the accusations being flung right and left ... there hasn't been much substance. And no one is burnishing their image.
Sanders appeals to many angry white Trump supporters in the same way that Trump does... We're getting screwed by the system... and this guy can fix it. He also appeals to blacks and Hispanics more than any of the republicans based on the deatils of the poll. And he's the only candidate still running with a net positive opinion...
Who knows...

At least he hasn't pissed off the Pope.

rickyp wrote:http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf

Interesting head to head polling by Quinnipac today.
Sanders would be a much stronger candidate than Hillary.... He'd win handily over any republican candidate.
Hillary would probably lose against most, depending on how votes divided among states.
Of course its early. But this may give Sanders more ammunition in Nevada and Michigan.

Ooh, very scary. How much of the general electorate knows Sanders? How many know he was a virtual derelict until elected mayor? How many know his profession is . . . nothing? How many know his idols are communists?

I think it's tougher for Hillary to go after Sanders than it would be a Republican.

Who wants to see the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall St. firms? Is Mrs. Clinton being as open as you would wish?

bbauska wrote:Who wants to see the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall St. firms? Is Mrs. Clinton being as open as you would wish?

Hey, she has tried to be honest with the American people. What more can we ask?

Here’s the percentage of funding for each candidate that comes from Wall Street donors:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-pre ... 26933.html

Clinton gets less than 7% of her financing from Wall Street.
Cruz: 12% Bush 35%

Wall Street has all the money. if you need money for a political campaign, you go where the money is..
Even, or especially, if you are a conservative.

So you don't want to know what she had to say to the Wall St. firms in her speeches, RickyP?

bbauska wrote:So you don't want to know what she had to say to the Wall St. firms in her speeches, RickyP?

I would want to know what she said. And also what any other candidate has said. In speeches or by email or whatever. And I would want to know more for those getting significant levels of donations.

bbauska

So you don't want to know what she had to say to the Wall St. firms in her speeches, RickyP?

Wouldn't mind knowing, but don't really care that much. I'm sure she offered them insights into foreign policy decisions and key issues around the world from her point of view. That's generally the scope of these things. And I've heard a few personally. (Including Saint Ron after he retired) There's never much else.
If anyone is hoping for some sort of "smoking gun" akin to Romney's honest statement about the 49% ...not gonna happen. (This is just more Benghazi, email wishful thinking. Can't beat her without some kind of outside "revelation")

The key thing to me is what each candidate will do to deal about economic inequality.
And since none of the republican candidates have suggested anything that will actually have an impact, and most would make it worse ...that comes down to Hillary and Bernie.
I suspect Bernie would do more to rein in Wall Street than Hillary. And would attempt to do more that would actually aid the Middle class and working class. If he had the support in congress.
Hillary would be an incrementalist. And might accomplish more with less support in Congress. Or could perhaps produce more support.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

So you don't want to know what she had to say to the Wall St. firms in her speeches, RickyP?

Wouldn't mind knowing, but don't really care that much. I'm sure she offered them insights into foreign policy decisions and key issues around the world from her point of view. That's generally the scope of these things. And I've heard a few personally. (Including Saint Ron after he retired) There's never much else.
If anyone is hoping for some sort of "smoking gun" akin to Romney's honest statement about the 49% ...not gonna happen. (This is just more Benghazi, email wishful thinking. Can't beat her without some kind of outside "revelation")

You're so funny. You are so sure of so much that you KNOW nothing about. It's almost endearing, kind of like Tom Cruise bouncing up and down on a couch.

The key thing to me is what each candidate will do to deal about economic inequality.

I would encourage her to run on a semi-socialist platform. That will surely appeal to a broad spectrum of the . . . Left.

Meanwhile, there's a new avenue of discovery being opened:

A federal district court judge today granted a motion by Judicial Watch for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued the ruling in a FOIA case seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.

. . .

So, while the FBI continues to investigate whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee committed felonies, discovery will proceed in federal court as to whether she deliberately thwarted federal law pertaining to document production.

The key to defeating Clinton will be making the election about her. People don't like her or trust her. Other than that, she's a great candidate because . . . well, she's not a man. Ask her (anything) and she'll tell you.

Delete

People have never really connected to Hillary--she doesn't have a warm personality. That said, she is going to have a huge advantage against Cruz or Trump with regard to female voters, so she will probably beat them. Rubio doesn't have that problem.

freeman3 wrote:People have never really connected to Hillary--she doesn't have a warm personality. That said, she is going to have a huge advantage against Cruz or Trump with regard to female voters, so she will probably beat them. Rubio doesn't have that problem.

I'm not sure. Bernie has made inroads with female voters. Why is that?

I think it comes back to trust. She has to do something to establish that she is trustworthy. And, I think the more info there is that leaks about her, the worse it gets. Imagine if those GS transcripts come out. I doubt they will be seen as quite so benign as rickyp imagines.

I'm not convinced that there's an awful lot of women out there who would cast their vote for Hillary just because she's female. I mean, if you normally lean to the right then you'll normally vote Republican. Why would a female candidate change that ? I know that Obama piled up vast numbers of black voters but a) the Dems always dominate the black vote anyway and b) the racial symbolism was much more significant than the sexual one would be.