RCP: Cruz, Rubio Lead Hillary; Hillary Leads Trump

[mystery-ak]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/rcp-cruz-rubio-lead-hillary-hillary-leads-trump/article/2000707

RCP: Cruz, Rubio Lead Hillary; Hillary Leads Trump

10:31 AM, Jan 22, 2016 | By Jeffrey H. Anderson

The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls finds that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are each ahead of Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polling, while Clinton is ahead of Donald Trump. Clinton leads Trump by a tally of 45 to 43 percent. Meanwhile, Rubio leads Clinton by 46 to 44 percent, and Cruz leads Clinton by 46 to 45 percent.

Limiting the results to polls taken since New Year's Day, the margins are a bit greater. Clinton leads Trump by 4 points—48 to 44 percent. Rubio leads Clinton by the same 4 points—48 to 44 percent. And Cruz leads Clinton by 2 points—48 to 46 percent.

So far out from the election, head-to-head polling should hardly be taken as gospel. Still, these tallies are consistent with the candidates' respective favorability ratings in the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters. Rubio's net favorability rating in that poll was +2 points (31 percent approving, 29 percent disapproving), Cruz's was -4 points (31 to 35 percent), Clinton's was -9 points (40 to 49 percent), and Trump's was -29 points (29 to 58 percent), with twice as many registered voters viewing the current Republican frontrunner unfavorably as favorably.

[GAJohnnie]

And shows everyone but Rubio losing to Sanders. It also worth noting the  difference between Clinton vrs Cruz/Trump is within the margin of polling error.

Also leaves out the fact that the ONLY poll that shows this massive favoritism for Clinton IS this poll NBC/WallStreet Journal poll. So the whole average is being slanted by a poll that the author then turns around and cites to justify why we should take the numbers seriously.

Hmm why did the author not take OUT the NBC poll since its' results are so wildly different then all the other polls in the average?

[aligncare]

For goodness sake. We're not yet in a general election campaign! These numbers are meaningless.

Once their records of accomplishment--or lack there of--are made generally known, and their bios are compared, and the general electorate sees Clinton/Sanders/Warren standing side by side next to Donald Trump on a debate stage, it's no contest. Put a fork in the 'rat, cause it's over.

[libertybele]

For goodness sake. We're not yet in a general election campaign! These numbers are meaningless.

Once their records of accomplishment--or lack there of--are made generally known, and their bios are compared, and the general electorate sees Clinton/Sanders/Warren standing side by side next to Donald Trump on a debate stage, it's no contest. Put a fork in the 'rat, cause it's over.

Agreed.  But honestly, IF people actually did a little bit of research and compared the records and bios of each of the candidates I think we'd be looking at a whole different ballgame. What amazes me is there is so much information out their at people's fingertips, yet they either ignore it or are too lazy to do a bit of homework. Obviously there are people who are going to buy what they are being told by those who are willing to sell them what they want to hear....Clinton is a prime example of people who are uninformed...it astonishes me that she has polled so well.

We have several on the GOP side that are less then desirable ... but anyone (and yes, including Jeb) will be better than Bernie or Hillary.

As for Trump winning over Bernie or Clinton I wish I had more confidence of the outcome, but I don't.

[alicewonders]

Agreed.  But honestly, IF people actually did a little bit of research and compared the records and bios of each of the candidates I think we'd be looking at a whole different ballgame. What amazes me is there is so much information out their at people's fingertips, yet they either ignore it or are too lazy to do a bit of homework. Obviously there are people who are going to buy what they are being told by those who are willing to sell them what they want to hear....Clinton is a prime example of people who are uninformed...it astonishes me that she has polled so well.

We have several on the GOP side that are less then desirable ... but anyone (and yes, including Jeb) will be better than Bernie or Hillary.

As for Trump winning over Bernie or Clinton I wish I had more confidence of the outcome, but I don't.

Hang in there liberty, I hear what you're saying.  At this point, I just want to kick Democrats out of the White House and hang on to the Senate - and I think we can.  I don't think past models are valid for this historic rule-breaking election.  We're in new territory here.

[libertybele]

Hang in there liberty, I hear what you're saying.  At this point, I just want to kick Democrats out of the White House and hang on to the Senate - and I think we can.  I don't think past models are valid for this historic rule-breaking election.  We're in new territory here.

I understand what you are saying.  I firmly believe unless we seat someone in the White House that will move this country in a positive direction we are done.  We cannot continue on the course of Hussein and his administration (including the GOPe majority) and expect things to improve; they won't.  Perhaps we will see some historic voting and perhaps even a landslide victory; but most importantly I feel this will be a historic election in the sense that we either take our country back this election or we lose it.

Ted Cruz 2016!  Reigniting the Promise of America.   

[truth_seeker]

People don't "do research." They form impressions.  Most people do NOT like politics, and they do NOT like politicians.

Those on this forum, you are already in a tiny minority. Talking back and forth with each other doesn't help by itself.