What's behind door #3? Well we have......Jeb Bush

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I'm just trying to see if that's how you're attempting to quantify it. If so, I'll stick by my "wow."

Well, when you have something meaningful to say, please orange ... proceed.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Row6

Well, when you have something meaningful to say, please orange ... proceed.

I think it was pretty clear.

If you're attempting to quantify achievement and/or aptitude by the colleges each attended you're using a woefully flawed metric.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

Well, when you have something meaningful to say, please orange ... proceed.

Same to you, Row. You've done nothing in this thread but demonstrate your fear of Rubio. It definitely doesn't qualify as "something meaningful" to say that Rubio is not a viable candidate because he won with 49% of the vote...in a three way race against a Democrat and a Conservative-oriented Independent. Like Bill Clinton did in 1996. In 1992 he only got 43%.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Same to you, Row. You've done nothing in this thread but demonstrate your fear of Rubio. It definitely doesn't qualify as "something meaningful" to say that Rubio is not a viable candidate because he won with 49% of the vote...in a three way race. Like Bill Clinton did in 1996. In 1992 he only got 43%.

No, see, that doesn't count because ... uh, well ... it just doesn't, ok??!!

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Plus Bill Clinton went to Oxford, so it counterbalances his performance in that election.

[rivergator]

Hillary Clinton holds a dominant lead among Latino voters with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in a head to head matchup for president, according to a new national poll that could impact a fierce debate within the GOP over immigration.

The survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, tested a variety of possible 2016 pairings with 1,944 registered voters and had a margin of error of +/-2.2 percent. Clinton lead Rubio by a 50-34 margin, including 60-24 among Latino voters. Rubio performed worse than Chris Christie overall, who trailed Clinton 45-37 nationally, and only slightly better with Latinos, where Christie was down 62-23. Paul Ryan also performed weak against Clinton, losing 50-38 in an overall matchup and even worse with Latino voters, 69-21.
There are a lot of caveats: it’s just one poll, 2016 is light years away, and Rubio only recently took on a major role in passing an immigration reform bill.

link

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

No, see, that doesn't count because ... uh, well ... it just doesn't, ok??!!

LOL. Not to pile on but when challenged on that earlier he started speculating about how Rubio would have fared if Meek had dropped out of the race. So I guess we should be concerned about Rubio's chances in 2016...if there's no Democrat running??

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by rivergator

link

I don't doubt this at all. The notion that having an Hispanic candidate puts Hispanic Americans in the bag - as it were - is ludicrous.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

link

That poll is absolutely and utterly worthless at this point. Comparing one candidate who is a Senator in Florida to Hillary Clinton, I mean, name recognition alone - it's just silly.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

That poll is absolutely and utterly worthless at this point. Comparing one candidate who is a Senator in Florida to Hillary Clinton, I mean, name recognition alone - it's just silly.

As the story noted, there's plenty of caveats and it is early. But Rubio also trails Christie. Ryan's been on the national stage and he trails Clinton.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

As the story noted, there's plenty of caveats and it is early. But Rubio also trails Christie. Ryan's been on the national stage and he trails Clinton.

I don't think Ryan really has a chance anyway. Also, is 2k people really that definitive of a poll? I don't really know, but it seems like a pretty small amount of people to try and pull from. I really am skeptical of a lot of polls in general - there are just so many ways to get results you want, it's hard for me to trust any of them.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I don't think Ryan really has a chance anyway. Also, is 2k people really that definitive of a poll? I don't really know, but it seems like a pretty small amount of people to try and pull from. I really am skeptical of a lot of polls in general - there are just so many ways to get results you want, it's hard for me to trust any of them.

Polls are pretty reliable in general.

I think 2k would be a good grab.

But it doesn't tell us anything about the election, just if the election were held today.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Polls are pretty reliable in general.

I think 2k would be a good grab.

But it doesn't tell us anything about the election, just if the election were held today.

I should probably trust them a bit more than I do. It just seems like so many questions revolve around it. How did you word the question, who exactly did you ask, what areas did you poll?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I should probably trust them a bit more than I do. It just seems like so many questions revolve around it. How did you word the question, who exactly did you ask, what areas did you poll?

This information is generally available in the methodology. Statistical significance is probably the biggest issue. I'd say that in bulk the polls are very reliable, each individually susceptible to anomalies and errors.

What this poll says really shouldn't surprise anyone in early 2013.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Row6

It did compare their pasts, and since neither accomplished anything grand after completing school except for being elected to office, what else would we compare them on?

Sound-bite-able-ness?

[fredsanford]

Obama won the last 2 elections largely on the public's disgust with GWB. Would the gop really give the Dems the ability to play this hand for a 3rd election?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Based on the GOP's recent incompetence ... I wouldn't wager against it.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Obama won the last 2 elections largely on the public's disgust with GWB. Would the gop really give the Dems the ability to play this hand for a 3rd election?

Much as I hate to admit it you are right, the name Bush will rally the opposition more than it will the supporters. Which is sad because I think Jeb would be a great president. He's smarter and more pragmatic than his brother. If it wasn't for the last name a lot of the Libs would find him tolerable due to the fact that he's stopped wearing contacts in favor of that squarish style of eyeglasses they love.

Look at him, he's like a fat Keith Olbermann.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I think it was pretty clear.

If you're attempting to quantify achievement and/or aptitude by the colleges each attended you're using a woefully flawed metric.

Not yo belabor a minor point with someone who misrepresents what I have already posted several times, but there are no other applicable measuring sticks beyond there careers as elected officials, achievements at the institutions they attended are noticeably different, and my comments were offered to counter someone else who tried to portray them as having reached similar levels of achievements. Obviously they haven't.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Same to you, Row. You've done nothing in this thread but demonstrate your fear of Rubio. It definitely doesn't qualify as "something meaningful" to say that Rubio is not a viable candidate because he won with 49% of the vote...in a three way race against a Democrat and a Conservative-oriented Independent. Like Bill Clinton did in 1996. In 1992 he only got 43%.

Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread, but I correctly noted that exit polling in 1992 clearly showed Perot voters as equally split between Clinton and Bush if Perot hadn't run. that's a fact. I also noted that if Meeks had dropped out it is exceedingly doubtful that Rubio would have picked up any of his votes. If you are confident about the chances of candidate who couldn't win a majority of votes in a record setting election for republican turn out, more power to you. Please, proceed.