• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforehand?

L

LuddlyNeddite

Banned
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
61
Reaction score
8
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
 
The 2016 elections are no where near decided.
 
azgreg said:
The 2016 elections are no where near decided.
Click to expand...

Hillary has a FORTY EIGHT percent lead over all republican candidates COMBINED.

Yes, the 2016 elections are decided, and only a deeply deluded republican would fail to see that
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
Hillary has a FORTY EIGHT percent lead over all republican candidates COMBINED.

Yes, the 2016 elections are decided, and only a deeply deluded republican would fail to see that
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about her in 2008. How did her presidency go then?
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...


one egg, one chicken

two eggs, two chickens

three eggs, three chickens

etc, etc, etc
 
Frankly, it really doesn't matter who wins. Here is my prediction, the same prediction I've made for the last several decades, and I've NEVER been wrong:

Whoever becomes president, the size and cost of government will go up.

Why do otherwise intelligent people swoon and fawn so much over the president? Geez, he/she is just a politician, with a talent for winning these contests to draw votes. You'd think the prez was a god or something. Besides, the other branches of the federal government, and all the state and local governing bodies, also have a good bit of control over our lives and fortunes.
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally


early leads mean nothing.
 
Any idea what her major accomplishments in life are? What was her top 10 legislative triumphs as Senator? What was her top 5 international accomplishments? Is the world better off now? Why does she want to run? What does she hope to accomplish?
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

Has an election been decided?
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

If that's what the article said, or if that's what the poll underlying the article said, then I agree with you at least to the extent that Hillary would be sitting in the catbird seat.

But neither the article nor the poll say anything of the sort.

Here's a link to the actual raw results of the poll mentioned in the article:

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/sites/mediarelations.gwu.edu/files/GWBattlegroundPoll57-toplines.pdf

Scroll down to page 5.

You'll note that for Hillary Clinton 47% of likely voters polled would consider voting for her and and 51% would not consider voting for her.

Then look at Marco Rubio; 42% of likely voters polled would consider voting for him and and 50% would not consider voting for him.

If they were the two candidates it would be a pretty tight run race.

Clinton would get 47% of the voters right out the gate and Rubio would get 42%.

That's 89% of likely voters accounted for.

Let's next look at the voters who wouldn't consider voting for either candidate.

For Clinton, of those who wouldn't consider voting for her, only 7% would "somewhat" not consider her but 44% would "strongly" not consider her.

For Rubio, of those who wouldn't consider voting for him, 18% would "somewhat" not consider him but only 32% would "strongly" not consider him.

With Clinton, 80% of the people who don't like her really don't like her.

For Rubio only 60% of the people who don't like him really don't like him.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that, given only two candidates, each will pick up the votes of those who only somewhat dislike them.

Of the 11% of the vote that's still unaccounted for Rubio will get 40% of that (4.4%) and Clinton will pick up 20% (2.2%).

That puts Clinton at 49.2% and Rubio at 46.4% with 4.4% off voters still unaccounted for.

As you have to see by now, that does not, in any way, equate to a 48% Clinton lead over ALL likely Republican candidates.

And this is before things like actual campaigns, and investigations, and PACs, and debates, and GOTV drives, and the dispersion of the vote, and the electoral college come in to play.

Before any of those considerations, based solely on the raw numbers in this poll, and assuming all likely voters actually vote and the two candidates evenly split the 4.4% of voters we haven't yet accounts for, yes, Hillary wins.

But there's a big difference between being the frontrunner by 2.8% of the vote in a poll taken a year and a half before the election and being the shoe in you are assuming Clinton to be.
 
soot said:
If that's what the article said, or if that's what the poll underlying the article said, then I agree with you at least to the extent that Hillary would be sitting in the catbird seat.

But neither the article nor the poll say anything of the sort.

Here's a link to the actual raw results of the poll mentioned in the article:

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/sites/mediarelations.gwu.edu/files/GWBattlegroundPoll57-toplines.pdf

Scroll down to page 5.

You'll note that for Hillary Clinton 47% of likely voters polled would consider voting for her and and 51% would not consider voting for her.

Then look at Marco Rubio; 42% of likely voters polled would consider voting for him and and 50% would not consider voting for him.

If they were the two candidates it would be a pretty tight run race.

Clinton would get 47% of the voters right out the gate and Rubio would get 42%.

That's 89% of likely voters accounted for.

Let's next look at the voters who wouldn't consider voting for either candidate.

For Clinton, of those who wouldn't consider voting for her, only 7% would "somewhat" not consider her but 44% would "strongly" not consider her.

For Rubio, of those who wouldn't consider voting for him, 18% would "somewhat" not consider him but only 32% would "strongly" not consider him.

With Clinton, 80% of the people who don't like her really don't like her.

For Rubio only 60% of the people who don't like him really don't like him.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that, given only two candidates, each will pick up the votes of those who only somewhat dislike them.

Of the 11% of the vote that's still unaccounted for Rubio will get 40% of that (4.4%) and Clinton will pick up 20% (2.2%).

That puts Clinton at 49.2% and Rubio at 46.4% with 4.4% off voters still unaccounted for.

As you have to see by now, that does not, in any way, equate to a 48% Clinton lead over ALL likely Republican candidates.

And this is before things like actual campaigns, and investigations, and PACs, and debates, and GOTV drives, and the dispersion of the vote, and the electoral college come in to play.

Before any of those considerations, based solely on the raw numbers in this poll, and assuming all likely voters actually vote and the two candidates evenly split the 4.4% of voters we haven't yet accounts for, yes, Hillary wins.

But there's a big difference between being the frontrunner by 2.8% of the vote in a poll taken a year and a half before the election and being the shoe in you are assuming Clinton to be.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the OP with facts. It gets him all twitchy.
 
Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforehand?
Click to expand...

yes. it was abundantly clear that Mike Pence would be elected governor of Indiana several years before 2012. i was predicting it on another forum at least two years before i signed up here.
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but it seems to me Hillary was the favorite contender for the 2008 election...until some bozo named Obama came along and stole her thunder.
 
Hillary is defeated already, and the polls you're quoting are rigged and manipulated.

Any poll which lists ONE specific Republican against Hillary is a close election.

Any poll which asks for favored of a long list of Republicans vs Hillary, will naturally, since the country is roughly evenly split D-R, have Hillary above each of the Republicans, who split the Republican vote among them.

Hillary's baggage and corruption and just plain unlikability are her doom.

The real Democratic Candidate that Republicans should be worrying about is Jim Webb.

-
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
Hillary has a FORTY EIGHT percent lead over all republican candidates COMBINED.

Yes, the 2016 elections are decided, and only a deeply deluded republican would fail to see that
Click to expand...

A little math lesson for you. If Hillary has a 48% lead over all the present potential Republican candidates, then 52% of the electorate would vote for someone else. Hillary loses by 4%.

Throw in all possible factors, and the election is up for grabs at present. It is not even certain at this poinr that she will be the candidate.
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

Me thinks you need to brush up either your English and it's understanding, or your math.. ;)

She doesn't hold a 48 percent LEAD over anyone..


Tim-
 
jimbo said:
A little math lesson for you. If Hillary has a 48% lead over all the present potential Republican candidates, then 52% of the electorate would vote for someone else. Hillary loses by 4%.

Throw in all possible factors, and the election is up for grabs at present. It is not even certain at this poinr that she will be the candidate.
Click to expand...


Oops, sorry I posted without reading the whole thread. Seems you've corrected him. :)

Tim-
 
LuddlyNeddite said:
It's not a matter of if Hillary becomes president, but what her first act as President will be.

She has a 48 percent lead over ALL her republican challengers COMBINED. A FORTY EIGHT PERCENT LEAD!

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

To put that in perspective, Obama had about a five percent lead in October 2012.

So in the interest of knowledge, has any other US presidential election been decided two years beforehand, like the 2016 election will be?
Click to expand...

A 48 percent lead? Um, if that's what you got out of that article, you need a refresher course on politics. And reading. And math.
 
Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforeh...

Clinton has an early 6-8 point lead over Jeb Bush, who seems to poll better than the other candidates at the moment.

While it is indeed interesting that Clinton has done so well so early, we must remember that it is very early and primary season has yet to begin. Keep in mind as well that unlike the electoral college, these races are very frequently a battle between 45-51% finishes. They get a whole lot closer the closer to the finish line we are.
 
Re: Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforeh...

Let me refresh everybody's memory here:

This article says that Hillary Clinton has a 48 percent LEAD over all gop candidates combined.
Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

That doesn't mean she has 48 percent of the vote. She has a 48 percent LEAD

AKA, let's say she has 78 percent of the vote, and ALL HER OPPONENTS COMBINED have 30 percent

Does that change anybody's mind yet?
 
Re: Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforeh...

LuddlyNeddite said:
Let me refresh everybody's memory here:

This article says that Hillary Clinton has a 48 percent LEAD over all gop candidates combined.
Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

That doesn't mean she has 48 percent of the vote. She has a 48 percent LEAD

AKA, let's say she has 78 percent of the vote, and ALL HER OPPONENTS COMBINED have 30 percent

Does that change anybody's mind yet?
Click to expand...

Whatever. Doesn't change the fact of the matter that it's very early in the campaigning cycle, and even before the primary's started, so pretty meaningless at this point, really.
 
Re: Has there been another election in history that was decided two years beforeh...

eohrnberger said:
Whatever. Doesn't change the fact of the matter that it's very early in the campaigning cycle, and even before the primary's started, so pretty meaningless at this point, really.
Click to expand...

Let me make this clear again.

Poll shows Americans not impressed with 2016 contenders - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

Hillary has 78 percent of the vote right now. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN combined has 30 percent.

Get used to calling her "President Clinton" or "Madame President." Either one works
 
RealClearPolitics is very clear about the 48% number--that would be Clinton over Warren..
Bush leads Clinton by +1 in the latest poll shown.
Clinton leads Rubio by +4, Walker by +6, Carson by +6, Huck by +3, Cruz by +5, Kasich by +8, and Fiorina by +12.

RCP is easy to google and you know my word is true.
COMBINING the leads over 18 some candidates means she has an average lead of only +3 points--within the margin of error--debunking the OP. :lamo:lamo

This Nation is 47-47 with 6% in the middle who will make the difference again--along with which side mobilizes their voters better.
TD can tell you how low the voter turnout was in SOUTHERN Ohio, a stronghold for the GOP below the Mason-Dixon Line.
They had no interest in Romney and didn't trust him .

Thrilla said:
Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally


early leads mean nothing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom