Clinton tops Christie, other GOP rivals in crucial Ohio

[highplainsdem]

Source: McClatchy via Sacramento Bee

Ohio doesn't look much like a swing state these days. A new Quinnipiac University poll, released Thursday, found former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton far ahead of her potential rivals for the presidency in 2016. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was thought to be the GOP's best chance, but Clinton tops him 49-36 percent, the poll found. That's a dramatic change from a November survey that had Clinton up by 1. Since then, Christie has become embroiled in controversy over lane closings last year at the George Washington Bridge. Clinton does well against all the potential rivals, including:

51 – 36 percent over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush;

50 – 36 percent over U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida;

51 – 38 percent over U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky;


-snip-

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/20/6174022/clinton-tops-christie-other-gop.html

---

From the Quinnipiac press release (which can be quoted at length, since it is a press release):

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/ohio/release-detail?ReleaseID=2010

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sweeps the 2016 presidential field in Ohio as New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie is stuck in traffic with other leading Republican contenders, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Secretary Clinton tops Gov. Christie 49 - 36 percent in an early look at the 2016 presidential race in this critical swing state. This compares to results of a November 27 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University showing Clinton at 42 percent, with Christie at 41 percent. The Democrat tops other possible Republican contenders:

51 - 36 percent over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush;
50 - 36 percent over U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida;
51 - 38 percent over U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky;
49 - 40 percent over U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin;
51 - 34 percent over U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas;
51 - 39 percent over Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Ohio voters say 55 - 39 percent that Clinton would make a good president. No Republican listed gets a positive score on this question, as even Gov. Kasich gets a negative 34 - 47 percent. Christie gets a big negative 31 - 48 percent, compared to a positive 44 - 32 percent November 27.

"The George Washington Bridge is not in Ohio, but voters there seem very aware of its traffic problems - and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's traffic problems," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "When Quinnipiac University asked Ohioans in November about Gov. Christie vs. Secretary Hillary Clinton in a 2016 White House race, the two were in a dead heat and voters thought he would make a good president. Today, she enjoys a comfortable double-digit lead and voters say Christie would not be a good president."

"Of Republicans tested, Wisconsin's Paul Ryan runs best in Ohio against the former Secretary of State and Gov. John Kasich runs relatively well. But Mrs. Clinton remains far and away the leader at this point in Ohio," Brown added.

The press release also has the results of their polling broken down by age, gender, and party affiliation.

[hrmjustin]

1. Glad to see those polls.

[riversedge]

2. Lovely #ReadyforHillary

[grahamhgreen]

3. Is she for or against chained-CPI?

[dotymed]

4. If Hillary is the best

we have....what's the point?

[Shemp Howard]

8. Here's the bottom line.

If a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, we'll have a president who will do the bidding of the corporations. More middle class jobs will be shipped overseas. Progressives will be angry.

But if a Hillary wins the presidency in 2016, we'll have a president who will do the bidding of the corporations. More middle class jobs will be shipped overseas. Progressives will be in denial.

See the difference?

[leftynyc]

15. Bunch of crap

Do you really think a pub and Hillary would put the same people on the Supreme Court? On any federal bench? These ridiculous posts about how Democrats and Republicans are the same is how we wound up with Pres Bush the younger. Stop making such a stupid comparison.

[Shemp Howard]

16. Please answer me this

Last October, Hillary Clinton made two speeches before Goldman Sachs. Her speaking fees are about $200,000 per speech. So she was paid roughly $400,000 for two speeches!

Why in the world do you think Goldman Sachs did that? Do you really think ANYBODY is worth $200,000 for a speech? No, that was a bribe: offered and accepted.

As for federal judge appointments, you are certainly correct. But I know many people who have lost good factory jobs because of NAFTA. They are now just barely scapping by on part-time jobs. They care more about feeding their families than who's on the 9th district court.

You tell me to "stop making such a stupid comparison." I will respectfully decline that well-meaning but incorrect advice.

Instead I will tell all progressives: stop settling for GOP-lite corporation candidates!

[leftynyc]

19. Supply/demand

It's a basic business thing. Obviously Goldman thinks she's worth it or they wouldn't have paid it. I will shout down anyone who tries to say both parties are the same because it's because of clowns like that we wound up with Bush. Now that I've answered your question, do the same and answer whether a Christie/Rubio/Bush would put the same people on the courts as Hillary Clinton (or any other Democrat would). Or do you not think the federal bench is more important that what Hillary makes in a speech?

[Shemp Howard]

21. But why the demand?

You said "obviously Goldman thinks she's worth it...". Well, sure. The big question is WHY Goldman thought she was worth it. Do you think that Hillary has some unique and valuable insight into how the stock market works? Or do you think it was more likely just a bribe?

As to the federal courts, as I said before, you are certainly correct. The difference between a Hillary apointment and a GOP appointment would be huge.

But there is more than just that. The mainsteam GOP loves to start wars. They just love it. Hillary would be much more likely to keep us out of such dangerous foolishness.

So you do have a point. And I actually think we are not that far apart. You are saying that Hillary would be a better choice vs. any GOP candidate. I have no argument with that.

What I'm saying is that Hillary should not even be under consideration during the primaries. She is firmly in the corporation's camp. We don't need any more NAFTA's. And we need to repeal the NAFTA already on the books. Hillary would certainly not do that.

[leftynyc]

22. She has a lot of support

More than the last time because many Democrats felt she handled her losing the race to be the nominee with a lot of grace. And then coming together to work with Pres Obama. I remember - right here at DU - plenty of screeds about how she'll split the party, she wont go without ruining the Democrats - it was a nightmare. I can't say I'll vote for whoever the candidate is but I will vote for Hillary over any Republican.

[Zambero]

17. Yup. Essentially Ralph Nader's mantra

The "real" progressives bought the same argument. The election was close enough to steal. Just look where it got us. Nothing beats setting civilization back a few decades, bringing the economy to the brink of collapse, keeping the war machine going, jeopardizing the future of the planet, and extending the longevity of a reactionary-dominated Supreme Court. I know I've missed a few. If anyone truly wishes to go through another divide and conquer exercise, just sit on your hands and watch the GOP gleefully take complete control of government at the local, state, and federal levels. Their current rhetoric will become their newfound reality. Not nice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Hmmmm. Sounds awafully familiar. "Gore=Bush"?

[FiveGoodMen]

23. Exactly!

[dotymed]

24. The same difference that we have had

for the last 30+ years....the letter behind their name. We need to change that starting with Bernie Sanders.

[LonePirate]

12. Hillary will sweep Democrats back into the House majority

No other Dem has that capability. A Democratic House under Clinton is far better than a Republican one under a different Dem president.

I fully understand (and agree to some extent) with the complaints against Hillary. However, the electoral landslide would generate, especially in Congress and maybe even some state legislatures, is more than enough reason for me to accept and support her candidacy.

[Zambero]

13. Sad to say, the best rarely if ever get nominated

Point is, one of the worst (from the list of potential GOP candidates noted in this article) will almost certainly become that party's nominee. The choice between Hillary and that person will not be a difficult one.

[JoePhilly]

18. Yea, we should just give up and stay home ... what's the point.

After all, limiting the voting rights of people who vote for democrats might not be enough to allow the GOP to gain ground or control the WH.

We should help them.

[Beacool]

5. Go, Hillary!!!

Just in case she does run.......

[DonViejo]

6. Whoever is the Dem nominee in 2016...

could guarantee Ohio isn't a swing state by selecting U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown as their running mate.

[leftyohiolib]

11. noooooooo dont take my senator he will be replaced by a republican

[Kingofalldems]

7. No way. Ted Cruz is officially King of the 3 Mountains.

God told Ted's father.

[leftyohiolib]

9. great another corporate-friendly rebublican-lite democrat

[Grins]

10. Who gives a shit?

Seriously; stop this shit. That election is more than two years off and neither Clinton nor Christie have announced they are running.

The next MAJOR election is the off-year election in November, nine short months off, one that is terribly critical, and one the Party should be focused on like a laser.

All they have to do is act like real Democrats and fight back. But, alas....

[cosmicone]

14. Gooooooooo Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[dotymed]

25. History has proven that "party first" is a terrible way to vote.

I want (and will hopefully vote for) a person who has proven themselves to be Progressive.