Actually, she's completely trustworthy ... to be a corrupt, lying, thieving, self-serving democrat!
Posted on 06/17/2015 1:08:27 PM PDT by Zakeet
The majority of voters in three critical swing states do not view Hillary Clinton as trustworthy, according to a new poll released on Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll found that voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are skeptical of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s integrity by margins ranging from 8 percentage points to 14 percentage points.
Fifty-one percent of Florida respondents said they find Clinton untrustworthy; 43 percent said the opposite. In Ohio, 53 percent of voters said they believe Clinton is dishonest, and 40 percent did not. And in Pennsylvania, 54 percent said they do not see her as honest, compared with 40 percent who did.
Voters across all three states listed honesty and trustworthiness as their top issue among potential candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Actually, she's completely trustworthy ... to be a corrupt, lying, thieving, self-serving democrat!
...but they’ll vote for her just the same.
I live in Florida. Dems I know want someone else...
Would like to consider PA a swing state.
It has voted Dem in the last six presidential elections.
I would say the state is solidly blue in presidential elections.
However, often goes back to the GOP in midterm elections when demographics and turnout are more favorable to the GOP.
There’s hope for humanity. A glimmer, but nonetheless something.
She is completely trustworthy. I trust her to always do whatever it takes - lie, cheat or steal - to give herself power.
yes
I would not call any of the 3 swing states. not at this point.
In a close election, PA goes DEM and OH & FL go GOP. so their a other states that could go either way in an uncertain election. There are no swing states in an election that isn’t close.
my list of swing states and Obama margin
Colorado, 5.37%
New Hampshire, 5.58%
Iowa, 5.81%
Nevada, 6.68%
Wisconsin, 6.94%
if DEMS win them all, they’ve won. GOP needs one of them to win. And NH is only 4 EV
Ohio is a classic swing state. It has been on the winning side of presidential election since 1964. It voted for RN over JFK in 1960 putting it on the losing side of that election...but that election was stolen anyways by the Kennedys in Il and TX. FL too is usually a good bell weather.
The following 10 states decide presidential elections:
Three in the West: NV,NM, and CO.
Three in the Midwest: IA, OH, and IN.
Three in the South: VA,NC, and FL.
One in the Northeast: NH
The rest of the 40 states have pretty well established voting patterns in presidential elections for the last twenty years or so.
Hillary Clinton will lose Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas & Ohio, and with the loss of these states, she will be soundly defeated running for POTUS. She, with help from failed POTUS, Obama, will cause the Democrat Party, the worst political losses in the history of the party!!!
She’ll have to put a few dozen “framing” consultants on the team to deal with this little problem.
QUESTIONS? GO HERE FOR AS MUCH OF THEIR SORDID STORY AS COULD BE PUT INTO A 90 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mYW5nmS9ps
If link fails, go to YouTube and search Hillary Clinton Exposed.
I urge you to do so quickly. She had it banned in theaters and, now that she's running, it's just a matter of time before they lean on YouTube to chuck it down the Memory Hole!
yer living in the 1960’s ....
the working theory goes something like this:
If a POTUS election shifts such that it came down to one deciding state (like FLA in 2000 and OH in 2004) ... the one state is the pinnacle.
thus, ask yourself, in 2016, which states could be the pinnacle? not OH and not FLA. the country has shifted and OH and FLA cannot be the deciders. Not with the current paradigm. Obviously, anything can happen ... something peculiar. Walker could win Wisconsin and lose OH. but normally that scenario is out.
You are correct, Florida (which is certain to be carried by any Republican who’s winning nationwide), Ohio, and also VA are all to right of the line, we must win them all and would still narrowly lose (266) without 1 more state.
The candidates are, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin (especially with Walker), New Hampshire (though I’m not optimistic of winning that little *bitch), and maybe Nevada (and maybe NM with Martinez as the VP). Winning multiple of those (or taking PA which is also possible) would be necessary to overcome a loss in OH or VA.
I think Walker would win Wisconsin and Iowa.
Carrying the Romney states plus FL, OH and PA (without VA or any of the other swing states you mentioned) would be enough to get to 270 electoral votes (273 to be precise) and, in fact, had Romney done a bit better with working-class white Anglos he would have been elected with precisely those states and no othes. But only because PA’s Republican legislature did not switch from winner-takes-all to a CD method of allocation of EVs (like what ME and NE have); if PA gave each nominee 1 EV for every CD carried plus 1 EV to the stateside winner and 1 EV for the candidate with the most CDs carried (a tweak on the method used in ME and NE that would be advatageous to us in states in which we drew the CDs but the RATs usually carry statewide in presidential elections), Romney would have fallen short at 268 EVs (or 267 if his 0.1% victory in PA -08 was reversed in a recount). As I warned when many FReepers were saying that it was a no-brainer for the PA GOP to change its EV allocation method given how RATs tend to win statewide because of the Philly vote, it is perilous for PA (or any other state) to act alone on these matters, because it could have unintended consequences.
What I did support, and still do, is for a critical mass of states to change their EV allocation method simultaneously so that the GOP nominee gets a near-lock in the electoral College even if he does no better nationwide or state-by-state than Romney did. The bare minimum of states that we need to make the change (allocating 1 EV per CD carried plus 1 EV to the candidate with the most CDs carried and 1 EV for the statewide winner) to make it worthwhile is OH, PA, MI, WI, VA and FL, Had those states made the change for 2012, and assuming no change in the vote total (which is speculative, given that Obama’s team would change its turnout operations iand ad placements if those states weren’t winner-takes-all), then Romney would have been elected with 273 EVs (with only one of his EVs—the aforementioned PA-08—being a victory of less than 1%, making 272 the lowest number of EVs he would have had following any recounts). And if we could get a few additional states adopt such change (say, MN and NV), then NC could adopt the CD allocation method as well and the GOP presidential nominee would have a near-lock on 270 even if the RATs stole NC statewide.
Of course, not all of those states have full Republican control anymore, given that VA elected a RAT governor in 2013 (and RINOs prevented the state legislature from moving such a bill along when the party did have full control), so we won’t be able to adopt it for 2016. And to the extent that the recent redistricting cases result in map modifications where RAT CDs are “unpacked,” it may reduce the number of CDs that the GOP presidential nominee will be expected to carry (although if SCOTUS rules in favor of the AZ legislature and strikes down voter-mandated redistricting commissions with no state legislative control, it may lead to FL being able to ignore that “fair districts” state constitutional amendment and draw a couple of additional GOP CDs). But this idea definitely is something that we should keep alive and be able to move quickly upon when the time is right.
I am adding to your theory.
Argument:
1. PA has shifted since 2008, somewhat permanently.
2. Perhaps it is demographic and/or related to coal.
3. This now makes PA a swing state and possibly decisive.
4. That allows us to move VA from a given GOP state, to a swing state.
I don’t know. It could be wishful thinking, but it is certainly above my current pay grade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.