Hillary Clinton-Elizabeth Warren Chemistry Absolutely Magnetic!

Yesterday’s political event of Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, a true “Swing State” and city, was one of the most exciting and magnetic political events in many years!

Warren was dynamic and sensational, and made one think that the nation might be ready for two women on the national ticket, a revolutionary development.

Imagine if, let’s say, Donald Trump selects New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to be his Vice Presidential running mate, what the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates would be like this fall!

Two dynamic, brilliant, intelligent women vs two narcissistic, egotistical bullies!

One is tempted to say: “Bring it on!”

14 comments on “Hillary Clinton-Elizabeth Warren Chemistry Absolutely Magnetic!

  1. Former Republican June 28, 2016 1:20 pm

    Re: What debates would be like if it were Trump/Christie vs. Clinton/Warren

    I had the same thought as well.

  2. Rustbelt Democrat June 28, 2016 1:38 pm

    If I ran the RNC I’d be more worried about Trump’s VP pick than the Dems.

  3. Southern Liberal June 29, 2016 7:48 am

    Hiring him has turned CNN into an utter disgrace, cesspool, you name it.

  4. D June 29, 2016 9:27 am

    Southern Liberal,

    If Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 United States presidential election, in a Democratic hold for the party to win a third consecutive cycle, then she will likely carry closer to 90 percent of those who voted the party nomination to Bernie Sanders.

    It is likely that self-identified Democrats will carry for a winner with 92 or 93 percent. (I’m guessing Donald Trump will lose and carry self-identified Republicans with about 88 percent of their vote.) So, in theory, Hillary primary voters would give Hillary about 97 percent of their vote while Bernie primary voters would give Hillary, say, 87 percent of their vote. (This would mean Donald Trump holding party support at about +76; Hillary at about +88.)

  5. Princess Leia June 29, 2016 9:31 am

    D – What would the percentages be factoring in Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party and Jill Stein (Green Party)?

  6. Former Republican June 29, 2016 9:53 am

    There’s a well-known phenomenon of semi-minor third parties doing far better in polls than they do on Election Day. People saying “a pox on both their houses” get in the booth and decide to vote strategically after all.

  7. D June 29, 2016 10:41 am

    Princess Leia writes,

    “D – What would the percentages be factoring in Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party and Jill Stein (Green Party)?”

    Here is what you should consider.

    In the last four elections, 2000 to 2012, the combined R-vs.-D votes were no less than 96.25 percent, in 2000, leaving just 3.75 combined percentage points for all candidates outside the two major political parties.

    • 2000: 96.25 percent (George W. Bush, R, 47.87 percent; Al Gore, D, 48.38 percent)

    • 2004: 99.00 percent (George W. Bush, R, 50.73 percent; John Kerry, D, 48.27 percent)

    • 2008: 98.58 percent (John McCain, R, 45.66 percent; Barack Obama, D, 52.92 percent)

    • 2012: 98.18 percent (Mitt Romney, R, 47.16 percent; Barack Obama, D, 51.02 percent)

    In the 1990s, Ross Perot received about 19 and then 8 percent national support.

    That meant that, in 1992, incumbent George Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton, who unseated Bush, combined for about 80.5 percent of the R-vs.-D vote. In 1996, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton combined for about 90 percent.

    So, how well do I think Gary Johnson will do. Well, I mentioned in another thread that when a third-party candidates has carried states (a la 1912, 1948, and 1968), he wins in ones that make him like an Alternative Republican or Alternative Democrat. Gary Johnson, the 29th Governor of New Mexico, elected in 1994 and 1998 as a Republican, who would carry as an Alternative Republican probably in single-digit electoral vote states which would reject Donald Trump: Utah has emerged, recently, and it votes somewhat like Wyoming and Idaho. So, I would say that Gary Johnson, if he has much more impact, would probably garner between 5 and 7 percent at best…and it’s doubtful he could even carry a single state. Jill Stein, from the Green Party, probably would top off at no more than 2 percent nationally. That is, in a good year for her.

    This would be Johnson and Stein garnering no more than 9 percent of the vote nationwide. (That would be, from about 130 million presidential votes cast, about 11.7 million between them.)

    From that, Hillary Clinton could still reach 50 percent (rather than, like her husband, win with a plurality of the U.S. Popular Vote). This would, in theory, leave it be as: Donald Trump, R, 38 percent; Hillary Clinton, D, 52 percent; Gary Johnson, L, 7 percent; Jill Stein, G, 2 percent. (Others: 1 percent.)

    I don’t think this will be the case.

    When looking at Donald Trump-vs.-Hillary Clinton, at the exit polls nationwide, look at who did better holding one’s party. That also tells you about who did better getting the other’s party as crossover voters. Following would be the independent vote. The first two go hand-in-hand. The independent vote is not as obvious. But, if Hillary Clinton is carrying same-party supporters by +10 (or so) better than Donald Trump, that takes care of the crossover voters question. With that level of a margin, just on that count, she would likely also prevail on the question of independents.

    I think we are in for a landslide presidential election for the Democratic Party.

  8. Ronald June 29, 2016 10:45 am

    D, as I have said many times before, you are extremely perceptive, and I totally agree with you!

  9. D June 29, 2016 2:51 pm

    Quoting the report whose link was provided by Former Republican:

    “According to Ballotpedia’s battleground poll, [Hillary] Clinton leads [Donald] Trump:

    • 51% to 37% in Florida
    • 45% to 41% in Iowa
    • 50% to 33% in Michigan
    • 48% to 38% in North Carolina
    • 46% to 37% in Ohio
    • 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
    • 45% to 38% in Virginia

    “[Hillary Clinton’s] leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.”

    The numbers, with some of the listed states, do not comport with what would actually happen if Hillary Clinton ends up winning the U.S. Popular Vote by, say, 11 percentage points. Iowa, for one, has a Democratic tilt built into its bellwether status. Iowa and New Mexico, a bellwether state which pretty much is dismissed as such (because of it provided more Democratic margins in 2008 and 2012 than states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), were the only two states which carried for popular-vote winners Al Gore and George W. Bush specifically in 2000 and 2004. (New Mexico is not even counted in this report. Notice that Colorado, which votes like Virginia, and moved to bellwether status is also not listed.)

    Taking these states, those specifically listed in the report, I would guess the following (keeping in mind an 11-point national margin of victory for Hillary Clinton):

    • U.S. Popular Vote: D+11 (Trump, 44 percent; Clinton, 55 percent) •
    • Florida: D+8 (Trump, 45 percent; Clinton, 53 percent)
    • Iowa: D+13 (Trump, 43 percent; Clinton, 56 percent)
    • Michigan: D+17 (Trump, 41 percent; Clinton, 58 percent)
    • North Carolina: D+6 (Trump, 46 percent; Clinton, 52 percent)
    • Ohio: D+10 (Trump, 44 percent; Clinton, 54 percent)
    • Pennsylvania: D+14 (Trump, 42 percent; Clinton, 56 percent)
    • Virginia: D+11 (Trump, 44 percent; Clinton, 55 percent)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.