CNN Poll: Clinton (54%)/Trump (41%)

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

via CNN

Indianapolis (CNN) - As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July.

Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would

Almost 9 out of 10 voters in the poll called the economy extremely or very important to their vote for president, outranking any other issue tested in the poll.

Clinton has the edge on a range of other issues. She is more trusted than Trump on terrorism (50% Clinton to 45% Trump), immigration (51% to 44%), health care (55% to 39%), the income gap (54% to 37%), foreign policy (61% to 36%), education (61% to 34%) and climate change (63% to 30%).

Overall, voters are evenly split on their opinion of Clinton -- 49% see her favorably and the same share unfavorably. But a decidedly larger group (56%) see Trump unfavorably than see him favorably (41%).

________________________________________________________

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the 45th president of the United States...Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-general-election/index.html

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Well polls aren't always accurate but this is comforting.

Although I wonder if Bernie and Trump are going to forge an unholy alliance to take down Clinton somehow. Like Bernie won't target Trump at all til the conventions or something.

I wouldn't put it beneath either of them. It's a good thing there's not much ammo on Hillary that isn't out there already. What sucks is that she can't fight back Sanders because she needs his base. Trump on the other hand is fair game  ...

I know a few Republicans who are going to vote for Hillary so I hope that applies more generally. 

[RAMROD 117,068]

The Republicans are walking out on Trump is also the same problem that Hillary will face.

I don't see her as the lesser of two evils; at least Trump as a figure is so exaggerated,

it is easy to explain why he is a bad choice and why we should mobilize against him.

She is her own type of evil, one that plays over many years and behind closed doors.

At least I can say she is not openly advocating racism and xenophobia.

I'd rather award the title of "First Female President" to someone who isn't a complete slime ball.

She's the walking definition of corporate interests, 

and even if Americans aren't able to verbalize this they can see it. We all see it.

I've lost track of how many examples I've seen on social media of people catching Hillary in a trap of her own words.

 

Mark my words if she is chosen as the nominee,

there will be an exodus of people leaving the DNC (most only joined to vote Sanders anyway, #BernBitchBern)

for an independent party or to perhaps be apathetic about the whole election process, myself included.

It's a real problem when 1/3 of your base threatens to walk out on you. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Too early for this. 

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

15 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

The Republicans are walking out on Trump is also the same problem that Hillary will face.

I don't see her as the lesser of two evils; at least Trump as a figure is so exaggerated,

it is easy to explain why he is a bad choice and why we should mobilize against him.

She is her own type of evil, one that plays over many years and behind closed doors.

At least I can say she is not openly advocating racism and xenophobia.

I'd rather award the title of "First Female President" to someone who isn't a complete slime ball.

She's the walking definition of corporate interests, 

and even if Americans aren't able to verbalize this they can see it. We all see it.

I've lost track of how many examples I've seen on social media of people catching Hillary in a trap of her own words.

 

Mark my words if she is chosen as the nominee,

there will be an exodus of people leaving the DNC (most only joined to vote Sanders anyway, #BernBitchBern)

for an independent party or to perhaps be apathetic about the whole election process, myself included.

It's a real problem when 1/3 of your base threatens to walk out on you. 

Hardly, the party has great support for her as shown in her getting nearly all the super delegates. People are behind her as she is winning the pledged delegates as well. What you're saying is simply not true.

[Bebe 17,289]

17 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well polls aren't always accurate but this is comforting.

Although I wonder if Bernie and Trump are going to forge an unholy alliance to take down Clinton somehow. Like Bernie won't target Trump at all til the conventions or something.

I wouldn't put it beneath either of them. It's a good thing there's not much ammo on Hillary that isn't out there already. What sucks is that she can't fight back Sanders because she needs his base. Trump on the other hand is fair game  ...

I know a few Republicans who are going to vote for Hillary so I hope that applies more generally. 

You have been fed way too much anti-Bernie propaganda if you really believe this.

Sanders has repeatedly attacked Trump, saying he is "Dangerous" a "Pathological Liar" and divisive. He has said Trump  is "Literally inciting violence with his supporters" has said that Trump's numerous offensive, divisive and violent statements are an outrage that is "not acceptable in the American political process.” Bernie has said "people like Trump are using racism as a way to attract votes" and has said his remarks are "totally objectionable and racist".

And that's only the tip of the iceburg. Bernie has been very against Trump from very early on in this race....

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Bebe said:

You have been fed way too much anti-Bernie propaganda if you really believe this.

Haha no I'm just being a drama queen.  

Although Trump has admitted to wanting to focus on Hillary only now. Bernie has been negative on her for a while. Her fighting a two front battle is still a major concern.

[Economy 52,858]

30 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well polls aren't always accurate but this is comforting.

Although I wonder if Bernie and Trump are going to forge an unholy alliance to take down Clinton somehow. Like Bernie won't target Trump at all til the conventions or something.

I wouldn't put it beneath either of them. It's a good thing there's not much ammo on Hillary that isn't out there already. What sucks is that she can't fight back Sanders because she needs his base. Trump on the other hand is fair game  ...

I know a few Republicans who are going to vote for Hillary so I hope that applies more generally. 

Hilary is more right winged than many Democrats in some aspects making her more attractive to Republican supporters than say Barrack Obama

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Hilary is more right winged than many Democrats in some aspects making her more attractive to Republican supporters than say Barrack Obama

This is a inaccurate.

She is far to the left as any other typical Democrat there is on all issues, except on foreign policy and matters of national defense. In fact she's the 11th most liberal in terms of record.

Obama was far more moderate in terms of individual rights and domestic issues and is as right as she is when it comes to foreign policy and national defense.

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/1-40/Barack-Obama-vs-Hillary-Clinton

So no..Obama was more attractive than Hillary...presumably.

[Economy 52,858]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This is a inaccurate.

She is as left as any other Democrat there is, except on foreign policy and matters of national defense.

 

 

I know she changed her mind on some stuff recently...

 

But she used to support oil pipelines and "clean coal technologies" (which is cheaper but not as helpful to environment as green energy) etc. Most democrats did not

 

She only changed her stances after starting to run which suggests shes only saying these things because of politics and for the sake of winning the base of the party

 

She was also against Same-Sex marriage till a few years ago, changing her mind later than most democrats

 

Before she ran and showed her true colors better, she was clearly more right winged than a typical democrat

 

If she gets elected and needs to play less BS games to get elected, you will end up with a more right Winged President than Obama (though not as right winged as Republicans)

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Economy said:

I know she changed her mind on some stuff recently...

 

But she used to support oil pipelines and "clean coal technologies" (which is cheaper but not as helpful to environment as green energy) etc. Most democrats did not

 

She only changed her stances after starting to run which suggests shes only saying these things because of politics and for the sake of winning the base of the party

 

She was also against Same-Sex marriage till a few years ago, changing her mind later than most democrats

 

Before she ran and showed her true colors better, she was clearly more right winged than a typical democrat

 

If she gets elected and needs to play less BS games to get elected, you will end up with a more right Winged President than Obama (though not as right winged as Republicans)

Nothing against you personally but I've had to reply to this sort of response over a dozen times haha

Well democrats like to speak in ideals a lot. Hillary was concerned that a massive paradigm shift would hurt a lot of American jobs. She wanted to shift to cleaner energy. Upon learning new information regarding the dangers of fracking and such and of new technologies that are sustainable and can provide a significant workforce employment she switched.

The issue that many people fail to see is that Hillary's last public statements on policy were all the way back in 2007-2008 when running against Obama. She didn't even mention same-sex marriage an entire six years later in 2013. As I recall, Democrats were very much evenly split in their view of same-sex marriage back in 2007.

Six years is a very long time for you to re-evaluate your positions. Considering her employment as Secretary of State, it's clear that her experiences had an impact on what she stood for after having seen them first hand.

People like to mention her ties to Wall St. and other related matters, when there hasn't been a single instance of her exhibiting quid pro quo with them during her entire career. Even Sanders failed to provide one instance when questioned about it. This is nothing more than assumptions and propaganda.

Hillary was the 11th most liberal Senator during her tenure. Her actions as SoS were spurred by Obama, not her. I don't see any evidence of her being more right-winged than anyone. In fact the mere fact that she has been a powerful Democrat female has pissed off the GOP so much that she has had to spend decades brushing them off. 

I don't get why people try to use her policies against her. She's accommodated the needs of the people with her principles because she works hard to represent them. She evolves on acquiring new information, as do many Americans, and readjusts her position accordingly to where it may benefit the most. How is it bad for a politician to actively want to represent her people...all of them?

[Economy 52,858]

15 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Nothing against you personally but I've had to reply to this sort of response over a dozen times haha

Well democrats like to speak in ideals a lot. Hillary was concerned that a massive paradigm **** would hurt a lot of American jobs. She wanted to shift to cleaner energy. Upon learning new information regarding the dangers of fracking and such and of new technologies that are sustainable and can provide a significant workforce employment she switched.

The issue that many people fail to see is that Hillary's last public statements on policy were all the way back in 2007-2008 when running against Obama. She didn't even mention same-sex marriage an entire six years later in 2013. As I recall, Democrats were very much evenly split in their view of same-sex marriage back in 2007.

Six years is a very long time for you to re-evaluate your positions. Considering her employment as Secretary of State, it's clear that her experiences had an impact on what she stood for after having seen them first hand.

Hillary was the 11th most liberal Senator during her tenure. Her actions as SoS were spurred by Obama, not her. I don't see any evidence of her being more right-winged than anyone. In fact the mere fact that she has been a powerful Democrat female has pissed off the GOP so much that she has had to spend decades brushing them off. 

Well i suppose thats true. In 6 years u can change ur opinions a lot

 

personally my opinions in some stuff changed just in the last 2 years

 

I do wish she was like before on economy tho. Republicans are too right winged but i think some democrats are too left. Something in the middle will be perfect

 

these green transitions are expensive. And many green alternatives require subsities to survive and compete which means they are less efficient and thus an economic drain

 

Of course something has to done for environment and that will have costs. But some left winged people seem to wanna target everything at once which is just so costly. Strategectly targetting a few specific things at a time would be more realistic i think

 

anyway, in gettin off topic a bit