Editor’s Note: The purpose of this article is to highlight a fundamental flaw with the survey. Because of how the questions were asked, poll takers did not encourage respondents to consider all the variables in an election — only how things are at face value.
Hillary Clinton is, at the moment, the most viable female presidential candidate going into 2016. More than that, she is at the top of polls among any potential contender — Republican or Democrat — in the 2016 presidential race. As 77 percent of those who responded to Rasmussen’s telephone survey said there is some degree of likelihood that we will have a female president in the next decade, this would indicate that they would then agree that there is a likelihood that Hillary Clinton will be this president based on their response.
According to the report from Rasmussen, the number of people who believe there is some degree of likelihood that we will have a female president in the next decade has risen 17 percentage points from December 2006 when Clinton was considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Today, however, there are no candidates that can use political celebrity within the Democratic Party to challenge her and many Democrats are already getting behind her nomination.
The results of the Rasmussen poll also revealed that only 18 percent of survey takers believe it is unlikely that we will have a female president in the immediate future.
Consider the timing of the poll and the statistical probability of a president being re-elected to a second term. One question asked pertained to the likelihood of there being a female president within the next decade — 10 years from now being 2024. If the next president serves 2 terms, which the last 3 presidents did (or are currently), 2024 would be the final year of his or her second term. Therefore, either the questions in the survey are poorly constructed or an overwhelming majority of respondents would say it is likely we will inaugurate President Hillary Clinton in 2017.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
Hello folks. Just wanted to add a few more things, on the comments I made yesterday. Look up nathan deal, and FBI probe into his administration. The FBI, is looking into his campaign. Like I said yesterday, Nathan deal has been sued over, and over again. Please refer to the letter below.
Folks, I wanted to make another comment. I believe that the two most best people in the democrats, and GOP is Jeb bush, and hillary Clinton. These two have both worked together for years.
Folks, my state of Georgia is in huge trouble. I want to talk to Americans tonight about a situation my family is in. My name is Michael Kevin Hartley, and I was born in tifton ga. I am the man that's on the radio, all around the world. I am being tourchered every day, by a bug that's been put in my tooth, and placed on the nerve that connects to my brain. This bug can read my thoughts, and play everything that I have done in my life. I want to believe that these bugs, comes from the CIA, and the technology could scare people. For the last four years, this bug has been playing evil things.
Folks, have some more terrible news. Not only Has this happened to me, I believe it's happening to everybody who's last name is Hartley. I believe that this process with me, is only the start of something that could be criminal.
Folks, this same thing happened to another person in 1992. Her name was Amy Harper. They bugged her, and tourchered her as well. The govt, back then was the Clinton administration, and the Clinton's helped her, and took the bug out of her teeth. The Clinton's, and jeb bush, and George w. bush, declared war on people that did this to her. They sued, and brought to justice hundreds of people that did this to her. The federal govt declared war on people in the GOP. They found out, there were 5 to 30 people that were doing this. People like Nathan Deal, And lots with in the Georgia republican party were responsible. The intire clinton administration, and bush administration declared war on people that did this to her.
The Clinton's destroyed them for doing this. The Clinton administration found out, that not only did they do this to Amy Harper, they found out the law was moving to kill houndreds of Americans, how last name was Harper. The Clinton administration proved this was a real case, and the govt moved for the Harper family in tifton ga.
What the Clinton's found out, was that over 15 years, the govt was putting thousands of bugs in Harper homes, in case they started sueing. The govt wanted to say these people had criminal issues, and in return wanted to kill hundreds of harpers. Hillary Clinton, and jeb bush proved this, and move to destroy people that allowed this. Nathan Deal, the govoner of Georgia, was sue, and taken to jail. Over the 90s, the Clinton's administration took hundreds of people to jail. They also found out, there was one judge that would move like this, if the president was in it. Her name was Ellen keagan. The Clinton's moved fast, and put her in prison, destroyed her life. They found out these people like the harpers, and hartleys was used to destroy people in the govt. the more the looking into these people, they found out judges were moving like this, and lots of them had AIDs/ HIV, drugs, and these families moved one people like this.
Amy Harper, was the only one that was tortured for 2 years, and then come back and kill thousand of people who last name was harper. Amy Harper got the medal of honor, from the Clinton administration, and also is a millionaire, bill and Hillary Clinton. Jeb bush, and George and laurie bush.
Today, I am in the same situation, that y Harper is in. Today, just like the harpers, I believe hundreds of hartleys are in the same situation. Folks, for me to get out of this situation, it takes the president of america. The only ones that would move like this, is Hillary Clinton, and Jeb Bush. Please be praying for my family. It's going to take a miricle. Please vote in the next election. Kevin
Folks, we need our republican party back. This administration borrowed trillions, and trillions to fix our debt. I believe we have not seen good leadership sense Ronald Reagan. The mention of a govt runned health care system, would have destroyed democrats back then.
Folks, all the democrats blame the GOP for the war in Iraq. I believe the war was justifiable, and in years to come, more people will agree. Folks, we need hard core republicans back. People that are concerned for our country.
Folks what's at risk in the next few years, is our supreme court. Obama already pick two. We need hard core judges, that believe a sound justice system. Once again, I believe Ronald Reagan/George Bush, was the very best.
Folks, I only see a handful in present day, that's like the Reagan/bush administration. John McCain, Jeb Bush. These two could be the very best in the republican party. Once our country moves back to people like this, the Obama Biden ticket will fade out very fast. Remember, in 1986, Ronald Reagan took the electoral college at 435. Vote GOP. Steve
Hillary Clinton will be the next President, the best president after Predident Regean, we do need Hillary to run this country in an effective way.
The title of this article has nothing to do with the question asked in the Rasmussen poll. It is purely conjectural. Yes, Hillary Clinton could be our first woman president . She could use these results as part of her evaluation to run or not. However, if she does not run and win in 2016 at age 69, she will be too old to be a viable candidate at 77. By 2024 I assume there will be several women capable and electable. This poll is more a reading of changing social values. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is the very reason I hate poll questionnaires; I can't remember the last time I saw one which wasn't designed specifically for a desired conclusion. That aside, I personally can't see any advantage Clinton or Christie have over one another at this point.
Is it just me, or are we beginning presidential campaigns the day after a new president takes the oath of office?
I'm sure many a voter was thinking the same thing heading into the mid-term elections of President Bush's second term in office. How did that end up again? :-)
Polls like this are great to stir up political thought, but not for much else!
The timing of the poll should also be considered. Right now most people are comparing Hillary to Chris Christie. Right now, Chris Christie is in the midst of a scandal that's dominating the news cycle. This might lead 77% of Americans to the conclusion that, given Christie's unpopularity right now, people will vote for Hillary. If this poll was taken in the midst of the Benghazi scandal, the results might be different....
"I know what you’re thinking, why would this necessarily mean people think Hillary Clinton will be the next president?"
You read my mind...I see your reasoning, but disagree with it. I don't think that just because surveyors think that a woman will be president, that that woman will be Hillary and that she will win in 2016. She has a whole lotta fans who are adamantly behind her, but she is a polarizing political figure. She also has an equally fervent band of haters. Coupled with the fact that people are not happy with President Obama right now, I just think that there will be a lot of opposition.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, however, is that the 2016 election will be very ugly and negative. Which is a shame.
@DougGoodman I despise Hillary, but are you aware there will be an election in 2020?
Why are you assuming she can't run/win then?
@DougGoodmanI would encourage you to read the editor's note in the beginning. By 2024, we will certainly have many more viable female candidates, but that would not give us a female president within the next 10 years, which was the question. The point of the article was to point out a fundamental flaw with the survey.
@scpeacerOh, I agree. I think if it ends up being Christie versus Clinton then it will be a very close race.
@gberardelliI agree, Gene. My point with the article was to highlight a fundamental flaw with the survey. I inserted a disclaimer at the top to better communicate that, but at face value and using an intuitive leap if 77% said we will have a female president in the next 10 years then the same respondents would then have to agree that there is a likelihood that this president will be Hillary Clinton because of the fact that she is really the only viable female candidate at the moment and she tops popularity polls right now. The survey takers don't encourage voters to consider anything more than the question posed to them.
@JaneSusskind I'm more concerned about how ugly and negative the country is before/after.
I could give a damn about the campaigns.
I think Hillary Clinton is the best person for the democrats in 2016. I have always been a Hillary Clinton supporter. I also have voted republican, and also love jeb bush. I think the tickets all comes down to Hillary, and jeb bush. I love both of them, even though, the two are completely different. I would love to see jeb bush in 2016, but there is still lots of drama in the bush ticket because of George w bush, in reguard to the Iraq war, and how the economy went to shit under him. No dought the democrats will hammer him, for his brother. Most people that know jeb, knows he thinks completely different than his brother. If I had to predict the election in 2016, I would say Hillary will win big in the electoral collage. It all comes down to a fight in Ohio, and other states around that area. Most of those stated are Clinton states, or swing states. One thought to think about, is the general election. If Hillary looks good, I predict she will win; however, if she looks bad, jeb could pull these states as well. I predict Hillary Clinton to pull the electoral collage 290, to 309 at the best. I love both of them, and I think both will be great presidents. Kevin hartley
@NickWoodley @DougGoodman Nick, You are correct, there is an election in 2020. She will be 73. Not that age should enter in to it; I'm 65, but it does. Not making an assumption she couldn't run in 2020, but look at history. Very few presidents do not serve two terms. Truman served just under 8 years while running on his own once, Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson chose not to run, and Bush I lost. That's it going back to FDR, So odds are that whoever is elected in 2016 will be president through 2024.
@Shawn M Griffiths Definitely got your point, I was more making a little humor than anything else. But as far as "viable" female candidates, I would submit that Condoleeza Rice would be viable, as would Gov. Haley of SC on the other side of the aisle. But they are not in the 2016 sweepstakes
I would like to offer some advice. I think the best two in the democrats, and GOP, is Hillary, and jeb bush. These two have been around are govt for years. Folks, let's try to move beyond the Obama/Biden ticket. This ticket has done nothing but hurt us more. Trillions of money, we have borrowed to help jump start are govt. the Obama/ Biden ticket came so close to a govt runned health care system. Cash for clunckers.
I was one that bought into the democrats in 2009, now, I am worried that in the next few years, we will never see the GOP back in power. Folks, be careful who you vote for. We need are GOP back. There is only one democrat that I would support, maybe Hillary Clinton. The bush, then Clinton, then bush ticket was the very best during these years.
What's at stake in the next election, are supreme court. I believe three will go on the bench, in the next administration.
Folks, this administration borrowed trillions to fix our debt. Gays, and lesibien seem to Rome freely in this administration, and not one time have I heard Barack Obama say the word Jesus. Whats at risk in 2016, everything. We need our GOP back.
@Kevin Hartley I don't understand how anyone would like Jeb Bush and sorry but he is part of that nasty line of people who unfortunately waggled themselves into office. I'm a Republican and I wouldn't vote for another Bush if someone offered money. I'm really afraid he will end up the person that is chosen. I've had this fear for awhile. No more of the Bush family for me. As for Hillary, I think she has been bashed enough and blamed for things out of her control. She is the most experienced of them all and would have her husband who has been a good President at her side. I think this would be a good combination. We are one of few major western countries that hasn't had a woman running the country. I think it's her time and no one holds a candle to her even in my party except maybe Christie. He has a lot of good common sense and doesn't cater to party propaganda.
@NickWoodley @DougGoodmanMen are just so out of touch. I'm a Republican and what is representing themselves as such simply are NOT. Until they disengage from the Tea Party I will not vote for one of them except if Christi would run. He is more old school and that is what I would like to see coming back. Someone mentioned Reagan and he wasn't a very good President at all. The Democratic party is NOT socialist. They have always been behind the people whereas most Republicans now are behind what is best for big business and they don't see that those in the upper levels of society pay their fair share. Bush squandered a lot of money but Obama has had to spend to fix all the things Bush neglected like our infrastructure. He is being pushed to deport illegals while scolded for doing so by others, all of this very costly and limited by Congress. I don't know why most don't know what the GOP use to stand for. Here is an excerpt from a 1950s platform.
My How Times Have Changed!
"We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without
distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free
We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government. We shall continue our insistence on honesty as an indispensable requirement of public service. We shall continue to root out corruption whenever and wherever it appears.
We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people. "
-- Republican Party Platform of 1956
@Michael hartley And why should he say the word Jesus? He is not suppose to bring religion into anything and why that one sir? I would find it offensive myself if he had said anything like that. The man was married in a Christian church. Why people go on about religion is beyond me. The Constitution makes it very clear that no one running for President should be disregarded due to their religion. I'm not a Christian and I get really tired of hearing about it. I'm not Muslim either so I don't care to listen to all of that. Religion is a private thing and should be kept that way.