Shock 2016 poll: Hillary would win Texas

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
  • Marco Rubio (R) 45%
  • Not sure 8%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
  • Chris Christie (R) 43%
  • Not sure 12%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 50%
  • Rick Perry (R) 42%
  • Not sure 8%
Among Men
  • Marco Rubio (R) 51%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 40%
  • Not sure 8%
  • Chris Christie (R) 48%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 41%
  • Not sure 12%
  • Rick Perry (R) 47%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
  • Not sure 8%

Among Women

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
  • Marco Rubio (R) 41%
  • Not sure 9%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
  • Chris Christie (R) 40%
  • Not sure 13%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 54%
  • Rick Perry (R) 38%
  • Not sure 7%

Survey of 500 Texas voters was conducted January 24-27, 2013. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Party ID: 43% Republican; 32% Democrat; 25% Independent/Other.  Political ideology: 30% Moderate; 25% Very conservative; 22% Somewhat conservative; 15%Somewhat liberal; 8% Very liberal.

Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Will Hillary Challenge Obama in 2012?

No. and Hotair explains why:

“Absolutely no interest” in running again, she says, which in fairness is the same answer she gave back in October. Ace is skeptical about her denials, but come on: How exactly is Her Majesty going to reposition herself to Obama’s left in time for 2012? Between her hawkishness and her marriage to the man who Betrayed The Cause by governing from the center after his own health-care implosion, her liberal cred is shot. Remember, the nutroots treated her as more or less a de facto Republican during the primaries. Plus, if she challenged The One, all the nastiness — racial and otherwise — that was dredged up in “Game Change” about her campaign’s tactics would be revisited. And if she lost again, which she almost certainly would, she could be staring at so many burned bridges that a run in 2016 would be impossible. Besides, given the “dark valley” of unemployment that Democrats will be forced to defend in 2012, why would she even want the nomination? Having beaten Obama in the primary by painting herself as the “true liberal” in the race, she’d be a sitting duck in the general when the GOP inevitably ran to the center. It ain’t happening. Although it would be awesome if it did!

“Palin / Hillary” open up SNL

The cast of Baby Momma reunited on Saturday Night Live last night, except this time to do something funny and entertaining that people would want to watch! Tinay Fey portrayed Palin as clueless and Amy Poeler, reprising her Hillary Clinton impression, was the stiff passive/aggressive “shrew, harpy … boner shrinker” we all have enjoyed previously.

Palins response? The NY Times says that on Sunday, a campaign adviser confirmed that she had, indeed, watched the skit from her screen at the front of the plane she was traveling in and told the Times in an email response that “She thought it was quite funny,” “especially because the governor has dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.”

Are the attacks on Palin likely to subside and rest her in the comfortable perch Joe Biden has enjoyed? We don’t think it’s likely, but Penwellblogs has this analysis:

I have a feeling, however, that attacks on Sarah Palin from the national press are going to start dwindling out, particularly if the McCain-Palin ticket keeps rising in the polls. Folks in the press aren’t stupid, really (just STOP that now!). They know that if McCain wins, they’ll need access to Palin for their stories after 4 Nov.

I’m guessing that Palin’s people are keeping score; she’s flexing that velvet-gloved mailed fist, and the worst offenders in the media risk getting themselves frozen out — at least for a time — if Palin takes office as vice president.

No one in the national press wants to be in Vice President Palin’s doghouse for long. Those folks will watch the polls and keep their fingers in the wind; if they see the Obama-Biden ticket on a long downward slide, then almost overnight look to see the national press as Palin’s best friends.

Biden: Hillary might have been a better choice for VP, is qualified to be president now

“There’s praising a colleague effusively. And then, there’s going so far that the praise diminishes yourself.” notes the Boston Globe, in response to the fact that at a town hall in Nashua, N.H., this afternoon, Senator Joe Biden seemed to veer off into the latter when talking about Hillary Clinton, whom many of her supporters wanted Barack Obama to pick as his running mate instead of Biden.

It’s a curious statement for him to make considering that during the primaries he repeatedly alleged that Obama wasn’t qualified to be president.

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden replied, standing before a crowd at a Nashua rally. “Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

The clip left blogger Allahpundit to quip And so, with this, the number of Americans who don’t think Hillary would have been a smarter pick stands at one.

He goes on to ask the following questions:

Serious question: If Palin aces the Charlie Gibson interview and McCain bounces out to, say, an eight-point lead, does Obama decide that Biden needs to spend more time with his family, swap in Her Majesty, and launch the gender politics clusterfark to end all clusterfarks? It’d have to be done before the VP debate on October 2; they wouldn’t want to miss the chance to draw the contrast with Palin and cement the substitution in the public’s mind by not having her in place already for an event as high profile as that.

Even more serious question: If Obama’s imploding, why would Hillary agree to come aboard? Better to let McCain finish him off and then skip to the nomination in 2012.

Still more serious question: If McCain had chosen Palin before Obama picked his own VP, is there any doubt who the choice would have been? A

nd the most serious question of all: What is this tool doing telling audiences Obama should have gone with Hillary? Is there any conceivable strategy behind that? A feeble ploy for the PUMAs, maybe, or just Biden being Biden?