Carly Fiorina now polling #2

[WanderingWinoZ]

Carly Fiorina surged to second place among the 16 GOP presidential hopefuls after Wednesday night's CNN debate and Donald Trump lost some support, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll.



Trump still tops the list of Republican candidates with support from 24% of likely GOP voters, but that's down 8 points since early September. Fiorina gained 12 points and has the backing of 15% of her party's voters - pushing her one point ahead of Ben Carson. Marco Rubio is in fourth place and Jeb Bush is in fifth.



The poll is based on telephone interviews conducted September 17-19.

[WanderingWinoZ]

Well, I guess she's really lucky that CNN changes their (rather silly) rules to let her in the debate...

[secretlyevil]

There may be some sanity left in the party after all.

[oscarnerdjulief]

This seems predictable after the performance in the first "undercard" debate. People are looking for someone new and different. None of the career politicians are sticking out or looking that attractive, except for maybe Rubio.

My husband had the opposite reaction to Carly in the second debate. He now can't stand her. If we're going to go with a businesswoman, I wish it weren't one who got fired. She had a pretty decent retort to it, though, early on when she talked about other people who got fired.

[msmerymac]

I think Trump brought this upon himself by going after her/his sexism, which means CNN gave her a lot of face time and ability to retort.

Of course, pair that with the fact that she's smart and a great public speaker...

She was also widely believed to have won the Fox kids' table debate, but of course, fewer people watched that than the main event.

[ttt]

I mean, it's not exactly a high bar to reach....

[Deleted]

I like her and she seems much saner than the men running for the GOP nom but she doesn't have any elected experience right? She ran for a senate seat and lost to B Boxer. So I can't imagine she'd do well up against Clinton with her years of Senate experience plus Sec of State.

[WanderingWinoZ]

That VP spot is looking more likely....
I think it would be a nice counter point to HRC on the Dem ticket

[heyjude]

I feel like this needs to be said over and over: presidential elections are not won on VPs. A woman as VP is not novel. If she is VP she will be the third woman as VP pick and the second in 8 years. It's not a "game changer" move.

She has no electoral votes.

She has no legislative experience.

She brings little to the table as VP.

She brings a lot to the table as POTUS though.

All this talk about her being VP sounds lazy and frankly sexist. If a man surged as much as she has we wouldn't be going, welp, sure looks like he might be VP!

Plus who would be the POTUS to her VP? Name me another viable candidate that is not Trump.

[heyjude]

Plus if HRC is the D POTUS Nom and CF is the R VP Nom I don't see this as a major counterpoint to the historical nature of HRCs run.

[Velar Fricative]

This doesn't surprise me. She toes the party line and doesn't come off as a fool when she speaks. I can see why people are impressed with her. I'm personally impressed with how she's come off so far but our political positions are night and day so she won't ever get my vote.

[omgzombies]

Sept 20, 2015 9:10:08 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I feel like this needs to be said over and over: presidential elections are not won on VPs. A woman as VP is not novel. If she is VP she will be the third woman as VP pick and the second in 8 years. It's not a "game changer" move.

She has no electoral votes.

She has no legislative experience.

She brings little to the table as VP.

She brings a lot to the table as POTUS though.

All this talk about her being VP sounds lazy and frankly sexist. If a man surged as much as she has we wouldn't be going, welp, sure looks like he might be VP!

Plus who would be the POTUS to her VP? Name me another viable candidate that is not Trump.

I think this talk of her in the VP slot is because many people find that the establishment of the GOP is sexist.  I also think it's likely that she'll end up in a VP slot, not because I doubt her ability, but because I doubt the GOPs ability to recognize her as a legitimate POTUS contender.  

[heyjude]

When I start repeating myself that's the time to step away. Bottom line: the Rs are not sexist to their own. They have no problem electing R women to high office. There is no evidence that this is not the case.

[MrsAxilla]

Good for her. Better than Carson any day

[chedifuen]

I don't think she's better than any of the fools running. She shares the same positions as Trump and Carson, she just doesn't come across as crazy. I think that actually makes her more frightening to me.

[eclaires]

I'm not surprised. Most everyone running is either totally uninspiring and boring or a pompous, offensive windbag.

There's a lot about her I don't like, and a lot she said I don't agree with, but I am not her target audience. However, she did an excellent job the other night and the package she is selling is light years more palatable than most of the other options.

It's been obvious for quite awhile that the GOP field was lacking - people who identify as R and/or dislike the Clintons are basically begging for someone they can support and actually be excited about. Fiorina may not excite anyone here, but to a group that is basically faced with Trump, Carson, or the same old same old White Guy, she's beyond refreshing and exciting. She can stand there, answer questions with R positions and not come off as a loon or lacking substance. She comes off as articulate and presidential, honestly.

I also don't think you can discount the fact that she's a woman - everyone knows HRC is running. The story surrounding HRC is that it's inevitable. From the demographics against the R party to the fact that the front runner is Trump and the primary so far has been a circus, there are plenty of people well aware that HRC going against a typical R male will be the war against women x eleventy. Inevitably they would say something ignorant, and at least with a woman at the top of the ticket, you head a portion of that criticism off at the pass even if her positions can be classified as anti woman. The Rs aren't stupid. They just play that on TV.

[hopecounts]

Sept 20, 2015 8:37:03 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

This concerned me:

The poll offered some good overall news for Republicans: 65% of GOP voters said they are either "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting in the 2016 presidential race, compared with 51% of Democrats.

www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/carly-fiorina-donald-trump-republican-2016-poll/index.html


Walker is also at under 1% now. He may be next to go before Rand.

I wouldn't be too concerned yet.
The election is a year away and the D nom is assumed to be set.
There is little to get the majority of Dem voters excited right now.
If post nom the Dems are still polling this way I'd worry but for now I don't think that number means much in terms of actual voter turn out/involvement

[gpw]

Sept 20, 2015 9:10:08 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I feel like this needs to be said over and over: presidential elections are not won on VPs. A woman as VP is not novel. If she is VP she will be the third woman as VP pick and the second in 8 years. It's not a "game changer" move.

She has no electoral votes.

She has no legislative experience.

She brings little to the table as VP.

She brings a lot to the table as POTUS though.

All this talk about her being VP sounds lazy and frankly sexist. If a man surged as much as she has we wouldn't be going, welp, sure looks like he might be VP!

Plus who would be the POTUS to her VP? Name me another viable candidate that is not Trump.

[saz]

Sept 20, 2015 11:00:25 GMT -5 eclaires said:

I'm not surprised. Most everyone running is either totally uninspiring and boring or a pompous, offensive windbag.

There's a lot about her I don't like, and a lot she said I don't agree with, but I am not her target audience. However, she did an excellent job the other night and the package she is selling is light years more palatable than most of the other options.

It's been obvious for quite awhile that the GOP field was lacking - people who identify as R and/or dislike the Clintons are basically begging for someone they can support and actually be excited about. Fiorina may not excite anyone here, but to a group that is basically faced with Trump, Carson, or the same old same old White Guy, she's beyond refreshing and exciting. She can stand there, answer questions with R positions and not come off as a loon or lacking substance. She comes off as articulate and presidential, honestly.

I also don't think you can discount the fact that she's a woman - everyone knows HRC is running. The story surrounding HRC is that it's inevitable. From the demographics against the R party to the fact that the front runner is Trump and the primary so far has been a circus, there are plenty of people well aware that HRC going against a typical R male will be the war against women x eleventy. Inevitably they would say something ignorant, and at least with a woman at the top of the ticket, you head a portion of that criticism off at the pass even if her positions can be classified as anti woman. The Rs aren't stupid. They just play that on TV.

Thinking about it being CF vs HRC is fascinating. I really am not comfortable with CF but I think she'd throw a wrench in HRC's plans.

[eclaires]

Sept 20, 2015 12:12:41 GMT -5 saz said:

Sept 20, 2015 11:00:25 GMT -5 eclaires said:

I'm not surprised. Most everyone running is either totally uninspiring and boring or a pompous, offensive windbag.

There's a lot about her I don't like, and a lot she said I don't agree with, but I am not her target audience. However, she did an excellent job the other night and the package she is selling is light years more palatable than most of the other options.

It's been obvious for quite awhile that the GOP field was lacking - people who identify as R and/or dislike the Clintons are basically begging for someone they can support and actually be excited about. Fiorina may not excite anyone here, but to a group that is basically faced with Trump, Carson, or the same old same old White Guy, she's beyond refreshing and exciting. She can stand there, answer questions with R positions and not come off as a loon or lacking substance. She comes off as articulate and presidential, honestly.

I also don't think you can discount the fact that she's a woman - everyone knows HRC is running. The story surrounding HRC is that it's inevitable. From the demographics against the R party to the fact that the front runner is Trump and the primary so far has been a circus, there are plenty of people well aware that HRC going against a typical R male will be the war against women x eleventy. Inevitably they would say something ignorant, and at least with a woman at the top of the ticket, you head a portion of that criticism off at the pass even if her positions can be classified as anti woman. The Rs aren't stupid. They just play that on TV.

Thinking about it being CF vs HRC is fascinating. I really am not comfortable with CF but I think she'd throw a wrench in HRC's plans.

This is exactly how I feel.

I think the GOP's biggest and easiest to exploit weak spots are their positions w/r/t women and minorities. They are consistently caught saying idiotic things and react horribly when called on it.

I think we all know that just because CF is a woman doesn't mean that these positions aren't problematic but the average voter may not. Or may dismiss it more easily. At the very least it could mitigate a tool in HRC's arsenal. Especially if CF manages articulate responses and doesn't stick her foot in her mouth.

[katfco]

Sept 20, 2015 8:44:07 GMT -5 CheeringCharm said:

I like her and she seems much saner than the men running for the GOP nom but she doesn't have any elected experience right? She ran for a senate seat and lost to B Boxer. So I can't imagine she'd do well up against Clinton with her years of Senate experience plus Sec of State.

do Trump or Carson have any elected experience? The top three are all without political experience.

[forreals]

Fiorina as the nominee seems very likely to me and, frankly, makes me nervous. She is a good debater.

[WanderingWinoZ]

Sept 20, 2015 14:18:48 GMT -5 forreals said:

She is a good debater.

well, if you don't have to say anything that's factual.

She just looked calm, cool, and well-spoken compared to the other baffoons on stage.

[saz]

Sept 20, 2015 14:03:09 GMT -5 katfco said:

Sept 20, 2015 8:44:07 GMT -5 CheeringCharm said:

I like her and she seems much saner than the men running for the GOP nom but she doesn't have any elected experience right? She ran for a senate seat and lost to B Boxer. So I can't imagine she'd do well up against Clinton with her years of Senate experience plus Sec of State.

do Trump or Carson have any elected experience? The top three are all without political experience.

No. It concerns me that the top three don't have any experience. I know being a "Washington outsider" is a plus for many people, but I think it's odd that the HIGHEST job in this country seems to be the only one where we value a lack of relevant experience. I'm not really thrilled with someone being elected who has such a massive learning curve.

[WanderingWinoZ]

FWIW- I see the odds of Carson or Trump actually getting the nomination very small.

[Deleted]

Sept 20, 2015 14:03:09 GMT -5 katfco said:

Sept 20, 2015 8:44:07 GMT -5 CheeringCharm said:

I like her and she seems much saner than the men running for the GOP nom but she doesn't have any elected experience right? She ran for a senate seat and lost to B Boxer. So I can't imagine she'd do well up against Clinton with her years of Senate experience plus Sec of State.

do Trump or Carson have any elected experience? The top three are all without political experience.

Trump is crazy and irrational. I think he will flame out before the primaries. Carson idk too much about. Do people generally think one needs legislative experience to be president? I remember one of the only complaints about Obama before he was elected was his relative lack of experience. I don't think running a company is really the same thing as running the country and trying to corral confess/pass legislation.

[forreals]

Sept 20, 2015 14:24:26 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

Sept 20, 2015 14:18:48 GMT -5 forreals said:

She is a good debater.

well, if you don't have to say anything that's factual.

She just looked calm, cool, and well-spoken compared to the other baffoons on stage.

Obviously. But the whole looking presidential thing is what lots of folks are tuning in for, as evidenced by her recent surge.

[ESF]

Sept 20, 2015 8:37:03 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

This concerned me:

The poll offered some good overall news for Republicans: 65% of GOP voters said they are either "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting in the 2016 presidential race, compared with 51% of Democrats.

This doesn't concern me. I'm not surprised that more Republicans want to vote; after 8 years of Bush, I was chomping at the bit to get to the polls too. The problem for the GOP is that demographics have changed since they last won the presidency, and they have a major electoral college problem right now, compounded by the fact that it's much harder to reach and mobilize rural voters to get them to the polls. So what really matters is, where are all these people located? Because if the Republican Party can't GOTV where it counts, it won't matter how many angry white men line up to vote in Oklahoma.

[ESF]

The more I think about it, the more I think Fiorina is going to be a tough sell in a general. Romney had a reasonably successful run as a governor in a progressive state, and he couldn't shake the baggage that he was an out of touch rich jerk. There is no way a woman who laid off 30,000 people, supports the H1B visa system, drove a company into the ground and got a fantastically rich through a multi-million dollar golden parachute is going to be the key to getting out the vote in Ohio. The GOP can run all the Beghazemail smear ads it wants, but at the end of the day, an enormous portion of the GOP base in the swing states are economically insecure families who don't give a shit about her Planned Parenthood lies.

[eclaires]

Sept 20, 2015 15:49:21 GMT -5 ESF said:

The more I think about it, the more I think Fiorina is going to be a tough sell in a general. Romney had a reasonably successful run as a governor in a progressive state, and he couldn't shake the baggage that he was an out of touch rich jerk. There is no way a woman who laid off 30,000 people, supports the H1B visa system, drove a company into the ground and got a fantastically rich through a multi-million dollar golden parachute is going to be the key to getting out the vote in Ohio. The GOP can run all the Beghazemail smear ads it wants, but at the end of the day, an enormous portion of the GOP base in the swing states are economically insecure families who don't give a shit about her Planned Parenthood lies.

I think at the end of the day, the real story, no matter the candidate, is always going to be the demographics and the electoral map.  I don't think there is an R candidate or an HRC negative that turns that particular tide.  

I think someone like CF (considering her debate performance) may give some Rs someone to be excited about and a few other things, but I think at best, it means it isn't a total massacre and just the swing states go blue vs. swing states + a few pick ups going blue.  Maybe the Rs get out the vote more or have some excitement surrounding the campaign instead of this current circus, but I don't think the ultimate outcome is different.