CO/IA/VA-Quinnipiac: Bush ties Clinton in VA; she leads everyone everywhere else

[IceSpear]

This poll seems to defy the CW in both ways: most people probably would've expected Hillary to be doing worse in IA/CO but better in VA.

[IceSpear]

Hillary has rather weak favorable ratings in all 3 states and she only leads Walker by 2 points in CO and 5 points in VA, despite Walker only having 40% name recognition in these states.

The problem with this argument is that it's not as if a bunch of Republicans are saying they support Hillary or are undecided. Despite half of Republicans not knowing who Walker is, he still wins them 88-2 in CO. Hillary leads among Dems 91-2, so essentially the same. The place where there's a lot of undecideds are independents.

[IceSpear]

But #muhdynasties will hurt Hillary just as much as it hurts Jeb!

[IceSpear]

But #muhdynasties will hurt Hillary just as much as it hurts Jeb!

If Walker is the nominee the dynasty thing will be used against her instead of being canceled out by Jeb.

It wouldn't be "cancelled out", because as the poll shows, it isn't a problem to begin with for Hillary. If Jeb is the nominee it will hurt him, if Jeb is not the nominee it will be irrelevant.

[IceSpear]

So much for all those maps showing Walker winning Iowa even in a Clinton victory scenario...

Those maps are based on some delusion that because Walker is from a neighboring state, that this gives him some sort of advantage in Iowa.

It doesn't. This argument is stupid, grounded nowhere in reality, and runs completely contrary to every past election result. Barack Obama was from a neighboring state, and performed one point better in Iowa than the national average--just like John Kerry before him, and Bill Clinton in 1996.

This "He's from Wisconsin, so he'll win Iowa!" line needs to die. Now.

Aside from Walker being from Wisconsin, there's also the fact that a) the state is overwhelmingly white. If the double down on whites strategy has any impact, Iowa would be ground zero for that. b) the fact that they elected Joni Ernst, and by quite a substantial margin. Granted, it was a midterm wave so turnout probably had a big impact there, but the fact that she won so comfortably gives me pause.

[IceSpear]

So much for all those maps showing Walker winning Iowa even in a Clinton victory scenario...

Those maps are based on some delusion that because Walker is from a neighboring state, that this gives him some sort of advantage in Iowa.

It doesn't. This argument is stupid, grounded nowhere in reality, and runs completely contrary to every past election result. Barack Obama was from a neighboring state, and performed one point better in Iowa than the national average--just like John Kerry before him, and Bill Clinton in 1996.

This "He's from Wisconsin, so he'll win Iowa!" line needs to die. Now.

Aside from Walker being from Wisconsin, there's also the fact that a) the state is overwhelmingly white. If the double down on whites strategy has any impact, Iowa would be ground zero for that. b) the fact that they elected Joni Ernst, and by quite a substantial margin. Granted, it was a midterm wave so turnout probably had a big impact there, but the fact that she won so comfortably gives me pause.

Republicans have been pandering to whites for decades, and Iowa is still voting at the national average, or one point to the left, in Presidential elections.

While Joni Ernst ran a pitch-perfect campaign, and Republicans did extremely well in the 2014 midterms, let us not forget that Bruce Braley proved to the world that he is a total jackass.

I wouldn't really say Ernst ran a perfect campaign. She made a bunch of wacky comments and gaffes, they just never stuck. But yeah, Braley being horrendous likely had a big impact as well.