2016 Official Polling Map Thread

[pbrower2a]

Alaska, PPP. Hillary Clinton would beat Sarah Palin (not shown), but lose by margins less than 8% against everyone else.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_AK_802.pdf


Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

-PPP's newest Georgia poll finds that Hillary Clinton would have a decent shot at winning the state if there was an election today. She leads Rand Paul, who's led our most recent national GOP polling, 48/43. She also has a 47/44 advantage on Paul Ryan, a 47/43 one on Newt Gingrich, and a 51/38 one over Sarah Palin. She ties Jeb Bush at 45, and the only Republican with an advantage over her is Chris Christie at 44/42. She could make Georgia a swing state in 2016.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/georgia-miscellany.html

.....

Georgia has been about R+7 in 2008 and R+11 in 2012; if it is at all close for the Republican then the Democrat is going to win 375 or so electoral votes and about 54% of the popular vote. A Democrat who wins Georgia is probably winning 56% of the popular vote and at least 400 electoral votes.

I notice that PPP isn't paying attention to Rubio anymore, but it is paying attention to Jeb Bush.

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Apparently the 'right' Democrat can win in Arkansas. Its incumbent Democratic Senator has a slight edge in a bid for re-election in 2014.  

It certainly was not Barack Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

although that is better than the voting result of 2012 (61-37 Romney over Obama).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton projected to defeat John McCain, so it may not be Arkansas that has changed politically since 2008. Barack Obama is a horrible match for Arkansas, and if he is no longer relevant to Arkansas in 2016 then Hillary Clinton could win.

Of course this pollster is new to me, so expect either confirmation or repudiation by someone else. Only two potential matchups are shown.

http://freebeacon.com/tom-cotton-in-dead-heat-with-mark-pryor-for-arkansas-senate/
Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.


[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

Apparently the 'right' Democrat can win in Arkansas. Its incumbent Democratic Senator has a slight edge in a bid for re-election in 2014.  

It certainly was not Barack Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

although that is better than the voting result of 2012 (61-37 Romney over Obama -- which is about what Reagan did to Mondale in 1984).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton projected to defeat John McCain, so it may not be Arkansas that has changed politically since 2008. Barack Obama is a horrible match for Arkansas, and if he is no longer relevant to Arkansas in 2016 then Hillary Clinton could win.

Of course this pollster is new to me, so expect either confirmation or repudiation by someone else. Only two potential matchups are shown.

http://freebeacon.com/tom-cotton-in-dead-heat-with-mark-pryor-for-arkansas-senate/
Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Apparently the 'right' Democrat can win in Arkansas. Its incumbent Democratic Senator has a slight edge in a bid for re-election in 2014.  

It certainly was not Barack Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

although that is better than the voting result of 2012 (61-37 Romney over Obama -- which is about what Reagan did to Mondale in 1984).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton projected to defeat John McCain, so it may not be Arkansas that has changed politically since 2008. Barack Obama is a horrible match for Arkansas, and if he is no longer relevant to Arkansas in 2016 then Hillary Clinton could win.

Of course this pollster is new to me, so expect either confirmation or repudiation by someone else. Only two potential matchups are shown.

(maps excised)

This is just laughable, it really is. Clinton winning Texas? Louisiana? Georgia? Arkansas? Kentucky? If this is anywhere near accurate where in for a seismic shift in election politics.

Seismic shift? It could be that Hillary Clinton is winning back the Clinton-but-not-Obama voters while keeping the Obama voters (which include some Obama-but-not-Clinton voters).

It could also be that the Republicans have some dreadful prospects seeming to lead have the lead for the Presidential nomination. If the Republicans have the right-wing version of George McGovern or Walter Mondale, then they can lose badly in 2016.

It could also be that many Americans remain uncomfortable with the concept of a black man as President of the United States.

It's also possible that people in the Mountain and Deep South will begin to recognize Hillary Clinton as a  d@mnyankee city-slicker who either never had (like Dukakis, Kerry, or Obama) any Southern roots or lost touch with them as did Al Gore.  But at that I am discussing things that have yet to happen.

[pbrower2a]

August 16-19, 2013
Survey of 721 Louisiana voters

Louisiana Survey Results (PPP)

Q4 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb
Bush, who would you vote for?

44% Hillary Clinton

44% Jeb Bush

12% Not sure

Q5
If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Chris
Christie, who would you vote for?

42% Hillary Clinton

41% Chris Christie

18% Not sure

Q6
If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?

44% Hillary Clinton

45% Rand Paul

11% Not sure

Q7
If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Paul
Ryan, who would you vote for?

44% Hillary Clinton

46% Paul Ryan

11% Not sure
.........................................................
Clinton vs. Christie

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_LA_821.pdf

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Fellow readers of this thread:

I am tempted to start a new thread on this line. I am not saying when, but before I do (with the suggestion that this thread be locked) I see some faults in this presentation.

First, pollsters seem to no longer take Marco Rubio seriously. I am tempted to drop maps involving him in favor of maps for Jeb Bush, whom pollsters are beginning to take seriously. I am satisfied that Marco Rubio has beyond all imaginable question shown that he is not Presidential material until at least 2020 -- if ever.

Second, I see a huge difference between being up 43-42 and being up 49-40, and this map coloring scheme makes no such distinction. If it can't show the difference between a six-point lead and a one-point lead with someone 'leading' with less than 50% of the vote, the map shows leads that mean practically nothing.  I'd like to show anyone with 40-49% support but less than a 4% margin (margin of error) with 30% saturation. Between 40% and 49% support, inclusively? Still 40% saturation. Between 50% and 54% support, inclusively?  Still 50% saturation. 

Third, I see few states that now seem likely to show a 70-30 preference for anyone. A 55% preference could be shown with a 70% saturation to signify that a state is likely out of reach because anyone with at least 55% support in a binary choice is up at least 10%. I could show 60% or higher support with 90% saturation because such shows a margin of at least 20%. 

[pbrower2a]

To show what the color scheme would look like:

White -- tie

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

 

This map signifies nothing except to show a color scheme.

[pbrower2a]

Looking ahead to the 2016 presidential campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to be the apple of Virginia voters' eyes, leading New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 46 - 37 percent, compared to 45 - 40 percent when Quinnipiac University asked that question in July.

Christie continues to lead Vice President Joseph Biden, 44 - 37 percent today compared to 46 - 38 percent last month.

Clinton crushes Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas 53 - 34 percent. Biden tops Cruz 47 - 37 percent.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1940

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Ohio, PPP:

Clinton 50%
Bush 36%

Clinton 45%
Christie 36%

Clinton 53%
Kasich 35%

Clinton 51%
Paul 36%

Clinton 52%
Ryan 36%


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/ohioans-skeptical-about-kasich-2016-and-more.html#more

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

Purpose:

Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton

Starting with Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Virginia, and Wyoming:

I will let someone else make the decision to merge this map with the others, perhaps replacing the maps involving Rubio with this one if such seems a good idea. After all, nobody seems to be paying any chances of Marco Rubio to be the next President anymore.

[pbrower2a]

With the color scheme suggested a few posts above:

White -- tie

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton

Starting with Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Virginia, and Wyoming:

[pbrower2a]

With the color scheme suggested a few posts above:

White -- tie

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton

Starting with Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Virginia, and Wyoming:

Contrast the old pattern:

 


I don't have enough data points to show a 46-43 split here, but as you can see I have a sharp contrast between someone up with 50% or more and someone up with under 50%. The justification for a 60% saturation is that the legal difference between winning 50% +1 and slightly less is significant in some places -- and because someone behind 52-47 must pull votes away from the one up 52-47 while the one down 47-45 can still win by picking up undecided votes. 

[pbrower2a]

Here is Christie for a contrast between the two patterns. The old way:

Clinton vs. Christie

White indicates a tie.

And my proposal:

White -- tie

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Clinton vs. Christie

Polls go back at least to March with Clinton vs. Christie, but you can see more contrast in color (even if I show no state giving 60% to anyone). We can easily see that the weak leads of Clinton in Arkansas and Louisiana or of Christie in Colorado (which I have cause to doubt) and Georgia aren't worth much. Clinton leads in the northeastern quadrant of the US  (except in New York and New Jersey) are not as imposing, but cutting into those will be difficult.

[pbrower2a]

Should we abandon all depictions of how Rubio would do in favor of Jeb Bush?

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton seems to offer the prospect of winning in part on nostalgia for Bill Clinton while keeping Obama support intact. We have yet to see patters for New England (35 EV) and California (55 EV), and once PPP releases binary matchups between Hillary Clinton and prospective R pols, we will have some questions answered. Arizona, Indiana, and Missouri (which together contain 32 electoral votes)  will be interesting if and when polled.

A Hillary Clinton win now looks like a huge Democratic win with a huge reduction in regional polarization of the electorate.

[pbrower2a]

Merging in Jeb Bush; removing Marco Rubio

I anticipate binary matchups from PPP in Maine.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

Purple poll, Virginia.

Clinton 42, Christie 40
Clinton 48, Paul 41

http://www.purplestrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/September2013VAPoll_V5.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PurplePoll+VA+September&utm_content=PurplePoll+VA+September+CID_9ce890956460af89c13b0c312ffbee86&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Click%20here%20to%20see%20the%20full%20poll%20including%20the%20Purple%20analysis%20and%20crosstabs



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

The fact that Hillary only needs the West coast in most of these maps to get over 270 is telling.

That is how things looked for Democrats in 2008 on Election night. In 2012 President Obama was ahead in four states that could decide the election and was close in another such state (North Carolina) as the networks called the West Coast states. The count made Ohio unwinnable for Romney just after 11PM eastern time.

 

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul (new style)

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Old way:

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

The new way, I believe, shows the difference between an overwhelming lead (let us say between  57-42), a strong one (52-47), a significant one short of 50% (49-42),  an insignificant one (48-45 or 43-42).

The new one involving a narrow Clinton lead over Christie in  Virginia:

 

   

[pbrower2a]

Margin-sensitive polling maps


The new way, I believe, shows the difference between an overwhelming lead (let us say between  57-42), a strong one (52-47), a significant one short of 50% (49-42),  an insignificant one (48-45 or 43-42).



blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


 

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Paul Ryan

[pbrower2a]

I am going with the margin-sensitive polling map, and I may do no maintenance on the 'classic' maps.  As I say, there's a huge difference between being up 57-41 and being up 51-48 that does not show with the 50% red saturation that fails to distinguish 50% and 59%.  At or above 50%, the nominee cannot win by picking up the undecided vote alone; the lagger must pick up support from those then likely to vote for the leader. Even at 49% support the leader can lose by losing all of the undecided  to the lagger even if such seems unlikely. (In my experience, the undecided tend to drift ineffectively and inadequately toward the eventual loser except during late-season collapses).

Having a lead of 3% and less than 50% is meaningless in predicting how that state is going, although patterns may show. For example, if Hillary Clinton is down by 6% to Chris Christie in Indiana (I chose Indiana as an example because I expect no Indiana polls for a very long time), then Christie is in trouble. After all, Democrats usually win the Presidency when Indiana is down 10% or less because Indiana is usually about R+12. Besides, if the Democratic nominee is down by that little in Indiana, he is probably ahead in a state like Florida, Ohio, or Virginia that is more D than Indiana that the Republicans cannot afford to lose.

Example: Carter lost the state by 7.6% in 1976 and barely got elected (2% in the popular vote). He lost it by 18.3% in 1980 and lost nationwide in the biggest blowout win for a challenger since FDR defeated Hoover in 1932.         

[pbrower2a]

Margin-sensitive polling maps

PPP, New Hampshire -- only four electoral votes, but it could have won the 2000 election for Al Gore by itself.

When it comes to the general election Hillary Clinton leads all the Republicans in head to heads. There's two pretty clear tiers of competitiveness: Chris Christie and everyone else. Christie comes within 4 points of Clinton, trailing 43/39. Everyone else we tested trails her by somewhere in the 8-12 point range: 50/42 against Ayotte, 49/40 against Bush, 50/41 against Ryan, 51/41 against Paul, and 50/38 against Cruz. - See more at: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/clinton-leads-dems-paul-and-christie-tops-among-republicans-in-nh.html#more


This way, I believe, shows the difference between an overwhelming lead (let us say between  57-42), a strong one (52-47), a significant one short of 50% (49-42),  an insignificant one (48-45 or 43-42).



blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


 

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Paul Ryan

As you can see (and the map shows it) Christie would have a significant chance to win New Hampshire, Jeb Bush practically none... and neither Paul nor Ryan has a chance in New Hampshire.

[pbrower2a]

PPP, Wisconsin

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/ryan-fares-stronger-than-walker-for-2016-in-wisconsin.html#more

Comment: Wisconsin may be drifting right. Ryan, without a Favorite Son advantage would lose Wisconsin... but he would lose enough genuine swing states to make Wisconsin irrelevant.  

But not a sampling based upon the 2012 vote for President:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current poll is of likely voters in midterm elections, obviously a more pressing concern in Wisconsin, as a Governorship and an open Senate seat will then be decided. In 2016 you can probably add four points to these polls for Clinton in the general election and take one away from each Republican as a potential nominee. 

.....

This way, I believe, shows the difference between an overwhelming lead (let us say  57-42), a strong one (52-47), a significant one short of 50% (49-42),  an insignificant one (48-45 or 43-42).


blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


 

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Paul Ryan

[pbrower2a]

Do you remember when West Virginia went for Democratic nominees for President except during Republican landslides like 1972 and 1984? Me too. It's not going to bounce back enough for Hillary Clinton.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_WV_925.pdf

I'm not showing Ted Cruz.


blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


 

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Paul Ryan