VA-Quinnipiac: Hillary wins Virginia against Christie & Paul

[pbrower2a]

At this point Hillary seems to beat everyone in Virginia.

All in all I can now make a general assessment: Hillary Clinton probably wins much like Obama 2012 against Christie and has a landslide victory awaiting against Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and  Paul Ryan. Neither Paul, Rubio, nor Ryan is Presidential, and the polls consistently show this. 

Joe Biden probably loses to Christie. Biden has had plenty of chances to become President before 2008 and has come up short several times. The only way in which I see him being elected President in 2016 involves the Unthinkable.

I can't give many specifics on how Hillary Clinton does against such Favorite Sons as Perry, Santorum, or (Jeb) Bush. Hillary Clinton would probably do better against any of them than against against Chris Christie.

If Hillary Clinton can win Virginia, then Colorado, Florida, and Ohio don't matter.

[pbrower2a]

Based upon the latest polls:

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

All in all I can now make a general assessment: Hillary Clinton probably wins much like Obama 2012 against Christie and has a landslide victory awaiting against Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and  Paul Ryan. Neither Paul, Rubio, nor Ryan is Presidential, and the polls consistently show this. 

Christie only has ~70% name recognition, and is only losing to Clinton by 5.  If his name recognition matched hers, they'd probably be about even.  And of course, it's only July 2013.  How in the world can you judge "presidential material" just on the basis of being behind by double digits when you haven't yet run a campaign?

Chris Christie has good name recognition, and it is largely positive.

Before Quinnipiac showed the poll for Virginia, I figured that Christie had a chance to win 275 or so electoral votes (all states that went to Dubya in 2000 and 2004 except Nevada) with the nationwide image that he has. The Republican nominee will absolutely need to win all of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia to win election or pick off Pennsylvania as a substitute for a combination of states with about 20 electoral votes from the "must win" group. I see no indications (more precisely no polling results) for any core  Southern states (Texas and Virginia do not fit that description). Ohio is a tie, which one would expect in a very close Presidential race.   

Christie is not picking off Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

......................................

I see  fewer polls involving Clinton vs. Paul, but the data looks bad for Paul. That he can't win  any of Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina, or Virginia suggests that he won't win Florida, either. Hillary Clinton wins everything that Obama won in 2012 and North Carolina... and at least two of Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri.

If the two are Indiana and Missouri, the result looks like

Clinton 368 - Ryan 170

which is charitable on my part.
.................................


Marco Rubio looks almost like a Goldwater-style disaster for the 2016 election. I have my caveat on Texas... but give Hillary Clinton everything that Obama won in 2008,  Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, and all five of the states that Bill Clinton won twice but Barack Obama lost by margins of 10% or more.

Clinton 472 - Rubio 66.

I just can't see what Rubio offers politically. He's been hyped to an inordinate degree, and he just hasn't lived up to his billing. Politically he is the equivalent of the hot-shot prospect who falls short of the average.

.......

Ryan? We have all seen him campaign in 2012 -- and he was awful. Does anyone think that he will be more adept in 2016? He demonstrates why active members of the House of Representatives make poor nominees for President and Vice-President.  Like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan he wins voters who would never vote for any Democrat under any circumstances.

   

[pbrower2a]

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

I think that's right.  Even if he could pick up New Hampshire its only 266:

Do you think it might be too early to predict an election more than three years from now? A lot of events and stories may come up about either candidate, the economy could change in either direction, or Obama's approval could plummet.

Freak events can happen. You could be right about scandals, diplomatic and military disasters, and economic collapse.

President Obama has had nothing go so right that it induces euphoric ratings of approval. He has also been extremely cautious. It could also be that after the roller-coaster ride of George W. Bush America isn't as capable of wild enthusiasm for anything.

The political parties have sorted themselves very clearly on ideology. There are practically no liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats left. What is as significant is that the States have largely sorted themselves out by political culture:

Energy Acres -- states in which fossil-fuel interests (coal, natural gas, petroleum) dominate statewide politics.

Energy interests are strongly right-wing on economic issues -- especially on the environment.

America's Ranchers -- ranchers are much more politically-conservative than farmers. That explains the difference between Minnesota and Iowa on the east and Nebraska and the Dakotas on the west.

North Dakota would have been in this group except for the boom in natural gas. NE-01 and NE-03 fit the pattern


The Mountain South. -- the Ozarks and Appalachians allow a xenophobic culture to flourish, and it is now arch-conservative. Kentucky and West Virginia would be here except for the domination of coal interests.  
 


"Mormon Country" -- Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho.  The powerful LDS Church is a state within a state, and that is able to cause a state with an ethnic mix similar to Minnesota, a very urban population to vote Republican. Of course if Republicans get unduly specific about favoring one form of Christianity over others to the detriment of Mormons, Mormons start voting heavily Democratic.

Polarized America -- these states are highly polarized on the basis of politics of ethnicity (Arizona) or race, and the white population dominates due to apparent solidarity on the matter. There are practically no liberal white people, and the issues are not a key industry.  In white.

"Urban Secular-Humanistan" -- states in which big-city politics utterly dominate statewide politics. Humanist ideas (where I get the name) are the local ideology. Even if people are devoutly religious their economics and social values fit secular-humanist ideology -- at least on the average.

Suburban Secular-Humanistan. Not quite as liberal as the core of "Urban Humanistan" -- on the whole they are less urban or more "Southern". I am coloring them

pink of they lean slightly Democratic
gray if they are America's three microcosms (Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia)
pale blue if they lean slightly Republican
    

[pbrower2a]

This poll is old now, but 45-40 for the candidate in the same party as the incumbent president is 50/50. Two-thirds of the undecided vote goes to the party not in control of the White House unless the incumbent president is running for re-election and has an approval rating over 50%. In the latter case, two-thirds of the undecided goes towards the incumbent.

That rule makes no sense except if either nominee is collapsing. Most likely I would expect the undecided to split ineffectively for whoever is behind at the moment.

Let us suppose that the incumbent Smith is down 40-49 in September. 40% of the vote is close to the uncritical core vote for candidates of either Party in most states. On the average  the electorate divides 50% D vs. R, so in that case Smith finds that most of the undecided votes are toward his side. To be sure, even if he picks up 2/3 of the 'undecided' vote he still loses 46-54.

Now contrast the situation in which  Smith is up 48-42 over Jones. Because most of the undecided are on the other side of Smith's position on the political spectrum, Smith would be unlikely to get an even split of the undecided. More likely he gains 2% of the undecided at election time in a race that becomes a nailbiter. But 50% +1 still wins. The race probably ends up 50-48 for Smith.

If President Obama were at 45-51 in Virginia in April 2016 (when the campaign season begins to define itself) and were running for re-election he would have a better-than-50% chance of winning the state. The threshold for having a 50% chance of winning re-election as a Governor or Senator is 44%, and Republicans cannot afford to lose Virginia in a Presidential election. Obviously he will not be up for reelection, but the perception of his effectiveness and desirability as President will influence how people vote.

The common wisdom that Barack Obama had no chance of becoming President as the result of the 2008 election except in the wake of the catastrophic failure of George W. Bush as President  remains valid. But Dubya was certifiably one of the worst Presidents that we ever had, and that perception developed well after the 2004 election. He gave us two wars going badly, bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, and presided over an economic boom that went bust. If President Obama is around in the summer of 2016 with diplomatic or military debacles either ongoing or in very recent memory, an economic meltdown even if slight, a scandal of any kind, or a bungled response to a natural disaster he ensures that a Republican mediocrity can be elected President in 2016. Such will matter far more than the quality and experience of the Democratic nominee.

So far I predict that President Obama will have no military or diplomatic debacle because he is too cautious for that. The economic recovery that we have is unlikely to be derailed because it contains no elements of a speculative boom, and Republicans are not allowing this President to have big infrastructure projects that devour huge amounts of construction materials (steel, concrete, and glass) and put huge numbers of people to work on construction and in steel  that and whose end brings an recession. (The 1958 recession is the result of the completion of the construction of the Mackinac Bridge that ensured that just about anyone who could imaginably get a job in a steel mill got one).  So far he has responded as Presidents used to respond to disasters even when the people at risk are people of the Other Party and the politician who can look best is of the Other Party.

Barack Obama has practically made Chris Christie the only Republican who can win by sacrificing some campaign appearances in a tight election to coordinate disaster aid. Heck, he would have helped Rick Perry or Rick Scott, too.

That said, Eisenhower was arguably the best peacetime President since Teddy Roosevelt except  for FDR, and Ike couldn't get Nixon elected as a successor.

[pbrower2a]

It's simple. When there is an incumbent president who is below 50% when facing re-election, the undecided public votes against them. It can be compared to marriage. If you ask someone if they plan on being married to the same person for four more years and there answer is "I don't know," then it means their spouse has some work to do in order to make things work. If a voter isn't sure about if they want an incumbent in office, they're more likely to end up voting against them. If Smith were down 40-49 and the incumbent president, then he would lose 43-55. If he were the challenger then he would lose 46-52. However, no polls show 49-40 going into an election. Both candidates combine for at least 98% out of 100%. More important is that those numbers are often the case early enough for either candidate to come from behind or maintain. It can be compared to a husband or wife having time to repair their marriage.

That is a poor analogue. People usually vow to make marriage a "'till death doth us part" proposition and not a term. Divorces ordinarily entail a steady deterioration of the quality of the marriage until some event is the straw that breaks the camel's back. An infidelity can indicate that sex has not been part of the marriage. Very often one of the spouses makes a big, selfish purchase despite having economic distress and the spouse who notices the expensive jewelry, clothes, boat, car, hunting gear, hobby item, or adventure trip that the spouse can get no good from and that spouse says something like:

"We are deeply in debt, and you buy that Rolex watch! What are you thinking! Our kids need dental work and you buy THAT! How could you!"

Political life rarely has so severe and intimate a disclosure.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nate Silver has the model that I find most useful for predicting who wins and loses based on early approval ratings. It's old, but it seems to work well on a large number of cases:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

Incumbents usually gain 6-7% between an approval rating early in the year and the November election -- if they were originally elected. Elected pols usually show why they were elected the first time -- ebullient campaigning, getting the big brokers of votes to start active GOTV drives, making good allocations of campaign appearances, finding and exploiting weak spots in the support of the opponent, signing off on effective (as opposed to offensive) advertising, and of course explaining what they were for last time. If campaigns did not matter then we would rarely see politicians with 45% approval in March or April get elected in November. The most blatant exceptions are appointed pols who never proved such ability, which explains why appointed pols usually lose if they run for election. 

Challengers can carp all they want a year before the election but cheap shots are not enough. They must offer a coherent alternative once the campaign begins. But some pol with approval polls in the high thirties or low forties have usually shown themselves not up to the task. Maybe they are in over their heads. Maybe they got washed in in a wave election and face a counter-wave election and are ill-equipped to show what they have done. Maybe they have become extremists or have acted as extremists. Maybe the economic realities make them irrelevant when a boom goes bust or inflation arrives.

Scandals? Usually the scandal-ridden pol acts secretive and aloof before the scandal breaks.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would not bet on the approval rating of President Obama except to say that it will likely be somewhere between 45% and 55% in October 2016.  The quality of the nominee matters greatly. I don't see the Republicans poaching much from the Obama coalition of 2008 and 2012 with the sorts of appeals that they have made in 2008, 2010, and 2012. If the Republicans still have control of the House of Representatives in 2016 the Democratic nominee for President can run against it. No farm bill? Tsk, tsk! Votes that declare that evolution is a hoax and that Barack Obama is not an American? Tsk, tsk.

Even one of the President's harshest detractors (Karl Rove) says that President Obama is "cautious". He's not one for taking huge risks that create a bubble economy. He has not run as a populist. He seems to prefer getting out of military quagmires to seeking glory.

The Republican Party has gone increasingly to the Right, so it is highly likely that the Democrats nominate someone center-left against a 2012 equivalent of Barry Goldwater or George McGovern. 

   

[pbrower2a]

Yes and if our president does something comparable to cheating on our country such as weakening our defense through an act like Benghazi or things seem to be deteriorating like a deteriorating marriage, then people will say they aren't sure if they want another four years of the same party and eventually decide either way. As for polls in April, I don't know anyone who predicts an election based on them. They might as well be April Fools jokes.

Cheating on this country would be like selling Hawaii to China with the knowledge that the PRC would put Pearl Harbor to similar use under different management. Benghazi? Spot hazard.

...If you see this sort of poll for "Senator Snake" in April 2014, then what do you expect to happen?

Approval 37%
Disapproval 60%

...He is likely to lose in a primary, be impeached and removed (because that is what impeachment looks like), decide not to run for re-election, or get defeated by a run-of-the-mill challenger.

Senator George Allen (R, VA)  had a 51% approval rating in April 2006 and still lost... but he faced an unusually-strong challenger, he ran a bad campaign, his Party became toxic, and his staffers beat a heckler. But he is the extreme counter-example. 44% approval in April before one campaigns for re-election suggests roughly a 50-50 chance of getting re-elected because one shows why one got elected to begin with. Below 44% approval one generally shows that electing the pol was a mistake, and that no campaigning could rescue a failed term in office.

This pattern does not hold for appointed Senators or Governors or those who succeed to the Governorship through the death of the elected Governor.   

[pbrower2a]

There were times where Quinnipiac had Obama up by 11 in Ohio and Kerry up by a high amount over Bush. It doesn't compare to Gallup, PPP, USA Today, or other traditional polls.

Again, Quinnipiac did not poll Ohio in 2004.

Ohio is typically R+1, a genuine swing state.  The elder Bush won Ohio 55-44 in 1988  in an election that he won 53-46 nationwide. In a Presidential election that went 53-46 for the Democrat (2008). Ohio went 51-47.

A Democratic nominee  up 11 points in Ohio in a Presidential campaign is facing a collapse by his Republican opponent, winning by roughly the sort of margin by which Eisenhower won in 1956 or Reagan won in 1984.

 

[pbrower2a]

There were times where Quinnipiac had Obama up by 11 in Ohio and Kerry up by a high amount over Bush. It doesn't compare to Gallup, PPP, USA Today, or other traditional polls.

Again, Quinnipiac did not poll Ohio in 2004.

Ohio is typically R+1, a genuine swing state.  The elder Bush won Ohio 55-44 in 1988  in an election that he won 53-46 nationwide. In a Presidential election that went 53-46 for the Democrat (2008). Ohio went 51-47.

A Democratic nominee  up 11 points in Ohio in a Presidential campaign is facing a collapse by his Republican opponent, winning by roughly the sort of margin by which Eisenhower won in 1956 or Reagan won in 1984.

 

For 2004 I was talking about the national polls in regards to Quinnipiac. 1988 was a very long time ago as far as politics is concerned. What are you saying about a candidate being up by 11 in Ohio? All I'm saying is candidates don't win there by so much unless there is a landslide. I think 1988 is too far gone to compare to today's electoral map.

True, but that is to show what a mirror image of the Obama victory would look like. 1988 isn't that ancient.