Quinnipiac National Poll: Christie+1 vs. Hillary

[Tender Branson]

42-41 Christie/Clinton
48-41 Clinton/Paul
48-39 Clinton/Bush
50-37 Clinton/Cruz

From December 3 - 9, Quinnipiac University surveyed 2,692 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 1,182 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points and 1,095 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1988

[eric82oslo]

The survey includes 1,182 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points and 1,095 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

So many more Republicans despite there being an overwhelming Democratic edge nationwide.

[Mr. Morden]

The survey includes 1,182 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points and 1,095 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

So many more Republicans despite there being an overwhelming Democratic edge nationwide.

Of course we don't know their demographic weighting, so it's hard to say what that translates into in this poll.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

At least 50% of the US will consider voting for Hillary. The most a GOP candidate polls at is 42%.

[DrScholl]

Christie doesn't do much better than the other Republican choices percentage wise, just that more undecideds come into play. Those undecideds clearly back Clinton against the other candidates, there's not reason to assume they wouldn't break toward her once the campaign starts. Christie is not a moderate.

[Mr. Morden]

Christie 47/23% for +24%
Clinton 53/42% for +11%
Ryan 38/31% for +7%
Jindal 21/15% for +6%
Walker 21/16% for +5%
Paul 34/31% for +3%
Kasich 12/9% for +3%
Rubio 26/25% for +1%
Cruz 27/27% for +/-0
Warren 17/19% for -2%
Cuomo 19/23% for -4%
Schweitzer 3/7% for -4%
O'Malley 3/9% for -6%
Bush 31/38% for -7%
Biden 37/48% for -11%
Dean 15/30% for -15%

Christie favorability by party:
Dems: +17
GOP: +33
Indies: +29

Clinton favorability by party:
Dems: +88
GOP: -61
Indies: +7

[IceSpear]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

Gloating over a 1 point lead?

[Tender Branson]

The survey includes 1,182 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points and 1,095 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

So many more Republicans despite there being an overwhelming Democratic edge nationwide.

Of course we don't know their demographic weighting, so it's hard to say what that translates into in this poll.

We do:

Their weighting in this poll is:

31% D
26% R
34% I
  9% Other/DK/NA

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us12112013_demos2_anr2s9.pdf

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

Gloating over a 1 point lead?

When Hillary is supposedly on her way to a 300+ EV victory? Yeah. And it's not really gloating; it's just meant to expose the idiotic idea that she is a sure winner. I'm in no way certain that the GOP will win in 2016.

[IceSpear]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

Gloating over a 1 point lead?

When Hillary is supposedly on her way to a 300+ EV victory? Yeah. And it's not really gloating; it's just meant to expose the idiotic idea that she is a sure winner. I'm in no way certain that the GOP will win in 2016.

If Christie is the nominee and emerges unscathed from the primaries, both two very dubious propositions, then the election would be a toss up, of course. On the other hand, Clinton is already presumptive nominee and leads every other Republican besides Christie. Surely you can see why people see her as the overwhelming favorite.

[Mr. Morden]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

Gloating over a 1 point lead?

When Hillary is supposedly on her way to a 300+ EV victory? Yeah. And it's not really gloating; it's just meant to expose the idiotic idea that she is a sure winner. I'm in no way certain that the GOP will win in 2016.

If Christie is the nominee and emerges unscathed from the primaries, both two very dubious propositions, then the election would be a toss up, of course. On the other hand, Clinton is already presumptive nominee and leads every other Republican besides Christie. Surely you can see why people see her as the overwhelming favorite.

We have no idea what events will occur over the course of the next three years, or how the campaign will unfold, etc.  I agree that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but it's way too early to talk about overwhelming favorites for the general election.  You guys seem way too confident in this theory that Clinton is likely to steamroll through the general election because the eventual GOP nominee will get beat up in the primaries.  We have no idea how the GOP primaries are going to play out yet.

It's incredibly early.  These early polls are fun in terms of watching the demographics, and looking at Clinton's relative strength in different states, but using them to gauge her absolute strength in the general election seems misguided.  Polls can't accurately forecast presidential elections three years out.  I don't think anything can forecast presidential elections three years out.  That's way too much lead time.

[IceSpear]

Oh, she is so unbeatable!

Gloating over a 1 point lead?

When Hillary is supposedly on her way to a 300+ EV victory? Yeah. And it's not really gloating; it's just meant to expose the idiotic idea that she is a sure winner. I'm in no way certain that the GOP will win in 2016.

If Christie is the nominee and emerges unscathed from the primaries, both two very dubious propositions, then the election would be a toss up, of course. On the other hand, Clinton is already presumptive nominee and leads every other Republican besides Christie. Surely you can see why people see her as the overwhelming favorite.

We have no idea what events will occur over the course of the next three years, or how the campaign will unfold, etc.  I agree that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but it's way too early to talk about overwhelming favorites for the general election.  You guys seem way too confident in this theory that Clinton is likely to steamroll through the general election because the eventual GOP nominee will get beat up in the primaries.  We have no idea how the GOP primaries are going to play out yet.

It's incredibly early.  These early polls are fun in terms of watching the demographics, and looking at Clinton's relative strength in different states, but using them to gauge her absolute strength in the general election seems misguided.  Polls can't accurately forecast presidential elections three years out.  I don't think anything can forecast presidential elections three years out.  That's way too much lead time.

Yes, but winning the primary is half the battle. How can any Republican possibly have a better chance than her when it's completely up in the air who will even emerge as the nominee? Christie not only has to beat Hillary, but he also has to go through Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc. first before he even gets to her.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Mr. Morden is right though, IceSpear. The 2012 Republican primaries turned into a bloodbath, but we're forgetting how close Romney was to running the contests. For weeks it looked like he won Iowa. He did win New Hampshire. Polls after that showed him very competitive in South Carolina. The double-whammy of the Iowa state GOP giving Santorum the win and Rick Perry endorsing Gingrich really shifted things in South Carolina. Of course the debate helped do that too, but Romney just as easily could have swept the first four states... and the momentum from those symbolic wins coil have prevented the Santorum rebound too.

So my point is, if Romney could come so close to preventing a bloodbath, Christie, who I think is the better politician, could also surprise us. He has a shot in Iowa for the same reasons Romney did. New Hanpshire is his. South Carolina is a strange beast... Who knows what could happen?

[henster]

The field in 2016 is much more diverse and stronger than 2012 there really is no comparison. There are a lot of credible Tea Party candidates like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who could both consolidate the TP base. And Christie won't be the only establishment candidate running there's the possibility of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Jeb Bush who compared are far more conservative and acceptable to the party than Christie. Nobody's factoring in Scott Walker either who's a major dark horse candidate that could appeal to both establishment types and the TP base, looking at all these factors Christie has a mountain to climb in order to win the nomination.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, but winning the primary is half the battle. How can any Republican possibly have a better chance than her when it's completely up in the air who will even emerge as the nominee? Christie not only has to beat Hillary, but he also has to go through Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc. first before he even gets to her.

Oh, that's not what I'm saying.  Obviously, since Clinton is a much stronger favorite to win her party's nomination than any single Republican is to win theirs, she's also the favorite on winning individual.  What I'm arguing against though is the the confidence some here have that even once the GOP nominee is crowned, that Clinton will necessarily be a big favorite against him, one on one, whoever that may be.  Maybe she will be, and maybe she won't be.  It's too early to say.  Maybe the GOP primaries will be really bloody, and weaken the eventual nominee, and maybe they won't.  There've been plenty of party nomination fights in years past that looked really bloody at the time, but the nominee brushed off the damage pretty quickly, and became a strong contender in the general election.

[eric82oslo]

Mr. Morden is right though, IceSpear. The 2012 Republican primaries turned into a bloodbath, but we're forgetting how close Romney was to running the contests. For weeks it looked like he won Iowa. He did win New Hampshire. Polls after that showed him very competitive in South Carolina. The double-whammy of the Iowa state GOP giving Santorum the win and Rick Perry endorsing Gingrich really shifted things in South Carolina. Of course the debate helped do that too, but Romney just as easily could have swept the first four states... and the momentum from those symbolic wins coil have prevented the Santorum rebound too.

Santorum was doomed from the moment he pronounced the very racist phrases at that university where he held his famous speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vG1CM95Js

[eric82oslo]

The field in 2016 is much more diverse and stronger than 2012 there really is no comparison. There are a lot of credible Tea Party candidates like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who could both consolidate the TP base. And Christie won't be the only establishment candidate running there's the possibility of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Jeb Bush who compared are far more conservative and acceptable to the party than Christie.

You can say whatever you want about Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as you'd like, but they're most certainly not establishment candidates. Marco Rubio is at least as much Tea Party as Rand Paul, while Bobby Jindal in my opinion is by far the most high profile Tea Party politician of them all out there - even Ted Cruz looks like a small, innocent dwarf next to him. Bobby Jindal has enforced the most poverty-hating policies any US state has ever seen - actually by extremely far - how does people just NOT notice that? Other than the government shutdown, which obviously was an extremely huge thing, although luckily not killing the US economy outright, Ted Cruz has in fact achieved absolutely nothing on his own - unlike that much hailed Jindal.