MO-PPP: Hillary down by between 7-15 points, Sanders by about the same (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:59:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  MO-PPP: Hillary down by between 7-15 points, Sanders by about the same (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MO-PPP: Hillary down by between 7-15 points, Sanders by about the same  (Read 6426 times)
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« on: August 12, 2015, 08:19:47 AM »
« edited: August 12, 2015, 08:41:41 AM by mencken »

The interesting thing about Bush/Clinton/Trump is that Trump is more popular with relatively center-right voters than hardline conservatives.  He is the new Perot in a lot of ways (in a country that's shifted quite a bit to the left since '92).

Yes, in fact even in the primary part of this poll, he does slightly better among "moderates" than "conservatives".  It's Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee who are relying more on the self-described "very conservative" voters.

Partially serves to confirm a theory of mine; going left on immigration actually hurts Republicans more than it helps.  Within the GOP the ones who are in favor of it are generally wealthy businesspeople (the GOP's most consistent "base" group since its founding in 1854), while I would expect (moderate || swing || persuadable) voters, generally middle-class whites who do not attend church weekly, to be pretty strongly opposed.

Who would have thought that self-disenfranchisement would be a poor strategy?

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, a 15% GOP win in Missouri would be consistent with a 6% GOP swing from 2012, or a 2% national win. Which is also consistent with her recent polling numbers in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois. And Colorado and Virginia if you believe Quinnipiac. But I guess those states have not gotten the memo about Hillary's inevitability?
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2015, 01:51:02 PM »

The interesting thing about Bush/Clinton/Trump is that Trump is more popular with relatively center-right voters than hardline conservatives.  He is the new Perot in a lot of ways (in a country that's shifted quite a bit to the left since '92).

Yes, in fact even in the primary part of this poll, he does slightly better among "moderates" than "conservatives".  It's Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee who are relying more on the self-described "very conservative" voters.

Partially serves to confirm a theory of mine; going left on immigration actually hurts Republicans more than it helps.  Within the GOP the ones who are in favor of it are generally wealthy businesspeople (the GOP's most consistent "base" group since its founding in 1854), while I would expect (moderate || swing || persuadable) voters, generally middle-class whites who do not attend church weekly, to be pretty strongly opposed.

Who would have thought that self-disenfranchisement would be a poor strategy?

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, a 15% GOP win in Missouri would be consistent with a 6% GOP swing from 2012, or a 2% national win. Which is also consistent with her recent polling numbers in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois. And Colorado and Virginia if you believe Quinnipiac. But I guess those states have not gotten the memo about Hillary's inevitability?
You can only get this R+2 election if you match up Clinton against the strongest Republican in each state.  The problem is that the strongest Republican varies wildly from state to state.  Basically you are combining each candidate's strengths and ignoring their weaknesses.  So while doing this is a good theoretical exercise, it's not predictive of an election against any actual candidate.

Against the best Republican in each state:
MO, against Rubio: R+15 (consistent with a R+2 election)
IA, against Carson: R+4 (R+6 election)
NH, against Paul: R+2 (R+4 election)
MN, against Paul: D+1 (R+3 election)
IL, against Bush: D+9 (R+4, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA (PPP), against Rubio and Carson: (D+4 election)
NC, against Huckabee and Walker: R+4 (D+2 election)
MI, against Paul: D+3 (R+3 election)
OH, against Kasich: R+7 (R+6 election)

Average, against an imaginary uber-candidate: R+2.4 election

Against Bush:
MO: R+7 (D+6 election)
IA: D+4 (D+2 election)
NH: R+1  (R+3 election)
MN: D+2 (R+2 election)
IL: D+9 (R+4 election, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA: D+8 (D+8 election)
NC: D+2 (D+8 election)
MI: D+11 (D+5 election)
OH: D+2 (D+3 election)

Average: D+ 2.6


Bush has consistently been among the weaker serious general election candidates. Let's try a better example:

Against Rubio
MO: R+15 (R+2)
IA: R+1 (R+3)
NH: D+1 (tie)
MN: D+2 (R+2)
IL: D+12 (R+1)
VA: R+2 (R+2) or D+4 (D+4) depending on whether you believe Q or PPP
NC: R+1 (D+5)
MI*: D+6 (D+1)
OH*: tie (D+1)

*Reaching here since these are now two months old.

Average: D+0.1

Notice that the trendline is only getting worse for Hillary, with more recent polls showing a more consistent 1-2 point Republican lead.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.