Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map.

[pbrower2a]

Starting over due to maps involving non-existent polls on the earlier thread.


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

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

[pbrower2a]

How the hell is Jeb Bush that popular in Colorado? Can't stand the guy myself.

Aging poll. Colorado will likely be polled again fairly soon. Q shows a nationwide trend away from just about every Republican in nationwide match-ups this week. Polls in two swing states (NH, VA) show an anti-GOP trend.

I have recently seen "Establishment" Republicans fade as more populist (but just-as-right-wing) Republicans seem to inspire Republicans. But know well: the upcoming Presidential race, which began as incredibly boring and predictable has become anything but that.

[pbrower2a]

Hey pbrower,

I just stickied your new thread and unstickied the old one.

An advice:

Instead of posting a new reply all the time with new maps, please just edit the original post every time from now on and change the maps there.

If you post new maps all the time, it becomes unreadable and way toooooo long.

Thx.

(PS: please include ALL polls in the future and not just the ones you like)

Thank you.

The alternative could be to change maps once a week and show only the polls until I change the map. I might put up a new map in the event that some pollster offers polling data for multiple states (as Quinnipiac often does with CO/IA/VA or FL/OH/PA). There have been others to do so (Big 10 Polls, Marist, Siena).

...I try to avoid including polls that come from special-interest groups, ideologically-charged think tanks, political parties, trade associations, unions, and ethnic-advocacy groups. Those that have poor reputations -- like getting prior elections really wrong -- might be inapt. (I think of Rocky Mountain Polling, which late in the 2012  election projected Obama winning Arizona, or Susquehanna in Pennsylvania). A poll that has a close result and over 15% undecided is unreliable enough to avoid. I don't want any 39-37 polls, as I saw by a college in Tennessee one year... in case you forget what the poll said, Obama was in the lead, and he didn't get much more than the 39% that the poll said that he would get.  

I do not want polls that stand to blow up in our faces. We are going to see events shape the races -- maybe an international event, a scandal, or a financial panic.  

I also have five maps of Clinton-vs.-Republican match-ups. I'm still contemplating which map of match-ups to drop so that I can have a neater set of maps to display.

A suggestion: would you promptly delete any post that offers a non-existent or joke poll?      

[pbrower2a]

West Virginia, Orion Polling.

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and a Republican candidate, for whom would you vote?

Clinton: 26%
Republican candidate: 58%

In the 2016 General Election for President, would you likely vote for a Democratic or Republican Candidate?

Democratic: 28%
Republican: 52%

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?

Clinton: 30%
Trump: 53%
Undecided: 17%

http://www.statejournal.com/story/29892754/survey-wv-residents-likely-to-pick-trump-over-clinton-in-2016

Who are these guys?

[pbrower2a]

So you won't include the WV poll?

Who are these guys?

A common WV pollster with a good track record.
Also,
>including Roanoke
>not including Orion

Try again. The 60% blue display on the Clinton-Trump map is no mistake.

[pbrower2a]

I apologize. No, seriously. I forgot that you're just editing the original post every time from now on. Sorry.

But still, this is a common WV pollster with a decent track record.

I was going to wait until Wednesday to show any new polls. But I could edit the Clinton-Trump map  to remove the numbers of electoral votes and add in a shade for West Virginia to prove someone wrong about my bias.

It might be tempting when a state not recently polled appears. I would do that for Georgia.   

[pbrower2a]

I apologize. No, seriously. I forgot that you're just editing the original post every time from now on. Sorry.

But still, this is a common WV pollster with a decent track record.

I intend to show new maps, ideally weekly, to show the 'evolution' of the 2016 Presidential campaign. I think that worth showing. The point is that the old maps will remain. Those could show trends and the consequences of events, gaffes, and blunders.

[pbrower2a]

I apologize. No, seriously. I forgot that you're just editing the original post every time from now on. Sorry.

But still, this is a common WV pollster with a decent track record.

I was going to wait until Wednesday to show any new polls. But I could edit the Clinton-Trump map  to remove the numbers of electoral votes and add in a shade for West Virginia to prove someone wrong about my bias.

It might be tempting when a state not recently polled appears. I would do that for Georgia.   

This is off-topic, but you can't be surprised that people call you a hack when you're convinced that Roy Blunt is toast in 2016 but Michael Bennet is going to win easily because it's a presidential year, even though his approval ratings are about the same as Blunt's.

Roy Blunt looks like toast with an approval rating in the 30s even if he is in Missouri. The  most recent poll showed Bennett with an approval rating in the high 40s, which is usually good enough for getting re-elected. Blunt needs miracles to get re-elected in a state with some competitiveness in a Presidential year that so far looks favorable to a high turnout.

People get called hacks when they say things completely absurd and with a partisan bias. They also get called hacks when they say defensible (if uncertain) things wit a semblance of partisan bias.     

[pbrower2a]

Utah, Salt Lake City Tribune/Brigham Young University

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.....

Utah is profoundly conservative. 58% of Utah voters consider themselves "conservative". But know well: the powerful LDS Church is strong enough to break a Republican candidacy. Not a Mormon, I cannot predict what the LDS hierarchy would do if Trump were the GOP nominee. I doubt that it would give a sympathetic endorsement to him.

Democrats can call Donald Trump for his involvement with gambling casinos... which also imply smoking, liquor, bawdy shows, and even prostitution, all of which offend Mormon sensibilities.

Maybe this is not so ridiculous as it seems if it were a generic Republican against a generic Democrat.  Trump has baggage, and this baggage is not the sort that a bellhop delivers to a room.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2878985-155/new-poll-says-donald-trump-would

... This poll looks really bad for Donald Trump. I do not know whether this data applies only to Utah due to the large number of Mormons or whether it reflects how badly Trump  does nationwide. In view of West Virginia, this does not look like an even shift nationwide of about 8% of the vote (based on 2008).

But if I am to follow the dictum "Show all polls", then it is here. 

[pbrower2a]

Great work, but these poll maps just exemplify how inaccurate polling can be. Like seriously, who actually expects Clinton to lose PA but win FL?

Polls are stills or snapshots; a thread like this is a film.

Events will change polling results between weeks. There will be gaffes and scandals. The economy can go into the tank.

 I am reminded of how approval for President Obama went up (temporarily) for President Obama after the announcement that Seal Team 6 had whacked Osama bin Laden. 

We might be able to see how approval polls change over time as the times themselves change.

[pbrower2a]

From the "West Virginia, Orion Stategies thread:

A bit more about Orion Strategies. According to this, Orion is a right-wing hack pollster...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann

Lobbyist connected to a political party and the neoconservative movement. Not usable. I must reject and rescind it.

For convenience I add the BYU poll as I delete the West Virginia poll. I can't imagine any other Republican getting any less than 65% of the vote in Utah (Trump gets 54%), and I would expect to see such. I see Donald Trump having huge cultural baggage with Mormons due to his investments in gambling casinos.

I added and removed the WV poll and added the Utah poll in good faith.


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

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

[pbrower2a]

pbrower, please include that WV poll again or I'll delete the thread.

Thx.

The poll is by a lobbyist for a partisan cause. I would not knowingly include a poll by someone on the other side.

[pbrower2a]

You accept the poll with NO UNDECIDEDS?!?!?!?!

This is an internet poll. There were more people submitting poll data for the Governor's race, and Utah voters know the Governor pretty well and seem to have very clear ideas on whether they approve or disapprove of the Governor and will vote for him again. The Trump-Clinton total was about 130 fewer people.

Until 2012 I rejected Internet polls -- but that year those of YouGov proved the closest to reality.

If I were to treat those as undecided (I did the math but did not show it), the Trump-Clinton split would have been something like 49-42, which seems even more absurd. I could have shown that -- but I felt uncomfortable doing so. 

Would you rather that I showed Utah with a 40% shade?

On WV -- It was 63-35 against Obama in 2012. OK. That is close to a 28% gap this time.

Maybe. I would have never introduced this poll, though --   

The poll is by a lobbyist for a partisan cause. I would not knowingly include a poll by someone on the other side.

[pbrower2a]

... Pardon me, but should you not use the top five candidates, averaged out?

Kasich, Carson, and Trump all place in first or second in Iowa or New Hampshire. By comparison, Rand Paul is in ninth and Huckabee eleventh in New Hampshire; in Iowa, Huckabee is in eighth and Paul in ninth.

As these states traditionally winnow the field, I object to a poll by Monmouth making Huckabee tie Kasich and Paul follow by just under two percent nationally making you keep them and not put Kasich on the map.

Valid point.

It is now hard to predict who will be the Republican nominee. I hesitate to drop anyone for whom I have extensive polling data until that person shows signs of dropping out or other irrelevance. I can't decide whom to add and whom to drop. It took some time on my part to recognize that Chris Christie, an early front-runner, had no chance. I failed to take Donald Trump seriously until he skyrocketed in the polls. Carson and Fiorina, like Trump, have no experience in elected office, so it is easy for me to see them as nominees unless I see evidence to the contrary. 

I see Jeb Bush as a potential winner as a political insider and Scott Walker as the dream candidate of the all-powerful Koch dynasty. Ron Paul is interesting as the only libertarian. Huckabee has a consistent following, and well fits a gigantic constituency within the GOP.  I notice that "establishment" Republicans have been sinking -- but that could change based upon financial contributions from sugar daddies who buy copious media time.

I consider Kasich the least objectionable of Republican candidates.

PPP does South Carolina, a state with an early and highly-contested primary, this weekend.  I consider South Carolina at least as relevant to the Republican Party as either Iowa or New Hampshire because

(1) Iowa and New Hampshire have gone for the Democratic nominee in all but one of the last six Presidential elections

(2) South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since Jimmy Carter in 1976

(3) few states vote like Iowa or New Hampshire, but several states vote much like South Carolina 

I asked for suggestions on whom to add and drop -- and I got several different suggestions. The only obvious course was to add Trump, which I did. I had to backtrack through polls to get data on him. I could do the same for Carson, Fiorina, or Kasich at a time of my choosing if I deem one or the other relevant.

The Establishment candidates usually have advantages that make them Establishment.  But there are gaffes, and there is slow erosion of support. Above all,what constitutes the Establishment can change. 

[pbrower2a]

New Hampshire, Marist


43 Clinton -- 48 Bush
46 Clinton -- 45 Trump

http://www.scribd.com/doc/278707802/NBC-News-Marist-Poll-New-Hampshire-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2015

Landline only. Might lean slightly R for that..
 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

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

[pbrower2a]

South Carolina, PPP:


Bush 47%
Clinton 37%

Clinton 34%
Trump 33%
Bush 25%

Carson 54%
Clinton 36%

Cruz 48%
Clinton 39%

Fiorina 48%
Clinton 38%

Clinton 39%
Graham 38%

Huckabee 49%
Clinton 39%

Kasich 42%
Clinton 38%

Rubio 46%
Clinton 40%

Trump 50%
Clinton 39%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/SouthCarolina2016GeneralResults.pdf

Note that PPP has dropped Rand Paul and Scott Walker. That may be a hint on whom I drop.

...This is reasonably close to the 2012 results in South Carolina by Romney against Obama.
 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

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

[pbrower2a]

Where's the IA-Marist poll?

Good question. I'm not hiding it.

[pbrower2a]

PPP does Florida next week.

...the e-mail issue is hurting Hillary Clinton badly now. It dies -- or she can forget the Presidency.

[pbrower2a]

Can't wait til FL poll against Trump, email controversy will not go away entirely but its importance is going to be diminished. There is no smoking gun.

Should there be an ethnic divide in the demographics, then the ethnic splits should be interesting. 

[pbrower2a]

Florida, PPP:

Bush 45%
Clinton 42%

Bush 45%
Biden 42%

Bush 45%
Sanders 41%

Clinton 39%
Bush 29%
Trump 27%

Carson 49%
Clinton 40%

Carson 48%
Sanders 33%

Clinton 45%
Cruz 43%

Fiorina 46%
Clinton 41%

Fiorina 44%
Sanders 37%

Clinton 45%
Huckabee 43%

Kasich 44%
Clinton 41%

Rubio 48%
Clinton 43%

Trump 48%
Clinton 42%

Trump 47%
Biden 43%

Trump 47%
Sanders 41%

Walker 45%
Clinton 43%

Walker 42%
Sanders 40%
 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

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

[pbrower2a]

Carson and Fiorina are in; Paul and Walker are out at the next opportunity.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/
 

That makes one choice extremely easy:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

Iowa, Marist:

50-39 Bush/Hillary
48-43 Trump/Hillary

46-44 Bush/Biden
49-45 Biden/Trump

http://de.scribd.com/doc/278707798/NBC-News-Marist-Poll-Iowa-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2015

(PPP shows Iowa results this week, so this might not stick).
 
Siena, New York (state)

Biden 59%
Bush 30%

Biden 55%
Carson 35%

Biden 60%
Trump 33%

Clinton 53%
Bush 36%

Clinton 52%
Carson 40%

Clinton 55%
Trump 36%

Sanders 52%
Bush 33%

Sanders 46%
Carson 39%

Sanders 52%
Trump 38%

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

Setting up maps for Carson and Fiorina.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

Florida, college poll from a school that I never heard from:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-rubio-fau-florida-poll-20150922-story.html

Carson 52%
Clinton 40%

Rubio 50%
Clinton 42%

Bush 49%
Clinton 41%

Trump 46%
Clinton 45%

Back-tracking for the Carolinas, and PPP for Florida.  

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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