2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part III

Statistikhengst

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2013
45,564
11,756
2,070
deep within the statistical brain!!
hillary-clinton-400x400.jpg


This is a continuation of the first Hillary vs. GOP polling series that I started on March 17, 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Clinton vs. GOP field, 2016 GE, Part I

and here is Part II.

Back in March, 14 states had been polled. As of August 6th, it was 21 states. As of November 15th, 23 states have been polled, there has been extensive national polling and also one specialty poll (Latino Decisions).

The nitty gritty:

Since the beginning of 2013, there have now been 83 polls:

-57 state polls in 22 states (the California poll is FAV/UNFAV only)
-25 national polls
-1 specialty poll

From all of those polls, there have been 209 Hillary vs. (GOP) match-ups.

Hillary Clinton has won 170 of those 209 matchups (81.34%)
GOP candidates have won 34 of those 209 matchups (16.75%)
There have been 9 ties (4.34%)

There is an exact chart, by state, with the numbers from above broken down in the link to my politics blog. The table is difficult to port over to USMB.

All of the poll values are in one EXCEL document, which you can read HERE.

The following pollsters have polled Hillary vs. GOP matchups thus far in 2013:

Quinnipiac
Rasmussen
NBC (Princeton)
PPP (D)
Monmouth
Marist / McClatchy
Gallup
Bloomberg
YouGov
CNN / ORC
ABC / WAPO
The Field Poll
Gravis (R)
WMUR / UNH
Harper (R)
Purple Strategies
Marquette University Poll
Latino Decisions

Thus far, in 2013, PPP (D) has been the most prolific pollster, but Quinnipiac has also put out it's fair share of polls as well.

Here is a map of those states that have been polled, colored by the winner of the majority of the match-ups. In the case of Colorado, it is actually a tie, but the margins lean more to the GOP than toward Clinton, so I have colored that state light RED:

Hillary+vs+GOP+field+Part+III+graphic.jpg



What to make of all of this?​

Well, it is still very early, but massive warning signs for the GOP are there on two separate fronts, and they have been there all year:

1.) In states that are usually considered Battleground states, Hillary Clinton is still consistently and comfortably ahead: PA, NH, VA, WI, FL and OH. Go to the Excel-data link to see the margins for yourself. Especially prominent is VA, which has now been polled 9 times, making for 21 matchups, and Hillary has won 20 of them, the 21st is a tie. If those figures hold over the next three years, then those states will not even be competive. I am not making any comparison between pollsters - yet - nor I am I even looking to their historical track record. There are polls from 18 different pollsters thus far in 2013, and they are all telling the same story: Hillary Clinton is demonstrably and measurably ahead of the GOP field.

2.) Looking at the GOP, the story remains the same: Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes the closest to Clinton in virtually every state poll where his name is in the mix. Mathematically, he is by far the most competitive potential candidate to go against Hillary in the GE. The problem is the huge disconnect between this statistic and the fact that Christie is not polling well among the GOP electorate that he would need to win the primaries and get the nomination. In other words, the things that make him attractive to independent voters in a race against Clinton are the things he may need to shed-off in order to throw enough red-meat to the ultra-conservative base of the GOP in order to secure the nomination to begin with. Mitt Romney (self-deportation, 47%) had this very same problem.

GOP candidates like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz have exactly the opposite problem: they will be favored by the extreme Right-Wing of their party, but exactly the things that could get them nominated would be poison-pills for them in a GE.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are lots of good side-notes in the second report, from August.

Since then, a poll of West Virginia has come in, showing the GOP ahead of Hillary, although against Cruz, it would be a single point race. Conversely, a poll from Maine has come in, showing Hillary leading most of the GOP at Obama levels from 2008, but trouncing Cruz by 27 points, a margin reminiscent of LBJ from 1964. Again, Christ Christie is the GOP candidate who comes closest to Hillary in this state.

For me, this is an important data point, considering that Bill Clinton easily won West Virginia in both 1992 and 1996, but since George W. Bush, Jr. flipped this state in 2000, it has gone deeper and deeper "red" with each successive presidential cycle. This tells me that while Hillary Clinton is probably the most polled potential presidential candidate ever in an off year directly following a presidential election, and her FAV/UNFAV numbers are the best of any politico out there, there is no guarantee that she will be able to take the so-called "Clinton 6" states, which you can read about here, in a blog-entry called ELECTORAL COLUMNS. However, she is already doing better in Virginia and Florida and Ohio now that Bill ever did. So, it looks to me like a combination of the "Clinton 6" and the "Obama 3" may come into play (all explained in the electoral columns link).

Right now, remember that the DEMS have not gone under 243 EV since 1992 (according to elector allotment based on the 2010 census), with VA, FL, OH, NH and IA already in the mix, right now, already in 2013, were the election to be held next week, I could already call an electoral lock for the former First Lady. Right now, she is already well over 270 EV.

In conclusion, I have been studying the historical Eisenhower landslide of 1952 in great detail. Most do not perhaps know this, but the draft movement for Ike began already in 1950. In fact, both major parties were vying for him to be their nominee. To this date, it still may well be the largest and most universal draft movement for a candidate in our Union's history. But I am already seeing strong signs of a similar draft movement for Hillary Clinton, already in 2013. One could get into a long and involved debate as to whether this is a good or bad thing, but the fact is that it is happening all over the place, and not just on the internet. Hillary is already making all the traditional moves that a candidate in waiting makes. There are even PACs turning down million dollar sums until she announces. Just as Barack Obama's election as our nation's first black president was history making, 2016 could prove to be just as historical a year as 2008 was.


------------------------------------------------------------------


The purpose of this thread is mainly to get the numbers out there.

Go to the links you want to see, take a look at the excel table, sorted by state. The stuff is easy to find.
 
I think Ben Ghazi should run against her.

I would not be surprised if she goes on to win the presidential election in 2016. Now that a black has been elected, the media will really be pushing for a woman to be president. The media will not turn on HC again like they did in 2008.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
I think Ben Ghazi should run against her.

I would not be surprised if she goes on to win the presidential election in 2016. Now that a black has been elected, the media will really be pushing for a woman to be president. The media will not turn on HC again like they did in 2008.

First, thanks for stopping by, [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION]!

I don't agree with your assessment that the media was somehow against Hillary in 2008. It was a tight numbers game, Obama ran a better end-game in the caucus states, but that nomination race was not over until the South Dakota primary in early June of 2008!

If you go to my electoral statistics vault here:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond

And go to the Archive for 2008 and go through the months of January through June, you will see detailed analyses of how close this race for the DEM nomination was. It will go down in history as one of two most monumental nomination battles, next to Ford/Reagan 1976.
 
I think Ben Ghazi should run against her.

I would not be surprised if she goes on to win the presidential election in 2016. Now that a black has been elected, the media will really be pushing for a woman to be president. The media will not turn on HC again like they did in 2008.

You nutters and your obsession with identity politics. So much fail....so little adjustment.
 
So far the pathetic old enabler for her husband's perversions has been treated with kid gloves. Wait until she commits to run. Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein. When did she know about Benghazi? When did she know about the DNA on Monica's dress? How many lies did she tell to cover for her pervert husband just so she could bask in some sort of pathetic political power? How many women did her taxpayer funded hit squad nicknamed by the giggling media "the bimbo eruption squad" ruin?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
So far the pathetic old enabler for her husband's perversions has been treated with kid gloves. Wait until she commits to run. Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein. When did she know about Benghazi? When did she know about the DNA on Monica's dress? How many lies did she tell to cover for her pervert husband just so she could bask in some sort of pathetic political power? How many women did her taxpayer funded hit squad nicknamed by the giggling media "the bimbo eruption squad" ruin?

When did she know about Benghazi?

What a retard.
 
What is interesting on this thread is that not a single RWinger is actually discussing the OP, which is the polling numbers to date. I mean, this is pretty cut and dried stuff, and at current, very obvious who has the upper-hand. But instead, we hear about "carpet-munchers" and " enablers" and all sorts of whacky stuff.

And then the Right wonders why people laugh at it.

Hmmm....
 
I will say that Cankles does seem quite moderate when compared to either Obama, McCain or Romney. That might make all the difference for her. She WILL be the democrat candidate in 2016 though she might have to outlive several others to get the nod. Cowboys and Indians? How about Cankles and Pocahontas?
 
A thread with the name "Clinton" in it is all you need....

...and then they come out like moths to the light.

We might as well tell the truth, even if it hurts! Dumbasses like you are close-minded and extremely gullible!

Liberals scurry like the cockroaches they are when the light of truth is shone on them!
 
A thread with the name "Clinton" in it is all you need....

...and then they come out like moths to the light.

Your last poll was too soon to capture the growing damage since Obama's "mea culpa" speech so I am waiting to see what the trendlines will be. Nice analysis but out of date.
 
A thread with the name "Clinton" in it is all you need....

...and then they come out like moths to the light.

Your last poll was too soon to capture the growing damage since Obama's "mea culpa" speech so I am waiting to see what the trendlines will be. Nice analysis but out of date.


As up to date as it can be. Was published on 15 Nov, since then, only two state polls have come in, no national polls. But thank you for the kind words.
 
At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.
 
IF Hillary was going to be the nominee, she would have been 2008. The Lefties rejected her and will again when they look back and get reminded of why they didn't like her then.
 
At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

Much can happen between now and 2016. Obama was not even on the radar for the 2008 election this far out (3 years).
 

Forum List

Back
Top