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

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

Here are Part II -and- Part III.

Back in March of 2013, 14 states had been polled. As of August 6th, 2013, it was 21 states. As of November 15th, 2013, 23 states had been polled; there had been extensive national polling and also one specialty poll (Latino Decisions). By the end of 2013, 26 states had been polled and now, as of May 10, 2014, 28 states have now been polled, 27 of which contain presidential match-ups (the lone California poll only has Clinton FAV/UNFAV ratings).

Let's see how this looks on a map. Here are the 26 states that were polled as of the end of 2013. The following colors have nothing to do with the political inclination of any state nor do they indicate who is winning. They just indicate geography.:

ClintonvsGOPpollingmap2013_zps38078935.jpg


Now, of those 26 states, 18 have been freshly polled in 2014 thus far:

ClintonvsGOPpollingmap2014_zps468a2e13.jpg



Add to that the two states have have been polled only in 2014 and are therefore very fresh:

ClintonvsGOPpollingmap2014plusnewbies_zps0ece3561.jpg


The last time I reported on Hillary Clinton and polling (in late November of 2013), as of that point in time, there had been 83 polls total (including national polls), making for 209 Hillary vs. (GOP) match-ups. of which Hillary won 170 (81.34%).

Now, as of today, state and national polls together, there have been:

156 polls total, making for 508 presidential matchups.

Hillary Clinton has won 410 of those 508 matchups (80.71%)
The GOP field of various candidates have won 87 of those matchups (17.13%)
There have been 11 mathematical ties (2.17%)

So, in spite of the fact that the number of polls has almost doubled since the end of November 2013 and the number of matchups has more than doubled since then, the actual statistic of wins for Hillary Clinton has remained very stable.

There is an exact chart, by state, with the numbers from above broken down in this 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. Just click on the tab (bottom of the document) for the state you want to see and all of the polling values are there.

Here is a screenshot of an example of how the table is layed out, using the state of Florida as an example:

pollingexceltableexampleFlorida_zps30833809.png


You will notice that the polls are numbered in reverse chronological order, with the latest poll at the top. All polls are linked, so you can click on the link for every single poll and see the results for yourself. The release date of the poll (European dating system) is then following by the survey size and MoE (Margin of Error). Then, if there are any FAV/UNFAV numbers or DEM nomination figures, they come next.

The Presidential matchups follow in this order:

Clinton vs. Christie
Clinton vs. Paul
(at the point the screenshot shows no more, you would have to scoll out at the excel table to see the rest)
Clinton vs. Ryan
Clinton vs. Cruz
Clinton vs. Bush, J.
Clinton vs. Rubio
Clinton vs. Huckabee

And then, any other GOP candidates that have been polled in that particular state.

The numbers are COLOR CODED (blue = DEM / red = GOP) and bolded = the higher value. Wherever you see values in italic, that means a mathematical tie.


The following 26 pollsters have polled Hillary vs. GOP matchups thus far:

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
The Arkansas Poll
The Polling Company
Conservative Intel
MRG (R)
Dartmouth
Rutgers/Eagleton
Siena
Roanoke

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 and Kentucky it's really quite close, so I am leaving both states green for now.

ClintonvsGOPpollingmap2014matchupwinners_zps4c02316c.jpg



This map is NOT a prediction map. It only shows who has won the majority of matchups.



What to make of all of this?


Well, it's still early, but the trend we have seen all through 2013 has continued into 2014, namely, that Hillary Clinton is demonstrably ahead in the battleground states that have decided the last 6 election cycles. Not only is she ahead in those states, she is decisively ahead. And in states where the GOP is winning, the margins are reduced.


1.) The Quntifecta: Florida (29 EV), Pennsylvania (20 EV) Ohio (18 EV), North Carolina (15 EV) and Virginia (13 EV). Total EV: 95

In every one of those 5 states, Hillary is ahead.

In Virginia, the most polled state thus far (here is the EXCEL tab for Virginia), there have been 12 polls with 36 matchups. Hillary has won 35 of them and there was one tie. The GOP has won not one single matchup in the Old Dominion, once a bedrock GOP state. The tie was against Christie, in September of 2013, long before Bridgegate. All said and told, Hillary is at between +4 and +14 against GOP candidates, all margins larger than Obama's 2012 win.

In Florida, the third most polled state thus far (here is the EXCEL tab for Florida), there have been 8 polls with 29 matchups and Hillary has won every single matchup, with the majority of the margins in the double digits. No Democratic candidate that I know of has scored these type of margins in Florida in modern polling history.

The kind of polling we are seeing out of Florida and Virginia should be the no. 1 warning sign for the GOP.

In North Carolina, the fourth most polled state, (here is the EXCEL tab for North Carolina), there have been 7 polls and 26 matchups, of which Hillary Clinton has won 23. A strike against this data is that all of the polls have been from PPP (D) and I would much prefer to see a broad base of pollsters, as is the case with Virginia and Florida. The margins are also smaller, but consistent. PPP (D), which is based in North Carolina, nailed the polling in 2008, but called a tie in NC in 2012, where Romney won by +2.04%, so PPP (D) missed it in 2012. Alone the fact that this state is still unbelievably competitive is a bad sign for the GOP.

In Ohio, less polled than the others, (here is the EXCEL tab for Ohio), there have been 4 polls and 21 matchups, of which Hillary has won 20. And in 12 of those 20 wins, Hillary is winning with double digit margins over her opponents. The last time a Democrat won Ohio with more than a single digit margin: LBJ, 1964. Before that? FDR, 1936. Both of those elections were massive blowout elections for the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton barely won Ohio in 1992, but he won it by +6 in 1996. Obama won it by +4.6 in 2008 and by +3 in 2012. There has not been a poll of Ohio since 1988 to show a candidate of any party in double digits. This is an extremely important data point to remember. Again, it's not just one poll or one matchup where she is winning with double digits: it's in 12 matchups spread out over 3 polls.

In Pennsylvania, also one of the less polled states, (here is the EXCEL tab for Pennsylvania), there have been 6 polls and 23 matchups, Hillary has won 22 of them. And, similar to Ohio, 15 of those 22 wins are double-digits wins. Here, Christie still does the best of the GOP field.

So, of the Quintifecta, we have four of five states (VA, OH, PA and FL) where, if the double-digit margins hold like this, those states will not even be true battlegrounds on election day 2016.

2.) Clinton is showing considerable strength in the so-called "Clinton 6 states" (three of which have been polled). The "Clinton 6", as I call them, are the six southern states that Bill Clinton won in both 1992 and 1996, that Obama never won. They are: WV, KY, MO, AR, LA and TN. I did a write-up over this phenomenon in November 2012.

Three of those "Clinton 6 have been polled": WV, KY and AR. Only one poll out of WV, but it confirms that the massive Romney landslide victory of 2012 is likely to hold for any Republican in 2016. But in Kentucky, it could be a horserace, and in Arkansas (the former home-state of the Clintons), we now have a second poll showing Hillary ahead of the GOP field, excepting fellow home-stater Mike Huckabee. Now, Mitt Romney won West Virginia by +27 and Arkansas by +24 and also made little known electoral history in 2012 as being the first Republican ever for whom both of these erstwhile Democratic bastions were called for a Republican immediately at poll closing time, but the Clinton polling here is divergent: she is losing in WV but winning somewhat in AR. However, she is under 50 in AR, there are lots of undecideds and things could change again. I have personally been thinking that Hillary would have better chances in Missouri, a state where Obama and McCain practically tied in 2008, but Romney won handily in 2012, than in Arkansas. Wait and see.

3.) Individual states that had been battlegrounds in 2000, 2004 and to some extent, in 2012, look very solid for Clinton: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico and New Hampshire.

In the West, also part of a very consistent pattern, Clinton is struggling mightily in Colorado, she has the entire time. If there is a state that the GOP has the best chances of regaining from 2008-2012, it is probably the Rocky Mountain State. Wait and see. It also appears to be close in Iowa, but Clinton is winning.

In the state of New York, an expected blue state, Clinton has margins upwards of +40. The last (and only) time a Democrat won NY with circa +40? LBJ, 1964.

Likewise, the GOP is easily winning Wyoming, by an average of about +27. George W. Bush (43) won Wyoming with over +40 both times.

Now, you might say: "Why quote NY and WY? NY is going to go blue and WY is going to go red!" And I will say: "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Expanded margins for Clinton in expected BLUE states and suppressed losing margins for her in expected RED states would point to a national win for her.

4.) Speaking of national win: national polling is overwhelmingly pointing to a large Clinton win:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdEhxaGxWc0s4RU41czd0amxYT1ltT0E#gid=1


There have been 41 national polls, with 122 matchups. Hillary Clinton has won 118 (96.72%) of those matchups. Go click on the link and see for yourself how many of those margins are double-digit margins.


Now, varying from state to state, one GOPer may come closer to Clinton than the others, but she beats them all, consistently. And this data is coming from many various and independent-from-each-other pollsters. Rasmussen, a Right-Leaning outfit, recently put out a poll showing Hillary Clinton with a +13 margin over Jeb Bush nationally.


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

Facit: it's Hillary's election to have, if she wants it. If she declares (and I am more than reasonably sure she will declare), then she is the prohibitive front runner both for her party's nomination and also against any and all comers from the GOP.

Factors working against the GOP are the fact that Obama literally cemented Virginia into the Democratic column by winning the state not just once, but twice, against all conventional wisdom. Another factor against the GOP was the wild swing of Cuban-American voters in Florida from the GOP to Obama in 2012. The assumption is that this is due to the ongoing immigration debate. Another factor is the name "Clinton", where both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton are extremely well-known to the American public and in spite of the Lewinski scandal, Bill Clinton is still quite respected among the American public.

If Hillary only wins the states that were common DEM states between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, then she is already at 290 EV (shown in the Clinton 6 link above). I see a real possibility for Hillary Clinton to go slightly over 400 EV in 2016.

Those are the current polling statistics. Update in September 2014, again in January 2015.

Full disclosure: I am a Clinton supporter, but were the numbers to be showing the GOP running away with this race, I would report it with exactly the same veracity.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:


[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION][MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION] [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION] [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION][MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION] [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION] [MENTION=3135]jillian[/MENTION] [MENTION=39688]RosieS[/MENTION] [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] [MENTION=6882]JimH52[/MENTION] [MENTION=45164]pacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=22217]Mustang[/MENTION] [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] [MENTION=46804]RandomVariable[/MENTION] [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=25493]kiwiman127[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]


Please do not quote this posting, otherwise you will send out the @ list again. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Oy stat. I am on the Do Not Mass Mention list.

I'll go get my switch off yon tree as you wait to bend over my knee.
 
There's no doubt the republicans lack a candidate to run against the Hillary Juggernault.

Might as well go with McSame again.
 
The point will be to get people out to vote, after Obama I believe most people that are liberal won't really care to win again. Obama lost millions (7ish million) from 2008 to 2012 election.


I really don't want a Republican for President, but another progressive would doom the economy for another 4 years. We need a leader that has the intention of fixing problems, not someone who perpetuates problems or makes new ones.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans want progressive policy to continue.
 
I see Hillary's greatest threat coming from within the Democratic party. In 2006 many people didn't expect a relatively unknown Senator to runaway with the nomination. Not to mention a bitter enough fight for the Democratic nomination could do enough damage to hand a relatively moderate Republican the election. Until we know who is actually running, all we can do is speculate.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
The point will be to get people out to vote, after Obama I believe most people that are liberal won't really care to win again. Obama lost millions (7ish million) from 2008 to 2012 election.


I really don't want a Republican for President, but another progressive would doom the economy for another 4 years. We need a leader that has the intention of fixing problems, not someone who perpetuates problems or makes new ones.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans want progressive policy to continue.


That is your opinion, and I cherish your right to your opinion.

I am simply saying, with the OP, that this is what the current numbers says. They don't back up your line of thought at this time.
 
I see Hillary's greatest threat coming from within the Democratic party. In 2006 many people didn't expect a relatively unknown Senator to runaway with the nomination. Not to mention a bitter enough fight for the Democratic nomination could do enough damage to hand a relatively moderate Republican the election. Until we know who is actually running, all we can do is speculate.


Sure, but again, back to the actual content of the OP, if these numbers hold (and they have now held for about 16 months straight) and Hillary is the nominee (which I see as extremely likely), then this is how the picture looks right now.

In retrospect, the mega-battle within the Democratic Party in 2008, at the end of the day, resulted in millions and millions of newly registered voters So, if a challenger does appear, this could be good for the Democratic party. I have no problem with that.

Clinton is leading all comers within the Democratic party by about +50%.
 
I think Hillary will win if the GOP does not field one of their two female, racial minority governors. That said if she does run a revolt on the D left will lead to negative coattails for house and senate races how negative is unknowable at this time but I would expect at least 50 R votes in the senate when congress convenes in 2017 and an R majority of unknown size in the house. Obamacare and D victors such as De Blasio in NYC will be a sheet anchor to her presidency. Something of this sort was predicted in 1992 by Strauss and Howe in "Generations"
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......


Actually, no.

You didn't really read the OP, now did you?


It's about what the polling says at this current time.

We can discuss 2014 anytime you like, but this thread is not about the 2014 mid-terms.
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......
True but the D downside is the unlikeability of Hillary. There is even a remote possibility of her turning CA, NY and IL into TEA party strongholds while doing nothing particularly obnoxious.
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......
True but the D downside is the unlikeability of Hillary. There is even a remote possibility of her turning CA, NY and IL into TEA party strongholds while doing nothing particularly obnoxious.


So, that explains why she is leading in NY by between +30 and +40?

I don't think so.

But if your theory is correct, then the numbers will show that.

As for unlikeability, do you have some data to back that up?
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......
True but the D downside is the unlikeability of Hillary. There is even a remote possibility of her turning CA, NY and IL into TEA party strongholds while doing nothing particularly obnoxious.

I wife loves her and wants her to win, egads, they both act alike.....:(
 
yawn.....yet another thread about the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary. She's a "LOCK"....just like in 2008 :rolleyes:

Democrats will do anything to avoid discussing the 2014 mid-terms.......
True but the D downside is the unlikeability of Hillary. There is even a remote possibility of her turning CA, NY and IL into TEA party strongholds while doing nothing particularly obnoxious.

I wife loves her and wants her to win, egads, they both act alike.....:(


I assume you mean your wife.

And you can safely assume she would be one of literally millions and millions of wives who will also support the former Secretary of State, Senator from NY and former FLOTUS.
 
How will Hillary lose...let me count the ways...

1) She's not "liberal" enough for Democrats. They want a wingnut like Liz Warren. Don't believe me? Ask one.
2) She's not "conservative" enough for Republicans. Republicans remember...
3) She's too divisive and shrill for Independents and moderates. "what difference does it make!?"
4) She's too old and tired to get young people excited. "I love chocolate"

She'll have one helluva time winning her own party nomination. But even if she does become the nominee (a definite long shot) she'll lose the GE based upon the Democrat/Obama economy. After 8 years of the Obama/Democrat depression the odds are long for any Democrat.
 

Forum List

Back
Top