2016 Prez polling in Arizona: 2015 compared to 2014

[Statistikhengst]

PPP (D) just put out a poll from the state of Arizona:

600 RV were polled from 01 May to 03 May, 2015; the poll was released today (06 May, 2015), MoE = +/- 4.0

Short version: 9 matchups, Clinton "wins" 1, there are 2 absolute ties and the GOP "wins" 6.

From the PPP (D) report:

Clinton is within 3 points in match ups with 7 out of 9 of the Republicans we tested. She actually leads Rick Perry 44/41 and she is tied with Jeb Bush (at 41%), and Ben Carson (at 42%). She is down by 1 point each to Ted Cruz and Scott Walker (44/43), by 2 points to Marco Rubio (43/41), and by 3 points to Mike Huckabee (44/41). The only Republicans with more robust leads are Rand Paul who's ahead by 5 points at 45/40 and Chris Christie who's up by 7 points at 46/39. Clinton's deficit in every match up is smaller than the amount Barack Obama lost the state by in 2008 and 2012.

PPP (D) also polled Arizona in March of 2014, and so we are able to compare matchups with Christie, Paul, Bush, J. and Huckabee. The other 5 matchups were not taken in 2014.

Here are the numbers (numbers in parentheses are from the previous PPP poll from 05 March, 2014)


Christie 46 (41) / Clinton 39 (44), margin = Christie +7 (Clinton +3)
Paul 45 (43) / Clinton 40 (46), margin = Paul +5 (Clinton +3)
Huckabee 44 (41) / Clinton 41 (47), margin = Huckabee +3 (Clinton +6)
Rubio 43 / Clinton 41 , margin = Rubio +2
Walker 44 / Clinton 43 , margin = Walker +1
Cruz 44 / Clinton 43 , margin = Cruz +1
Carson 42 / Clinton 42 , margin = TIE
Bush 41 (45) / Clinton 41 (44) , margin = TIE (Bush +1)
Clinton 44 / Perry 41, margin = Clinton +3


Just for fun, in the 2014, there was one matchup that was not in the 2015 poll:
Clinton 46 / Brewer 39, margin = Clinton +7

Of the nine matchups from the 2015 poll, 7 are well within the MoE.

Now, people from the Right will be happy to hear some of this analysis:

in spite of close numbers, Hillary is actually doing worse in Arizona vis-a-vis the 2014 poll, excepting the matchup against Jeb Bush.

Against Christie, it has gone from Hillary +3 to Christie +7 - margin shift = 10 points toward the GOP.

Against Huckabee, it has gone from Hillary +6 to Huckabee +3 - margin shift = 9 points toward the GOP.

Against Paul, it has gone from Hillary +3 to Paul +5 - margin shift = 8 points toward the GOP.

Those are some pretty major shifts.

But against Bush, it has gone from Bush +1 to an absolute tie - margin shift = 1 point toward Hillary. That is a negligible shift.


That's the good news for the GOP.

The bad news is that it should never be this close in Arizona to begin with.


Here is the electoral history of AZ at the presidential level, going back to it's first participation in the EC in 1912:

​

Source. And, with thanks to Dave Leip, who allows me to use his resources for illustrative purposes.
The color coding is REVERSED. Red = DEM, Blue = GOP.


So, cutting to the chase: From 1928 until 2004 (76 year time span), in every cycle in which the Republican won the White House in both the NPV and the EC, he won Arizona by +15 points or more. 2000 was the first cycle since 1924 where a Republican won the White House but only won Arizona in single digits. However, if you recall, Al Gore (D) actually won the popular vote that year. In 2004, Bush 43 retained Arizona for the GOP by +10.45% and sprang back into double digits.

So, the logic is that a GOPer who is only in single digits in Arizona is probably in trouble nationwide - OR the state is going through a demographic shift - OR both.

BTW, from 1912 through 1956, AZ was actually a bellwether state, having gone with the winner of the GE for 12 cycles in a row. In 1960, it lost it's bellwether status. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to win AZ (1996) in 48 years, albeit in a three-man race where Ross Perot (I-TX) did better in AZ than he did nationally.

I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is going to win Arizona. I am saying that the numbers are far too close, that the GOP should be having a substantial lead over her. She is close enough that if the numbers stay like this, it would justify making a play for the state. George W. Bush, Jr. never enjoyed these kind of numbers in either New Jersey or Hawaii in 2004, and yet, he made a play for both.

Here is the entire Arizona polling from 2012 (22 polls).

The three end-polls were Romney +8, +7 and +8.

PPP (D) predicted Romney +7, it was 2 points off to the Left in that state, one of the few states where it was off to the Left.

So, keeping an eye on a state like Arizona does help us to gauge the national flow of things.

The weakness here is that to-date, there has only been polling from one pollster, so I will be glad to see AZ polling from other firms as time goes by.

Again, for a Republican to be winning nationally, he will need to come substantially over +10 in Arizona.

And just for fun: in 2012, 97 times more votes were cast for President in Arizona than in 1912, 100 years before. That is some MASSIVE growth in this state.


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


FYI, FYE

 

[Zander]

meh......I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans. It is simply too far from the election and neither party has a confirmed candidate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lose Arizona = dead.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, we only a damn year and half before elections. but every day we are going to get a new poll. they have to keep Democrats spirits up I guess

zzzzzzzz

 

[BullKurtz]

Total CROCK from this creep-show......despite the Obozo open-border treason, Hillary couldn't get elected dyke-catcher out here.

 

[Statistikhengst]

meh......I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans. It is simply too far from the election and neither party has a confirmed candidate.

Perhaps, but building a data-baseline is never a bad idea.

And, should polling turn massively in the direction of the GOP, then that is to your advantage, right?

People often misunderstand me and numbers. When it comes to the numbers, I am totally impassionate. The numbers speak for themselves.

All I do is to provide historically accurate context.

 

[Statistikhengst]

lol, we only a damn year and half before elections. but every day we are going to get a new poll. they have to keep Democrats spirits up I guess

zzzzzzzz

Is comprehension too difficult for you, Stephanie?

Yes, I think that's your problem.

 

[HappyJoy]

My guess is that Arizona is more or less safely red in 2016. 2020...who knows, I think that Clinton being closer than most of her Democratic predecessors speaks to the states changing demographics.

 

[Zander]

meh......I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans. It is simply too far from the election and neither party has a confirmed candidate.

Perhaps, but building a data-baseline is never a bad idea.

And, should polling turn massively in the direction of the GOP, then that is to your advantage, right?

People often misunderstand me and numbers. When it comes to the numbers, I am totally impassionate. The numbers speak for themselves.

All I do is to provide historically accurate context.

I understand what you're doing and I have no issue with it. I simply do not believe this type of data has much probative value at this juncture.

Of course I am not a statistician.

 

[Statistikhengst]

My guess is that Arizona is more or less safely red in 2016. 2020...who knows, I think that Clinton being closer than most of her Democratic predecessors speaks to the states changing demographics.

Possibly.

According to the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats", a sign of a national winner is not just the states in which he is winning, and probably winning big, it is also the states where the opposition is winning, but with verifiably reduced margins. One of the sure signs that George W. Bush, Jr. was heading for a re-election victory in 2004 was that he had Kerry down to single digits in New Jersey, and got him down to +2.5 in both PA and MI.

Conversely, in 2008, when Obama picked up 9 states plus NE+-02, McCain 'only' won UT by +28, a state that is usually a +45 GOP state. He won both KS and NE by almost identical margins of just under +15 (+14.92, +14.93), states that are usually +25 GOP states. He won both ND and SD by only about +8, states that are usually +30 for the GOP. And McCain came very close to losing MT. MT!

So, I am keeping a close eye on EVERYTHING, for history teaches us that surprises can and usually do happen.



Good to see you on this thread, btw.

 

[Statistikhengst]

meh......I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans. It is simply too far from the election and neither party has a confirmed candidate.

Perhaps, but building a data-baseline is never a bad idea.

And, should polling turn massively in the direction of the GOP, then that is to your advantage, right?

People often misunderstand me and numbers. When it comes to the numbers, I am totally impassionate. The numbers speak for themselves.

All I do is to provide historically accurate context.

I understand what you're doing and I have no issue with it. I simply do not believe this type of data has much probative value at this juncture.

Of course I am not a statistician.

I'm not saying that it always has prophetic or probative value. Then again, great statisticians like Silver have already proven that extremely early polling is often more predictive than we wish to admit.

Already, in February 2008, warning signs in Indiana were showing up for the McCain camp and people poo-pooed those signs. On election night, McCain lost Indiana.

In all of 2010 and 2011 and 2012, Obama, in 117 total polls of Ohio, maintained an aggregate of either +3 or +4 over Romney on the average. This never changed over three years. On election night, Obama won Ohio by +3.

I do think that demographic shifts are starting to show more and more, especially in the sunbelt states. Corollary to this, GOP statisticians have been hopeful that the population drain from snowbelt states that are part of the Blue Wall could make them low hanging fruit. For this reason, they have made plays for WI and MN for 4 cycles in a row now.

So, I am content to enjoy following the data-baseline as it forms and I promise you that should this whole thing turn toward the GOP, I will report the findings with exactly the same veracity. Because when it comes to the numbers themselves, I am impassionate.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yep, I see what you mean.

I guess my point is that Arizona's population is in flux, has been since statehood, nobody is born there, people move in. The Hispanic population is increasing and old people are dying off and leaving a much younger more ethnic populace.

I agree with you though polling changes in presidential elections happen in all states, not just those you are winning or losing.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yep, I see what you mean.

I guess my point is that Arizona's population is in flux, has been since statehood, nobody is born there, people move in. The Hispanic population is increasing and old people are dying off and leaving a much younger more ethnic populace.

I agree with you though polling changes in presidential elections happen in all states, not just those you are winning or losing.

Yepp. And the big question is how much of an influence the Latino electorate will have in all of the SW as more and more of our fellow citizens who are Latinos come of voting age, register and then go to vote.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is going to win Arizona. I am saying that the numbers are far too close, that the GOP should be having a substantial lead over her. She is close enough that if the numbers stay like this, it would justify making a play for the state.

AZ as a battleground state?

I guess that new saying is starting to have some teeth...Demographic Shift Happens!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Total CROCK from this creep-show......despite the Obozo open-border treason, Hillary couldn't get elected dyke-catcher out here.

If they legalize enough wetbacks......

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point that the far right is missing is that a woman not as detested as hoped by many on the far right is doing better in AZ than she should be doing.

The GOP must reach out more to women and minorities if it wants to win.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The point that the far right is missing is that a woman not as detested as hoped by many on the far right is doing better in AZ than she should be doing.

The GOP must reach out more to women and minorities if it wants to win.

You're right...The thing is the gop must do it by putting out a message of stability and law enforcement. Not one of acceptance of criminal behavior or violence.

Non-whites must see that it is a good idea for stability and reasonable discussion.