Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Alaska, on the presidential level, is still very much a RED state, as expected, but the polling over 2013 and now the first poll of 2014, does provide some interesting results worth looking at. If you are on the Right, don't get angry right away. Take the time to actually read the data.
First, some background on Alaska (a state I like very much, I have vacationed there twice), over a number of helpful links.
All presidential election results since Alaska joined the "Electoral College" in 1960:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=2&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state
A electoral "bio" of Alaska, from the end of 2011:
Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 46 / 6: Alaska
2008 polling from Alaska (will be part of this discussion):
Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE, No. 12
2012 polling from Alaska:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Q0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=4
(that's right, there was none. There was a Hayes poll of Alaska in 2011, but it was worthless)
The two 2016 polls of Alaska from 2013 are here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NUlSZU52bGdZemNzZ2VNVmVRYnc&usp=sharing#gid=2
In 2013 were 2 polls, a total of 8 matchups, Clinton lost 5 of them and won 3. The largest margin against Hillary was +8 for Christie (August 2013)
The third poll came in yesterday:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_AK_205.pdf
In the newest poll, Jeb Bush does the best against Hillary, beating her by +8. Rand Paul beats her by +6, while Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie both beat her by +4. Hillary beats Sarah Palin by +1. All the data is at the link above.
Dave Wissing, a Republican who keeps an excellent polling blog (not a politics forum) called the HEDGEHOG REPORT, also noted this yesterday:
Bush Most Electable in AK, Crist Leads Scott By 7% in FL « The Hedgehog Report
Analysis:
ALASKA is a 13-for-14 GOP state on the presidential level and I am quite sure it will become a 14-for-15 GOP state in the 2016 election, reagardless who the GOP nominee will be. The Republican "DNA" in the state, as John King from CNN puts it, is so deep that is it practically impossible for a Democrat at the national level to overcome.
But in 9 of those 14 elections, it was won by a +20 or more margin (1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 and 2008). It has been won in low single digits only twice: in 1960 (Nixon +1.88%) and in 1968 (Nixon +2.64%). So, the vast majority of the time, Alaska has been a landslide state.
For this reason, the state is considered a +20 GOP state on the whole. A Democrat should not even be competitive in polling here. And yet, right now, Hillary is just behind in single digits. Bush, Sr. won Alaska in 1992 in high single digits (+9.17%), but in a three man race where Ross Perot got over 28% of the vote in Alaska.
Now, there was some weird polling that came out of Alaska in 2008, some of it before Palin's VP candidacy and some of it afterward. If you go to the 2008 polling and look at Alaska, you will see that McCain/Palin outperformed the 2008 polling averages, due mainly to a couple of weird fly-by-night pollsters, from whom we not not heard any more since. Yes, sometimes Democrats enage in dirty polling tricks, too, and I have been known to call them out just as severely, as I did in the case of "Rainmaker" in West Virginia in 2008 following the election.
But a funny thing happened in 2012:
In 2008, there were 5 out of 51 "states" (including DC) that "swung" Republican, meaning that McCain/Palin won those states with a higher margin in 2008 than Bush, Jr. / Cheney won in 2004, despite having lost the national election:
WV, TN, LA, AR and [COLOR="DarkRed)"]OK[/COLOR], all "red" states. AR was the highest swing for McCain in that year.
In 2012, there were 6 out of 51 "states" (including DC) that "swung" Democratic, meaning that Obama/Biden improved on their statistic in those 6 states over 2008, despite having lost ground in the other 45 states to Romney/Ryan:
NY, NY, MD (3 BLUE states) and MS, AL and AK. AK (Alaska) was the highest swing for Obama in 2012. Romney won AK by +13.99% in 2012. Bush, Jr. won the state by almost +30% just eight years before.
How can this be, in such a solid RED state in a year where the President was especially unpopular in RED states? Former AK Gov and VP candidate Sarah Palin cannot be the reason, for AK actually swung BLUE in 2008 as well (Bush did better in 2004 than McCain did in 2008 in AK, by about +4).
I think it's probably the unaffiliated voters. 53% of RV in Alaska are unaffiliated voters:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ekRSUGVFbUtseXlZcGNoRThFOGc&usp=sharing#gid=0
They, the unaffiliateds, are the reason by Mark Begich (D) is still competitive in his bid for re-election to the US-Senate in 2014. And the fact that McCain/Palin won here by +21, while Begich won by +1 all in the same year tells us that voters in Alaska will vote split-ticket when they want to.
Now, please don't read into this that I think that Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, for that matter, is going to win Alaska on the national level. She will not win this state. But the principle of "a rising tide lifts all winning boats" applies here. In a close election, Hillary should be LOSING in Alaska by between -15 and -20 at the very least, probably more like -25. See: Obama 2008, 2012, Clinton 1996, 1992, even Carter 1976.
If this type of prez polling for Alaska persists throughout 2014 and beyond (and there will be polling since Democrat Mark Begich, who narrowly won election in 2008, is up for re-election) and Hillary is still only losing by single digits, then that is yet another sign of a major problem for the GOP.
Notice also that, with the precipitous fall of Chris Christie in polling since "Bridgegate", Alaska is yet another state where Jeb Bush's fortunes have risen. In other words, GOP voters are replacing one moderate hope for their party with another. Whether or not that is the right thing for their party, I am not qualified to say. I am simply reporting what the numbers are telling.
I suspect that, once the GOP candidate is locked into place, Clinton will be behind by at least -10 or more, which would be in line-with historical precedent. Wait and see. But this data is yet another piece of the puzzle that shows that Hillary Clinton, whether you love her or you hate her, is a formidable force for 2016, should she decide to run. That is what the data is saying all over the place. One poll can be wrong, but they cannot all be wrong.
And just to remind: here was PPP's (D) track record in 2012:
Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?
PPP (D) was -hands down - the best pollster of 2012 when you compare it's end-polling to the final results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As more Alaska polling comes in, I will add it to this thread.
-Stat
[MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION]
Last edited:
Silliest statement I've heard in a while considering Republicans control the majority of state offices.
