Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Partly because it's a neigboring state to Louisiana (which I just analysed some days ago), but also party because the numbers are indeed telling, I am starting the statistical baseline for Mississippi now, going into 2016.
PPP (D), just put out a new poll from Mississippi, with matchups between Hillary Clinton (D) and the prospective GOP field. This is the second poll of Mississippi vis-a-vis the 2016 race.
Now, that may sound unimportant until you realize that there was not even one single poll of Mississippi (Obama vs. Romney) taken in 2012. Mississippi was one of four states that was never polled vis-a-vis the 2012 election. Mississippi was polled 12 times in the 2008 (Obama vs. McCain) election. More about these details later.
Since the first 2016 poll of Mississippi is also a PPP (D) poll, we can make a direct comparison in most cases.
The most recent poll, released yesterday, July 17, 2014:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_MS_717.pdf
691 RV, MoE = +/-3.7
The numerical values in parentheses are from the last PPP (D), where applicable, for comparison purposes. Italics = tie values.
Hillary Clinton (D) 42 (40)
Chris Christie (R) 45 (49)
Margin: Christie +3
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +6
Hillary Clinton (D) 43 (44)
Rand Paul (R) 45 (46)
Margin: Paul +2
Margin shift from previous poll: NO CHANGE
Hillary Clinton (D) 42 (42)
Jeb Bush (R) 47 (50)
Margin: Bush, J. +5
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +3
Hillary Clinton (D) 44 (45)
Ted Cruz (R) 44 (47)
Margin: Absolute TIE
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +2
Hillary Clinton (D) 42
Mike Huckabee (R) 49
Margin: Huckabee +7
Margin shift from previous poll: No comparison possible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-aways from this poll, also with a comparison to the former poll:
Mike Huckabee (R), a Southerner (Arkansas) and evangelical Christian, does the best against Hillary, with a solid +7. Jeb Bush (R), also a Southerner (Florida) does second best, with +5. And those two margins are outside of the margin of error.
The other three margins are not:
Ted Cruz (R), also a Southerner (Texas), is tied with Hillary. That is a shocker. In all of the polling from Mississippi in 2008, the WORST that John McCain did was +6 over Obama. The final polling average in MS for 2008 was: McCain +10.50 (McCain won by +13.17% in that year).
Chris Christie (R) (New Jersey) leads Hillary by +3, Rand Paul (R), a Southerner (Kentucky), leads Hillary by +2. So, the Cruz/Hillary tie and these two margins are all well within the MoE.
None of the GOP candidates gets to the 50 mark in a state where a GOP candidate should get about 56% or more of the vote on election night.
Now, I am not saying that Hillary Clinton will win Mississippi, but the numbers are already showing the race to be competitive, which is is an exceedingly bad sign for the GOP. The last time a Democrat lost Mississipi by less than 10 points (1996: Dole +5.13%), that Democrat, Bill Clinton, won nationally by +8.52%. Margins do matter, including in states where the national winner lost, according to the principle of:
"A rising tide lifts all boats"
At the end of 2011, I put out 50 state "bios". I do this one year before the next General election (also did it in late 2007), so I will be doing it again in 2015.
Here is the bio for Mississippi:
Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 39 / 13: Mississippi
You might really enjoy reading the long summary of the report; it shows what a very turbulent electoral history this state has had.
But just to remind, and in a nutshell: the last time a Democrat won this state on the national level was Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat, in 1976, and he barely carried the state, with +1.88%. MS was first called for Carter at about 3 am on election night going into the next day, and, depending on which station you may have been watching, with Ohio, put Carter over the top.
Both times, as a "States Rights" 3rd party candidate was on the national ballot (Strom Thurmond 1948 / George Wallace 1968), Mississippi went for the 3rd party candidate.
And in 1960, Mississippians were so pissed off over Kennedy's stance on Civil Rights that that state cast it's electors for NOBODY, because Mississipians placed "unpledged electors" on the ballot, and that nobody won. Similarly, in 1964, after LBJ signed parts of the Civil Rights Act into law, MS swung wildly against the Democratic Party and gave Barry Goldwater (R) a landslide win, although Goldwater lost in one of the worst national Republican landslide losses in our electoral history.
The last time a Democrat won this state two times in a row was with Adlai E. Stevenson III, in 1952 and 1956, respectively. That's how far back in history you have to go to call this state a "Democratic" state.
You can see the complete electoral history of Mississippi in numbers here:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=28&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state
Since 1984, in every two-man race (1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012), the GOP candidate has easily won this state with a double-digit margin. It is also interesting to note that in 1992, George H. W.Bush (41) did better in MS than Bob Dole did in 1996, in spite of the fact the Independent Ross Perot, who was on the ballot in both 1992 and 1996, did considerably better in 1992. You would think that with an Independent candidate getting 18.91% of the national vote in 1992 but only 8.90% in 1996, that the Republican would do BETTER in MS in '96 than was the case in '92.
George W. Bush (43) is the only Republican in history to win MS two times in a row with double-digit margins.
So, I think it is fair to say that Mississippi is considered a core GOP state on the national level these days, also mostly at the state level, and is considered a locked-in element in their electoral column, one they should not have to worry about.
Now, President Obama slightly improved his statistic in Mississippi in 2012 over 2008: he lost MS by -13.17% to John McCain in 2008 and by -11.50% to Mitt Romney in 2012, a "swing" of +1.67 toward the Democratic Party. But a landslide win is a landslide win is a landslide win, and Romney easily and impressively won this state. It was never in doubt, ever.
Sometimes, people complain because MS is not called immediately on election night for the GOP candidate, but that has nothing to do with the networks: Mississippi is notorious for getting it's first tabulations in very late to AP. In the last 6 election cycles, MS was called immediately in only two of them:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...emExbW96SW1tZlNMdktyMmYweEE&usp=sharing#gid=1
And going back even farther, to 1976, of the last 10 cycles, MS has only been called immediately in 3 of those 10 cycles: 1984, 2000 and 2012.
FACIT: Mississippi is a state that Hillary Cllinton (D) should be losing by at least 10 points, to any and all potential GOP candidates. The fact that she is actually tied with a GOPer, within the MoE behind two other GOPers and the strongest potential GOP candidate only gets to +7 over her is an exceedingly bad sign for the GOP. And the fact that her standing in this state has improved over the last PPP (D) poll, just as it has in neighboring Louisiana, tells me that a Hillary Clinton candidacy could very well expand the Democratic electoral map throughout the country.
Now, my complaint about this is that we have only seen polling from one pollster, which makes the polling "DNA" too thin for my taste, but there is nothing keeping a pollster like Rasmussen or Insider Advantage or WAA from also polling Mississippi. I mean, the Cochran-McDaniels GOP nomination race was in the news for all to see.
As more polling data for Mississippi comes in, I will add it to this thread.
