Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
On January 19th, I posted this thread:
2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part VI
Back then, I logged 252 Hillary vs. (name a GOPer) polls, worth 861 matchups.
As of today, less than two months later, we are now at 282 polls and 1,011 matchups.
Some states that had not been polled at all yet have been polled in the last weeks:
Missouri, South Carolina and Nevada
Plus, we have gotten some interesting refresher polls from Connecticut, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
But it has been good to see polling out of three states that were barely polled at the presidential level in 2012.
So, let's start with Missouri:
Poll Hillary Trails 3 GOP Contenders in Missouri 20 Pounds Of Headlines
Remington Research Group (R), 757 LV, MoE = +/-3.2
Hillary Clinton 42 / Rand Paul 47 / margin = Paul +5
Hillary Clinton 40 / Scott Walker 48 / margin = Walker +8
Hillary Clinton 40 / Jeb Bush 48 / margin = Bush +10
Now, Remington is a Republican firm, but as I have always done, if the figures are from an accredited pollster, I publish them. At least we now have a baseline to start with in Missouri.
We see that, according to this poll, the GOP is leading Hillary by between +5 and +10.
Missouri used to be a major bellwether state, having gone with the winner in the Presidential election as many times as Ohio - up to 2008, but not since then.
Let's take a look at Missouri's electoral history:
2012: Romney +9.36% (Obama won nationally by +3.86%). Pull = GOP +13.22.
2008: McCain +0.13% (Obama won nationally by +7.26%). Pull = GOP +7.49.
2004: Bush 43 +7.20% (Bush 43 won nationally by +2.46%). Pull = GOP +4.74.
2000: Bush 43 +3.34% (Gore won nationally by +0.52%). Pull = GOP +3.86.
1996: Clinton +6.30% (Clinton won nationally by +8.52%). Pull = GOP +2.22.
1992: Clinton +10.15% (Clinton won nationally by +5.56%). Pull = DEM +4.59.
1998: Bush 41 +3.98% (Bush 41 won nationally by +7.73%). Pull = DEM +3.75.
1984: Reagan +20.05% (Reagan won nationally by +18.22%). Pull = DEM +1.83.
1980: Reagan +6.81% (Reagan won nationally by +9.74%). Pull = DEM +2.93.
1976: Carter +3.63% (Carter won nationally by +2.06%). Pull = DEM +1.57.
1972: Nixon +24.59% (Nixon won nationally by +23.15%). Pull = GOP +1.44.
1968: Nixon +1.13% (Nixon won nationally by +0.70%). Pull = GOP +0.44.
1964: Johnson +28.10% (Johnson won nationally by +22.58%). Pull = DEM +5.52.
1960: Kennedy +0.52% (Kennedy won nationally by +0.16%). Pull = DEM +0.36.
1956: Stevenson +0.22% (Eisenhower won nationally by +15.40%). Pull = DEM +15.62.
1952: Eisenhower +1.56% (Eisenhower won nationally by +10.58%). Pull = DEM +9.02.
So that no confusion results, let's discuss what I call the "pull". If a candidate wins a state by a margin that is LARGER than his national margin, then we say that that state "pulled" in his party's direction that year. It is NOT a comparison to the cycle before it. If a candidate wins a state by a margin LESS than his national margin, then we say that the state "pulled" in the direction of the opposing party. Some states, like Ohio, have a natural inclination to "pull" in the direction of the GOP, regardless of who wins either the state, or nationally. But in Missouri, it's more of a mixed story.
Easy example: In 1964, LBJ swept the Show-me State with a massive +28.10% margin. He won nationally by +22.58%. So, his state margin was LARGER than his national margin: 28.10 - 22.58 = 5.52, and so the "pull" for that year is calculated at 5.52 percentage points.
But in 2000, Bush 43 won Missouri by +3.34%. He LOST in the NPV to Gore, who won with +0.52, which means that Bush's national margin was -0.52%. 3.34 - (-0.52) = 3.86, and so, in spite of the electoral backfire of that year, in terms of statistics, the state pulled to the GOP by 3.86 percentage points.
Going back 60 years, to 1952, the state used to "pull" for the Democratic Party (with two small exceptions for Nixon in 1968-1972), but starting in 1996, the Missouri "pull" moved to the GOP. In 1996, where Bill Clinton improved his statistics over 1992 practically all over the country, he actually did worse in Missouri, but of course, still won the state. Please note that the "pull" of this state toward the GOP has grown for 5 cycles in a row right now.
I am writing that because nationally, Hillary Clinton (D) is swamping the GOP field and in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, she is demonstrably ahead. But she is losing in Missouri.
Now, this is just one poll, it could be wrong, but then again more polls of Missouri may come in showing similar results. This is a state that BILL Clinton won twice, one of the 6 so-called "Clinton 6" states (states that Bill Clinton won twice, states that Barack Obama never won).
Now, look at the pull from 2012. Missouri swam 13.22 percentage points against the national stream.
So, is it possible for Hillary Clinton to be up nationally by about 10 and losing in Missouri by between 5 and 10? Yes, it's possible, if it means that Missouri continues to get redder and redder in terms of ideological tilt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to South Carolina:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21815.pdf
PPP (D), from 02/19/2015, 868 RV, MoE +3.3
-and-
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/SCpolls/SC150203/Complete February 2015 South Carolina NBC News__Marist Poll Tables.pdf#page=1
Marist, from 02/15/2015, 877 RV, MoE = +/-3.3
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Chris Christie 43 / margin = Christie +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Rand Paul 45 / margin = Paul +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Leslie Graham 45 / margin = Graham +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Ted Cruz 46 / margin = Cruz +3.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 42 / Scott Walker 46 / margin = Walker +4.
Marist: Hillary Clinton 46 / Scott Walker 46 / margin = Mathematical Tie.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Rick Perry 48 / margin = Perry +5.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Ben Carson 48 / margin = Carson +7.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 42 / Jeb Bush 49 / margin = Bush +7.
Marist: Hillary Clinton 45 / Jeb Bush 48 / margin = Bush +3.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Mike Huckabee 49 / margin = Huckabee +8.
So, between these two polls, excluding one mathematical tie, it's from GOP +2 to GOP +8.
Ok, the electoral history of the Palmetto State (not as intensive as I made for Missouri):
2012: Romney +10.47%.
2008: McCain +8.98%.
2004: Bush 43 +17.08%.
2000: Bush 43 +15.93%.
2000: Dole +6.04%.
1992: Bush 41 +8.15%
1988: Bush 41 +23.92%
1984: Reagan +27.99%
1980: Reagan +1.53%
1976: Carter +13.04%
1972: Nixon +42.66%
1968: Nixon +5.79%
1964: Goldwater +17.79%
1960: Kennedy +2.48%
1956: Stevenson +15.92%
1952: Stevenson +1.44%
What we can get out of this is that the state is a really, really red state, has really been so since 1964 with a short interlude for Southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976. And excluding Reagan narrowly flipping the state in 1980, in every cycle since then, a Republican has needed to win the state by at least +16 to also be winning nationally. A +2 for the GOP in South Carolina is simply not enough. I am pretty sure that those margins are going to rise for the GOP, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to Nevada:
Gravis Insights Poll - Scott Walker Leads Nevada
Gravis (R), 02/23/2015, 955 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
Hillary Clinton 43 / Bryan Sandoval 46 / Margin = Sandoval +3.
Hillary Clinton 49 / Scott Walker 43 / Margin = Clinton +6.
Hillary Clinton 49 / Rand Paul 42 / Margin = Clinton +7.
Hillary Clinton 47 / Chris Christie 38 / Margin = Clinton +9.
Hillary Clinton 50 / Jeb Bush 37 / Margin = Clinton +13.
Gravis (R) did a pretty good job of polling in 2012. It's mathematical bias in 2012 was not as extreme as that of Rasmussen. Notice that favorite son Sandoval leads Clinton. Only, Sandoval is not running. Against the names we are pretty sure are running, is Clinton +6 to +13. Interesting that Jeb Bush is doing the worst here, considering that his brother, George W. Bush, Jr., made impressive inroads into the Latino vote in 2004.
And the electoral history of Nevada, also a pretty darned good bellwether:
2012: Obama +6.68%.
2012: Obama +12.49%.
2004: Bush 43 +2.59%.
2000: Bush 43 +3.55%.
1996: Clinton +1.02%.
1992: Clinton +2.63%.
1988: Bush 41 +20.94%.
1984: Reagan +33.88%.
1980: Reagan +35.64%.
1976: Ford +4.36%. (Carter won nationally)
1972: Nixon +27.36%.
1968: Nixon +8.16%.
1964: Johnson +17.16%.
1964: Kennedy +2.32%.
1956: Eisenhower +15.94%.
1952: Eisenhower +22.89%.
1948: Truman +3.11%.
1944: FDR +9.24%.
1940: FDR +20.15%.
1936: FDR +45.62%.
1936: FDR +38.82%.
1928: Hoover +13.07%.
1924: Coolidge +5.48%.
1920: Harding +20.70%.
1916: Wilson +16.96%.
1912: Wilson +11.76%.
1908: Bryan +1.78%. (Taft won nationally)
1904: Roosevelt, T +23.79%.
I gave the electoral stats farther back in time to show exactly what a real bellwether Nevada has been. In the last 100 years, it has only missed the mark once: in 1976. Going back farther than 100 years, it also missed the mark in 1908, 1900 and 1896, all three times for the "silver-tongued orator" William Jennings Bryan (D).
So, actually, people should pay pretty close attention to polling out of Nevada. It really IS one of the two best bellwethers in the nation, next to Ohio.
There is also a badly kept secret out there, published by Jon Ralston: based on the early balloting out of Clark County, one can usually call a "lock" on that state for a candidate about 4 days before the election, since Clark County is about 70% of the electorate of that state.
Examples:
Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond Nevada early voting update - Obama lock is close at hand
Similar predictions were made by Ralston in 2008, 2004 and 2000. They were all correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, these are just initial polls, but now we can start to build a baseline for Missouri, South Carolina and Nevada, going into 2016.
Fun!
2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part VI
Back then, I logged 252 Hillary vs. (name a GOPer) polls, worth 861 matchups.
As of today, less than two months later, we are now at 282 polls and 1,011 matchups.
Some states that had not been polled at all yet have been polled in the last weeks:
Missouri, South Carolina and Nevada
Plus, we have gotten some interesting refresher polls from Connecticut, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
But it has been good to see polling out of three states that were barely polled at the presidential level in 2012.
So, let's start with Missouri:
Poll Hillary Trails 3 GOP Contenders in Missouri 20 Pounds Of Headlines
Remington Research Group (R), 757 LV, MoE = +/-3.2
Hillary Clinton 42 / Rand Paul 47 / margin = Paul +5
Hillary Clinton 40 / Scott Walker 48 / margin = Walker +8
Hillary Clinton 40 / Jeb Bush 48 / margin = Bush +10
Now, Remington is a Republican firm, but as I have always done, if the figures are from an accredited pollster, I publish them. At least we now have a baseline to start with in Missouri.
We see that, according to this poll, the GOP is leading Hillary by between +5 and +10.
Missouri used to be a major bellwether state, having gone with the winner in the Presidential election as many times as Ohio - up to 2008, but not since then.
Let's take a look at Missouri's electoral history:
2012: Romney +9.36% (Obama won nationally by +3.86%). Pull = GOP +13.22.
2008: McCain +0.13% (Obama won nationally by +7.26%). Pull = GOP +7.49.
2004: Bush 43 +7.20% (Bush 43 won nationally by +2.46%). Pull = GOP +4.74.
2000: Bush 43 +3.34% (Gore won nationally by +0.52%). Pull = GOP +3.86.
1996: Clinton +6.30% (Clinton won nationally by +8.52%). Pull = GOP +2.22.
1992: Clinton +10.15% (Clinton won nationally by +5.56%). Pull = DEM +4.59.
1998: Bush 41 +3.98% (Bush 41 won nationally by +7.73%). Pull = DEM +3.75.
1984: Reagan +20.05% (Reagan won nationally by +18.22%). Pull = DEM +1.83.
1980: Reagan +6.81% (Reagan won nationally by +9.74%). Pull = DEM +2.93.
1976: Carter +3.63% (Carter won nationally by +2.06%). Pull = DEM +1.57.
1972: Nixon +24.59% (Nixon won nationally by +23.15%). Pull = GOP +1.44.
1968: Nixon +1.13% (Nixon won nationally by +0.70%). Pull = GOP +0.44.
1964: Johnson +28.10% (Johnson won nationally by +22.58%). Pull = DEM +5.52.
1960: Kennedy +0.52% (Kennedy won nationally by +0.16%). Pull = DEM +0.36.
1956: Stevenson +0.22% (Eisenhower won nationally by +15.40%). Pull = DEM +15.62.
1952: Eisenhower +1.56% (Eisenhower won nationally by +10.58%). Pull = DEM +9.02.
So that no confusion results, let's discuss what I call the "pull". If a candidate wins a state by a margin that is LARGER than his national margin, then we say that that state "pulled" in his party's direction that year. It is NOT a comparison to the cycle before it. If a candidate wins a state by a margin LESS than his national margin, then we say that the state "pulled" in the direction of the opposing party. Some states, like Ohio, have a natural inclination to "pull" in the direction of the GOP, regardless of who wins either the state, or nationally. But in Missouri, it's more of a mixed story.
Easy example: In 1964, LBJ swept the Show-me State with a massive +28.10% margin. He won nationally by +22.58%. So, his state margin was LARGER than his national margin: 28.10 - 22.58 = 5.52, and so the "pull" for that year is calculated at 5.52 percentage points.
But in 2000, Bush 43 won Missouri by +3.34%. He LOST in the NPV to Gore, who won with +0.52, which means that Bush's national margin was -0.52%. 3.34 - (-0.52) = 3.86, and so, in spite of the electoral backfire of that year, in terms of statistics, the state pulled to the GOP by 3.86 percentage points.
Going back 60 years, to 1952, the state used to "pull" for the Democratic Party (with two small exceptions for Nixon in 1968-1972), but starting in 1996, the Missouri "pull" moved to the GOP. In 1996, where Bill Clinton improved his statistics over 1992 practically all over the country, he actually did worse in Missouri, but of course, still won the state. Please note that the "pull" of this state toward the GOP has grown for 5 cycles in a row right now.
I am writing that because nationally, Hillary Clinton (D) is swamping the GOP field and in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, she is demonstrably ahead. But she is losing in Missouri.
Now, this is just one poll, it could be wrong, but then again more polls of Missouri may come in showing similar results. This is a state that BILL Clinton won twice, one of the 6 so-called "Clinton 6" states (states that Bill Clinton won twice, states that Barack Obama never won).
Now, look at the pull from 2012. Missouri swam 13.22 percentage points against the national stream.
So, is it possible for Hillary Clinton to be up nationally by about 10 and losing in Missouri by between 5 and 10? Yes, it's possible, if it means that Missouri continues to get redder and redder in terms of ideological tilt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to South Carolina:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21815.pdf
PPP (D), from 02/19/2015, 868 RV, MoE +3.3
-and-
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/SCpolls/SC150203/Complete February 2015 South Carolina NBC News__Marist Poll Tables.pdf#page=1
Marist, from 02/15/2015, 877 RV, MoE = +/-3.3
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Chris Christie 43 / margin = Christie +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Rand Paul 45 / margin = Paul +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Leslie Graham 45 / margin = Graham +2.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Ted Cruz 46 / margin = Cruz +3.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 42 / Scott Walker 46 / margin = Walker +4.
Marist: Hillary Clinton 46 / Scott Walker 46 / margin = Mathematical Tie.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 43 / Rick Perry 48 / margin = Perry +5.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Ben Carson 48 / margin = Carson +7.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 42 / Jeb Bush 49 / margin = Bush +7.
Marist: Hillary Clinton 45 / Jeb Bush 48 / margin = Bush +3.
PPP: Hillary Clinton 41 / Mike Huckabee 49 / margin = Huckabee +8.
So, between these two polls, excluding one mathematical tie, it's from GOP +2 to GOP +8.
Ok, the electoral history of the Palmetto State (not as intensive as I made for Missouri):
2012: Romney +10.47%.
2008: McCain +8.98%.
2004: Bush 43 +17.08%.
2000: Bush 43 +15.93%.
2000: Dole +6.04%.
1992: Bush 41 +8.15%
1988: Bush 41 +23.92%
1984: Reagan +27.99%
1980: Reagan +1.53%
1976: Carter +13.04%
1972: Nixon +42.66%
1968: Nixon +5.79%
1964: Goldwater +17.79%
1960: Kennedy +2.48%
1956: Stevenson +15.92%
1952: Stevenson +1.44%
What we can get out of this is that the state is a really, really red state, has really been so since 1964 with a short interlude for Southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976. And excluding Reagan narrowly flipping the state in 1980, in every cycle since then, a Republican has needed to win the state by at least +16 to also be winning nationally. A +2 for the GOP in South Carolina is simply not enough. I am pretty sure that those margins are going to rise for the GOP, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to Nevada:
Gravis Insights Poll - Scott Walker Leads Nevada
Gravis (R), 02/23/2015, 955 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
Hillary Clinton 43 / Bryan Sandoval 46 / Margin = Sandoval +3.
Hillary Clinton 49 / Scott Walker 43 / Margin = Clinton +6.
Hillary Clinton 49 / Rand Paul 42 / Margin = Clinton +7.
Hillary Clinton 47 / Chris Christie 38 / Margin = Clinton +9.
Hillary Clinton 50 / Jeb Bush 37 / Margin = Clinton +13.
Gravis (R) did a pretty good job of polling in 2012. It's mathematical bias in 2012 was not as extreme as that of Rasmussen. Notice that favorite son Sandoval leads Clinton. Only, Sandoval is not running. Against the names we are pretty sure are running, is Clinton +6 to +13. Interesting that Jeb Bush is doing the worst here, considering that his brother, George W. Bush, Jr., made impressive inroads into the Latino vote in 2004.
And the electoral history of Nevada, also a pretty darned good bellwether:
2012: Obama +6.68%.
2012: Obama +12.49%.
2004: Bush 43 +2.59%.
2000: Bush 43 +3.55%.
1996: Clinton +1.02%.
1992: Clinton +2.63%.
1988: Bush 41 +20.94%.
1984: Reagan +33.88%.
1980: Reagan +35.64%.
1976: Ford +4.36%. (Carter won nationally)
1972: Nixon +27.36%.
1968: Nixon +8.16%.
1964: Johnson +17.16%.
1964: Kennedy +2.32%.
1956: Eisenhower +15.94%.
1952: Eisenhower +22.89%.
1948: Truman +3.11%.
1944: FDR +9.24%.
1940: FDR +20.15%.
1936: FDR +45.62%.
1936: FDR +38.82%.
1928: Hoover +13.07%.
1924: Coolidge +5.48%.
1920: Harding +20.70%.
1916: Wilson +16.96%.
1912: Wilson +11.76%.
1908: Bryan +1.78%. (Taft won nationally)
1904: Roosevelt, T +23.79%.
I gave the electoral stats farther back in time to show exactly what a real bellwether Nevada has been. In the last 100 years, it has only missed the mark once: in 1976. Going back farther than 100 years, it also missed the mark in 1908, 1900 and 1896, all three times for the "silver-tongued orator" William Jennings Bryan (D).
So, actually, people should pay pretty close attention to polling out of Nevada. It really IS one of the two best bellwethers in the nation, next to Ohio.
There is also a badly kept secret out there, published by Jon Ralston: based on the early balloting out of Clark County, one can usually call a "lock" on that state for a candidate about 4 days before the election, since Clark County is about 70% of the electorate of that state.
Examples:
Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond Nevada early voting update - Obama lock is close at hand
Similar predictions were made by Ralston in 2008, 2004 and 2000. They were all correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, these are just initial polls, but now we can start to build a baseline for Missouri, South Carolina and Nevada, going into 2016.
Fun!
Last edited:
