Current presidential polling in Louisiana

[Statistikhengst]

LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA, on the presidential level, has been a mostly reliable GOP state since 1980 and the Reagan Revolution.

At the current time, the GOP field is ahead of Hillary Clinton, but not by much.

First, some background on LOUISIANA, over a number of helpful links.

All presidential election results for LOUISIANA since 1856:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=22&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

A electoral "bio" of LOUISIANA, from the end of 2011:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 44 / 8: Louisiana

2008 polling from LOUISIANA:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE, No. 12

2012 polling from LOUISIANA:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=36


The four polls of Louisiana from 2013 till now are here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...UJqa3MyUm5VUTg0dlRzaHZtaEE&usp=sharing#gid=19

The latest PPP (D) poll just came in on 02/18:

( ) = values from the PPP (D) poll prior to this one for that particular match-up:

Clinton 43 (42)[/B]
Christie 44 (41)
Margin: Christie +1 (Clinton +1)

Clinton 44 (46)
Ryan 46 (46)
Margin: Ryan +2 (-TIE-)

Clinton 45 (47)[/B]
Jindal 47 (40)
Margin: Jindal +2 (Clinton +7)

Clinton 43 (44)
Paul 47 (45)
Margin: Paul +3 (+1)

Clinton 43 (N/A)
Huckabee 49 (N/A)
Margin: Huckabee +6

Clinton 43 (44)
Bush, Jeb 50 (44)
Margin: Bush, Jeb +7 (-TIE-)


Now, the margins, in ascending order:

Hillary vs. Christie: Christie +1
Hillary vs. Ryan: Ryan +2
Hillary vs. Jindal: Jindal +2
Hillary vs. Paul: Paul +3
Hillary vs. Huckabee: Huckabee +6
Hillary vs. Bush, Jeb: Bush, Jeb +7


When you analyse the CHANGE in the margin from this PPP (D) poll over the last time each pair was matched up, then the change looks like this:

Hillary vs. Huckabee: Huckabee +6 - no comparison possible

Hillary vs. Christie: from Hillary +1 to Christie +1 = Christie +2

Hillary vs. Paul: from Paul +2 to Paul +3 = Paul +1

Hillary vs. Ryan: from an absolute tie to Ryan +2 = Ryan +2

Hillary vs. Bush, Jeb: from an absolute tie Bush, Jeb +7 = Bush, Jeb +7

Hillary vs. Jindal: from Hillary +7 to Jindal +2 = Jindal +9


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

So, what to make of this data?

1.) A +1 to +2 for any candidate is a statistical tie, so essentially, in the case of Hillary vs. Christie, vs. Ryan and vs. Jindal - it is a statistical and is also usual for polls this early out, the candidates tend to be in the low fourties.

But the movement has been entirely toward the GOP in a state that tends to lean GOP. Right now, Jeb Bush, considered a moderate, has the largest lead and has increased his margin by +7 over the last poll.

Mike Huckabee, who was not polled last time and like Jeb Bush, a Southerner , is at +6.

Although he is statistically at a tie (+2), Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has made the biggest turnaround of them all, and gained in +9 in margin, coming from a -7 point deficit behind Hillary Clinton.

Essentially, the state is responding as a GOP state is expected to respond. But the margins are exceptionally lean.

2.) There have been more polls for 2016 already in 2013 and 2014 for the state of Louisiana than were for the 2012 election!

3.) Louisiana belongs to the so-called "Clinton 6": six Southern/Bible Belt /Mason-Dixon states that went for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 and all of which Barack Obama lost both times, in 2008 and 2012: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. This point is made in the Louisiana bio and also in this interesting blog entry of mine:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The Clinton 6 vs. The Obama 3

Just because Bill Clinton won Louisiana in 1992 and 1996 is absolutely no guarantee that Hillary Clinton can win these states. Why? Because, statistically, on the whole, they have trended more and more to the Right in each of the last four successive presidential elections. Actually, Louisiana swung just ever so slightly to the left in 2012, but the swing was minimal.


Back to the actual winning margins in Louisiana, here the last seven cycles:

1988: Bush 41 +10.21%
1992: Clinton (Bill) +4.61%
1996: Clinton (Bill) +12.07%
2000: Bush 43 +7.68%
2004: Bush 43 +14.51%
2008: McCain +18.63%
2012: Romney +17.21%


Notice that John McCain outperformed any Republican candidate in this state since 1992. In fact, you have to go back to 1984 to find a candidate who fared better than McCain in Lousiana.


Back to those margins again, this time with the national margin in parenthesis:

1988: Bush 41 +10.21% (+7.73%)
1992: Clinton (Bill) +4.61% (+5.56%)
1996: Clinton (Bill) +12.07% (+8.52%)
2000: Bush 43 +7.68%(GORE +0.52%)[/COLOR][/B]
2004: Bush 43 +14.51% (+2.46%)
2008: McCain +18.63% (Obama +7.26%)
2012: Romney +17.21% (Obama +3.86%)

So, a state that was once a pretty integral part of the Democratic electoral column (Cleveland won it all three times, Wilson won it both times, FDR won it all four times, Kennedy won it, Carter won it once, Clinton won it twice) has become a pretty integral part of the Republican electoral column. It is also a state with a heavy independent/contrarian vein. See: 1948, 1968 (also 1964).

We also see that a Democrat can win nationally with +7% margin and sail way over 300 EV, and yet the Republican opponent can win Louisiana with a crushing double digit margin.

In 2008, McCain was leading in Louisiana by double digits.
In 2012, Romney led by between +6 and +23 -the polling of this state was very inconsistent. PPP (D) did not poll Louisiana in 2012. It has already polled the state three times in 2013/2014.

A Republican should be swamping all Democrats on the national level here, but right now, although it is statistically ADVANTAGE:GOP, this state could become a battleground with Hillary Clinton as the DEM nominee.

To compare: Hillary is currently doing better in Louisiana in polling that Obama ever did. She is also doing better in Louisiana polling that Obama fared in Georgia, Indiana and is on par with the polling average for North Carolina from 2012.

If Hillary Clinton remains this close behind the GOP in Louisiana polling, that is also a financial problem for the Republicans, for then they would be forced to sink money into a state that they have been counting on as a "safe" state since 2000.

I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is going to win Louisiana. In fact, she could win nationally with 57% of the vote and still narrowly lose Louisiana. But the statistical probability is very, very high that at least one of the (Bill) "Clinton 6" from 1992/1996 can be shaken off the GOP-tree in the case of a Hillary Clinton nomination in 2016. In that case, my money is on Missouri going solidly for Hillary, maybe Kentucky, but not the rest.

Right now, Louisiana is still a GOP state, and probably going to stay that way. Watch and see how the margins move over the next two years.

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

Here was PPP's (D) and 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.

The other pollster in this state from 2013 for 2016, "Conservative Intel", did not poll in 2012.


If you check out the 2014 primary calendar:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/338137-2014-primary-calendar.html

You will see that Louisiana will NOT be having a primary.

Some other "current polling" threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/341594-current-presidential-polling-in-ohio.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/339685-current-presidential-polling-in-colorado.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/338878-current-presidential-polling-in-alaska.html

Coming up next: current presidential polling in Virginia and Kansas.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Don't hold your breath on Louisiana turning blue. No republican candidate will even bother stopping there more than once during the next Presidential election season.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't hold your breath on Louisiana turning blue. No republican candidate will even bother stopping there more than once during the next Presidential election season.

Please read the entire OP. I never once said that Lousiana was going to go blue.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Don't hold your breath on Louisiana turning blue. No republican candidate will even bother stopping there more than once during the next Presidential election season.

Please read the entire OP. I never once said that Lousiana was going to go blue.

Oh I thought you were making the point that Hillary might be able to swing it. Are you talking about the national implications of those numbers? Or are you presenting them just for information's sake.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't hold your breath on Louisiana turning blue. No republican candidate will even bother stopping there more than once during the next Presidential election season.

Please read the entire OP. I never once said that Lousiana was going to go blue.

Oh I thought you were making the point that Hillary might be able to swing it. Are you talking about the national implications of those numbers? Or are you presenting them just for information's sake.

[MENTION=39852]TheOldSchool[/MENTION]


I am establishing a baseline for the next 2.5 years, state by state. These threads will be constantly updated, according to polling frequency.

But there are national implications to all of this, of course.

Look at it according to the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Even in states where the winner of the national election loses on the statewide basis, the losing margins are generally far leaner.

If the GOP candidate is still in low single digits over Hillary in 2016, he is still likely to win that state but very likely to lose the national election, for those numbers are indicative of a rising tide for the other side nationall.

Look at that kind of massive margins Bush 43 amassed in very RED states in 2004 (impressive margins, I want to add):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/...l&f=1&off=0&year=2004&sort_dir=&submit=Submit

22 of the 29 Bush 43 states were at over +10% in margin, and 13 of those 22 states were at over +20%. The rising tide for Bush 43 lowered Kerry to +2.50% in PA and +3.41% in Michigan. 12 of Kerry's 19 states were single digit margins.

Fast forward to 2008, also some particularly massive margins for a Democrat, something we had not seen since 1964:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/...1&off=0&year=2008&sort_dir=desc&submit=Submit

21 of Obama's 29.25 states were with +10 margin, and 11 of those 21 were with +20% margin or more. Look familiar? That rising tide for Obama pulled states like Indiana and North Carolina over the line and reduced McCain's margins drastically in Missouri, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, both Dakotas and Arizona.

So, my point is that looking at core states for BOTH parties also tells us a great deal about things are likely to look with specific constellations of candidates.

And I pay just as much attention to "safe" or perceived "safe" states as I do to battlegrounds.

Hope that information helps.

 

[AceRothstein]

Excellent analysis, I really enjoy your threads.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Excellent analysis, I really enjoy your threads.

[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION]

Thank you.
Toda Rabah.
Danke Sehr.
Merci.
Spacebo.
Grazie.
Gracias.

!!!!

Shall I put you on the electoral mention list for big threads?

 

[AceRothstein]

Excellent analysis, I really enjoy your threads.

[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION]

Thank you.
Toda Rabah.
Danke Sehr.
Merci.
Spacebo.
Grazie.
Gracias.

!!!!

Shall I put you on the electoral mention list for big threads?

Definitely, please do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Excellent analysis, I really enjoy your threads.

[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION]

Thank you.
Toda Rabah.
Danke Sehr.
Merci.
Spacebo.
Grazie.
Gracias.

!!!!

Shall I put you on the electoral mention list for big threads?

Definitely, please do.

Noted for the elections mention list.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Update, July 2014.

Since this thread was created, another Hillary vs. GOP poll has come in, again from PPP (D).

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_LA_702.pdf

Release date: July 2, 2014
664 RV / MoE = +/-3.8 (this is high for my taste)


The numerical values in parentheses are from the last PPP (D), where applicable, for comparison purposes. Italics = tie values.


Hillary Clinton (D) 46 (43)
Chris Christie (R) 42 (44)
Margin: Clinton +3
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +5



Hillary Clinton (D) 48 (45)
Bobby Jindal (R) 45 (46)
Margin: Clinton +4
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +6



Hillary Clinton (D) 46 (43)
Rand Paul (R) 46 (47)
Margin: Absolute TIE
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +4



Hillary Clinton (D) 46
Ted Cruz (R) 45
Margin: Clinton +1
Margin shift from previous poll: N/A



Hillary Clinton (D) 45 (43)
Jeb Bush (R) 46 (50)
Margin: Bush, J +1
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +6



Hillary Clinton (D) 45 (44)
Mike Huckabee (R) 46 (49)
Margin: Huckabee +1
Margin shift from previous poll: Clinton +4



The interesting thing about the newest poll is that it shows 2 matchups where the GOP was narrowly winning in February (Christie, Jindal), where Clinton is now winning.

It shows one match where the GOP was winning in Feburary (Paul) that is now an absolute tie.

It shows 2 matches where the GOP was winning in February (Bush, J and Huckabee) where the GOP is still winning, but by a narrower margin.

It shows one matchup not polled in February (against Cruz).

It shows a margin SHIFT toward Clinton (in all the races we can compare) of between +4 and +6, for an average of +5. This means that Hillary Clinton is faring better in Louisiana, and not worse.

No candidate on either side breaks the 50 mark.

5 of 6 winning values are "46". That is actually pretty high for polling this far out from election day 2016.

All of the margins are either within or just on the outskirts of the MoE, which means that a projected Clinton win, say, against Christie, could actually be a Christie win. Or it could also mean that a projected Bush (Jeb) win against Hillary could actually mean a Hillary win. Flip a coin at this stage in the game.

Now, I wrote a number of important caveats in the OP, but six months after this thread was created, it's just as "battlegroundy" in Lousiana, a state that the GOP MUST have in it's electoral column to even have a crack at 270 EV, now as it was 6 months ago.

I recommend that people go re-read the OP, for there is a lot of historical data there that I don't have time to repeat.

My only complaint is that it would be far better to get a poll from a pollster other than PPP (D). That would enrichen the polling "DNA", so to speak.


And, this new posting is part of a promise I made to [MENTION=39852]TheOldSchool[/MENTION] in this posting:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...dential-polling-in-louisiana.html#post8676815

Namely, that the thread is there to establish a baseline. We now have 6 more data-points in that baseline.

This is now the 5th Hillary vs. GOP-Field for Louisiana in 18 months, and all of them show this to be a competitive race. This is a far different polling picture for this state than we saw in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012.

 

[Bush92]

Hillary not doing to so well considering her name recognition...or perhaps that's the problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary "Not Getting the Nomination" Clinton

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary not doing to so well considering her name recognition...or perhaps that's the problem.

Come again?

The last time a Democrat did so well in this state was in 1992 and 1996. His name was Bill Clinton and he won Louisiana both times.

A Democrat should barely be cracking 40% in polling in Lousiana, which means 42-43% on election night. A Democrat who is already getting 46-48% now is a real threat to the GOP in a state they have considered safe territory.

Nice try. But it doesn't jive with the numbers.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary "Not Getting the Nomination" Clinton

I was counting the minutes until I thought you might saunter on by.....

 

[Shanty]

Yeah... The GOP are burning themselves. Their fracturing over who's more conservative than the RINOs is putting states like Louisiana into play, just like Obama reached into the heart of GOP land and took Virginia and North Carolina away in 2008.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yeah... The GOP are burning themselves. Their fracturing over who's more conservative than the RINOs is putting states like Louisiana into play, just like Obama reached into the heart of GOP land and took Virginia and North Carolina away in 2008.

[MENTION=43316]Shanty[/MENTION] !!!!

 

[Shanty]

Add to it governorships that the GOP will lose, like Brownback, Corbett, Scott, Walker, Snyder, and you start to see the base leaving the Republican Party.

When their economic failures start translating into huge deficits like they've brought on in red states, the base will be able to finally put two and two together.

Except their ideologues. No amount of proof changes them.

 

[JoeB131]

I do find it amusing that Piyush Jindal isn't really leading Hillary by much.

When you can barely win your home state, you probably should hang it up.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I do find it amusing that Piyush Jindal isn't really leading Hillary by much.

When you can barely win your home state, you probably should hang it up.

Actually, he is losing to her, by 4 points.