Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Land of Lincoln
PPP (D) released the first-ever 2016 poll from the great state of Illinois, with interesting results:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IL_72915.pdf
931 RV, Moe = +/-3.2 (for the entire survey, Ds and Rs together)
broken down into 409 DRV, MoE=+/-4,9 and 369 RRV, MoE = +/-5.1
GOP Nomination:
Walker 23
Trump 18
Bush, Jeb 11
Christie 8
Carson 7
Rubio 6
Huckabee 5
Paul 5
Cruz 4
Fiorina 3
Jindal 2
Santorum 2
Graham 1
Kasich 1
Pataki 1
Perry 1
Gilmore 0
don't know 3
Margin: Walker +5
Surely some of the "favorite-son from a neigboring state" mentality is having an effect here, but considering that the R-only polling has a MoE of +/-5.1, this is statistically a tie between Walker and Trump, with Bush (Jeb!) a distant 3rd place. The surprise value here is Christie, who polled at 8%, in fourth place and ahead of many others. Kasich surprised here in a negative way. I really thought that a fellow Governor of another midwestern state would do better than this in Illinois, also for purposes of electoral history.
70% of Republicans polled self-identified as either somewhat or very conservative. Only 6% self-identified as somewhat or very Liberal. Illinois was once a state full of Liberal Republicans.
DEM nomination:
Clinton 60
Sanders 23
not sure 8
O'Malley 4
Webb 3
Chafee 1
Margin: Clinton +37
Clinton wins in every internal demographic group with at least 54% against her Democratic opponents, if not much more, across the board. The 4% for O'Malley is until now his best showing in any poll since he announced.
This is a completely non-competitive race and Illinois has a bevy of delegates for the DNC.
Illinois is also worth 20 electoral votes in 2016:
General Election matchups:
Clinton (D) 48 / Bush, J (R) 39, margin = Clinton +9
Clinton (D) 47 / Paul (R) 37, margin = Clinton +10
Clinton (D) 50 / Walker (R) 39, margin = Clinton +11
Clinton (D) 49 / Carson (R) 37, margin = Clinton +12
Clinton (D) 49 / Rubio (R) 37, margin = Clinton +12
Clinton (D) 49 / Christie (R) 35, margin = Clinton +14
Clinton (D) 49 / Fiorina (R) 34, margin = Clinton +15
Clinton (D) 51 / Huckabee (R) 35, margin = Clinton +16
Clinton (D) 51 / Cruz (R) 35, margin = Clinton +16
Clinton (D) 51 / Trump (R) 33, margin = Clinton +18
Clinton wins all ten matchups in the land of Lincoln by between +9 and +18.
To give that some recent historical perspective vis-a-vis 2012 from +9 to +18:
Romney won AZ by +9.04%. Obama won MI by +9.54% - no one really considered these states to be competitive. Romney pulled his advertising out of MI in early September, Obama never campaigned in AZ.
Romney won SD by +18.02%. Obama won NH by +17.74% - these states were never in question.
There is more. Sanders was also polled some:
Sanders (D) 40 / Walker (R) 36, margin = Sanders +4
Sanders (D) 42 / Bush, J (R) 37, margin = Sanders +5
Sanders (D) 48 / Trump (R) 32, margin = Sanders +15
Though his margins against Walker and Bush are considerably leaner, the fact that a self-identified Democratic Socialist beats Donald Trump in Illinois by +15 says something.
Illinois is now a 6-for-6 Democratic state at the national level. Here the last 7 margins, since 1988:
1988: Bush 41 +2.08%
1992: Clinton +14.24%
1992: Clinton +17.51%
2000: Gore +12.01%
2004: Kerry +10.34%
2008: Obama +25.10%
2012: Obama +16.84%
So, Hillary's range of margins also overlaps all of these margins except Obama's +25.10% 2008 win, which is also the absolute high-water mark for the Democratic party EVER in this state and the fourth highest margin for either party in this state, after Harding's 1920 +42.30%, Coolidge's 1924 +35.48% and Teddy's 1904 +28.34%. 90 years ago, the GOP enjoyed lofty margins in this state that either party can only dream of today. So, Obama's crushing margin from 2008 was the exception, not the rule.
In fact, Illinois once used to be a bitter, bitter battleground state. See:
1948: Truman +0.84%
1960: Kennedy +0.19%
1968: Nixon +2.92%
1976: Ford +1.97%
Those were the four closest cycles from 1948 through 1996 and in all four, Illinois was hotly contested and first called very late into the night.
The saying used to be that "no Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio AND Illinois". That saying was changed after 2000.
If you look at the Democratic margins from 1992-2012 (6 cycles), four of them are between +12 and +17. Seven of Hillary's 10 margins in this poll are between +12 and +17, so she is absolutely on target to retain this elector-rich state for the Democratic Party with a margin that is the expected circa +15 for this state.
And in the internals, there are some surprises. Hillary is doing better in the male vote than expected, but not as well as Obama did in 2008.
Hillary vs. GOP, Female vote / male vote (+ or -)
vs. Paul: +19 / -2
vs. Bush: +22 / -5
vs. Carson: +23 / -1
vs. Walker: +23 / -3
vs. Christie: +24 / +4
vs. Rubio: +25 / -3
vs. Cruz: +30 / +1
vs. Huckabee: +27 / +3
vs. Fiorina: +28 / +1
vs. Trump: +32 / +3
You can see the margins for herself. In Illinois, Hillary STARTS at +19 in the Female vote and goes as far as +32 against Trump. In the male vote, it's all in middle to low single digits, from +5 for Bush to +4 for Clinton.
Just for comparison: nationally, in 2012, President Obama won the female vote by +11, and by +13 in 2008. In 2012, there was no exit poll for Illinois, but in 2008, Obama won the female vote in this state by +29 and the male vote by +15. So, in spite of good margins, Hillary still has room to grow (or shrink) here.
Traditionally, nationally, a presiential nominee gets 7%-9% of the opposition party's vote in the election.
In this poll, Hillary's take of the Republican vote:
vs. Walker: 4%
vs. Bush: 6%
vs. Carson: 6%
vs. Rubio: 6%
----------------------------
vs. Fiorina: 7%
vs. Christie: 8%
vs. Huckabee: 8%
vs. Cruz: 9%
vs. Paul: 9% (but Paul gets 14% of the Democratic vote - an important point)
vs. Trump: 9%
SANDERS vs. Trump: 14% (Sanders gets more of the Republican vote than Clinton does)
This is critical. Hillary, though she is polling nationally, overall, far better than Obama did, is not polling more of the Republican vote in this state than usual. In fact, against Walker, Bush, Carson and Rubio, she is doing worse. And even Sanders gets more of the Republican vote than she.
This can only mean that she is doing exceedingly well among moderates (Independents), as you will see in the .pdf.
So, it's not just the female vote that is helping Hillary.
That's was a lot of words for a state we are pretty sure is going to stay reliably blue, but they are important.
And finally, there is no way to compare PPP (D) to 2012, because PPP (D) did not poll that state in 2012. But here you can see the 10 polls that were take of Illinois in that year:
Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.
Hope this information helped.
Last edited:
.......
