CNN National: Clinton beats Romney by 13 points

[IceSpear]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

Clinton 55
Romney 42

So much for the Great Hope of Almighty Mitt.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

He also somehow manages to best Obama by a 53-44 margin due to pulling 16% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, & 46% of Moderates. Americans seem to have forgotten why they disliked him and view him through nostalgic rose-colored glasses.

[IceSpear]

He also somehow manages to best Obama by a 53-44 margin due to pulling 16% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, & 46% of Moderates. Americans seem to have forgotten why they disliked him and view him through nostalgic rose-colored glasses.

If that were true, he wouldn't be trailing Hillary by 13.

Of course you're going to look better in the eyes of the public when nobody talks about you besides the occasional puff piece and 2016 speculation. The fact that Hillary still leads him by double digits even after having been through the media buzzsaw in the past few months just makes it all the more impressive.

And despite the imagination of Free Republic, Obama won't be running for re-election in 2016, so who really cares?

[IceSpear]

Some of the crosstabs:

Men: 49-48 Romney
Women: 62-36 Clinton

Whites: 52-46 Romney
Nonwhites: 77-20 Clinton

Under 50: 60-37 Clinton
50+: 49-49 Tie

Democrats: 91-9 Clinton
Independents: 51-44 Clinton
Republicans: 85-14 Romney

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

[eric82oslo]

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

I guess electing a Mormon is easier to swallow in the irreligious Midwest than the super-evangelical South.

[Skill and Chance]

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

I guess electing a Mormon is easier to swallow in the irreligious Midwest than the super-evangelical South.

Do you think being Mormon hurt Mitt significantly in any states in 2012?  I could see a case for MS/LA/GA but that could just as easily be explained by other factors.

[CapoteMonster]

Could someone make a map based on both of these hypothetical polls?

[Skill and Chance]

Probably this?

[CapoteMonster]

Probably this?

55-42 would be a much bigger mandate than that. I'd also be interested in seeing one for the Romney-Obama poll that's also in this link.

[Maxwell]

hopefully this is R.I.P. to a Romney candidacy.

[Skill and Chance]

Probably this?

55-42 would be a much bigger mandate than that. I'd also be interested in seeing one for the Romney-Obama poll that's also in this link.

I think a lot of the 55/42 is from Hillary doing 7-10 points better than Obama in NY/CA/FL and from OH and PA generally being less close than before.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Clinton/Romney

55/42 is bigger than anybody has won since Reagan. That can't all be from driving up the vote certain places, because the Democrats are just about maxed out in some of the larger states. I gave Clinton KY since she seems to poll well there, but you could easily add - or replace with - other states.

Romney/Obama

Republicans seem to underperform in the EC these days so a nine-point Romney win would produce less of a sweep than Obama's seven-point win in '08. But he would still carry every possible swing state from '12.

[tmthforu94]

Hillary served as SoS - even Condoleeza Rice had strong approvals as Bush's SoS, if I recall correctly.

Once a General Election campaign begins and Republicans are able to tie Hillary to Obama's policies, her numbers will go down - I think most of us can agree her leads won't hold. It is encouraging to see that there is some buyer's remorse from 2012.

[Adam Griffin]

Whites: 52-46 Romney
South: 52-45 Clinton

Could someone make a map based on both of these hypothetical polls?

It doesn't take into account regional differences, but adjusting white/non-white support in a 2016 scenario to match these results as a whole gives us this:

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hillary served as SoS - even Condoleeza Rice had strong approvals as Bush's SoS, if I recall correctly.

Once a General Election campaign begins and Republicans are able to tie Hillary to Obama's policies, her numbers will go down - I think most of us can agree her leads won't hold. It is encouraging to see that there is some buyer's remorse from 2012.

...and Romney 2016 will still be a dreadful error by the GOP.

[King]

Hillary served as SoS - even Condoleeza Rice had strong approvals as Bush's SoS, if I recall correctly.

Once a General Election campaign begins and Republicans are able to tie Hillary to Obama's policies, her numbers will go down - I think most of us can agree her leads won't hold. It is encouraging to see that there is some buyer's remorse from 2012.

Romney couldn't even tie Obama to Obama's policies.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

I guess electing a Mormon is easier to swallow in the irreligious Midwest than the super-evangelical South.

The Midwest is "irreligious"?  Maybe compared to the South, but overall?  I think you're off base.

[IceSpear]

Hillary served as SoS - even Condoleeza Rice had strong approvals as Bush's SoS, if I recall correctly.

Once a General Election campaign begins and Republicans are able to tie Hillary to Obama's policies, her numbers will go down - I think most of us can agree her leads won't hold. It is encouraging to see that there is some buyer's remorse from 2012.

As will Romney's numbers. He's gotten even less scrutiny in the past 1.5 years than Hillary has.

[SWE]

I'm actually surprised Mitt did as well as he did.

[SWE]

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

I guess electing a Mormon is easier to swallow in the irreligious Midwest than the super-evangelical South.

What the hell are you talking about?

[eric82oslo]

Northeast: 62-35 Clinton
Midwest: 49-48 Clinton
South: 52-45 Clinton
West: 58-40 Clinton

Interesting that Clinton does better in the South than in the Midwest, which seems to confirm the state polls.

I guess electing a Mormon is easier to swallow in the irreligious Midwest than the super-evangelical South.

What the hell are you talking about?

Irreligious compared to the south for sure. Everything is relative, even in the US.

[CapoteMonster]

Using the 2 presidential election polls and the Cook PVI I calculated what the electoral maps would be and the results were astonishing. Romney wins in a Bush 88 landslide and Clinton wins in Johnson-Goldwater fashion.

[Never]

Clinton/Romney

55/42 is bigger than anybody has won since Reagan. That can't all be from driving up the vote certain places, because the Democrats are just about maxed out in some of the larger states. I gave Clinton KY since she seems to poll well there, but you could easily add - or replace with - other states.

Romney/Obama

Republicans seem to underperform in the EC these days so a nine-point Romney win would produce less of a sweep than Obama's seven-point win in '08. But he would still carry every possible swing state from '12.

The Romney/Obama map seems like an accurate breakdown of this poll.

Clinton/Romney seems about right too, but I might give Romney back KY and put MT/ND/SD in Clinton's column.