Michigan-PPP: Hillary leads all by double digits

[eric82oslo]

PPP just released this: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/peters-has-biggest-lead-snyder-and-schauer-tight.html#more

In Michigan, it's Hillary versus:

Rand Paul: D+10% (49-39)
Jeb Bush: D+11% (49-38)
Chris Christie: D+12% (48-36)
Mike Huckabee: D+12% (50-38)
Ted Cruz: D+14% (51-37)

[Senator Cris]

I noted that in a lot of polls, Hillary gets the worst % against Christie. In this poll, she is at 48% against Christie, but she is at 49%, 50% and 51% against the others.
The same in Alaska:

Hillary vs Palin: 46/40 (D +6%)
Hillary vs Huckabee: 39/47 (R +8%)
Hillary vs Bush: 38/47 (R +9%)
Hillary vs Christie: 34/45 (R +11%)
Hillary vs Rand Paul: 36/50 (R +14%)

and in Arkansas (excluding Huck)

Bush 46% Clinton 41%
Christie 42% Clinton 41%
Cruz 46% Clinton 42%
Huckabee 55% Clinton 39%
Paul 45% Clinton 42%

and in Kansas

Hillary - Jeb Bush: 39-45
Hillary - Huckabee: 41-46
Hillary - Rand Paul: 41-45
Hillary - Christie 38-42
Hillary - Ted Cruz: 42-43

and in North Carolina

Clinton 45% Huckabee 44%
Clinton 46% Bush 42%
Clinton 47% Paul 42%
Clinton 47% Cruz 41%
Clinton 45% Christie 38%

Why?

[pbrower2a]

I noted that in a lot of polls, Hillary gets the worst % against Christie. In this poll, she is at 48% against Christie, but she is at 49%, 50% and 51% against the others.
The same in Alaska:

Hillary vs Palin: 46/40 (D +6%)
Hillary vs Huckabee: 39/47 (R +8%)
Hillary vs Bush: 38/47 (R +9%)
Hillary vs Christie: 34/45 (R +11%)
Hillary vs Rand Paul: 36/50 (R +14%)

and in Arkansas (excluding Huck)

Bush 46% Clinton 41%
Christie 42% Clinton 41%
Cruz 46% Clinton 42%
Huckabee 55% Clinton 39%
Paul 45% Clinton 42%

and in Kansas

Hillary - Jeb Bush: 39-45
Hillary - Huckabee: 41-46
Hillary - Rand Paul: 41-45
Hillary - Christie 38-42
Hillary - Ted Cruz: 42-43

and in North Carolina

Clinton 45% Huckabee 44%
Clinton 46% Bush 42%
Clinton 47% Paul 42%
Clinton 47% Cruz 41%
Clinton 45% Christie 38%

Why?

I wouldn't make much of a 1% difference at this stage.

Huckabee is an execrable match for the political culture outside the South except perhaps Alaska, which has many Texans and Oklahomans in the oil industry. Christie is a poor match for the political demographic who used to vote for Senator Jesse Helms. Jeb Bush is the definitive "establishment" Republican.

[IceSpear]

Needless to say, if Hillary is leading by double digits in Michigan even with a 2014 likely voter electorate, that's great news for her.

[dmmidmi]

Needless to say, if Hillary is leading by double digits in Michigan even with a 2014 likely voter electorate, that's great news for her.

She's leading in a state that she's largely expected to win, anyway. But, the margin is nice.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned ou t. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     

[IceSpear]

Needless to say, if Hillary is leading by double digits in Michigan even with a 2014 likely voter electorate, that's great news for her.

She's leading in a state that she's largely expected to win, anyway. But, the margin is nice.

The margin would be nice even with a 2016 electorate. But since it's with a 2014 electorate, it's even more impressive.

[DS0816]

Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned ou t. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     

More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National — R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.

[dmmidmi]

Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned ou t. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     

More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National — R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.

Which means that when someone calls Michigan a "Purple State," you can safely assume that they're completely divorced from reality and press the Ignore button.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned out. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     

More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National — R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.

Which means that when someone calls Michigan a "Purple State," you can safely assume that they're completely divorced from reality and press the Ignore button.

Or start laughing as if one were talking about Kansas being a purple state. Oh, wait!

[DS0816]

Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3      R+3
2000      51       46        5       even*  
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned ou t. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.      

More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National — R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.

Which means that when someone calls Michigan a "Purple State," you can safely assume that they're completely divorced from reality and press the Ignore button.

Which is also true with Republicans' dreams of Pennsylvania. It has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election since after the 1940s. All winning Republicans who since carried Pennsylvania—Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Richard Nixon (1972), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988)—won with a state [percentage] margin lower than their national numbers.

Getting back to Michigan: The most "purple" it has been, since television, was in the election cycles of 1984, 1988, and 1992. And that's because the state numbers were very close to the national margins. Reaching for potential bellwether status, the closet it came was when Michigan had six consecutive elections of having carried for winners. And those were the Republican years of 1860 to 1880—with the first the realigning presidential election of 1860 with Abraham Lincoln. The state of Michigan does not vote like the Old Confederacy. For any Republican to seriously think that Michigan—and/or Pennsylvania—will be won over by the party, while we're still averaging around 30 states getting carried by presidential winners, is living in the past.