NC-PPP: Paul, Christie, Cruz trails hard, Bush & Huck slightly ahead

[eric82oslo]

PPP has once again been generous to us and given us their 11th take on the 2016 race in their own home state. Hillary still does very well in this toss-up state, yet the differences between the possible GOP candidates are now getting more significant:

Jeb Bush leads Hillary by 2%: 45-43
Mike Huckabee leads Hillary by 1%: 46-45

Rand Paul trails Hillary by 5%: 41-46
Chris Christie trails Hillary by 7%: 38-45
Ted Cruz trails Hillary by 8%: 40-48

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/hagan-lead-steady-at-4-points.html

Clearly this state remains a toss-up 2016-wise for now.

[Consciously Unconscious]

It seems that Bush is the strongest candidate for Republicans at the moment.  92 redux?  That would be interesting consider how many states would have pretty big differences in terms of voting. 

[pbrower2a]

Here's how the polls have Clinton vs. Bush:

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

In the absence of polls of Clinton vs. Bush, here is my best guess (no, I have no idea how  Indiana, Missouri, or the Second Congressional District of Nebraska would go):

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

I'm not contradicting any recent poll. The tie in Georgia says what I consider reasonable about Missouri. Indiana? Because the most recent poll on SSM gives an edge in favor of SSM, I must consider it up in the air until I see otherwise.

[Lief 🗽]

>midterm electorate in North Carolina
>Republicans still behind or tied

Great stuff. With 2016 likely voters, Clinton should be able to wrap up this state early before putting her focus on Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas and Missouri.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Ted Cruz will be elected President before Hillary wins MO.

[KCDem]

Ted Cruz will be elected President before Hillary wins MO.

You clearly know nothing about Missouri.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Ted Cruz will be elected President before Hillary wins MO.

Is this serious?

[IceSpear]

>2014 likely voters

Ted Cruz will be elected President before Hillary wins MO.

wat

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MO is polarized to the extreme, I can't imagine her opponent going under 49%. She certainly would have won it in 2008, but not in the shadow of the Obama presidency. I genuinely think she would win AR before MO.

[KCDem]

MO is polarized to the extreme, I can't imagine her opponent going under 49%. She certainly would have won it in 2008, but not in the shadow of the Obama presidency. I genuinely think she would win AR before MO.

How is AR not just as polarized and hateful of Obama? Missouri has two massive Democratic metro areas unlike Arkansas.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MO is polarized to the extreme, I can't imagine her opponent going under 49%. She certainly would have won it in 2008, but not in the shadow of the Obama presidency. I genuinely think she would win AR before MO.

How is AR not just as polarized and hateful of Obama? Missouri has two massive Democratic metro areas unlike Arkansas.

AR is no doubt more even more hateful of Obama. But Clinton has a special appeal there, and the Democratic party has had an advantage in the state up until about 2010. Can't say the same for MO, which has been polarized between the two parties for much longer.

[illegaloperation]

This is a poll of likely 2014 voters.

North Carolina is a state where the midterm electorate is very different from the presidential year electorate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/upshot/why-the-democrats-turnout-problem-is-worst-in-north-carolina.html

[eric82oslo]

This is a poll of likely 2014 voters.

North Carolina is a state where the midterm electorate is very different from the presidential year electorate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/upshot/why-the-democrats-turnout-problem-is-worst-in-north-carolina.html

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

[illegaloperation]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

[eric82oslo]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

[IceSpear]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

[eric82oslo]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

How do you know that if it's not stated anywhere?
I don't consider this sentence to answer the question: "PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."
It just tells about the poll in general (the main theme is after all the 2014 election), but don't say anything about specific questions within the larger poll. Do you think they only ask the baseball/American football questions to likely voters? I think not. I'm pretty sure it's only 2014 related questions which are screened using likely voters. This does of course also include policy questions that might influence their 2014 decisions, for instance their stance on minimum wage. Yet the 2016 universe is a whole 'nother ball game, so it doesn't apply really.

[IceSpear]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

How do you know that if it's not stated anywhere?
I don't consider this sentence to answer the question: "PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."
It just tells about the poll in general (the main theme is after all the 2014 election), but don't say anything about specific questions within the larger poll. Do you think they only ask the baseball/American football questions to likely voters? I think not. I'm pretty sure it's only 2014 related questions which are screened using likely voters. This does of course also include policy questions that might influence their 2014 decisions, for instance their stance on minimum wage. Yet the 2016 universe is a whole 'nother ball game, so it doesn't apply really.

From what I've seen, when most pollsters do a split RV/LV for certain questions or results, they tend to signify that either in the release or in the crosstabs. PPP does not. Therefore, it's logical to assume that all questions were answered by the sample that they stated was polled: the 2014 likely voters. I guess someone on Atlas could tweet them to find out for sure though. I would but I don't use Twitter.

[pbrower2a]

How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

How do you know that if it's not stated anywhere?
I don't consider this sentence to answer the question: "PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."
It just tells about the poll in general (the main theme is after all the 2014 election), but don't say anything about specific questions within the larger poll. Do you think they only ask the baseball/American football questions to likely voters? I think not. I'm pretty sure it's only 2014 related questions which are screened using likely voters. This does of course also include policy questions that might influence their 2014 decisions, for instance their stance on minimum wage. Yet the 2016 universe is a whole 'nother ball game, so it doesn't apply really.

The sports questions are there in part to discover demographic trends. Sports teams do not indicate whether someone is Right or Left, but that large numbers of people in Florida or North Carolina are fans of the Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, or Detroit Tigers indicates that many of the adults are from elsewhere and have  had their political views formed elsewhere. Sports loyalties are among the most rigid, arguably as rigid as politics and religion that people do not change easily. (One would expect most North Carolinians to be fans of the Atlanta Braves, the closest major league baseball team).

So if one is a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers and lives in San Antonio, one is likely to have cultural traits characteristic of southern California. Adults who were born in or near San Antonio are likely to become fans of the Texas Rangers or Houston Astros even if their parents are fans of the Chicago White Sox or Minnesota Twins.