NH-PPP: Walker +10

[RogueBeaver]

Walker 24%, Cruz 14%, Rand 12%, Jeb 10%.

[Senator Cris]

Walker 24%
Cruz 14%
Paul 12%
Bush 10%
Rubio 8%
Christie 8%
Huckabee 7%
Carson 7%
Perry 4%

Clinton 45%
Warren 23%
Sanders 12%
Biden 7%
O'Malley 3%
Webb 1%
Chafee 1%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_41515.pdf

[RJEvans]

Jesus, and Walker didn't even announce yet. NH is suppose to be Jeb's best state.

And why is Warren still in the poll? She is NOT running.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Clinton at only 45%. Doesn't look so inevitable anymore. RUN WARREN RUN!!!!

[King]

Pretty bad for Jeb to be behind two candidates who aren't Serious™ in the most moderate state on the primary schedule.

[bedstuy]

Pretty bad for Jeb to be behind two candidates who aren't Serious™ in the most moderate state on the primary schedule.

Jeb just needs to employ the classic Serious™ moderate Rudy Giuliani strategy of raising a bunch of money, but conceding all of the early states.

[Gallium]

Republican Favorability:

Walker +44
Carson +31
Paul +29
Rubio +27
Cruz +24
Jindal +19
Huckabee +16
Fiorina +14
Perry +10
Kasich +7
Santorum +6
Bush +1
Trump -1
Pataki -7
Graham -14
Christie -15

Jeb is about as popular as Trump in his best early state.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

[Ebsy]

Jeb is doing much worse than I thought possible. And Clinton's numbers would be much better if they stopped polling Warren, who isn't running.

[Gallium]

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunarely.

I wonder how long the media will keep pretending O'Malley is Clinton's strongest challenger.

[Ebsy]

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunarely.

I wonder how long the media will keep pretending O'Malley is Clinton's strongest challenger.

Everyone knows Warren would be the strongest challenger. However, we also all know she isn't running. And Sanders isn't treated terribly seriously because most mainstream Democrats would never allow an avowed socialist to win the nomination.

[bedstuy]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

How so?  She has a huge lead and a 78% favorability rating.

[Oak Hills]

Jeb is about as popular as Trump in his best early state.

Where did this idea that New Hampshire will be Bush's best early state come from?  I thought the conventional wisdom was that it'll be South Carolina.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Very Liberal

Elizabeth Warren 33%
Hillary Clinton 32%
Bernie Sanders 24%
Joe Biden 6%

The sample size (n=99 for "very liberals) is large enough to tell us that Hillary has a problem with progressives in New Hampshire. This does not bode well for her.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Junk poll!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

How so?  She has a huge lead and a 78% favorability rating.

By no means am I picking her to lose or even for this to become competitive, but her potential competitors keeping dropping yet so do her numbers. 45% is really bad considering it's much higher numbers that are usually used by her backers to say this isn't '08 all over again.

[King]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

How so?  She has a huge lead and a 78% favorability rating.

By no means am I picking her to lose or even for this to become competitive, but her potential competitors keeping dropping yet so do her numbers. 45% is really bad considering it's much higher numbers that are usually used by her backers to say this isn't '08 all over again.

Her competitors keep dropping yet pollsters keep adding more to the poll without removing the dropped ones.

[IceSpear]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

How so?  She has a huge lead and a 78% favorability rating.

By no means am I picking her to lose or even for this to become competitive, but her potential competitors keeping dropping yet so do her numbers. 45% is really bad considering it's much higher numbers that are usually used by her backers to say this isn't '08 all over again.

Even this is far better than her numbers in 2008. She led Obama 31-23 at this point in 2007.

But yeah, King took the words out of my mouth. I have to question any pollster that includes Warren at this point. It's either pure incompetence, in which case how can you trust the results? Or it's deliberately including her knowing she's not running just to try to spin some type of narrative, which is even worse. After May or so, I think I'm going to start considering anyone who includes her as a junk pollster.

[bedstuy]

Wow, I mean I think most of us expected Jeb to collapse, but not before the debates. Christie and Rubio will be fighting like mad for those votes, but it looks like Walker could potentially breeze by if he goes gaffe-free.

Hillary's numbers are hysterically bad - if only Warren voters would go for Sanders to make this a race. We know less than half likely will unfortunately.

How so?  She has a huge lead and a 78% favorability rating.

By no means am I picking her to lose or even for this to become competitive, but her potential competitors keeping dropping yet so do her numbers. 45% is really bad considering it's much higher numbers that are usually used by her backers to say this isn't '08 all over again.

Meh.  New Hampshire voters want to be wined and dined a little bit first.  They love candidates visiting their maple syrup plantations and covered bridges and such.  Plus, they're all Red Sox fans so they hate frontrunners.  Hillary is going to have to kiss their ring and dance for them, and the same goes for Iowa.  That means she might have some negative swings, she'll be up and down some.  She might drop into the 30s, she might be tied for the lead at some point according to Gravis or St. Judas College or whatever.  

Being ahead by 33% and at 45% is not a bad result ultimately.  It's like if Florida State is playing Florida International, and they give up a pick-6 and are only up 35-7.  You don't say, "oh no, Florida State is going to lose!"  As long as there are no serious candidates running against Clinton, she's in great shape.  Martin O'Malley is mediocre and Sanders is not a serious candidate.  Hillary is Florida State and she's not losing to Florida O'Malley.

[Senator Cris]

Very bad result for Jeb, but it's still too early.

[Likely Voter]

If Walker wins IA and Nh, its game over. No GOP non incumbent has pulled that off.

[King]

lmao just looked into the pdf for this. Question choice order wasn't randomized.  In the long list of candidates, they were all read in alphabetical order. The last options people heard? Scott Walker and Elizabeth Warren.

Joke. Junk. Poll.

[IceSpear]

lmao just looked into the pdf for this. Question choice order wasn't randomized.  In the long list of candidates, they were all read in alphabetical order. The last options people heard? Scott Walker and Elizabeth Warren.

Joke. Junk. Poll.

Are we sure it's not randomized? I know it doesn't say it is, but perhaps it could have been anyway? If that is true though, it's an extremely amateur mistake. Statistics 101 even. PPP seems to have really gone down the tubes in the past year. It's a shame.

[Ebsy]

If Warren's name was last, would that make it more likely that people would choose her?

[IceSpear]

If Warren's name was last, would that make it more likely that people would choose her?

It would definitely fall under the category of response bias. Most pollsters randomize their options, particularly when there's a long list of them, to account for this possibility. The fact that Walker was also last and doing much better than usual doesn't do much to prove it's not an issue.