Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map.

[Skye]

Where are the Michigan polls?

Junk pollster. I'd like to see someone who has a track record and isn't tied to a special interest. 

What about this then? Seems to me like this poll is very tied to a special interest.

[pbrower2a]

Where are the Michigan polls?

Junk pollster. I'd like to see someone who has a track record and isn't tied to a special interest.  

What about this then? Seems to me like this poll is very tied to a special interest.

It may be partisan, but it looks valid enough. I was leery of the Democracy Corps poll -- until it looked valid.

What have I rejected?

1. Pollsters with horrible records, like most of the single-state pollsters in Michigan and Pennsylvania. One pollster that predicted that Arizona would go to Obama in 2012 is on my execration list for that.

2. Pollsters associated with labor unions and state Chambers of Commerce.

3. Polls by active campaigns or political parties.

4. Polls in which the person ahead has less than 40% (last time I saw some college polls that showed Obama up 37-35 in Tennessee. Obama got the 37% -- and little more). That could be a valid poll, but it could also be meaningless.

Pollsters such as Marist, PPP, Q, and Selzer and even some one-state pollsters can show the changes in basic reality.  Should Q poll Pennsylvania and show a huge shift toward Hillary Clinton there, then such might reflect that the political environment has changed. Her approval ratings and prospects for winning went down while the Republicans were preparing to rake her over the coals for the server 'scandal' and the tragic death of an American diplomat in Benghazi. I see no polls from Pennsylvania since then.  For me, the real surprise would be if Pennsylvania still leaned R in Presidential match-ups.  

...the point is to reject polls with no credibility. Maybe I have my unique idea of what is credible and what isn't.

Come on! Someone could poll Pennsylvania again and give me the opportunity to either replace obsolete polls or confirm that Pennsylvania is drifting rightward. Until I see some corroboration I am not going to accept any poll that suggests that Minnesota is a likely R pick-up while Iowa is a legitimate swing state and Wisconsin is going rapidly to the Left.

In a horrible year (1972, 1984, to a lesser extent 1980 and 1988) for Democrats I expect this:

MN IL MI WI IA OH IN

In an R-leaning year like 2004 I expect this:  

IL MI MN WI IA OH IN

In a D-leaning year like 2000:

IL MI MN WI IA OH IN

In an 'average' D win like 2012

IL MI MN WI IA OH IN

Actual result because there are few Presidential elections in which the winner gets between the equivalents of 310 and 350 electoral votes, even if such is the mean victory, and only one such Presidential election since 1900. So far that is what I expect in 2016

In a near-landslide D win (1992, 1996, 2008):

IL MI WI MN IA OH IN

In a D blowout (1964)

IL MI WI IA MN OH IN

1960 and 1976 have no relevance because America is very different politically from what it was in those close elections. Carter could not have won except with the Southern states that he won. 1950s? I see Ike and Obama winning much the same swing voters in the North. 1968 is a mess.  

[Vern]

Are you not going to use the SUSA MN polls?

[pbrower2a]

Are you not going to use the SUSA MN polls?

No.  These polls have no credibility as such.

Does anyone believe that Republicans would be ahead in Minnesota when they aren't ahead in Iowa and are way behind in Wisconsin? The demographics of those states are similar.

Servey USA has a poor reputation. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

[Skye]

Survey USA, WXIA-TV (NBC-11 Atlanta)

Trump 46, Clinton 37

No other binary match-ups.

In other news, Jeb Bush is way down among Republican primary voters.


Florida, Survey USA

Trump 47
Clinton 43

Carson 47
Clinton 44

Clinton 46
Bush 44

Clinton 46
Rubio 45

Clinton 48
Fiorina 42



http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/11/3/florida_decides_poll_2016_election.html#3  


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

Spare us the lecture and drop the act. Just say that you only include the polls you like and we'll actually believe you.

[Vern]

Are you not going to use the SUSA MN polls?

No.  These polls have no credibility as such.

Does anyone believe that Republicans would be ahead in Minnesota when they aren't ahead in Iowa and are way behind in Wisconsin? The demographics of those states are similar.

Servey USA has a poor reputation. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

You are a hack. And it's a shame the  moderators let you do this.

[pbrower2a]

Does anyone believe that Minnesota is more R than Florida?

The poll is so bad that it looks as if it is from the wrong state. Mississippi and Missouri both begin with the letters "MI", too, and I would believe about any polls with these results from either state.

Somebody will poll Minnesota and either corroborate or refute the recent SUSA poll.

I have rejected polls for being ridiculously D-leaning. 

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Are you not going to use the SUSA MN polls?

No.  These polls have no credibility as such.

Does anyone believe that Republicans would be ahead in Minnesota when they aren't ahead in Iowa and are way behind in Wisconsin? The demographics of those states are similar.

Servey USA has a poor reputation. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

You are a hack. And it's a shame the  moderators let you do this.

Minnesota is not going Republican keep dreaming.

[Mr. Morden]

Why doesn't someone else post the real maps?  There's no reason why pbrower should have a monopoly over map-posting in this thread.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Plus why are we bothering with maps based on polls that are pointless in relationship to next November.

[pbrower2a]

Polling results are a dynamic phenomenon. We are going to see events have their effects upon the Presidential race. We are going to see pols rise and fall, We are going to see people who seem like sure things

Such results as we have seen suggest that

(1) without a hint of a scandal to debilitate her campaign, she wins.

(2) had the server scandal and the tragic (but heroic) death of an American diplomat in Libya shown to be corruption and incompetence, respectively, then her prospective campaign would have imploded.  She got through that, and the Congressional investigation intended to put an end to her Presidential hopes itself imploded. So say most recent polls, at least as I interpret them.

(3) for a short time Vice-President Biden seemed a good proxy for a scandal-free Hillary Clinton. Polls suggested that had he sought the Presidency he would have won much like Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Much of the Clinton support would have gone to him had Hillary Clinton imploded at the Congressional investigation. But he abandoned any prospect of a run for the Presidency around the time of the formal investigation. He knew that the Republicans had nothing on her despite their complete search for scandal and incompetence.     

(4) one has little cause to believe that the political environment is different from what it was in 2008 and 2012. Hillary Clinton has no new regional or demographic strengths -- or weaknesses. At this point I figure that the 2016 election will be a near re-run of 2012.

(5) Republicans need a realignment to win in the absence of the usual and obvious political disasters -- a personal scandal involving the President, an economic implosion, or some disaster of foreign policy. Ruling out those, Republicans would need one of the following:

a. a mass migration of people likely to vote Republican moving into Blue (atlas Red) states or a mass migration of people likely to vote Democratic moving out of Red (atlas Blue) states. The first happened in Colorado in the 1970s and 1980s, when conservative-leaning voters moved out of Greater Los Angeles to Colorado and took their voting habits with them. The latter happened in Greater New Orleans when (mostly poor) people hurt by Hurricane Katrina left permanently.

b. a religious revival that promotes conservative politics where such had not happened. Does anyone see that? That happened in the 1970s and led to the rise of Ronald Reagan.

c. GOP interests gaining mass trust.

d. the young-adult vote trending much more conservative than recent youth, as in the early 1980s. Generation X was much more conservative on economics than Boomers, and its earliest voters surprised everyone by voting so strongly for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Democrats tried to get the young-adult vote out those years, and it backfired. Media did not see the two Reagan landslides coming -- but they did.

Do you see any of those happening in Minnesota or elsewhere?

(6) in Senatorial and Gubernatorial races, Republicans outside of traditionally-safe states are faring far worse in approval ratings than are Democrats. Approval ratings of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives are abysmal. Such helps Democrats in the Presidential race. Sure, Chuck Grassley is doing OK in Iowa, but he has been around for decades.

(7) bad polls happen, and they are not 'bad' simply because I say so. When I see someone else getting similar results in Minnesota while I see the GOP imploding in Wisconsin and struggling in Iowa (the states most similar demographically to Minnesota) I will show those polls. Democrats did well in Minnesota in 2014 in a Republican wave year.   
 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the GOP win MN, it will really be over, MN is a green state like OR, and have a high concentration of Timbers in the outline areas of St Paul. But rhe GOP is struggling in Va, and the state as well as the country will vote Dem, as long as Trump is nominated.

[Senator Cris]

MINNESOTA - SUSA poll:

Carson: 50%
Clinton: 41%

Rubio: 47%
Clinton: 41%

Fiorina: 45%
Clinton: 41%

Trump: 45%
Clinton: 42%

Bush: 44%
Clinton: 43%

Clinton: 46%
Cruz: 41%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

 
Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

No way can I believe that Minnesota is more R than Florida.

[pbrower2a]

Here is the last PPP poll involving Minnesota -- from June. It is dated to the extent that it does not include Carson, Fiorina, or Trump.

No way has Minnesota drifted so far and so fast as the Survey USA poll shows in Minnesota. 

Q4 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb
Bush, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 49%
Jeb Bush......................................................... 39%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

Q5 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Chris
Christie, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 47%
Chris Christie .................................................. 37%
Not sure .......................................................... 16%

Q6 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Ted
Cruz, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 51%
Ted Cruz ......................................................... 35%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

Q7 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mike
Huckabee, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 50%
Mike Huckabee ............................................... 40%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

Q8 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 49%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 38%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

Q9 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Tim
Pawlenty, who would you vote for?
Hilary Clinton .................................................. 48%
Tim Pawlenty .................................................. 42%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/06/clinton-ahead-in-minnesota.html#more

[pbrower2a]

Survey USA, WXIA-TV (NBC-11 Atlanta)

Trump 46, Clinton 37

No other binary match-ups.

In other news, Jeb Bush is way down among Republican primary voters.


Florida, Survey USA

Trump 47
Clinton 43

Carson 47
Clinton 44

Clinton 46
Bush 44

Clinton 46
Rubio 45

Clinton 48
Fiorina 42



http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/11/3/florida_decides_poll_2016_election.html#3  

Spare us the lecture and drop the act. Just say that you only include the polls you like and we'll actually believe you.

Florida -- we get a plethora of polls on Florida.

Georgia -- I hadn't seen a poll of Georgia for a very long time.

The Minnesota poll? It fails the laugh test about as badly as "The Ohio Turnpike west of Cleveland is a scenic route".

Sometimes a pollster starts doing the job well. This is not one of those times.

[kansasdemocrat]

MI-EPIC/MRA

Link

Carson 46, Clinton 40
Carson 45, Sanders 36

Clinton 46, Trump 38
Sanders 48, Trump 36

Oct 25-31, 600 LV

LOL at you including this JUNK POLL

[pbrower2a]

We all want the polls that we like, don't we?

Some still make no sense.

It's about time for Michigan and Minnesota polls... but also polls of Georgia, too. Those are states on the reasonable fringe of contention.

[pbrower2a]

U. of Mary Washington poll of Virginia, conducted Nov. 4-9:

https://www.umw.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/11/UMW-VA-Survey-2015_Topline-Day-One.pdf

They give results for adults, RV, and LV.  I’ll just list the RV results, because I’m lazy.  If Webb runs as an Indy:

Clinton 41%
Trump 33%
Webb 16%

Carson 41%
Clinton 38%
Webb 13%

Sanders 36%
Trump 35%
Webb 19%

Carson 39%
Sanders 35%
Webb 17%

Now if Bush is the GOP nominee and Trump runs as an Indy:

Clinton 42%
Trump 27%
Bush 22%

For obvious reasons (three-way poll, and in the last scenario a situation unlikely to occur -- Donald Trump now looks more likely to win the GOP nomination than Jeb Bush) I can't use this one.

[pbrower2a]

...PPP has polled South Carolina this weekend. I expect to see no real change in South Carolina. Here are the results:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_111715.pdf

Carson 51, Clinton 39
Bush 47, Clinton 41
Trump 47, Clinton 42
Rubio 47, Clinton 42
Huckabee 47, Clinton 43
Fiorina 45, Clinton 41
Cruz 46, Clinton 43
Kasich 43, Clinton 41

Closer, much closer, then the joke polls (EPIC/MRI in Michigan and SurveyUSA in Minnesota would indicate unless Hillary Clinton is going to win like Jimmy Carter down to the states won.

Barack Obama lost South Carolina by 9% in 2008 and still won.  If Hillary Clinton loses South Carolina by less than 14% she wins the national election.

Trump slips in his binary matchup with Clinton...


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

Unless this is entirely a poll of likely primary voters, this is really bad news for Democrats.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/11/18/fox-news-poll-trump-sanders-lead-respective-primaries-in-new-hampshire/

Clinton 47
Trump 40

Clinton 44
Cruz 41

Clinton 44
Christie 43

Clinton 43
Fiorina 43

Carson 45
Clinton 43

Bush 45
Clinton 42

Kasich 43
Clinton 40

Rubio 47
Clinton 40

Colorado, Quinnipiac:

Colorado voters back any leading Republican contender over Clinton by wide margins:

    Rubio over Clinton 52 - 36 percent;
    Carson leads Clinton 52 - 38 percent;
    Cruz tops Clinton 51 - 38 percent;
    Trump beats Clinton 48 - 37 percent.

Sanders runs better than Clinton in general election matchups;

    Rubio over Sanders 52 - 39 percent;
    Carson beats Sanders 52 - 40 percent;
    Cruz tops Sanders 49 - 42 percent;
    Trump gets 46 percent to Sanders' 44 percent.

Q no longer takes Jeb Bush seriously.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303


Nevada, Ralston Reports



Trump 44
Clinton 41

Clinton 42
Rubio 42

Clinton 44
Carson 41

This poll has allowed the GOP to take the lead in the US Election Atlas EC Total

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-trump-clinton-way-ahead-nevada

Iowa, Morning Call

Carson (R): 46%
Clinton (D): 40%

Clinton (D): 41%
Trump (R): 40%

Rubio (R): 43%
Clinton (D): 40%

Bush (R): 41%
Clinton (D): 40%

http://www.csrxp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Iowa-Poll.pdf

Florida Atlantic University, Economics department

(caveat on decimals)

Full #s:

50.2% Carson (+9.7)
40.5% Clinton

49.2% Trump (+8.7)
40.5% Clinton

50.2% Rubio (+7.2)
43.0% Clinton

44.4% Bush (+4.6)
39.8% Clinton

47.9% Cruz (+3.0)
44.9% Clinton

http://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/download.aspx?id=6196


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson

Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

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

[pbrower2a]

Recent polls by Survey USA in Minnesota are probably right -- now. But for the wrong reasons!

Should this trend hold, then the Republican juggernaut is on the roll.

Here's my assessment: terrorist attacks of any kind give Republicans the opportunity for bluster. They can offer solutions that satisfy mass anger even though those solutions would make things worse. This is so even if the terrorist attack occurs outside the United States. The atrocities in France and the (apparent) terror bombing of a Russian jetliner suggest that the world is a much more dangerous place in which the toughest responses become more attractive. Fear brings out the worst in people, and it works invariably against liberalism.

As we may recall, the incompetent administration of George W. Bush found its popularity skyrocketing after terrorist assaults, accusations (usually unfounded) of Saddam Hussein being in possession of WMDs, or the ratcheting of fear of terrorist attacks. Not until failures became evident  did things catch up with him... but fear of international menaces tends to drive people to the Right.

President Obama does his usual measured response. He suggests that America allow in more refugees and lets the French do the military attacks on the monsters of ISIS. Then he might let the Russians take potshots at ISIS in revenge of a  terrorist-bombed jetliner. Republican-friendly pundits on FoX News assail the President for failing to blame "Radical Islam", and (mostly) Republican pols call for denying refugees from Syria any opportunity to relocate to the United States. The measured response has typically worked better over the long run.

Radical Islam is not the problem. Moammar Qaddafi was a radical on many things, but his version of Islam was anything but radical. Saddam Hussein allowed arguably the most secularized of Muslim societies, and his Shiite opponents were much more radical in their Islam.

President Obama is right about Bashir Assad; cruel, corrupt, and inept as he is, and as much of the problem in Syria, he must go. Assad is creating the environment in which ISIS can flourish.

Criminality? Brutality? Tyranny? Islam is the least objectionable feature of ISIS. Indeed, its worst enemies in the field are Muslims -- Shiites in Iraq and Kurds in both Syria and Iraq. Of course, criminality, brutality, and tyranny marked the nominally-Christian Nazis and Fascists and the thug leadership of (largely a Buddhist-Shinto fusion) WWII-era Japan.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Clinton obviously is in a tight race right now, but Carson & Rubio are ahead right now. I doubt Trump has pulled ahead. Clinton is probably headed for a close election. But, Trump who is weak on immigration provides that opening for a 272 or more electoral vote margin.

MN, like OR, has closer than expected margins, but she will win it.

[Senator Cris]

You are forgetting the MN SUSA poll. Please include it.

[pbrower2a]

You are forgetting the MN SUSA poll. Please include it.

"Right for the wrong reason" after the fact is still wrong. There will be plenty of reputable pollsters who show Democrats in deep trouble for a month or so.