NBC/WSJ/Marist: Clinton up in CO, FL, NC, VA

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Downballot numbers:

FL: Rubio 47, Murphy 44
CO: Bennet 53, Glenn 38
NC: Burr 48, Ross 41
NC: Cooper 49, McCrory 45

Colorado is now SAFE D! BEAUTIFUL!!!

Damn Little Marco only leading by 3 points.

[Seriously?]

NC/FL do seem a bit too friendly for Clinton. I'll await some of the folks who took the Q numbers as gospel and mocked red avatars for not believing them to unskew this poll/call it junk.

I agree, I have legitimately no idea how this is going but doesn't this firm have a small D bias of .5% which is .2 less than Q?

The Q sample of Florida was straight out of 1980 with 80% white...NBC also conducts English and Spanish language live interviews. Makes a big difference in FL and CO polls.

I completely agree with you in Florida and its sample, it was biased towards Trump, but this poll is a little to big of a margin for Hillary if she is leading by less than 4 points or even tied in some polls.

Not really, with 3rd party options she is +5. I gather that's where her campaign thinks it is after the state field director went on a twitter rant to counter-act the Q poll results.

I doubt Florida is +5 in a Clinton +5 race. Obama beat Romney there by 1 point in a D+4 race nationally. Will Hillary actually outperform Obama by 3 points?

We also didn't think NC would vote more Dem than IA or OH did we? Dynamics have changed since 2012 and to your specific question I think Hillary's a better fit for FL than Obama ever was.

Have they changed? Scott still got reelected governor to a similar R+1 margin in both 2010 and 2014. (Beating the RCP average by ~1.7%). If we know of anything with Florida, the polls vacillate wildly.

I'd be shocked to see Florida shift to the national average by 3%. My guess is this is roughly a D+8 D+6 sample to get to Hillary +5. Obama won by 1% with a D+2 exit poll in 2012.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Congratulations President Clinton!

[Virginiá]

I doubt Florida is +5 in a Clinton +5 race. Obama beat Romney there by 1 point in a D+4 race nationally. Will Hillary actually outperform Obama by 3 points?

I don't think trying to compare to past races would be the most accurate here. You can't expect the electorate to be like 2012 (demographics alone makes that assumption moot), especially when current data shows what appear to be decently-sized shifts in the party coalitions and depth of support among certain demographics.

However, not really saying Florida is definitely going to be Clinton Country, either. Just that the dynamics have changed somewhat.

[Holmes]

Soo we got Q and Ras showing favorable Trump numbers, national pollsters showing the race between tied and C+4, and Marist and Fox News showing the battleground states all favoring Hillary comfortably, save for Ohio.

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

[Ljube]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Vosem, that can't be right and you know it.

It's obvious the inflated Clinton numbers come from Anti-Trump Republicans. We should give them more time to come home.

[psychprofessor]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

The NC governor is in a tight race; the CO Sen seat is safe DEM and wait until the FL Dem primary is over before making any proclamations - Rubio below 50 for an incumbent is bad. Same for Toomey in PA.

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Vosem, that can't be right and you know it.

It's obvious the inflated Clinton numbers come from Anti-Trump Republicans. We should give them more time to come home.

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that (as impressive as Hillary's margins are, her actual percentages are pretty pathetic for a Democratic presidential nominee in July). But even if we do go with that as the explanation, what makes you think currently anti-Trump Republicans are likely to back him in meaningful numbers?

There really doesn't seem to have been any improvement since he received the nomination (he received a bounce, which has since faded) -- he was at 40.5 in the national 2-way polling then, and he is at 40.9 now (I would use the multi-party version, which I think reflects the reality much better, but RCP only started keeping track of it in June). What will Trump do, that he hasn't been doing over the past two months, to get voters like this to back him?

(As an aside, I think you predicted back in April or May that I, as a stalwart of anti-Trump Republicanism, would end up voting Trump in November -- still supporting Johnson here, and still intending to take a few shots and mark Hillary on the ballot if the election seems to be close).

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

The NC governor is in a tight race; the CO Sen seat is safe DEM and wait until the FL Dem primary is over before making any proclamations - Rubio below 50 for an incumbent is bad. Same for Toomey in PA.

Gubernatorial elections are dissociated from national ones (Republicans likely winning VT-Gov this year says nothing about the national situation) and national Republicans gave up on the CO race in 2015, so neither of those are too significant.

The "incumbent under 50 will lose" meme is old and tired. Rubio could of course still lose, but a poll showing him up is good news for him and bad news for Murphy. (Just as the poll showing Toomey losing to McGinty is terrible news for Toomey). But even that's not really my point -- my point is that Burr's margin is 13 points ahead of Trump, and Rubio's margin is 8 points ahead. Your Republican congressional incumbents, notwithstanding their free trade votes and Washington insider statuses and other heresies, are running far ahead of Trump. Even if they lose, they'll come much closer to winning than Trump does. That should say a great deal about where the party needs to go in order to win a national election.

[Tender Branson]

[Dr. Arch]

It looks like NC is about primed to do a VA early because of Trump.

[Tender Branson]

PPP will have a Missouri poll out today.

If Trump leads, the state will flip R on the map today.

[IceSpear]

So where are the chicken littles and the gloaters? Talk about having egg on your face...

[ProudModerate2]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Vosem, that can't be right and you know it.
It's obvious the inflated Clinton numbers come from Anti-Trump Republicans. We should give them more time to come home.

Wow, I'm actually kind-of agreeing with Ljube ....
I do believe that the numbers being slightly-higher-than-we-feel-comfortable, could be from a good handful of Republicans who say/polled they are voting for Hillary ("Anti-Trump Republicans").
But yet these same individuals will vote for their R Senate candidate for their state.
So, the numbers could be about right.

[Seriously?]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Incumbents have an inherent advantage regardless of party affiliation. Even if people hate Congress, they don't necessarily hate their Congressmen or Senators. Comparing Trump to an incumbent R is like comparing apples to oranges. Plenty of states will have an incumbent D take their incumbent Senate seat but vote R for President and vice versa.

[ProudModerate2]

If you look at the poll numbers with third-party candidates included, the numbers don't seem "out of the norm" .... accept maybe North Carolina (just slightly).

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Incumbents have an inherent advantage regardless of party affiliation. Even if people hate Congress, they don't necessarily hate their Congressman. Comparing Trump to an incumbent R is like comparing apples to oranges. Plenty of states will have an incumbent D running for Senate but vote R for President and vice versa.

This is true, but the gaps are not usually that large (+8 and +13, respectively) except for particularly entrenched, long-time, popular Congressmen. In 2012, the Democratic Senators in Ohio and Pennsylvania (both freshmen seeking reelection) overperformed Obama's margin by 3 points each; the Senator from Florida, a long-serving Senator whose opponent collapsed, managed 12 (and in a similar case in Michigan, 10 was achieved). So, the effect that you talk about does exist, but you still wouldn't expect freshmen Senators to achieve these massive gaps of 8 and 13 points.

Also, the only D Senator running for reelection in a state where Trump has even the remotest hope of winning is Michael Bennet in Colorado (though even that is unlikely, even in a Trump victory scenario). Every other D Senator is running in a state that would vote Clinton even if Trump were winning by double-digits nationally. So...no.

[Panda Express]

sweet jesus it's a HILLDAWG BEATDOWN

[windjammer]

Guys come on,
There are still many undecided. No need to overreact, people the margin will likely change when there will be less undecided.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Much better numbers for Hillary than I expected. They might be a little high, but since the polls are all over the place right now anyway, i'll take it.

The number of "Neither" voters is startlingly high, though. If that's really the way they asked it, that's a big difference from "undecided". Considering the mood of the electorate, I'm starting to believe a 3rd party might actually get above 5% this year.

[Cruzcrew]

I don't buy NC and maybe this democratic lean is because it's an RV poll.

[pbrower2a]

I don't buy NC and maybe this democratic lean is because it's an RV poll.

Who knows who really will vote?

Just think about it: a 'likely voter' could be someone who hasn't missed a vote in seventy years -- not even for a local millage. That's as reliable a voter as there is, right?

That voter is at least 91 years old, and might not make it to the polls this year or any subsequent year.

Now what about the newly-registered voter this year? That could be a late registrant, but someone convinced that we have the most important Presidential election ever.

...Other 'likely voters' might be moving from one state to another. Someone once a likely voter in Wisconsin becomes a likely voter in Minnesota.       

[Wells]

Some polls show Clinton's numbers dropping because of the emails. But these don't. Good job NBC. High quality pollsters with high quality results. DOMINATING!!

[HAnnA MArin County]

Beautiful numbers