Why is Clinton underperforming in Nevada and Iowa?

[Talleyrand]

Interested to hear any explanations or #analysis for this...

[Spark]

Muh uneducated white folk

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Because of the stupids.

[Nyvin]

Iowa is more religious, and more uneducated.

Trump is somewhat, kinda well known in Nevada I guess.   Although that alone doesn't explain it.    They also have more uneducated whites than Colorado does.

[Xing]

Polls in Nevada are notoriously bad. People thought McCain could win Nevada in 2008, and that Obama would surely do better in Colorado, Virginia, and Pennsylvania than Nevada. We saw how that turned out. People thought Reid was going to lose in 2010, since he was consistently polling a few points behind Angle. He won by 5.5. People also thought Nevada was an ultratight swing state in 2012, and it turned out to be... not that close. Obama won it by more than every other swing state except Wisconsin. While Dean Heller did manage to hold on in 2012 (thanks to a flawed opponent), he won by much less than the polls suggested. People often counter this example with 2014, but Democrats didn't lift a finger to contest the gubernatorial race in Nevada that year, and Sandoval is extremely popular, even among the Latinos, the group that pollsters struggle with in Nevada (so if they were missing Latino voters, it didn't result in the same Republican bias it has in other years.) I stand by my prediction that Hillary will comfortably win Nevada, and everyone will be shocked AGAIN that Nevada didn't end up being close, even though the polls showed it to be.

As for Iowa, a few things could be at play here. Iowa could be trending Republican, given how poorly Democrats did in 2014. It could also be that Trump is benefiting from the fact that there are very few minorities in Iowa, and this might be the year that Iowa's demographics catch up to it a bit. (We're not seeing that in New England or the PNW, since whites in those regions vote different from whites in the Midwest.) It could also be that Hillary will do fine in Iowa as well, since Iowa is a state where ground game is crucial. That's one of the big reasons why Obama always did so well in Iowa, and was perhaps a reason why Cruz managed to upset Trump there in the caucus. Perhaps, in some of these smaller states where organization really makes a huge difference, polls are understating Hillary's advantage. Or, it could be a combination of the three.

If Hillary wins by 6 or 7 points nationally, she'll almost certainly win Iowa (though maybe not by a lot), and she'll cruise by in Nevada.

[Redban]

NEVADA:

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/32

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014
22.5%

IOWA:

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/19

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014
26.4%

In contrast, Virginia and Colorado are around 36-37%.

[Ljube]

I love the poorly educated.

[JohnCA246]

Nevada makes me worry a little worried about assuming New Mexico is going for Clinton without much polling.

[john cage bubblegum]

NEVADA:

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/32

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014
22.5%

IOWA:

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/19

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014
26.4%

In contrast, Virginia and Colorado are around 36-37%.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Nevada makes me worry a little worried about assuming New Mexico is going for Clinton without much polling.

Johnson will play a significant factor there as well.

Nevada does not have as stable of a population as many states; lots of people moving in and out of the state. Also, polling of Hispanics still leaves something to be desired depending on the pollster.

Iowa might not be a bad state for Trump. Pence is a good fit for the state.

[Mehmentum]

Its all about white people without college degrees.

[JMT]

Polls in Nevada are notoriously bad. People thought McCain could win Nevada in 2008, and that Obama would surely do better in Colorado, Virginia, and Pennsylvania than Nevada. We saw how that turned out. People thought Reid was going to lose in 2010, since he was consistently polling a few points behind Angle. He won by 5.5. People also thought Nevada was an ultratight swing state in 2012, and it turned out to be... not that close. Obama won it by more than every other swing state except Wisconsin. While Dean Heller did manage to hold on in 2012 (thanks to a flawed opponent), he won by much less than the polls suggested. People often counter this example with 2014, but Democrats didn't lift a finger to contest the gubernatorial race in Nevada that year, and Sandoval is extremely popular, even among the Latinos, the group that pollsters struggle with in Nevada (so if they were missing Latino voters, it didn't result in the same Republican bias it has in other years.) I stand by my prediction that Hillary will comfortably win Nevada, and everyone will be shocked AGAIN that Nevada didn't end up being close, even though the polls showed it to be.

As for Iowa, a few things could be at play here. Iowa could be trending Republican, given how poorly Democrats did in 2014. It could also be that Trump is benefiting from the fact that there are very few minorities in Iowa, and this might be the year that Iowa's demographics catch up to it a bit. (We're not seeing that in New England or the PNW, since whites in those regions vote different from whites in the Midwest.) It could also be that Hillary will do fine in Iowa as well, since Iowa is a state where ground game is crucial. That's one of the big reasons why Obama always did so well in Iowa, and was perhaps a reason why Cruz managed to upset Trump there in the caucus. Perhaps, in some of these smaller states where organization really makes a huge difference, polls are understating Hillary's advantage. Or, it could be a combination of the three.

If Hillary wins by 6 or 7 points nationally, she'll almost certainly win Iowa (though maybe not by a lot), and she'll cruise by in Nevada.

Pretty spot on analysis, in my opinion.

[Present]

Iowa is pretty simple.  It's a whole bunch of Midwest white people which is essentially one of Trump's main group of supporters.  It's a state that Trump should be doing pretty well in.
Nevada... perhaps they are gambling on Trump since, if he wins, they'll receive more money from their bets?  In all seriousness, there's a Trump tower there which certainly doesn't hurt.  Other than that, I really don't know why it's so close there especially since Donald has such large problems in Colorado and even Utah.  Maybe, the polling is erroneous.

[Bismarck]

Because of the stupids.

Are black people without college degrees stupids or just people who don't agree with you?

[Wiz in Wis]

Nevada makes me worry a little worried about assuming New Mexico is going for Clinton without much polling.

NM has both more Latinos and highly educated Whites than NV

[ProudModerate2]

At this point, I feel confident that Hillary can/will take Nevada.
But Iowa does worry me.

[Ebsy]

Both states are difficult to poll.

[ElectionsGuy]

For Nevada it might be bad or difficult state polling. In Iowa, I think it actually is in play more because not only is it super white and has lower than average college graduates, but also lack of large metropolitan areas in Iowa. Even Des Moines, the biggest city with 200K, doesn't have massive amounts of suburbs like Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis, and others do.

[cinyc]

Both states are difficult to poll.

Iowa is not that difficult to poll.  Pollsters have plenty of experience polling Iowa caucuses every 4 years.  Polling for a general election is much easier than polling for a caucus.

[Blue3]

Nevada is difficult to poll.

Don't know about Iowa. Maybe Obama should campaign there.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nevada ALWAYS undereggs the Dems due to Latino under-polling. I'm not concerned about NV. IA worries me simply because it has a majority of whites being without a college degree and it's a massively white state, so I expect it to be much much closer than the rest of the Midwest.

[Badger]

Can we all agree that even with the Latino polling lag in NV plus Hillary very likely winning it in the end, the numbers are still closer than they should be?

IA will definitely trend GOP this year, but unless Trump turns the national numbers to AT LEAST a close race, he ain't taking the state.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Can we all agree that even with the Latino polling lag in NV plus Hillary very likely winning it in the end, the numbers are still closer than they should be?

IA will definitely trend GOP this year, but unless Trump turns the national numbers to AT LEAST a close race, he ain't taking the state.

Yes. But again, the combination of Latino polling issues and whites without degrees trending R, makes the weakness make sense.

[Xing]

Can we all agree that even with the Latino polling lag in NV plus Hillary very likely winning it in the end, the numbers are still closer than they should be?

Perhaps they are, and maybe undereducated white voters are helping Trump there. Still, I can't imagine Hillary winning it by less than 5 or 6.

[Ogre Mage]

At this point, I feel confident that Hillary can/will take Nevada.
But Iowa does worry me.

That is my take as well.  The tendency for Democrats to underpoll in Nevada due to the transitory and large Spanish-speaking Latino population has happened in several cycles now so it is likely happening for Clinton as well.  Clinton defeated both Obama (2008) and Sanders (2016) in Nevada by solid margins, suggesting she has pull in the state.

Iowa is an almost entirely white state and that white population is largely working class.  That puts the demographics right in Trump's wheelhouse.  And Clinton has not shown any real strength in Iowa in her past races here, finishing an embarrassing third in 2008 and edging past Sanders in 2016 by an almost nonexistent margin.