Talk Elections

Washington Post / ABC national poll:

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1166a1HuckabeeClinton.pdf

Clinton 56%
Huckabee 39%

It looks like they may have tested other candidates as well, who'll be included in a full release (perhaps tomorrow), but wanted to release the Huckabee matchup this morning because of Huckabee being a guest today on ABC's "This Week".

UPDATE:

They've also released results for these additional matchups:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/01/18/National-Politics/Polling/release_382.xml?uuid=oFZiJp8ZEeSR_H3_laFEWA

Clinton 54%
Paul 41%

Clinton 54%
Bush 41%

Clinton 53%
Christie 40%

Clinton 55%
Romney 40%

By the way, this is an RV poll.

Dominating!

Devastating. Probably splits the vote 57-43... Reagan got almost 59% of the vote in 1984.

Polling is reflective and not predictive - I think it suggests that at the moment, Clinton is a strong and viable national candidate... BUT things can and often do change. I don't see any reason to get excited about this yet.

This is how Bush/Gore looked in '99...

Mmmhmmm

My guess on what a 57-43 election looks like with Clinton against Huckabee

()

Out on a limb? Sure. The strongest percentage for a Democratic nominee since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, so a 57-43 split of the popular vote for a Democrat is uncharted territory. Huckabee has a regional strength, but huge regional weaknesses.     

Early or not, I'd rather be ahead than behind. It's not like any candidate actually thinks: "Wow, I'm glad I start out behind double digits. Now I can be the second coming of Al Gore!"

Yeah... this won't happen.

Huckabee has too many weaknesses for Republicans outside his core area of support to win the Republican nomination.

Some early polls suggest elections that will never happen -- like Obama vs. Palin in 2008.

LOL Huckabee being the Republican nominee would be the Democrats' wet dream.

It's beginning to look like a landslide folks.

I know this won't happen, but in any scenario, why would Huckabee lose Kansas, Nebraska, or the Dakotas...?

Yeah, against Mike Huckabee (who won't sniff the nomination).

Yeah.  This is completely unrealistic.  If Hillary did win that big, she would do it by winning like 75% of college grad women.  The margin would come from getting 70%+ in CA and NY.  Something like this perhaps?

()

Huckabee isn't gonna be the nominee, but if he is, this is the main reason why he would be crushed.

What happened to Huckabee? I remember back in 2008 he was considered a decently strong candidate. I even remember one person who was knowledgeable about politics and a Democrat, say he was worried about the possible matchup due to Huckabee's charisma and his ability to steal economic issues away from Hillary.

I think a lot of it has to do with the general electorate shifting away from his stances on some social issues.

Is there any polling on how a Clinton/Huckabee race would pan out in Arkansas?

The last Clinton-Huckabee poll in Arkansas was done in August 2014 by PPP. Huckabee leads Clinton 55-39 in the state. Hillary won't win Arkansas.

He is that poor a cultural match for the Plains states other than Oklahoma and Texas.

Sometimes, early polls show the results of an election that never happens... think of how bad things looked for an Obama-Palin matchup in early 2009. I don't know if I can get to the polling patterns from then, but I noticed that she could not relate to people who are not native speakers of English. To talk to such people, even if they are highly proficient in English, one is  wise to cleave closely to the formal register as do the phrasebooks and the formal teaching of English to non-native speakers.  I learned that quickly at a highly-regarded university in California. Sarah Palin did not.

Huckabee does well to the extent that Southern Baptists are a part of the electorate.     

*bump*

They've released the results on the other matchups from the poll:

Q: Jeb Bush's father and his brother both served as president. Does that make you more likely to support Jeb Bush for president, less likely, or does it make no difference?

more likely 11%
less likely 33%
no difference 55%

Q: Hillary Clinton's husband served as president. Does that make you more likely to support Hillary Clinton for president, less likely, or does it make no difference?

more likely 23%
less likely 14%
no difference 62%

Q: Hillary Clinton would be the first female president. Does that make you more likely to support Hillary Clinton for president, less likely, or does it make no difference?

more likely 24%
less likely 10%
no difference 65%

Q: Mitt Romney ran as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. Does that make you more likely to support Mitt Romney for president, less likely, or does it make no difference?

more likely 12%
less likely 26%
no difference 61%

Now, that is interesting to see quantified. It will be exciting to have Bill on the campaign trail after the good service he did Barack Obama in 2012.

I guess many pollsters assume minority turnout will be as high as in 2012 and Hillary will only narrowly lose white voters. Seriously? Those polls are ridiculous!

Read literally the second post on this thread.

but muh dynasties

Not nearly as ridiculous as the November Quinnipiac poll that showed a more Republican electorate than 2010/2014.

That looks 5-9% too high (for Romney & Bush at least).

Considering PPP has Hillary up by 10 against the two in PA and Quinnipiac up by 2008-ish margins in NJ.

The national margin should be around Hillary+8 right now.

33% of people are less likely to vote for Jeb because of his dad and his brother. He should seriously consider changing his last name to Jones, Smith, or Johnson.

But, the GOP is going to pretend like George W. isn't an albatross, and that's fine.

Glorious news!!!

I agree. Both "sides" make stupid polls.

The formidable campaign apparatus of President Obama has gone completely over to Hillary Clinton. Count on it to know exactly how to reach the minority voters that he reached in 2008 and 2012.

Millions rejected Barack Obama because of you-know-what. It wasn't intellectual merit or inadequate promises.