Talk Elections

... except against Condoleezza Rice (but I have no clue why they polled her):

43-40 Rice/Clinton
44-43 Clinton/Paul
44-43 Clinton/Huckabee
43-40 Clinton/Bush
45-42 Clinton/Rubio
42-39 Clinton/Christie
46-41 Clinton/Walker
47-40 Clinton/Cruz
44-37 Clinton/Fiorina
45-37 Clinton/Carson

Note: Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 1,259 registered voters in Iowa regarding potential matchups [388 Republicans]. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3% [5% for the Republican Primary question]. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polling method was done through IVR, with the raw results weighted by anticipated voting demographics. A full reporting of the crosstabulated results is available upon request.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/iowa-poll-bush-leads-crowded-gop-field-rice-beats-clinton-head-to-head-43-to-40/

you`ve forgot these:

Condoleezza Rice (R) 43%
Hillary Clinton (D) 40%

Nope, I didn't ...

They were the first ones he listed.

sorry was my fault

God, I love Gravis.

And you are making that determination based on a Gravis poll a year and a half out and not on historical trends?

It's really odd to see a state that leans more to the left than the country go harder for the Republicans than nationally in 2016 :P

It's only voted Republican once in the past 7 Presidential elections and that once was <1% for GWB in a national race he won by 3 points. I'm guessing you'll go full Wulfric and bring up Ernst in 2014 despite that Iowa has had no problem electing Branstad and Grassley in midterms as well, with no effect on the Presidential outcome.

lol

Democrats should have no reason to factor in 2014 to 2016.

Ernst won by 10 percentage points but only received 588,575 votes. 588,575 votes is less than any Presidential victor in Iowa received dating all the way back to 1948. It's about the same number of votes Nixon received in 1960, losing by 13 points, with a 1960 population size.

2014 midterm turnout is abysmal and has no impact on 2016 outcomes. Only Republicans showed up to vote, and even then, their turnout was bad too.

Desperate by pointing out 2014 had the lowest turnout of any election in the post-WWII era?

I didn't ignore the rest of your post. You didn't really have a rest of post. You just said "so what?" over and over like that was an answer.

Have you heard of trends? Iowa is not trending Republican. I'm not being desperate or delusional. North Carolina is trending Republican. That is a fact. Iowa is not trending Republican. That is a fact.

Another person who just going to have to find out the hard way, I guess...

You are absolutely right Monarch.  Differential turnout was a big reason for Ernst's victory - evangelicals in rural western Iowa voted in droves while many of the poor workers in the Quad City area weren't paying attention.  Hey, at least the bread bags voted...

IndyRep, honestly answer this question: Do you REALLY believe there was a relevant number of people who voted for Ernst in 2014 and didn't vote for Romney in 2012? That's what it would require to say Iowa is going to the GOP in 2016. "I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but that Joni Ernst really spoke to me and now I'm a Republican."

That sounds ludicrous to me. More likely, 99.9% of Ernst's 580,000 votes came out of the 730,000 Romney pool in 2012.

Funny that Walker's losing by a bigger margin than the other important guys.

lol

Hate to burst your encouraging bubble again but the final PPP for Iowa was Obama +2, Rasmussen's final was Romney +1, and Gravis was Obama +4.

Nothing about this poll is saying it's closer than what polls thought it was in 2012.

Iowa was never Hillary's (or Bill's) stronghold. But it's a place where running a good primary campaign might actually improve her GE numbers.

Iowa is always a swing state.

His reputation follows from neighboring Wisconsin, where his popularity is going into the septic tank.

It's over. Condoleezza Rice will be the next president of the United States.

Yeah, I thought that could be it...

Repeat after me: "Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Florida; Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Florida..."

I still think CO has potential for more elasticity than IA in presidential elections, whereas in all other elections, it's the opposite.

Those arguing for an R trend there do have rather strong logic.  There has been permanent rural damage to the Dem brand in so many other areas, it wouldn't surprise me if that has spread to IA.  And after McAuliffe won and Warner survived with low turnout, I have to conclude there is enough suburban Dem strength to put VA in a different league from OH and FL.  Starting to think the most likely narrow R win is OH+FL+IA+CO+NV with Rubio.  Exploit Clinton's Western problem.

I think Hillary will carry Iowa in the end, but not by a huge margin.