Talk Elections

YouGov/Economist national poll, conducted April 25-27:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/yougov-economist-22090

Clinton 46%
Bush 34%

Clinton 48%
Huckabee 34%

Clinton 46%
Christie 34%

While it looks great for Clinton, the race is actually a bit tighter when compared to other recent all adult polls.

What did YouGov look like in May 2011?

You mean like ABC and CNN? I'm not saying Hillary is up by 10-15 points, but it's pretty clear she's sitting in a strong position both in the democratic primary and the general election. The first way to defeat your opponent is to recognize his or her strengths. Republicans better come to grips with how strong she is or they will lose. Seems like they think they can win by throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing if it sticks. Won't work. They need to go softer. They need to stop attacking her and start pitching ideas. They have plenty of time to do just that, but you can't just run right in 2015 and pivot in to the center in 2016. Their comments will come back to bite them.

That's why we use polling averages folks.

Hillary Clinton is still close to any imaginable ceiling for a Democrat nationwide; the Republicans are close to the floor. With 20% or so undecided, one would need to speculate on how the 20% or so split.

The undecided are mostly Republican-leaning voters. The hope for Hillary Clinton is not that the undecided in this poll split nearly 50-50; it is instead that those people stay home or are too confused to vote. 

Clinton 46%
Bush 34%

Clinton 48%
Huckabee 34%

Clinton 46%
Christie 34%

according to the poll.

This is what a 50-50 split does:

Clinton 56%
Bush 44%

Clinton 57%
Huckabee 43%

Clinton 56%
Christie 44%

No Presidential nominee has done so well since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Such suggests also the biggest wave year for Democrats since 1958 in Congressional elections. The Republicans who gerrymandered a structural advantage in the House  of about 60 seats by concentrating Democrats into D+10 seats and thinning the Democrats out elsewhere into dozens of R+4 seats find those seats turning on Republican incumbents.
 
Let's try the assumption that the undecided in such a poll simply fail to vote.

Clinton 56%
Bush 44%

Clinton 58%
Huckabee 42%

Clinton 56%
Christie 44%

That's a bigger win than the elder Bush got in 1992, suggesting a continuation of support for a highly-popular incumbent President precluded from running for a Third Term.

...This said, Democrats still seem (should Hillary Clinton be the nominee) to have enough of a built-in advantage in the electoral college (in general the Democrats win by smaller percentages in most of the states that Democrats win than Republicans win by in the states that they win). Hillary Clinton could win the electoral college with a 49-51 split of the popular vote, she getting the 49.

OK -- what about a 70-30 split of the undecided in favor of the Republicans?


Clinton 50%
Bush 50%

Clinton 53%
Huckabee 47%

Clinton 50%
Christie 50%

Any one of those is still a Clinton win.

How is 20 percent of the public undecided?

You just used an all adults poll from 18 months prior to an election polling 3 people almost certainly not going to be the nominee to say with 100 percent confidence that Clinton will win.

But somehow this all adults poll is more on the mark than Mason-Dixon. You don't have to give me the numbers on them again. I'm not the hypocrite because I acknowledge both are horrendous.

The scandals wave against Hillary has caused people to hesitate, but they still hate the Republican field too much to vote for any of them.

Another outlier which is not supported by recent state polls.

Recent state polls indicate Hillary is ahead of Bush by a 4-8% margin nationally, as well as other top Republicans.

Christie and Huckabee might be down by 8-10%.

2014; didnt hold the GOP accountable.  It was more about individual candidates than Dems standing for what they believe in.  I would like to see Walker go down; who was part of the 2014 sweep, and is a union buster.

Dems win OH; CO& NV; and Pa and win back control of senate.

They're not going to cost her but the negative press does hurt her some points to undecided voters.

There's always the imprtoant distinction to make: Hillary is not inevitable because she is unbeatable. She is inevitable because nobody can beat her.

I think Tender has declared more polls to be outliers than to be inliers lately.

Apparently the only gold standard for polling these days is Christopher Newport University

Whether Hillary wins with 272 or 290 with or CO or OH; it seems that she can win in any of those scenarios and has the Latino and female vote behind her against Jeb or Walker.

So, you are ignoring basically all state polls recently which show that Hillary does no better than Obama in 2008 or 2012, which further means that Hillary can only be ahead by 5-10% nationally against the top GOPers ?

It's not only Christopher Newport University, it's also PPP, Quinnipiac, SUSA, Mason-Dixon etc.

If you are not seeing the pattern, you must be blind ...

Many recent polls have shown Hillary doing better than Obama in 2008. SUSA/Elon in NC, PPP in NH, Quinnipiac in OH. Marquette for WI and PPP for FL show her doing better than Obama 2012. There's some on the other side as well, like PPP in IA, CNU in VA, and Quinnipiac in PA/FL, but it's not exactly an overwhelming case.

This poll does match the aggregate anyway.

()

Glorious news :D She was leading by less than that one or two years ago, so it's better than expected for Dems!

Junk aggregate!

I don't even know if I will be voting. I usually skip blowouts.

In 2008 President Obama maxed out a raft of States, winning by margins characteristic of Ronald Reagan nationally in a landslide. He also lost some states by margins that one would expect of McGovern in 1972 or Mondale in 1984.

I cannot imagine Hillary Clinton outperforming Barack Obama in any state that he won by 15% margins. She is not going to outperform Barack Obama in most swing states, either. So where does that leave the opportunity for gain nationwide? States that Barack Obama got wiped out in.  


A composite of Presidential elections, 1992-2012:

()

Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race.
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race.
White -- always went with the winner
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green)
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race.
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race.

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

....the states in deep green.

The only sensible polls at this point are the ones among RVs. If we take out LV and all adults polls, we get this aggregate:

()

This seems much more believable.

Being anything under 50% is not great for someone with 100% name recognition

Is that really how you are going to spin this?