Talk Elections

Clinton 45 - Bush 43
Clinton 44 - Carson 43
Clinton 44 - Christie 41
Clinton 45 - Huckabee 42
Clinton 40 - Kasich 47
Clinton 41 - Paul 44
Clinton 44 - Rubio 44
Clinton 44 - Walker 43

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_OH_61015.pdf

Wow Pennsylvania and Ohio. I bet a PPP poll in NC might look different today.

I know, I know: he's Ohio's current, very popular governor ... but how can anyone say Kasich isn't the GOP's best hope at the White House?

Non-Clinton Matchups:

Walker 40
Bloomberg 32

Walker 40
Sanders 30

Walker 41
O'Malley 26

Walker 39
Chafee 24

Walker 41
Webb 25

Mixed results?
These results are very bad for Hillary.

Yeah, this looks very bad for Clinton.  Better hope it's just Ohio going the way of Missouri and not reflective of a national collapse.

Hm, I'm shocked Huck is doing the worst of the bunch. I figured he'd get Ohio, but go no further. I won't freak out over a point or two though.

Democrats should be freaking out though if Carson is a point behind in Ohio!

This might be the best non-garbage poll for Republicans in the 2016 general post-Bridgegate.  

Other than the small period of time where Christie led Clinton, the GOP has been waay behind in Ohio most of the time. 

This poll could just be noise, but it also could be indicative of real problems for the Dems.

Mixed results, Kasich seems to be favoured in Ohio. But, winning Colorado is part of the overall strategy, as well.

These are not "mixed results" you hack.

Hillary is at 54-38 unfavorable/favorable, and a bunch of clowns are within margin of error.

Of course, all the red avatars will be here to call this poll "junk"

These results are quite horrible for Hilldog.

Not good numbers for Hillary at all. Abysmal numbers for any other Democrat though, so not really a sound argument against nominating her. And, PPP favorability numbers are always junk.

I agree Hillary is the most electable Dem candidate, but the sheerly tiny name recognition of the others deflates their numbers. 

OMalley doesnt have that 3rd constituency, in itself to win COLO, the Latino vote, Dems alternate path to presidency, along with NM and NV.

Um, those are really not "mixed results" for her. She was leading Republicans in OH by double digits as recently as one month ago and now Republicans seem to be polling better in the state than Romney. Her numbers are collapsing in almost every swing state as well as nationally (you know she's trouble when a CNN poll among adults only finds her tied/leading by a few points). I have no doubt that the 2016 election will be much closer than 2012.

Atrocious numbers for Hillary, but she won't get blown out in OH even against Kasich. At the very most she would lose 52-47.

Her leading all Republicans except two in a must-win state for Republicans does not add up to horrible numbers for Hillary. They only are in comparison to unrealistic expectations that she'd somehow stomp any GOPer in the General. It's going to be a close, 50/50 affair.

On the other hand, the numbers confirm that any other Democrat would lose in a landslide. The country is definitely turning Right.

lol, if I were Hillary, I'd get truly frightened if a guy like Ben Carson is just a point below me in one of the most important swing states. Get your sh**t together, Hillary.

You are all putting way too much stock in specific polls at this point.  None of these Republicans are really known quantities, so you look at these numbers as anything more than a guidepost.  Ohio is basically where it was in 2012, it's an extremely competitive state.


Nobody really knows who Ben Carson is.  Once people realize how bonkers he is, his general election poll numbers will nosedive. 

How so? The other Democrats have almost zero name recognition. Also, take a look at the number of undecideds. Walker gets 40% against unknown Democrats, not that impressive.

Looking at the crosstabs, it appears Clinton's weakness is due to around 12% of Democrats consistently voting for the Republican option while only 6% of Republicans are crossing over to vote for her. Republicans obviously loathe her, but it might take until she's officially the nominee (and there's an actual Republican nominee to hate) before Democrats fully coalesce around her. I expect her numbers will be slightly depreciated among Democrats throughout the primary season now.

And she's beating everyone apart from Rand with independents, which is in line with all recent polling.

Sanders and Walker have roughly equal name recognition and Walker is thrashing him (the PPP polls in Washington and North Carolina showed the same thing).

And does anyone have an explanation for why everyone's favorability numbers are always so much worse in PPP polls? What the hell are they asking people?

Ben Carson is actually the only candidate in this poll who got positive favorables.

(Agree polls don't matter yet)

These polls are certainly concerning. Looks like Kasich would most likely tie up the state for the GOP if he is nominated.

This poll polled 411 Republicans and 306 Democrats. Ohio was +7 D in the last presidential election.

Like clockwork, the unskewing morons come out of the woodwork when they don't like the poll result.

Clinton can certainly win CO, NV, NM and Pa; without Ohio.

Clinton will have to work for it.

That's the point.  Up until this poll, Hillary appeared to have a commanding lead in Ohio among non-joke pollsters.  Now it's a tossup.

Like clock work people on this forum continue to be complete jerks to each other. No wonder Alt. History warns people of how toxic and horrible this place is.

That's the number of respondents they're using for their primary subsamples.  But the demographic weighting for the general election sample gives them:

Dems 40%
GOP 37%
Indies 23%

Clinton can win Virginia and Florida (with Walker) without Ohio. I don't see Ohio as the tipping point next year, the Dems have better chances with demographics in VA FL CO.

Look at the number of "very liberal" voters who don't like clinton. It's not huge but it is a noticeable group that is hurting her favorables. Not like they'll vote GOP in the fall.

::) This is a sample that voted for Obama by 7 points (49%-42%).

Very good numbers for Kasich obviously, will only help with his fundraising as he sets up to launch. This is more evidence that he is best placed to deliver an Obama state, I cant recall any polls for Walker, Rubio, or Bush that showed them doing this well in their states.

It will be very ironic if Kasich doesn't make the cut for the first debate, which happens to take place in Ohio.

They polled Cruz and you didn't tell me! Clearly you are behaving the way Fox is behaving with Rand Paul!

Clinton 44%
Cruz 43%

Run Hillary, run!

Obviously terrible results but you've got to understand Republicans are overexposed atm while Hillary is basically avoiding the media.

Probably most of the undecideds break toward the Republicans once they unify around a candidate rather than having a 5 way tie for 10%. Those aren't good numbers for Clinton. The real hope is that the inevitable meme wears out before she secures the nomination.

This will be a higher turnout election, so it's hard to see that not being offset.

The inevitable meme doesn't actually have an effect on polls like this because Atlas represents like 1/1000000th of the American voter base.

Definitely a bad poll for Clinton, but this is far from spelling doom for her.

She's been ahead a long time in Ohio. Ted Strickland is tied with Portman. Kaine is most likely the VP.

She will run slightly ahead all the GOP in Ohio.

She needs to pick a progressive VP. Not Tim Kaine.

Yes please pick a progressive vp

Kaine is fairly liberal than Clinton. He's the right choice for this time.

Sherrod Brown is probably a much better choice.

I remember a few weeks ago a NH poll showing a close race with Hillary actually losing to a couple of Republicans. And everyone was saying that meant DOOOOOOOM for her.
And then a few days later another poll came where she was beating everyone in North Carolina, and what do you know? She was again cruising to an easy election.

Why don't you just chill a bit and wait?

Either Brown or Kaine would be top notch choices.

You are being idiotic. Democrats need Brown's Senate seat if they are to have any hope of regaining the majority in that body.

Kaine's not a liberal, and the Democrats lost 63 House seats in the 1 election he was DNC chair for.

The Dems need Kaine in order to have any chance of getting Strickland and Clinton elected.

Hope he is selected. Dems arent gonna necessarily win majority of house, but make enroads in it. So 2010 wont matter as much. Endorse Kaine.

What about Mark Udall?

No, Bill Clinton after the election was critical of how he ran his campaign.

It may be Tom Perez, he wont cause stir, due to his newness, like Castro does.

But, finalist as inside blogs put it along with Tom Perez, Julian Castro and Mark Warner will be the Veep pick.

Barack Obama chose Joe Biden largely because Biden had no potential for financial skeletons appearing. Joe Biden was the poorest member of the US Senate, someone who lived on his Senatorial salary without getting rich off conflicts of interest.

Such may be a good criterion for the Democratic nominee for Vice President. For the Republican? Expect the dirtiest, maybe someone who got fantastically rich on some stock deal related to legislation. 

I think it is down to Warner or Castro, who can attrackY2K voters.

b-b-b-b-but only Hillary is the problem...any other Democrat would win Colorado and the election in a landslide!

Ohio or CO are the swing of this election.

OMalley has to concerned with these poll numbers. Especially, since polls has indicated Clinton is weak in Co, then if he is this far down in Ohio, her best state, he cant win CO, either.