Talk Elections

Clinton: 43%
Paul: 42%

Clinton: 44%
Bush: 42%

Clinton: 44%
Huckabee: 42%

Clinton: 42%
Rubio: 40%

Clinton: 44%
Fiorina: 33%

Clinton: 46%
Walker: 42%

Clinton: 44%
Carson: 39%

Clinton: 44%
Cruz: 39%

Clinton: 44%
Trump: 39%

Clinton: 43%
Christie: 38%

---

Bush: 41%
Sanders: 40%

Sanders: 41%
Walker: 40%

Sanders: 39%
Rubio: 37%

Sanders: 45%
Trump: 37%

---

Clinton: 41%
Bush: 26%
Trump: 25%

---
Clinton: 41%
Trump: 36%
Deez Nuts: 8%

(When you look at how supporters of Deez Nuts split in a head to head between Clinton and Trump 25% are for Clinton, 15% are for Trump, and 60% are undecided. So Deez Nuts are largely providing an outlet for voters to express their frustration with the other candidates.)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_MN_80415.pdf

MN looks like a battleground.

MINNESOTA IS SAFE DEMOCRATIC GUYS

Holy sh**t, according to this poll, among ALL Minnesota voters, Hillary is at 38-55 approve/disapprove!

Haha. No.

yeah her favorabilities suck, yet the Dem machine never expected this! :eyeroll: Lol that Bernie is polling just as well, basically, in several of PPP's latest polls

Moving MN to tossup for this cycle.  I saw this as 2020 or 2024, not 2016, but it is clear that it is a state trending in the right direction.

Fools gold for the Republicans.

The battle for Minnesota is on!

Wanna give any insight or do you just not like the results?

I agree, we can see that 30% of the Democratic primary voters support Sanders. Also the fact that MN gave 5% to Nader tells me that about 5% of MN Liberals may sit out if Sanders isn't the nominee.

Fun poll. One thing about Minnesota. It likes clean politics, and honest politicians. And when it comes to Hillary, well you know what the polls say about certain of her character traits at the moment. So maybe the dots are connecting here, maybe not.

If the margins were the same but both candidates were in the upper 40's rather than the lower 40's, I'd be more optimistic about GOP chances here.  I suspect the undecideds are very Democratic-leaning here.

Also, I can't believe why anyone would vote for Nader over Clinton.  Clinton is arguably running the most progressive campaign for a presumptive Democratic nominee since McGovern, whether on race, guns, income inequality, or energy policy.  She is a great candidate for the progressive left.

And they will choose Bush or Walker who unlike her are squeaky clean and always tell the truth.
Gimme a break!

Minnesota has gone Republican only once since the 50's but if Republicans want to spend millions there instead of Ohio or Virginia then more power to them.

It's always a pleasure having you drop by px. Assuming the content of your post is the epitome of sublime truth, the problem here is that the voters (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2234) are just not as perspicacious as you are, px.

I don't expect the democrats to lose MN except in a landslide to be honest.

I mean, Clinton is quite in a bad shape right now and she's still leading.

If that Quinnipiac poll of Iowa is to be trusted (which I think is far from sure), these numbers would be pretty much in line. On the other hand, Wisconsin has shown a D trend in practically all of the non-Walker polls, and even some of the Walker polls. Perhaps all Democrats living on the west side of the northern Mississippi up and moved across the river?

I don't see how Minnesota is a good option to 270 for Republicans, but it's their money and time to spend. Well, at least this dispels that PPP rigs polls for Democrats.

Hillary only being up 5 to Donald Trump lol

You mean to tell me Virginia leans D while Minnesota is a tossup?

Sounds like another candidate who did well in national polls but poorly in state polls. We all know how that turned out... (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/state-and-national-polls-tell-different-tales-about-state-of-campaign/)

Hillary at 38/55 favorables pretty much means that if the Republicans nominate a sane candidate she is done.

She has it in the bag.

And that sane candidate is?

Besides, Hillary took a massive beating last month. She'll recover.

I had not read that article before, and I found it most fascinating. Thanks!

I think your little formula, with zero wiggle room, results in the ineluctable conclusion, that to a 100% certainty, the Pubs will nominate an insane candidate. So the only question remaining, is by insane, do you mean legally insane (which varies by state, but we can get that later), or insane in some more colloquial sense (in which event we will need to flesh out what you mean).  Look forward to hearing from you, on all of these most important and pressing issues.

I told you that Minnesota may be a potential battleground state.

So PPP has Clinton up 5 on Bush nationally, but only up 2 in Minnesota?  That definitely supports the idea of a discrepancy between nationwide and state polling.  

The Minnesota and Illinois PPP polls are giving 2004-esqe results, which would indicate a narrow Republican victory.  The nationwide polls are looking more like 2012, a narrow Democratic victory.

One bright spot for Democrats in the state polls is Virginia, where Clinton held a commanding lead in the last PPP poll.  That could be the Dems' saving grace next year.

Edit: the Obama approvals support this.  PPP has Obama at -4 in MN, which is about even with his nationwide numbers. 

Just playing along with the conmon liberal perception that half of this field is mentally challenged. Fortunately I am not a liberal.

Minnesota does have a thing for honesty. Put in the right Republican like Kasich against Hillary and some magic might happen.

This poll is 91% white, whereas Minnesota was about 87% white in 2012 IIRC.

It was 90% white in 2008. Either Somalis are being imported at such an alarming rate as to double the black voting population of Minnesota within four years, or that is a statistical fluke. Either way, I would not discredit this poll based on a dubious exit poll finding.

I think it was Jonathan Chait who, during the 2012 primaries, came up with a graph that plotted "Mormonism" vs. "sanity" in the GOP presidential field, finding a strong correlation between the two.  Unfortunately, all of the 2016 candidates are low on the Mormonism scale.  ;)

We'd be fools to nominate her. Even with his low name recognition, Sanders is already doing better against Trump than her.

Indeed.  The Electability argument for Clinton has been getting a lot weaker in the past month.  I used to believe Clinton was this invincible figure, but now she shows some weakness.

Those numbers seem to be in line with the results of another poll. (http://www.minnpost.com/party-politics/2015/06/low-approval-ratings-clinton-among-minnesota-voters-poll-finds)

That article made my eyes bleed, because they kept saying "approval" rather than "favorability".

Yes, I get annoyed by the oddest things.  :P

I wholeheartedly encourage the GOP to piss away time and resources trying to win Minnesota.

Along with Iowa & CO; MN is a working class state. She should win it by six.

Minnesota will be closest than 2012. Expecially with Walker, IMHO.
However, it will not be won by the republican candidate. It's a wast of time. The GOP should focus on other states.

People bring up Sanders' low name recognition like he's automatically going to be viewed more favorably as his name rec. increases.  Most of the people who are undecided about him are conservatives and moderates, while Liberals have mostly already made up their minds about him.

E-mails.

This gets resolved in her favor (either that they didn't happen, innocent necessity or mistake, or no-harm-no-foul) or it blows up -- which includes the semblance of a cover-up. 

Minnesota always looks like a potential battleground state, but the Republicans typically face a ceiling decidedly less than 50%.

Hillary having massive white people problems clearly. Hopefully Biden turns the blacks against her. Then all she will have left is the gays (2.0's of course, 1.0s are solidly in the Sanders/Trump camp)

But the Republicans are having all people problems clearly.

Sorry, I was referring to PPP's cross tabs (though now I see I didn't mention my source), which show that Moderates and Conservatives have high undecideds with regards to Sanders' favorability.  

Most of the people who aren't familiar with Sanders are Moderates and Conservatives, which means he's going to have a hard time keeping his breakeven favorability rating.

Not that Clinton's favorables are anything to be proud of.  But Clinton doing poorly isn't a reason to hold Sanders up as the 'electable candidate', he's not.

Suppose Biden hops in?  He might end up getting most of his support from Hillary voters, which perhaps leaves an opening for Sanders. Maybe.

Yeah, as Michael Tomasky mentioned who better to play the role of Democrats savior than a guy who ran for president twice, was on a presidential primary ballot one time and got a whopping 1%?
Torie's and the other Republicans concern trolling is a truly a sight to behold.

You just cannot stop yourself from indulging in personal attacks can you px? Anyway, I was just throwing the idea out there. I guess if Biden gets in, we will find out. If he doesn't, we won't.

Calling you for your concern trolling is a personal attack? Please, you've been doing that for years. Let's not start about how many times you did the same thing with Obamacare, predicting doom and gloom since it was voted.

Also, you might find this article useful too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/upshot/likable-enough-clintons-exaggerated-favorability-problem.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/upshot/likable-enough-clintons-exaggerated-favorability-problem.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1)

The underlying theory is, as The Post piece put it, that “presidential politics tends to be dominated by personality” and that Mrs. Clinton “may be hard pressed to win a traditional presidential election in which likability matters most.” Likewise, a Los Angeles Times article approvingly cited the maxim that “it’s often said that elections can boil down to a contest of who would a voter rather have a beer with.”

None of these claims are supported by the data.

...

Candidate perceptions are not a good predictor of the ultimate election outcome, especially this early. In April 1992, for instance, a Gallup poll found that Bill Clinton’s ratings were 34 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable, but he went on to defeat George H.W. Bush by more than five percentage points in the popular vote seven months later. By contrast, even though an April 2008 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans had a favorable view of John McCain, he ended up losing to Barack Obama by more than seven percentage points.

I never called you or anyone else a troll, or engaging in trolling, px, which is a personal attack. You are accusing me and others of being insincere. That is an insult. Attack the ideas, not the poster. You should read what Dave thought was infractable from the moderated post examples he put up. Turns out he has close to zero tolerance for personal attacks. You are over the line here, in my opinion. I guess in due course we will find out one way or the other, if need be.

1)Trolling is quite a different thing from concern trolling, of which indeed I accuse you.

2)Care to comment the article I posted? Or doesn't titillate your intellect enough?

Minnesota is not going to be close.  What are you people smoking?  Is this your first Presidential race or something?

What then is "concern trolling?" What does it mean? Doesn't trolling mean insincere? I consider it personally insulting. I really have no desire to engage with you on substance, until you adopt a more civil posting style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll)

The Hill published an op-ed piece by Markos Moulitsas of the liberal blog Daily Kos titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'". The concern trolls in question were not Internet participants but rather Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient".

Here is another definition (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll). It's an insult. It's not right to call posters names, or impugn their motives. If you think some political opponent is giving bad advice to your side (not that I did that here but whatever), just say that you think the advice is wrong headed because in fact it will ... .

But Minnesota has the potential to be close. The problem here is that people think this is going to be a Clinton win; in which case the prospect of Minnesota being close would certainly make less sense.

That's a tautology.  If an election is close, it's close.  We agree on that.

Any state has the potential to be close.  Right, in theory.  But, it's silly to think that in 2016 Minnesota will be in play because Democrats have a consistent decided advantage.  No Republican has hit 50% in a statewide MN race in over 20 years.  Clinton is a solid candidate and the Republicans have no good candidates.

Everything about the argument was great before that.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

In any case, I hope Republicans are foolish enough to contest Minnesota.  It would never make the 270 electoral vote difference.  Thus, it's not a real swing state, it would only be the icing on the cake of a Republican landslide on the measure of 2008.

http://republic3-0.com/why-minnesota-will-crown-hillary-clinton-in-2016/

There was actually an article 2 months ago that predicted Minnesota would provide Hillary the 270th electoral vote. Lincoln Park Strategies has some kind of model, seems mostly demographic based, that predicts that Hillary would get 52.8% of MN's vote, just 0.2% better than 2012. On the other hand, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado become more firm Democrat, with over 53%.

I don't think their model anticipated Hillary's private email server, but besides that, it was kind of cool seeing this close poll, and thinking about their article weeks back.

Oh the sweet sound of bias and bullsh**t. Hillary isn't a "poor candidate" by any means but to say she's a shining city on the Dem hill when in reality she's already showing wear & tear, and multiple nominees on the right aren't showing that awfully bad this early on (Rand, Rubio, Jeb), then you can't be so quick to jump on false accusations. GOP has various decent candidates this year, as do the Dems.

I remember a lot of polls in 2008 (and some in 2012) showing a very close race in Minnesota. I'm not surprised to see all of you jumping on this one poll as evidence that Hillary's toast, but I'm not convinced yet. Minnesota's not going Republican until Republicans moderate.

Harnessing the spirit of Sam Spade?

Remember in 2004 when everyone said Bush would win New Jersey and Hawaii?

Be patient f****t.

Derp, why do those idiots even contest any states?!