Talk Elections

()

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/21/cbs-battleground-tracker-ohio-iowa

Clinton being +6 in Ohio suggests the race isn't so close as some would have us believe.

Good news in Ohio. Iowa will probably have the second biggest R trend.

Meh not the best

I'm not sure how the race actually looks in Iowa since Clinton and Trump are still polling in the high 30s/low 40s and over 10% in this poll are undecided. This seems about right though for Iowa right now and Ohio is surprising.

Wow, looks like the race is shifting in Clinton's direction if those Ohio numbers are true. Fantastic news!

In the 3-poll average, Hillary now leads by 4 (which is well within the MoE).

Remember that there were polls in Oct. 2004, which had Kerry ahead in OH by 6 (and he lost).

But as long as CO and VA are above average for her, she should be OK.

Glad to see Tender is still bending logic and reason to create a horserace where there is none.

That Ohio number is encouraging, Clinton up 2 from the last YouGov poll there. Iowa continues to look like a coin-flip race, but that is basically expected by now.

Overall, I'm happy with those results.

I'm just cautioning you guys not to have blind trust in these state polls ...

+6 in Ohio makes sense if Clinton is +10 or +11 in PA

What the hell is going on in Iowa?

Compared to Obama's performance in 2012, Clinton is up three points in Ohio and down six in Iowa.

That Ohio result is ugly for the Trump campaign. I'm guessing she's getting big numbers from the cities and out of the Northeastern part of the state.

As for Iowa, it's pretty much in line with everything else we've been seeing. It's almost certainly now the Obama state most at risk.

Or, as Trump himself would say, "How stupid are the people of Iowa?"

Iowa needs to be stripped of its status as the first primary/caucus state.

If Clinton is ahead by double digits in PA, NH, VA, CO, and by mid-single digits in OH, FL, NC, then Iowa and Nevada are completely irrelevant.

Guess who that pollster was?

The LA Times.

I will now accept my accolades for being one of the people saying back in 2013/14 that Clinton had an Iowa problem.

So you think Ohio is as Democratic as the nation if not more Democratic? I don't think so. Sure, there was that one Pew poll, but the state polls indicate this is a 6-8 point lead nationally.

Screw Iowa, I'll take +6 in Ohio, thank you very much! The rustbelt strategy is clearly not working for Trump.

Iowa's now a Lean R state in an even national election, no longer the tossup/tilt D of yesteryear.

Where is that clear from? This is her biggest lead in Ohio since March.

Iowa seems to heading the way of Missouri. We should have known after they elected nutcase Joni Ernst in 2014.

My working assumption, looking at both the national and the state polls, is that it's about a 6 point lead nationally.

92% of Ohio voters in the YouGov poll are completely locked in or probably won't change. That gives Trump very little chance to reverse a 6 point deficit

87% of voters who said they were not voting for Trump (56% of the respondents overall) said there is no chance they vote for Trump

Additionally, there have been 15 polls taken of Ohio since June 7, when Clinton mathematically wrapped up the Democratic nomination. Clinton led in 12 polls; Trump in 2; and there was 1 tie

Trump only led by 3 in a PPP poll taken right before the RNC and by 1 in that batch of odd Quinnipiac polls of the big 3 swing states. Otherwise it is all Clinton

Iowa is a true tossup. Since July 4, Trump and Clinton have each led in 3 polls, with two ties (out of 8 polls)

I won't deny that Clinton could have an Iowa problem, but I wouldn't be surprised if she overperforms her polls, or if Iowa trends her way in the fall. One of the key things about Iowa is ground game/organization, which is one of the reasons it was such a strong state for Obama. I could see Trump's poor organization hurting him here.

That Ohio number is delicious. This fits with the news of Republican internals in PA that have Trump down double digits.

Is there a geographic breakdown of the Ohio poll? I'd really like to see how Hillary's doing in the Northeast (and no, under no circumstances is she going to lose Mahoning County). Against Trump, I'm positive she'll win Lake County. I wonder if she could even flip Medina as well. Even in a very close race, I think Hillary will overperform in the Northeast (i.e. Cleveland and its suburbs and around Akron and  Youngstown).

Those polls seem to confirm (Pew, daily tracker polls) that race almost came back to "pre-convention" polling, i.e. Clinton is up 4-6 from 8-10

Ohio up by 6 does not jive with her being up 4-6. More like 6-8.

No, these are saying this is a 6 to 8 point race.

^^^
Yougov polled Ohio (C +5) and Iowa (T+1) July 13-15. Then the race was Clinton +4-5.
Now we get C+6 and tie in OH and Iowa, respectively.

This together with other polls might indicate, that race is tightening. Or not :D

Gender gap in Ohio is ridiculous. Trump is only winning men by 3%, while Clinton is winning women by 16%.

So Ohio is going to be an even PVI this year.  OK whatever you say.

Sigh, I'm not saying that. I just compare polls from the same pollster.

Check out, how 538's model is working.

It seems pretty reasonable, don't you think?

Aw, how cute, CBS thinks Iowa is gonna be close.

It probably will be.  I suspect it's going to be one of the closest states (although I think Clinton is likely to pull it out in the end due to superior organization and ground game.)  The states don't all shift in a uniform manner.  Certainly VA, CO, and NC -- more diverse and educated states -- are trending D.  Iowa, with a whiter and less educated population, is trending R. 

"Only 80% of Iowa Democrats back Clinton"

I think it's Bernie time...

I think they need to replace Kaine with Sanders or Warren.

Up 6 in Ohio? But muh tracking polls

They shows almost the same trend.
Yougov shows almost the same results AUG. 17-19 as JUL. 13-15 (Clintons lead increased by one point in OH and IA).
The La Times shows that race for Aug 14-20 is almost the same as for Jul 14-20.

:) One more time:
Trend.

lol Ohio is not going to be more Democratic than the rest of the nation, friend. Ohio has always been a Republican leaning swing state.

The bump is fading, but it's showing a race that is still very distant for Mr. Trump.

And if anything Trump was supposed to make it more GOP leaning than usual, per the conventional wisdom and earlier polls.

In fact, this is the biggest lead she's had in ANY Ohio poll (aside from that junky Ballotpedia poll in June) since March.

Not sure what's going on with Iowa, but the Ohio number jibes with 538's polls-only model polling average of Clinton +7.1.

The only poll that matters is on election day.

-Everyone that ended up losing the election

I said this in another thread recently, but it bears repeating here.

If you say the only poll that matters is on election day: you're losing.

If you have to adjust the poll numbers to get a favorable result: you're losing.

If you start talking about rigged elections: you're losing.

If you do all of these and it's three 2.5 months until election day: you're losing badly.

Would you honestly say the same thing if this poll had Trump up 6 in Ohio?

seriously. lack of minorities.

He's not doing well (even relatively) in states like WI or NH though.

So says just about every eventual loser, except in races that are or have been nearly tied.

Donald Trump needs some dynamic to deliver him from a landslide loss (please pardon the double alliterations!), and it is hard to imagine what such a dynamic is.

It's even getting late for a 1929-style crash; it's almost September.  

In IA, Trump is winning 9% of Democrats, and Clinton is winning 4% of Republicans. There seem to a real lack anti-Trump Republicans, for a state where Trump did poorly in the primaries.

That does make some sense. Are Ted Cruz/Steve King voters really going to bolt from Trump? I doubt it.

Remember how TYT was declaring IA "Safe D Forever!!!" after it voted to the left of PA in 2012? ROFL.

Remember when you were on the "Hillary is a bad fit for CO" train? LMAO. And don't tell me her double digit lead there is exclusively because "Trump bad".

Iowa's polling was closer than Ohio's in 2012 and yet, it voted to the left of the Buckeye state.

I still think R's would have at least a nominal advantage in CO with a non-Trump candidate. And I never rated CO Safe R. In fact on at least one occasion I called out users who were giving it that rating.

I suppose Trump coming close in Iowa would be a silver lining in an otherwise grim electoral college landscape for Republicans.  Even a good Republican candidate in 2020 will have to play defense on so many fronts.

While large compared to presidential elections past, a 19 point differential isn't that remarkable by the standards of Clinton/Trump polls we've seen this year.  Some polls have shown the gender gap being 30 points or more.

Trump's at 40% in Iowa. Is he doing well or is it just that Clinton is having a harder time closing the deal with undecideds than in other states?

Both are well under their parties' floors (about 45%), which of course means that one can conclude nothing from this poll in Iowa.

Ohio is in contrast big trouble for Donald Trump. Another must-win state (including Colorado, Florida, and Virginia) outside of the margin of error, and Colorado and Virginia far outside of the margin of error? I smell a landslide.

sorry. i meant "not enough minorities?" i'm genuinely confused.

I think there are multiple factors at work, but it seems clear that Iowans aren't big fans of either candidate....

What is sometimes forgotten about Obama, is that he performed exceptionally well in the "Farm Belt" region of the Lower Midwest (Iowa, Rural Illinois, Indiana, etc...) perhaps the best performance for a Democrat since Dukakis in '88 at the height of the farm crisis, where many rural counties in this region swung heavily Democratic from Northern MO to Southern IA, etc....

Obama ran as a MidWest Democrat and in '08 on an anti-Iraq war platform, which appealed greatly to many in a part of the country where there is historical greater international isolationist and anti-interventionist attitudes than in many other parts of the country, and overperformed his national numbers in '08 and '12 in Iowa.

Iowa appears to be one of the few states where Hillary was not able to consolidate the '08/'12 Obama base, and additionally is still seen as fairly hawkish on foreign policy, supporter of free-trade agreements that cost American Mfg jobs, and connected to "big wall street banks" in a state which has a long populist tradition, large chunk of employment related to manufacturing jobs, where older individuals would rather invest their money into Credit Unions than the big banks.

Ok---- Not saying that I agree that all of these statements about Hillary are factually correct, but I can see how some of these older viewers could relate to Trump's "isolationist and economically protectionist and nativist" image.

Maybe,

Trump: "How stupid are the people of Iowa?!"

Iowans: "We're so sorry senpai! I hope he notices his poll numbers here and loves us again!"

You could say it's a tIe-owa in Iowa.
Ba-dum-tssssshhhhhhhh! Waka wakaaaa! XD

I don't know who you are but I hate you now.

Hahaha!