Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 15, 2019, 01:04:02 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  AK-PPP - Clinton competitive
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: AK-PPP - Clinton competitive  (Read 5426 times)
Obamanation
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 411
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 08, 2013, 11:55:25 am »

Clinton fav 47% - unfav 45%

Clinton 42%
Christie 43%

Clinton 44%
Rubio 43%

AND...

Clinton 53%
Palin 37%

LOL

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_AK_208.pdf
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,604
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2013, 12:27:09 pm »

Christie only loses Minnesota by 6 but only holds Alaska by 1? Man this is going to be a loony tunes map.

Next Poll:
Clinton within 5 of Oklahoma!
Logged
Obamanation
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 411
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2013, 12:29:02 pm »

Christie only loses Minnesota by 6 but only holds Alaska by 1? Man this is going to be a loony tunes map.

Next Poll:
Clinton within 5 of Oklahoma!

PPP is polling Louisiana and North Carolina this weekend...can't wait to see those wacky numbers!
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2013, 02:22:53 pm »

Time to make the Clinton vs. Map!
Logged
#StillWithBeto
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,423
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2013, 02:09:24 am »

I really doubt Marco Rubio is that well known to many Alaskans, which I think diminishes Hillary's chances here in the general. I sadly remember in 2008 when she was clobbered by a three-to-one margin in the caucuses. Ultimately, I don't think she would carry the Last Frontier; unless, of course, someone glides in on a dogsled wearing a pageant sash and some Tina Fey glasses.. Smiley
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2013, 02:15:39 am »

Christie only loses Minnesota by 6 but only holds Alaska by 1? Man this is going to be a loony tunes map.

Next Poll:
Clinton within 5 of Oklahoma!

Christie/Clinton is producing some pretty strange numbers, but Rubio/Christie is also pretty weird.  Rubio does so poorly that he loses heavily Republican Alaska to Clinton by 1 point, yet he only loses Minnesota to her by 13?  If enough Republicans are switching over to Clinton in states like AK, KY, and TX, then shouldn't Rubio be getting absolutely massacred in Minnesota?

I think, perhaps, the reason why we're seeing polls that show unexpectedly close races everywhere has something to do with the fact that in these hypothetical matchups, we have an unusually large number of people willing to cross over from their normal partisan voting patterns.  That would tend to lead both Democratic and Republican states to become less so, rather than to have them fly out to the extremes.

A couple of related sub-points on this:

-The polls do show a bit more crossover voting at this early stage than, say, the 2012 Obama/Romney exit poll showed.

-This might be in part just a consequence of the fact that it's early, the potential candidates haven't become figures of partisan identity politics yet.  Some marginal Republicans feel more comfortable saying that they support Clinton, or Democrats that they support Christie or even Rubio.  By the time we get to Nov. 2016, this will change, as partisan affiliations lock in.

-Look at the gender gap on both Christie/Clinton and Rubio/Clinton in some of these polls.  It's enormous.  Bigger than in 2012, and bigger than any election for which we have data:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/gender-gap-near-historic-highs/

It could be that sex is trumping partisan affiliation in this hypothetical man vs. woman race.  Some women who might otherwise vote Republican back Clinton, and some men who might otherwise vote Democrat vote Christie or Rubio.  Since the male/female ratio is basically the same everywhere, this could help lead to more states being competitive.  It could also help explain why the age gap seems to have been flattened, at least for voters above 30.

Anyway, we need some more polls of Democratic leaning states to see if this apparent trends towards every state being closer than expected is real.
Logged
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,010
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2013, 02:39:00 am »

Why Palin became so unpopular in her homestate?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,481
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2013, 02:12:54 am »

Why Palin became so unpopular in her homestate?

Because she is a quitter that's dumb as a ton of bricks?
Logged
retromike22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,209
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2013, 09:11:56 pm »

"To put into perspective just how poorly thought of Palin is in Alaska now, consider this: Congress has an 8% favorability rating in the state. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of Congress or Palin, Alaskans pick Congress by a 50/34 margin."
haha Palin is done.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2013, 09:20:12 pm »

So, Clinton-Christie is going to be a 50 state Clinton EV landslide with Christie getting 49% of the vote in every state?
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,821


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2013, 10:41:10 pm »

"To put into perspective just how poorly thought of Palin is in Alaska now, consider this: Congress has an 8% favorability rating in the state. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of Congress or Palin, Alaskans pick Congress by a 50/34 margin."
haha Palin is done.

I bet her approval rating is still above 8%, though.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2013, 10:51:36 pm »

"To put into perspective just how poorly thought of Palin is in Alaska now, consider this: Congress has an 8% favorability rating in the state. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of Congress or Palin, Alaskans pick Congress by a 50/34 margin."
haha Palin is done.

I bet her approval rating is still above 8%, though.

Favorability, not approval.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2013, 11:03:41 pm »

Would Palin carry a state in Clinton-Palin?  Keep in mind, she only lead Obama by 2 in Utah in 2011 polls.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,821


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2013, 01:24:16 am »

"To put into perspective just how poorly thought of Palin is in Alaska now, consider this: Congress has an 8% favorability rating in the state. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of Congress or Palin, Alaskans pick Congress by a 50/34 margin."
haha Palin is done.

I bet her approval rating is still above 8%, though.

Favorability, not approval.


Doesn't change my point.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2013, 01:19:45 am »

Obama would have come very close to carrying AK in '08 if Palin had not been added to the ticket.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,008
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2013, 10:41:01 am »

Why Palin became so unpopular in her homestate?

Probably for the same reason that Santorum did. She is viewed very unpopularly across the country and is therefore seen as an embarrassment to the state, especially since she is the most famous modern politician out of AK...by far.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,699
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2013, 03:57:00 pm »

I think if Marco Rubio does get the nomination, he'll be awful at the debates and Clinton will win Alaska by a fairly large margin.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2013, 08:04:36 pm »

We can have all the polls we want to, but they won't win it for either party. What we do have is every Presidential Election in Alaska's history and it doesn't look good for Democrats.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2013, 01:39:30 am »

Between 1952 and 2004 Virginia was reliably Republican. It had last gone Democratic in a close election in 1948. It never went for Carter even though every other former-Confederate State did so in 1976. It never went for Clinton in two near-blowout elections for him.

States can shift swiftly.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2013, 01:52:39 am »

Between 1952 and 2004 Virginia was reliably Republican. It had last gone Democratic in a close election in 1948. It never went for Carter even though every other former-Confederate State did so in 1976. It never went for Clinton in two near-blowout elections for him.

States can shift swiftly.

Parties change more than states and states like Alaska really don't change. Virginia was reliably red but was never in the safe column. It would be solid when we won and likely when we lost.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,821


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2013, 01:58:29 am »

Between 1952 and 2004 Virginia was reliably Republican. It had last gone Democratic in a close election in 1948. It never went for Carter even though every other former-Confederate State did so in 1976. It never went for Clinton in two near-blowout elections for him.

States can shift swiftly.

Parties change more than states and states like Alaska really don't change. Virginia was reliably red but was never in the safe column. It would be solid when we won and likely when we lost.

There's more going on then just parties changing. Nixon beat McGovern by 26 points in Vermont. I think it's pretty clear that if there was a 1972 do over, even without hindsight, Vermont would vote McGovern today.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2013, 11:39:31 am »

Between 1952 and 2004 Virginia was reliably Republican. It had last gone Democratic in a close election in 1948. It never went for Carter even though every other former-Confederate State did so in 1976. It never went for Clinton in two near-blowout elections for him.

States can shift swiftly.

Parties change more than states and states like Alaska really don't change. Virginia was reliably red but was never in the safe column. It would be solid when we won and likely when we lost.

There's more going on then just parties changing. Nixon beat McGovern by 26 points in Vermont. I think it's pretty clear that if there was a 1972 do over, even without hindsight, Vermont would vote McGovern today.

The states can change if people move in, and if a state like Oklahoma were to receive a massive influx of urban voters from the West Coast and the Northeast it too would change.  Just look at Virginia.

Most significant is that the sorts of people who voted for George Wallace in 1968 have gone from fitting the New Deal mode to fitting the right wing of the Republican Party -- just as the Eisenhower-Rockefeller voters began to go Democratic as the Republican Party neglected them. The RINO types that the Hard Right had castigated have gone where they are welcome. But whether moderates like Lloyd Bentsen and Al Gore could win in Texas and Tennessee is much in doubt. 
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2013, 06:00:47 pm »

Between 1952 and 2004 Virginia was reliably Republican. It had last gone Democratic in a close election in 1948. It never went for Carter even though every other former-Confederate State did so in 1976. It never went for Clinton in two near-blowout elections for him.

States can shift swiftly.

Parties change more than states and states like Alaska really don't change. Virginia was reliably red but was never in the safe column. It would be solid when we won and likely when we lost.

There's more going on then just parties changing. Nixon beat McGovern by 26 points in Vermont. I think it's pretty clear that if there was a 1972 do over, even without hindsight, Vermont would vote McGovern today.

Vermont was a New England Republican state and the party became a combination of the Goldwater wing and southern Democrats. The voters weren't much different ideologically and to my knowledge Vermont has always had only 3 electoral votes. Alaska still fits the Republican and tea party platform. Numbers changing as much as they have could be voter turnout. The state has so few people that only a few thousand could make a significance in percentage points.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With Sanchez!
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,897
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2013, 08:39:25 pm »

Alaska is moving toward the Democrats.  It's a ways away from being a swing state, but enough liberal environmental types have moved in to re-elect Begich.

Aside from Palin's hideous personality and character, she's in trouble because she's tried to make her career trashing the Murkowski family.  She was elected Governor because she knocked off Frank Murkowski, who became unpopular when he appointed his daughter, Lisa, to fill the Senate seat he vacated.  Had she succeeded on the national stage, she well may have kept her upper hand in Alaska, but she did her image irreparable harm in 2008.  Then she quit as Governor, and tried to be a national power broker, where she had some success, but her most spectacular failure was her own Senate candidate in Alaska, Joe Miller, winning the primary but losing to Lisa Murkowski as a write-in.  Frank Murkowski may not be Governor anymore, but he didn't stop being one of the richest men in Alaska after 2006. 
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,299
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2013, 08:43:26 pm »

Alaska is moving toward the Democrats.  It's a ways away from being a swing state, but enough liberal environmental types have moved in to re-elect Begich.

Do you know that for a fact, and if so, do you have a source?  I'd be curious to know how the voting demographics of Alaska are changing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC