Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 13, 2019, 10:08:11 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  2016 Official Polling Map Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 Print
Author Topic: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread  (Read 109599 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #625 on: July 29, 2015, 10:17:59 pm »

PPP, Illinois:

The Land of Lincoln isn't going to vote for the Party that Abraham Lincoln practically created. Of course, the Party of Lincoln has become a mirror image of a Party of Lenin.

Can you just post the maps without making these silly comments?

I could -- but I usually post such a comment once about a state.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #626 on: August 02, 2015, 04:00:29 pm »

Losing Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina would crush the Democrats in 2018, and 2020 would be SOLID GOP. Considering Paul and Rubio doing so well in Pennsylvania, along with Virginia, Clinton should be worried about the general.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,349
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.16, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #627 on: August 02, 2015, 04:48:44 pm »

pbrower, do you mean to have Indiana as solid D on the Clinton vs. Walker map?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #628 on: August 02, 2015, 05:51:07 pm »
« Edited: August 02, 2015, 06:50:51 pm by pbrower2a »

pbrower, do you mean to have Indiana as solid D on the Clinton vs. Walker map?

No. It's Illinois that would be solid D.  Sorry about that. Correction made.

If anything, I would expect Indiana to be "weak Walker".

I still think that Quinnipiac assumes a 2014 electorate, which would practically ensure a Republican win of the Presidency and a hold on the Senate. A 2012 electorate dooms any Republican Presidential candidate and practically assures a Democratic win of the Senate.
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,915
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #629 on: August 02, 2015, 06:48:04 pm »

pbrower, do you mean to have Indiana as solid D on the Clinton vs. Walker map?

No. It's Illinois that would be solid D.  Sorry about that.

If anything, I would expect Indiana to be "weak Walker".

I still think that Quinnipiac assumes a 2014 electorate, which would practically ensure a Republican win of the Presidency and a hold on the Senate. A 2012 electorate dooms any Republican Presidential candidate and practically assures a Democratic win of the Senate.

Not necessarily on the Senate. Toomey is looking very strong, Portman is a great fundraiser and campaigner, Ayotte is likely okay unless Hassan runs, Burr has no serious challenger, McCain is in the right state politically. IL, WI, FL is only 3 gains, 2 if Dems lose NV. They need 4 to reach 50 seats.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #630 on: August 02, 2015, 07:05:28 pm »

pbrower, do you mean to have Indiana as solid D on the Clinton vs. Walker map?

No. It's Illinois that would be solid D.  Sorry about that.

If anything, I would expect Indiana to be "weak Walker".

I still think that Quinnipiac assumes a 2014 electorate, which would practically ensure a Republican win of the Presidency and a hold on the Senate. A 2012 electorate dooms any Republican Presidential candidate and practically assures a Democratic win of the Senate.

Not necessarily on the Senate. Toomey is looking very strong, Portman is a great fundraiser and campaigner, Ayotte is likely okay unless Hassan runs, Burr has no serious challenger, McCain is in the right state politically. IL, WI, FL is only 3 gains, 2 if Dems lose NV. They need 4 to reach 50 seats.

Portman is behind. Toomey? depends upon the pollster. Ayotte? Depends upon the competition. McCain? Trump has savaged him pointlessly, and those words will not go away.

It is easier for challengers emerge and defeat pols with weak approvals than it is for pols with weak approval ratings to become solid. Think of Blanche Lincoln.



Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,664
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #631 on: August 03, 2015, 07:34:15 am »
« Edited: August 03, 2015, 07:38:40 am by OC »

Toomey isnt up 20; I assure you that. PPP has him only up by 4. The only pollster showing him ahead; substantially; is QU; the same pllster you just questioned about Portman. Has Strickland running away with senate race.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #632 on: August 03, 2015, 09:04:12 am »


The most recent poll has him behind Strickland.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if 6 out of 7 pollsters show him up by margins between 3-20 points, it "depends"? Also LOL@saying it depends on the pollster in PA but not in OH. [/quote]

I see the wild range in approval ratings for Toomey. One is not going to win re-election with approval in the 30s in a state whose opposition to the incumbent is strong. High 40s? Tough. That's how things are in Ohio.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no proof yet that Trump's remarks have damaged McCain.[/quote]

...The Democrats will not use those. They have too much respect for military service. As I see it the big question mark on Senator McCain is his health due to his age. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of these Senators have really weak approval ratings (except Kirk, of course). Also, that means that Michael Bennet is in trouble as well.[/quote]

I have a thread for Senate approvals for incumbents up for re-election in 2016. See that. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't we all? Sure I want Democrats to win everything possible in 2016.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #633 on: August 03, 2015, 09:20:05 am »

This (with some verbal changes for clarity because the post is better understood in context) is my most recent (as of August 3, 2015) post on approval of Senators up for re-election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=209635.msg4674395#msg4674395

I am not showing approval ratings on the map for retiring incumbents. Note that with the indictment of Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) I see the possibility of his current seat becoming available in 2016 because an appointed Senator must be re-elected.

"Other" means no credible polls.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #634 on: August 03, 2015, 09:24:44 am »

The polls showing Senators Portman and Toomey with approvals around 50% seem to involve a 2014 electorate.

Ron Johnson is extremely vulnerable in Wisconsin. Burr (NC) would bet in a Blanche Lincoln situation should he face a strong opponent. He loses to a strong Democrat with an electorate resembling that of 2008 or 2012. 35% approval? Not good enough for a slightly-R state.  Please take any further discussion of Senate seats as affected by a Presidential election to

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=209635.msg4674395#msg4674395
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #635 on: August 04, 2015, 04:32:35 pm »
« Edited: August 04, 2015, 09:34:50 pm by pbrower2a »

Minnesota, PPP.

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%

...Consistent with Quinnipiac results last week. E-mail gets resolved without a cover-up, or Hillary Clinton is in deep trouble.  These are very shaky results for a Democrat in a state that has not voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1972.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more


Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #636 on: August 04, 2015, 07:47:48 pm »

Comparing recent 2016 polls (Clinton v. Bush) to 2012 results:

Minnesota: D -6 from 2012
Illinois: -8 (Obama had home state effect)
Virginia: +4
North Carolina: +4
Kentucky: +15
Michigan: -1
Ohio: -1
Pennsylvania: +6

Comparing 2016 polls (Clinton v. Best Republican) to 2012 Results:

Minnesota: D -7 (v. Paul)
Illinois: -8 (v. Bush)
Virginia: Even (v. Rubio & Carson)
North Carolina: -2 (v. Huckabee)
Michigan: -7 (v. Paul)
Arkansas: +10 (v. Huckabee)
Kentucky: +13 (v. Paul & Huckabee)
Ohio: -10 (v. Kasich, -6 v. Paul)
Pennsylvania: -6 (v. Rubio)

So Clinton is much stronger in the Upper South, holding steady in the coastal south, and doing worse in the Midwest
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,664
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #637 on: August 04, 2015, 07:57:43 pm »

I seriously have a hard time believing the 2016 results will be parallel to 2016.

Clinton clearly is tied with Jeb in QU polls.  I think it will be a closer election.  And polling such as QU proves it.

Jeb will probably win FL& NC.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #638 on: August 05, 2015, 07:01:10 am »
« Edited: August 05, 2015, 07:35:57 am by pbrower2a »

Thinking ahead now to the 2016 general election for President of the United States. If the November 2016 election were today, and the only two candidates were Republican Rand Paul
and Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

44% Paul
42% Clinton

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/07/31/3968627/bluegrass-poll-rand-paul-vs-hillary.html

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more



[/quote]
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #639 on: August 05, 2015, 07:06:06 am »

KY is red in your map.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #640 on: August 05, 2015, 07:36:26 am »


Not now.
Logged
EliteLX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 959
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.64, S: 0.85

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #641 on: August 05, 2015, 05:39:37 pm »

Thinking ahead now to the 2016 general election for President of the United States. If the November 2016 election were today, and the only two candidates were Republican Rand Paul
and Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

44% Paul
42% Clinton

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/07/31/3968627/bluegrass-poll-rand-paul-vs-hillary.html

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more



As of right now, NH is going towards Bush and Rand in polling. Heads up.
[/quote]
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #642 on: August 06, 2015, 05:09:36 am »
« Edited: August 06, 2015, 05:19:10 am by pbrower2a »

http://www.wmur.com/blob/view/-/34557172/data/2/-/e8xecl/-/GSP---8-5.pdf

Clinton 45
Bush 46

Clinton 43
Paul 45

Clinton 43
Walker 45

Clinton 44
Rubio 43

Clinton 50
Trump 40

Hillary Clinton seems to be slipping.

It shows here:

Clinton: 42%
Sanders: 36%
Biden: 5%
Webb: 1%
O'Malley: 1%

Tiny sample (6% MoE), but still.

in primary polling in New Hampshire. E-mails? Democrats going decisively more toward the Left in their preferences?

Hillary Clinton was running away as a front-runner until recently.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more



Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #643 on: August 06, 2015, 09:12:34 am »
« Edited: August 06, 2015, 02:02:53 pm by pbrower2a »

This is what the 2016 Presidential results will look like with a 2010 or 2014 electorate, arguably the most right-wing American electorates since the 1920s:



Atlas colors:

Strong (70% saturation) 10% or higher margin
Weak (50% saturation) 5-9.99% margin
Bare (30% saturation) 2- 4.99% margin

too-close-to-call white

Republican 335
Democrat 202
too close to call 23


Liberals who dislike this sort of America might consider emigrating if they see this on Election night.
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,915
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #644 on: August 06, 2015, 02:19:45 pm »

This is what the 2016 Presidential results will look like with a 2010 or 2014 electorate, arguably the most right-wing American electorates since the 1920s:

Er, 1994 and 1980 were just as, if not more right wing across the board than 2010/14. 1952/56/72/84/88 were much more right wing on the presidential level than a presidential election held in 2010/14 would have been.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #645 on: August 11, 2015, 10:38:13 am »

This is what the 2016 Presidential results will look like with a 2010 or 2014 electorate, arguably the most right-wing American electorates since the 1920s:

Er, 1994 and 1980 were just as, if not more right wing across the board than 2010/14. 1952/56/72/84/88 were much more right wing on the presidential level than a presidential election held in 2010/14 would have been.

Don't let facts get in the way of pbrower's nice story. Who cares if the 2014 VA electorate resembled the 2012 one in terms of racial makeup? Who cares if African American turnout in GA was at a record high? Who cares if Gory Gardner only won by 2 points? Who cares if NC was closer in 2014 than it was in 2012?

There were many moderate Republicans until the 1990s. Ronald Reagan won huge numbers of votes from such people. In the 1950s? You have seen my overlay between Ike and Obama... and I figure that except in the Plains states, many of the demographics that liked Ike fit Barack Obama 52 to 60 years later. It is arguable that Stevenson typically won a voter more conservative than the typical voter for Eisenhower. If Ike could win Massachusetts and Minnesota in two consecutive elections, then that says more about Ike as a moderate than about any right-wing shift in the electorate.

Today the Republican Party can succeed without the moderate vote.

In any event I project something that may be a temporary scenario. The typical wave election involves the losing side not knowing what hit its stale-but-venerable incumbents.

So what does a 2008/2012 electorate look like in the Presidential election of 2016? Much the same as for 2012. I do not need a map for that.

Some of the projections are based upon political results. I have Michigan in white because it elected a Democratic senator against a weak opponent but decisively re-elected a Republican Governor. States capable of electing a right-wing Republican to the Senate or the Governorship in 2010 or 2014 show the pattern of a Republican wave election as in 2010 and 2014.

What will the next big change in the electorate be? Your guess is as good as mine. If Christian evangelicals believe that they are getting the shaft then they might break with the right-wingers that offer them war, poverty, and economic insecurity and give nothing in return. But that is a huge assumption that nobody can see in the polls.

Do you think that I predict a 2010/2014 electorate for the 2016 Presidential election? Hardly. The difference is turnout, and the Right turns out with more certainty.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #646 on: August 11, 2015, 10:48:38 am »

Iowa, PPP.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/general-election-tight-in-iowa.html

I would have expected better of Kasich in view of his performance in the debates. This suggests that Hillary Clinton is slipping, but not as direly as Q showed last week. Sanders is catching up to Hillary Clinton in ability to contest potential Republican nominees. 



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more




[/quote]
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #647 on: August 12, 2015, 06:49:45 am »



PPP, Missouri. Note that this a poll of primary voters, so it is a constricted sample. 

Bush 47%
Clinton 40%

Carson 52%
Clinton 38%

Christie 46%
Clinton 37%

Cruz 50%
Clinton 38%

Fiorina 47%
Clinton 37%

Huckabee 51%
Clinton 38%

Kasich 49%
Clinton 36%

Paul 49%
Clinton 37%

Rubio 51%
Clinton 36%

Trump 48%
Clinton 39%

Walker 50%
Clinton 37%

3-way

Clinton 34%
Trump 30%
Bush 29%

Sanders matchups

Bush 47%
Sanders 34%

Rubio 48%
Sanders 33%

Trump 48%
Sanders 39%

Walker 46%
Sanders 34%


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-leads-republicans-in-mo-gop-field-leads-clinton.html
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,648
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #648 on: August 12, 2015, 08:46:16 am »

PPP, Missouri. Note that this a poll of primary voters, so it is a constricted sample. 

It's not a primary poll, it's a general election poll of registered voters.

The primary numbers are separate and based on an oversample of potential GOP and DEM primary voters.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,648
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #649 on: August 12, 2015, 08:49:59 am »

PPP, Missouri. Note that this a poll of primary voters, so it is a constricted sample.  

It's not a primary poll, it's a general election poll of registered voters.

The primary numbers are separate and based on an oversample of potential GOP and DEM primary voters.

I still don't know why we even need this thread. We already have the official polling database. Also, pbrower is excluding polls that he doesn't like, so...

I'm just tolerating his thread because he said he would include all polls now and not exclude polls that show Hilldog trailing.

It's a free forum after all.

I'll close that thread after the primaries produce the 2 GE candidates ...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 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