VA-Quinnipiac: Hillary wins Virginia against Christie & Paul

[Tender Branson]

45-40 Clinton/Christie
51-37 Clinton/Paul

38-46 Biden/Christie
47-40 Biden/Paul

...

Favorables:

55-17 Christie (+38)
58-37 Clinton (+21)
36-32 Paul (+4)
47-44 Biden (+3)

...

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

46-51 disapprove

...

From July 11 - 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,030 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1923

[Mr. Morden]

For Clinton vs. Paul:
age 18-29: Clinton +8
age 30-44: Clinton +19
age 45-64: Clinton +16
age 65+: Clinton +12

A Republican doing better with the youth vote than any other age bracket!

[Mr. Morden]

Also, it looks like, according to the Quinnipiac polling universe, Virginia would most likely be the tipping point state in Christie vs. Clinton, since Christie is doing better than this in both Colorado and Ohio.

[Tender Branson]

Also, it looks like, according to the Quinnipiac polling universe, Virginia would most likely be the tipping point state in Christie vs. Clinton, since Christie is doing better than this in both Colorado and Ohio.

I'd like to see how Hillary polls against Christie in FL ... maybe we'll get that from Quinnipiac in a future poll, but with Rubio and Bush from there, Christie might not get included.

[pbrower2a]

At this point Hillary seems to beat everyone in Virginia.

All in all I can now make a general assessment: Hillary Clinton probably wins much like Obama 2012 against Christie and has a landslide victory awaiting against Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and  Paul Ryan. Neither Paul, Rubio, nor Ryan is Presidential, and the polls consistently show this. 

Joe Biden probably loses to Christie. Biden has had plenty of chances to become President before 2008 and has come up short several times. The only way in which I see him being elected President in 2016 involves the Unthinkable.

I can't give many specifics on how Hillary Clinton does against such Favorite Sons as Perry, Santorum, or (Jeb) Bush. Hillary Clinton would probably do better against any of them than against against Chris Christie.

If Hillary Clinton can win Virginia, then Colorado, Florida, and Ohio don't matter.

[Mr. Morden]

All in all I can now make a general assessment: Hillary Clinton probably wins much like Obama 2012 against Christie and has a landslide victory awaiting against Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and  Paul Ryan. Neither Paul, Rubio, nor Ryan is Presidential, and the polls consistently show this. 

Christie only has ~70% name recognition, and is only losing to Clinton by 5.  If his name recognition matched hers, they'd probably be about even.  And of course, it's only July 2013.  How in the world can you judge "presidential material" just on the basis of being behind by double digits when you haven't yet run a campaign?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For Clinton vs. Paul:
age 18-29: Clinton +8
age 30-44: Clinton +19
age 45-64: Clinton +16
age 65+: Clinton +12

A Republican doing better with the youth vote than any other age bracket!

They probably think it's his Dad... mind you, that still doesn't say much for them.

[barfbag]

Quinnipiac showed a Kerry landslide and had Obama winning Ohio by 11 at one point. I don't care how far of a landslide on candidate has over the other, Ohio is never going to be an 11 point race in today's day and age.

[Tender Branson]

Quinnipiac showed a Kerry landslide and had Obama winning Ohio by 11 at one point. I don't care how far of a landslide on candidate has over the other, Ohio is never going to be an 11 point race in today's day and age.

Wut ?

No:

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?type=src&source_id=15

...

The last Quinnipiac poll from 2008 had Obama winning by 7 though (won by 5), and by 5 in 2012 (won by 3).

[barfbag]

There were times where Quinnipiac had Obama up by 11 in Ohio and Kerry up by a high amount over Bush. It doesn't compare to Gallup, PPP, USA Today, or other traditional polls.

[Tender Branson]

There were times where Quinnipiac had Obama up by 11 in Ohio and Kerry up by a high amount over Bush. It doesn't compare to Gallup, PPP, USA Today, or other traditional polls.

Quinnipiac didn't even poll Ohio until 2006.

Quinnipiac also released their last national poll in 2004 in July.

And the fact that Obama was ahead by 11 in OH at the beginning of October was because of increased Democratic enthusiam, that other polls showed as well. Democrats did really well in early Oct. because that's when their voters tune in to the campaign, then Republicans gain in the final weeks. Other polls showed this increase in D-margin as well in other states.

Besides, only the final polls really matter and usually Quinnipiac polls are accurate.

[barfbag]

There were times where Quinnipiac had Obama up by 11 in Ohio and Kerry up by a high amount over Bush. It doesn't compare to Gallup, PPP, USA Today, or other traditional polls.

Quinnipiac didn't even poll Ohio until 2006.

Quinnipiac also released their last national poll in 2004 in July.

And the fact that Obama was ahead by 11 in OH at the beginning of October was because of increased Democratic enthusiam, that other polls showed as well. Democrats did really well in early Oct. because that's when their voters tune in to the campaign, then Republicans gain in the final weeks. Other polls showed this increase in D-margin as well in other states.

Besides, only the final polls really matter and usually Quinnipiac polls are accurate.

I was saying they showed Kerry up nationally. No amount of enthusiasm could help a candidate win Ohio by 11 points. Let's go off of real votes as opposed to polls. A lot of polls taken show over 50% Democrats anyways. My point is simply that no one lead Ohio by 11 as Quinnipiac showed and they had Kerry up by a mile on Bush overall.

[Mr. Morden]

Besides, only the final polls really matter and usually Quinnipiac polls are accurate.

I don't think it's true that only the final polls matter.  You want to actually track the election months in advance, not just predict who's going to win the day before the election.  Problem is that only the final polls can ever really be tested for accuracy.  We have no way of checking whether a poll taken months before the election is accurate.

[barfbag]

How do we test the accuracy of this poll? We can't.

[Mr. Morden]

How do we test the accuracy of this poll? We can't.

Exactly.  There's no way to test the accuracy of polls that take place well before the election.  And in fact, I think Mark Blumenthal once pointed out that polling from different pollsters tends to converge towards the "right" answer just before an election.  So you could have five different polling firms, which give very different numbers throughout most of the campaign season, and then they all converge on more or less the same result in the final days before the election.  All of the pollsters were then "right" in that their final poll was accurate.  But they were showing different things three months before the election, so which of them was right back then?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

For Clinton vs. Paul:
age 18-29: Clinton +8
age 30-44: Clinton +19
age 45-64: Clinton +16
age 65+: Clinton +12

A Republican doing better with the youth vote than any other age bracket!

They probably think it's his Dad ... mind you, that still doesn't say much for them.

The people supporting Clinton probably think it's her husband ... what does that say about them?

[barfbag]

I think Virginia will vote for the winner in 2016 regardless of party.

[pbrower2a]

Based upon the latest polls:

Clinton vs. Christie

Clinton vs. Paul

Clinton vs. Rubio

Clinton vs. Ryan

White indicates a tie.

[pbrower2a]

All in all I can now make a general assessment: Hillary Clinton probably wins much like Obama 2012 against Christie and has a landslide victory awaiting against Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and  Paul Ryan. Neither Paul, Rubio, nor Ryan is Presidential, and the polls consistently show this. 

Christie only has ~70% name recognition, and is only losing to Clinton by 5.  If his name recognition matched hers, they'd probably be about even.  And of course, it's only July 2013.  How in the world can you judge "presidential material" just on the basis of being behind by double digits when you haven't yet run a campaign?

Chris Christie has good name recognition, and it is largely positive.

Before Quinnipiac showed the poll for Virginia, I figured that Christie had a chance to win 275 or so electoral votes (all states that went to Dubya in 2000 and 2004 except Nevada) with the nationwide image that he has. The Republican nominee will absolutely need to win all of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia to win election or pick off Pennsylvania as a substitute for a combination of states with about 20 electoral votes from the "must win" group. I see no indications (more precisely no polling results) for any core  Southern states (Texas and Virginia do not fit that description). Ohio is a tie, which one would expect in a very close Presidential race.   

Christie is not picking off Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

......................................

I see  fewer polls involving Clinton vs. Paul, but the data looks bad for Paul. That he can't win  any of Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina, or Virginia suggests that he won't win Florida, either. Hillary Clinton wins everything that Obama won in 2012 and North Carolina... and at least two of Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri.

If the two are Indiana and Missouri, the result looks like

Clinton 368 - Ryan 170

which is charitable on my part.
.................................


Marco Rubio looks almost like a Goldwater-style disaster for the 2016 election. I have my caveat on Texas... but give Hillary Clinton everything that Obama won in 2008,  Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, and all five of the states that Bill Clinton won twice but Barack Obama lost by margins of 10% or more.

Clinton 472 - Rubio 66.

I just can't see what Rubio offers politically. He's been hyped to an inordinate degree, and he just hasn't lived up to his billing. Politically he is the equivalent of the hot-shot prospect who falls short of the average.

.......

Ryan? We have all seen him campaign in 2012 -- and he was awful. Does anyone think that he will be more adept in 2016? He demonstrates why active members of the House of Representatives make poor nominees for President and Vice-President.  Like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan he wins voters who would never vote for any Democrat under any circumstances.

   

[opebo]

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

I think that's right.  Even if he could pick up New Hampshire its only 266:

[barfbag]

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

I think that's right.  Even if he could pick up New Hampshire its only 266:

Do you think it might be too early to predict an election more than three years from now? A lot of events and stories may come up about either candidate, the economy could change in either direction, or Obama's approval could plummet.

[pbrower2a]

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

I think that's right.  Even if he could pick up New Hampshire its only 266:

Do you think it might be too early to predict an election more than three years from now? A lot of events and stories may come up about either candidate, the economy could change in either direction, or Obama's approval could plummet.

Freak events can happen. You could be right about scandals, diplomatic and military disasters, and economic collapse.

President Obama has had nothing go so right that it induces euphoric ratings of approval. He has also been extremely cautious. It could also be that after the roller-coaster ride of George W. Bush America isn't as capable of wild enthusiasm for anything.

The political parties have sorted themselves very clearly on ideology. There are practically no liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats left. What is as significant is that the States have largely sorted themselves out by political culture:

Energy Acres -- states in which fossil-fuel interests (coal, natural gas, petroleum) dominate statewide politics.

Energy interests are strongly right-wing on economic issues -- especially on the environment.

America's Ranchers -- ranchers are much more politically-conservative than farmers. That explains the difference between Minnesota and Iowa on the east and Nebraska and the Dakotas on the west.

North Dakota would have been in this group except for the boom in natural gas. NE-01 and NE-03 fit the pattern


The Mountain South. -- the Ozarks and Appalachians allow a xenophobic culture to flourish, and it is now arch-conservative. Kentucky and West Virginia would be here except for the domination of coal interests.  
 


"Mormon Country" -- Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho.  The powerful LDS Church is a state within a state, and that is able to cause a state with an ethnic mix similar to Minnesota, a very urban population to vote Republican. Of course if Republicans get unduly specific about favoring one form of Christianity over others to the detriment of Mormons, Mormons start voting heavily Democratic.

Polarized America -- these states are highly polarized on the basis of politics of ethnicity (Arizona) or race, and the white population dominates due to apparent solidarity on the matter. There are practically no liberal white people, and the issues are not a key industry.  In white.

"Urban Secular-Humanistan" -- states in which big-city politics utterly dominate statewide politics. Humanist ideas (where I get the name) are the local ideology. Even if people are devoutly religious their economics and social values fit secular-humanist ideology -- at least on the average.

Suburban Secular-Humanistan. Not quite as liberal as the core of "Urban Humanistan" -- on the whole they are less urban or more "Southern". I am coloring them

pink of they lean slightly Democratic
gray if they are America's three microcosms (Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia)
pale blue if they lean slightly Republican
    

[barfbag]

My preliminary projection for Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie with the assumption that Christie picks up only those states that Dubya picked up in both 2000 and 2004 except Nevada and Virginia is

Clinton 276 -- Christie 262.

I think that's right.  Even if he could pick up New Hampshire its only 266:

Do you think it might be too early to predict an election more than three years from now? A lot of events and stories may come up about either candidate, the economy could change in either direction, or Obama's approval could plummet.

Freak events can happen. You could be right about scandals, diplomatic and military disasters, and economic collapse.

President Obama has had nothing go so right that it induces euphoric ratings of approval. He has also been extremely cautious. It could also be that after the roller-coaster ride of George W. Bush America isn't as capable of wild enthusiasm for anything.

The political parties have sorted themselves very clearly on ideology. There are practically no liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats left. What is as significant is that the States have largely sorted themselves out by political culture:

Energy Acres -- states in which fossil-fuel interests (coal, natural gas, petroleum) dominate statewide politics.

Energy interests are strongly right-wing on economic issues -- especially on the environment.

America's Ranchers -- ranchers are much more politically-conservative than farmers. That explains the difference between Minnesota and Iowa on the east and Nebraska and the Dakotas on the west.


The Mountain South. -- the Ozarks and Appalachians allow a xenophobic culture to flourish, and it is now arch-conservative. Kentucky and West Virginia would be here except for the domination of coal interests. 
 


"Mormon Country" -- Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho.  The powerful LDS Church is a state within a state, and that is able to cause a state with an ethnic mix similar to Minnesota, a very urban population to vote Republican. Of course if Republicans get unduly specific about favoring one form of Christianity over others to the detriment of Mormons, Mormons start voting heavily Democratic.

North Dakota would have been in this group except for the boom in natural gas. NE-01 and NE-03 fit the pattern but do not show the color due to  fault in the software of Leip's maps.

Polarized America -- these states are highly polarized on the basis of politics of ethnicity (Arizona) or race, and the white population dominates due to apparent solidarity on the matter. There are practically no liberal white people, and the issues are not a key industry.  In white.

"Urban Humanistan" -- states in which big-city politics utterly dominate statewide politics. Humanist ideas (where I get the name) are the local ideology. Even if people are devoutly religious their economics and social values fit secular-humanist ideology -- at least on the average.

Suburban Humanistan. Not quite as liberal as the core of "Urban Humanistan" -- on the whole they are less urban or more "Southern". I am coloring them

pink of they lean slightly Democratic
gray if they are America's three microcosms (Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia)
pale blue if they lean slightly Republican
   

You love polls at least as much as I do.

[barfbag]

This poll is old now, but 45-40 for the candidate in the same party as the incumbent president is 50/50. Two-thirds of the undecided vote goes to the party not in control of the White House unless the incumbent president is running for re-election and has an approval rating over 50%. In the latter case, two-thirds of the undecided goes towards the incumbent.

[pbrower2a]

This poll is old now, but 45-40 for the candidate in the same party as the incumbent president is 50/50. Two-thirds of the undecided vote goes to the party not in control of the White House unless the incumbent president is running for re-election and has an approval rating over 50%. In the latter case, two-thirds of the undecided goes towards the incumbent.

That rule makes no sense except if either nominee is collapsing. Most likely I would expect the undecided to split ineffectively for whoever is behind at the moment.

Let us suppose that the incumbent Smith is down 40-49 in September. 40% of the vote is close to the uncritical core vote for candidates of either Party in most states. On the average  the electorate divides 50% D vs. R, so in that case Smith finds that most of the undecided votes are toward his side. To be sure, even if he picks up 2/3 of the 'undecided' vote he still loses 46-54.

Now contrast the situation in which  Smith is up 48-42 over Jones. Because most of the undecided are on the other side of Smith's position on the political spectrum, Smith would be unlikely to get an even split of the undecided. More likely he gains 2% of the undecided at election time in a race that becomes a nailbiter. But 50% +1 still wins. The race probably ends up 50-48 for Smith.

If President Obama were at 45-51 in Virginia in April 2016 (when the campaign season begins to define itself) and were running for re-election he would have a better-than-50% chance of winning the state. The threshold for having a 50% chance of winning re-election as a Governor or Senator is 44%, and Republicans cannot afford to lose Virginia in a Presidential election. Obviously he will not be up for reelection, but the perception of his effectiveness and desirability as President will influence how people vote.

The common wisdom that Barack Obama had no chance of becoming President as the result of the 2008 election except in the wake of the catastrophic failure of George W. Bush as President  remains valid. But Dubya was certifiably one of the worst Presidents that we ever had, and that perception developed well after the 2004 election. He gave us two wars going badly, bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, and presided over an economic boom that went bust. If President Obama is around in the summer of 2016 with diplomatic or military debacles either ongoing or in very recent memory, an economic meltdown even if slight, a scandal of any kind, or a bungled response to a natural disaster he ensures that a Republican mediocrity can be elected President in 2016. Such will matter far more than the quality and experience of the Democratic nominee.

So far I predict that President Obama will have no military or diplomatic debacle because he is too cautious for that. The economic recovery that we have is unlikely to be derailed because it contains no elements of a speculative boom, and Republicans are not allowing this President to have big infrastructure projects that devour huge amounts of construction materials (steel, concrete, and glass) and put huge numbers of people to work on construction and in steel  that and whose end brings an recession. (The 1958 recession is the result of the completion of the construction of the Mackinac Bridge that ensured that just about anyone who could imaginably get a job in a steel mill got one).  So far he has responded as Presidents used to respond to disasters even when the people at risk are people of the Other Party and the politician who can look best is of the Other Party.

Barack Obama has practically made Chris Christie the only Republican who can win by sacrificing some campaign appearances in a tight election to coordinate disaster aid. Heck, he would have helped Rick Perry or Rick Scott, too.

That said, Eisenhower was arguably the best peacetime President since Teddy Roosevelt except  for FDR, and Ike couldn't get Nixon elected as a successor.