Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2019, 08:10:34 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)
  Monmouth National Poll: Hillary Clinton leads GOP candidates by 4-16 points
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Monmouth National Poll: Hillary Clinton leads GOP candidates by 4-16 points  (Read 1009 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,322
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 05, 2013, 07:10:36 am »

The poll posed four hypothetical 2016 match-ups with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic
nominee running against Republicans Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.

Christie comes closest in national preference, trailing Clinton by just 4 points, 43% to 39%.
Bush is behind Clinton by 10 points, 47% to 37%, and Rubio trails by 11 points, 47% to 36%.
Cruz is behind Clinton by 16 points, 48% to 32%. Cruz is also the least well-known of the
potential GOP field and may in fact be ineligible to run due to his birth in Canada.

https://www.monmouth.edu/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=30953&libID=31092
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2013, 02:07:39 pm »

Cruz down 16 when nobody knows who he is says a lot.  The unknown "Generic Republican" which beat Obama in all the polls, which the GOP couldn't find in 2012, is now down by double digits.

The Democrats would really have to nominate a jackass for them to lose this one.
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 #2 on: August 05, 2013, 10:01:08 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2013, 01:57:20 am »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election.


"and the candidate is Hillary Clinton" will be the 2024 qualifier.
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 #4 on: August 06, 2013, 01:59:44 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election.


"and the candidate is Hillary Clinton" will be the 2024 qualifier.

What do you mean?
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2013, 10:51:19 pm »

Cruz down 16 when nobody knows who he is says a lot.  The unknown "Generic Republican" which beat Obama in all the polls, which the GOP couldn't find in 2012, is now down by double digits.

Unknown candidates tend to poll poorly, well behind "Generic Republican" or "Generic Democrat" in most cases.  I really wouldn't read much into this.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2013, 10:59:26 pm »

Clinton 43%
Christie 39%

Clinton 47%
Rubio 36%

Clinton 47%
Bush 37%

Clinton 48%
Cruz 32%

favorability/unfavorability among all voters:
Christie 49/20% for +29%
Clinton 52/38% for +14%
Ryan 41/33% for +8%
Rubio 33/26% for +7%
Paul 34/28% for +6%
Bush 39/38% for +1%
Cruz 22/24% for -2%
Cuomo 24/29% for -5%
Walker 14/21% for -7%
Santorum 24/34% for -10%
Biden 35/51% for -16%
Palin 26/61% for -35%


favorability/unfavorability among their own party:
Clinton 85/10% for +75%
Biden 60/26% for +34%
Cuomo 31/22% for +9%

Ryan 76/6% for +70%
Bush 76/14% for +62%
Rubio 64/4% for +60%
Paul 51/12% for +39%
Christie 54/18% for +36%
Cruz 40/12% for +28%
Palin 56/29% for +27%
Santorum 46/20% for +26%
Walker 30/9% for +21%

As in most polls, Christie's favorability is extremely broad-based.  He's +36% among Republicans, but also +34% among Independents, and +13% among Democrats.

Clinton is also popular, but she relies on her huge numbers among Democrats (+75%) to offset her poor numbers among Republicans (-65%).
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2013, 11:08:17 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2013, 11:09:27 pm »

The survey also asks what word comes to mind when they hear the name of each of the following.  The top results:

Hillary Clinton
corrupt, dishonest 8%
presidential ambitions 8%
intelligent, smart 6%
party, ideology 6%
Bill Clinton 6%

Chris Christie
weight, fat 7%
New Jersey, job as governor 6%
party, ideology 6%
I like him 5%
honest, straightforward 5%

Rubio
I like him 5%
Latino heritage 4%
young 4%
party, ideology 4%
dishonest, opportunist 4%
I dislike him 4%

Jeb Bush
Bush family 23%
I like him 8%
Florida, governor 6%
dishonest, corrupt 5%
I dislike him 5%

Joe Biden
I like him 10%
Vice President 9%
not smart 9%
not taken seriously, crazy, blowhard 8%
I dislike him 7%
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2013, 11:12:57 pm »


9% of Americans are awfully insightful!
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 #10 on: August 08, 2013, 12:53:10 am »


It's embarrassing how many people don't know who the Vice-President is.
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2013, 09:58:41 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.
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 #12 on: August 08, 2013, 11:13:21 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

About a poll 3 years in advance? I think we both know better than to assume the election is decided by a poll 3 years in advance. As for Dick Morris, he would've been correct prior to the 2012 election. There are more Democrats now due to a rise in the Hispanic/Latino community. It's been very surprising. Dick Morris was using the 2004 demographics which haven't really come to be since with the exception of the 2010 midterm elections. Had the demographics last year been the same as 2004, then Morris would've been correct. Please tell me you're not making a prediction for 2016 based on a poll in 2013?
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2013, 10:00:37 am »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

About a poll 3 years in advance? I think we both know better than to assume the election is decided by a poll 3 years in advance. As for Dick Morris, he would've been correct prior to the 2012 election. There are more Democrats now due to a rise in the Hispanic/Latino community. It's been very surprising. Dick Morris was using the 2004 demographics which haven't really come to be since with the exception of the 2010 midterm elections. Had the demographics last year been the same as 2004, then Morris would've been correct. Please tell me you're not making a prediction for 2016 based on a poll in 2013?

I'm not making a prediction for 2016 based on a 2013 poll. That's exactly what you are doing..."43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie." I just explained why that was a very inaccurate analysis.
Logged
Consciously Unconscious
Liberty Republican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2013, 04:05:08 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

About a poll 3 years in advance? I think we both know better than to assume the election is decided by a poll 3 years in advance. As for Dick Morris, he would've been correct prior to the 2012 election. There are more Democrats now due to a rise in the Hispanic/Latino community. It's been very surprising. Dick Morris was using the 2004 demographics which haven't really come to be since with the exception of the 2010 midterm elections. Had the demographics last year been the same as 2004, then Morris would've been correct. Please tell me you're not making a prediction for 2016 based on a poll in 2013?

I'm not making a prediction for 2016 based on a 2013 poll. That's exactly what you are doing..."43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie." I just explained why that was a very inaccurate analysis.

He was saying that would happen if the election were held today.  He wasn't saying those were sure numbers for 2016. 
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 #15 on: August 09, 2013, 08:51:13 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So Tongue

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

About a poll 3 years in advance? I think we both know better than to assume the election is decided by a poll 3 years in advance. As for Dick Morris, he would've been correct prior to the 2012 election. There are more Democrats now due to a rise in the Hispanic/Latino community. It's been very surprising. Dick Morris was using the 2004 demographics which haven't really come to be since with the exception of the 2010 midterm elections. Had the demographics last year been the same as 2004, then Morris would've been correct. Please tell me you're not making a prediction for 2016 based on a poll in 2013?

I'm not making a prediction for 2016 based on a 2013 poll. That's exactly what you are doing..."43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie." I just explained why that was a very inaccurate analysis.

I didn't know I sounded like I was calling a state. Maybe that would be the result if the election were held today.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2013, 03:04:28 pm »

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election.

There's really no proof for this claim whatsoever.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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