Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2019, 11:40:28 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  CNN (National): Hillary Clinton up by 13-25 over various Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: CNN (National): Hillary Clinton up by 13-25 over various Republicans  (Read 2722 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2014, 07:29:30 pm »

A poll of "adults".

Toss.

Only RV polls should be used.

Agreed.  Although it is interesting to see just how far D-leaning the entire adult population is as opposed to RV.

It's about 3-4 points. These polls are inflated because of name recognition. The public doesn't know who the others are. The more revealing numbers would be among those who know both candidates very well and have formed an opinion.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,288
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2014, 08:21:59 pm »

A 13% margin translates as 56%-43%.  A 25% margin translates to 62%-37%. 

The greatest percentage margins in the last century in binary races between winners and losers in the Presidential election have  been roughly 24% (FDR vs. Landon), 23% (Nixon vs. McGovern) and 22% (LBJ vs. Goldwater). All involved an incumbent against a sacrificial lamb.

In case you wonder about 1984 -- the margin was 'only' about 18%... and Ronald Reagan won 49 states because partisan polarization between the states was practically nil.   

Assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, she will imply some unique qualities in the campaign. Least important will be that she will be the first female nominee of one of the two major political parties for President. She will be the spouse of a former President, and as such she will know her way around the political process as few Americans  have ever had. She has experience both in elected office and in the Cabinet.

We shall soon see whether the Republican Party will be an asset or a liability in 2016. Its politicians get to dominate the political discourse for two years, and by November 2016 we will see whether the political scene is more like 2010 -- or 2006.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,432


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2014, 08:25:57 pm »

A 13% margin translates as 56%-43%.  A 25% margin translates to 62%-37%. 

The greatest percentage margins in the last century in binary races between winners and losers in the Presidential election have  been roughly 24% (FDR vs. Landon), 23% (Nixon vs. McGovern) and 22% (LBJ vs. Goldwater). All involved an incumbent against a sacrificial lamb.

In case you wonder about 1984 -- the margin was 'only' about 18%... and Ronald Reagan won 49 states because partisan polarization between the states was practically nil.   

Assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, she will imply some unique qualities in the campaign. Least important will be that she will be the first female nominee of one of the two major political parties for President. She will be the spouse of a former President, and as such she will know her way around the political process as few Americans  have ever had. She has experience both in elected office and in the Cabinet.

We shall soon see whether the Republican Party will be an asset or a liability in 2016. Its politicians get to dominate the political discourse for two years, and by November 2016 we will see whether the political scene is more like 2010 -- or 2006.

In 1999, Bush was up 31 points on Gore. In 2003, Bush was up 28 points on Kerry.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,288
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2014, 02:20:47 pm »
« Edited: December 30, 2014, 02:22:53 pm by pbrower2a »

With the arguable exceptions of the two Presidential elections involving Eisenhower and the two involving Obama, every Presidential election is different. The least significant aspects of the 2016 Presidential elections will be, should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee, will be her gender and that she is the spouse of a President. Barack Obama smashed so many assumptions about the Presidency as a preserve almost exclusively for white male Protestants (John F. Kennedy barely got elected) that... well, anyone can be President if he has the usual traits of personality, character, and ability.  

On the other side, quality still matters. Voters nationwide prefer that the President not be an extremist or a fool, and Barack Obama did nothing to cause anyone to question that assumption.  Some Republican candidates are going to show why political experience in high office matters, and why taking stands that alienate nearly a half of the public before the election is bad politics. Some are going to make gaffes that show themselves as mediocrities or worse.  

Some of the 25-point gaps involve Hillary Clinton against people who have no real chance of winning the Republican nomination.  
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2014, 04:41:34 am »
« Edited: December 31, 2014, 04:44:06 am by Grad Students are the Worst »

Many of the RV adults of 2016 are not registered voters in 2014.

Turnout in open-seat Presidential years is usually high, and it could be even higher in a year in which one of the Parties is extremely unpopular.  

I really doubt the figure is "many."  The number of voters who aren't registered during the midterms, know it, and re-register before the next Presidential isn't that high.  You're limiting your population to super-sporadic voters (rarely turn out), the newly-18 (not that many people), and those who move and are aware their voter registration lapsed (not a ton of people).

Just looking at the Washington State database, under 10% of the 2012 electorate first registered in 2011 or 2012.  The rest were ongoing registrations, or inactive registrations that saw address update.  It may be a higher figure in poll-voting states, but still, it's not a high enough figure that it's going to make a big difference in opinion polls.  There aren't very many voters who will admit to not being registered in 2014, but will actually vote in 2016.

Let me put it this way: The 2016 electorate will be a lot closer to currently registered voters (that is, ones registered today) than all adults.  In fact, the number of now-registered voters who won't participate is much higher than the number of currently-unregistered adults who will.

So, the 2014 electorate will not be anything like "all adults."  It will even be smaller than "registered voters" (and by that mean, I mean voters registered today).  It will be somewhere between "registered voters" and "2014 voters."  In fact, looking at the Washington database, 72% of 2012 voters also voted in-state in 2010.  Presidential voters generally are Midterm voters, and among those who aren't, most were registered during the Midterms -- they just didn't show up.  And among those not registered during the Midterms, the vast majority won't show up for the Presidential, either.

tl;dr: The 2016 electorate will look a lot more like the 2014 electorate than "all adults."  It may look more like the 2014 electorate than "registered voters."  Anyone who tells you otherwise can't do math, or is a delusionally optimistic Democrat.
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