FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary

[Tender Branson]

In before pbrower, who will probably not include this poll in his map thread.

Because, well, it shows Republicans ahead ...

Mason-Dixon's final poll was about 7% off in 2012.

In any case, winning Florida is not optional for Republicans.  It's what they absolutely need to do, in order to have any chance at all.  You don't celebrate over Florida any more than Democrats should celebrate over winning Pennsylvania.

That explains it.

No, it does not.

Mason-Dixon obviously had a bad FL poll in 2012, but they were generally pretty good in other states in 2012 as well as in earlier Pres. elections.

If we are not including pollsters because they produced an outlier once, then we may just exclude virtually every pollster because even PPP, Quinnipiac etc. produce a junk poll here and then.

You are only excluding this poll here because it shows 2 Republicans ahead instead of Hillary.

That's the reason.

Besides, it's not unreasonable that Bush/Rubio are indeed ahead of Hillary right now in FL, because Quinnipiac has shown the same and because of the homestate effect (Bush) and the announcement-bump for Rubio.

[IceSpear]

Mason-Dixon obviously had a bad FL poll in 2012, but they were generally pretty good in other states in 2012 as well as in earlier Pres. elections.

They most certainly were not. The following data is all from RCP.

Florida: Their most famous flunk. Showed Romney and Nelson up 6. Obama won by 1 and Nelson won by 13.

Georgia: Produced a (very early) poll showing Romney up 17. Polls by SUSA conducted around the same time showed Romney up 7-8, obviously far more likely in such a polarized state.

Iowa: Was the only pollster to ever show Romney ahead in the entire year of 2011.

Minnesota: Had Obama only up 3 when he won by 8. Funnily enough though, they missed badly as well in the opposite direction on the Senate election, having Klobuchar up by 43 when she won by 35.

Missouri: Actually overestimated Obama by 3 points, but drastically underestimated McCaskill and Nixon, saying they'd only win by 2/6 when they actually won by 15/12.

Montana: Similar to Missouri, overestimated Obama by 4 points, but underestimated Tester and Bullock, saying they'd lose by 4/3 when they actually won by 4/2.

Wisconsin: Only did one poll in mid October, and was more or less at the consensus at the time. Yay, they finally got one!

Their polls in 2008 were generally bad as well. They showed Obama up 4 in PA when he won by 10, McCain up 2 in Ohio when Obama won by 5, Dole up 1 on Hagan when Hagan won by 9, Obama up 4 in Nevada when he won by 13, had Michigan as a tie at one point when it clearly never was, etc. On the other side of the coin, they lowballed McCain by 5/7 points in Arizona and Kentucky. They did have a few good ones, like nailing the results in Georgia, Iowa, and, ironically, Missouri and Florida. But their overall track record in both 2008 and 2012 is extremely poor. In fact, their consistency is almost eerie. With only a few exceptions, you can get the correct result if you add 5-10 points to the Democrat.

A cursory glance at their polls in 2014 and 2010 seem to be pretty good. What I've concluded from this is that Mason Dixon is horrible at polling presidential elections but good at polling midterms.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rothenberg took Fl out of LGOP category, but Toomey is still safe. While Sabato still has Pa as a tossup.

QU showed Murphy and Sestak behind and Strickland leading.

I believe Sabato.

[King]

I'm talking more about Terry McAuliffe than Warner, but Warner still won.

I'm not saying Virginia is not swing state. I'm saying you could not describe a more perfect Clinton state. If I told you to build a swing state that would break for Clinton at the end, the state you would build is Virginia.

[King]

Also, cool nitpick on the exit polls. Virginia in 2014 was 36-36 D-R, compared to 39-32 D-R, 36% identified as conservative compared to just 31% in 2012. Only 12% under 30 versus 19% in 2012. Calling 2014 and 2012 electorates the same is simply lying to yourself.

There's no reason to be disingenuous. All your bold underlined screaming shows is that you are a distraught emotional wreck over the prospect of Hillary winning this election and aren't thinking objectively.

[King]

I never said it was not a swing state, what I'm saying is that if you had to design a perfect swing state that would break for Clinton in the end, you would design Virginia in 2016.

If you count on Virginia being the state to break against Clinton to put you over 270, you're going to be disappointed. Demographics have changed so rapidly there that it's really more of a swing state that would vote Republican as part of a 300 EV win. Obama did better there than in Ohio.

It's the same as North Carolina. A swing state, but honestly we all know it will break for the GOP in the end.

--

And I don't get why you insist there's some trend to be gained from midterms. There wasn't in 2010 and there isn't in 2014. Almost 2 million less people voted in 2014 in Virginia. 2 million people. How could you not make an assumption that white Democrats did not show up?

Illinois elected a Republican Governor, Maryland elected a Republican Governor. Are you going to call these potential swing states too? No, it'd be ridiculous.

[YaBoyNY]

I never said it was not a swing state, what I'm saying is that if you had to design a perfect swing state that would break for Clinton in the end, you would design Virginia in 2016.

If you count on Virginia being the state to break against Clinton to put you over 270, you're going to be disappointed. Demographics have changed so rapidly there that it's really more of a swing state that would vote Republican as part of a 300 EV win. Obama did better there than in Ohio.

It's the same as North Carolina. A swing state, but honestly we all know it will break for the GOP in the end.

--

And I don't get why you insist there's some trend to be gained from midterms. There wasn't in 2010 and there isn't in 2014. Almost 2 million less people voted in 2014 in Virginia. 2 million people. How could you not make an assumption that white Democrats did not show up?

Illinois elected a Republican Governor, Maryland elected a Republican Governor. Are you going to call these potential swing states too? No, it'd be ridiculous.

Well, if you put it this way, I agree with you. If I was a Republican candidate and knew (on Election night) that VA will be the deciding state (because of encouraging polls in FL, OH and CO/IA), I would be VERY nervous, to say the least. The state would probably go Democratic in a 50-50 election. Having said that, I also can't see Virginia going Republican without the GOP winning the national popular vote.
--> I have said this many times, I'm going to say it again: The GOP has to find a way to put PA (or MI, though that one is almost impossible) into play, otherwise the path to 270 becomes very difficult. In fact, I knew that Romney had definitely lost the election when PA was called for Obama.

In all honesty, I think that focusing on turning Ohio more atlas blue would be a better bet. Any serious early foray into Pennsylvania will see serious defense by Democrats. Turning voters in Western Pennsylvania works only until you reach a ceiling there, and since Eastern Pennsylvania, which is the growing half, is trending Democratic, there's only so much you can change.

Focusing on Ohio would definitely pay off more than Pennsylvania.

[King]

1. You agree Virginia is going Democrat if the Republicans don't win the popular vote.

2. GOP has no clear shot at a popular vote win with the white vote continuing to fall in Pres elections for about 40 years now and no minority outreach even planned.

3. GOP stance is leading in the polls on no issues right now from minimum wage to gay marriage to Iran.

4. The economy is not on the decline and Gallup is reporting the most Americans optimistic about their financial future since 2004.

The question arises again how you think this election isn't completely done other than wishful thinking.

[King]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

[King]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.

The fact that she ran a fairly good campaign in 2008 does not necessarily mean she will run a good one in 2016, especially considering that Hillary has been off the trail for 7 years. The democrats are hoping that a couple debates with O'Malley are all she needs to prepare to run a good GE campaign, but there's no way of knowing if that's true.

[bedstuy]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

He clearly means campaign staff, campaign organization and institutional knowledge, not surrogates.  Obama's campaign team clearly out-organized the GOP twice and knows how to connect with voters.  The Clinton campaign will hire many of those people and apply the lessons learn from 2012 to their campaign.  They will make use of the same technology, research, organizing technique, fundraising strategies, etc that Obama succeeded with.  No Democrat is going to look at the Obama Presidential campaign strategy and out throw it out the window, he won twice.  Hillary Clinton wants to win and she's going to copy a ton from the Obama campaign model.  You can assume the Clinton campaign will be monumentally stupid, but that is ridiculous.

On top of that, Hillary Clinton is not writing the copy for her campaign commercials or writing all of her own speeches.  She isn't going to waste her time with that.  Hillary Clinton is not going to be the communications director, campaign manager and candidate at the same time.  The Clinton campaign will have a large group of smart people deciding the messaging, from concept to execution.  Hillary will have input and the final say in these high level discussions, but she will focus on campaigning and fundraising, like all candidates do. 

You also have to remember that people learn from their mistakes.  Hillary Clinton truly did fail at messaging and organizing in 2008.  I guarantee you that she knows that.  She will probably make other mistakes, but I doubt she's going to hire Mark Penn and stubbornly ruin her chances again. 

[YaBoyNY]

I never said it was not a swing state, what I'm saying is that if you had to design a perfect swing state that would break for Clinton in the end, you would design Virginia in 2016.

If you count on Virginia being the state to break against Clinton to put you over 270, you're going to be disappointed. Demographics have changed so rapidly there that it's really more of a swing state that would vote Republican as part of a 300 EV win. Obama did better there than in Ohio.

It's the same as North Carolina. A swing state, but honestly we all know it will break for the GOP in the end.

--

And I don't get why you insist there's some trend to be gained from midterms. There wasn't in 2010 and there isn't in 2014. Almost 2 million less people voted in 2014 in Virginia. 2 million people. How could you not make an assumption that white Democrats did not show up?

Illinois elected a Republican Governor, Maryland elected a Republican Governor. Are you going to call these potential swing states too? No, it'd be ridiculous.

Well, if you put it this way, I agree with you. If I was a Republican candidate and knew (on Election night) that VA will be the deciding state (because of encouraging polls in FL, OH and CO/IA), I would be VERY nervous, to say the least. The state would probably go Democratic in a 50-50 election. Having said that, I also can't see Virginia going Republican without the GOP winning the national popular vote.
--> I have said this many times, I'm going to say it again: The GOP has to find a way to put PA (or MI, though that one is almost impossible) into play, otherwise the path to 270 becomes very difficult. In fact, I knew that Romney had definitely lost the election when PA was called for Obama.

In all honesty, I think that focusing on turning Ohio more atlas blue would be a better bet. Any serious early foray into Pennsylvania will see serious defense by Democrats. Turning voters in Western Pennsylvania works only until you reach a ceiling there, and since Eastern Pennsylvania, which is the growing half, is trending Democratic, there's only so much you can change.

Focusing on Ohio would definitely pay off more than Pennsylvania.

Well, the problem is that it wouldn't be enough: Let's say the Republicans win FL, OH, CO and IA (all of which are very possible). That gets them to 268 EV. Still not enough. It would be enough in 2024, but not in 2016. They still need a tipping point state. Assuming they lose VA narrowly, they are done. Making a play for ME-02 would be another solution lol, that would get them to 269 EV. Otherwise, they have to make a play for PA because I have a hard time seeing them win NH and NV in a close election (they COULD win Virginia, but it would be close and I wouldn't want to rely on that if I was the Republican candidate).

You're correct. My math was off. Still though, I just can't see making a play for Pennsylvania working out as well as some seem to think. I've seen too many people simply say that just by targeting Pennsylvania early, the Republicans can win it, as if the Democrats will do nothing to counter that (I see the same thing regarding North Carolina for Democrats). In a close election, I just can't see a way for Republicans to swing Pennsylvania to them while losing Virginia.

[King]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.

The fact that she ran a fairly good campaign in 2008 does not necessarily mean she will run a good one in 2016, especially considering that Hillary has been off the trail for 7 years. The democrats are hoping that a couple debates with O'Malley are all she needs to prepare to run a good GE campaign, but there's no way of knowing if that's true.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hilary wont win FL, she will win 290 firewall CO, NV, Pa, Ia, NH and OH, that's as far as she will go.

[Devils30]

Hillary won't win by 6% nationally or more and lose FL. PPP showing her up 2-3% on Jeb and Rubio is probably the most realistic.

[DS0816]

Why is Mason Dixon still in business? When was the last time they came close to accurately predicting a presidential election - 2000?

Mason Dixon and Gravis should be banned from this site.