MO-PPP: Hillary down by between 7-15 points, Sanders by about the same

[Mehmentum]

The interesting thing about Bush/Clinton/Trump is that Trump is more popular with relatively center-right voters than hardline conservatives.  He is the new Perot in a lot of ways (in a country that's shifted quite a bit to the left since '92).

Yes, in fact even in the primary part of this poll, he does slightly better among "moderates" than "conservatives".  It's Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee who are relying more on the self-described "very conservative" voters.

Partially serves to confirm a theory of mine; going left on immigration actually hurts Republicans more than it helps.  Within the GOP the ones who are in favor of it are generally wealthy businesspeople (the GOP's most consistent "base" group since its founding in 1854), while I would expect (moderate || swing || persuadable) voters, generally middle-class whites who do not attend church weekly, to be pretty strongly opposed.

Who would have thought that self-disenfranchisement would be a poor strategy?

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, a 15% GOP win in Missouri would be consistent with a 6% GOP swing from 2012, or a 2% national win. Which is also consistent with her recent polling numbers in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois. And Colorado and Virginia if you believe Quinnipiac. But I guess those states have not gotten the memo about Hillary's inevitability?

You can only get this R+2 election if you match up Clinton against the strongest Republican in each state.  The problem is that the strongest Republican varies wildly from state to state.  Basically you are combining each candidate's strengths and ignoring their weaknesses.  So while doing this is a good theoretical exercise, it's not predictive of an election against any actual candidate.

Against the best Republican in each state:
MO, against Rubio: R+15 (consistent with a R+2 election)
IA, against Carson: R+4 (R+6 election)
NH, against Paul: R+2 (R+4 election)
MN, against Paul: D+1 (R+3 election)
IL, against Bush: D+9 (R+4, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA (PPP), against Rubio and Carson: (D+4 election)
NC, against Huckabee and Walker: R+4 (D+2 election)
MI, against Paul: D+3 (R+3 election)
OH, against Kasich: R+7 (R+6 election)

Average, against an imaginary uber-candidate: R+2.4 election

Against Bush:
MO: R+7 (D+6 election)
IA: D+4 (D+2 election)
NH: R+1  (R+3 election)
MN: D+2 (R+2 election)
IL: D+9 (R+4 election, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA: D+8 (D+8 election)
NC: D+2 (D+8 election)
MI: D+11 (D+5 election)
OH: D+2 (D+3 election)

Average: D+ 2.6

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems have maintained consistant leads in most of battlegrounds; except for Fox, even aginst Jeb. As it should give Dems a chance to max our Senate gains; Kander; Murphy &Strickland elected, beyond 272 tradtl map.

[mencken]

The interesting thing about Bush/Clinton/Trump is that Trump is more popular with relatively center-right voters than hardline conservatives.  He is the new Perot in a lot of ways (in a country that's shifted quite a bit to the left since '92).

Yes, in fact even in the primary part of this poll, he does slightly better among "moderates" than "conservatives".  It's Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee who are relying more on the self-described "very conservative" voters.

Partially serves to confirm a theory of mine; going left on immigration actually hurts Republicans more than it helps.  Within the GOP the ones who are in favor of it are generally wealthy businesspeople (the GOP's most consistent "base" group since its founding in 1854), while I would expect (moderate || swing || persuadable) voters, generally middle-class whites who do not attend church weekly, to be pretty strongly opposed.

Who would have thought that self-disenfranchisement would be a poor strategy?

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, a 15% GOP win in Missouri would be consistent with a 6% GOP swing from 2012, or a 2% national win. Which is also consistent with her recent polling numbers in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois. And Colorado and Virginia if you believe Quinnipiac. But I guess those states have not gotten the memo about Hillary's inevitability?

You can only get this R+2 election if you match up Clinton against the strongest Republican in each state.  The problem is that the strongest Republican varies wildly from state to state.  Basically you are combining each candidate's strengths and ignoring their weaknesses.  So while doing this is a good theoretical exercise, it's not predictive of an election against any actual candidate.

Against the best Republican in each state:
MO, against Rubio: R+15 (consistent with a R+2 election)
IA, against Carson: R+4 (R+6 election)
NH, against Paul: R+2 (R+4 election)
MN, against Paul: D+1 (R+3 election)
IL, against Bush: D+9 (R+4, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA (PPP), against Rubio and Carson: (D+4 election)
NC, against Huckabee and Walker: R+4 (D+2 election)
MI, against Paul: D+3 (R+3 election)
OH, against Kasich: R+7 (R+6 election)

Average, against an imaginary uber-candidate: R+2.4 election

Against Bush:
MO: R+7 (D+6 election)
IA: D+4 (D+2 election)
NH: R+1  (R+3 election)
MN: D+2 (R+2 election)
IL: D+9 (R+4 election, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA: D+8 (D+8 election)
NC: D+2 (D+8 election)
MI: D+11 (D+5 election)
OH: D+2 (D+3 election)

Average: D+ 2.6

Bush has consistently been among the weaker serious general election candidates. Let's try a better example:

Against Rubio
MO: R+15 (R+2)
IA: R+1 (R+3)
NH: D+1 (tie)
MN: D+2 (R+2)
IL: D+12 (R+1)
VA: R+2 (R+2) or D+4 (D+4) depending on whether you believe Q or PPP
NC: R+1 (D+5)
MI*: D+6 (D+1)
OH*: tie (D+1)

*Reaching here since these are now two months old.

Average: D+0.1

Notice that the trendline is only getting worse for Hillary, with more recent polls showing a more consistent 1-2 point Republican lead.

[Suburbia]

I still think Missouri can go to Hillary. We have a year left. The state likes the Clintons in the end. Missouri is a Lean R/Tossup state.

[Higgs]

So much for expanding the map.

Clinton can still expand map;.272 is her target; but winning OH and Va is her priority too, as Fairfax Va,  is a suburb of DC.

That's not expanding the map.

[pbrower2a]

Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina are the best opportunities for Clinton to expand the map. Forget Missouri even should the e-mail issue be resolved to her benefit. R leads in Missouri (except by Jeb Bush) against Hillary Clinton re now insurmountable -- even if the Senate race looks like one that the Republican incumbent is likely to lose.

[JRP1994]

So much for expanding the map.

Clinton can still expand map;.272 is her target; but winning OH and Va is her priority too, as Fairfax Va,  is a suburb of DC.

None of that would be expanding the map though.

[Mehmentum]

The interesting thing about Bush/Clinton/Trump is that Trump is more popular with relatively center-right voters than hardline conservatives.  He is the new Perot in a lot of ways (in a country that's shifted quite a bit to the left since '92).

Yes, in fact even in the primary part of this poll, he does slightly better among "moderates" than "conservatives".  It's Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee who are relying more on the self-described "very conservative" voters.

Partially serves to confirm a theory of mine; going left on immigration actually hurts Republicans more than it helps.  Within the GOP the ones who are in favor of it are generally wealthy businesspeople (the GOP's most consistent "base" group since its founding in 1854), while I would expect (moderate || swing || persuadable) voters, generally middle-class whites who do not attend church weekly, to be pretty strongly opposed.

Who would have thought that self-disenfranchisement would be a poor strategy?

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, a 15% GOP win in Missouri would be consistent with a 6% GOP swing from 2012, or a 2% national win. Which is also consistent with her recent polling numbers in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois. And Colorado and Virginia if you believe Quinnipiac. But I guess those states have not gotten the memo about Hillary's inevitability?

You can only get this R+2 election if you match up Clinton against the strongest Republican in each state.  The problem is that the strongest Republican varies wildly from state to state.  Basically you are combining each candidate's strengths and ignoring their weaknesses.  So while doing this is a good theoretical exercise, it's not predictive of an election against any actual candidate.

Against the best Republican in each state:
MO, against Rubio: R+15 (consistent with a R+2 election)
IA, against Carson: R+4 (R+6 election)
NH, against Paul: R+2 (R+4 election)
MN, against Paul: D+1 (R+3 election)
IL, against Bush: D+9 (R+4, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA (PPP), against Rubio and Carson: (D+4 election)
NC, against Huckabee and Walker: R+4 (D+2 election)
MI, against Paul: D+3 (R+3 election)
OH, against Kasich: R+7 (R+6 election)

Average, against an imaginary uber-candidate: R+2.4 election

Against Bush:
MO: R+7 (D+6 election)
IA: D+4 (D+2 election)
NH: R+1  (R+3 election)
MN: D+2 (R+2 election)
IL: D+9 (R+4 election, ignoring Obama's home state effect)
VA: D+8 (D+8 election)
NC: D+2 (D+8 election)
MI: D+11 (D+5 election)
OH: D+2 (D+3 election)

Average: D+ 2.6

Bush has consistently been among the weaker serious general election candidates. Let's try a better example:

Against Rubio
MO: R+15 (R+2)
IA: R+1 (R+3)
NH: D+1 (tie)
MN: D+2 (R+2)
IL: D+12 (R+1)
VA: R+2 (R+2) or D+4 (D+4) depending on whether you believe Q or PPP
NC: R+1 (D+5)
MI*: D+6 (D+1)
OH*: tie (D+1)

*Reaching here since these are now two months old.

Average: D+0.1

Notice that the trendline is only getting worse for Hillary, with more recent polls showing a more consistent 1-2 point Republican lead.

August (incomplete):
MO: R+15 (R+1.8 )
IA: R+1 (R+2.9)
NH: D+1 (R+0.7)
MN D+2 (R+1.8 )

Average: R+1.8

July:
IL: D+12 (R+1, ignoring Obama home state effect)
CO: R+8 (R+9.5 fine, lets include Quinnipiac)
IA: R+8 (R+9.9)
VA: R+2 (R+2)
VA: D+4 (D+4)
NC: R+1 (D+4.9)

Average: R+2.3

June:
MI: D+6 (D+0.4)
KY: R+5 (D+21.6 and no, its not a junk polling firm, its PPP)
MI: D+3 (R+2.6)
FL: D+3 (D+6, ignoring home state effect)
OH: D+3 (D+3.9)
PA: R+1 (R+2.5)
OH: Tie (D+0.9)

Average: D+3.9 (but its D+1.0 without KY)

May:
IA: Tie (R+2)
NC: D+1 (D+6.9)
PA: D+1 (R+0.5)
WA: D+10 (R+1)
CA: D+21 (D+1.8 )
NH: D+2 (D+0.3)
NH: R+5 (R+6.7)

Average: R+0.2

It looks like there might be a trend (August+July is more Republican than June+May), but then again Clinton did better in June than in May, and better in August (so far) than in July.  The overall trend between May and August is 1.6 points for Rubio.  Not nothing, but not something to get hyperbolic about.

Looking at individual states (which gets rid of interfering factors like regional trends) doesn't really clarify anything. In NH, Rubio led by 5 and trailed by 2 in May, and trailed by 1 in August.  Rubio tied in Iowa in May, and led by 1 in August.  

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sanders is unknown to 4/10 MO-voters, Hilldog only to 7% - yet he already polls as well as she does.

Yeah, he's so "unelectable" ...

Sanders will be "unelectable" until he wins.

Oh... that's the standard we're applying now?

Cute.

But MO is not happening for any Democrat at the moment.

[DS0816]

When Bill Clinton carried Missouri with both his presidential elections, he won it both above (1992) and below (1996) his popular-vote margins.

The Republican trend with family former bellwether Missouri is in my part due tomorrow its female voters. (See the gender-vote exit polls from both 2008 and 2012.)

[mds32]

I still think Missouri can go to Hillary. We have a year left. The state likes the Clintons in the end. Missouri is a Lean R/Tossup state.

Perhaps down the ballot. But Missouri is becoming West Virginia in Presidential vs. State-level politics now. It has voted 4 times in a row for the GOP Presidential candidate, just like WV, and has gotten the last two elections wrong like WV. But both elected Democratic Governors in 2008/12, have 1 Dem US Senator and most of the statewide offices, yet don't have control over the congressional delegation. The only difference is the margins in the Presidential elections.

[Xing]

As I've always said, Missouri is Safe R. Period. Even if Democrats expand the map, they can only do so by winning North Carolina, and possibly Arizona/Georgia in a wave. Missouri is staying Republican, though. It's going the same way as Arkansas/West Virginia.

[madelka]

Missouri would have been competitive not that long ago. With Obama and the Democrats alienating rural and suburban White voters, it is now gone for good. Get ready for a Republican Iowa as well.

[Senator Cris]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

Please stop, really.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

Please stop, really.

I just stated a fact, Kasich is the only GOPer that can beat Hilary in Ohio. Trump, Walker & Jeb loses.

[Senator Cris]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

Please stop, really.

I just stated a fact, Kasich is the only GOPer that can beat Hilary in Ohio. Trump, Walker & Jeb loses.

In this thread, we are talking about the MISSOURI PRESIDENTIAL RACE, not about the fact that Kasich can beat Hillary in Ohio.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Missouri's trend against the Democrats can also settle the argument whether it is a Southern or Midwestern state. Missouri like it's fellow upper southern states such as  AR, WV, KY and OK is trending rapidly Republican. Screw Missouri anyways, we can take over NM, NV, VA, NC and Colorado.

[ElectionsGuy]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

Please stop, really.

I just stated a fact, Kasich is the only GOPer that can beat Hilary in Ohio. Trump, Walker & Jeb loses.

In this thread, we are talking about the MISSOURI PRESIDENTIAL RACE, not about the fact that Kasich can beat Hillary in Ohio.

It doesn't matter what the thread is, all his posts are about Hillary and the supposed blue wall.

[Mr. Morden]

It doesn't matter what the thread is, all his posts are about Hillary and the supposed blue wall.

I thought it was about the 272 freiwal.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Trump is the nominee, & Jeb is clearly knocked out, then I will go ahead and knock that theory out. But, Jeb & Kasich are still in, & it will be a close election. If Dems win Mo, it will be a landslide.

[Kingpoleon]

Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina are the best opportunities for Clinton to expand the map. Forget Missouri even should the e-mail issue be resolved to her benefit. R leads in Missouri (except by Jeb Bush) against Hillary Clinton re now insurmountable -- even if the Senate race looks like one that the Republican incumbent is likely to lose.

But Republicans can't overcome ties in Florida, Ohio, and Colorado as all those states trend GOP? That said, Clinton needs to win 60% of the vote to win Georgia - not happening in your best dreams.

[The Mikado]

That said, Clinton needs to win 60% of the vote to win Georgia

Wasn't Georgia R+12? (Obama won nationally by 4 and lost Georgia by

At that level Clinton could win Georgia with ~56% of the national vote. Still not going to happen, of course, but a lot less ridiculous than 60%.

[EliteLX]

I still think Missouri can go to Hillary. We have a year left. The state likes the Clintons in the end. Missouri is a Lean R/Tossup state.

I can promise you with every fiber in me Hillary won't come close to taking Missouri, lol.

[EliteLX]

The only GOP that can really beat Clinton is Kasich who would nail down OH; and force her to the 272 freiwal.

Barring that, Clinton looks great to win a combo of CO& OH.

Please stop, really.

I just stated a fact, Kasich is the only GOPer that can beat Hilary in Ohio. Trump, Walker & Jeb loses.

Ohio is not secured yet to Kasich as nominee only, definitely not secured yet for only Hillary vs all other candidates. A lot of things could quickly let one of the top contenders (Rubio, Jeb, .etc) to snatch Ohio in a heated race with a sharply run ticket. Ohio is everything but called.