NH/FPU-Boston Herald: Trump, Sanders well ahead

[tpfkaw]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/01/franklin_pierce_herald_poll_rivals_need_iowa_win_to_catch_trump_sanders_in

Rep:

Trump: 38 (+5)
Cruz: 13 (-1)
Bush: 10 (+1)
Rubio: 10 (+2)
Kasich: 8 (-4)
Christie: 5 (-2)
Fiorina: 5 (+/-0)
Paul: 5 (+2)
Carson: 3 (-1)
Huckabee: 1 (+/-0)
Santorum: 0 (+/-0)

Dem:

Sanders: 57 (+2)
Clinton: 37 (-2)
O'Malley: 2 (+/-0)

[Türkisblau]

Those TRUMP numbers! Torie and the Paultards are surely shaking in their boots right now.

[tpfkaw]

Kasich: 8 (-4)
Christie: 5 (-2)

Clinton: 37 (-2)

RIP newspaper endorsements.

[Mike Thick]

Ugh. If Rubio can't win NH or at least come a close (not 30 points back) second, this is over...

[RI]

Watch Bush finish second here.

[Sorenroy]

Favorabilites by candidate:
Candidate — Favorable-Unfavorable (Net)

Democrats:
Sanders — 88-9 (+79)
Clinton — 72-25 (+47)
O'Malley — 39-24 (+15)

Republicans:
Fiorina — 57-28 (+29)
Carson — 59-31 (+28)
Rubio — 59-32 (+27)
Cruz — 57-39 (+18)
Trump — 56-39 (+17)
Kasich — 46-36 (+10)
Christie — 47-43 (+4)
Paul — 44-42 (+2)
Bush — 48-47 (+1)
Huckabee — 38-43 (-5)
Santorum — 27-45 (-18)

Also interesting to note that they were asked about the Sarah Palin endorsement. 14% of people said that it made them more likely to vote for Trump, 24% said it made them less likely (60% no effect, 2% unsure). I bet it's still positive, as most of the people who said it made them less likely to vote for him probably already were not going to anyway.

[Sorenroy]

Favorabilites by candidate:
Candidate — Favorable-Unfavorable (Net)

Democrats:
Sanders — 88-9 (+79)
Clinton — 72-25 (+47)
O'Malley — 39-24 (+15)

Republicans:
Fiorina — 57-28 (+29)
Carson — 59-31 (+28)
Rubio — 59-32 (+27)
Cruz — 57-39 (+18)
Trump — 56-39 (+17)
Kasich — 46-36 (+10)
Christie — 47-43 (+4)
Paul — 44-42 (+2)
Bush — 48-47 (+1)
Huckabee — 38-43 (-5)
Santorum — 27-45 (-18)

Also interesting to note that they were asked about the Sarah Palin endorsement. 14% of people said that it made them more likely to vote for Trump, 24% said it made them less likely (60% no effect, 2% unsure). I bet it's still positive, as most of the people who said it made them less likely to vote for him probably already were not going to anyway.

Figured I'd also include this, but as a separate post:

Change in favorabilities from last poll (one week ago), and last month:
Candidate — Net (Change poll/month)

Democrats:
Sanders — +79 (-2/0)
Clinton — +47 (-3/-20)
O'Malley — +15 (+3/-11)

Republicans:
Fiorina — +29 (+4/+4)
Carson — +28 (+7/+8)
Rubio — +27 (+8/-12)
Cruz — +18 (+3/-6)
Trump — +17 (0/+3)
Kasich — +10 (-11/+6)
Christie — +4 (-4/-30)
Paul — +2 (+8/+16)
Bush — +1 (-6/-10)
Huckabee — -5 (+6/+13)
Santorum — -18 (0/+7)

[Lief 🗽]

Watch Bush finish second here.

Oh, yes, that would be hilarious. It would basically guarantee TRUMP a South Carolina victory too.

[Admiral Kizaru]

What happened to the Kasich surge?

[Türkisblau]

What happened to the Kasich surge?

Wulfy jinxed it.

[Ebsy]

Not buying a 20 point swing in Clinton's favorability from the last poll.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Not buying a 20 point swing in Clinton's favorability from the last poll.

Well, Berniebots have become pretty unhinged during last month.

[Eraserhead]

Why couldn't New Hampshire have been the first state?

[Sorenroy]

Not buying a 20 point swing in Clinton's favorability from the last poll.

To be clear, the second number is the monthly change. The first number is the change from the last poll conducted a week ago. As such it's a 20 point swing over the course of a month.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Clinton should skip NH and focus on SC, she's gonna get the solit she needs.