Kasich beats Clinton in CT (Emerson)

[MT Treasurer]

John Kasich (R): 49%
Hillary Clinton (D): 38%

Hillary Clinton (D): 48%
Donald Trump (R): 40%

Hillary Clinton (D): 52%
Ted Cruz (R): 31%

John Kasich (R): 48%
Bernie Sanders (D): 40%

Bernie Sanders (D): 49%
Donald Trump (R): 40%

Bernie Sanders (D): 55%
Ted Cruz (R): 30%

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_a087ef7328134746b90ffd87f80c439e.pdf

B-b-but Atlas told me that New Hampshire would be more competitive than Connecticut!!!1!

[EliteLX]

This isn't happening.

Still neat and reflects on his positive image currently though! This poll also shows Donald Trump within an 8% margins, lol.

[Skye]

I'm more surprised at Cruz's numbers.

[Sorenroy]

There's probably something weird going on but they say they that they weighted it on "2012 federal general election returns" (whatever that means; does anyone know?). Interesting to note that Kasich has a +20 favorability amongst Democrats though (+32 Clinton, +65 Sanders) and the highest favorabilities amongst Republicans as well (+37, Trump +17, Cruz -19).

[Xing]

CT polls are garbage. Obama was supposed to only barely win CT instead of winning it by over 17%.

[pbrower2a]

CT polls are garbage. Obama was supposed to only barely win CT instead of winning it by over 17%.

Connecticut toys with Republican nominees for President only to swing far away from them as the election approaches. See also Michigan.

[IceSpear]

It's quite amusing how people take Sanders/Kasich polling numbers at face value. You might as well poll Jesus Christ while you're at it. He's received about the same amount of attacks and scrutiny as those two, and he's about as likely to be the nominee as well.

[Cruzcrew]

Throw this in the trash

[Kingpoleon]

But... But... Atlas #analysis says Rockefeller Republicanism and Blue Dogs are positions only held by elitists, not the CT general public.

Honestly, a re-election Kasich landslide post 2019-boom might look like:

I seriously doubt CT in November is within eight or nine points. Even a twelve point uniform swing to the Republicans, as indicated by GE Kasich v. Clinton, CT is won by 5-7 points.

[Mike Thick]

-StatesPoll.com- was right: Connecticut State could be the swing state in 2016.

[The Free North]

Not unreasonable given HC's unfavorables atm.

[Ebsy]

Not unreasonable given HC's unfavorables atm.

lmao

[Landslide Lyndon]

Not unreasonable given HC's unfavorables atm.

Thanks for your smart take.

[Mr. Illini]

Likely a backlash against Trump ("I hate Trump and Kasich is such a breath of fresh air"). Would likely even out in a general.

[This account no longer in use.]

Connecticut State will be the swing state.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kasich can expand map against Clinton but would only pull in OH and Va and make a play for Iowa & CO.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I wonder how formidable Trump-Kasich would be at this point. I know VP usually adds nothing, but these are staggering numbers. Attaching his name to Trump might cancel it out though.

[pbrower2a]

I wonder how formidable Trump-Kasich would be at this point. I know VP usually adds nothing, but these are staggering numbers. Attaching his name to Trump might cancel it out though.

Not in the least. The VP choice matters greatly to the positive only if the Presidential nominee is in suspect health or advanced age. Otherwise...

Remember 1988? Mike Dukakis selected Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) , one of the best-respected politicians of the time, to be Vice-President.  He lost Texas... big.  The Republican nominee for President was domiciled in Texas.

On the other side, the VP choice can hurt. George McGovern was going to lose in 1972 because other realities (then-popular and apparently effective incumbent; being cast as an extremist; failure to express the chest-pounding patriotism of the "Silent Majority"; underfunded campaign), but he first picked Eagleton for VP. Eagleton had a big problem with alcohol. Eagleton dropped out as such was disclosed, and McGovern turned to Sargent Shriver, who had never run for high office. Dan Quayle got ripped for intellectual shallowness, which he got away with in 1988 but not in 1992. Then of course there is Sarah Palin.

It is wiser to pick a VP for ideological consistency (Al Gore, for Bill Clinton, even if they are from neighboring and politically-similar states) or administrative ability (Dick Cheney, who was of marginal value as a campaigner).

Somehow I think that Donald Trump will pick someone obscure.