15 February 2015

NBC/ WSJ / Marist Poll, early 2016 primary states: lots of info

NBC / WSJ / Marist Polling just put out poll-results from the first three primary/caucus states of 2016:

(the above links are to .pdf-data)

Marist polled the prospective GOP and DEM fields for all three states, plus 2 Presidential matchups per state: Hillary vs. Jeb Bush / Hillary vs. Scott Walker

First, the GOP field, Iowa:

Huckabee 17%
Bush, J 16%
Walker 15%
undecided 14%
Christie 9%
Paul 7%
Rubio 6%
Carson 6%
Santorum 5%
Perry 4%
Cruz 2%
Graham 1%

Essentially, a three-way tie in Iowa between Huckabee, Bush and Walker.

The GOP field in New Hampshire:

Bush, J 18%
Walker 15%
Paul 14%
Christie 13%
undecided 13%
Huckabee 7%
Carson 7%
Cruz 6%
Rubio 6%
Perry 1%
Graham 1%

Essentially, a four-way tie between Bush, Walker, Paul and Christie.

And the GOP field in South Carolina:

Graham 17%
Bush, J 15%
Walker 12%
undecided 11%
Huckabee 10%
Carson 10%
Paul 7%
Christie 6%
Rubio 4%
Perry 4%
Santorum 3%
Cruz 1%

Essentially, a two-way tie between Graham and Bush, with Walker, Huckabee and Carson very competitive in relation to the field en toto.

Democratic nomination figures:

Clinton 68%
Biden 12%
undecided 12%
Sanders 7%
Webb 1%
O'Malley 1%

margin: Clinton +56 over Joe Biden

New Hampshire:
Clinton 69%
Sanders 13%
Biden  7%
undecided 7%
Webb 2%
O'Malley 1%

margin: Clinton +56 over Bernie Sanders

South Carolina:
Clinton 68%
Biden 20%
undecided 8%
Sanders 3%
Webb 2%
O'Malley 2%

margin: Clinton +48 over Joe Biden

The Democratic field is not even remotely competitive

And now, Presidential Matchups in all three of the first primary states

Iowa: Clinton 48 / Bush, J 40 - margin: Clinton +8
Iowa: Clinton 49 / Walker 38 - margin: Clinton +11


New Hampshire: Clinton 48 / Bush, J 42 - margin: Clinton +6
New Hampshire: Clinton 49 / Walker 42 - margin: Clinton +7


South Carolina: Clinton 45 Bush, J 48 - margin: Bush, J +3
South Carolina: Clinton 46 / Walker 46 - margin: mathematical tie

Now, this makes for some interesting comparisons:

Iowa 2008Obama +9.53 (+10)
Iowa 2012Obama +5.81 (+6)

New Hampshire 2008Obama +9.61 (+10)
New Hampshire 2012Obama +5.58 (+6)

(notice how similar the margins were to each other, Iowa vs. New Hampshire, in both 2008 and 2012)

South Carolina 2008McCain +8.98 (+9)
South Carolina 2012Romney +10.47 (+10)

So, according to this poll, Clinton's margins in both New Hampshire and Iowa are between the margins from Obama's 2008 and 2012 wins in those states, respectively.

In South Carolina, a state that is barely, if ever, polled for Presidential matchups, Clinton's numbers are CONSIDERABLY better than a Democrat is supposed to be doing in the South. In 2012, there was exactly ONE poll from South Carolina, in January of 2012, from IPSOS/Reuters.  But in 2008, there were 14 SC polls.  So, for the first time, we have some Hillary data from the Palmetto State. The last time a Democrat won this state? Jimmy Carter, 1976, soon to be 40 years ago.

You might want to click on the .pdf-links at the top of this OP to see how FEMALE respondents have, well, responded. :D 

For instance, in Iowa, in the matchup against Jeb Bush, in the female vote, Hillary is beating him by +21.

Also, there are a number of social issues questions in the three polls, all worded identically, and in the results is information that should please both Democrats and Republicans, including isses like:

Job Creation
Health Care (ACA)
income equality
womens' issues

+ targeted questions about:

common core
immigration reform
climate change
same sex marriage
raising taxes on the wealthy
boots on the ground against ISIS

Critical to realize here is that these questions came AFTER the matchups, both for the primaries and for the GE Hillary vs. Bush or Walker matchups.


Facit: this is just one poll, and surely, many more are to come, but the Hillary values in New Hampshire are similar to the other values over the last 2 years, and the values in Iowa are better than she has been doing. And finally, we have some South Carolina data. On the GOP primary side, it is pretty mixed up and no candidate is close to Mitt Romney's steady 22-23% throughout most of 2011, because, I suppose, the field is larger and will probably get even larger than this.  On the Democratic side, the numbers are crystal clear: Hillary.  The one negative I find here is that Warren was not polled.

PPP (D) is also putting out a South Carolina poll this coming week, so it will be interesting to get to compare figures between the two pollsters.

Those are the current numbers from Marist, nothing less and nothing more.