29 May 2015

First real 2016 Prez polling out of California




In this blog-entryI mentioned a quirky poll of California vis-a-vis the 2016 Presidential election:





An older poll that slipped through pretty much everyone's fingers came through, it is a quirky poll of California:

Emerson College Poll, taken from 2-8 April, 2015, officially released 13 April, 2015, seen in the medien 28 April 2015,  882 RV, MoE = +/-3.2

Clinton 53 / Bush, J. 47 , margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 53 Walker 47, margin = Clinton +6
          Clinton 55 Cruz 44, margin = Clinton +11
Those are very, very lean Democratic margins for California standards. In fact, the Emerson Poll reports says:

"A new poll conducted in California by the Emerson College Polling Society (ECPS) suggests that the perennially blue state, which has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, may be in play for the 2016 election."
Obama won Californa by +23 in 2012 and by +24 in 2008. The end-polling aggregate for California in 2012 predicted: Obama +15.80, so the end-aggregate was off by 7 points to the Right.
I am not saying it's impossible that the margins are this small. It's possible, but it's very unlikely. Also, Emerson College, from Massachusetts, usually does polling on the East Coast and it very much out of it's area, so say the least.
I will also remind that in 2008, there was one Siena Poll from New York that showed Obama up on McCain by only +4 in April of that year. In November, he won by almost +26.
But I will surely be keeping an eye on California to see if a pattern emerges.



Well, a poll from a respected California pollster has indeed come out and the results are predictably positive for Team Clinton, in great contrast to the quirky Emerson poll:

The Field Poll, take from 23 April to 16 May, 2015, released 22 May 2015, 801 LV, MoE = +/-4.0

Clinton 52 Bush, J. 31 , margin = Clinton +21
Clinton 53 Rubio 32, margin = Clinton +21
Clinton 54 Walker 30, margin = Clinton +24


Clinton is tromping in California, with margins between +21 and +24 over Bush, Rubio and Walker.

A plus for this poll is that it is of LIKELY VOTERS, a voter screen that has been traditionally friendlier to the Republicans - obviously not in this case. A minus for this poll is that the polling time-frame of 3 full weeks is really way too long.

How did Field do in 2012 and 2008?


The final Field Poll for California in 2012 showed Obama 54 / Romney 39, margin = Obama +15. Obama won California by just a little more than +23 in 2012, so Field was off to the RIGHT by 8 full points in 2012.

And in 2008:

The final Field Poll for California in 2008 showed Obama 55 / McCain 33, margin = Obama +22.
Obama won California by just a little more than +24 in 2008, so Field was just slightly off to the Right in that year, by 2 points.

The point is: Field does not show a Left-leaning bias in it's polling.

The margins we are seeing now in California, Oregon and Washington State are all in line with what we saw in both 2008 and 2012. The only state that may indeed show a lesser margin would be Hawaii, since it is not Clinton's birth-state. Wait and see.

California's 55 EV will be going for the Democratic Party in 2016.

28 May 2015

2016 Prez polling: Washington State, dueling pollsters

[IMG] 

Two very different pollsters polled the great state of Washington at practically the same time, with similar results, albeit varying margins. There is lots of interesting information here, something for both sides to contentedly munch on.


PPP (D),  879 RV, taken from 14-17 May, 2015, released on 21 May, 2015, MoE = +/-3.3

Hillary Clinton 49 / Marco Rubio 39, margin = Clinton +10
Hillary Clinton 48 / Jeb Bush 37, margin = Clinton +11
Hillary Clinton 49 / Ben Carson 38, margin = Clinton +11
Hillary Clinton 49 / Scott Walker 38, margin = Clinton +11
Hillary Clinton 50 / Rand Paul 38, margin = Clinton +12
Hillary Clinton 50 / Ted Cruz 38, margin = Clinton +12
Hillary Clinton 50 / Mike Huckabee 37, margin = Clinton +13
Hillary Clinton 50 / Rick Perry 37, margin = Clinton +13
Hillary Clinton 49 / Chris Christie 34, margin = Clinton +15

The PPP (D) poll shows Clinton with a landslide margin of between +10 and +15 over the entire GOP field in a very blue state, so that is no huge surprise.


Next:

Gravis (R), 1032 LV, taken from 17-19 May, 2015, MoE = +/-3.0


Hillary Clinton 45 / Marco Rubio 42, margin = Clinton +3
Hillary Clinton 47 / Rand Paul 42, margin = Clinton +5
Hillary Clinton 46 / Scott Walker 40, margin = Clinton +6
Hillary Clinton 47 / Mike Huckabee 40, margin = Clinton +7
Hillary Clinton 45
 / Jeb Bush 37, margin = Clinton +8
Hillary Clinton 48 / Ted Cruz 40, margin = Clinton +8
Hillary Clinton 46 / Chris Christie 37, margin = Clinton +9

The Gravis (R) poll shows Clinton with a margin of between +3 and +9 over the entire GOP field. Though the margins are slimmer, there are some commonalities between the two polls:

-in both polls, Marco Rubio comes the closest to Hillary, and Chris Christie does the worst.
-in the PPP (D) poll, all of the margins are well out of the MoE. In the Gravis (R) poll, 6 of 7 margins are well out of the MoE.

Democratic nomination:

PPP (D):

Clinton 57 / Sanders 24 / O'Malley 4, margin: Clinton +33

Gravis (R):

Clinton 35 / Sanders 26 / Warren 19, margin: Clinton +9

Here is also a commonality: Sanders at about 1/4 of the Democratic vote in a very left-leaning state. The difference between PPP and Gravis is that PPP didn't poll Warren, who has already indicated that she in not running, while Gravis, for some reason, did.

Republican nomination:

PPP (D):

Walker 18 / Rubio 15 / Huckabee 13 / Cruz 11 / Bush, J 10 / Carson 10 / Christie 5 / Paul 5 / Perry 3, margin = Walker +3, but there are 6 candidates in double digits and no one gets to 20.

Gravis (R):

Paul 13.2 / Walker 12.4 / Bush, J 11.5 / Rubio 11.3 / Carson 7.6, margin = Paul +0.8 (statistical tie with Walker)

Very disparate results for the GOP nomination between PPP (D) and Gravis (R), especially in the case of Rand Paul.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we compare the current results from PPP (D) and Gravis (R) to the 2012 presidential cycles, only a 1/2 comparison is possible, for only PPP (D) put out an end-poll (within the last week before the 2012 election) and Gravis put out a poll on 27 September 2012, which as cold coffee come election time, but the results may surprise you alot, especially for those who think that PPP (D) has a bias to the Left.

Washington State, 2012, election results:

Obama 55.80% / Romney 40.03% / Other 3.18%, margin: Obama +14.77% (+15)

PPP (D) end poll, released 01 November, 2012:

Obama 53 / Romney 46, margin: Obama +7

PPP (D) was off 8 points to the RIGHT in it's end poll of Washington State. Whereas it nailed 11 of 12 battleground states in 2012, in some western states like WA and also MT, it was off considerably, but picked the correct winner.

Gravis (R), on the other hand, in it's late September poll, was actually to the LEFT of the actual results:

Obama 56.4 / Romney 38.6, margin: Obama +17.8 (+18)

In 2012, both SUSA and YouGov were the most accurate pollsters in Washington State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of electoral history, Washington State is now a 7-for-7 Democratic state on the presidential level, having gone for the Democratic candidate every time since Michael Dukakis in 1988:

1988: Dukakis +1.59
1992: Clinton +11.44
1992: Clinton +11.44
1992: Clinton +12.54
2000: Gore +5.58
2004: Kerry +7.17
2008: Obama +17.08
2012: Obama +14.77

Gore is the candidate who did the worst in this state in the last 24 years. Kerry actually improved the statistic for this state in 2004. In 4 of the last 7 election nights, Washington State has been called immediately at poll closing time for the Democratic nominee (1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012).

More electoral information over WA here.

How do Clinton's PPP values look like compared to the first Obama Washington State poll for 2012, taken in May, 2011?

Well, here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WA_0519.pdf

Obama 51 / Romney 40, margin = Obama +11
Obama 53 / Huckabee 39, margin = Obama +14
Obama 54 / Gingrich 36, margin = Obama +18
Obama 57 / Palin 34, margin = Obama +23
Obama 58 / Trump 31, margin = Obama +27

So, Obama, like Clinton, started in completely safe territory, but his margins over Gingrich, Palin and Trump were considerably larger.

Notice that both Obama's and Clinton's margins over Huckabee are practically identical to each other. What is different are the toplines: Obama was well over 50%, whereas Clinton is under or at 50%.

Is there any real reason why the Marco Rubio or Rand Paul margins between PPP and Gravis in these 2015 polls should be so disparate? No, there is no reason for why they should be.

The one thing we see is that Washington State, just as suspected, and just like neighbor state Oregon, is a safe (D) state.

Updates as they come in.

17 May 2015

Hillary polling wrap-up, first two weeks of May, 2015

From 01 May 2015 to 15 May, 2015, national polling, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. GOP field, was released for public consumption. There was also polling for the same in three states:








NATIONAL:

NBC / WSJ: taken 26-30 April, 2015, released 04 May, 2015, 1,000 A, MoE = +/-3.1


Clinton 47 / Paul 44 , margin = Clinton +3
Clinton 49 / Bush, J. 43 , margin = Clinton + 6
Clinton 49 / Rubio 43 , margin = Clinton + 6
Clinton 50 / Walker 40, margin = Clinton +10


Fox News Poll: taken 09-12 May, 2015, released 15 May 2015, 1,006 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
(Numbers in parentheses are from the previous Fox News Poll ,released 23 April, 2015)

Bush, J 45 (41) / Clinton 44 (45) , margin = Bush, J +1 (Clinton +4)
Clinton 47 (47) / Huckabee 44 (42) , margin = Clinton +3 (+5)
Clinton 47 (46) / Rubio 43 (42) , margin = Clinton + 4 (unchanged, +4)
Clinton 48 (47) / Cruz 43 (42) , margin = Clinton + 5 (unchanged, +5)
Clinton 48 (46) Walker 42 (40), margin = Clinton +6 (unchanged, +6)
Clinton 48 / Carson 42margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 48 / Kasich 40margin = Clinton +8
Clinton 49 / Fiorina 37margin = Clinton +12

Dem nomination: Clinton 63 / Warren 13 / Sanders 6 / Biden 6 / Cuomo 2 / Webb 2, margin = Clinton +50

Republican nomination: Bush 13 / Carson 13 / Walker 11 / Huckabee 10 / Rubio 9 / Paul 7 / Christie 6 / Cruz 6 / Trump 4 / Kasich 2 / Perry 2 / Santorum 2 / Fiorina 1 / Jindal 1, margin = Bush/Carson absolute tie, statistical 4-way tie.

PPP (D) also did a national poll but has not yet released the matchups. However therespective nomination numbers are out:

Dem nomination: Clinton 63 / Sanders 13 / Chafee 6 / Webb 6, margin = Clinton +50

Republican nomination: Walker 18 / Rubio 13 / Carson 11 / Huckabee 11 / Cruz 10 / Paul 9 / Christie 5 / Perry 2, margin = Walker +5

First, unbelievably, this is the very first NBC/WSJ only poll of the 74 national polls taken to-date. NBC has paired with Marist-McClatchy a number of times, but not only with WSJ, so there is no real way to compare the national poll to former data.

The Fox News Poll polled 8 matchups this time around and amazingly, it apparently did not poll Hillary against Rand Paul. It polled other numbers for Paul, but not a match-up. Either that, or it forgot to publish the data. But of the four matchups we can compare (vs. Bush, Huckabee, Rubio and Walker), two results are completely unchanged and the Huckabee margin has narrowed by 2 points. However, the Clinton/Bush, J matchup has moved from Clinton +4 to Bush +1, a 5 point shift toward Jeb Bush. In the poll before the previous poll (released 2 April, 2015), it was a mathematical tie, so over 6 weeks, in reality, very little has changed.

It's interesting to note that the DEM nomination numbers for poll pollsters show identical toplines for Clinton and an identical margin of +50 for her, which is pretty much the result we have been seeing in every single state poll that also does DEM nomination matchups.

On the Republican side, the results are very different, but the numbers are so low, it's either a 4-way tie or Walker is a nose ahead of the rest of the crowd for now. The obvious loser in all of this is Chris Christie, who is between 5-6% among Republicans.



Arizona

PPP (D), released 06 May, 2015, 600 RV, MoE = +/-4.0
(values in parentheses are from the previous PPP poll of Arizona, from April 2014)


Christie 46 (41) / Clinton 39 (44), margin = Christie +7 (Clinton +3)
Paul 45 (43) / Clinton 30 (46), margin = Paul +5 (Clinton +3)
Huckabee 44 (41) / Clinton 41 (47), margin = Huckabee +3 (Clinton +6)
Rubio 43  / Clinton 41 , margin = Rubio +2 
Cruz 44  / Clinton 43 , margin = Cruz +1 
Walker 44  / Clinton 43 , margin = Walker+1 
Carson 42 Clinton 42, margin = mathematical tie 
Bush, J 41 (45) / Clinton 41 (44), margin = mathematical tie (Bush +1)
Clinton 44 / Perry 41, margin = Clinton +3


The margins in this polling are wildly disparate, from Christie +7 to Clinton +3, a 10 point swing.
I also have to say that comparing two polls that are more than one year apart from each other can only be cosmetic. That being said, for Christie, Paul and Huckabee, the movement has been toward them, which is pretty understandable for a state that tends to default Republican and has gone Republican for 15 of the last 16 cycles.  Much more information about this here:

http://statistikhengstswelt.blogspot.de/2015/05/2016-prez-polling-in-arizona-2015.html




Kentucky


SUSA, released 12 April, 2015, 2,104 RV, MoE = +/-2.2

Clinton 45 / Paul 45, margin = absolute mathematical tie

This is the only SUSA poll taken of the Bluegrass state thus far, it is now the 7th. In the foru PPP (D) polls taken of KY in 2015, Paul was ahead of Clinton by between +4 and +6 in a state that Mitt Romney won by +22.68%, the strongest Kentucky landslide for a Republican since Nixon in 1972. Kentucky is a state that Bill Clinton just barely won in both 1992 and 1996 (+3.21+0.96, respectively), so we may be seeing the influence of the Clinton name in this state, a southern border state that was once even considered a bellwether state and one of the "Clinton 6" states (6 southern states that Bill Clinton won twice, that Obama never won even once).

I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is destined to win Kentucky, especially considering it's electoral development over the last 4 cycles:

2000: Bush 43 +15.13
2004: Bush 43 +19.86
2008: McCain +16.22
2012: Romney +22.86


What I am saying is that the margins in Kentucky should not even be close at all, and yet, over 7 polls of the Bluegrass State and 16 matchups, Clinton has won 8 matchups, the GOP has won 6 and there have been two absolute ties, one of which is this poll from SUSA. And all of the margins have been from middle-single digit margins down to a tie, a good 16 points or so under Romney's 2012 margin. I would very much like to see both a PPP (D) and a Gravis (R) poll with about 10 matchups a piece for this state in the next month. That would go on my wishlist.

If these kind of numbers hold, after Hillary is nominated, a bet that BILL Clinton will be visiting Kentucky a great deal, for that really could put this state in play for the first time in 20 years.


New Hampshire

In the last two weeks, we have seen three polls of New Hampshire, and I expect we will be seeing a lot more with time to come. Here is a lot of data to ingest.

Dartmouth "2015 State of the State Poll", produced by the Nelson Rockefeller Center, taken from 27 April to 30 April, 2015, released 06 May 2015, 355 RV, MoE = +/-5.2!
(Values in parentheses are from the previous Dartmouth Poll, from May 2014)

Clinton 39.8 Cruz 28.7 , margin = Clinton +10.9
Clinton 38.1 (38.3) 
Huckabee 31.1 (36.2), margin = Clinton +7.0 (+2.1)
Clinton 36.1 (36.8) 
Paul 33.3 (38.4), margin = Clinton +2.8 (Paul +2.6)
Clinton 34.5 Rubio 34.4 , margin = Clinton +0.1, in reality a mathematical tie 
Bush, J 36.9 (32.2) / Clinton 34.1 (42.2) , margin = Bush +2.8 (Clinton +9.9)
Walker 38.7 / Clinton 34.8 , margin = Walker +3.9

So, in the Dartmouth poll, from 6 matchups, we have 3 Clinton wins, one absolute tie and two GOP wins, with margins ranging from Clinton +10.9 to Walker +3.9, essentially a 15 point swing. The candidate who has gained the most since the poll from one year ago is Jeb Bush. Both Paul and Huckebee have lost ground. What is not really believable about this poll is that no single candidate gets to 40%. We are talking about undecideds between 30-34%, which, by candidates with extremely high name recognition, is practically impossible. And a margin of error of +/-5.2 in modern polling is practically unforgivable.

WMUR/UNH, taken from 24 April to 03 May 2015, released on 08 May, 2015, 627 LV, MoE = +/-3.9.
(Values in parentheses are from the previous WMUR/UNH poll from Feb 2014)

Bush 47 (39) / Clinton 41 (51), margin = Bush +6 (Clinton +12)
Rubio 47 / Clinton 42, margin = Rubio +5
Paul 47 (40) / Clinton 43 (50), margin = Paul +4 (Clinton +10)
Walker 44 / Clinton 44margin = absolute mathematical tie
Clinton 46 / Cruz 45, margin = Clinton +1

This WMUR poll has five matchups, two of which we compare to the past.  The GOP wins 3 matchups, there is an absolute tie and Clinton wins 1 matchup, but it is a statistical tie and we we margins ranging from Bush +6 to Clinton +1, far less of a swing than with the Dartmouth poll. According to WMUR, favor has shifted heavily to both Bush (Jeb) and Paul. And the toplines, in the mid-to-upper fourties, is much more in line for polling about 1.5 years away from a general election. A strike against this poll is that it was taken over 10 days, a very large time-window, to say the least.

In contrast, Bloomberg / St. Anselm / Purple Insights also put out a NH poll, taken between 02 May and 06 May, released on 11 May, 2015, 500 LV, MoE = +/-4.4

(Parentheses indicate values from the previous Bloomberg-Purple poll, from November 2014)

Clinton 46 / Walker 40 , margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 46 (48) / Paul 43 (41), margin = Clinton +3 (+7)
Clinton 44 (47) / Bush, J 42 (39), margin = Clinton +2 (+8)
Clinton 44 / Rubio 42 , margin = Clinton +2

GOP nomination: Walker 12 / Paul 12 / Bush 11 / Rubio 11 / Trump 8 / Christie 7 / Cruz 6 / Carson 5 / Huckabee 4 / Fiorina 3: margin = 4 way tie.

Dem nomination: Clinton 62 / Sanders 18 / Biden 5 / O'Malley 3 / Chafee 1, margin = Clinton +44

The Bloomberg-Purple poll shows Clinton winning all four matchups, but with reduced margins in the case of two matchups that can be compared to the previous Purple poll.  Here we have two very respected pollsters showing very disparate results. The one commonality is that the margins are close in all three polls.  I think that the Bloomberg has a nose ahead because of it's more restrictive voter screen (LV instead of RV) and it's smaller polling time frame, which is also more recent.

These three polls plus the two from the end of April (Gravis, PPP) all paint a picture of a state that is now becoming competitive. I am moving NH from safe Clinton to battleground status, based on the data.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All said and told, 37 individual matchups, Clinton vs. GOP field, from 7 polls, taken by 7 different pollsters, nationally, in three states.

To date, the grand totals are:

318 polls, 1,274 matchups to date.

Of those 318, Hillary has won 97% of all national polling, 74% of state polling and almost 80% of both rubriks combined.

At the beginning of June: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part VII (complete analysis of all polling).