I have felt for a long time that Kasich was the most "electable" candidate the GOP had, and thought he would crush Clinton in a general election. Obviously Ohio also gives him "home field advantage" but I continue to believe that. I guess we will never know, but winning Ohio is basically a must for Republicans.
He wouldn't "crush" her... but I think a generic republican (and Kasich is probably pretty close to generic Republican) would probably have a slight edge. Really though generic Republican was never going to win the Primaries... remember that 2nd place was Ted Cruz, who would have been the most conservative candidate since Goldwater.
Republican's have gotten themselves into this awkward state where the odds of winning the primaries are almost inverse of their odds of winning the general.
Well I'm starting to get a bit confused by the disconnect between state and national polling. Just one data point, but a Roanoke poll this morning shows Clinton ahead by 18 in Virginia.
Is the Race tightening due to an increase in third party support in safe states. Are Dems/never trump republican voting 3rd party in safe states but Hillary in swing states?
Do we know the traditional bias / margin error of these state polls?
Is the Race tightening due to an increase in third party support in safe states. Are Dems/never trump republican voting 3rd party in safe states but Hillary in swing states?
Do we know the traditional bias / margin error of these state polls?
I think it varies from poll to poll. Offhand, I don't recall how 538 views the Roanoke poll. Some of the state polls have smallish samples, but others don't.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Is the Race tightening due to an increase in third party support in safe states. Are Dems/never trump republican voting 3rd party in safe states but Hillary in swing states?
Do we know the traditional bias / margin error of these state polls?
I think that's plausible, but I don't see it in any polls that we have in 'safe states' either way. Obviously we have a lot less polling of safe states, but when they do come out (places like Texas, New York, Mississippi), there's not much there to suggest significantly higher 3rd party support. No 3rd party support at all in Mississippi, New York has a bit higher for Stein than national average, a bit below national average for Johnson. Texas more or less average.
I think the more plausible explanation isn't third-party support but instead is likely voters: in swing states, a lot of independents feel a strong responsibility to vote against Trump, but in non-swing states, similar voters are going to report an overall lower enthusiasm, resulting in a more Trump-friendly 'likely voter' sample.
For what it's worth, 538 doesn't give Roanoke a great score, a C+. They've got a pretty high average error in their history.
Last edited by octothorp; 08-23-2016 at 10:19 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Well I'm starting to get a bit confused by the disconnect between state and national polling. Just one data point, but a Roanoke poll this morning shows Clinton ahead by 18 in Virginia.
National polls have shown the race tightening-- in which case this Virginia poll doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think you are underestimating how much Trump changes the map. Virginia has been a bellwether state recently, but doesn't really have much of the demographics that Trump needs. Our republican rural population is his core, and is fairly small here. He's weak among the urban/suburban republican population, which is fairly large in Virginia. There isn't a huge blue collar democrat population here, which is where he has the potential to steal votes.
Well I'm starting to get a bit confused by the disconnect between state and national polling. Just one data point, but a Roanoke poll this morning shows Clinton ahead by 18 in Virginia.
National polls have shown the race tightening-- in which case this Virginia poll doesn't make a lot of sense.
The same thing happened in 2012. National polls were relatively close but Obama maintained his lead in swing states. National polls don't mean much (there are no electoral college votes to be had at the national level and the electoral college decides who wins).
Another thing to consider is money, cash spent, raised, and on hand. Clinton is raising and spending a lot of money (much more then Trump) and she isn't spending it in non-swing states (which are the states most often polled).
I think you are underestimating how much Trump changes the map. Virginia has been a bellwether state recently, but doesn't really have much of the demographics that Trump needs. Our republican rural population is his core, and is fairly small here. He's weak among the urban/suburban republican population, which is fairly large in Virginia. There isn't a huge blue collar democrat population here, which is where he has the potential to steal votes.
Kaine on the DNC ticket would help as well nah?
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
That Trump is sub 40% even in Utah just shows how disliked he is. Both parties will obviously have tons of regret over who they nominated on November 9th. A generic candidate from either party likely would have romped over Trump or Hillary.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The senate race in Utah is significant and worth polling, too, not because it's competitive, but because it's interesting to see how much support a transgendered Sanders-style democrat can get in one of the more socially conservative states. Previous polls had shown her as losing but by an amount not out of line with other red-state dems, but her numbers are much lower in this PPP poll.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
He wouldn't "crush" her... but I think a generic republican (and Kasich is probably pretty close to generic Republican) would probably have a slight edge. Really though generic Republican was never going to win the Primaries... remember that 2nd place was Ted Cruz, who would have been the most conservative candidate since Goldwater.
Republican's have gotten themselves into this awkward state where the odds of winning the primaries are almost inverse of their odds of winning the general.
With all due respect you guys aren't getting it. Kasich etc would have no chance in the way races exist now. He is like.a boring Romney. Superstar Republicans get destroyed in the nomination process and boring ones are out before they are in.
It's not just Trump casting a shadow. Let's look at the last 25 years:
In 1992 George Bush was a superstar candidate. Incumbent president, former VP, former CIA chief, in ambassador etc. Has his candidacy spoiled by Ross perot and the 90s tea party.
In 96 Bob Dole, or as I now call him, "White Obama", again had to conservatize himself to keep voters from drifting to crazy 90s tea party led by Pat Buchanan and newt Gingrich's government shutdown (the 90s "fiscal cliff" illusory issue) Up against superstar incumbent bill Clinton, Dole would have had to steal centrist voters to have a chance but instead had to do things like pick an anti-abortion go candidate to get Buchanan to drop out of the race so Dole could secure the nomination without anymore bloodshed.
Then in 2000 you had the horrible hatchet job of McCain by Bush Co.
In 2008 mccain was dragged down by the bush legacy of conservatism and dogged by Mike Huckabee of all people.
2012:
It is tougher to get through a Republican nomination than a Democratic one.
I know this is the pilling data thread, sorry for the derail.
I'm not sure that poll is helpful. They had Clinton up by 18 in March so it's dropped 4 since March
You could just as easily say it has her up 6 since December, March is (in political terms) ages ago. Saying down 4 since March is kind of misleading since they've since had a poll in-between (June 10-16: Clinton +13)
You could just as easily say it has her up 6 since December, March is (in political terms) ages ago. Saying down 4 since March is kind of misleading since they've since had a poll in-between (June 10-16: Clinton +13)
Really I just wanted to put it up since it was a poll that hadn't been mentioned yet and fit into the larger discussion about Clinton polling above her national numbers at the state level.
