Post-New Hampshire Primary Polling Suggests Trump's Historically Well Positioned To Capture GOP Nomination

Photos, from left to right, courtesy of Getty Images, Carlos Osorio/AP, and Mike Segar/Reuters

To the chagrin of the sixty-to-seventy-odd percent of Republicans who do not support Donald Trump as their nominee for president, the billionaire firebrand is looking mighty dominant in post-New Hampshire primary polling. But how is he standing up compared to past polling front-runners at this point in the campaign? For Trump critics, the news is pretty bleak, yet not without at least a faint glint of hope.

In my experience, it's always best to start with the bad news, so here goes:  in nearly every presidential primary since 1976, the national polling leader between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries has gone on to become their party's nominee. Specifically, of the fifteen post-New Hampshire national primary polling leaders examined over the last forty years, twelve eventually earned their party's nomination (or 80% of the time).

Having said that, Donald Trump is currently the Republican's national polling leader, and by a wide margin. With one day remaining until South Carolinians head to the polls, Trump's averaging 36% support from Republicans across seven primary surveys conducted after the New Hampshire primary, reaching as high as 41% and as low as 26%. He maintains an average seventeen point advantage over his next closest competitor, Ted Cruz.

Faced with the numbers, and what we know of history, what else is there to conclude other than the fact that Trump appears headed for the Republican nomination?

Iowa Entrance Poll Finding: Democratic Caucus-Goers Lurch Sharply Leftward in 2016, Republicans Less Conservative

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

An unquestionable, and entirely predictable ideological shift in the Democratic Party was confirmed by the Iowa entrance poll on Monday night. The first such poll to be conducted in eight years revealed that Democrats, or at least those willing to turn out for a night time caucus in Iowa, have become decidedly more liberal since their last meeting in 2008.

The fact was captured not only in the final vote count, which found a self-professed socialist virtually tied with a former Iraq War supporter, but turned up in black and white in the poll taken of Iowa Democrats as they entered their caucus site.

To be sure, there was an abundance of evidence that the Democratic Party was shifting ideologically leftward prior to the Iowa entrance poll. Since Bernie's campaign announcement last April, multiple surveys found a plurality of Democrats viewing socialism favorably - even more favorably then their views of capitalism. Routine political polling from the likes of Gallup and Pew Research also picked up on the increasingly liberal bent of the party. But caucus-goers confirmed the movement, and to an unmistakable degree.

PART III: The "Race" Factor: Have African Americans Forgiven the Clintons for 2008?

Clinton greets supporter and BET founder Robert L. Johnson at a campaign stop in Jan. 2008. Photo courtesy of Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

As discussed in parts I and II of this 3 part series, Hillary Clinton would be a uniquely strong Democratic Presidential Primary candidate should she decide to enter the race in 2016, though with three distinct areas of potential weakness, based on her 2008 performance against President Obama.

She runs the risk of falling behind among voters concerned with electing a candidate who can best bring about change, with the only variable being how many 2016 primary voters will choose this quality as the most desirable trait. 51% selected "change" in 2008, far more than the second most identified trait, "experience," at 23%.

Clinton also risks doing poorly among young voters aged 18-29. This age group chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 by 26 points, and although she won voters over 30 years old by four points, (86% of the total electorate), she still lost the nomination.

But of all the attributes and demographics measured by the 2008 primary exit pollsters, none would seem to bode so poorly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as her performance among African American Democratic Primary voters.

By the time the campaign ended in June 2008, Hillary had averaged a measly 15% of the African American vote, to Barack Obama's 76%. The margin was large enough to deny Clinton the nomination, despite carrying white Democratic primary voters 55-39%, Hispanics 62-35%, and "other" 57-41%.

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state primary exit polling. The complete data behind the national primary numbers can be found here.

Sure, a part of Hillary's weakness with black voters in 2008 was due to the presence of a young, charismatic African American on the Democratic ballot. But if you recall, the Clintons did a fair amount of racial flame-throwing in their quest to shake-off the popular Senator, upsetting many former black allies and supporters. So the question is whether or not African Americans have forgiven the Clintons for the perceived racial undertones of their attacks on Obama, and if so, whether they've redeemed themselves to the point of receiving their vote.

If early primary polling is any indication, the answer to the question is yes, blacks seem willing to vote for Hillary Clinton again:

Only surveys including racial breakdowns were included in the table.

PART II: The "Age" Factor - Approaching 70 isn't a great place to be for someone with an old "youth vote" deficit

A variety of young or new faces seem capable of exploiting Hillary's 2008 weakness with young Democratic primary voters. From left, TX Rep. Joaquin Castro, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, San Antonio Julian Castro, and newly-elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Though Hillary Clinton caught a bit of bad press recently regarding her national favorability rating, her continued strength as a Democratic primary contender remains unfazed by the factors that caused her popularity to take a slight dip last month, at least according to public polling on the matter.

The most recent survey on the race shows Clinton leading all of her likely Democratic opponents AND undecideds by a miraculous 63-37%, besting her closest competitor Joe Biden by 50 points!

It may all sound a bit like deja vu, until you realize that Hillary is out-distancing her potential 2016 competitors by a far greater margin than she ever did in 2008. Her 2016 polling averages are strong among the groups she's been historically strong with (whites, Hispanics, and women), as well as the groups she performed poorly with in 2008 (blacks, men, 'very liberal' voters).

But there was another group, besides the "change voters" discussed in Part I of this series, that were particularly down on Hillary during her battle with Barack Obama: 18-29 year olds. And if 2008 is any guide, Hillary will want to do some serious advance work on nailing down the youth vote, strong early polling aside.

Despite recent chatter in some conservative circles proposing preemptive attacks on Hillary Clinton's age in preparation for 2016, advanced age in and of itself is certainly no bar to a party's nomination (for recent examples, see Bob Dole and John McCain), nor even the the presidency (see Ronald Reagan).

But when you couple that advanced age with a historical weakness among young voters, you can see why Hillary may need to be creative with ways to reach out to this increasingly influential Democratic voting block.

What do I mean by Hillary Clinton's "weakness with young voters"? I mean that she lost 18-29 year-olds in 2008 to Barack Obama by a significant 60-34%. I also mean that she won 18-29 year olds in just 5 of 40 contests where exit polling was conducted (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and West Virginia). Moreover, as the chart below indicates, she lost the next youngest age group, 30-44 year olds, to Obama by a hefty 13 points (54-41%).

Exit Poll Data compiled from CNN. National figures were compiled from state-by-state exit polling, the results of which can be found here.

 
It isn't until the 45-59 age group that Hillary even reaches parity with Obama, tying him 47-47%. Her only significant advantage among any age group came with Democratic primary voters aged 60 and older (Obama only won this age group in 6 of 40 exit-polled contested (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia)

Which of Hillary's 2008 weaknesses are most likely to reemerge in 2016? Part I: The "CHANGE" Factor

"Change" candidates aren't always successful at seeking their party's nomination, but that was not the case in 2008. If Clinton wasn't the change candidate then, how can she be in 2016? Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Richard Drew/Pool

In 2008, the Clinton juggernaut collapsed before a comparatively unknown, three-year Senator from Illinios, in part because the big-wigs in Hillaryland failed to anticipate the degree to which members of their own party wanted a candidate who represented that exhausted political buzzword: "change."

It's not that Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle, Howard Wolfson, and other 2008 Clinton campaign verterans were idiots - they knew something about how to run a political campaign, and were certainly well aware that after 2.5 years of a historically unpopular President George W. Bush, Americans at the national level would be craving change. But what were the odds that Democrats would turn those same desires against their own darling Clinton? After all, it was the Clinton family that ushered the Democrats out of the political wilderness of the 1980s. It was the Clintons who became the first Democrats to win two presidential terms since FDR. It was the Clintons that presided over the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history.

Yet still, in the Winter and Spring of 2008, Democrats simply weren't buying what the Clintons were selling anymore; this wasn't an "experience" election, and Hillary was NOT the candidate of change.

Whether through miscalculation on her campaign's part, or simply her opponent's own strength, Clinton performed very, very poorly among voters in her party who said they wanted a candidate that could best "bring about change," which, unfortunately for Hillary, wound up being the majority of the Democratic electorate that year.

Flash forward five years, and Hillary Clinton again leads the primary, though this time sweeping nearly every subset of every subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Which begs the question: is 2016 the next 2008? Will the next Democratic Presidential primary, or even the next general election, feature a "change" component to the extent seen in 2008? It's hard to say, and there are some obvious differences.

In 2016, it will be Hillary's party that has dominated the White House for 8 years, which could end up a net negative OR positive for her campaign, depending on how Americans continue to perceive the job President Barack Obama is doing (which, as of today, isn't too well).

Yet if the national mood is such that a party of Obama-Democrats jump on the "change" bandwagon once more, Hillary Clinton has a major soft spot for opponents to target, especially if 2008 is any guide.

To understand the extend of Hillary's potential weakness with this group of voters, consider the chart below that documents the make-up of the 2008 Democratic primary electorate based on what voters identified as the "top candidate quality" to exit pollsters, as well as how proponents of each candidate quality split their vote between Clinton and Obama:

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state exit polling. I compiled the national data from CNN state exit polling. That process can be found here.

The difference in Obama and Clinton's vote margins among people who identified the ability to "bring about change" as the most important candidate quality, and those who did not, is stark. Obama carried the "change" voters by a landslide 41 points (68-27%), while Hillary carried the rest (voters who said experience, electability, or empathy for others was the most important candidate quality) by an identical 41 points, or 63-22%.

Back to Earth: Hillary Clinton's Monthly Favorability Average Hits Lowest Level Since 2008

Photo courtesy of ricochet.com

Hillary Clinton received some of her first negative press of the 2016 Presidential cycle last week when Quinnipiac University released a poll showing her net favorability rating had dropped 15 points since their last poll in February.

But why did media outlet after media outlet treat this generally benign news story like such a big deal?

It has a lot to do with the partially false, media-created notion that Hillary Clinton is nearly invincible as it pertains to the 2016 Presidential election, in part because she is so universally adored.

But a quick glance at her favorability ratings over the last half-year illustrates that the perception of Hillary as this overwhelmingly popular national figure certainly has its exceptions:

Data compiled from Polling Report, Real Clear Politics, National Journal, TPM Poll Tracker, and various internet searches. For a complete look at the poll data stretching back to 1993, go here.

First off: the chart makes it easier to see why Quinnipiac's recent 52/40% rating, while not a bad finding in a vacuum, represents a troubling trend for Hillaryland. 

She's down a net 15 points from Quinnipiac's last survey in February. She's down a net 5 points from CNN's last survey. She's down a net 5 points from last month's Economist/YouGov monthly average. And while she's stationary with PPP, they've consistently shown her with the lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of the year, and are second to only Economist/YouGov as showing her with the lowest current favorability rating of any pollster (52/44% on PPP, 50/44% on Economist/YouGov).

But back to my original point: besides the negative trend lines, the chart also illustrates how Hillary Clinton's favorability decline is not a brand new phenomenon, recent media-interest aside.

It was January 2013 when PPP released a survey showing Clinton with a 54/39% favorability rating, the first non-Rasmussen survey since September 2008 to show Hillary with a net favorable/unfavorable rating lower than +20. But nary a word was mentioned about the finding at the time. The silence continued as PPP and YouGov released surveys showing Hillary's favorability rating at less-than-God-like status.

The steady decline in Hillary's ratings throughout 2013, especially as compared to her numbers while Secretary of State, looks even more pronounced in the below chart of her monthly average favorable/unfavorable rating:

The number in parentheses represents the number of favorability surveys taken during each month. Monthly averages are only provided where at least two DIFFERENT pollsters surveyed Hillary's favorability rating in a given month. Data is compiled from Polling Report, Real Clear Politics, National Journal, TPM Poll Tracker, and various internet searches. For a complete look at the individual polls making up these averages, go here.

With a current monthly average net favorability rating of +14, Hillary's numbers are at their lowest point since before becoming Secretary of State.

2008 vs. 2016 Democratic Primary Contests: A Comparison of Hillary's "Inevitability" THEN and NOW

Contrary to what some believe, the Hillary Clinton of 2008 was not nearly as strong in Democratic primary polling as she is today. Photo courtesy of businessinsider.com (left).

 Its been eight years since the Democratic Party has seen a competitive primary contest, but the similarities between this point in the 2008 presidential cycle and today are undeniable; Hillary Clinton is the obvious Democratic standard-bearer, she has a major lead against her possible primary contenders, and the sense of inevitability surrounding her eventual coronation is strong and near-universal.

But for all the comparisons between Hillary '08 and Hillary '16, there are a number of differences. In 2008, she was running AGAINST eight years of Republican reign that had become amazingly unpopular with the American public. This time around, she'll be running to continue the legacy of what has been, based merely on presidential job approval ratings, 8 years of a mediocre presidency.

Furthermore, today, the mere thought of having to compete against a more-popular Clinton-juggernaut has essentially frozen the Democratic Primary field (with the sole exception of the little-known and ambitious Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley). In 2005, there was no "frozen field" to speak of. The newly unemployed John Edwards made moves almost immediately following his failed Vice Presidential bid to indicate he was starting a 4-year-campaign for the presidency. Questions abounded regarding the intentions of Sen. John Kerry, the unsuccessful '04 Democratic nominee that only lost by a respectable 2.5 pt margin. The much aggrieved 2000 nominee and former Vice President Al Gore was lurking in the background, as well as 2004 grass-roots super-star and one-time favorite for the nomination, Howard Dean. In the end, only 1 of the above mentioned names jumped into the 2008 primary, but unlike today, potential candidates were making some not-so-under-the-radar movements towards a presidential bid.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the 2008 and 2016 presidential presidential cycles to date lies in the polling. The chart below shows the monthly polling averages of the Obama v. Clinton primary battle from immediately following the 2004 election to the conclusion of the Democratic primary in June 2008, divided into two periods: Nov. 2004 through the Iowa Caucus, and the Iowa Caucus through Hillary's campaign suspension in June. The information in the chart is based off of about 350 surveys compiled from pollster.com, real clear politics, and Wikipedia. The excel file including the 350 survey data-set can be viewed here. To be included in the data set, a 2008 poll must have tested both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the hypothetical primary contest. Where I was able to track down a survey's cross tabs, a demographic break down of the Hillary/Obama vote is provided, though you'd be surprised as to how difficult it can be to track down obscure, 5-year old cross tabs.

For a full list of the surveys used in compiling the averages, go here.

As you can see, Hillary enjoyed a healthy 16 point lead over Barack Obama during the early stages of the 2008 primary (39-23%), before any contest was held; you know...the period in which pundits were discussing her apparent inevitability. Which begs the question, at least in the context of polling: what was so inevitable about a 16 point lead, especially when the leader was well below 50%?

Republican Primary Electorate Moves Right, Democrats Stationary (a look at primary exit polling, 1996-2012)

The 2000 primary battle between Bush & McCain featured a notably less conservative primary electorate than in 2012. The Gore/Bradley primary electorate was similar to 2008.  Images courtesy of Corbis.

Since the birth of the Tea Party Movement in the aftermath of the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the American public has been subjected to claims by the media that the Republican party of today is more Conservative than the GOP of the 1980s and 90's, or even that of George W. Bush. But is that actually the case? Yes, at least based on the way Republican primary voters have viewed their own ideologies since 1996.

Sure, there have been studies indicating CONGRESSIONAL Republicans have become more Conservative, but have the rank and file followed their lead? A close examination of GOP primary exit polling from 1996-2012 indicates they have. In the 20 states where exit polling was conducted in 2012, Republican primary voters were split exactly into thirds between identifying as "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," or "moderate/liberal." To be exact, 34% of Republican primary voters identified their own political ideologies as "very conservative." That number ranged from a nationwide high of 49% in the Louisiana and Nevada primary contests, to a low of just 15% in Massachusetts (no surprise there). Meanwhile, 33% of Republican primary voters nationwide identified as "somewhat conservative", while the remaining 33% identified as "moderate or liberal." The "moderate/liberal" voters' largest share of the Republican electorate came in the Vermont primary (where they made up 53% of voters), Massachusetts primary (where they made up 49%), and New Hampshire primary (where they made up 47%). Conversely, moderate/liberals saw their smallest shares of the GOP electorate in Iowa (17%), Nevada (17%), and Louisiana (23%).

So there you have it: the ideological identity of Republican primary voters NATIONWIDE in 2012 was 34% very conservative, 33% somewhat conservative, and 33% moderate/liberal (based on the findings of the network's 20-individual-state exit polls). On its face, nothing sounds terribly conservative about that breakdown. Republicans are, after all, the national conservative party. So 67% of the national primary electorate identifying as at least somewhat conservative should probably be expected. But when you compare that split to the three previous Republican primaries in 2008, 2000, and 1996, you see the Republican primary electorate has become considerably less moderate or liberal, and considerably more conservative. See the chart below:

To see the math on how I compiled the above figures from exit polling, see this dataset