Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Impending Gender-Gap Explosion

In every presidential election since exit polling began over forty years ago, Democrats have performed stronger among women than men, while Republicans performed stronger among men than women. Of the eleven elections since 1972, Democrats have lost the female vote in four (1972, 1980, 1984, & 1988), all of which resulted in electoral landslide defeats for their party. The same is true for the three of eleven elections (1976, 1992, and 2008) where Republicans lost the male vote.

While the difference in voting patterns between the sexes is clear, the extent of that difference has varied widely throughout the years. In the most recent presidential election, the Democratic incumbent carried women by eleven points, while the Republican challenger carried men by seven, creating a gender-gap of eighteen points. But in 1976, when Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter defeated President Ford, the gap was less than ONE point. In 1972, when Nixon won reelection in a landslide, the gender gap was only three points.

The largest gender gap recorded by exit polling came in the 2000 election, where Gore carried women by ten points, while Bush carried men by eleven.

Yet in an election year where the most likely Republican nominee happens to have a knack for disparaging women, and where the probable Democratic nominee elicits an almost instinctual disdain from her male detractors, you have the recipe for a gender-gap explosion that could make the 2012 election, or even the 2000 contest, seem tame.

In fact, if current polling is any indication, that's exactly where we are headed.

Using national general election surveys released this year and compiled by Real Clear Politics, the average gender-gap across eight surveys is twenty-seven points. That's nearly ten points higher than the gender-gap seen in 2012, five points higher than the largest gender-gap ever recorded in a presidential election, and fourteen points higher than the average gender-gap in presidential elections since 1972. See below:

No, Trump Is Not Unusually Strong Among Democrats - But He IS Unusually Weak Among Republicans

From Mitt Romney's past dalliance with government healthcare and abortion, to John McCain's involvement with campaign finance and immigration reform, strict purity to conservative orthodoxy has never been a Republican prerequisite for the presidential nomination. But if Romney and McCain flirted with expanding the bounds of acceptable disobedience to GOP principles, Donald Trump has blown the lid off those bounds.

It started before he even officially entered the race last June, when Trump implored attendees at a Republican summit in April to resist reforming Social Security and Medicare. During the first GOP primary debate on August 6, 2015, Trump expressed admiration for Canada and Scotland's single-payer healthcare system. A few days later, Trump defended Planned Parenthood during an interview with Sean Hannity. Two weeks later, Trump suggested during a CNN interview that he would raise taxes on wealthy Americans, cleverly labeling it a hedge-fund tax. The following month, Trump signaled his disdain for free trade during a '60 Minutes' interview, telling Scott Pelley NAFTA has been a "disaster."  Believe it or not, the list goes on, but I digress.

Naturally, the historical nature of a Republican's brazen appeals to populist economic programs often identified with progressives led many political commentators to entertain an interesting theory: might Mr. Trump's overtures to the left pay dividends this November? Articles from Breitbart's Mike Flynn and The Washington Post's Philip Bump highlight Trump's support from a specific kind of Democrat - namely, ex-Democrats. The NY Times' hypothesis was a bit different, though not far off - a big chunk of Trump's support stems from self-identifying Republicans who, for whatever reason, are registered Democrats.

Regardless of the theory, beware of misleading headlines suggesting Trump could coast to victory in November on the backs of Democrats; because from the standpoint of general election polling, nothing appears nearly so out-of-the-ordinary. In fact, considering the eight national general election polls (with readily available crosstabs) conducted since the Iowa Caucus on February 1, Trump earns an average of just 9% from self-identified Democrats - essentially the same amount won by his GOP opponents Marco Rubio (9%) and Ted Cruz (8%). In fact, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W. Bush all polled better among Demo.crats than Trump during a similar period in their respective 2012, 2008, and 2004 (uncontested) primaries.

Not only that, but it's Marco Rubio - not Donald Trump - who holds Clinton to her lowest share of the Democratic vote. She wins, on average, 84% of Democrats in post-Iowa general election polling, while winning 85% and 86% against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, respectively. See the table below:

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?

Polling Update: Hillary Clinton's Image Dinged In Wake of Email Scandal, Though The Injuries Are Minor

Photo courtesy of Yana Paskova/Getty Images

In the seemingly never-ending spectacle that is the modern day presidential campaign, the month of March 2015 will likely be remembered for the New York Times story revealing Hillary Clinton skirted State Department rules requiring work-related email retention. The fact that the former New York Senator was conducting government business over a private, in-home family email server dominated 2016 news for days afterwards. Naturally, three weeks into this story, the headlines and questions have taken a toll on Clinton's image.

The days of soaring, rockstar-like favorability ratings have come to an end for Mrs. Clinton (though this trend was emerging even before 'emailgate'). In fact, her post-scandal numbers more closely resemble the contentious days of the 2008 Democratic Primary than the lofty highs from her stint as Secretary of State.

Of the nine surveys to measure Clinton's favorability rating before and after the email scandal broke, all but one found her net favorable rating had dropped in its aftermath. The one that did not was conducted March 1-5, even though the email story broke late in the day on March 2, and didn't reach peak media fervor until days later. The poll was also completed five days before Hillary's largely-panned press conference on March 10.

Beyond the NBC/WSJ poll, Clinton's net favorable rating dropped anywhere from six to twenty-four points before and after the story broke. Economist/YouGov has taken two polls since the Clinton scandal broke, and has measured the smallest drop (from 52/44% on July 7-10, 2014, to an average 48/46% post-controversy).

The post-controversy Economist/YouGov numbers represent an average of two surveys, one conducted on March 14-16 and March 21-23, 2015.

Public Policy Polling, of all pollsters, measured Hillary's largest favorability drop. Granted, their pre-email story survey is two years old. Regardless, a 56/37% to 43/48% drop is stark nonetheless.

Clinton averaged a 52/38% favorable/unfavorable rating among pollsters that tested her favorability both before and after the email story. She averaged 46/43% after the story broke.

Other pollsters measured the effect of the email story on Hillary's public image in different ways, and the results are more mixed for the former First Lady.

Economist/YouGov, for example, conducted extensive post-email polling on Clinton, and found doubts about her sincerity up sharply from last year.

On the other hand, a Republican pollster found that just 36% of Americans have a less favorable view Mrs. Clinton as a result of the email scandal. Twenty-nine percent say the same in a recent CBS News survey. For comparison, 45% held a less favorable view of Mitt Romney as a result of the infamous "47%" remark in the early fall of 2012. Thirty-two percent felt the same about Barack Obama's 'You didn't build that' remark earlier that same year.

Furthermore, Hillary's outstanding numbers in the 2016 Democratic Primary are still in great shape:

*The pre-email scandal PPP poll in Wisconsin included former home-state Senator Russ Feingold as a 2016 Democratic Presidential primary candidate, while the post-email scandal survey did not. ^The post-controversy Economist/YouGov numbers represent an average of two surveys, one conducted on March 14-16 and March 21-23, 2015.

And while Mrs. Clinton's lead over her potential 2016 GOP contenders dropped across the board in the latest CNN poll, she still maintains double-digit leads against all of them.

It may sound fair to say the Clinton's are nothing if not deceitful. But as they've shown time and time again, they are resilient as well. While emailgate has undoubtedly been unhelpful for Hillaryland, it's not as bad as it could be, and seems far from fatal. Absent new information, Clinton will survive with minor scrapes and bruises.


Updated on March 25 to include new St. Leo University, PPP, Economist/YouGov, and CBS News polls. 

Operation Chaos Part Two? What The Lack Of A 2016 Democratic Primary Could Mean For The Republican Contest

These two men may not share much in common, but both were the prime beneficiaries of independent and Democratic votes in their respective Republican presidential primary bids. Photo courtesy of AP/Dennis Cook.

A recent piece featured in U.S. News & World Report by The Run 2016 founder Dave Catanese briefly examined the effects of a non-existent Democratic Presidential primary on a competitive GOP nominating contest.  His focus was New Hampshire, where self-identified independents make up a larger than average share of both the Republican and Democratic electorates. Catanese's suggestion is that with Clinton virtually clearing the Democratic field, the Granite State's independent base will flock to the Republican primary.

Exit polling indicates Catanese is correct. In 2008, when both political parties were deep in the throes of competitive contests, self-identified independents and Democrats made up 39% of New Hampshire Republican Primary voters. Four years later, with President Obama running unopposed on the Democratic side, independents and Democrats, as a percentage of voters, jumped twelve points to 51%.

To be fair, this anomaly isn't limited solely to the Granite State. In Iowa, independents and Democrats jumped from just 14% of GOP caucus-goers in 2008 (when both Republican and Democratic primaries were competitive), to 25% in 2012 (when Obama ran unopposed).

The number of non-Republicans voting in the GOP nominating contest increased from 2008 in sixteen of the twenty states that conducted exit polling in 2012, or 80% of the time.

Why the sharp increase? Absent a uniform national 'open primary' movement, the lack of a competitive primary on the Democratic side seems like the obvious culprit.

Based on data compiled from the twenty-seven states to feature an exit poll in the 2008 GOP primary, and final vote counts provided by Dave Leip's US Election Atlas, self-identified Republicans made up 76% of the Republican primary electorate, independents made up 20%, and Democrats made up 3%. All total, those who identified as something other than a Republican made up 24% of the national electorate.

In 2012, with all eyes on the GOP contest, Republicans dropped to just 70% of the primary electorate, versus 26% who identified as independent, and 5% who identified as a Democrat. That's a total of 30% of GOP primary voters who identified themselves as something other than a Republican. Again, these numbers are based on the twenty-states that conducted exit polling in the 2012 GOP primary.

Red cells highlight states where self-identified Republicans failed to make up more than a majority of the electorate.

Hillary Clinton Exceeds Records Set By Her Husband Against Republicans In 2016, Says New CNN Poll

Hillary Clinton laughs with ex-Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta. A recent CNN/ORC poll certainly gives her plenty reason to smile. Photo courtesy of Win McNamee/Getty Images

Still shaking off the sting of November's thumping, a recent CNN/ORC poll provided Democrats with some glimmers of hope. While most of the headlines generated by the poll were concerned with Obama's sudden surge in job approval, there was another eye-brow raising statistic in the release - Hillary Clinton positively dominates the entire 2016 Republican field, at a time when news of Jeb Bush's unofficial campaign launch has sucked up much of the media oxygen in the room.

So how does the recently much-hyped junior Bush stack up against the recently quiet ex-Secretary of State? Very poorly, actually.

If the election were held today, Hillary would win a clear majority of the vote (54%), while Jeb Bush just barely cross the 40% mark. Supposing the margin between the candidates holds, it would be the worst popular vote performance for Republicans in a Presidential election since Barry Goldwater's landslide 1964 loss.

And if Jeb Bush is not the Republican nominee, and you're a Republican voter, well...go ahead and bend over, per CNN, because 2016 is going to be a rough ride.

The tough-talking New Jerseyan, who most think is a shoe-in to run, trails Hillary by an embarrassing 56-39% margin. Candidates as diverse as Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz, all trail ex-Sen. Clinton by 20 points or more. Hillary even hits 60% in a head-to-head against Sen. Cruz.

If you buy the CNN/ORC numbers, Hillary's performance against all of these candidates is truly intimidating. Not only does she match her ex-two-term President husband's 1990s performance in many demographic metrics, she actually exceeds his showing in many more. Consider the table below, which documents the demographics in which Hillary Clinton performs exceptionally strong in the CNN poll, and compares her performance with past Democratic nominees for President dating back to 1972 (the beginning of the modern exit polling era). 

Exit Poll data courtesy of Best & Krueger's Exit Polls.

Clinton's performance against Jeb Bush among men, women, Democrats, and Independents, is the best performance for any Democratic presidential nominee since at least as far back as national exit polls track (1972). In other words, Hillary Clinton outperforms EVERY Democrat dating back to McGovern, in key demographics tested by the CNN/ORC poll. For example, she's up four among men, a feat not yet accomplished by any Democrat in exit polling to date. Only Bill Clinton came close to such an accomplishment when he carried the male vote by 3 points in 1992. But even then, that election is not directly comparable due to the unique strength of third-party candidate Ross Perot.

"No Man Is A Hero To His Valet" - The Home State Voter Phenomenon In Presidential Politics

The meaning of the proverb in the title above, as applied to the topic of this piece, is that no politician is a hero to his constituents, because it is those voters that know him best. And public opinion polls have certainly bore this out. More on the proverb, here. Photo courtesy of John Wagner/Getty Images

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was wildly popular in his home state, according to a mid-2012 Quinnipiac University poll - to the tune of a 73/16% job approval rating. Despite all the local love, just 36% of registered New York voters wanted him to run for President in 2016, including only 44% in his own party. Thirty-nine percent of all voters did not want him to run. A second survey taken by Sienna College just after the 2012 Presidential election showed that while Cuomo's job approval rating had deteriorated to some degree, he remained quite popular. Yet still - New Yorkers weren't willing to jump on board for a 2016 run, opposing such a move by an even larger 49 - 39% margin. It seems as though Andrew has followed in his father, Mario's, footsteps in more ways than one. A 1990 CBS News Exit Poll found just 45% of New Yorkers felt the popular, 8 year governor would be a good President, while an equally large share felt he would not be.

This apparent disconnect between a politician's home-state popularity, and the desire of their constituents to see them ascend to the presidency, doesn't end with New York voters. Governor Christie is in the same boat, even after his approval ratings shot through the roof in the aftermath of his apparently competent handling of Hurricane Sandy. Take, for example, a May 2013 NBC/Marist poll that found his statewide approval at 69%, with just 24% disapproving. Regardless, less than half of the number that approved of his job performance wanted him to run for President (34%), while a solid majority preferred he not run (55%). A Quinnipiac Poll from one month earlier had similar findings. Christie was again wildly popular (sporting a 70/23% job approval rating), while a slight plurality of New Jersey registered voters (47%) preferred he NOT run for President in 2016. And a six-month old Harper Polling survey, taken well before "Bridgegate" became a part of our political lexicon, found only 34% of New Jersey voters wanted Christie to run for President, while 43% would rather he didn't; this, despite a strong 56/34% favorability rating.

What drives this aversion to higher office so often seen in voters who are generally supportive of their home-state politicians? Is it mere selfishness - do they feel their Senator, or Governor, has done such a great job, that they couldn't bare for him or her to leave? Or is it less hero-worship, and something more apathetic? Do they fear national embarrassment? Either way, the phenomenon has reared its head time and again with both 2012 and 2016 presidential primary nominees, and throughout history (at least based on the somewhat limited public data I was able to retrieve on the topic.)

Consider the table below, which compiles state-based polls on local support for home-state Senators or Governors running for an upcoming Presidential race in one chart. The far right column documents the politician's local job approval or favorability rating at the time of the poll (where the information is available). Entries highlighted in red indicate at least a plurality of state-voters were supportive of the particular candidate running for President.

* denotes favorability, not job approval rating. **asks to rate the Governor/Senator's job performance as excellent, good, fair, or poor.  ^Asks whether Pawlenty/Bachmann should run for POTUS, Sen, House, or No Office.

Republicans TIE Hillary Clinton In Latest 2016 Poll, Though Demographics Point To Friendly GOP Electoral Landscape

The topsy-turvy nature of 2012 GOP primary polling looks to be repeating itself in the 2016 cycle. Seemingly out of nowhere, former Governor Mike Huckabee has deposed Chris Christie as the Republican leader to take on Hillary Clinton.

There's good and bad news for both Democrats and Republicans in the new 2016 national survey from the pollster liberals love and conservatives love to hate, the occasionally accurate and always trolling Public Policy Polling.

The bad news for Republicans is their previous standard-bearer, Chris Christie, continues to take a beating in the polls for the "bridgegate" scandal. The New Jersey Governor was a fairly rare political figure for this day and age where everyone seems to hate anyone and anything associated with politics and Washington D.C. He had a double-digit positive favorability rating that stretched across party lines. But over the course of just one month, Christie's favorability rating dropped from the best of the field (43/31%) to THE worst (31/46%; even lightning rod Tea Partier Ted Cruz manages a -10% net rating). Having previously led Hillary Clinton by 3-pts (45-42%), Christie now trails by 2-pts (45-43%).

What's more, the entire Republican field looks pretty unpopular nationally. The most popular potential GOP candidate, Mike Huckabee, could only manage a 37% favorability rating. And even then, his unfavorable rating was slightly higher at 38%. The rest of the field ranges from a net favorability rating of -6% (Paul Ryan) to -15% (Chris Christie).

The good news, however, is that despite all of this, every Republican tested looks like they could be competitive in a national race against Hillary Clinton in 2016. All of them except Ted Cruz poll within the margin of error of Hillary (3.4%). And Christie, the GOP's most unpopular candidate at the moment, leads Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren by significant margins.

The bad news for Democrats is that like the Republicans, their standard bearer has also fallen in the court of public opinion. Hillary Clinton's favorability entered negative territory for the first time in a PPP survey in years. And potential primary competitors Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden look particularly weak.

The good news for Democrats isn't readily obvious on the face of the poll. But they can find a little relief by pulling back the curtains and examining the crosstabs, for PPP is finding a much more friendly GOP climate than existed in either the 2012 or 2008 presidential elections. In fact, at least two of their more significant demographic findings (race and age) much more closely resemble the 2010 midterm electorate, when Republicans picked up a nearly unprecedented number of House seats and carried the popular vote handily.

Consider PPP's race findings, in which 3/4 of poll respondents identify as white, the highest amount since the 2004 presidential election. We know from examining every presidential election since 1992 that the white share of the vote has dropped from 4% to 2% per cycle. If that tradition holds in 2016, we could expect the white share of the total electorate to be between 68-70% (it was 72% in 2012). For comparison, CNN exit polls showed that white voters made up 77% of the vote in the 2010 midterm election. Likewise, Hispanic voters have seen their share of the electorate increase in every presidential election since 1992 (between 3% and 1% per cycle). In 2012, they made up 10% of voters. By that standard, you'd expect Hispanics to make up between 11-13% of a 2016 presidential electorate, and not the 9% found by PPP (which is much more similar to the 8% found by exit polls in 2010). The African American and Asian share of the vote hasn't increased in ALL of the presidential cycles, but has been on a general upward trend of late.

So I'd posit that the 75 / 12 / 9 / 4% white/black/Hispanic/Asian-Other finding from PPP's national survey is less reflective of a likely 2016 presidential electorate than, say, a 69 / 13 / 12 / 6% finding. Had this been PPP's racial identification finding, Hillary Clinton's narrow margins over her Republican competitors naturally grows (as Democrats have historically performed stronger with minority than white voters). The chart below documents what the PPP results would have been had they found the more racially diverse electorate described above, all other findings remaining the same:

Six Polls In Two Days: Cuccinelli Is Definitely Losing, But Pollsters Disagree On Whether He's Closing Or Fading

By far his highest profile campaign surrogate, Hillary Clinton's widespread popularity may indeed help McAuliffe to put it away next week. And more than a few DC journalists have reported that the McAuliffe '13 campaign serves the dual purpose of being a test run Hillary's old inner circle. A.P. photo.

For anyone trying to get a handle on the state of the Virginia Governor's race with just a week to go, today was not the best day to tune in. No less than SIX polling firms have released new numbers since Tuesday, all without a lot in common. Though one overiding theme is present in all of them: Ken Cuccinelli is losing.

In fact, McAuliffe has led his opponent in the last 32 consecutive polls. But agreement on who is winning is where the similarities stop. Consider the small table below, which groups all five recent surveys into one chart:

The Democrat leads by anywhere from a 4-pt to 15-pt spread, with McAuliffe ranging between 42-51% of the vote, Cuccinelli 33-41%, and Sarvis 8-12%.

So take your pick, right?

The problem for Republicans, however, is no matter how you mix and match those polling numbers, there just isn't a winning scenario for Ken Cuccinelli. McAuliffe's worst performance (42% in the Hampton poll) is still better than Cuccinelli's best (41% in the Quinnipiac poll).

Digressing back to the recent poll variation; the trajectory of the race is hard to decipher not simply because of the topline result, but because of divergent trendlines as well. The Washington Post and Roanoke College polls seem to think the ground is crumbling beneath the Republican nominee. In mid-September, McAuliffe led Cuccinelli 47-39%. That lead grew to 51-39% five weeks later. Roanoke found a similar trend, though to a greater extent. Just 3 weeks ago, the local Virginia pollster found the Democrat up against the Republican and Libertarian, 41-36-9%. He's now at 48-33-10%.

Democrats Struggle Out West, Steady In The East: An Early Quinnipiac Swing-State Analysis

There's been a discernible decline in the President's job approval ratings in the West and Midwest, according to 2013 Quinnipiac swing-state polling to date. The drop is punctuated by notably weak 2016 performances from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Though it may not feel like it, we're rapidly approaching the one year anniversary of the painfully close presidential election that wasn't; a contest who's much-hyped competitiveness failed to match its anticlimactic 51-47% result.

Its been nearly a year since ratings-hungry pundits and wishful Republicans were surprised to learn that, prior election results aside, Americans liked the job the President was doing (54% vs. 45%, to be exact), primarily blamed his predecessor for the disastrous economy (53% vs. 38%), and believed economic conditions were improving rather than worsening (39% vs. 30%).

So as we approach the Fall of his 5th year in office, how is the President holding up?

The answer depends, at least from a regional standpoint.

Fortunately, Quinnipiac has been in the field in swing-states across the country on a number of occasions so far this year for 2014 and 2016 election purposes, allowing us a glimpse at both the President and his potential successor's standing. And according to their findings, Barack Obama has held up well in East Coast swing-states (Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania), especially since the May 2013 IRS/NRA fall-out, while falling precipitously in the West and Midwest (Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio).

Consider the table below:

The difference in Obama's approval rating in East Coast vs. West/Midwest swing-states is unmistakable. His approval rating in the 3 East Coast states surveyed by Quinnipiac is roughly par (48/48%) with his winning margin in those states (51-48%).

How Concerned Should Hillaryland Be About Barack Obama's Political Standing In 2016?

Though Clinton's soaring approval ratings seemingly did little to help Gore in 2000, and McCain's popular vote percentage far exceeded the number who approved of the job Dubya was doing, the elder Bush's electoral performance in 1988 closely mirrored public approval of his boss, Ronald Reagan. Photo taken July 1988, courtesy of the Reagan Library.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating currently sits at about 45/50% per the Real Clear Politics aggregator, 44/50% according to Huffington Posts's Pollster, or 46/49% per TPM Polltracker.

All in all, these are some pretty rough numbers for the President, especially considering where he stood for most of the 2012 election year, and represents one of his worst periods in terms of job approval since the Fall of  2010 and 2011.

Fortunately for Obama, he'll never have to stand before voters for re-election again. Unfortunately for Democrats, they'll endure the burden of running for office with the anchor of an unpopular Presidency around their neck, assuming Obama's ratings hold at current levels or get worse.

In fact, recent history would suggest that 2014 Senate and House contenders should fear the President's popularity the most. In 2010, Obama sported an abysmal 44/55% job approval rating, and Republicans won in a landslide. Something similar happened in 2006, when George W. Bush had a 43/57% approval rating, and the Democrats won in a landslide. In 2002, a hugely popular post-9/11 George Bush was able to flout tradition when his party won an impressive popular vote victory and picked up several seats.

But what if we look further down the road? Can the way voters feel about President Obama on election night 2016 affect the vote count for Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of possible 2016 Democratic nominees? Intuition and common-sense suggests yes, and at least one poll-analyst seems to agree. But historical evidence provides room for doubt.

The series of tables below detail outgoing Presidential job approval ratings in the final month(s) of the presidential campaigns to replace them. And as you can see, especially with regards to the 2008, 2000, and 1960 presidential elections, the term-limited President's ratings didn't appear to make or break his party's nominee:

A Peculiar Disconnect Between PPP's Early State & National 2016 Polling

Hillary Clinton could join her husband and Jimmy Carter as the only Democrats to carry Georgia since 1960, if early PPP polling is any indiciation. About the photo: Bill Clinton dines with Jimmy Carter in a bar in Atlanta in August 1992. Courtesy of AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

In what had to be considered excellent news for Democrats across the country last week, another PPP 2016 survey in loyally Republican Georgia shows Hillary Clinton amazingly competitive in what has typically been unfriendly territory for Democrats, and Hillary Clinton personally.

Democrats haven't won in Georgia at a presidential level since Bill Clinton's narrow half-point victory in 1992. Before that, it was native son Jimmy Carter in 1980. As for Hillary, though she's never faced the Georgia general electorate, her own party wasn't very kind to her on the only occasion she's ever had to run on their statewide ballot (losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary by 35 points).

But that could all change in 2016 if Public Policy Polling's state surveys are on the mark. For the second time this year, Hillary Clinton essentially TIES or LEADS all of her likely Republican competitors in the largest state of the Deep South:

Those would be very impressive numbers for any Democrat, especially considering Barack Obama lost the state by 8 and 5 points in 2012 and 2008, while John Kerry and Al Gore lost the state by 17 and 12 points in 2004 and 2000.

But the Georgia numbers caught the eye of at least one pollster for another reason - how exactly could Hillary Clinton be performing so well in Georgia, while finding herself in a tie with most of her GOP opponents in a NATIONAL survey from the same polling company just two weeks prior?

Consider this: in each of the last four presidential elections (2000-2012), the state of Georgia has voted about a net 12 points more for the Republican over the Democrat than the nation as a whole. For example, while Barack Obama carried the national popular vote by a margin of 4 points in 2012, Mitt Romney won Georgia by 8 points.

Obama dispensed of McCain nationwide by 7 points in 2008, while McCain still managed to carry Georgia by 5.

Democratic Pollster finds 2016 Republican Candidates Nipping At Hillary's Heels

Photos courtesy of Donkeyhotey

Despite signs of shocking strength in Public Policy Polling 2016 state surveys earlier this year, the unquestionable front-runner for the Democratic nomination is seeing less success at a national level, especially considering the most recent numbers from the left-leaning NC based pollster:

So Gov. Chris Christie, fmr. VP nominee Paul Ryan, and President Bush's brother Jeb are all essentially tied with Hillary Clinton. Marco Rubio is within the margin of error, and Rand Paul is within 10 points of her.

What's going on here? I thought Hillary was unstoppable, poised to not only win by double digits in the general election against all of her potential opponents, but poised to start picking off traditionally red states in a fashion not seen since the '84 Reagan landslide.

In fact, just as recently as May, PPP found a considerably stronger Hillary Clinton that led Marco Rubio and Rand Paul by double-digits, and Chris Christie by 3 points. And in PPP's first 2016 poll from January, Clinton led Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan by 14 points. See the chart below:

But the most recent PPP poll is notable not simply because of how well the Republican candidates perform against Clinton relative to previous PPP surveys, but also how they perform relative to all other 2016 polling to date:

Marist was the last non-PPP pollster to survey the 2016 Presidential race, and they did NOT find any of the Republican candidates tied with Clinton. Christie only managed 41% to Clinton's 47%. And it only gets worse from there for the rest. Paul Ryan, who trailed Hillary Clinton by just two points in the PPP poll, finds himself a whopping 16 points behind the Democratic frontrunner. Jeb Bush trailed Hillary by a 8 points (as opposed to 3 points in the PPP poll), and Rubio, Paul, and Perry were all  down double digits.

Quinnipiac found similar results in late June and May, with Christie down 6 to Clinton, Bush down 8, and Paul down double-digits. And as far back as March, Quinnipiac had Clinton ahead of Christie by 8, Ryan by 12, and Rubio by 16. So as you can see, the recent PPP numbers represent quite a shift from the start of the year.

Pulling back the curtains on the poll results, we see some interesting racial splits among various 2016 match-ups. For example, NONE of the GOP candidates perform as well with white voters as Romney did in 2012, when he defeated Obama 59-39%. In fact, only Chris Christie and Paul Ryan manage to win whites by double digits against Hillary (by 12 and 11 points, respectively), lending credence to the notion advanced by some that Republicans will have trouble repeating their 2012 performance with white voters against a Democrat who is not an African American. Also notable is the fact that Hillary Clinton is able to keep Rand Paul limited to a 6 point advantage (46-40%) among white voters.

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.