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:

Trump vs. Rubio vs. Cruz In The Electoral College - Who Beats Clinton?

Getty image

As the 2016 presidential race progresses, I've given in and decided to try my hand at a bit of electoral projection. True, I'm playing in a crowded field with bigger and better players, but this is mostly for me. Plus, everyone needs a hobby.

For starters, this projection will be purely electoral college based, relying entirely on polling and nothing else, as opposed to say FiveThirtyEight, which employs a nifty "polling plus" forecast. Why not just rely on Pollster, or Real Clear Politics, you might ask? While both sites are exemplary, RCP excludes some surveys, and Pollster has yet to start projections for individual states in the general election - not to mention both sites aren't quite as up-to-date with the latest polling information as I would like them to be.

At least for now, each state's electoral college projection will be based on every state poll released in the last two months. For example, today's update would be based on polling dating back to December 25, 2015. Obviously, as the pace of general election polling picks up through the rest of the year, the projection will be based on a smaller time frame.

Since we're still nine months from the presidential race, very little general election polling has been done in most states, while other states have seen no polling at all. Regarding states that have not had any polls conducted over the last two months, the electoral college projection will be based on an average of the most recent survey conducted after Trump's June 2015 presidential announcement, and any survey conducted within one month of that most recent poll. If there has been NO polling post Trump-announcement, the electoral college projection will be based on an average of that state's 2004 and 2012 presidential election results. I've chosen 2004 and 2012 as a baseline in the absence of any polling because these two elections featured a relatively moderate-to-small win for the two political parties - the Republicans won by 2.5 nationally in 2004, while the Democrats won by 3.9 points in 2012.

Electoral college projections will be made for the three most likely GOP nominees (Trump, Rubio, and Cruz) using various shades of blue (for Democrats) and red (for Republicans), based on the Republican candidate's lead or deficit against the Democratic candidate. For example, the darker the shade of red, the stronger the Republican's lead against Hillary Clinton. The lighter the shade of blue, the smaller Hillary Clinton's advantage against the Republican candidate. For an illustration, see the map below:

Pink = GOP lead of less than five points. Light red = GOP lead of five to just-under ten points. Red = GOP lead of ten to just-under twenty points. Dark red = GOP lead of twenty points or more.
Very light blue = Democratic lead of less than five points. Light blue = Democratic lead of five to just-under ten points. Blue = Democratic lead of ten to just-under twenty points. Dark blue = Democratic lead of twenty points or more.

Now, on to the projections...starting with the strongest Republican candidate, based on current polling:

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.

Chris Christie's Republican Problem: A Year Of Scandal Damages His Ratings With An Already Suspicious Base

Chris Christie is the least popular Republican in the 2016 primary field, and that's according to Republicans. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are both popular with the base. Center illustration is courtesy of Daniel Adel. Illustration on the left is courtesy of Ismael Roldan. Illustration on the right is courtesy of DonkeyHotey.

In a July 2013 piece written on this blog, I suggested that a bipartisanly popular Governor Chris Christie would likely have a harder time winning a GOP primary than all three of his recent predecessors, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W. Bush. The hypothesis was based on an examination of all four politician's favorability ratings with members of their own party in the lead-up to the presidential primary.

Some, myself included, were surprised to learn that, despite home-state rockstar status in the wake of his handling of the Hurricane Sandy recovery, and a national favorability rating in the positive double-digits with voters of all stripes, Christie was in a worse position with his own party than known moderates that ran for President before him.

Flash-forward eighteen months to present day, and the situation has only gotten worse for Governor Christie. Not only did the Bridgegate scandal cause his home-state favorability rating to tumble hard back to earth, but his image has suffered nationally as well. No longer are Democrats giving him the benefit of the doubt - he's essentially any old Republican to them now. Independents, the group among whom Christie often saw his best numbers, now barely keep him above water.

But most important for his lingering presidential run, Christie is in a dangerously perilous position with the people he needs to win a primary - Republicans. In fact, his position is considerably worse than any one of the large pool of potential contenders bantered about by pundits. It's also considerably worse than serious contenders from years past, such as Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani.

Christie's trouble couldn't be more apparent than in a recent Monmouth University Poll of fifteen possible Republican presidential candidates. He ranks second-to-last in terms of net favorability, beating out Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (who only 23% of Republicans are familiar enough with to rate at all; Christie, meanwhile, is the second best-known of the fifteen candidates tested, behind Mitt Romney).

Like Father, Like Son? Rand Paul Takes A Hit Among Republicans, as Americans Grow More Hawkish on ISIS

After riding high for a while, Rand Paul's primary numbers return to mediocre in the wake of renewed interest in international affairs.

Former Congressman Ron Paul ran twice for President, and never attracted more than 11% of Republican primary voters nationally. He never won a single contest, in either 2008 or 2012. His best statewide performance came in the form of a caucus, in the small state of Maine, where he won just 36% of the vote, losing to Mitt Romney with 38%.

This poor performance shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, especially considering the senior Paul was never your typical Republican primary candidate for President (being a renowned isolationist and 9/11 truther).

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul's son, Rand, the political atmosphere in which he is likely to launch a 2016 presidential bid promises to be more foreign policy focused than the two his father ran in. And Rand has done very little to distance himself from his father's controversial views on international affairs, even as Americans, and particularly Republicans, become more willing to get involved in the festering situation in Iraq.

Perhaps it's a coincidence, but it just so happens that as American awareness of ISIS and the dangers they pose at home and abroad rises, Sen. Rand Paul's GOP primary numbers suffer. It has been over one year since I wrote about Senator Rand Paul's initial rise among Republican voters, in the wake of an old-fashioned filibuster that lit up social media. But his standing has deteriorated since then. Consider the chart below, which documents every national or state Republican presidential primary poll taken since the end of June (when the first national surveys on Americans' views towards ISIS began appearing):

Reviving Rick Perry - The Master of Debate Debacles Is Back On Top After A 3-Year Repentance

Photo courtesy of Joyce Marshall/AP

It was the 'oops' heard 'round the world. A painstakingly demeaning moment in front of millions of TV viewers nationwide turned Texas Governor Rick Perry's 2012 Presidential campaign upside down. Perry, who entered the field later than any contender, needed to make a good impression on voters just tuning into the race. Instead, he reenforced preconceived notions. Like the fact that he was an intellectual lightweight, an accusation hurled often at ex-President George W. Bush. And who could blame anyone for buying into those stereotypes? It's not as if Perry was trapped in a 'gotcha moment' by the debate moderator. He was hoisted by his own petard (thanks Selina!), unable to complete his own talking point on the three federal agencies he would abolish as President.

Needless to say, the "oops" moment was a low point for the Perry campaign. He quickly fell into single digits in national polling and never recovered, having made a huge splash upon his late entry into the race on August 13, 2011. Before the "oops" debate on November 9, 2011, Perry averaged 19% in national Republican primary polls. After that debate, until he suspended his campaign on Jan 19, 2012, he only averaged 7%. See the table below:

Polling data used in averages is compiled from The Roper Center's i-poll database.

Thoroughly mocked and humiliated on a national level, Perry returned home to finish out the three remaining years of his fourth term as governor. And not even they were happy to see him.

If "oops" was Perry's low moment, then his best moment since then would certainly have to be now. After the failure that was 2012, Perry set out to rekindle relationships and reassure potential supporters that 2016 would be much more serious. And external political events, namely the crisis of unaccompanied immigrant children flooding the southern border, have further boosted his profile. All of this has culminated in the two most recent national 2016 GOP primary surveys finding Perry essentially tied for first place.

A recent Fox News poll finds that while several potential candidates are clustered together at the top, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush emerge with 12% a piece, more than anyone else. A CNN poll released just a couple of days earlier found Perry again in double digits amidst a crowded field, with 11%. Chris Christie and Rand Paul led with 13% and 12%, putting Perry well within the +/- 4.5% margin of error.

Yet perhaps more important than Perry's raw percentage of the likely 2016 Republican primary vote are the trend lines. In the case of the Fox News poll, Perry drastically improved his performance from their prior survey in April, where he only managed 5% of the vote (good enough for 6th place). In the CNN survey, Perry nearly doubled his level of support from their prior poll just two months ago, jumping from 7th to 3rd place.

"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.

The Predictive Power of (Very) Early Presidential Primary Polling Part V - 1980 & 2012 Republican Primaries

Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford were interparty rivals for two consecutive primary cycles. Ford won their first encounter. The two were essentially tied in early 1980 GOP primary polling, until Ford announced he would not run for President a second time. Photograph by David Kennerly.

My original intent was to post this multi-part series all in sequence. But as it often does, life, work, and general procrastination took over. Oh well, better late than never. Here is the completed string of posts, in two final parts, on the extent to which very early primary polling has foretold final primary results, looking only at the fifteen contested presidential primaries dating back to 1976.

The data leaves room for one conclusion - the clear polling "frontrunner" in the first and/or second years following the preceding presidential election is seldom the eventual nominee. So seldom that it has only occurred three times since 1976, as discussed in Part I of this series.

The remaining twelve contested presidential primaries can be split evenly into two groups: (1) those where the eventual nominee appeared in early surveys, but not as the clear frontrunner (as discussed in Parts II through IV, and this post in particular), and (2) those where the eventual nominee seems to have come from nowhere, emerging in much later polling, sometimes after primary contests have begun (which is coming up in part VI).

Joining the 2000 and 2008 Republican and 1980 and 1984 Democratic primaries, the 1980 and 2012 Republican primaries wrap up this discussion of contests falling into group one discussed above. It may be surprising to learn that Ronald Reagan, who won both of his general election contests handily, and carried 60% of the primary vote in what was originally a crowded 1980 field, was NOT the clear frontrunner in 1977 and 1978, years before any contest was ever held. And the same can be said for Mitt Romney in 2012 - despite a decisive overall victory, his polling advantage was no where near as substantial in 2009. Consider the two tables below.

 

As you can see in the 1st table, Gerald Ford, who became an unexpected thorn in Reagan's second quest for the Presidency in 1976, was back and causing trouble again for his third. The unelected former President's close loss to Jimmy Carter led many to speculate Ford might run again, and he did little to squelch the speculation. As far as pollsters were concerned in the first year or so following Carter's victory, Ford's odds of winning the Republican nomination for a second time were as good as Reagan's. Across twelve surveys taken in 1977-1978, the two traded polling leads and averaged 35% of the Republican electorate apiece. Meanwhile, 1980 runners-up George H.W. Bush and John Anderson barely registered in early primary polls.

Mitt Romney, like Reagan before him, had also run for the Presidency before, and also had an old nemesis holding him back from "clear frontrunner" status in those first months of primary polling following Obama's historic win. Mike Huckabee had surged from no where in 2008 to win the Iowa Caucus, and was polling either in 1st or 2nd place in every '12 GOP primary survey taken in 2009. Romney was also locked in a three-way battle for early polling supremacy with the most recent Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. In fact, it was Palin who had the highest polling average among likely Republican primary voters in 2009, buoyed largely by a Rasmussen survey taken the day after the 2008 election showing her with the support of nearly 2/3 of likely 2012 primary voters. Though he was rarely tested in 2009, the few times he was, Rudy Guiliani posted formidable numbers, even leading the field in one Fox News poll.

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:

The Predictive Power of (Very) Early Presidential Primary Polling Part I - Historically Unreliable

Colin Powell was grabbing headlines as a potential candidate for President in 1996 as early as 1993. Though he never actually led Dole in primary polling until just before he announced he would not be a candidate in November of 1995.

Though the 2016 presidential primaries won't officially get under way for another two years, the shadow campaign is upon us, as indicated by the flourish of recent polls and articles on the subject.  And the tea leaves for both parties couldn't be more different; for Democrats, the race appears to be Hillary's to take - if she wants it, while the Republican race is anyone's guess.

Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run, looks poised to wrap up the Democratic nomination in one fell swoop, as early polling has shown her very strong in the Democratic primary - stronger, in fact, than any candidate in a contested primary dating back to 1976.

Republican primary polling has been a bit more topsy-turvy to date, featuring no less than five different leaders over the last year (making it awfully reminiscent of the 2012 primary process). Those leaders have been Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio:

In spite of the deluge of early primary surveys since last year's election, there are many who find the early speculation premature at best, or entirely futile at worst. “But early primary polling isn’t predictive of actual primary results!” is a frequent refrain for the many that abhor such early conjecture about an election that’s still three years away.

So in an attempt to settle the issue, I decided to take a look at the predictive power of Democratic and Republican Presidential primary polling from 1976-2012. And there were more than a few surprises.

Note, Nate Silver did something similar a few years ago, though if you click on the link, you'll see his focus was on polling one-year out from the start of actual primary contests. This piece will examine the predictive power of those polls two and three-years out from the start of the contests (where such polling data is available).

Very Conservative Voters Lift Ted Cruz In Latest Repubilcan Primary Polling

Photo courtesy of MarioPiperni.com

The 10-month Senator from Texas has made quite the stir in the last few weeks, much to the chagrin of the GOP Establishment upper-brass, yet to the delight of the conservative grassroots. Conducting a 21-hour Senate filibuster can do that to you. And whether by calculated design or not, Cruz has gotten the attention of Republican primary voters, at least according to a recent Public Policy Polling Survey.

In a crowded field of 9 candidates, he manages 20% of the vote, good enough for first place over Rand Paul's 17%, and eight points better than his performance in PPP's last 2016 poll.

Indeed, Cruz's rise has been a fast one, if you buy PPP's numbers. After debuting in their GOP primary polling in mid May at 7% (good enough for 6th place in a 9 candidate field), he jumped to 12% in July. And for the third survey in a row, Cruz gained again, settling at his current 20%.

At that rate, Cruz could be well on his way to a third of the primary vote within the next couple months. Of course, PPP has featured an array of GOP primary leaders since starting their 2016 polling last year (Christie, Rubio, and Rand Paul have all led in the survey at some point), and Cruz's rise may be as temporary as some of theirs. But one thing is for sure: the more self-identified "very conservative" voters showing up in 2016 GOP primary polling, the better for Ted Cruz.

Why is that? Because he's performing really well among this segment of Republican primary voters. He picks up 34%, the largest  percentage obtained by any potential 2016 GOP candidate polled by PPP to date (Marco Rubio won 29% of 'very conservative voters' in a January survey). Not only that, but Cruz towers above the rest of the field in this category, leaving Rand Paul and Paul Ryan far behind in 2nd and third place with 17% and 12%, respectively.

This matters because very conservative voters make up such a large portion of the likely GOP electorate. Consider the table below:

At the time the poll was taken, 'very conservative' respondents made up the largest block of Republican primary voters. In fact, conservative voters in general haven't dropped below 74% of primary voters in a PPP poll yet.

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.

2016: Joe Biden vs. Chris Christie Shaping Up To Be A Polling NIGHTMARE For Democrats

Photo taken at the September 11th anniversary ceremony in 2010, courtesy of Lucas Jackson-Pool/Getty Images

The new Virginia Quinnipiac poll released this morning holds one troubling bit of information for Democrats: the next election could be a disaster at the presidential level, that is, if they're unfortunate enough to wind up with Chris Christie as their opponent, and Joe Biden as their nominee.

The Virginia survey finds Gov. Chris Christie defeating Vice President Joe Biden in a hypothetical presidential race by 8 points, or 46-38%. That's awfully reminiscent of the 2004 presidential result, but a far cry from the 6 and 4 point victories for Barack Obama in '08 and '12. In fact, if Christie's 8 point margin over Biden were to hold until election day, it would represent a net 12 point shift in the Republicans favor since the 2012 Presidential election.

But Virginia isn't the only state seeing drastically different results from 2012 in the event of a Christie/Biden contest. In fact, all 12 of the public surveys on the race show a shift in the Republicans favor from 2012 of no less than 4 points, and no more than 29! See the chart below:

In 11 of the 12 state and national polls, Chris Christie leads Joe Biden, frequently by significant margins.

Consider the spate of state polls released by Quinnipiac this year. A handful of purple swing-states turn SOLID red when respondents are asked to choose between Christie and Biden in a hypothetical 2016 race.

Could the party that nominated Romney & McCain pass on Christie in 2016? A Look at Pre-Primary Favorability Polling

Though it may sound surprising, the two men in the middle averaged higher favorability ratings with Republicans in the run-up to their primary runs than Chris Christie has averaged so far this year. But George W. Bush leaves all three far behind in terms of pre-primary adoration from their own party.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has managed to shock political junkies with an unparalleled bipartisan allure in an intensely divisive era.

That appeal became apparent in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, and was recently reinforced by a new national Gallup poll showing Christie with a double-digit net positive favorability rating among Republicans (+35), Independents (+30), AND DEMOCRATS (+34)!

If you buy the Gallup numbers, Christie is in fine shape with his own party, contrary to some of the more vocal personalities on the Right. That's even more surprising after taking a step back to examine what has transpired between the New Jersey Governor and his national political base over the last several months - the Obama/Sandy embrace days before Mitt Romney was defeated at the ballot box, the aggressive press conference ripping House Republicans for allegedly playing politics with the Sandy relief bill, culminating in a seemingly self-serving snub at Senate Republicans regarding the timing of an upcoming special Senate contest. 

Yet despite the murmurings from disgruntled Conservatives, Governor Christie's popularity has held up remarkably well with Republicans and GOP primary voters, even beyond the single June Gallup poll cited above. See the chart below:

(*) denotes survey data comes from a Republican sub-sample. Polls without (*) are of GOP primary voters. Data compiled from Huffington Post Pollster, Polling Report, and Argo Journal.

To date, Christie has managed a net 25 point favorability rating among Republicans nation wide, at least based on the somewhat limited pool of data we have available since the 2012 election.

That's good enough to win a GOP presidential nomination, right?

Maybe. But for what it's worth, BOTH of the Republican party's last two presidential nominees had higher pre-primary favorability ratings within their own party than Chris Christie does today; a fact that really comes into focus when you recall the last two nominees were noted squishy 'RINOS' John McCain and Mitt Romney. 

Consider Senator John McCain, who wrapped up his party's nomination in March 2008, just two months after it began, and defeated runners-up Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee by an impressive 47-22-20%. On the eve of the Iowa Caucus (which he lost handily), McCain had averaged a 55/23% fav/unfav rating with Republicans since the 2004 election.

(*) denotes survey data comes from a Republican sub-sample. Polls without (*) are of GOP primary voters. Data compiled from Huffington Post Pollster, Polling Report, and Real Clear Politics.

While McCain's average unfavorable rating was identical to Christie's today, his favorable rating with Republicans was 7 points higher (55 vs. 48%).  And by the time McCain actually won his first primary contest, a staggering 75% of New Hampshire primary voters viewed him favorably.

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)