The Rise of Non-White Voters: Why The Racial Composition Of National 2016 Election Polls May Be Missing The Mark

Exit polling indicates that the non-white share of the electorate has increased by 2-4% in every presidential election since 1992. Picture courtesy of Jacquelyn Martin/A.P.

The Cook Political Report's Political Analyst David Wasserman recently tweeted the message below, regarding the likely racial make-up of the 2016 presidential election:

New @CookPolitical: White % of electorate may fall from 72% to 70%, Latinos & Asians/Others each up 1%, AA % stable: http://t.co/lMsalsgl5L

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) June 19, 2015

Wasserman's tweet revives a point made very shortly following the 2012 election, when I posited that based on demographic shifts since 1992, white voters could expect to make up anywhere between 68-70% of the 2016 electorate.  Why? Because the white share of the presidential vote has dropped between two and four points every cycle since 1992.

Well, the prognosticators at The Cook Political Report have spoken. And given their level of expertise in these matters, I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt and go with their estimate - the 2016 electorate should be roughly 70% white, and 30% non-white.

Based on Wasserman's analysis, it might be a bit surprising to learn that the racial composition of some pollsters' surveys looks little like his assumption of the 2016 electorate. Democratic firm Public Policy Polling's most recent national survey found likely voters identifying as 74% white, and 26% non-white. If PPP's past success boils down to, what their director Tom Jensen called in 2013 "... a well informed but still not entirely empirical hunch," you have to wonder what less-than-empirical hunch led them to peg the 2016 electorate at 74% white, 26% nonwhite. These figures represent an even LESS racially diverse electorate than the one that showed up in the 2012 presidential election. And as I've already noted, the electorate has become MORE racially diverse in every presidential election since 1992. In other words, for the 2016 electorate to resemble PPP's racial composition, a major reversal of precedent is required.

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.

New Quinnpiac Poll Finds Gillespie Within 10 Points of Mark Warner - But He's Lagging With Republicans

Photo courtesy of the A.P.

A brand new survey out this morning from Quinnipiac University finds the former head of the RNC, Ed Gillespie, within reaching distance of popular Democratic Senator Mark Warner in the Virginia Senate race. Warner, who sports an impressive 52/34% favorability rating, only clocks in at 48%, while Gillespie attracts 39%.

Quinnipiac's previous Virginia survey from March found Gillespie trailing 46-31%, though that was among registered voters. The new survey was conducted among likely voters, so it isn't exactly comparable.

 Looking at the crosstabs, Warner has leads among women (50-37%) and men (46-41%). Despite trailing by nine points overall, Gillespie actually attracts more Independent voters than Warner, leading among this subgroup 43-41%. Of particular note was the passage below from the official poll release:

"Actually Gillespie is tied with Warner among independents but the incumbent's lead rests on Sen. Warner doing about 15 percentage points better among Democrats than Gillespie does among Republicans."

So Warner is doing a better job of consolidating his Democratic base than Gillespie is his Republican base. Warner racks up an astonishing 94% of Democratic voters. Compare that figure to Gov. Terry McAuliffe's performance with Democrats in the 2013 Governor race against Ken Cuccinelli, when McAuliffe captured 95% of the Democratic vote. That's the same percentage won by Tim Kaine and Barack Obama in their respective 2012 matches.

If you buy the Quinnipiac numbers, it appears as though Warner has maxed out his Democratic vote. But that isn't necessarily the case for Ed Gillespie.  The Republican is only capturing 78% of his base. That's significantly lower than where Ken Cuccinelli wound up in 2013 (92%), or even George Allen and Mitt Romney in 2012 (93%). In other words, Gillespie likely has room to grow.

Since Quinnipiac took the time to point out the basis Warner's lead is predicated on, let's consider how the survey would have looked had Gillespie performed as well among Republicans as Warner did among Democrats. In other words, what would the poll results have been if both Warner AND Gillespie attract 94% of their bases?

What was a 48-39% lead for Mark Warner becomes a 44-43% lead.

Obviously, the campaigns don't take place in a vacuum, and the numbers will shift between now and election day. But it is interesting to see how close of a race we could have assuming two things: 1) Quinnipiac's numbers are accurate, and 2) Republicans rally almost unanimously around Gillespie.

It's Public Policy Polling vs. Quinnipiac University in Ohio...Again

This isn't the first time the two reputable pollsters have presented wildly disparate findings. Though it's becoming standard with their results in the state of Ohio. Back in August, I noted on this blog how recently released PPP and Quinnipiac University polls in Ohio diverged significantly. It was as though the polling firms had polled entirely different universes.

In one (found by Quinnipiac), the Governor of Ohio was pretty darn popular, sporting a 54% job approval rating, versus just a 32% disapproval rating. Voters said, by a 49-37% margin, that Kasich deserved reelection. And he led his most likely Democratic opponent, Ed Fitzgerald, by fourteen points. President Obama was in terrible shape in the state as well, with a 40/57% approval rating.

In the other (found by PPP), the Governor was struggling, managing just a 42/47% approval rating, and trailing his virtually unknown Democratic opponent by three points. President Obama was underwater (47/49%), but not nearly to the extent found by Quinnipiac.

Then last month, Quinnipiac and PPP smacked us with a dose of deja vu - the two pollsters were butting heads again, with PPP finding a notably more anti-Kasich electorate than the Q-poll, especially with regards to the Governor's job approval rating. Consider the chart below of Gov. John Kasich's job approval rating, as well as his performance against Ed Fitzgerald, in Quinnipiac and PPP polling over the last year:

Noting the two most recent polls in the above table, you can see how once again, PPP and Quinnipiac paint very different pictures for the state of Ohio voter's opinion on their Governor and the 2014 race. According to the former, Kasich is unpopular (37/42% job approval), and running neck and neck with his most likely Democratic challenger. According to the latter, Kasich is quite popular (52/33% job approval), and enjoys a modest but discernible lead in a hypothetical 2014 match-up.

What is the big discrepancy stemming from? It isn't that the two polling firms disagree on the likely makeup of the 2014 midterm electorate. Their demographic findings are practically identical. No, the variance simply stems from disparate findings with regards to the various demographic and political groups being tested. See the table below

As you can see, the gulf between the two pollster's numbers is so steep, it can't be explained by the larger-than-normal margin of error associated with specific demographic findings. The difference between Gov. Kasich's overall job approval in the November PPP poll and November Quinnipiac survey is a net 24 points. Among men only, it's a net 34 points. With women, 24 points. With 18-29 year olds, there is a staggering 52 point difference between PPP and Quinnipiac's job approval findings for Gov. Kasich. The discrepancies show up in the head-to-head polling against Democrat Ed Fitzgerald as well, though to a lesser extent than the Governor's job approval rating:

So what difference does any of this make, anyway? Well, it makes a huge difference to the Kasich and Fitzgerald campaigns, for obvious reasons. But beyond that, it makes a difference to Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute, and Public Policy Polling. There's just no way to test their accuracy at this point, at least not until more pollsters weigh in on the state of things in Ohio. Both polling firms performed relatively well in the 2012 election, and have strong track records. Quinnipiac is nonpartisan. PPP is not, and has come under a fair amount of fire recently from poll-watchers for suspect methodological practices. Regardless, both sides have some numbers to point to to prop up their standing. "Take your pick," so to speak.

And if that's what you intend to do, former TNR polling writer, and new New York Times employee, Nate Cohn offers his advice on which to pick.

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%.

Monmouth, Rutgers-Eagleton Final NJ Senate Polls Disagree On Strengh Of Lonegan Surge

Conservative heavyweights that you wouldn't expect to see campaigning for Republicans in blue New Jersey, like Rick Perry, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin, began descending on the state in mid-September, about the same time Lonegan's polling rise began. From left to right, photo courtesy of John Munson/The Star-Ledger, Ruby Cramer/Buzzfeed, and Julio Cortez/A.P.

The New Jersey special Senate election set by Governor Chris Chrstie last spring for a random weekday in October is finally upon us. And if you're the Booker campaign, you're probably thanking your lucky stars it's over. If you're the Lonegan campaign, you're wishing there was more time.

That's because the trajectory in the special Senate race is clear: Republican Steve Lonegan has cut his initial deficit against Cory Booker in half.

Fortunately for Booker, his initial lead was substantial enough (about 20-22 points, according to Huffington Post Pollster) to sustain a fall. With the race coming to a close, he now leads an average 52-41%.

Today alone, with 48 hours remaining before polls close in New Jersey, two new surveys have been released, with Monmouth giving Steve Lonegan his best result to date (52-42%), while Rutgers-Eagleton finds Cory Booker winning by a landslide 58-36%.

Monmouth University has released four surveys on the special New Jersey Senate race since June, with Lonegan making steady progress in each (from Booker +16, to +16, to +13, to +10 now). Rutgers-Eagleton's two surveys on the race agree with Monmouth in finding Lonegan making gains since September, though Booker's lead over Lonegan was always much more formidable according to their numbers (from +35 to +22 now). For the record, recent polls from Stockton University, Rasmussen, and Quinnipiac tend to line-up more with Monthouth's latest overall finding.

So how can two surveys that were in the field at roughly the same time produce such dramatically different results? By disagreeing entirely on the candidate's strengths among various political and demographic groups:

Introducing Governor-Elect...Terry McAuliffe?? Ken Cuccinelli's No Good, Awful Week

After a brief surge in his poll numbers this Spring, Ken Cuccinelli is behind Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia Governor's race, and by an increasing margin. The billboard pictured above is featured along I-95 in Richmond, and attempts to lump Cuccinelli in with Gov. McDonnell's "gift-gate" scandal.

2013 Virginia Republican Gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli just had a terrible week last week.

Labor day has come and past, which means the majority of Virginia voters are just tuning into a race that until now had been largely ignored by everyone but reporters and political junkies. And there's little doubt that the Cuccinellli camp would rather them stay tuned out a bit longer, at least according to three new polls.

On top of the likely harmful side-effects of Republican Governor Bob McDonnell's growing scandal, Democrat Terry McAuliffe has apparently done a good job of painting Attorney General Cuccinelli (R) as an archaic social conservative who is too ideologically driven and extreme for Virginia's increasingly blue electorate. He's done so by calling attention to Cuccinelli's push for a ban on oral sex and sodomy, as well as his staunch opposition to abortion.

Cuccinelli, for his part, has unleashed a barrage of attacks on McAuliffe's perceived weak point - his propensity for honesty and truthfulness. Whether it be his involvement in Greentech, a company he co-founded that is now under federal investigation, or the failure of a second energy company with McAuliffe backing to bring jobs to Virginia, Cuccinelli has relentlessly gone after his Democratic opponent in a style familiar to Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's experience at Bain Capital in the 2012 Presidential election.

But the verdict is in on the first half of the long 2013 Gubernatorial slug-fest in Virginia, and the polls have called the first part of the battle for Terry McAuliffe. Not only that, but the three most recent Virginia surveys suggest the race is tilting decidedly in McAuliffe's favor:

The above numbers represent Cuccinelli's worst showing of the race in any PPP or Quinnipiac survey since the start of the year. And though this is Emerson College's first outing in Virginia, they paint the bleakest picture of all for the Republican.

So where exactly is Cuccinelli weak? Pretty much everywhere, according to the cross tabs. The table below notes the performance of McAuliffe and Cuccinelli among gender, racial/ethnic groups, and political party:

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%).

Christie's Team Finally Breaking A Sweat? Buono Approaches 40% Milestone In NJ Gov. Race

Christie is still by-far the favorite in the New Jersey Governor's race. But unfortunately for him, pundits are expecting more than just a win. And Monmouth University suggests Buono is making gains. Photo features Christie and Buono's faces cut into a corn field in Chester, NJ. Courtesy of the A.P.

For the first time in the 2013 New Jersey Governor's race, and with just over two months left in the campaign, Governor Christie has hit his first polling snag.

Monmouth University, a frequent pollster of various statewide New Jersey races, finds Democratic gubernatorial challenger Barbara Buono getting dangerously close to 40% of the vote, by far her largest share in any poll taken to date, and by a fair margin at that. Her 36% vote share is 5 points higher than her previous record set in June of 31%, again in a Monmouth poll.

Chris Christie has dropped to 56% of the vote, also his lowest share to date, having hit 57% previously in a June Fairleigh Dickinson survey.

So exactly how can the fact that Christie leads Buono in a blue state by a 56-36% margin be labeled a "snag," or any other negative term? Well, because when compared to Christie's polling so far in the Governor's race, it is a snag.

Prior to the new Monmouth poll, Christie led Buono by an impressive 60-26% average across 24 different surveys, 14 net points higher than the margin by which he currently leads in the Monmouth survey. See the table below of all Buono vs. Christie polling to date:

(*) indicates a pollster defined that particular demographic or partisan characteristic differently from the percentages without a (*). Compiled from RCP, Huffington Post Pollster, & Argo Journal.

The six columns from the right of the chart above tell us why Christie's standing against Buono has dropped a net 10 points in two months.

A crucial aspect of the Governor's wild popularity in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy was the extent to which traditionally hostile electoral groups (Democrats, African Americans, etc) rallied behind the Republican head of the state. There are only so many Republicans in New Jersey, and you don't obtain 40 point leads against your opponent without a fair amount of cross-over support.

In fact, as the Monmouth poll from February notes, Christie ran nearly even with Buono at one point...among DEMOCRATS.

He also led Buono among Democrats AND African Americans in Farleigh Dickenson, Rutgers Eagleton, and PPP surveys from earlier this year.

Governor John Kasich Plummets In Ohio...or does he? It's Quinnipiac vs. PPP, Again

Quinnipiac University's polling not only positioned Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) well for his 2014 re-election bid, but made him an ideal 2016 candidate - a popular governor from the most highly sought-after electoral prize in the country. But PPP poured cold water on that notion Tuesday. Photo courtesy of Daniel Acker/Bloomberg.

Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac University are apparently butting heads again, this time in Ohio.

New survey findings on Ohio voters' attitudes towards their Governor and the 2014 Governor's race allow for only one of two conclusions: (1) either something near cataclysmic is taking place on the ground to cause Governor John Kasich's (R) job approval ratings & 2014 standing to tank, or (2) a couple of prolific polling firms are missing the mark in measuring Ohio public opinion.

See the new Ohio survey released by Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling Tuesday:

PPP survey of 551 "Ohio voters" from August 16-19, 2013, MoE: +/-4.2%

For recent observers of local Ohio political polling and current events, it seemed as though we had stepped back in time, 2011-12 to be exact.

Then, Governor John Kasich was struggling with the aftermath of prolonged high unemployment, an unpopular collective bargaining bill, and a powerful Obama reelection organization. In fact, from the start of Kasich's term in January 2011, through election day 2012, Gov. Kasich only averaged a 38/48% job approval rating, per PPP.

Other polling organizations also caught on to Kasich's abysmal approval numbers, though as usually the case with Republican politicians, to a lesser extent than PPP (he averaged a 40/43% rating with Quinnipiac during the same time period).

But starting in the fall of 2012, before the presidential election was held, most pollsters found Kasich's Administration experiencing a public opinion recovery. In fact, between the 2012 Republican National Convention and election day, an average of 12 non-PPP Ohio surveys from Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, University of Cincinnati, and Fox News found Gov. Kasich with a healthy 51/38% job approval rating. An average of 4 PPP surveys from the same period found Kasich with an average 43/41% rating.

Then following the election, as Ohio voters took note of a steadily lower unemployment rate, Quinnipiac found Kasich's numbers soaring, even as President Obama's fell. See the table below:

Steve Lonegan Looks Dead On Arrival Thanks to Chris Christie, Cory Booker, & A Special Off-Year Electorate

The trio of a popular Booker, a popular President, and a less than helpful Governor have all but sealed Steve Lonegan's fate. Photo courtesy of Tim Larsen/NJ Governor's Office

Both Democrats AND Republicans can find reason for optimism in New Jersey this year. While Barbara Buono has been headed for certain and substantial defeat at the hands of Governor Chris Christie since Hurricane Sandy, the death of Senior Senator Frank Lautenberg provided Democrats with a golden opportunity to fast track one of their up and coming stars into national political office.

Though what appears to be a sure snoozer of a Special Senate contest this October between Cory Booker (D) and Steve Lonegan (R) didn't always have to be that way.

New Jersey Republicans anticipated challenging either an aging Sen. Lautenburg, or a primary battered Cory Booker in November 2014, not October 2013.

And failed 2005 and 2009 Republican primary challenger for Governor Steve Lonegan was likely FAR from their first choice to take on the popular Newark Mayor. With a statewide electoral record bad enough to make any Republican squirm, Lonegan seems particularly out of his depth against the Obama-esque Booker, especially when accounting for the incredibly abbreviated campaign schedule in a very blue state.

Then came the double-whammy - Republican Governor Chris Christie would be scheduling the special Senate race three weeks in advance of his own gubernatorial re-election, on October 16, 2013, thereby ensuring Lonegan and political observers would be denied learning whether the New Jersey Governor's coattails matched his lofty job approval ratings. It also ensured that Lonegan would likely not lose to Booker by anything less than an embarrassing margin, especially if the early and limited polling on the race is any indication:

Photo courtesy of Real Clear Politics.

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.

Say WHAT? Anti-Immigration Firebrand Tom Tancredo TIED w/ once popular Gov in purple Colorado

Gubernatorial candidates John Hickenlooper (left) and Tom Tancredo (right) debate in 2010. Photos courtesy of Floyd Brandt.

Quinnipiac University lit up the twitter-sphere this morning after releasing their first survey of the 2014 Colorado Governor's race showing anti-immigration firebrand and 2010 loser Tom Tancredo (R) trailing the once popular Gov. John Hickenlooper by ONE point, 42-41%.

Hickenlooper burst onto the scene in 2010, a year not remembered for impressive Democratic landslides by any stretch. Yet that was what the 1-term Colorado Governor accomplished when he defeated Tom Tancredo (Constitution Party) and Dan Maes (R) in a 3 way race, 51-36-11%.

In his first two years in office, Hickenlooper enjoyed widespread and bipartisan support from Colorado residents, averaging a rare 59/25% job approval/disapproval rating. In fact, during the presidential year alone, where partisan loyalties typically result in increased polarization, and thus, lower ratings for elected partisan officials, Hickenlooper managed to never dip below 54% job approval in a single poll, while never rising above 36% job disapproval. He actually averaged 60/26% for all of 2012:

Compiled from TPM Poll Tracker and various internet searches.

But a series of deeply unpopular legislative moves have eroded the good will and bipartisan support he enjoyed his first two years (such as granting a temporary death penalty reprieve for a convicted murderer, a move opposed by 67% of Colorado voters, according to Quinnipiac). 

And though polling data has been limited so far this year with regards to Gov. Hickenlooper's job approval, the two pollsters to survey this question have shown serious deterioration in his numbers.

Public Policy Polling had previously measured Hickenlooper's job approval just before the presidential election, when he clocked in with an impressive 55/26%, or +29. But just 6 months later, their April survey found him at 53/44%, a net 20 point drop.

Quinnipiac's shift was even more drastic, if you can believe it. They too found Hickenlooper's job performance widely admired in their last survey taken pre-election (59/21%, +38). Yet 9 months later, in the survey released today, they find Hickenlooper's ratings have collapsed by a net 34 points!

Movements in public perception of this size in such a short span are pretty rare. But nothing drives home the reality of Hickenlooper's decline more than the fact that Tom Tancredo is nipping at his heels for the 2014 Governor's race, if Quinnipiac is to be believed:

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.

It's Public Policy Polling vs. The World With Regards to Gov. Bob McDonnell's Approval Ratings

Public Policy Polling stands out among polling firms for their partisan, often times combative nature.

In the Virginia Governor poll released by PPP yesterday, and referenced by this blog, there was an easily missed statistic regarding the job approval rating for Virginia's Governor. According to the Democratic leaning pollster, Bob McDonnell (R) is above water with Virginia voters, but only somewhat:

Do you approve or disapprove of Gov. Bob McDonnell's job performance? (May 24-26, 2014; 672 Virginia voters, 3.8% MoE)

Approve  -  44%
Disapprove  -  37%
Not Sure  -  19%

This finding represents a net 6 point deterioration in approval for McDonnell's job performance since PPP's last poll in January (48/35%), and represents their lowest net rating for the Governor since July of 2012. But more significantly, the above finding represents a fairly significant departure from every other pollster to test the Virginia Governor's job approval this year, or even since taking office in 2010.

Just consider Quinnipiac University, which released a survey on Bob McDonnell's job approval rating less than two weeks before PPP. They found McDonnell's overall net job approval rating to be 3 TIMES higher than PPP (49/28% vs. 44/37%), while his rating among whites was DOUBLE PPP's finding (50/29% vs. 48/36%). Meanwhile, there's an astounding 30 point spread between Independents' views on Gov. McDonnell's job performance (54/27% per Quinnipiac, and 39/41% per PPP).

But there's no need to stop at Quinnipiac. Just 3 weeks ago, the Washington Post released a survey showing McDonnell with a net job approval rating 5 TIMES higher than PPP just found. And the same week, NBC/Marist found the same thing, as the chart below of McDonnell's job approval rating since the start of this year notes:

McDonnell's lowest rating this year besides PPP's most recent survey came in January, when he hit 48/35%, from none other than....PPP. Every other polling firm this year has found McDonnell between +21 and +37 in terms of net job approval/disapproval.

And the outlier-nature of PPP's Virginia Governor job ratings doesn't end with just this year:

McAuliffe pulls away from Cuccinelli as Quinnipiac finds a 2012 style gubernatorial electorate

Terry McAuliffe and Creigh Deeds during a 2009 Democratic Primary debate for Governor. Photo courtesy of A.P.

Quinnipiac University is out with their fifth survey of the 2009 Virginia Governor's race, this time showing Democrat Terry McAuliffe with his highest survey margin yet over Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

If the election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were Terry McAuliffe the Democrat and Ken Cuccinelli the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Terry McAuliffe (D)  --  43%
Ken Cuccinelli  (R)  --  38%
Unsure/Other  --  20%

The results may surprise some, considering the barrage of negative press McAuliffe has received since Quinnipiac's last poll in March. But either Virginia voters are tuning out stories about McAuliffe's preference for Washington fundraisers over the birth of his children, or they just don't care. Because the Democrat has seen a 5 point gain in his support since March, while the Cooch has dropped 2 points.

So what gave McAuliffe his largest lead of the Virginia Quinnipiac survey yet, especially in light of the perceived negative press?

An initial glance at the crosstabs do little to explain the mystery, as both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli are winning similar portions of their own base, and Independents. In fact, Cuccinelli is actually doing slightly better than McAuliffe with his base, the opposing party, and Independents.

But a look at the demographic and partisan make-up of Quinnipiac poll respondents sheds light on McAuliffe's rise. Simply, the current electorate is decidedly 2012-esque.

The chart below documents every Quinnipiac Virginia Governor survey taken this season, including the partisan identification of the respondents of each poll.

As you can see, the most recent survey found Democrats with a 10 point partisan identification advantage over Republicans. That advantage is strong enough to give McAuliffe a 5 point lead over his challenger, despite both candidates performing equally well among their own party's base and Independents.

Not only does this month's Quinnpiac poll feature the largest party I.D. advantage for Democrats to date, but if it holds through November, it would represent a net 14 point shift from the last Virginia Governor's race in 2009.

That year, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell defeated his Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds in a near 20-point landslide, and Republicans turned out in much larger numbers than Quinnipiac now finds. In fact, that year, it was the Republicans that held a 4 point partisan I.D. advantage over the Democrats (37% R, 33% D, 30% I).

What would the new Quinnipiac poll look like had their findings detected an electorate as Republican as 2009, all other findings remaining the same?

Not surprisingly, a 14 point shift in party I.D. (from D +10 to R +4), produces a net 10 point shift in Ken Cuccinelli's favor (from a 43-38% deficit, to a 45-40% lead).

Chris Christie's Gubernatorial Opponent Slowly, But Surely Chipping Away, Luring Back Wayward Democrats

Christie at a campaign event in December 2012. Photo courtesy of N.J. Star-Ledger

Nearly 6 months after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the Jersey Shore and sent Governor Chris Christie's re-election prospects soaring, survey findings are in firm agreement: Christie is still the heavy, heavy favorite to win, but Democratic challenger Barbara Buono is very slowly, but surely chipping away at his lead w/ traditional Democratic voting blocks.

Since the rare Northeastern Hurricane made landfall late last October, the moderately popular Chris Christie not only saw his job and personal ratings skyrocket, but saw virtually every serious, potential challenger to his governorship step aside in the wake of his soaring popularity. That is, every challenger but one, longterm state legislator named Barbara Buono (D). And until last month, it looked as though Christie might hold onto a rock-solid 40-50 point lead against the unknown Buono.

Then came a Fairleigh Dickinson poll showing a modest, though definite decline in support for Christie on the general ballot question. Since then, 2 more pollsters, Quinnipiac and Rutgers Eagleton, have confirmed that Buono is gaining, slowly, slightly, and surely; especially when you look at her support among Democrats and blacks, two voting blocks she has to nail down in order to give Christie a serious run for his money
The table below documents every poll released on the Christie v. Buono race, and was compiled from argojournal.blogspot.com, TPM Poll Tracker, and Huffington Post Pollster. Results among all general election voters, Democrats, and African Americans are provided:

*Fairleigh Dickinson's demographic cross-tabs provide a breakdown for white and non-white voters, not white and black voters. Red/"CC" indicate a Chris Christie lead, Blue/"BB" indicate a Barbara Buono lead.

Breaking down the poll results in the above chart by pollster, Rutgers Eagleton shows a discernible drop in support for Christie since their last poll (62% to 57%), as well as an appreciable rise in support for Barbara Buono (20% to 27%). In their January poll, Quinnipiac had Christie leading Buono by an impressive 41 points, or 63-22%. Two polls and two months later, Christie had fallen to a 35 point lead, 60-25%. And as mentioned above, Fairleigh Dickinson has seen Christie's lead dissipate from 43 to 36 points.