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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Christie's post-Sandy Bounce Holding Strong 4 Months Later, Buono (D) Barely On The Radar

Photo courtesy of Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty

From the standpoint of political popularity, it doesn't get much better than it currently is for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R). He assumed office in 2009 with a respectable 3.5 point victory over the incumbent Democrat, and remained reasonably well-liked, reforming state pensions and taking on the teachers union, in a state known for its preference for Democratic politicians.

But that all changed in the days following October 30, 2012. Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey, and Chris Christie made a very impassioned, and very public plea for aid for New Jersey residents. Furthermore, as President Obama toured the storm-ravaged area, just days before his reelection, Republican Christie heaped praise on him, to an excessive degree in the minds of many Romney supporters. The total effect of Christie's leadership and bipartisan cooperation in the wake of a devastating storm had a huge lifting affect on attitudes towards Christie personally, as well as the job he was doing in New Jersey. Even nationally, Christie saw a boost in his ratings.

That's why the much touted Newark Mayor, Cory Booker (D) decided against a 2013 gubernatorial run last month. At a point before Hurricane Sandy, Christie was viewed as vulnerable in 2013, and not just because he was your standard Republican running for reelection in a Democratic state, but also because Booker was particularly popular among the Democratic base. In fact, PPP found Booker beating Christie in a hypothetical race in July, 47-43%. Quinnipiac found him trailing just 46-42% in October, while also finding the little-known State Senator Barbara Buono losing by a to-be-expected 49-33% margin. But unfortunately for both of them, that's not the Chris Christie they will get to face in November 2013. No, the new, wildly popular, post-Sandy Christie led Booker in polling by anywhere from 14 to 18 points. As for the woman who is most likely to actually have to face Christie?...

Quinnipiac Poll, Feb 13-17, 2013; NJ Gubernatorial Race:

Chris Christie (R)  -  62%
Barbara Buono (D)  -  25%

She trails by a staggering 37 points. In a post on this blog in December, I argued that Cory Booker, as the Democrats strongest candidate, should still consider running for Governor, under the belief that Christie's post-Sandy job approval would inevitably fade. But as of today, his numbers have shown no recent signs of fading: Consider the below chart on Christie's job approval rating since he took office in 2010:

Compiled from TPM, The Argo Journal, and other random finds

HILLARYLAND: Early In 2016 Race, PPP Finds A Nearly Invincible Hillary Clinton

In 2008, Barack Obama carried 365 electoral college votes against John McCain, roughly on par with the 379 electoral college votes Bill Clinton carried against Bob Dole in 1996, and 1 of the largest electoral college victories since George H. W. Bush trounced Michael Dukakis in 1988, 426-111.

But according to Public Policy Polling (D), when voters are given Hillary Clinton as a hypothetical presidential choice for 2016, she would win in a landslide at least larger than Obama's in 2008 and her husband's in 1996, and at most, would rival FDR, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan for 1 of the largest landslides in history.

A string of recent 2016 polling from the prolific Democratic pollster indicates that Hillary Clinton would be, by far, the Democrat's strongest candidate in a generation. In states as traditionally conservative as Alaska, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Georgia, Hillary would tie OR defeat every single one of her potential Republican rivals. This fact is far more astounding when you consider that Barack Obama lost all five of these deep-red states in both 2008 and 2012, by no less than 8 points (in Georgia), and no more than 23 points (in Kentucky). Furthermore, Kentucky & Louisiana have not voted Democratic since 1996, Georgia since 1992, Texas since 1976, and Alaska since 1964.  

But just for fun, let's assume Hillary Clinton wins every state Obama won in 2012 (for a total of 332 electoral college votes), as well as the five additional deep-red states PPP finds Hillary performing well in:

That puts Hillary's ECV total at 389, to 149 for her hypothetical Republican opponent (the lowest ECV total for a Republican since Barry Goldwater in 1964!). But really, if PPP is correct regarding their red-state, 2016 polling, what are the odds that Hillary Clinton would win AK, TX, KY, LA, & GA, but lose other less Republican states, such as North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, or Arizona? Quite slim. The below map takes a look at how many states Hillary Clinton could win in the event she wins every state Obama lost in 2012 by 14 points or less (the margin by which Obama lost Alaska, one of the five red states where PPP finds Hillary Clinton defeating her likely Republican opponents):

Kay Hagan (D-NC) leads 2014 Senate race, but shouldn't get too confident.

 From left, Homeland Security Head Janet Napolitano, outgoing, one-term North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue (D), and 2014 Senate candidate for North Carolina, incumbent Senator Kay Hagan (D) in 2011. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Chris Seward) (Credit: AP)

Public Policy Polling's survey of their home state, the first of the new year, delivered somewhat of a split verdict for Democrats and Republicans of North Carolina. On the bright side for Republicans, their newly elected Governor Pat McCrory is starting his term with largely positive feelings from most voters, sporting a 45% job approval rating, with just 19% disapproving. At the same stage of ex-Gov. Beverly Perdue's governorship in 2009, her job approval rating was at a much lower 43/32%. Not only is McCrory the most popular politician in the state, but President Obama, who currently averages a national job approval rating of 52/43%, is underwater at 46/52%. Tom Jensen of PPP notes in the release:

 According to the 2009 poll, President Obama held an approval rating of 52% and a
disapproval rating of 41%. In this current poll, Obama holds a 46% approval rating and
52% disapproval rating. This change in approval rating is reflected in the change from
North Carolina going blue in the 2008 election to red in the 2012 election.

Democrat Kay Hagan remains largely unknown and hardly-liked after 4 years as Senator, with a job approval/disapproval rating of 34/36%.

The one bright-spot for Democrats in North Carolina is the fact that at this early stage of the 2014 cycle, there appears to be no credible Republican challenger to Sen. Hagan's seat in Washington. Despite her apparent middling poll numbers, all 7 potential Republican challengers tested by PPP failed to get closer than 6 points to the U.S. Senator who 31% of her constituents have no opinion of. Two possible GOP candidates tie for coming the closest to Sen. Hagan: Rep. Renee Ellmers (R), a 2-term Congresswoman from the 2nd district trails just 46-40%, and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R), a 5-term Congressman from the 10th district trails 45-39%. Hagan's weakest opponent, NC State Representative Thom Tillis trails by 10 points, 47-37%.

One thing worth noting, especially considering the typically older, whiter midterm electorates, is that PPP found NC voters identifying as 12 points MORE Democratic than Republican in their 2014 poll. Unfortunately, no exit polls were conducted during the last midterm election in NC (2010), and exit polling is unavailable for NC's 2002 midterm election. But it is worth pointing out that in the 2012 Governor's race between Pat McCrory (R) & Walter Dalton (D) just 2.5 months ago, Democrats only held a five point advantage over the Republicans in partisan identification. Even more telling than that, NC party I.D. was only D+11 in the 2008 Governor's race, the same year that a Democrat won NC on the presidential level for the first time since 1976. So while PPP's party ID finding may be a reflection of current dissatisfaction with Republicans in Washington, it also reflects a more Democratic electorate than North Carolina has seen in recent history, especially for a midterm election. Below are tables explaining what Barack Obama's, Pat McCrory's (R), and Kay Hagan's (D) job approval numbers would have looked like had PPP found NC party ID the same as the 2012 Governor's race (38% Democrat, 33% Republican, 28% Independent, or D+5), all other findings remaining the same:

Popular as he may be, Gov. McDonnell would struggle in future statewide races, per PPP

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) has been polled twice by two major polling companies at this early stage in 2013, and both find Virginians APPROVING of his job performance by large margins. Yet despite his strong standing with voters, he would struggle in a 2014 Senate race, or a 2016 presidential race, according to Public Policy Polling.

Quinnipiac University's survey indicated that Gov. McDonnell emerged from the 2012 Presidential race with his best net job approval rating since December of 2011, with 54% of Virginians expressing approval of the job he is doing, while just 27% express disapproval. Public Policy Polling was in the field one week earlier than Quinnipiac, and found McDonnell sporting an impressive 48/35% job approval/disapproval rating, though notably less impressive than Quinnipiac. In fact, as the chart below indicates, Governor McDonnell has maintained stellar approval ratings throughout his entire term in office (which doesn't expire until January 2014), averaging 55/30% across 51 polls over the last 3 years:

Two of the four most frequent pollsters in Virginia  diverged somewhat from the average, with PPP tending to show McDonnell MUCH less popular than Quinnipiac's average, Rasmussen's average, AND Roanoke's average. In fact, Bob McDonnell only manages a +11 average job rating from PPP (46/35%), as compared to the +25 rating from the average of all polls (55/30%).

Hillary's favorability takes a hit, and Chris Christie's her most formidable 2016 opponent (PPP)

The Governor of New Jersey had reason to rejoice last week when Public Policy Polling released a poll summarizing all of the major possible 2016 presidential candidates favorability ratings. Not only is Christie the most liked national politician of the 18 PPP chose to test (he has a net 28 pt favorability rating, with 51% viewing him favorably, 23% unfavorably), but he is the only Republican that even comes close to giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in a hypothetical 2016 match-up (trailing her just 44-42%). But the biggest story from the PPP release seems to have been lost by most of the media and punditry - Hillary Clinton has taken a pretty fair hit in her favorability rating.

In a survey taken January 3-6, 2013, Clinton clocks in with an impressive natonal favorable/unfavorable rating of 54/39% (+15 pts), but that's down from PPP's previous survey in December that measured her at 57/36% (+21 pts), and significantly down from the 65+% ratings she enjoyed throughout much of 2012. In fact, her January PPP rating is the lowest measured by any polling firm since last April. Below is a chart of Hillary Clinton's national favorability rating since 2011, according to Talking Points memo, The Argo Journal, and assorted polling:

Over the course of the last two years, Clinton has averaged a very strong 61/30% favorable/unfavorable rating. Though that impressive average only serves to highlight how poor Hillary's current PPP rating is comparatively. In fact, the current PPP numbers are Hillary's 2nd worst since January 2011 (Rasmussen measured Hillary's favorability at 53/42% in April 2012, the only pollster to show Hillary weaker than PPP for the last two years).

Democrats poised to win historic 2nd term, mid-term election (per PPP, of course).

Pic courtesy of the A.P.

Low and behold, Public Policy Polling is out with a brand new poll that shows Democrats poised to gain seats in their party's 2nd term, mid-season election. What's so special about that, you might ask. Probably the fact that the President's party has lost every 2nd-term, mid-term election since 1938, with just one exception: 1998.

But if PPP is right, Democrats would win the House of Representatives today by a 6 point margin, 47-41%. To be fair, yes, Republicans DO seem to be in a state of dissaray post-November 2012; they lost an election that was supposed to be painfully close by a not-so-painful 4 points, they were forced through fiscal cliff negotiations to accept tax hikes without spending cuts, and external events (Newtown massacre) put the GOP at odds with public opinion. But if the Democrats were to actually defeat the Republicans in November 2014 by 6 points, it would be historic. In fact, in the mid-term election of every 2-term president since 1950, the best the President's party did in the popular vote was was 51% in 1966, to the Republicans 48%. Yet despite that 3 pt popular vote victory for the Democrats, Republicans still gained 47 seats. The below chart documents the results of every 2nd term, midterm election since 1950.

As you can see, if PPP's results hold up between now and Nov. 2014, it would be a historic popular vote victory for the Democrats. But a close look at PPP's internals reveals what COULD be driving the Democrats 6 pt lead on the House ballot. Poll respondents identified as 43% Democrat, 34% Republican, and 23% Independent, or D+9. That's 3 points MORE Democratic than we saw in the electorate just 2 months ago, when it was D+6. Not only that, but PPP's party I.D. is more Democratic than every midterm election since 1986.


                       Partisan Identification by 2nd-term, midterm election

                                               Dem                  Ind                    Rep

Info courtesy of the Washington Post.

2013 Virginia Governor: PPP paints bleak picture for the Cooch (R). Quinnipiac? Not so bleak.

From left, Cuccinelli, Gov. McDonnell, & Lt. Gov. Bolling after their win in 2009. Oddly enough, the man on McDonnell's left has said he would not be on a ticket with the man on McDonnell's right.

Public Policy Polling released their first poll on the 2013 Virginia Governor's race yesterday, and the results weren't great for likely Republican nominee, Ken Cuccinelli. The former Attorney General only  managed to garner 41% against his probable opponent, failed 2009 Democratic candidate and Clinton-confidant, Terry McAuliffe (who managed 46% in the PPP poll). This result closely mirrors a Quinnipiac poll from November that showed McAuliffe up 41-37%.

Diving into the poll internals, the news only seems to get worse for Cuccinelli. For an example, take a look at the ideological identification of the poll respondents. Virginia voters identify as 27% Liberal, 32% Moderate, and 41% Conservative. Compare this to the exit polls for the 2009 Virginia Governor's race, which saw just 17% Liberal turnout, 42% Moderate, and 40% Conservative. Despite Liberal turnout being much lower in 2009 than the 2013 PPP finding, Cuccinelli would still trail McAuliffe by the same margin if the PPP poll were reweighted to 2009 ideological turnout. See the math in the chart below:


PPP survey weighted to 2009 VA Gov ideological I.D.

How, exactly, is it that Cuccinelli (R) still trails McAuliffe (D) 46-41%, despite reweighting the numbers to a LESS liberal ideological make-up? Because regardless of the drop-off in liberals, moderates were a much larger percentage of the 2009 electorate than what PPP found in their poll. And unfortunately for Cuccinelli, the Republican trails the Democrat among moderates by a substantial, 61-25% margin. That was NOT the case in the 2009 gubernatorial race between Gov. McDonnell (R) and Creigh Deeds (D), when the Democrat carried moderates by a much narrower 53-47% margin. That difference in the performance of Cuccinelli and McDonnell among moderates is the main reason the Republican does just as poorly whether the numbers are weighted to the PPP ideological finding, or the 2009 ideological finding. IF, somehow, the Cooch were able to get 47% of the Moderate vote (as McDonnell did in '09), HE would lead the PPP poll, 51-42%, a 14 pt reversal from the actual PPP result.

Still, the PPP poll is rough for the Virginia Republican. Even IF Cuccinelli were lucky enough to see low liberal turnout like 2009, he'd trail in the PPP poll 46-41%. But it's worth noting that while the PPP ideological I.D. finding is more liberal than the 2009 VA electorate, the 2012 electorate was much LESS conservative. Conservatives made up 41% of the respondents in the PPP poll, 40% of actual 2009 voters, but just 31% of actual 2012 voters. If PPP is right, and 2013 turnout sees low conservative turnout like 2012, Terry McAuliffe (D) has the potential to win big:

Rubio leads 2016 field in first outing from Harper Polling (R)

Harper Polling is a new Republican firm designed to be the GOP's answer to the well-known Public Policy Polling (D). Politico recently did a piece on the new group regarding the Democratic edge in the polling and data departments. Well, it seems they're already up and running, as they've released their first numbers regarding the 2016 Republican primary:

Marco Rubio:  34%
Chris Christie:  18%
Condoleeza Rice:  14%
Rand Paul:  8%
Allen West:  5%
Scott Brown:  3%
Undecided:  18%

Rubio leads the pack, confirming the PPP poll from two weeks ago that had Rubio ahead, albeit by a much smaller margin. Though the likely reason for the large disparity is in the candidates that were polled. Harper Polling included a few unconventional candidates in exchange for likely candidates like Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, or Rick Santorum. PPP only polled likely candidates.

PPP results from 12/6/2012:
Rubio:  18%
Christie:  14%
Bush:  12%
Ryan:  12%
Huckabee:  11%
Rice:  8%
Palin:  7%
Rand Paul: 7%
Santorum: 4%
Other/Undecided:  7%
*Note Rick Santorum is in last place. That's a precarious position for the runner-up to the 2012 GOP nomination, as I wrote about here.

From Harper Polling, regarding the 2016 poll:

Rubio is strongest in the South and West.  There’s some logic in that.  He’s a son of the South, for those who count Florida as the South.  The Hispanic appeal may run a bit stronger out West.  In the Northeast, he and Christie run virtually tied at 29-27%.  The Midwest may ultimately be the harder nut to crack for Rubio.   His working class background may be his strongest connection to the industrial Midwest.

The Chris Christie primary voter appears to lean more toward the middle.  Along with Condi Rice, his voters are more likely to support exceptions to the no-new-taxes pledge and they believe that compromise is better for the country.  They are less likely to watch Fox News and support TEA party goals.

Speaking of the TEA party.  It is the foundation of Rubio’s support.  Approaching half of all TEA supporters (43%) are voting for him.  If I’m one of the other guys, it can’t stay that way.  Somebody has to eat away at that base for Rubio.

Despite Media focus on Guns, Americans have other ideas for dealing w/ school shootings

 Protestors interrupt NRA president Wayne LaPierre today during a press conference addressing the Newtown, CT shootings. (Credit: Getty)

In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, Gallup has some interesting poll findings. Despite a media that has been all-gun control, all-the-time since the tragic December 14th shooting, the American public apparently thinks there are better ways to respond:

Great news for Bay State's recent Senate Loser: Brown poised for comeback

The Mass Inc. Polling Group, a Massachusetts based polling firm, had excellent news today for soon-to-be ex-Senator Scott Brown (MA). Their popular Governor, Deval Patrick, would trail Brown by 7 points in a hypothetical special election Senate race:

Brown (D):  47%
Patrick (R):  40%
Other/Unsure:  13%

The result is miraculous for two reasons: 1. Sen. Brown just lost a protracted, heated battle to Elizabeth Warren by 7 points.  2. Deval Patrick is quite popular in his home state, sporting a 60/26% favorable/unfavorable rating.

For what it's worth, Brown is quite popular in the Bay State himself, with a 58/28% rating, and leads every other possible challenger by as little as 15 points and as much as 27 points. But honestly, how many people would have guessed he'd be leading the popular blue-state Democratic Governor by near double digits in a hypothetical election, especially considering that he only defeated Martha Coakley in 2010 51-47%? Not many. But the survey results look even better for Brown when you take a closer look at the internals.

Paul Ryan vs. Hillary Clinton 2016? Not Even Close, says Purple Strategies Poll

Poll nerds will be thrilled to already see some new 2016 horse race numbers from Purple Strategies. For the record, Purple Strategies fared pretty well in the 2012 election, per the NYTimes Nate Silver. To start off, they've decided to pit failed-VP nominee Paul Ryan against hugely popular Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and few will be surprised by the result.

Clinton: 53%
Ryan: 36%
Unsure/Other: 11%

Clinton stomps Ryan by 17 points. Not only that, but she dominates him in nearly every metric. She carries women by 24 pts (57-33%) and men by 9 points, 49-40%. Obama lost "men" to Romney 52-45%. Both Hillary and Ryan are strong with their base. The problem for Ryan, however, is that he's losing big among Independents (53-36%), and his base is outnumbered by Hillary's base by 10 points in this poll. In other words, the Purple Strategies likely voter sample identified as 40% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 29% Independent, or D+10. During the election just 6 weeks ago, voters identified as just 6% more Democratic than Republican. The last Presidential election in which Democrats and Republicans were at near-parity was in 2004, when both parties made up 37% of the electorate.