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%).

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.

Gaffe-prone Joe Biden Looks Good In Early 2016 Polls, But So Have Other Two-Term VPs

Joe Biden and his boss with the last 2 two-term Vice President's to run for the White House (and their boss).

Vice President Joe Biden, if he runs for President in 2016 and wins, would only be the fourth two-term VP to do so in history, with John Adams (the nation's 1st VP), Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush paving the way before him. Only eight VP's have even served two full terms in that office, though only four of them ever ran for President after the fact (John Adams, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Al Gore).

Thus it would seem that launching a Presidential campaign after 8 years in the Vice President's office isn't as common, or as advantageous as you may think.

But that certainly isn't stopping Joe Biden from whipping up chatter among political pundits about his own presidential prospects. As early as October 2011, nearly a year and a half before the start of Obama's 2nd term in office, Biden was fanning the flames: "I'm in one of the -- probably the best shape I've been in my life. I'm doing pretty well. I'm enjoying what I'm doing. And as long as I do, I'm going to continue to do it."

And that was far from Biden's last flirtation with 2016. In fact, you could probably spend the better part of a day recounting all the times Biden has noted he's interested in 2016 since taking office as VP in January 2009.


Further buttressing the Vice President’s desire to run for the White House could be the slate of mostly favorable polling that’s come out this year. In 14 hypothetical 2016 match-ups against Republicans Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush, Biden only trails in three of them (to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), and leads by as much as 14 points (against Marco Rubio in a March Marist survey). On average, he leads his GOP opponents by a 46-43% margin and receives a similarly positive overall favorability rating of 45/42% from the American public – not too shabby for a guy who is famous for his lack of discipline, frequent gaffes, and over-the-top theatrics.

Despite all this, Joe Biden and his supporters should exercise cautious optimism regarding early 2016 polling, if any optimism at all. A comparison of his current head-to-head numbers with Al Gore’s in 1997 indicates Joe Biden is slightly weaker than the former Vice President was at a comparable point in the 2000 presidential election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaway for Republicans from Quinnipiac 2016 poll: Pray Hillary doesn't run

Demographic realities provide Hillary (and Democrats generally) with advantages in 2016. Photos courtesy of hillaryclintonoffice.com, & Reuters/AP.

A new nation-wide survey from Quinnipiac University shows Hillary Clinton very well-positioned for 2016 against 3 likely GOP contenders for President: Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio:

4. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Christopher Christie the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Hillary Clinton  -  45%   (46)
Chris Christie  -  37%   (42)
Don't know/other -  19%  (12)

5. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Marco Rubio the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Hillary Clinton  -  50%   (49)
Marco Rubio  -  34%   (41)
Don't know/other  -  16%   (10)

6. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Paul Ryan the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Hillary Clinton  -  50%   (50)
Paul Ryan  -  38%   (44)
Don't know/other  -  12%   (6)

*numbers in parentheses indicates the results of a February 3rd, 2013 Public Policy Polling survey

Despite being 4 years out from the election, those are some rough numbers for the GOP, especially considering that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are fairly well-known nationally, courtesy of Hurricane Sandy and a vice presidential nomination. Of the 3 Republicans tested, it's Paul Ryan who actually scores the highest level of national support (at 38%). The only problem with that is the fact that he elicits stronger support for Hillary Clinton, who comes in at 50%. So Ryan would essentially need to win all 12% of the voters who are undecided at this stage just to match Hillary. While Chris Christie attracts slightly less nationwide support than Paul Ryan (37%), he is able to hold Hillary well under 50%. Perhaps even more interesting, nearly 1 in 5 voters say they would be undecided on a Clinton v. Christie 2016 race. Marco Rubio, unsurprisingly, performs the worst against Clinton, only garnering 34% to her 50%. He is not as well known as Christie or Ryan, and his limited foray into the national spotlight will largely be remembered for this (as trite as it may be). 
Unfortunately, it only looks worse for the GOP trio after peering at the Quinnipiac crosstabs. With all the talk of the GOP's demographic troubles, I decided to check out the ethnicity breakdown of the poll sample. 73% of respondents identified as white, 11% as black, 9% as Hispanic, and 7% as Asian/other. Compared to the 2012 election, Quinnipiac is finding registered voters to be more white and less minority. The only problem with that is the fact that white voters have declined as a percentage of the electorate in every election since 1992:

Not only that, but Latino's (a group Obama won in 2012 by a 71-27% margin) have gained in numbers every year since 1992. The African American portion of the electorate was largely static from 1980-2008, when it jumped based on enthusiasm for the first black presidential nominee. The purpose behind all this information is to illustrate that despite Quinnipiac poll findings, the electorate is very unlikely to see an increase in the white vote from 2012, and equally unlikely to see a decrease in the Hispanic vote. In fact, some have even suggested white turnout could drop to under 70% in 2016. Just for fun, what would the Quinnipiac results have looked like with white voters making up less than 70% of the electorate? The below chart illustrates what happens using a racial make-up of 69% white, 12% black, 12% Latino, 7% Asian/other.**

2016 Democratic primary: Absent Hillary, no clear front-runner in New Hampshire

With the 2016 New Hampshire Democratic primary about 40 months away, Public Policy Polling is out with a survey revealing some interesting (or not so interesting, depending on who is running) top line results. In the event Sec. of State Hillary Clinton chooses to run, she seems poised to win her second NH primary in a row, but by a much larger margin than her 39-37% victory over Barack Obama in 2008. She leads a crowded 2016 field by a WHOPPING 60%, with 2nd place Joe Biden at 10% - amazing considering he is now a two-term Vice President.

"Given the choices of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, and Elizabeth Warren, who would you most like to see as the Democratic candidate for President in 2016?

• Hillary Clinton 60%
• Joe Biden 10%
• Andrew Cuomo 7%
• Elizabeth Warren 4%
• Deval Patrick 3%
• Martin O'Malley 0%
• Brian Schweitzer 0%
• Mark Warner 0%
• Someone else/Not sure 15%"