Poll finds Hillary Clinton slipping in Colorado and Iowa

[Siete]

OP- BFD. What do expect when the Pub Propaganda machine and loudmouth dupes go on forever about the huge scandals that turn out to be nothing, and our cowardly "librul" media report the bs with straight faces...our media is a controversy/gotcha/rating whore....only thing that even keeps the new bs/hate GOP even on the radar..

they gotta do something when they're not eating anti homosexual cake . Might as well be humping each others leg.

 

[Rambunctious]

You better hope Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make it to the finals.........but they won't, so it doesn't matter that they have a lead now

Any of them could beat her like a red headed step child....God I hope she is the democrat candidate and someone like Obama doesn't pop out of the wood pile.
Cruz and Walker will have her for lunch....she's is a supreme a walk over.

 

[hadit]

It's quite pointless to compare one entity to a group of entities and expect to get a quality answer. "Which do you like better, chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream?", vs "Which do you like better, chocolate ice cream or fruit flavored ice creams?". Which is more likely to generate the results the chocolate ice cream maker is looking for?

 

[FA_Q2]

Statistikhengst will link to polling showing St Hillary the Inevitable is a prohibitive favorite

CrusaderFrank

I just recorded those numbers and studied the poll, including the breakdowns. They only make sense in context of all the other polls for the respective states. Now, hang on, I bet I am going to surprise you, alot.

In Colorado, there have now been twelve large polls, with a total of 48 matchups, where Hillary has "won" 29, the GOP has "won" 16 and there have been three absolute ties. I write "won" because most of those matchups have been statistical ties. In this poll, Paul is up +3 on Hillary, a statistical tie. In the last Qpiac, she was up by +2, also a statistical tie, and in the Qpiac before that, Paul was up by +3, also a statistical tie. So, although Qpiac made a big headline out of this, it's not new news. We've seen these numbers before. In fact, we have seen Paul up by +3 or more on Hillary in Colorado FIVE times now. So, that number from Qpiac is no surprise to me at all.

And to prove that, I have thus far done SIX big polling analyses, Hillary vs. GOP field, starting on March 17, 2013, around 2 years ago. Here are the six analyses. I know that you have seen at least two or three of them, which I have also published here in USMB. In the third I start to mention Colorado:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: Clinton vs. GOP field, 2016 GE, Part I

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary vs. the GOP field, Part II

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part III

Quote from analysis no. 3, November 16, 2013:

Here is a map of those states that have been polled, colored by the winner of the majority of the match-ups. In the case of Colorado, it is actually a tie, but the margins lean more to the GOP than toward Clinton, so I have colored that state light RED:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part IV

From analysis IV, May 11, 2014:

In the West, also part of a very consistent pattern, Clinton is struggling mightily in Colorado, she has the entire time. If there is a state that the GOP has the best chances of regaining from 2008-2012, it is probably the Rocky Mountain State. Wait and see. It also appears to be close in Iowa, but Clinton is winning.

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part V

From analysis V, October 2, 2014:

Here is a map of those states that have been polled, colored by the winner of the majority of the match-ups. In the case of Colorado and Kentucky it's really quite close, so I am leaving both states green for now...

...in the West, also part of a very consistent pattern, Clinton is struggling mightily in Colorado, she has the entire time. If there is a state that the GOP has the best chances of regaining from 2008-2012, it is probably the Rocky Mountain State. Wait and see. There have now been 10 polls of Colorado and 36 matchups, of which Hillary has won 21, the GOP has won 13 and there were two mathematical ties. Then again, polling in Colorado was way off to the Right in 2008, 2010 and 2012. Why? The Latino vote was grossly underestimated and then also grossly miscalculated. Wait and see what happens in 2016 in the Rocky Mountain State.
It also appears to be close in Iowa, but Clinton is winning.

And analysis VI, from January 19, 2015, about 2.5 months ago:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part VI

The same text as for analysis V, since nothing had changed.

So, you see, I have actually been one of the very first people out there to realize and very openly write that Hillary has a Colorado problem, ergo, the Qpiac numbers for Colorado don't surprise me at all. Had you taken the time to read those huge analyses back then, you would have already known this, Frank.

Also, the Iowa numbers have been exceedingly competitive the entire time. That doesn't surprise me, either. In Iowa, there have now been 21 polls since February, 2013, with 90 matchups: Hillary was "won" 78 matchups, the GOP has "won" 6 matchups and there have been 6 absolute ties. The same caveat that I used for "won" in Colorado applies here as well.


What DOES surprise me is that Clintons Qpiac numbers in Virginia have actually improved since the last Qpiac. In the Old Dominion, there have now been 18 polls, with 63 matchups, of which Hillary has decisively won 60, the GOP has won 1 and there have been 2 absolute ties. Here, the Hillary margins are totally different than for Colorado or for Iowa. I have mentioned this also many times in the above 6 analyses over the last two years.

I would like to point you to an analysis I did of Virginia in the first half of 2009, after Obama picked-up the state for the Democratic Party in 2008 - for the first time since 1964. I analysed all 9 pickups from 2008, starting with Indiana, then Ohio, and then Virginia.

This link will take you to an overview and to links to all three parts of the analysis. It is enormous:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: Virginia - a county by county in-depth analysis


But the conclusion is pretty prophetic:

However, in VIRGINIA, there was real resistance to Obama, but this resistance occured in counties that are „emptying out“, so to speak. We see a large poli-demographic shift in VA, with the north and the southeast gaining greatly in political strength for the democratic party. Here there were obviously far fewer GOP defections, if at all (McCain scored more raw votes in VA than Bush from 2004), but far more newly registered and democratic dedicated voters. This poses a far larger problem for the GOP than either Indiana or Ohio, for Obama's +1.03% margin in Indiana can be overcome and Ohio is expected to be a battleground state in virtually every cycle, but the addition of more then 500,000 voters to the democratic rolls in just one cycle is much harder for the opposition to overcome. The best case scenario for the GOP is that VIRGINIA becomes a bitter battleground state. However, +6.30% is hardly a battleground margin. It is a better margin than Obama scored in OHIO, FLORIDA, INDIANA and NORTH CAROLINA. It is a lean winning margin, but a comfortable one and will require a minimum 12.60% shift back in order for the GOP to regain the state; I doubt that this shift will come from those 500,000 new voters. The worst case scenario for the GOP is that Obama cements VIRGINIA into the democratic column in his first term, adding the state to core democratic territory and thus making the electoral math for the GOP more difficult.

I published that on April 27th, 2009, almost 6 years ago. In 2012, Obama retained Virginia for the Democratic column. And currently, the Virginia numbers show that that state is, on the national level, more blue than purple these days. After Ted Cruz's announcement and now, Ron Paul's announcement, we are not really seeing the bounce that I expected for those two gentlemen, at least not yet, and definitely not in Virginia, a MUST win state for the GOP. And if Obama really did "cement" Virginia into the "blue wall", which is comprised of 243 EV from the states that are now 6 for 6 D states from 1992 onward, plus the likelihood of New Mexico also being in the wall, bringing it to 248, with Virginia's 13 EV, then the wall already stands at 261 EV. That is an absolute horror-scenario for the GOP.

So, I am going to say to you that, in light of the total polling for Colorado, Iowa and Virginia to-date, the Qpiac title may get some attention, but is not really accurate. Hillary is not wilting in Colorado because she never bloomed there to begin with.


One individual poll does not impress me, doesn't phase me, doesn't upset me, doesn't delight me, not even the WAPO poll that was one of my threads. It's the aggregate value that interests me much, much more. I sometimes publish numbers from an individual poll as I did for WAPO because the female vote breakdown was a data-point I wanted to share.

Now, what will be interesting to watch will be to see what those numbers do AFTER Hillary announces.

And finally, I find Qpiac to be a good, solid pollster:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

You will find an analysis of the Qpiac/NYT/CBS end-polls from 2012 in there. Qpiac did very, very well in 2012. So, I see it's current numbers from CO, IA and VA to be very feasable.

Bet you regret having tagged me now, eh???

Numbers trumps propaganda every time.

No regrets, my friend. I appreciate the effort and thought you put into your posts. We can argue over ideology, but no disputing the hard work that you do for you beliefs

That is kind of you. But in this case, it has nothing to do with beliefs, but rather, hard data.

The premise of the OP is false to begin with. Hillary is not slipping in Colorado because she hasn't done well there to begin with. On the other hand, in the Quadrifecta states, where elections are won, she is easily ahead.

Hard data is nice but how much do such polls matter at this point.

Seriously, it is WAY to early for accurate predictions for 2016 - particularly when the actual field is still unknown. They are little more than mental masterbation IMHO because there is so damn much that can and will happen between now and 2016 that the current numbers are not really based on anything hard.

It does give a starting point for those running but little else.

 

[francoHFW]

You better hope Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make it to the finals.........but they won't, so it doesn't matter that they have a lead now

Any of them could beat her like a red headed step child....God I hope she is the democrat candidate and someone like Obama doesn't pop out of the wood pile.
Cruz and Walker will have her for lunch....she's is a supreme a walk over.

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close...

 

[Mertex]

You better hope Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make it to the finals.........but they won't, so it doesn't matter that they have a lead now

Any of them could beat her like a red headed step child....God I hope she is the democrat candidate and someone like Obama doesn't pop out of the wood pile.
Cruz and Walker will have her for lunch....she's is a supreme a walk over.

Ha,ha, you're ever so hopeful......just like the rest of the conservatives watching Faux News on Nov 4, 2012.......they so believed that Romney was winning, even after they were told it was over and Obama had won. Why Megan Kelly had to walk down to the control room and double check.......I'm sure you'll be double checking on Nov 4, 2016....

 

[Rambunctious]

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close

Obama didn't win by very much and in 2016 the Republicans will show that they have been working under the cover of media darkness to make it very difficult for the dems to cheat.... While the media have been screaming about hands up and women's issues the GOP have been doing work! Ground work! YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa! we are almost rid of stupid liberals in our government.

 

[Katzndogz]

The way Hillary is sinking even her advisors are telling her not to bother. She has only foreign money. Democrats have already moved on to O'Malley.

 

[Siete]

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close

Obama didn't win by very much and in 2016 the Republicans will show that they have been working under the cover of media darkness to make it very difficult for the dems to cheat.... While the media have been screaming about hands up and women's issues the GOP have been doing work! Ground work! YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa! we are almost rid of stupid liberals in our government.

in fact, Obama didn't win by very much of anything in 2016 ...


but in 2012 he won enough electoral college votes to seal the win before the west coast even reported ... the popular vote count was pointless after that ...

but who's counting asswhippings like that ... certainly not the RW's ..

but I will ..

The Associated Press projected at 11:17 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, that Obama would win Ohio's 18 electoral votes, giving him the most contested state in the last few weeks of the most expensive election in U.S. history.

A few key battleground states are still counting their votes, namely Virginia, Florida and Colorado, but along with wins in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico being called about 11 p.m., Ohio appears to have given Obama the 270 electoral votes needed to remain the 44th president

 

[Rambunctious]

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close

Obama didn't win by very much and in 2016 the Republicans will show that they have been working under the cover of media darkness to make it very difficult for the dems to cheat.... While the media have been screaming about hands up and women's issues the GOP have been doing work! Ground work! YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa! we are almost rid of stupid liberals in our government.

in fact, Obama didn't win by very much of anything in 2016 ...


but in 2012 he won enough electoral college votes to seal the win before the west coast even reported ... the popular vote count was pointless after that ...

but who's counting asswhippings like that ... certainly not the RW's ..

but I will ..

The Associated Press projected at 11:17 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, that Obama would win Ohio's 18 electoral votes, giving him the most contested state in the last few weeks of the most expensive election in U.S. history.

A few key battleground states are still counting their votes, namely Virginia, Florida and Colorado, but along with wins in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico being called about 11 p.m., Ohio appears to have given Obama the 270 electoral votes needed to remain the 44th president

I think maybe your English is not so good or you need to read a little slower. I know you Government trolls are on multiple political message boards each day and it keeps you very busy but slow down and read every word before responding and making yourself look as stupid as you are.

 

[Mertex]

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close

Obama didn't win by very much and in 2016 the Republicans will show that they have been working under the cover of media darkness to make it very difficult for the dems to cheat.... While the media have been screaming about hands up and women's issues the GOP have been doing work! Ground work! YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa! we are almost rid of stupid liberals in our government.

Which GOP? The GOP I know has been writing letters to other countries illegally, may end up in trouble over that, also trying to shut the government down and failing, and trying to figure out which clown to throw into the ring with Hillary.......I don't think there's anyone in the GOP that has a functioning brain to do any kind of ground work.....you've been drinking too much KoolAid.

 

[Mertex]

Yup, and Romney stomped Obama. RW idiocy. Only Bush would be close

Obama didn't win by very much and in 2016 the Republicans will show that they have been working under the cover of media darkness to make it very difficult for the dems to cheat.... While the media have been screaming about hands up and women's issues the GOP have been doing work! Ground work! YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa! we are almost rid of stupid liberals in our government.

in fact, Obama didn't win by very much of anything in 2016 ...


but in 2012 he won enough electoral college votes to seal the win before the west coast even reported ... the popular vote count was pointless after that ...

but who's counting asswhippings like that ... certainly not the RW's ..

but I will ..

The Associated Press projected at 11:17 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, that Obama would win Ohio's 18 electoral votes, giving him the most contested state in the last few weeks of the most expensive election in U.S. history.

A few key battleground states are still counting their votes, namely Virginia, Florida and Colorado, but along with wins in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico being called about 11 p.m., Ohio appears to have given Obama the 270 electoral votes needed to remain the 44th president

I think maybe your English is not so good or you need to read a little slower. I know you Government trolls are on multiple political message boards each day and it keeps you very busy but slow down and read every word before responding and making yourself look as stupid as you are.

The only one looking stupid is you.........do you have any links to back up the BS you're spewing? I didn't think so.....ta-ta!

 

[Rambunctious]

The only one looking stupid is you.........do you have any links to back up the BS you're spewing? I didn't think so.....ta-ta!

HA HA HA ta ta??? oh man you're textbook...LMFAO...Bye sweetheart...AAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHEEHEEHAAHAA

 

[francoHFW]

53%-47 WILL BE PLENTY again, along with gains in congress and senate....lol.

As usual, the dupes don't know what is happening, or what has happened...

 

[francoHFW]

That's vs Bush if he does his best possible. Cruz etc can't get 45%.

 

[Mertex]

The only one looking stupid is you.........do you have any links to back up the BS you're spewing? I didn't think so.....ta-ta!

HA HA HA ta ta??? oh man you're textbook...LMFAO...Bye sweetheart...AAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHEEHEEHAAHAA

Does that stand for Laugh My Fat Ass Off? Bwahahaha.

 

[Rambunctious]

Does that stand for Laugh My Fat Ass Off? Bwahahaha.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Poll finds Clinton slipping in Colorado and Iowa - POLITICO

Uh oh! Maybe time for democrats to think about Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warren or Joe Manchin!

Poll finds Clinton slipping in Colorado and Iowa - POLITICO

Uh oh! Maybe time for democrats to think about Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warren or Joe Manchin!

You better hope Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make it to the finals.........but they won't, so it doesn't matter that they have a lead now........

Paul will get as much attention as his Dad did.

Jeb (IMO) will more than likely get the GOP nomination. The anti RINO crowd have already commented they wouldn't vote for Jeb, and that means he loses.

Nope....it'll be Rubio or Scott Walker.

 

[Mertex]

Does that stand for Laugh My Fat Ass Off? Bwahahaha.

Yes, you are........bwahahaha.

 

[Politico]

The Dems should run Joe Biden, if nothing else just for the comedy value

Is there any polling show how well he would do? I wouldn't mind him just seems like an empty suit to me....I prefer in order'

Sanders
Warren
Manchin

I've never seen any polls on Biden but then again I pay little attention to the asshole. He's a bigger empty suit than Obama is

That is because he is not running.