Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New Quinnipiac Poll- Head to Head Matchups and Favorability

No judgments, just passing the info along...

Nationwide head to head matchups

Clinton vs Trump- 46-41% (Clinton wins)
Clinton vs Cruz- 45-45% (Tied)
Clinton vs Rubio- 48-41% (Rubio wins)

Favorability among Republicans

Would definitely not support Trump- 30%
Would definitely not support Cruz- 15%
Would definitely not support Rubio- 7%

Come on... well all know that polls that don't show Trump winning are 9 months away don't mean anything.

Why is Rubio 3rd in FL?

Maybe the hip, young fast talker isn't as popular with old people?

2. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Kasich, Rubio, or Trump? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed)

REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS................
Bush 24%
Carson 8%
Christie 12%
Cruz 15%
Fiorina 13%
Gilmore 10%
Kasich 11%
Rubio 7%
Trump 30%
No/No one 28%
Don't Know/No Answer 7%

Whatta crock.

Hell, Qunnipiac couldn't even get the Trump 6 point lead over Cruz right just a couple of days before Iowa and now some desperate,easily influenced hopers want to give them a tip of the hat for a "guess" some 9 months out from now.

The article below will spell out the folly. Not that it will have any affect on the lazy and easily manipulated, though.
-----

A Year Out, Ignore General Election Polls

They have little relationship to the final outcome.
By Harry Enten
538/ Novenmber 2015


“The Doctor Is In As Carson Ties Trump In GOP Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Carson Tops Clinton By 10 Points In General Election”

That was the headline on a press release for the Quinnipiac University poll last week. My reaction? I hoped no one spent more than two seconds thinking about anything past the semi-colon. Since 1944, general election polls around a year before Election Day — where we are now — have only been weakly predictive of the eventual result.

If you look at polls that tested the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees in the last two months of the year before the election, the average absolute error of the polling average is 10.6 percentage points. That’s more than five times Ben Carson’s current lead over Hillary Clinton in the Huffington Post/Pollster.com aggregate. As you can see in the table below, 12 of the 14 elections1 for which we have polling data featured an error greater than Carson’s edge.


POLLING ACCURACY A YEAR BEFORE THE ELECTION


ELECTION

AVERAGE GOP POLL LEAD

GOP ELECTION MARGIN

ABSOLUTE ERROR


1964 -50.3 -22.6 27.7
1992 +21.0 -5.6 26.1
1980 -15.5 +9.7 25.2
2000 +11.9 -0.5 12.4
1984 +7.2 +18.2 11.0
1988 +18.0 +7.7 10.3
2008 -0.3 -7.3 6.9
1956 +22.0 +15.4 6.6
1944 -14.0 -7.5 6.5
2004 +8.7 +2.5 6.2
1996 -13.0 -8.5 4.5
1960 +3.0 -0.2 3.2
2012 -2.8 -3.9 1.0
1948 -3.8 -4.5 0.7
Average 10.6

The largest year-out lead belonged to Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. Johnson, in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, led Goldwater by an average of 50 percentage points. Goldwater did lose in a 23-percentage-point blowout, but that margin was still less than half that projected by the early polls.

If you trusted the polls in late 1991, you might have thought Bill Clinton was finished in the 1992 presidential election. George H.W. Bush was ahead of Clinton by 21 percentage points at the time; Bush was basking in sky-high approval ratings after the first Gulf War. But as the Gulf War triumph faded and the economy became the focus of the campaign, Clinton would gain in the polls and eventually overtake Bush.

We can go on and on through the list. Yes, the early polls foretold Dwight Eisenhower’s 15-percentage-point victory over Adlai Stevenson in the 1956 campaign, but they also had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan by 16 percentage points in the 1980 election. The Iran hostage crisis initially boosted Carter’s standing, but that didn’t last, and Reagan won by 10 percentage points that November.

Paradoxically, the 1948 race between Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey — the most famous polling mishap in U.S. election history — was the one with smallest difference between the polls a year out and the eventual results. The polling average a year out had Truman leading by just under 4 percentage points, and he won by just over 4 percentage points. That’s far more accurate than polls taken within a month of the election that had Dewey ahead by a comfortable margin.

But what about elections without an incumbent president on the ballot, like 2016? For the four we have data on, not a single one had an error of less than 3.2 percentage points.

Most recently, Barack Obama and John McCain were tied a year before the 2008 election. At that point in the campaign, more people cared about foreign policy than domestic issues. That changed dramatically as the global financial system collapsed, and Obama went on to win by over 7 percentage points.

The 2008 campaign is a good cautionary tale: We just don’t know what the most important issue will be at this time next year. Further, as my colleague Nate Silver has pointed out, a year out, “we have (almost) no Idea what the economy will look like on Election Day.” And the state of the economy is highly correlated with election results. Moreover, voters weigh the most recent economic news most heavily.

The second most recent non-incumbent election featured an even larger polling error. George W. Bush had a 12-percentage-point advantage over Al Gore in the early polls for the 2000 election, but Gore went on to win the national popular vote by half a percentage point. What changed? Bush, then the Texas governor, burst onto the national scene with relatively little negative media scrutiny. But that scrutiny grew as the primary and general election campaign progressed. According to Gallup, Bush’s net favorability dropped from +43 percentage points in December 1999 to +16 percentage points on the eve of the election.2

Like Bush in late 1999, most of the Republicans running in 2016 haven’t been on the national scene for that long. For all the GOP candidates except Jeb Bush and Donald Trump, at least one-third of adults do not know enough about them to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion. It isn’t difficult to imagine candidates’ popularity shifting dramatically as they become better known. And as the net favorability of the candidates change, how well they do against Clinton or another Democrat could change as well.

History’s lesson is clear: Don’t pay attention to general election polls a year before the election.

A lot can happen in the next nine months. That poll is designed to sway voters during the primary, hoping that people will base their vote on elect-ability against the Dem. candidate.

Any primary voter that bases his vote on that is a fool.

So you're saying that Quinnipiac is just making up results for their polls? Along with all the other companies?

How's the price of tinfoil doing?

======

No, he's saying you're a fool if you do.

No one's saying things can't change. That's just the current polling. Take it how ever.

He hasn't done crap for FL as a senator, been too busy running for prez to do his duty for us.

I'm sure if it showed Trump beating Hillary and it showed him as the most beloved republican candidate, it would be a rock solid quantitative masterpiece of analytical science

Here's a year out for the 2008 GOP race: Anyone who buys into this hooey is likely to own a schit load of Sham-Wows.
----------

Rasmussen Reports Poll Dec 16–19, 2007 Mike Huckabee 22%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, Ron Paul 6%

Rasmussen Reports Poll Dec 15–18, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 13%,

NBC/WSJ Poll Dec 14–17, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 17%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 11%
Rasmussen Reports Poll Dec 14–17, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 11%

USA Today/Gallup Poll Dec 14–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mike Huckabee 16%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 14%, Alan Keyes 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%

Reuters/Zogby Poll Dec 12–14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 12%, Ron Paul 4%

Battleground Poll Dec 9–12, 2007 Mike Huckabee 24%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 15%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 6%

Rasmussen Reports Poll Dec 9–12, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 6%

American Research Group Poll Dec 9–12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mike Huckabee 21%, John McCain 18%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 11%

Rasmussen Reports Poll Dec 8–11, 2007 Mike Huckabee 22%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 5%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll Dec 6–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 6%

CBS News/The New York Times Poll Dec 5–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mike Huckabee 21%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 7%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 4%

Let's see where the economy goes over the next 8 months. If it tanks, which nobody wants, a republican will get the vote, whoever the leading R is.

When the economy tanks, voters elect the party that is not in power or holding the presidential office.

But you're constantly talking about how far Trump is ahead in the polls..

Hmm.

I ignore the interparty polling, that changes FAR too fast. General polling shows 50% of the people are still subject to changing their minds. But the unfavorability questions are important to me, because it shows how like the candidate is to get the vote out next November (or how likely they are NOT to get the vote out). This is why I would rather we run against Hillary than Sanders - Sanders could do with the youth vote what Obama did with the minority vote the last 2 elections, pull a lot of traditional non-voters off of the sidelines into the polling booth.

It's also important to me to see the poll itself - the questions that are asked, who and how many are asked, and the order they are asked in. It's trivially easy to skew polling results by phrasing questions specific ways or by putting them in a specific order.

But ignoring polls totally? I guess if you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, that's the best thing for a person to do.

No, I'm saying that it's a long way off and because a lot can change between now and then, the margin of error compared to then and now is great.

I think it's interesting to look at, but because right now it's only February, I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. All I'm saying is that with all of the issues before us, using these numbers to help you decide who you'll vote for in the primary isn't going to help you. People should base their vote on something more substantial.

If Twimp were way ahead in the same poll you would be leading the chest-beaters and howling at the moon.

Exactly right. But I would add, that the Democrat turn out also depends on the favorability of the Republican candidate. Hillary is the opposite of Sanders in favorability. Her numbers are horrible. But if you run a strongly unfavorable Republican, CURRENTLY Trump, even Hillary will be able to get out the vote as an opponent to Trump. On the other hand, if we run someone who isn't as strongly negative, many of the Hillary haters will stay home. Basically, you need to run someone the anti-Hillary people HATE LESS than Hillary.