Survey: 3 Republicans would beat Clinton in Iowa

[ForgoTheConsequence]

Source: The Des Moines Register

If the general election for president were today, Iowa voters would choose three Republicans over Democrat Hillary Clinton, a new survey finds.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would fare better in general election match-ups than Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders would lose to those three Republicans as well, but the Vermont U.S. senator fares as well or better than Clinton.

Read more: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/22/quinnipiac-university-poll-scott-walker-marco-ruio-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton/30503405/

[pnwmom]

1. That poll is skewed Republican, thus the result are pretty meaningless.

In the real world, there are more Democrats than Republicans, but not in this poll.



http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2261


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/sco07222015_demos_Sg86de.pdf

Colorado

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 29%
Democrat 26
Independent 36
Other/DK/NA 10


Iowa

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 29%
Democrat 27
Independent 38
Other/DK/NA 6

Virginia

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 27%
Democrat 28
Independent 35
Other/DK/NA 9

A national poll in 2012 showed the usual breakdown of more Democrats than Rethugs.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

In more than 13,000 interviews conducted so far in 2012, 35% of registered voters identify with the Democratic Party, 28% with the Republican Party and 33% as independents.

[former9thward]

16. You are wrong.

In the real world elections are decided by states not the nation. It matters not who identifies with whom on a national basis. Do you have any figures showing the Iowa sample was flawed? National polls mean nothing.

[pnwmom]

18. The Iowa sample began with more Democrats (358) than Republicans (350).

But after they weighted it for gender, race, and county, the numbers flipped so Republicans ended up on top (29% vs. 27%). This was just a fluke of the small samples, but the result matters: they gave more weight to Republican voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=468849

REGISTERED VOTERS.....................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Weighted Percentage 100% 29% 27% 38% 48% 52%
Unweighted n 1,236 350 358 465 661 575
MoE (+/-%) 2.79 5.24 5.18 4.54 3.81 4.09

[George II]

21. Excellent catch....the Q poll has been questionable in the past, too.

[DCBob]

27. That helps explain these weird results.

Thanks.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Whoops! Time for the folks who normally love polls to start hating them. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. The most striking part of this article.......

"Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders would lose to those three Republicans as well, but the Vermont U.S. senator fares as well or better than Clinton."

[MADem]

5. If he doesn't do well in a rural, farming state with a homogenous population,

then it's unlikely he would have been elected to the Senate from a rural farming state with a homogenous population.

[George II]

22. Demographics:

Vermont: 96% white
Iowa: 93% white

[JDPriestly]

36. Iowa is very different from Vermont.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are states with relatively small populations. They should not be the first states to vote in the primaries.

Mid-sized or large states should go first.

We in California are very liberal, and our population is huge compared to other states. Compared to the size of our voter base, we have very little to do with the decisions made in politics in this country.

[A Little Weird]

4. Hmm

I don't think Hillary is the best person for the job, but honestly I can't imagine how any of the current crop of Republicans could be viewed by a rational person as a better choice than any of the declared Dem candidates. I weep for our country.

[rpannier]

17. Someone posted the poll is skewed republican

They asked more republicans than Democrats
Iowa's percentages are 31 Dem, 27 Rep and 40 independents

[A Little Weird]

23. Good

I wish pollsters would be honest but in this case I'm glad to hear they weren't.

Go dems!

[randys1]

6. Gonna fix this reporters mistake

If the general election for president were today, Iowa voters would choose three Republicans over DemocratIC candidate Hillary Clinton, a new survey finds.

[onehandle]

7. There's always one bad poll out there.

Our Next President:

[img][/img]

[rpannier]

20. I'd be worried if I were you

A blast from the past

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, Huckabee leads Obama 52 - 44 percent, while Romney has a 50-45 point advantage, which is within the poll's sampling error. Obama holds a 49-47 percent margin over Gingrich. -CNN 2011

And we all know polls more than a year away from elections are fantastic indicators

(Do I need this -- )

Oh... and one poster above pointed out, they polled more Republicans than Democrats, yet Iowa is +4 Democratic and independents are at 40%

[Calista241]

42. They also sampled more women than men in the poll.

One would think that would lean Clinton also.

[Journeyman]

8. This may only prove that Iowa is a poor choice for First Contest . . .

if the Iowa electorate proves to be this far out of sync with what I believe the nation will choose this year, it only reinforces the absurdity of letting them have first say in what choices the rest of us will have as the electoral season progresses.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

10. Out of sync?

In 2010 Iowa went toward Obama.....Obama won.

In 2008 Iowa went to Obama......Obama won.

In 2004 Iowa went to Bush.......Bush won.

In 2000 Iowa went to Gore......(Gore won the popular vote).

In 1996 Iowa went to Clinton.......Clinton won.

In 1992 Iowa went to Clinton........Clinton won.





The last Presidential election Iowa got wrong was in 1988 (Iowa was one of the 11 states that went to Dukakis). Further, Iowa has only went Republican once since 1984.



Try again.

[Thor_MN]

24. Apples. Oranges.

You are substituting election results for the Iowa caucuses.

Discounting Saint Ronnie's, Clinton's, and Dumbya's second races, the Iowa caucuses have called the winner of the General election twice since the 70's, and they get two chances by having both major parties.

Dumbya won with 41% in 2000 and Obama won in 2008 with 38%.

I'm not counting second term races, because the incumbent runs unopposed in the primary. That leaves Iowa at 2 for 6 since 1976, with the advantage of having both parties represented.

Hardly in sync.

[JDPriestly]

40. Because it is the first primary, it has an influence on the elections that is inappropriate for

a state with such a small population.

Hold the earliest primaries in the states with the most people: California, New York, Texas and Illinois, maybe Ohio and we would get a better synchronization between the popular choice and the winner in the election.

Those of us who live in highly populated states (and we have large urban populations whose voices are underrepresented in many respects in our government) should get to have the earliest primaries.

The system now is terribly unfair and undemocratic.

[Thor_MN]

43. Actually, Iowa's primary does not have much of an influence on the general election.

Otherwise it would have indicated the eventual winner more than twice out six recent elections *

My main objection to Iowa is they have a population stupid enough to elect Steve King and Jodie Breadbags.

Interesting hypothesis that most populous states would be better synchronized with the general election. Does past performance bear that out? Being from a less populous state, I would say that California, Texas, New York, (Florida), Illinois, (Pennsylvania), and Ohio already get most of the national attention, they don't need any more.

Portions of the electoral system was designed in a time where one couldn't possibly campaign in even just the 13 original states. It's in terrible need of an overhaul to account foe technology, and to remove corporate money from the process. If corporations are people (I say they are not) why the hell do they get to donate more than what a person can? Either they should not be able to donate at all, or they should be held to individual limits and subject to the same reporting as individuals.

* discounting second terms of a president, as they were unopposed in the primary.

[Journeyman]

32. What is it about the words "may" and "if" that confounds you? . . .

and as Thor_MN points out, you've got your facts a little confused, too.

[MADem]

28. Iowa is OFTEN weird. It's not a big contest, and it's not diverse. It's really more of an

opportunity for the press to watch candidates pander for way longer than those 6 electoral votes merit. I'm sure it's torture for the candidates, and it's probably torture in a more delicious way for the press.

The candidates all look stupid wearing some combination of casual wear, sweaters or plaid shirts and shitkickers and barn coats, pretending that they know (or care) jack about hog butchering and the price of corn! They'll eat weird food, swing an ax and hope they don't cut off their own foot, go duck hunting ... it's just so ridiculous!!!!

It is a Rite of Passage, but maybe it is time for a change? Those caucuses cut out all the shift workers, the parents who can't get a sitter, the sitters (if they're over eighteen)....it's more of a "bother to show up" type process--and some people just can't because they have to work or have family obligations.

The state probably loves 'em for the same reason NH likes their "so-called First in the Nation" status...because it brings in MILLIONS of dollars in revenue to the state. Manchester NH turns into MANIC MANCHESTER when those guys are around--the Holiday Inn downtown goes from being a sedate place that occasionally sees a comic-con style event to a MADHOUSE of reporters and hangers on getting drunk at the bar and screaming up and down the hallways. I've been up there when that mess goes down and it's GAAAAH! You can usually find a place to park in Manchester, but when the circus is in town it gets crazy!

That said, Iowa has been accurate in picking the person who has won the nom often enough--but they've also picked the people with the most money and the most evolved ground game. So, it's kind of a cash on the barrel thing. In the past, they've also said (on the GOP side) that HUCKABEE was the one in 08, and that Pat Robertson or Bob Dole were better choices than Poppy Bush. They picked UNCOMMITTED over Jimmy Carter, too, and Homeboy Harkin over Bill Clinton, and Dick Gephardt over Mike Dukakis in 88. So, ya just never know!

I dunno. If the parties want to put up with it, it's not for me to say. I have to say I'd be tearing my hair out if I had to play that pander game--and it is what they expect out that way.

[Journeyman]

30. I favor dividing the nation for the primaries into 6 electoral districts . . .

and which district would vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first for President.

All states in an electoral district would have their primaries on the same day. This way, campaigns would focus on a select geographic region -- costs would be lower, there wouldn't be as much travel required, and the media buys would be more focused as well, since neighboring states would be addressed at the same time.

There'd be the added benefit that citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that politicians address the regional issues of their concern as well as the national issues, thereby denying the candidates the opportunity to hide behind national platitudes instead of answering specific questions important to a select electorate.

If the primaries were held every 3 weeks, the primary season could be over in some 3 to 4 months, which might help focus every voter's attention earlier in the process.

But it'll probably never happen. Too many vested interests with too much at stake in the present, crippled system.

[MADem]

33. What an interesting concept!!!

My cynical mind sees the GOP trying to find a way to gerrymander the process....!!!

It is a clever idea, though!

I'm in a blue Supertuesday state--a face in the crowd, I am!

[Journeyman]

34. I'm in California. By the time I vote in June, it'll most likely all be over. . .

It's one reason I haven't gotten involved in the Clinton v. Sanders debates: Kind of senseless, when I won't know if my input will affect anything at all for months to come yet.

[MADem]

35. Smart move on eschewing the drama! It's probably better for your blood pressure, too.

I have a preference, but my attitude is, I'm voting for the nominee. If my "team" doesn't win, I'll get over it~! Like I always say, the worst Dem is better than the best Republican!

[JDPriestly]

41. Fair enough.

I would allow large states with large populations to vote first in the primaries. We get less representation per person in the electoral college because we only get two senators.

[sadoldgirl]

9. As far as CO is concerned, the proportions are pretty right. n/t

[edhopper]

11. Oh No!

What would Hilary do without those 6 electoral votes?

Do you have the poll numbers for Alabama and Georgia as well?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. Any other state you want to write off?

Hell lets write off every state outside of California and New England. That's a great plan.





Forget that Iowa has been traditionally a strong Democratic state in Presidential elections. We don't need those damn yokels!

[zentrum]

13. Terrifying

Frankly, that's what scares me most about Hillary. Well, almost.

That Republicans will be very motivated to defeat her and the Democratic base will be depressed.

[RBInMaine]

31. Polls don't mean SHIT right now and if SANE they won't be "depressed." So please get on an upper.

[geek tragedy]

14. Unusually conservatives sample in those polls.

The results were really bad for Sanders too.

[rocktivity]

15. But would they beat any other Dem candidate?

There are too many heads to start speculating about head-to-head competitions.




rocktivity

[George II]

19. IF "the election was held today". I'll wait until November 2016

[MarianJack]

25. Outlier

PEACE!

[George II]

26. I don't think I've ever heard television political analysts calling out polls, but a whole bunch...

...of them were doing it all day today.

Q will probably never do it, but if they did I wouldn't be surprised if they amended this poll.

[TeddyR]

29. So, I'm a Hillary supporter

But one thing about Hillary is that everyone knows her. Her name recognition has to be higher than any non-incumbent in recent history. And that means (to me) that a lot of people have made up their minds about whether they'll vote for her. Which means that if she trails in swing states like Iowa, Virginia or Colorado then she is in trouble in those states, and her best hope is that once voters get to know the relatively unknown Republican candidates they will sour on those candidates and turn to Hillary.

As a lifelong Democrat I'm fairly concerned about this next presidential election. First, people may just be ready to change parties. Second, I'm not sure that any of the current Democratic candidates are going to excite the base like President Obama, and if the base doesn't turn out then Democrats are in trouble. Third and finally, I think Hillary is the best candidate and don't believe that any other Democrat can win.

[asiliveandbreathe]

37. IOWA - IOWA - IOWA

you know what we call them here in ..in the winter time.......Idiots Out Wandering Around.. ...we have to put up with them for 5-6 months a year....as someone retired here from Massachusetts...I am the petunia in the onion patch!!!!LOL

I am so sick of Iowa - all of the South including Texass..except for Austin..which is awesome -

I have never paid much mind to polls...these days they can be bought and sold ...so why bother....

[Chicago1980]

38. Seeing as the election is 15 1/2 months off.....

[Indepatriot]

39. Maybe the guy at "Unskewed Polls" who was

So accurate in 12' can fix it up nice for the HRC crowd🌽