01 November 2015

2016 polling round-up, 01-15.11.2015: DEM Nomination

DEM NOMINATION: NATIONAL POLLING

NBC / WSJ, released 02.11.2015:
1,000 Adults, MoE = +/-3.1
of them, 400 DLV, MoE = +/-

Clinton 62
Sanders 31
O'Malley 3
Lessig 1

Margin: Clinton +31


Morning Consult, released 03.11.2015:
2,350 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,015 DRV

Clinton 56
Sanders 26
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +30

Quinnipiac, released 04.11.2015:
1,144 RV, MoE = +/-2.9
of them, 480 DRV, MoE = +/-4.5

Clinton 53
Sanders 35
O'Malley 0
(Lessig 1)

Margin: Clinton +18


FOX New poll, released 05.11.2015:
1,230 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 505 DLV, MoE = +/-4.0

Clinton 56
Sanders 31
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +25

This is an important internal in the FOX poll for both Ds and Rs concerning Partisan Identification:


Two weeks ago, it was R+1, this time it is D+5. Either way, both percentages are too high and the Independent percentage is too low.


IPSOS / Reuters, released 05.11.2015:
1,636 Adults, MoE = +/-2.8


of them, 629 DRV, MoE = +/-4.5



Margin = Clinton +18 (DRV +IRV, D-leaning), Clinton +29 (DRV only), Clinton +2 (IRV, D-leaning only)

USC Dornside  /LA Times / SurveyMonkey, released 05.11.2015:
3,035 RV, MoE = +/-2.5
Of them, 1,242 DRV

Clinton 48
Sanders 28
O'Malley 2
(Lessig 1)

Margin: Clinton +20

2,000 Adults, MoE = +/-3-0
of them, 670 DRV

Clinton 59
Sanders 31
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +28

Morning Consult, released 10.11.2015:
4,002 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,739 DRV, MoE =+/-3.0

Clinton 54
Sanders 28
O'Malley 3

Margin: Clinton +26

CBS News / NYT, released 12.11.2015:
418 DLV, MoE = +/-6.0

Clinton 52
Sanders 33
O'Malley 5

Margin: Clinton +19

McClatchy/Marist Poll, released 13.11.2015:
1,080 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 511 DRV and IRV, D-leaning, MoE = +/-4.3

Clinton 57
Sanders 35
O'Malley 4

Margin: Clinton +22

Within the internals of the poll, we see that Clinton sweeps almost every possible category:



IPSOS/Reuters, from 13.11.2015:
764 DRV, MoE not listed immediately, likely +/-3.5




Margin: Clinton +22.5

BTW, here is how the headlines look at the Reuters main polling site:



xxx

DEM NOMINATION: STATE POLLING

California:
USC Dornside  /LA Times / SurveyMonkey, released 05.11.2015:
2,009 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
Of them, 1,022 DRV

Clinton 48
Sanders 32
O'Malley 1
(Lessig 1)

Margin: Clinton +16


Florida:

SUSA/Bay News 9 / News 13, released 03.11.2015:
2,444 LV, MoE = +/-2.2
of them, 826 DLV, MoE =

Clinton 66
Sanders 24
O'Malley 3

Margin: Clinton +42


Georgia:

SUSA, released for major media 02.11.2015:
418 DLV, MoE = +/-4.0

Clinton 73
Sanders 16
O'Malley 4

Margin: Clinton +57

Also, the demographics for the DEM nomination survey group are interesting. Clinton dominates in every rubrik, but it's the actual demographic that counts:


So, the Democratic electorate in Georgia is 57 F / 43 M (F +15), 51% over 50, 18% over 65, but the racial component is especially telling in contrast to the Republican electorate: 34 White / 56 Black / 5 Latino (almost a complete mirror image of the actual Demographics of the state).

To compare, the actual demographics of the state of Georgia are: M 48.8 / F 51.2 (F +2.4), 54.3 White / 31.5 Black / 9.3 Latino, 12.4% over 65.

Neither major political party has an electorate demographic that is really in line with the overall demographic of the state. Both parties have demographics that go to extremes. When you study the electorates for these two parties here, you could almost think that there are two Georgias within the Union.

Iowa:

PPP (D), released 02.11.2015:
615 DLV, MoE = +/-3.9

Clinton 57
Sanders 25
O'Malley 7
Lessig 1

Margin: Clinton +32

This one interesting internal, sparked by the controversy that some saw in the CNBC Republican nomination debate from last week:




Compared with the Republican FAV/UNFAVs vis-a-vis the same question:


That is a very, very stark contrast.

Monmouth University / Douglas Fulmer & Associates, released 03.11.2015:


Clinton 45.8
Sanders 31.7
O'Malley 5.4

Margin: Clinton +14.1



Gravis (R) / OANN, released 05.11.2015:
935 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
Of them, 273 DLV

Clinton 57
Sanders 25
O'Malley 3

Margin: Clinton +32

CNN/ORC, released 06.11.2015:
2,009 Adults, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 498 DLV

Clinton 55
Sanders 37
O'Malley 3

Margin: Clinton +18

Some enlightening CNN/ORC poll internals:


-and-



Illinois:

McKeon &Assoc. (D), conducted 20.10.2015, released 05.11.2015:
818 DLV, MoE = +/-3.9

Clinton 43
Undecided 37
Sanders 12
O'Malley 5
Webb 2
Chafee 2


Margin: Clinton +31

The poll internals also show a breakdown according to the Latino vote among DLV:

Clinton 52
Undecided 42
O'Malley 5
Sanders 1
Webb 1



Margin: Clinton +47 (over O'Malley), +51 (over Sanders)

Minnesota:

SUSA, released 03.11.2015 (published online 09.11.2015:
516 DRV, MoE = +/-4.4

Clinton 64
Sanders 20
O'Malley 4


Margin: Clinton +44


New Hampshire:

Monmouth University / Douglas Fulmer & Associates, released 03.11.2015:
403 DLV, MoE = +/-4.9

Clinton 48
Sanders 45
O'Malley 3
Lessig 3

Margin: Clinton +3 (statistical tie)

That is a strong shift toward Clinton since the last Monmouth poll of this state:





600 RV, MoE = +/-4.0
of them, 214 DRV, MoE = +/-6.7

Clinton 46
Sanders 25
O'Malley 3

Margin: Clinton +19



New Jersey:

1,456 RV, MoE = +/-2.6
of them, 481 RRV, MoE = +/-4.5

Clinton 56
Sanders 23
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +33
North Carolina:

1,070 LV, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 514 DLV

Clinton 57.1
Sanders 24.0
O'Malley 2.5

Margin: Clinton +33.1

South Carolina:

832 DLV, MoE = +/-3.2

Clinton 71
Sanders 15
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +66


832 LV, MoE = +/-3.4

Clinton 71
Sanders 15
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +66

You are not seeing double. Both of those SC polls provided exactly the same results.

400 DLV, MoE = +/-4.9

Clinton 69
Sanders 21
O'Malley 1

Margin: Clinton +47

400 DLV, MoE = +/-4.9

Clinton 72
Sanders 18
O'Malley 5

Margin: Clinton +54

Texas:

UT / Texas Tribune, released 12.11.2015:
1,200 RV, MoE = +/-2.8
of them, 459 DRV, MoE = +/-4.57

Clinton 61
Sanders 30
O'Malley 1

Margin: Clinton +31


xxx





No comments:

Post a Comment

Constructive comments and critique are always welcome. Please keep it polite and respectful.