31 January 2016

Polling wrap-up, 15-31.01.2016, released directly before the Iowa caucuses

Just as I suspected, the last two weeks of January have brought a veritable blizzard of polling with them, more than any other two week period since I have been watching the 2016 polls, starting back in late 2013.  In this report are the results of at least 217 matchups from a bevy of polls. Of course, the bulk of state polling has been coming out of the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire, since they are the first two contests, but a great number of other states, including states that are barely polled at all, were polled. So, it has been an incredibly active two weeks.  On both the Republican and Democratic sides, I will have lots of analysis over both Iowa and New Hampshire, but there has also been some very interesting, often unexpected, internal data from the somewhat less "sexy" states. At the end of the D-vs-R polling I did a very long analysis of the electoral symbiosis between the upper Midwest states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. This could be an interesting read for people who like to see hard, cold facts in action.

 I will continue using this system of logging polling data until the March 15th primaries and then let's see if it's necessary after that point in time. Afterward, I will then start in with my now famous "Electoral Landscapes".

So, before I begin with the Republican side of things, here is a map of the USA with the 17 states that have been polled colored in a gold-orange color:


Most all of these states were polled for both parties and 8 of them were polled for D-vs-R matchups.
That makes for 4 western states, 5 southern states, 6 midwestern states and 2 NE-Acela states.

You can see that a large geographic area of the USA has been polled this time around and there is a certain consistency in the data on both sides, if you look closely enough. Big "FACIT:" at the end of this report.  Get your coffee and enjoy 217+ matchups!

GOP NOMINATION: NATIONAL POLLING

Benchmark/Trump's average from week two: Trump +19.75

1.) NBC /WSJ, released 17.01.2016: Trump +13
2.) NBC News, Survey Monkey, released 19.01.2016: Trump +17
3.) Morning Consult (R), released 19.01.2016: Trump +26
4.) Monmouth University, released 20.01.2016: Trump +19
5.) IPSOS-Reuters, released 22.01.2016:  Trump +24 (RRV + IRV, R-leaning), Trump +24 (RRV only), Trump +30 (IRV, R-leaning only)
6.) Zogby Analytics, released 22.01.2016: Trump +32
7.) FOX News Poll, released 22.01.2016: Trump +14

Week three average: Trump +20.71


8.) ABC/WAPO, released 26.01.2016: Trump +14
9.) CNN/ORC, released 26.01.2016: Trump +22
10.) NBC News / Survey Monkey, released 26.01.2016: Trump +22
11.) Morning Consult (R), released 26.01.2016: Trump +29
12.) Bloomberg/Purple Strategies, released 27.01.2016: Trump +20
13.) NRRI (National Public Religion Institute), released 27.01.2016: Trump +19
14.) IBD/TIPP, released 28.01.2016: Trump +10
15.) YouGov, released 31.01.2016: Trump +25

Week four average: Trump +20.12


Of all 15 national GOP nomination polls for the last two weeks of January, 2016, Trump won every single one, and big, too. Notice that his weekly averages barely budged. He is far ahead of where Mitt Romney was in polling at this stage in the process at the end of January, 2012. There is really not much more to say that that. With a +20 most all over the place, this pretty much guarantees Mr. Trump sweeps in virtually every congressional district and in most all counties, which is important in proportional primaries.

GOP NOMINATION: STATE POLLING

Alaska:
Ivan Moore / Alaska Dispatch, released 23.01.2016: Trump +4.1

Arizona:
MBQF Consulting, released 21.01.2016: Trump +22.7

Florida:
Opinion Savvy / Florida Times-Union / Fox 13 Tampa Bay, released 18.01.2016: Trump +12.3
FAU (Florida Atlantic University), released 20.01.2016: Trump +30.3
CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Trump +12.3
Average: Trump + 18.3

Georgia:
Opinion Savvy / Fox 5 Atlanta, released 18.01.2016: Trump +10
CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Trump +10
Average: Trump +10

Idaho:
Dan Jones and Associates / Idaho Politics, released 18.01.2016 (conducted 17-29.12.2015): Trump +11

Illinois:
Overtime Politics, released 18.01.2016: Trump +20

Iowa:
Monmouth College / KBUR / Douglas Fulmer & Associates, released 21.01.2016: Cruz +2
Loras College, released 21.01.2016: Trump +1.6
CNN/ORC, released 21.01.2016: Trump +11
Emerson College, released 21.01.2016: Trump +10.3
Week 3 average: Trump +4.98 (+5)

ARG, released, 25.01.2016: Trump +7
FOX News Poll, released 25.01.2016: Trump +11
Quinnipiac, released 26.01.2016: Trump +2
Iowa State/WHO-HD, released 26.01.2016: Cruz +6.9
Monmouth University, released 27.01.2016: Trump +7
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Trump +7
PPP (D), released 28.01.2016: Trump +8
Gravis (R) / OANN, released 29.01.2016: Trump +4
Des Moines Register / Bloomberg, released 30.01.2016: Trump +5
Opinion Savvy, released 31.01.2016: Trump +0.7
Emerson College, released 31.01.2016: Trump +1.8

Week 4 average: Trump +4.2


Maryland:
Gonzales Research, released 19.01.2016: Trump +16.9

Michigan:
FOX 2 / Mitchell, released 29.01.2016: Trump +36 (and over the 50% mark)

Minnesota:
Overtime Politics, released 20.01.2016: Trump +17
Mason-Dixon / Star Tribune, released 24.01.2016: Rubio +2
Average: Trump +7.5

New Hampshire:
ARG, released 19.01.2016: Trump +7
Gravis Marketing (R) / OANN, released 20.01.2016; Trump +20
CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 20.01.2016Trump +20

Week 3 average: Trump +15.7

Franklin Pierce University / Boston Herald, released 25.01.2016: Trump +19
FOX News poll, released 25.01.2016: Trump +17
ARG, released 26.01.2016: Trump +14
Emerson College, released 27.01.2016: Trump +17
Mason-Dixon/AARP, released 27.01.2016 (but taken from 12-16.01.2016): Trump +18
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Trump +19
Suffolk University, released 28.01.2016: Trump +14.4
Franklin Pierce U / Boston Herald, released 31.01.2016: Trump +25
CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 31.01.2016: Trump +18

Week 4 average: Trump + 17.93

North Carolina:

PPP (D), released 20.01.2016: Trump +22
Civitas (R), released 21.01.2016: Trump +4
Overtime Politics, released 25.01.2016: Trump +9
Average: Trump +11.7

Pennsylvania:
Franklin and Marshall, released 28.01.2016: Trump +10

South Carolina:
Opinion Savvy / Augusta Chronicle, released 16.01.2016: Trump +14.2
CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Trump +19
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Trump +16
Average: Trump +16.4

Texas:
CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Cruz +15

Utah:
SUSA / Salt Lake Tribune, released 17.01.2016: Cruz +1

Wisconsin:
Marquette Law School, released 28.01.2016: Trump +6

That makes for 50 GOP nomination polls from 17 states, or about 1/3 of the Union, where Trump has won 45 of 50 state polls, and most of those polls by very solid landslide margins. 15 of those polls are from Iowa and 12 or so are from New Hampshire; half of all the state polls came out of these two states combined. It is interesting to note that the margins from completely disparate pollsters, wide apart from each other on the political spectrum, released on the same day or within 1 day of each other, often show exactly the same margin. See: New Hampshire, both polls from 20.01.2016, or both polls from Georgia. In Iowa, the polling results are very disparate and from I have read in many of the poll internals, it has to do with the estimate of how big the caucus-going electorate will be in Iowa on Monday. Among experienced caucus-goers, Cruz does considerably better. Among brand new voters who say they intend to caucus on Monday, Trump does considerably better. So, this may be a case where turnout is more important than is often the case in a state where the front-runner has a large aggregate margin over the field.  If a lot of first-time caucusers don't show up, then Cruz may come out on top. If the floodgates open and there is an absolute record turnout in Iowa, then Trump is likely to win well, but the delegate delegation will be proportionally split no matter what.

Ted Cruz is landsliding in his home state of Texas. If Cruz loses IA badly to Trump, who knows if this margin will hold, but for now, Cruz is the prohibitive winner in the 2nd largest state in the Union. Cruz is also just barely ahead in Utah.  Rubio came in first in one Minnesota poll, but the aggregate still favors Trump. The newest Michigan poll is the first GOP state poll to show Trump over the 50 mark, and to hit that mark with such a large field is no small feat.

The biggest losers of the last two weeks, pollingwise, have been Bush (who is mostly down to 2-3% in much of this polling), Fiorina (who has all but disappeared) and Carson (who occasionally hits double digits, but then slumps all the way down to 4%.

13% appears to be the magic number for Marco Rubio - he comes in at 13% in many, many polls. It's almost eery.

Both the national and the state GOP polling point without a shadow of a doubt to Trump dominance almost everywhere. If he wins in IA and is likely to landslide in NH, he is also still ahead in SC but hasn't been polled much in NV - but if he wins all four, then I personally give him a 100% chance of being the Republican nominee in 2016.

You can find all of the toplines, margins, survey group sizes, MoE's and a great deal of internal data on the GOP polling HERE.



DEM NOMINATION: NATIONAL POLLING

Benchmark/Clinton average from week two: Clinton +17.16

1.) The Economist / YouGov, released 16.01.2016: Clinton +25
2.) NBC/WSJ, released 17.01.2016: Clinton +25
3.) Monmouth University, released 19.01.2016: Clinton +15
4.) NBC News, Survey Monkey, released 19.01.2016: Clinton +16
5.) Morning Consult (R), released 19.01.2016: Clinton +24
6.) The Economist / You Gov, released 19.01.2016 (conducted 09-11.01.2016): Clinton +25
7.) The Economist / YouGov, released 21.01.2016: Clinton +9
8.) IPSOS-Reuters, released 22.01.2016:  Clinton +11 (DRV +IRV, D-leaning), Clinton +19 (DRV only), Sanders +9 (IRV, D-leaning only)

Week three Average (without repeater): Clinton +19

9.) Zogby Analytics, released 24.01.2016: Clinton +22
10.) FOX News, released 25.01.2016: Clinton +12
11.) CNN/ORC, released 25.01.2016: Clinton +14
12.) NBC News / Survey Monkey, released 26.01.2016: Clinton +14
13.) Morning Consult (R), released 26.01.2016: Clinton +17
14.) ABC/WAPO, released 27.01.2016: Clinton +19
15.) NRRI (National Public Religion Institute), released 27.01.2016: Clinton +20
16.) IBD/TIPP, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +12
17.) YouGov, released 31.01.2016Clinton +12

Week four Average: Clinton +15.8

Of the 17 national Democratic nomination polls, Clinton has won all 17. Statistically, her margin average has gone down about 4 points. That being said, in most of the national polls, she is still over the 50 mark. Right now, Clinton (D) and Trump (R) are enjoying very similar aggregate margins at the national level. Her average in week 3 went over week 2 and then slipped some in week four.



DEM NOMINATION: STATE POLLING

Alaska:
Ivan Moore / Alaska Dispatch, released 23.01.2016: Clinton +3.1

Florida:
FAU (Florida Atlantic University), released 20.01.2016: Clinton +36.3

Idaho:
Dan Jones and Associates / Idaho Politics, released 18.01.2016 (conducted 17-29.12.2015): Clinton +3

Illinois:
Overtime Politics, released 18.01.2016: Clinton +11

Iowa:
Monmouth College / KBUR / Douglas Fulmer & Associates, released 21.01.2016: Clinton +9
CNN/ORC, released 21.01.2016: Sanders +8
Emerson College, released 21.01.2016: Clinton +9.3
Loras College, released 22.01.2016: Clinton +28.8
Mason-Dixon / AARP, released 22.01.2016: Clinton +7
Week 3 Average: Clinton +9.22

CBS/YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Sanders +1
ARG, released 25.01.2016: Sanders +3
FOX News Poll, released 25.01.2016: Clinton +6
Iowa State/WHO-HD, released 26.01.2016: Clinton +2
Quinnipiac, released 27.01.2016: Sanders +4
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +3
Monmouth University, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +5
PPP (D) / Progress Iowa, released 29.01.2016: Clinton +8
Gravis (R) / OANN, released 29.01.2016: Clinton +9
Des Moines Register / Bloomberg, released 30.01.2016: Clinton +3
Emerson College, released 31.01.2016: Clinton +8.0

Week 4 Average: Clinton +3.3


Maryland:
Gonzales Research, released 19.01.2016: Clinton +13.2

Michigan:
FOX 2 / Mitchell, released 29.01.2016: Clinton +27

Minnesota:
Overtime Politics, released 20.01.2016: Clinton +3
Mason-Dixon / Star Tribune, released 24.01.2016: Clinton +24
Average:  Clinton +13.5

New Hampshire:
ARG, released 19.01.2016: Sanders +6
CNN / UNH / WMUR, released 19.01.2016: Sanders +27
Gravis Marketing (R) / OANN, released 20.01.2016; Sanders +3
Suffolk University, released 22.01.2016: Sanders +8.6

Week 3 Average: Sanders +11.15

CBS News / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Sanders +19
Franklin Pierce University / Boston Herald, released 25.01.2016: Sanders +16
FOX News poll, released 25.01.2016: Sanders +22
ARG, released 26.01.2016: Sanders +7
Emerson College, released 27.01.2016: Sanders +8
Mason-Dixon/AARP, released 27.01.2016 (but taken from 12-16.01.2016): Sanders +25
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Sanders +19
Franklin Pierce U / Boston Herald, released 31.01.2016: Sanders +20
CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 31.01.2016Sanders +23

Week 4 Average: Sanders +17.7

North Carolina:

PPP (D), released 20.01.2016: Clinton +33
Civitas (R), released 27.01.2016: Clinton +25
Overtime Politics, released 25.01.2016: Clinton +35
Average: Clinton +31

Ohio:
PPP (D), for the Ohio Democratic Party, released 19.01.2016: Clinton +16
Overtime Politics, released 29.01.2016: Clinton +5
Average: Clinton +10.5

Pennsylvania:
Franklin and Marshall, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +16

South Carolina:
CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016: Clinton +10
NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +37
Average: Clinton +23.5

Utah:
SUSA / Salt Lake Tribune, released 17.01.2016: Clinton +22


Wisconsin:
Marquette Law School, released 28.01.2016: Clinton +2


That makes for 47 DEM nomination polls from 15 states, where Clinton has won 30 of 47 state polls, and most of those polls by very solid landslide margins. Bernie Sanders, however, has completely dominated all 13 New Hamshire polls and his margin aggregate also grew from week 3 to week 4. He is on course to easily win the state, no doubt about it.

Now, a lot of chatter has been about Iowa, but actually, Clinton has still won most of the Iowa polls and the latest of them show her still ahead. The story of Clinton vs. Sanders in Iowa is similar to that of Trump vs. Cruz on the Republican side in terms of expected turnout and clientele: experienced caucus goers tend much more strongly toward Clinton, while first-time caucus goers tend more toward Sanders. What remains to be seen is what the turnout will actually be.

There is a new pollster on the scene, whom I have mentioned sporadically: Overtime Politics. This time around, we have a chance to compare the new firm's results with that of other more established pollsters and the results are somewhat conflicting. In both Minnesota and Ohio, Overtime Politics shows Clinton just barely ahead of Sanders, while a more established pollster shows her leading by a much larger margin. Rather than passing judgement, I will just say that every polling firm goes through a learning phase and only G-d himself knows how fickle survey respondents can be. The margin difference between Overtime Politics and Mason-Dixon is 24 points and the two polls were released four days apart from each other. That being said, Mason-Dixon does not necessarily have a good record for accuracy. In Ohio, the margin difference between Overtime Politics and PPP (D), undoubtedly the best pollster of 2012, is 11 points, still way too much for my taste. Considering how favorable the Ohio electorate, in both primaries as well as in general elections, has been to the name Clinton, I tend to think that PPP is closer to reality in this case. Wait and see. Also interesting to note is that two respected pollsters show identical margins for Clinton in both Ohio and Pennsylvania: +16. She won both states over Obama in 2008 by about +8, so the electoral behavior of both states shows a correlation both at the national level and also at the primary level.

Referring to both the Republican and Democratic sides, the Ivan Moore poll from Alaska is interesting to see in that in both cases, it shows a tight race. Though not necessarily the gold standard for Alaska, Ivan Moore is a known pollster for our most far flung state. In 2012 itself, Alaska was not polled, not even once. And in 2011, for the 2012 election, Alaska was only polled once, by Hays Polling (also a known element in that state), but in 2008, Alaska was polled a number of times but many of those results show a mathematical bias to the Left. So, no wonder that Sanders is doing well in Alaska, at least in this poll. Wait and see.

I find it very interesting to note that the Clinton margins over Sanders in Utah and Idaho (states that are almost never polled, ever) are so incredibly different from each other. Both of those states gave Obama big margins in the 2008 primaries, and of course, went handily for the Republican nominee in November.  We are talking about 2 of the 4 deepest core-states within the GOP electoral column.

You can find all of the toplines, margins, survey group sizes, MoE's and a great deal of internal data on the DEM polling HERE.



D vs. R matchups: NATIONAL POLLING

NBC/WSJ, released 17.01.2016: 4 matchups, 2 Clinton vs. GOP, 1 Sanders vs. Trump: the DEMS win all four.

Morning Consult (R), released 19.01.2016: 6 Clinton vs. GOP matchups: she ties Carson, wins the other five.

Morning Consult (R), released 21.01.2016: (special poll series) 3 3-way-polls with Bloomberg as the Independent: Clinton barely loses to Trump, wins the other two.

-and-

Morning Consult (R), released 24.01.2016: (special poll series) 3 3-way-polls with Sanders against the same 3 GOPers and Bloomberg as the Independent. Sanders easily wins all three.

Morning Consult (R), released 26.01.2016: 6 Clinton vs. GOP matchups: she wins all 6 easily, by between +5 and +8. A reminder: Morning Consult is a Republican pollster.

Zogby Analytics, released 27.01.2016: 14 matchups, 7 Clinton vs. GOP and 7 Sanders vs. GOP. The DEMS win 13 of the 14 matchups, the exception being a tie between Clinton and Trump.

IPSOS/Reuters special poll, released 28.01.2016: to the best of my knowledge (since the article appears incomplete), 1 Sanders vs. Trump poll, 1 Sanders vs Trump vs Bloomberg poll and 2 Clinton 3-way-polls, with Bloomberg again as the independent. The Democrats win all four polls.

38 national matchups.

On the national level, in D-vs-R polling we see a real pick-up for the D candidates and across the line, Bernie Sanders does better against the GOP than Clinton. But better now does not guarantee better later. Wait and see.

D vs. R matchups: STATE POLLING

Florida:
FAU (Florida Atlantic University), released 20.01.2016: 7 matchups, 4 Clinton vs. GOP, 3 Sanders vs. GOP. 1 mathematical tie, 1 near mathematical tie, 1 Clinton win (against Cruz), 3 GOP wins. Narrow margins all the way around. Battleground state.

Idaho:
Dan Jones and Associates / Idaho Politics, released 18.01.2016 (conducted 17-29.12.2015): a rarity to get a poll from this state. 4 Clinton vs. GOP matchups, the GOP wins all 4, by between +18 and +22. Idaho is usually a +35 GOP state.  These margins are under par.

Michigan:
FOX 2 / Mitchell, released 29.01.2016: 1 matchup: Trump beats Clinton by +3. Mitchell has a bad track record in MI for being off to the Right by 4-6 points very consistently, so this poll does not surprise me.

Minnesota:
Mason-Dixon / Star Tribune, released 24.01.2016: 4 matchups, 2 Clinton vs. GOP, 1 Sanders vs. Trump. Clinton loses to Rubio and Cruz, beats Trump. Sanders beats Trump by 16 points. Minnesota is currently a 10-for-10 D state at the presidential level, all the way back to 1976. It is more left-leaning that Wisconsin or Michigan in terms of ideology and so I am not surprised to see Sanders doing better here than Clinton. Analysis below.

New Hampshire:
CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 20.01.2016: 10 matchups, 5 Clinton vs. GOP, 5 Sanders vs. GOP: Clinton barely loses 1, ties 1, wins three. Sanders wins all 5 easily.

Emerson College, released 27.01.2016: 2 3-way polls, Clinton or Sanders vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg (I). The Ds win both matchups. Sanders does better than Clinton.

North Carolina:
PPP (D), released 20.01.2016: 12 matchups, 5 Clinton vs GOP, 5 Sanders vs. GOP, 2 3-way matchups with Bloomberg (I) in the mix. The Republicans win all 12 matchups, but the margins are very close. Bush and Trump beat Clinton or Sanders by only 1 or 2 points, so this state is still very much a battleground state. Just to remind: Bush (43) won North Carolina in both 2000 and 2004 by between +13 and +15. The GOP is not running away with this state and will again have to fight to keep it in the GOP column.

Utah:
Utah Policy Poll / Dan Jones and Associates, released 16.01.2016: also a rarity poll from a state we almost never see polled. 4 matchups, all Clinton vs. GOP. The GOP wins all 4, of course, but the margins for 3 of those candidates is between +25 and +29. Trump, however, only comes in at +5 over Hillary. That is an important data point for a state that is traditionally a GOP +40 state and statistically has been the no. 1 Conservative state in the union for 13 of the last 15 presidential cycles. No Republican should ever be posting a single digit polling win in this state, ever. And, as is the case with Idaho, the GOPers (Bush, Rubio, Cruz) who are whalloping Clinton (as they should be in this particular state) are all showing margins way under par for Utah. There is just no getting around this statistically provable fact. Romney just won Utah by +48 in 2012. Bush won Utah by +42 and +45 in 2000 and 2004. Reagan won Utah by over +50 at least once. We are talking about astronomical margins.  The only times that the GOP has won this state with +27 or less have been the cycles where the Democrat won nationally, all the way back to 1968.

Wisconsin:
Marquette Law School, released 28.01.20166 matchups, 3 Clinton vs. GOP, 3 Sanders vs. GOP. The D's win all 6 matchups, but by varying margins: Clinton wins by between +1 (over Rubio) to +9 (over Trump). Sanders wins by between +11 (over Rubio) and a staggering +18 (over Trump). Obama won Wisconsin by +14 in 2008 and by +7 in 2012, so Hillary's Trump margin is better than Obama's 2012 performance and Sanders margin is better than either 2012 or 2008.Were this Sanders number to hold (it won't, but just for theory's sake), then this would be the highest Wisconsin margin for either party since 1964.

50 state D-vs-R matchups.

In the state polling, I see early warning signs for both parties: for the GOP in Idaho and Utah and for the DEMS in both Minnesota and in Michigan, but not in Wisconsin.  Interesting to note is that, in spite of a huge amount of Iowa primary polling for both parties, none of those polls did D-vs-R matchups.  It was good to see polling out of Minnesota and Wisconsin in the same time-frame, for those states have an electoral symbiosis with each other, also somewhat with Michigan. Let me demonstrate this:

1960:
Michigan: Kennedy +2.01
Minnesota: Kennedy +1.43
Wisconsin: Nixon +3.72
M-W diff: Minnesota +5.15

1964:
Michigan: Johnson +33.61
Minnesota: Johnson +27.76
Wisconsin: Johnson +24.35
M-W diff: Minnesota +3.41

1968:
Minnesota: Humphrey +12.53
Michigan: Humphrey +6.73
Wisconsin: Nixon +3.62 (Humphrey -3.62)
M-W diff: Minnesota +16.15

1972:
Minnesota: Nixon +5.51 (McGovern -5.51)
Wisconsin: Nixon +9.67 (McGovern -9.67)
Michigan: Nixon +14.39 (McGovern -14.39)
M-W diff: Minnesota +4.16

1976:
Minnesota: Carter +12.87
Wisconsin: Carter +1.68
Michigan: Ford +5.39 (Carter -5.39)
M-W diff: Minnesota +11.19

1980:
Minnesota - Carter +3.94
Wisconsin - Reagan +4.72 (Carter -3.94)
Michigan - Reagan +6.49 (Carter -6.49)
M-W diff: Minnesota +8.66

1984:
Minnesota - Mondale +0.18
Wisconsin - Reagan +9.18
Michigan -  Reagan +18.99
M-W diff: Minnesota +9.36

1988:
Minnesota - Dukakis +7.20
Wisconsin - Dukakis +3.60
Michigan - Bush (41) +7.90 (Dukakis -7.90)
M-W diff: Minnesota +3.60 (exactly double the Wisconsin margin)

1992:
Minnesota - Clinton +11.63
Michigan - Clinton +7.40
Wisconsin - Clinton +4.35
M-W diff: Minnesota +4.23

1996:
Minnesota - Clinton +16.14
Michigan - Clinton +13.21
Wisconsin - Clinton +10.33
M-W diff: Minnesota +2.93

2000:
Michigan - Gore +5.13
Minnesota - Gore +2.40
Wisconsin - Gote +0.22
M-W diff: Minnesota +2.18

2004:
Minnesota - Kerry +3.48
Michigan - Kerry +3.42
Wisconsin - Kerry +0.38
M-W diff: Minnesota +0.06 (for all intents and purposes, identical results)

2008:
Michigan - Obama +16.44
Wisconsin - Obama +13.90
Minnesota - Obama +10.34
M-W diff: Wisconsin +3.56

2012:
Michigan - Obama +9.47
Minnesota - Obama +7.69
Wisconsin - Obama +6.94
M-W diff: Minnesota +0.75

You can see the margins for all three of these states going back 14 cycles, to 1960. That makes for 42 historical margins in three neighboring states in the upper Midwest. 31 of those 36 margins are "blue", meaning that a Democrat won. 11 of those margins are "red", indicating that a Republican won.  The year is marked also in bold and with a color corresponding to the national winner. The margins are listed from "left" to "right" (politically speaking), meaning, from the higher margin for a Democrat to the lower margin, and of course, crossing over the line, starting with the lowest margin for a Republican to his highest margin.

You can see that the state of Minnesota,one  of the 3 "triplet" states here, has been at the top of this list in 9 out of 14 cycles, and interestingly enough, where it has not been on top has been in the first 2 and the last 2 cycles, plus 2000.

In those nine instances, this automatically means that the margin in Wisconsin was more to the Right than the margin in Minnesota, making Minnesota, statistically speaking and in terms of historical electoral performance, the more liberal state (I once did a similar study between Ohio and Pennsylvania, also with fascinating results). And in 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2012, although Minnesota was not the no. 1 state on this list, it was the number two state, and Wisconsin as still "under" it, or had a margin slightly less liberal than Minnesota's margin. The only year in the last 66 years where Wisconsin posted a larger winning margin for a Democrat than Minnesota was in: 2008. So, in 13 of 14 cycles, Minnesota has been the more "liberal" state. Now, look under each group of margins and you will see "M-W diff:" - this stands for the exact difference in the margin between Minnesota and Wisconsin for each of those 12 cycles.

We see that between 1960 and 1988 (28 years), Minnesota was between +3.41% and +16.15% to the Left of Wisconsin, with those two extremes right next to each other, in 1964 and 1968, respectively. But as of 1992, that changed. Excepting 2008, where Wisconsin came in to the Left of Minnesota, Minnesota was between +0.06 and +4.23% to the Left over Wisconsin. You may ask why the difference is so extreme from 1976 to 1984. Well, the answer is simple: A Minnesotan (Walter Mondale) was on the ballot for the Democrats in all three of those cycles, twice as the Vice-Presidential candidate, once as the Presidential candidate. Similarly, Humphrey's presence on the ballot in 1968 as presidential candidate in a very tumultuous year led to a landslide in his home state, but a defeat in neighboring Wisconsin. In fact, over 66 years, they went for the same candidate, either D or R, in 11 of those 14 cycles, the exceptions being 1968, 1980 and 1984.

Let's assume that the average person begins to actually think about a presidential election starting at the age of 12-16. So, this would mean that the statistics that I just provided would resonate with every person born as of 1944 or earlier - so we are talking about the 70+ crowd in the United States being very familiar with seeing this phenomenon in the Upper Midwest. And at least most adults are very familiar with some aspect of all of this since 1988, I would guess. So, but bulk of these stats are going to cause anyone 40 and over to perk up and go - "hmmmmmmmmmm......"

Please also note that Minnesota has only gone for a Republican in 1 of the last 14 presidential cycles, going all the way back to 1960, and Nixon needed +23 point win nationally to pull Minnesota "across the line" in 1972. Minnesota was then Pres. Nixon's leanest winning margin of 1972. And Minnesota  (+DC) was the only state in the Union to resist the massive Reagan landslide of 1984.

For this reason, when I hear Republicans speculating about winning Minnesota, all I have to do is to point to the data doing back 66 years to show that in the case of Minnesota, it is easier said that done. Many a poll in the last 66 years has shown a Republican to be competitive in Minnesota, only to find that the Democrat won on election night. Many political scientists call Minnesota "Fool's Gold' for the GOP.

Now, as to Michigan, it was once a much more Republican leaning state and we see that from 1968 through 1996, it was always at the bottom of this list of three. In the incredibly close Gore-vs-Bush race of 2000, Gore exceeded the polling averages. Knowing that before 2000, no Republican had ever won the White House without Michigan in his electoral column, the Bush 43 campaign was very determined to pull Michigan over to Team-Red in 2004, but to no avail. Even against an incumbent President with extremely high approval ratings vis-a-vis the Iraq war (at that time), Bush was unable to shake Michigan from the Democratic electoral tree. George W. Bush (43) therefore sets an electoral record as being the only Republican president to have never won Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois or Pennsylvania even once. His sucessful 2004 re-election without these states is proof-positive that the electoral landscape really did shift in 1992 and would then again shift in 2008.

And in 2008, with the election of Pres. Obama, Michigan became once again a Democratic landslide state and jumped to the top of this list of three.

Now, right now, I am see very conflicting polling in these three states: Wisconsin is posting the best results overall for the Democrats, some very weird numbers have been coming out of Minnesota and the same old game of extremely conservative leaning pollsters posting Republican friendly results in Michigan has already started.

But as ever, when it comes to the numbers, I remain neutral. Were Trump to actually win Minnesota, of all states, then this could only mean a massive national landslide for him. The national numbers do not show this at this time. Then again, demographic shift in the USA means that more and more people are moving from the snowbelt states (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, for example) to the sunbelt states, which is also accounting for why Florida has now become a hotly contested battleground. The people left behind in those snowbound states tend to be older, and many older people tend to be more conservative, so maybe we are seeing a tendency in the Upper Midwest toward purple-red, but it hasn't manifested itself in an election yet. Wait and see.

So, in two completely different parts of the USA (upper Midwest, West/Big Sky states), we are seeing some polling numbers that can cause the eyebrows to raise some.

You can find all of the toplines, margins, survey group sizes, MoE's and a great deal of internal data on the D-vs-R polling HERE.

As for Iowa, I am making no hard and fast predictions. Polling shows that both Trump and Clinton are a nose ahead in their respective races, but it really is a two-person race within both parties and caucuses are notoriously unpredictable. As of Tuesday, we should at least have a good idea who won on each side.

18 January 2016

2016 polling round-up, 15-31.01.2016: D-vs-R Presidential Matchups

D vs. R matchups: NATIONAL POLLING

NBC/WSJ, released 17.01.2016:
800 RV, MoE = +/-3.5

Clinton 47 / Rubio 46, margin = Clinton +1
Clinton 49 / Cruz 45, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 51 / Trump 41, margin = Clinton +10

Sanders 54 / Trump 39, margin = Sanders +15

Morning Consult (R), released 19.01.2016:
4,026 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,805 RV, MoE = +/-3.0

Clinton 42 / Carson 42, margin = TIE
Clinton 43 / Cruz 41, margin = Clinton +2
Clinton 43 / Rubio 41, margin = Clinton +2
Clinton 44 / Trump 42, margin = Clinton +2
Clinton 43 / Bush 39, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 43 / Christie 39, margin = Clinton +4


Morning Consult (R), released 21.01.2016: (special poll series)
4.060 RV, MoE = +/-2.0

Clinton 36 / Trump 37 / Bloomberg 13, margin = Trump +1
Clinton 38 / Cruz 34 / Bloomberg 12, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 38 / Cruz 33 / Bloomberg 11, margin = Clinton +5

-and-

Morning Consult (R), released 24.01.2016: (special poll series)
1,439 RV, MoE = +/-3.0

Sanders 35 / Trump 34 / Bloomberg 12, margin = Sanders +1
Sanders 36 / Rubio 29 / Bloomberg 10, margin = Sanders +7
Sanders 36 / Cruz 28 / Bloomberg 11, margin = Sanders +8

Morning Consult (R), released 26.01.2016:
4,001 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,797 DRV

Clinton 44 / Carson 39, margin = Clinton +5
Clinton 44 / Rubio 39, margin = Clinton +5
Clinton 44 / Bush 38, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 45 / Trump 39, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 45 / Cruz 38, margin = = Clinton +7
Clinton 44 / Christie 36, margin = Clinton +8

Zogby Analytics, released 27.01.2016:
843 LV, MoE = +/-3.4

Clinton 45 / Trump 45, margin = TIE
Clinton 44 / Carson 40, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 44 / Christie 40, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 44 / Bush 39, margin = Clinton +5
Clinton 44 / Kasich 38, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 45 / Rubio 39, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 45 / Fiorina 37, margin = Clinton +8

Sanders 46 / Trump 45, margin = Sanders +1
Sanders 44 / Rubio 37, margin = Sanders +7
Sanders 44 / Christie 37, margin = Sanders +7
Sanders 44 / Carson 35, margin = Sanders +9
Sanders 46 / Kasich 32, margin = Sanders +14
Sanders 47 / Fiorina 33, margin = Sanders +14

IPSOS/Reuters special poll, released 28.01.2016:
1,673 Adults, MoE = +/-2.7

Sanders 42 / Trump 30, margin = Sanders +12
Sanders 37 / Trump 30 / Bloomberg 8, margin = Sanders +7

Clinton 37 / Trump 31 / Bloomberg 9, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 38 / Cruz 25 / Bloomberg 10, margin = Clinton +6


D vs. R matchups: STATE POLLING

Florida:

FAU (Florida Atlantic University), released 20.01.2016:
1,008 RV, MoE = +/-3.0

Clinton 41.5 / Bush 45, margin = Bush +3.5
Clinton 44.3Trump 47, margin = Trump +2.7
Clinton 46 / Rubio 46, margin = TIE
Clinton 47.2 / Cruz 42.3, margin = Clinton +4.9

Sanders 41.6Rubio 47.1, margin = Rubio +5.5
Sanders 42.3Trump 47.1, margin = Trump +4.8
Sanders 43.3 / Cruz 43.2, margin = Sanders +0.1 (statistical absolute tie, near mathematical absolute tie)

Idaho:

Dan Jones and Associates / Idaho Politics, released 18.01.2016 (conducted 17-29.12.2015):
604 RV, MoE = +/-3.99

Clinton 23 / Carson 45, margin = Carson +22
Clinton 24 / Cruz 46,  margin = Cruz +22
Clinton 25 / Trump 45, margin = Trump +20
Clinton 24 / Bush 42, margin = Bush +18


Michigan:

FOX 2 / Mitchell, released 29.01.2016:
circa 840 LV, MoE = not listed

only one matchup:



Margin: Trump +3



Minnesota:

Mason-Dixon / Star Tribune, released 24.01.2016:
800 RV, MoE = +/-3.5

Clinton 40 / Rubio 49,  margin = Rubio +9
Clinton 43 / Cruz 45,  margin = Cruz +2
Clinton 43 / Trump 38, margin = Clinton +5

Sanders 53 / Trump 37, margin = Sanders +16

Lots of noise being made about how well Trump is doing in the Democratic vote. Well, in Minnesota, in a poll taken by a hard right leaning pollster, he gets 5% of the D vote (and only 2% of the D vote against Sanders), which is under par. Cruz gets 6% of the D vote. Rubio gets 8% of the D vote but swamps Clinton with the Independents.

New Hampshire:

CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 20.01.2016: 
974 Adults, MoE = +/-3.1
of them, 885 LV, MoE = +/-3.5


Clinton 44 Rubio 45, margin = Rubio +1
Clinton 43 / Kasich 43, margin = TIE
Clinton 45 / Christie 42, margin = Clinton +3
Clinton 47 / Cruz 41, margin = Clinton +6
Clinton 48 / Trump 39, margin = Clinton +9

Sanders 55 / Rubio 37, margin = Sanders +18
Sanders 54 / Kasich 33, margin = Sanders +21
Sanders 56 / Cruz 33, margin = Sanders +23
Sanders 57 / Christie 34, margin = Sanders +23
Sanders 57 / Trump 34, margin = Sanders +23

According to this poll, Sanders is truly landsliding in New Hampshire with crushing margins, but outside of the margin against Rubio, Clinton is holding the same values that Obama had in 2008 and in 2012.


Emerson College, released 27.01.2016:
737 RRV, MoE = +/-3.6

Clinton 39 / Trump 36 / Bloomberg 12, margin = Clinton +3

Sanders 44 / Trump 33 / Bloomberg 11, margin = Sanders +11

North Carolina:

PPP (D), released 20.01.2016:
948 RV, MoE = +/-3.2

Clinton 42 Rubio 47,  margin = Rubio +5
Clinton 44 / Carson 47, margin = Carson +3
Clinton 43 / Cruz 46, margin = Cruz +3
Clinton 43 / Bush 45, margin = Bush +2
Clinton 43 / Trump 45, margin = Trump +2

Sanders 38 / Cruz 43, margin = Cruz +5
Sanders 39 Rubio 43, margin = Rubio +4
Sanders 40 / Carson 44, margin = Carson +4
Sanders 41 / Bush 42, margin = Bush +1
Sanders 41 / Trump 42, margin = Trump +1

Clinton 40 / Trump 41 / Bloomberg 10, margin = Trump +1
Clinton 40 / Trump 42 / Webb 5, margin = Trump +2
also two 3-way matchups against fictive names: DeezNuts and Bug the Cat. I don't do imaginary matchups.

Utah:

Utah Policy Poll / Dan Jones and Associates, released 16.01.2016:
622 RV, MoE = +/-3.93

Clinton 23 / Carson 52 / other 21, margin = Carson +29
Clinton 21 / Rubio 48 / other 25, margin = Rubio +27
Clinton 22 / Bush 47 / other 27, margin = Bush +25
Clinton 28 / Trump 33 / other 33, margin = Trump +5

Wisconsin:

Marquette Law School, released 28.01.2016:
806 RV, MoE = +/-4.0

Clinton 45 / Rubio 44, margin = Clinton +1
Clinton 45 / Cruz 44, margin = Clinton +1
Clinton 47 / Trump 38, margin = Clinton +9

Sanders 49 / Rubio 38, margin = Sanders +11
Sanders 50 / Cruz 38, margin = Sanders +12
Sanders 52 / Trump 34, margin = Sanders +18



xxxx

2016 polling round-up, 15-31.01.2016: GOP Nomination

GOP NOMINATION: NATIONAL POLLING


NBC/WSJ, released 17.01.2016:
800 RV, MoE = +/-3.5
of them, 400 RRV, MoE = +/-4.9




Margin: Trump +13

And in a theoretical 4-man race:




Margin: Trump +11


And in two hypothetical 2-way races:



Again Cruz: Cruz +8
Against Rubio: Trump +7

NBC News, Survey Monkey, released 19.01.2016:
10,320 RV, MoE = +/-1.3
of them, 3,342 RRV, MoE = +/-2.3

Trump 38
Cruz 21
Rubio 11
-------
Carson 8
Bush 4
Christie 3
Fiorina 3
Paul 3
Kasich 2
Huckabee 2

Margin: Trump +17

Morning Consult (R), released 19.01.2016:
4,026 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,635 RV, MoE = +/-3.0

Trump 39
Cruz 13
-------
Rubio 9
Carson 8
Bush 7
Christie 3
Huckabee 3
Paul 3
Kasich 2
Fiorina 2

Margin: Trump +26

Monmouth University, released 20.01.2016:
385 RRV, MoE = +/-5.0



Margin: Trump +19

Apparently, Trump going all birther on Cruz is working:


If this poll is accurate, then that means that 1/3 of the Republican electorate either thinks that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is not qualified to be President, or they are not sure. After 8 years of "birther" raging over President Obama, I cannot see how this can be of any help to Ted Cruz right now.

IPSOS-Reuters, released 22.01.2016:
1,561 Adults, MoE = +/-2.8
of them, 588 RRV, MoE = +/-4.6



Margin =  Trump +24 (RRV + IRV, R-leaning), Trump +24 (RRV only), Trump +30 (IRV, R-leaning only)

This poll reflects a huge jump for Trump among Republican leaning independents, from +9 at the last poll, to +30 with this poll.

Zogby Analytics, released 22.01.2016:
294 RLV, MoE = +/- 5.8

Trump 45
Cruz 13
-------
Rubio 8
Bush 6
Carson 4
Fiorina 3
Kasich 3
Christie 2
Huckabee 2
Paul 2
Santorum 2

Margin: Trump +32

The Zogby-site caused my computer to light up with Malware warnings. Be careful going there. He usually gives percentages down to the 1/100th of a percent, but in this case, I lifted the numbers from the HuffPo polling aggregate.

FOX News Poll, released 22.01.2016:
1,009 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 405 RRV, MoE = +/-5.0



Margin: Trump +14
Almost no change over the FOX poll from two weeks earlier.

This FOX poll internal is interesting and shows some cognitive dissonance at work:



ABC/WAPO, released 26.01.2016:
1,001 Adults, MoE = +/-3.5
of them, 365 RLV, MoE = +/-5.5



Margin: Trump +14

CNN/ORC, released 26.01.2016:
1,002 Adults, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 405 RRV, MoE = +/-5.0

Trump 41
Cruz 19
-------
Rubio 8
Carson 6
Bush 5
Christie 4
Huckabee 3
Paul 3
Fiorina 2
Kasich 1

Margin: Trump +22

NBC News / Survey Monkey, released 26.01.2016:
8,215 RV, MoE = +/-1.3
of them, 2,327 RRV, MoE = +/- 2.8


Margin: Trump +22
xx

Morning Consult (R), released 26.01.2016:
4,001 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 1,552 RRV

Trump 40
Cruz 11
Carson 10
-------
Rubio 9
Bush 7
Christie 3
Huckabee 3
Paul 2
Kasich 2
All others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +29

Bloomberg/Purple Strategies, released 27.01.2016:
1,021 RLV, MoE = +/-3.1

Trump 34
Rubio 14
Cruz 12
-------
Carson 9
Bush 7
Kasich 4
Paul 3
Huckabee 3
Christie 2
Fiorina 2
All others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +20

The Bloomberg Poll asked some very pointed questions, worth looking at. The questions were aimed at either Trump voters or non-Trump voters. I am referring only to the GOP electorate, here:





I would say that the very last question would be a point of disturbance for the GOP 'establishment', when almost 2/3 of Trump supporters say they would for him as an Independent, this would surely fracture the GOP and guarantee a Democratic Party victory in November.

NRRI (National Public Religion Institute), released 27.01.2016:
1,009 Adults, MoE = +/-3.6
of them, 381 religious RRV, MoE = not listed, likely +/-5.5


Margin: Trump +19

IBD/TIPP, released 28.01.2016:
904 Adults, MoE = +/-3.3
of them, 395 RRV, MoE = not listed

Trump 31
Cruz 21
(still undecided 12)
Rubio 10
-------
Carson 9
Bush 5
Paul 4
Fiorina 2
Kasich 2
All others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +10

YouGov, released 31.01.2016:
Survey size and MoE = not yet listed



Margin: Trump +25


GOP NOMINATION: STATE POLLING

Alaska:

Ivan Moore / Alaska Dispatch, released 23.01.2016:
651 RV, MoE = not listed
of them, 310 RRV, MoE = not listed, must be at least +/-5.5




Margin: Trump +4.1



Arizona:

MBQF Consulting, released 21.01.2016:
771 RLV, MoE = +/-3.53

Trump 38.3
Cruz 15.6
Rubio 11.4
-------
Carson 7.1
Bush 7.0
Christie 3.1
Fiorina 2.9
Kasich 2.9
All others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +22.7


Florida:

Opinion Savvy / Florida Times-Union / Fox 13 Tampa Bay, released 18.01.2016:
838 RLV, MoE = +/-3.3

Trump 31.2
Cruz 18.9
Bush 12.4
Rubio 12.3
-------
Carson 6.8
Christie 4.4
Fiorina 4.1
Kasich 3.2
Paul 3.0
Huckabee 1.8

Margin: Trump +12.3

Also, a theoretical 5-way race:

Trump 35.4
Cruz 19.5
Rubio 17.5
Bush 14.1
Carson 8.6
Margin: Trump +15.9

According to the poll, the demographics of the GOP electorate in Georgia are 90% white and 82% over 45 years old. Also 51/49 F/M, which is a little surprising.

FAU (Florida Atlantic University), released 20.01.2016:
1,008 RV, MoE = +/-3.0
of them, 385 RLV, MoE =

Trump 47.6
Cruz 16,3
Rubio 11.1
---------------------
Bush 9.5
Carson 3.3

Margin: Trump +30.3


CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016:
988 LV, MoE = +/-4.6

Trump 41
Cruz 22
Rubio 18
-------
Carson 5
Bush 4
Christie 2
Fiorina 2
Kasich 2

Margin: Trump +12.3


Georgia:

Opinion Savvy / Fox 5 Atlanta, released 18.01.2016:
803 RLV, MoE = +/-3.4

Trump 33.4
Cruz 23.4
-------
Rubio 8.2
Carson 7.3
Bush 7.1
Kasich 3.8
Christie 3.7
Fiorina 3.5
Paul 3.5
Huckabee 3.2

Margin: Trump +10.0

Also, a theoretical 5-way race:

Trump 36.8
Cruz 26.3
Rubio 14.7
Bush 9.3
Carson 9.2
Margin: Trump +10.5

According to the poll, the demographics of the GOP electorate in Georgia are 97% white and 77% over 45 years old. Also 51/49 F/M, which is a little surprising.

CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016:
494 RLV, MoE = +/-6.2

Trump 39
Cruz 29
Rubio 13
-------
Carson 6
Bush 2
Kasich 2
Christie 2
Fiorina 2
Huckabee 2

Margin: Trump +10

Idaho:

Dan Jones and Associates / Idaho Politics, released 18.01.2016 (conducted 17-29.12.2015):
604 RV, MoE = +/-3.99

Trump 30
Carson 19
Cruz 16
Rubio 10
-------
all others in "single digits"

Margin: Trump +11



Illinois:

Overtime Politics, released 18.01.2016:
406 RLV, MoE = +/-5.0

Trump 36
Rubio 16
Cruz 15
-------
Bush 5
Carson 5
Kasich 5
Fiorina 5
Christie 3
Paul 3

Margin: Trump +20


Iowa:

Monmouth College / KBUR / Douglas Fulmer & Associates, released 21.01.2016:
687 RLV, MoE = +/-3.7

Cruz 27
Trump 25
Carson 11
-------
Rubio 9
Bush 7
Huckabee 4
Christie 4
Fiorina 3
Kasich 3
Paul 3

Margin: Cruz +2

Loras College, released 21.01.2016:
Toplines and crosstabs releases 22.01.2016
500 RLV, MoE = +/-4.4

Trump 26.4
Cruz 24.8
Rubio 12.8
-------
Carson 8.2
Bush 5.8
Kasich 3.6
Huckabee 3.2
Christie 2.8
Paul 2.8
Fiorina 1.6

Margin: Trump +1.6

CNN/ORC, released 21.01.2016:
2,002 Adults, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 266 RLV, MoE = +/-6.0

Trump 37
Cruz 26
Rubio 14
-------
Carson 6
Bush 3
Huckabee 3
Paul 2
all others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +11

Emerson College, released 21.01.2016:
271 LRV, MoE = +/-5.9 
The link to the raw data, which induces a download, is HERE. When downloaded, the file has no ending, is however an .xlxs (Excel) file.

Trump 33.1
Cruz 22.8
Rubio 14
-------
Carson 9.1
Christie 5.4
Bush 5.1
Kasich 2.9
Paul 2.7
Fiorina 2.1
Huckabee 1.7

Margin: Trump +10.3

ARG, released, 25.01.2016:
400 RLV, MoE = +/-5.0

Trump 33
Cruz 26
Rubio 11
-------
Carson 7
Christie 4
Paul 4
Bush 3
Kasich 3
Huckabee 2


Margin: Trump +7

FOX News Poll, released 25.01.2016:
423 DLV, MoE = +/-4.5

Trump 34
Cruz 23
Rubio 12
-------
Carson 7
Paul 6
Christie 4
Bush 4
Kasich 2
Huckabee 2
Santorum 2
(Fiorina 1)

Margin: Trump +11


Quinnipiac, released 26.01.2016:
651 RLV, MoE = +/-3.8

Trump 31
Cruz 29
Rubio 13
-------
Carson 7
Paul 5
Bush 4
Christie 2
Huckabee 2

Margin: Trump +2 (statistical tie)

The internals are very telling, especially with a race this close:


Iowa State/WHO-HD, released 26.01.2016:
722 DRV, MoE = +/-3.5
Of them, 283 RLV

Cruz 25.8
Trump 18.9
Carson 13.4
Rubio 12.3
-------
Paul 6.9
Bush 3.8
Huckabee 3.7
all others 1 or less

Margin: Cruz +6.9

The interesting thing about the Iowa State/WHO-HD poll is that it used exactly the same survey group of people that it interviewed in November - a takeway from the Rand-polling book.

Monmouth University, released 27.01.2016:
500 RLV, MoE = +/-4.4

Trump 30
Cruz 23
Rubio 16
Carson 10
-------
Bush 4
Huckabee 3
Kasich 3
Paul 3
Christie 2
Fiorina 2

Margin: Trump +7

Monmouth posted a HUGE caveat to this poll, indicating that they are projecting a massive turnout for the caucuses this time around, but look what happens when the turnout is not what they project:


NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016:
2.719 RV, MoE = +/-1.9
of them, 450 RLV, MoE = +/-4.6


Margin: Trump +7

PPP (D), released 28.01.2016:
780 RLV, MoE =+/-3.5

Trump 31
Cruz 23
Rubio 14
-------
Carson 9
Bush 4
Huckabee 4
Paul 4
Fiorina 3
Christie 2
Kasich 3

Margin: Trump +8

Hypothetical 3-and-2-way matches:

Trump 36
Cruz 31
Rubio 25
Margin: Trump +5

Cruz 47
Trump 40
(not sure 13)
Margin: Cruz +7

Gravis (R) / OANN, released 29.01.2016:
1,827 LV, MoE = +/-2.0
Of them, 724 RLV, MoE = +/-4.0



Margin: Trump +4
xxx

Maryland:


Gonzales Research, released 19.01.2016:
809 RV, MoE = +/-3.5

of them, 301 RLV, MoE = +/-5.8





Margin: Trump +16.9

Des Moines Register / Bloomberg, released 30.01.2016:
602 RLV, MoE = +/-4.0

Trump 28
Cruz 23
Rubio 15
Carson 10
-------
Paul 5
Christie 3
Bush 2
Huckabee 2
Fiorina 2
Kasich 2
Santorum 2

Margin: Trump +5

Opinion Savvy, released 31.01.2016:
887 RLV, MoE = +/-3.2

Trump 20.1
Cruz 19.4
Rubio 18.6
-------
Carson 9.0
Paul 8.6
Bush 4.9
Huckabee 4.4
Kasich 4.0
Fiorina 3.8
Christie 3.0
Santorum 2.1

Margin: Trump +0.7 (statistical tie, three-way tie)

Emerson College, released 31.01.2016:
598 RV, MoE = +/-3.5
of them, 298 RLV, MoE = +/-5.6

Trump 27.3
Cruz 25.6
Rubio 21.6
-------
Huckabee 4.7
Bush 3.8
Kasich 3.8
Paul 3.4
Carson 3.4
Christie 3.2
Fiorina 1.7

Margin: Trump +1.8 (statistical tie, three-way tie)

Michigan:

FOX 2 / Mitchell, released 29.01.2016:
493 RLV, MoE = +/-4.91



Margin: Trump +36


Minnesota:

Overtime Politics, released 20.01.2016:
396 RLV, MoE = +/-5.1

Trump 37
Rubio 20
Cruz 11
Carson 10
-------
Cruz 9
Bush 8
Kasich 3
Fiorina 2
Christie 2
Paul 2

Margin: Trump +17


Mason-Dixon / Star Tribune, released 24.01.2016:
800 RV, MoE = +/-3.5
of them, 236 RRV, MoE = +/-6.5

Rubio 23
Cruz 21
Trump 18
Carson 11
-------
Bush 7
Christie 5
others: not listed, perhaps not polled

Margin: Rubio +2 (statistical tie with Cruz)

xxx

New Hampshire:

ARG, released 19.01.2016:
600 RLV, MoE = +/-4.0

Trump 27
Kasich 20
Rubio 10
-------
Cruz 9
Christie 9
Bush 8
Paul 5
Carson 2
Fiorina 2

Margin: Trump +7

Gravis Marketing (R) / OANN, released 20.01.2016;
1,197 RV, MoE = +/-2.8
of them, 689 RLV, MoE = +/-3.7




Margin: Trump +20

CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 20.01.2016: 
974 Adults, MoE = +/-3.1
of them, 414 RLV, MoE = +/-4.8

Trump 34
Cruz 14
Rubio 10
Bush 10
-------
Christie 6
Paul 6
Kasich 6
Fiorina 4
Carson 3

Margin: Trump +20

Franklin Pierce University / Boston Herald, released 25.01.2016:
444 RLV, MoE = +/-4.9

Trump 33
Cruz 14
Kasich 12
-------
Bush 9
Rubio 8
Christie 7
Fiorina 5
Carson 4
Paul 3

Margin: Trump +19


FOX News poll, released 25.01.2016:
400 FLV, MoE = +/-5.0




Margin: Trump +17

ARG, released 26.01.2016:
600 RLV, MoE = +/-4.0

Trump 31
Kasich 17
Cruz 12
-------
Rubio 9
Bush 8
Christie 8
Fiorina 3
Carson 3
Paul 2

Margin: Trump +14

Emerson College, released 27.01.2016:
737 RRV, MoE = +/-3.6
of them, 373 RLV, MoE = +/-5.0

Trump 35
Bush 18
Kasich 14
-------
Rubio 9
Cruz 8
Christie 5
Fiorina 3
Carson 3
Paul 3

Margin: Trump +17

This was an interesting detail from the poll:



Mason-Dixon/AARP, released 27.01.2016 (but taken from 12-16.01.2016):
1.004 RV, MoE = +/-3.5
of them, 503 RLV, MoE = not listed, likely +/-5.0

Trump 32
Rubio 14
Kasich 13
Christie 10
-------
Bush 9
Cruz 8
Fiorina 6
Carson 2
Paul 2

Margin: Trump +18


NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016:
2,258 RV, MoE = +/-2.1
of them, 612 RLV, MoE = +/-4.0


Margin: Trump +19


Suffolk University, released 28.01.2016:
500 RLV, MoE = +/-4.4

Trump 26.6
Kasich 12.0
Cruz 11.8
Bush 11.2
-------
Rubio 9.6
Christie 5.6
Carson 4.8
Fiorina 4.0
Paul 1.6

Margin: Trump +14.4


Remember, this survey group is of Republican voters only, so it's no surprise that Trump is getting at least 63% of the GOP vote. Against Hillary, she gets 10% of the GOP vote. That's pretty standard. But against Sanders, Sanders gets 18% of the GOP vote. Now, that is a major data point and shows that New Hampshire, a once GOP bastion, then a real battleground state, has moved bluer and bluer.

Franklin Pierce U / Boston Herald, released 31.01.2016:
439 RLV, MoE = +/-4.7

Trump 38
Cruz 13
Rubio 10
Bush 10
-------
Kasich 8
Christie 5
Fiorina 5
Paul 5
Carson 3

Margin: Trump +25

CNN/UNH/WMUR, released 31.01.2016:
409 RLV, MoE = +/-4.8

Trump 30
Cruz 12
Rubio 11
-------
Kasich 9
Christie 8
Bush 6
Fiorina 4
Paul 3
Carson 3

Margin: Trump +18

North Carolina:

PPP (D), released 20.01.2016:
948 RV, MoE = +/-3.2

of them, 433 RLV, MoE = +/-4.7

Trump 38
Cruz 16
Rubio 11
-------
Carson 8
Bush 6
Huckabee 6
Christie 4
Fiorina 3
Paul 3
Kasich 2

Margin: Trump +22

Hypothetical 4- ,3- and 2-way races:

Trump 41
Cruz 24
Rubio 15
Bush 13
Margin: Trump +17

Trump 43
Cruz 27
Rubio 18
Margin: Trump +16

Cruz 42
Rubio 23
Bush 17
Margin: Cruz +19

Trump 59 / Bush 29, margin = Trump +30
Trump 49 / Cruz 41, margin = Trump +8
Trump 52 / Rubio 37, margin = Trump +15
Cruz 47 / Rubio 32, margin = Trump +15

As far as the Cruz-birther thing goes, PPP asked NC GOPers some questions and these internals are interesting:


First, that only 24% of NC Republicans think that President Obama was born in the USA means that birtherism is alive and well. Obama was born in Hawaii, which had become a US-state.  On the other hand, in a show of some shocking ignorance, 27% of NC GOPers think that Cruz was born in the USA, when he was verifiably not. Now, it could just be that they did not read the question, which may make it somewhat moot. But that 31% of NC GOPers are less likely to vote for him because he was indeed born in Canada, now that is interesting. The point is that birtherism, which has found a hotbed of support within the extreme conservative wing of the GOP, is having a hard time arguing away Ted Cruz's eligibility, since it made this very argument against Obama for 8 years now.


Civitas (R), released 21.01.2016:
500 RLV, MoE = +/-4.38

Trump 27
Cruz 23
"no preference" 11
Rubio 10
-------
Carson 7
Bush 4
Christie 4
Huckabee 2
Fiorina 2
Paul 2
Kasich 2

Margin: Trump +4

Overtime Politics, released 25.01.2016:
410 RLV, MoE = +/-4.9

Trump 34
Cruz 25
Rubio 13
-------
Bush 7
Carson 6
Paul 3
Kasich 1
others 1 or less

Margin: Trump +9

Pennsylvania:

Franklin and Marshall, released 28.01.2016:
732 RV, MoE = +/-3.6
of them, 276 RRV, MoE = not listed

Trump 24
Cruz 14
Rubio 11
-------
Carson 5
Bush 5
Christie 5
Kasich 3
Huckabee 2
Fiorina 2
Paul 2

Margin: Trump +10

South Carolina:

Opinion Savvy / Augusta Chronicle, released 16.01.2016:
683 RLV, MoE = +/- 3.7

Trump 31.8
Cruz 17.6
Bush 13.2
Rubio 11.2
-------
Carson 9.3
Christie 3.9
Fiorina 2.7
Kasich 2.5
Paul 2.4
Huckabee 1.9

Margin: Trump +14.2

Also, a theoretical 5-way race:

Trump 34.5
Cruz 19.0
Rubio 16.1
Bush 14.7
Carson 10.2
Margin: Trump +15.5

Also, some demographics from the poll: 




According to the poll, the SC GOP electorate is 98% White, 76% over the age of 45 and 50/50 M/F.



CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016:
1,370 RV, MoE = +/-5.3

Trump 40
Cruz 21
Rubio 13
-------
Carson 9
Bush 8
Paul 3
Huckabee 2
Kasich 2

Margin: Trump +19

NBC News / WSJ / Marist, released 28.01.2016:
2,340 RV, MoE = +/-2.0
of them, 718 RLV, MoE = +/-3.7




Margin: Trump +16

Texas:

CBS / YouGov, released 24.01.2016:
984 RLV, MoE = +/-4.4

Cruz 45
Trump 30
-------
Rubio 8
Carson 5
Bush 4
Paul 2
Christie 2

Margin: Cruz +15

Utah:

SUSA / Salt Lake Tribune, released 17.01.2016:
989 RV, MoE = +/-3.2
of them, xxx RRV, MoE = +/-4.9







Margin: Cruz +1 (statistical tie)


Wisconsin:

Marquette Law School, released 28.01.2016:
806 RV, MoE = +/-4.0
of them, 313 RLV, MoE = +/-6.5

Trump 24
Rubio 18
Cruz 16
-------
Carson 8
Christie 5
Paul 3
Fiorina 3
Bush 2
Kasich 2


Margin: Trump +6