Clinton Has Big Leads In Colorado, Virginia, Tied In Iowa, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Fi
Source: Quinnipiac Polling Institute
Democrat Hillary Clinton has double-digit likely voter leads in Colorado and Virginia and is on the plus side of a too-close-to-call race in Iowa, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.
Both candidates have negative favorability ratings in each state, but Republican Donald Trump's 2-1 negative scores are much higher. More Clinton voters say they mainly are voting anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. Among Trump supporters, the anti-Clinton motive tops the pro- Trump motive 2-1, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
The presidential matchups show:
Colorado - Clinton beats Trump 49 - 39 percent;
Iowa - Clinton at 47 percent to Trump's 44 percent;
Virginia - Clinton tops Trump 50 - 38 percent.
With third party candidates in the race, results are:
Colorado - Clinton leads Trump 41 - 33 percent, with 16 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 7 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein;
Iowa - Clinton at 41 percent to Trump's 39 percent, with Johnson at 12 percent and Stein at 3 percent;
Virginia - Clinton tops Trump 45 - 34 percent with 11 percent for Johnson and 5 percent for Stein.
"The scary thing for Republicans in the Virginia and Colorado numbers is that they show a possible Hillary Clinton landslide in states that only eight years ago leaned GOP and before that had been GOP strongholds," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Read more: http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2373
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)brooklynite
(94,589 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)and another kick
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama overperformed there compared to his national polling in 2008 and 2012, whereas Trump is greatly overperforming there in 2016 compared to his national numbers.
Do they really dislike Clinton that much there?
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)My FIL did caucus for Clinton, but my daughters and I did for Sanders. Both my MIL and wife sat it out.
My wife absolutely hates H. Clinton, and it will take a lot to get her to come around.
I want to be careful, but I was alerted on for pointing out something obvious about Clinton, but I plan to tell my two daughters that the head of Clinton's transition team is for shooting more wolves. It will not go over well.
msongs
(67,413 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sadly, it's hard to find a lot of people in the Rocky Mountain states that have an enlightened view on wolves.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)Gary Johnson if I cannot convince someone to not vote for Trump. Clinton is off the table for them no matter what I say. I think I have my daughters convinced to vote for Clinton - maybe my wife - she may not vote for President this year. She definitely will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)Once you get out in the small towns the only radio is Clear Channel hammering out crap all day. that and Fux News is about all these people hear. I got a brother in law there who has probably never read a book in his life, just repeats what he heard on the radio. It used to be decent before the media planted this shit in peoples brains. It makes the ignorant feel like they know something the smart and educated don't. Of course most of the smart and educated leave like I did in 1966. The jobs weren't there. the ones that are left are either very wealthy farmers or low wage workers who are looking for somebody to blame for their miserable low wage life. But by and large Iowa is one of the best educated states and Hillary will win it easily. These polls give way to much to Johnson. Generally third party candidates fade away by November and I don't think he will get in the debates.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Even before the conventions it seemed like Iowa was going to be harder to win than Virginia. In other words, Vilsack could have been more helpful in Iowa than Kaine has been in Virginia.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)versus Iowa's 6. Kaine was the perfect pick if that's the barometer you wish to use.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)was more important than Iowa. I also think Kaine is better than Vilsack, and I am from Iowa.
I heard that Kaine offers some spillover into North Carolina as well. I am not sure Villsack would have helped in Wisconsin.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Picking Vilsack might have given a strong Pennsylvania flavor to the ticket, given Hillary's long family ties to the Scranton area, and Chelsea's kids having a father and grandparents from the Philly area.
I really like Vilsack and would have preferred him on the campaign trail and in the White House. I would not be at all surprised if he winds up being White House Chief of Staff.
forest444
(5,902 posts)I mean, I've heard the same thing every election cycle about Pennsylvania since I started following elections in junior high in '92 - that Pennsylvania could go either way, that it's a swing state, that's it purple, and so on. And yet, the Rethugs haven't carried it since '88 (before the '91 recession, with hit PA very hard I've been told).
Have you heard anything different about PA this time?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)could close as well.
George W. Bush made an incredible effort to win Pennsylvania. He went there like 20 times in 2001-2003. And maybe another 20 during 2004, the year of the election. He campaigned there the day before the election, I believe. Ultimately, he lost by 2 points in an election where he won nationally by 2.5 points.
Of course, each election is different and each election produces its own dynamic in the various battleground states.
And thanks for that bit of history; I had forgotten just how much the Shrub had tried to milk the Shanksville tragedy at the time (it was absolutely disgusting, even if true to form).
BumRushDaShow
(129,067 posts)....as a multi-generational Philadelphian whose city helps throws the state to blue for Presidents every time (since 1988). Western PA does not have the population that the east does.
forest444
(5,902 posts)I lived in a couple of Deep South states over the years, and I get that the Republicans there are "bitter" about the Civil War and think that by way of neo-Confederate lawmakers they'll get some kind of "revenge" (brainwashing from the time they're toddlers is what that is).
But western Pennsylvanians? I never really understood their right-wing intransigence.
BumRushDaShow
(129,067 posts)is sortof considered a gateway to the "Midwest", Western PA is transitional to that region. Most of PA is rural. Hell... you can drive just outside of Philly and hit farms. I expect you had more folks (generationally) who were "self-employed" (whether via farming or in some sort of industry in support of agriculture - which is still one of our biggest industries) where "help" wasn't a 911 call away. So even through industrialization with the steel mills and labor unions, that "self-sufficiency" mentality is still there, and the post-FDR GOP was able to tap into that crowd (along with gaining the disaffected dixicrats of the south). This is why Trump is targeting the Amish claiming that he is "like them" (self-made business man who doesn't drink alcohol ).
But I think that now that the GOP has strayed into extremism, you will see more and more considering themselves "independent". They will most likely still vote GOP down ballot but will not support the top of the ticket. Remember this is the state that booted "teh crazy" Santorum by almost 18%. But in this case, because Toomey continually pivots his messaging (while Trump refuses to do so), this is why the Senate race is going to be close (and it really shouldn't be, meaning we need to wrap Trump around Toomey).
forest444
(5,902 posts)Normally one would have to google several sources - at 1500 words each - to get what you just explained in a nutshell.
This is also the first I hear of Trump campaigning among the Amish. That politics is mostly hypocrisy and pretense is pretty universally accepted; but that one just takes the cake.
[center]
Trump, Melania, and all that "Amish" appeal.[/center]
BumRushDaShow
(129,067 posts)His campaign has been active with the group "AmishPAC".
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/have-you-seen-these-donald-trump-billboards-going-up-in/article_ce962892-5403-11e6-af72-4fec2f4dc67e.html
http://lancasteronline.com/news/politics/amish-pac-launches-newspaper-ads-to-introduce-the-plain-community/article_b5b2b7c8-4940-11e6-8b28-a7a06b9a1fc7.html
forest444
(5,902 posts)His contractors know all about that "work ethic" of his. Thank you for sharing this, BRDS.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)That's a photo I never want to see again!
How the hell is the party of the "moral majority" able to reconcile this?
forest444
(5,902 posts)I don't have the heart to tell them that, like most developers, Trump relies yoogely on undocumented Mexican/Central American labor.
Qué será.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Sane people have him about 9 percentage points behind in Pennsylvania, which, according to fivethirtyeight.com, gives Hillary only an 88.1% chance of winning the state. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/
Whereas, in Virginia, she now has a 90% chance of winning that state. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/virginia/
forest444
(5,902 posts)It makes perfect sense that the same party that went headlong into the "we can't beat'em, so cheat'em" strategy after Obama won in 2012, would now try to cast doubt on the results.
Sincerely moderating their politics to attract more voters just never occurs to them.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Where some old white guys tell a crowd of more old white guys how to trick the lower forms of humans into voting for them. Doesn't ever seem to work, though. And they can't figure out why.
forest444
(5,902 posts)They just drift from autopsy to autopsy.