Monday, December 16, 2013

Can Christie Beat Clinton in 2016?

It may be possible. As Democrats continue to sink in the latest polls since the ObamaCare lie and rollout, Hillary Clinton is still viewed favorably and would crush most Republican hopefuls if the election were held today (a favorable GOP environment). However, Chris Christie is polling very well and could beat Clinton today. If the polls are correct Paul, Cruz, Ryan, and Bush would lose to Clinton by margins greater than Obama’s victory over Romney and maybe even greater than Obama’s margin over McCain. However, polls show Christie beating Clinton in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado – All States won by handily by Obama (at least 5 points). This means Clinton would win the Electoral College 270 to 268 (and this includes having Christie losing both Ohio and Florida). One CNN poll had Clinton beating Christie by 1 point in Ohio and if Christie could win a state like New Hampshire or Nevada (and there have been no polls yet for NH and NV) he would win the White House. Below is a list of the 2016 election polls since Christie won the NJ Governorship on November 5th:

Poll

Polling Company

Result

Advantage

North Carolina: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 45, Clinton 42

Christie +3

North Carolina: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Paul 44

Clinton +4

North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 46, Bush 45

Clinton +1

North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 49, Cruz 41

Clinton +8

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 42, Clinton 41

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Paul 41

Clinton +7

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Bush 39

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Cruz 37

Clinton +13

Michigan: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 43, Christie 40

Clinton +3

Michigan: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Paul 39

Clinton +9

Michigan: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 46, Bush 42

Clinton +4

Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 49, Cruz 38

Clinton +11

New Jersey: Christie vs. Clinton

Monmouth

Christie 46, Clinton 43

Christie +3

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Christie 45, Clinton 48

Clinton +3

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 55, Paul 40

Clinton +15

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 56, Ryan 40

Clinton +16

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 53, Bush 41

Clinton +12

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 52, Rubio 42

Clinton +10

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 57, Cruz 35

Clinton +22

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 46, Clinton 39

Christie +7

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Paul 47, Clinton 45

Paul +2

Colorado: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 47, Bush 43

Clinton +4

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Cruz 45

Clinton +3

Iowa: Christie vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Christie 43, Clinton 38

Christie +5

Iowa: Paul vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Paul 41

Clinton +6

Iowa: Ryan vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 46, Ryan 43

Clinton +3

Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 45, Rubio 41

Clinton +4

Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Cruz 40

Clinton +7

Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 42, Christie 41

Clinton +1

Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Paul 40

Clinton +10

Ohio: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Ryan 41

Clinton +8

Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Bush 37

Clinton +13

Ohio: Rubio vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Rubio 39

Clinton +9

Ohio: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Cruz 35

Clinton +15

Pennsylvania: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 48, Clinton 44

Christie +4

Pennsylvania: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 51, Paul 43

Clinton +8

Pennsylvania: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Bush 44

Clinton +4

Pennsylvania: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 53, Cruz 41

Clinton +12

Virginia: Christie vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Christie 44, Clinton 42

Christie +2

Virginia: Paul vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 50, Paul 43

Clinton +7

Virginia: Cruz vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 51, Cruz 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 45, Christie 41

Clinton +4

Florida: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 51, Paul 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 47, Bush 45

Clinton +2

Florida: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Ryan 42

Clinton +8

Florida: Rubio vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Rubio 43

Clinton +7

Florida: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 52, Cruz 36

Clinton +16

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 46, Clinton 38

Christie +8

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Paul 47, Clinton 44

Paul +3

Colorado: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Ryan 45, Clinton 43

Ryan +2

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 44, Cruz 44

Tie

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 43, Clinton 42

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Paul 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Ryan 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 51, Cruz 36

Clinton +15

Friday, December 13, 2013

2012 Election Model: House Races

In the last post I modeled the change in turn out from 2008 to 2012 (at the county level) to see if there was any statistical significance with electorate demographics and economic factors for the presidential race. In this post, I performed the same regression analysis, but instead on the House races. House races, like the Presidency, are on the ballot for every U.S. citizens. On the other hand, governor and Senate races are harder to evaluate for trends because not every seat is up for election during presidential election cycles. Of course, all house seats were up for election during 2010, but this analysis will only look at the voter difference between 2012 and 2008 House races because the turnout is more comparable and much higher than mid-term elections. In fact, the turn-out between 2008 and 2012, though smaller, was very similar demographically – The ideological breakdown favored Democrats in 2008 by +7 and in 2012 by +6; Minorities made up 26% of electorate in 2008 and 28% of the electorate in 2012; and women made up 53% of the electorate in 2008 and 2012. In both cases the economy was also in bad shape. Here is the breakdown:

Age – Just as in the Presidential race, there was plenty of statistical significance, but the results were inconclusive. For males the Democrats had strong statistical significance in 5 age segments, but weak significance in 8 whereas the Republicans has strong significance in 6 age segments and weak significance in 5. On the female side the Democrats were strong in 6 and weak in 5 and the Republicans were strong in 4 and weak in 4 others. Overall the trend was a bit more favorable to Republicans as one would suspect since they won a majority of the vote.

Race – The results were surprising here. Democrats showed not only weak significance among Whites, but with African Americans! Not surprisingly, Democrats were strong with Hispanics. Republicans, on the other hand, had strong significance with Whites and weak significance among Asians and Hispanics.

Income and Employment – Republicans had strong statistical significance among the wealthy and the Democrats among the poor, but there was no correlation along employment status for either group. In other words, the economy had no impact on voters’ decisions.

Gender – Surprising, there was no gender gap that is evident in the Presidential race. There is absolutely no evidence that women overwhelmingly support Democrats and men overwhelmingly support Republicans.

Education – Republicans had strong significance with all demographic groups with at least a high school diploma. Republicans had weak significance with those who did not have a high school diploma. However, surprisingly, the Democrats had significance with any groups.

Food Stamps – People who did not collect food stamps overwhelmingly voted against Democrats, but other than that there was no other statistical significance.

Marriage – No surprise here, married folks broke heavily for Republicans, but single family household showed no statistical significance towards Democrats or Republicans.

So how did Republicans hold the House and win a majority of the vote while Obama defeated Romney by 3.5 points? There are several key differences in voting trends for the Presidency and the House. First, African-Americans may be more likely to abstain from voting in House races. Secondly, women are more likely to vote for a Republican. Thirdly, people on food stamps are also more likely to abstain from voting in House elections.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Final 2012 Election Model (Trends)

I did a regression analysis of the 2012 election results by county versus demographics and economic conditions and the results were for the most part exactly what one would have expected. Since 2012 was an unusual election because the total vote count decreased from 2008, I specifically analyzed the change in voter turnout between 2008 and 2012 versus demographics and economic conditions.

Gender – No surprise here, men broke for Republicans and women broke for Democrats. However, the results were inconclusive for statistical significance when gender was broken down into economic variables such as poverty and employment rate.

Age – Surprisingly, most of the data was inconclusive for any statistical significance between varying age groups. Hard to believe but some young female age groups favored Republicans with strong statistical significance while some older male age groups favored Democrats with strong correlation. The converse was also true. In other words, the data was all over the place. Age groups were broken down into 5 year or smaller increments between 18 to over 85.

Food Stamps – People on food stamps voted Democratic.

Ethnicity – Whites voted Republican while Hispanics and African Americans voted Democratic.

Income – People with higher household incomes voted Republican.

Family – Married couples voted Republican and single families broke for the Democrats.

Education – Democrats did well with those having less than a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s or better degree. Republicans did better with everything in between.

Economy – For the most part there was no specific statistical significance with the economy and the change in voter turnout. Other than food stamps, there was no significant data indicating an advantage to Republicans and Democrats for either employment or poverty status.

Independents – Their voting trends tracked closer to Republicans than Democrats. However, this data was only analyzed on about half the counties nationwide within states that release data on the ideological breakdown of the voting populous.

From this data, the key to Obama winning the 2012 election was not only the White vote staying at home, but the increase in the food stamp payrolls. The food stamp payrolls include many people above poverty and that worked in his favor to win votes and to get his electorate to the polls. The Republicans were able to cut Obama’s margin of victory from 2008 in half mostly due to more Independents breaking with the Republicans. Republicans lost because they were unable to make Obama pay for the stagnant economy as there is no evidence that employment status played a part in the election outcome.