Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump In Seven Battleground States
Hillary Clinton holds solid leads over Donald Trump in seven battleground states.
A new series of state-level polls shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in seven states that will likely be crucial to the outcome of the 2016 election:
Hillary Clinton is polling higher than Donald Trump in seven swing states, holding leads ranging from four to 17 percentage points, according to a new poll released Wednesday.
Of the seven states polled by Ballotpedia, Clinton’s lead was smallest in Iowa, where registered voters who responded to the poll preferred her by just four points. The former secretary of state’s largest lead came in Michigan, a traditionally Democratic-leaning state where Trump has said he could compete in November. Clinton leads the Manhattan billionaire there by 17 points, 50 percent to 33 percent.
Clinton also holds double-digit leads in Florida (14 points), Pennsylvania (14 points) and North Carolina (10 points) over Trump. Respondents preferred her to Trump by nine points in Ohio and seven points in Virginia.
Clinton maintained her advantage when respondents were offered a third option, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, although her leads shifted slightly. In a three-way race, Clinton’s lead among those polled dropped to just three points in Iowa and six points in North Carolina. But Johnson’s introduction as an option actually grew the former secretary of state’s lead to 15 points and eight points in Pennsylvania and Virginia, respectively.
All told, the polls conducted by Ballotpedia show the race in the seven states at issue as follows:
- 51% to 37% in Florida
- 45% to 41% in Iowa
- 50% to 33% in Michigan
- 48% to 38% in North Carolina
- 46% to 37% in Ohio
- 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
- 45% to 38% in Virginia
These constitute altogether a total of 117 Electoral Votes and, with the exception of North Carolina, are all states that Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012. It’s also worth noting that these results reflect a higher margin between the candidates in each of these than most recent polling. In Florida, for example, RealClearPolitics shows Clinton with an average lead of 3.4 points in a matchup with Trump alone, and a 3.0 point lead when Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are included. In Ohio, Clinton leads by 3.0 points in a head-to-head with Trump as well as in a four-way poll with Johnson and Stein. In Virginia, Clinton has a 4.0 point lead in a matchup with Trump alone, and a three point lead in the one poll that has been conducted in Virginia that includes Johnson and Stein. Finally, Trump has a 1.3 point lead in sparsely polled North Carolina, while the candidates are tied if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are included. The story is much the same in the other states that are part of this poll, which suggests that either this poll is something of an outlier or that it is among the first to catch the beginning of a sharp trend in Clinton’s direction at the state level to match the one that we have seen at this national level, where Clinton has a 6.2 point lead over Trump alone and a 5.5 point lead in a race that includes Johnson and Stein. As I’ve noted, there has been something of a swing in Clinton’s favor in the national polls, with the exception of the new Quinnipac poll, which gives Clinton only a two point lead nationally and may be an outlier itself, and it’s typically the case that those national poll swings do take a week or so to filter down to the state-level polling. Whether we’re dealing with a new trend or an outlier here can only be answered when we have more polling from the states in question.
In any case, the trends of this race seem fairly well set for the moment, with the trend moving decidedly in Hillary Clinton’s favor in a race that she’s already heavily favored to win. Trump will likely get some kind of bump in the polls due to the Republican National Convention next month if only because every candidate has gotten a bump as a result of their convention. That bump will likely be short-lived, though, given the fact that the Democratic convention will follow shortly thereafter, and Clinton will get her own poll bump from that. After that, the race will likely enter something of a quiet period for much of August due to the Congressional recess and the fact that the Rio Olympics will be going on for much of that month. Once we hit Labor Day, though, the battle will be joined and both candidates will be on the road for most of the following two months, or at least that’s how it normally goes. One thing that we don’t know is how much Donald Trump will follow the traditional campaign model and how much he will again attempt to rely upon free media coverage the way that he did during the race for the Republican nomination. It would be a unique way to run for President, but one gets the impression that it will be hard for Trump’s handlers to convince him he needs to do anything different.
Skewed polls.
They’re not factoring in the James Joyner wing of the GOP. “We hate Trump, but Clinton is icky because…. scandals!”
Must be the elections on Mars…
What kind of a track record does Ballotpedia have in polling? They don’t appear to be on FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster ratings.
I feel like I’ve heard of them before, but I’m always a bit cautious when I see/hear of new numbers that present such a clear and across the board lead–even (or perhaps especially) when it’s the candidate I favor.
Four months left. Fingers crossed. I’ve been worried about terror attacks and economic issues. We seem to have weathered Orlando without a bump for Trump (at least so far). And it was really sporting of Trump to hand Clinton an excuse if we see recession signs: It’s because of the Brexit, that my opponent supported.
@Mister Bluster:
Not sure where that came from.
Fixed
@EddieInCA:
The Washington Post has an Op Ed up today that could have been written by James.
I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.
Tell me again how James is any different from Jenos, Jack or any of the right wing Republicans who populate this site.
Trump needs to sweep most of the swing states AND hang onto every state Romney won AND he needs to win big in the rust belt.
If he’s down 17 in Michigan, down 14 in PA, down 10 in NC and Ohio, this is going to be a Reagan-Mondale rout.
Looks like the $26 million swing state spending spree is paying off for Hillary. (Trump’s spending? $0.)
By the way, I don’t think her leads are quite this dramatic, although it will hopefully shut up the people who keep claiming the PA is in play.
@Loviatar:
I’ll bet a bottle of Scotch ($100 max) that Joyner votes either for Hillary or casts a protest vote.
Joyner is a foreign policy guy, a military guy, and I do not believe he will vote to hand nuclear weapons to Donald Trump.
BTW, Nate Silver has his first general election forecast up.
He give Trump a 20% chance of victory.
If Hillary takes Florida then it’s pretty much game over.
I’d like to know how much Hispanic voter registration drives are impacting these numbers. Traditionally this is one demographic that punches far under it’s weight. If the Democrats can get them voting in numbers equal to other groups we’ll see even AZ turn blue.
Now Texas would be nice but it’s not happening this year.
@michael reynolds: What I found most interesting was that Silver gives a higher chance (35%) of Hillary winning by double digits than Trump winning at all. I find that astounding. That level of victory hasn’t happened since Reagan’s 1984 landslide, and it hasn’t happened to a non-incumbent since Eisenhower in 1952, an immensely popular man running against a party that was presiding over the Korean War. Aaron Sorkin couldn’t have dreamed up the scenario that’s unfolding right now; he’d consider it too implausible.
@michael reynolds:
The Princeton Election Consortium (the gold standard IMHO) has it Clinton 328EV to Trump 210EV. Very hard to see a road to 270EV for him now, just 4 months out. I know Trump thinks he is going to win NY and Cali…but I don’t think anyone who is sane does. He may sway enough uneducated white folks in PA to pull an upset, but I doubt it. He has far less of a chance for FL or OH.
http://election.princeton.edu/
Check out the graph of the day…
@michael reynolds:
Doesn’t matter. As long as he continues to call himself a Republican he is no better than Trump or any of the other lowlifes that currently populate the Republican party.
James is the semi-reasonable face of some hateful disgusting ideas. While he may not personally believe or espouse those ideas as long as he is a member of a party that does then he is no different from any other member within that party.
—–
While living in Germany in the mid 90s, I met some older Germans who lived through WW2, they all seemed pretty nice and reasonable. One of them was a former Nazi, I never found the courage to ask him why.
In findings that undoubtedly have R-party regulars and conservative movement folks beating their heads on walls the Ballotpedia poll cited shows both Gov Kasich and Rep Ryan beating Hillary in many of those seven states. Which made me wonder if there was some agenda behind the poll, eh? Maybe someone in the ‘never-Trump’ side of things had a hand in writing the questions?
This might be hubris, but I’m not worried about Clinton beating Trump (insert obligatory ” we still have to bust our asses and GOTV” here).
I’m worried much more about the Democrats winning back the Senate. As we have found out, A president without Congressional majorities is only half a President. I could see a Republican Senate never filling that ninth SCOTUS seat and not allowing Clinton to staff her Administration, so winning back the Senate is crucial.
Fortunately in these days of party line voting, a big Clinton win means that most Democrats will be voting the straight Democrat ticket, which means big gains in the Senate and the House. What worked for the Republicans in 2014 will work for the Democrats in 2016. Just as the Democrats couldn’t run away from an unpopular Obama in 2014, the Republicans won’t be able to run away from Trump in 2016.
pass the popcorn….
I’m sure the excuse will be “but we didn’t knowingly do it!”
I’m sure the Chinese are laughing off their asses at us.
Comment from Bloomberg article:
@JohnMcC:
About the agenda, I dunno (the polls was commissioned by CNN). But regarding Kasich/Ryan: at this point, they are nothing but generic republican, so putting their names in doesn’t teach us much besides the fact that poll is not SKEWED. If they were candidates, they’d be exposed to scrutiny, etc..
@Loviatar
Dear God, that’s a depressing op-ed. The degree of self-delusion required to write that beggars the imagination.:
Because, after all, he never has before, and has all but spit on the people you expect him to surround himself with.
Right.
Sheesh.
A subliminal desire to repeal Amendment 22 USCon?
@michael reynolds:
My favorite part of that is the histogram of simulation results, that shows a significant nonzero point mass at “0 electoral votes” for Trump…
That said, I need to read up on how they generate the variance in their simulations.
@Loviatar:
From the article:
The author may as well have just called her a poopyhead.
Someone needs to show that guy that stringing together a series of baseless cliches does not an argument make. It’s quite something to pen an entire article without being able to make even one factually-based cogent point.
I am by no means sanguine, even if these polls were to come in on November 1st. There is a history of people saying they are uncommitted when they will eventually pull the lever for a racist or other crazy poll. No, I don’t have any facts and figures to back me up, just a lifetime of experience of when polls go off the rails and everyone is surprised by the result.
@DrDaveT / @Pch101
Two quick points:
1) Why would the Washington Post print such garbage? Of what purpose does it serve?
2) James Joyner will vote for Trump. If by this time in the Republican party’s descent into bigotry, hatred and craziness he is still calling himself a Republican, he is of kind with the base voters. With Republicans its party before country, so James will vote for Trump.
@michael reynolds: @Loviatar: No, James won’t vote for Trump. But we do have a secret ballot, and were I James I’d email Michael election day evening and claim a bottle of good scotch.
Last week we heard that a Moody’s analysis said that Trumps economic plan would through us into a recession longer and deeper than the Bush recession, and generally cause economic havoc.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-economy-moodys-analysis-224535
Today we hear that jihadists, radicals, and terrorists are absolutely giddy at the prospect of a President Trump weakening the US economically and internationally, getting into a land war with them, and thus bolstering their “us-against-them” propaganda.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums
Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump should be President of these United States has serious mental health issues.
@Loviatar:
The Post has been printing garbage as bad or worse for years. This is small potatoes compared to George Will’s outright lies on climate change, and that’s from one of their regulars.
@gVOR08:
You say that with such confidence. Why?
He still is a Republican right? With all that has gone on with the Republicans the last 40+ years, shit I’ll limit it to the past 7+ years. The bigotry (LGBT or Muslim), the hatred (President Obama, Planned Parenthood) or the straight out craziness (Jade Helm, WTF), he is still a Republican. So why should I believe he won’t vote for Trump?
And no I’m not going to bet a bottle of Scotch, I don’t trust James to tell the truth, after all, he still is a Republican.
@C. Clavin:
Josh Marshall at TPM has termed a Trump Presidency the “Doofus Apocalypse”.
@Kylopod:
I think there are very good business reasons for the Post to print stuff like this. We often complain about newspapers that report “Dems say the earth is round, while Republicans disagree” but don’t actually report on the objective fact that would settle it. The assumption is that is laziness. But I suspect it is much more about business model. If the Post were to report “Republicans say the earth is flat, but they are wrong” then people who support the Republicans will say to themselves, ‘ The Post is against my team”, and cancel their subscription. But if the Post reports “Republicans say the earth is flat. Dems disagree”, then those same Republican supporters simply say “D*mn Democrats” and remain a subscriber.
Well, at this point, seeing how obviously unqualified and unsuited Trump is to be the president of this country, anyone who would vote for him (rather than voting third party or not voting at all) out of any kind of animosity towards Clinton must have a nasty case of CDS…
Oh that’s great…rather than simply presenting the truth, newspapers should equivocate on reality to squeeze out as much profit as possible…
@MarkedMan:
Yeah but look what happens when a newspaper puts subscriptions (money) above the truth and reporting the news.
Surprise! Poconos’ Leading Newspaper Takes A Powder On Big Nestlé Water Story
Its pretty long but its a good read.
@MarkedMan: I agree with you, but this type of decision has consequences and is at least in part to blame for the rise in the “know (absolutely) nothings” who have found a home in the Republican party. Treating an unsubstantiated and incorrect idea as simply “the other side’s position” validates invalid ideas.
@Loviatar: I say it with some confidence first because IIRC James has said he won’t vote for Trump and I believe James to be an honest man.
Second, I’m pretty sure giving Trump the launch codes would scare the bejeezus out of James almost as much as giving them to Palin would have scared me.
Third, I and others in these threads have commented on the difficulty of defining conservatism in the U.S. in the 21st century. Isn’t it C. Clavin who frequently notes that something conservatives have said or done isn’t really conservative. He’s right historically, except that historical conservatism wasn’t either. I believe there are some constants in conservatism. One is that it always comes down in practice to protecting the currently wealthy and powerful. Another is a belief that government should be of the best people, by the best people, and for the best people, people like me. For a Trumpite that means white male. For James it means people of a certain background and temperament. And Trump ain’t one of them.
@MarkedMan: Just a few days ago Vox ran article discussing the very phenomenon you’re describing:
Put another way, truth is relative to a party’s willingness to double down on the crazy.
@gVOR08:
Honest and Republican are two words that no longer belong in the same sentence unless used in the past tense.
—–
Did it scare him when he gave it to George W. Bush, who was also an immature, incompetent, blowhard failed businessman.
—–
I’m not defining conservatism, I’m defining Republicans; 21st century Republicans are bigoted haters who believes crazy theories. It just so happens James Joyner has defined himself as a Republican.
—–
I found this confusing, so you’re saying James believes that government should only consist of, by and for white males. Because for someone of my background and temperament those highlighted terms have usually meant one and the same.
@MarkedMan: The Fake Objective Style that we are cursed with, and which is in large part responsible for misleading people, was created for business reasons–if a Wire Service article could be sold to Dem or Repub papers sight-unseen it was more valuable.
@Loviatar:
The Washington Post has a long tradition of publishing both sides in its op-ed pages. It also operates a syndication business that markets columns to other media. As is the case with syndicators such as Creators, it will offer a variety of flavors and let the marketplace decide what it prefers.
I would read opinion pieces such as the one written by Mr. Poopyhead between the lines. If this kind of anti-Clinton argument is among the best that they have to offer, then that’s a pretty good indication that the anti-Clinton camp is low on firepower and ammunition. Just because there are two sides does not mean that both sides are of equal value.
Never ceases to amaze me that people don’t see how screwed we are when either of these idiots becomes President. A stuffed shirt and a blow hard — the only joy I’ll get is watching the Democratic Party ripped apart by the same forces that is tearing through the Republicans. Brown folks are fixing to get corn-holed–as usual.
@Loviatar: As you say,
I have often disagreed with James. I have felt his “conservatism” produced bind spots. I cannot recall that I ever thought James was being disingenuous. And I may speculate that James as a Republican is getting close to past tense.
W Bush was the scion of an old moneyed family and his father was respected as a statesman. He was in some circles respected as a Governor. His failings didn’t become obvious until well into his first term. It would have been easy to see W as “of a certain background and temperament”, and hard to give that up. (McCain came from an old military family and Romney’s father had money and respectability.)
No, I’m saying Trumpites think the country should be run by and for white males. I think conservatives like James think the country should be run by the best people (as defined by things in addition to competence). I think James himself believes this, not necessarily consciously. For historical reasons these have mostly been old white guys, but that is no longer a requirement. Trump, a white guy, but a purse proud, ignorant, lying, short fingered vulgarian, does not make the cut. He is not James’ kind of people. The difference from the Trumpites is subtle but important, and us liberals are supposed to be able to handle nuance.
@Jim Brown 32:
If you aren’t THE Jim Brown…then I’d change my moniker.
Just saying…
@gVOR08:
Honestly, this is where I disagree with you. I believe James is a very intelligent, sophisticated grown ass man. So any “blind spots” he may have at this point in his political life are probably all willful. So whereas you see him as being non-disingenuous, I see him as very skilled at being disingenuous.
—–
Trump was and is just a cruder version of George W. Bush. Both of their failings were noticeable by anyone not willing to give them the benefit of doubt based upon their “background and temperament” (white men with money). They are both unsuited for the presidency and the country is to the worst because we elected one and is considering the other.
—–
Honestly, again I have to disagree with you. For James, I think white male with money is part of the “background and temperament” requirement that he considers. Otherwise what is his difficulty with Hillary Clinton; Wellesley and Yale School graduate, two time Senator, former Secretary of State and multi millionaire.
—–
Nuance is critical to any evaluation, however sometimes you’ve got to call a spade a spade. James Joyner is a Republican, he is part of a group known to espouse and support bigoted, racist, crazy ass political theories.
—–
If that occurs, I’ll reassess my opinion of James until then he is a Republican.
@Jim Brown 32:
Still waiting for someone to take the Head to Head Test —
List the things you hate / fear / condemn most about Hillary.
Then rank Trump on those attributes, on the same scale.
Is there any dimension at all in which Trump is preferable to Hillary? Or even close?
And how exactly is that supposed to happen?
Oh please…and who would be your ideal president to help the brown folks…
@C. Clavin: Are you THE Cliff Clavin? Probably just as pathetic but nevertheless……
@DrDaveT: Sure, but first rate what you’d like about a $hit sandwich vs a $hit salad. I suppose the veggies you got with the salad would be a plus.
The two most unpopular nominees in American political history….what’s to compare?
@DrDaveT: Trump at least has verbalized the economic frustration of a lot of blue collar workers and addressed the root cause of large economic imbalances…trade policies….. that are favorable to a few and screw everyone else. Blaming Wall Street is mostly a diversion.
Too bad Trump is a blithering idiot that can’t articulate how Trade should be ammended, which deals should be revisited, and what effect the common working class family could expect. If he or any of the other idiot Republicans could explain that….they’d win easily.
The Clinton economy was mostly the product of the DotCom bubble….there won’t be another one of those. GW Bush…the dummy that he was…engineered a housing bubble…there aren’t anymore bubbles left. Maybe the Clinton’s could deregulate some more abstract financial chicanery….and hey…they gave America the Prison Industrial Complex. Maybe that can scrounge up some more super predator Black Men they can jail. That’ll stimulate the white working class.
@An Interested Party: Really? If you can see the populist forces gathering in the Democratic Party you’re blind. If you think they are going away…you’re naive.
We have a better than average one now. Its too bad the Clinton Machine inside the party stiffled the grooming of anyone else inside the Party that might be good enough to beat HRC. BO wasn’t supposed to happen….they didn’t make that mistake again. No one was appointed in the Administration in 8 years who could remotely be considered a future candidate for President….except HRC. Its shocking that the tired old man ( who wasn’t even a Democrat) that ran against her did as well as he did.