Trump Now Viewed More Honest, Trustworthy and Favorably Than Clinton
New York businessman Donald Trump, right, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, campaign for their party nomination on the trail. (Photos: AP/Getty)
Donald Trump has erased Hillary Clinton’s lead in the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to the latest [content_tooltip id=”38038″ title=”Quinnipiac University (Q-Poll)”]. The two are in a statistical dead heat in the three states in head-to-head match-ups, while his lead grows significantly when Libertarian Gov. Gary John and Green Party Jill Stein are added to the mix.
In Florida, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton 41% to 36%, with 7% supporting former New Mexico Gov. Johnson and 4% for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. In Ohio, Mr. Trump earned 37% to Mrs. Clinton’s 36%, with Gov. Johnson at 7% and Ms. Stein at 6%. In Pennsylvania, which would be a major electoral vote disaster for any Democratic candidate to lose, Mr. Trump leads by 6 points, 40% to 34%, with Gov. Johnson and Ms. Stein at 9% and 3%, respectively.
“Donald Trump enters the Republican Convention on a small roll in the three most important swing states in the country. He has wiped out Hillary Clinton’s lead in Florida; is on the upside of too-close to call races in Florida and Pennsylvania and is locked in a dead heat in Ohio,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Favorability Ratings
We’ve heard a lot of pontificating this election cycle over Mr. Trump’s historically high unfavorable numbers, but the Quinnipiac University Poll is the latest in a clear trend to show battleground state voters view Mrs. Clinton less favorable now. That’s true for all three states in the Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll.
4. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
FL OH PA Strongly favorable 26% 22% 24% Smwht favorable 12 12 14 Smwht unfavorable 7 10 7 Strongly unfavorable 47 49 50 Hvn't hrd enough 4 4 4 REFUSED/DK/NA 3 3 1
5. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
FL OH PA Strongly favorable 19% 20% 17% Smwht favorable 16 15 14 Smwht unfavorable 6 9 11 Strongly unfavorable 53 51 54 Hvn't hrd enough 4 3 3 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 3 2
In the Keystone State, voters Mrs. Clinton has a negative 31% to 65% favorability rating. Mr. Trump is unpopular, too, but by a negative 38% to 57%. In the Buckeye State, voters give Mrs. Clinton a negative 35% to 60% favorability rating, and Mr. Trump a negative 34% to 59% rating. In the Sunshine State, voters give Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump negative favorability ratings, 35% to 59% and 38% to 54%, respectively.
The Independents and Base
In Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump leads among Republicans 82% to 5%, while Mrs. Clinton among Democrats enjoys 82% to 9%. Independent Keystone State voters are divided with a slight edge for Mr. Trump, 39% to 36%. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a former rival who won only his own home state, is not backing his party’s nominee as of yet and it shows. Mr. Trump enjoys only a 77% to 6% spread among Republicans but a 43% to 31% spread among independent voters. Democrats back Mrs. Clinton 90% to 4%. In Florida, independent voters shift from 44 – 35 percent for Clinton last month to 43 – 30 percent for Trump today
Big Picture
Worth noting, this is the second poll in a week to show Mr. Trump with a widening 5-point lead in Florida, a complete flip from last month. A separate JMC Analytics Poll showed Mr. Trump leading Mrs. Clinton 47% to 42% with the third party candidates in the race.
“While there is no definite link between Clinton’s drop in Florida and the U.S. Justice Department decision not to prosecute her for her handling of e-mails, she has lost ground to Trump on questions which measure moral standards and honesty,” Mr. Brown added.
By YUGE margins, voters in each battleground state agree with the following statement: “The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change.” Further, battleground state voters also overwhelmingly agree with a major premise of Mr. Trump’s entire candidacy: “trade agreements with other countries have hurt them and their families’ financial situation.”
Polling from Monmouth University released this week show a far closer race than expected in Nevada and a small edge for Mr. Trump in Iowa.
“I’m becoming a broken record by repeating how early it is to read too much into polls,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “However, Donald Trump is running way ahead of Mitt Romney and plays in states he never did. With these still register voter polls, Mrs. Clinton should be very concerned.”
otto / July 13, 2016
Non-swing states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.
With the end of the primaries, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.
/
otto / July 13, 2016
The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
/
otto / July 14, 2016
For perspective:
Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.
From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time
If this 20 year pattern continues, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.
Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
• 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
/