PPP: Looking ahead to 2016 nationally and in Iowa (Rubio, Hillary leads the pack)

Public Policy Polling ^ | 02/08/2013

[SeekAndFind]

New PPP polls both nationally and in Iowa find Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton leading the way for their party's respective 2016 nominations, with Clinton leading Rubio by 8 points in a hypothetical head to head.

For the third month in a row in our national 2016 GOP tracking Rubio leads the way. He's at 22% to 15% for Paul Ryan, 13% each for Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, 11% for Mike Huckabee, 10% for Rand Paul, 4% for Bobby Jindal, 3% for Rick Perry, and 1% for Susana Martinez. Rubio continues to lead based on his appeal to the furthest right segment of the Republican Party- he's at 28% with 'very conservative' voters to 15% for Huckabee and 14% for Ryan.

Rubio's tied for the lead in Iowa as well. It's a closely contested picture there with he and Huckabee both at 16%, followed by Paul at 15%, Bush at 14%, Christie at 12%, Ryan at 10%, Martinez at 4%, and Jindal and Perry at 3%. Rubio leads with conservatives there as well but polls so far behind Huckabee with moderates that it's just a tie overall. One other interesting finding in Iowa is that Chris Christie has only a 36/33 favorability rating with Republicans in the state, including 36/38 with 'very conservative' ones.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to dominate both nationally and in Iowa. Nationally she's at 58% to 19% for Joe Biden, 8% for Elizabeth Warren, and 3% for Andrew Cuomo. She's even stronger in Iowa at 68% to 21% for Biden with no one else over 2%. Her favorability rating with Democrats there is 90/5.

If Clinton doesn't run Democrats are pretty open to a Biden candidacy. Nationally he gets 57% to 13% for Warren and 5% for Cuomo, and in Iowa he gets 58% to 13% for Cuomo and 7% for Warren. If neither Clinton nor Biden ran a plurality of Democrats- 36% nationally and 37% in Iowa- would be undecided.

Clinton leads in head to head match ups nationally with all of the leading Republicans. She's up 8 on Rubio 49/41, 6 on Bush and Ryan at 49/43 and 50/44 respectively, and 46/42 on Christie. Biden does an average of 3 points worse than Clinton against the Republicans- he's up 48/43 on Rubio, 49/45 on Ryan, 48/45 on Bush, and ties Christie at 44.

Obviously it's very early but we'll be doing this national 2016 polling on a monthly basis so that we have a good measure of how preferences shift over time.

Full results here

[ScottinVA]

If Hillary wants the Presidency, she’ll win. The majority of this center-left country’s voters don’t have the capacity to think critical. If she runs, Hillary will win because she’s: 1. A democrat and 2. A Clinton.

Conservatives need to shift focus to the states, the U.S. House and maybe the Senate. The White House isn’t winnable by anyone but democrats now.

[ScottinVA]

critical = critically

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If Hillary wants the Presidency, she’ll win.

So, she will be the female and Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. She will be nearly 70 when 2016 comes.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Bunk.

What we need however is for “Republicans” to support America.

That means, American jobs. Now.

We do not have time for another blowout. We do not have time for yet more jobs exported to China, and massive trade deficits from just imports.

America need jobs. Now. America needs Republicans to support American jobs.

Now.

[TomGuy]

Already????

Tracking polls???

gaggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

[DaveA37]

Hilliary will not win if shes in jail where she belongs.

[angcat]

Unless Ronald Reagan comes back from the dead I am finished voting and finished with the RINO party.

[Road Glide]

“Conservatives need to shift focus to the states, the U.S. House and maybe the Senate. The White House isn’t winnable by anyone but democrats now.”

A cogent and prescient assessment.

I think it’s time for conservatives (note that I didn’t say “Republicans”) to face reality — the Republican party is no longer a “national party”, but is shrinking into a “regional” one. Yes, Republicans continue to have influence (in many cases, strong influence) in the red states, and some influence in the “purple” states, but in certain areas of the country they are now shut out of power and have little hope of ever regaining it.

We are seeing the Republican party (nationally) becoming the same as the Republican party of California existed for the last twenty years or so. That is to say, in years to come the Pubbies may still have the opportunity (at the national level) to mount sufficient opposition to prevent the majority ‘rat party from enacting everything it wishes, but they’ll never gain enough power to effectively “take the reigns of government” again. This is how the Republicans functioned in California for years, at least until last November’s election that effectively wiped them out of power there.

The next 4-6 years are going to give us a better idea of how the future is going to go, or how quickly things are going to deteriorate.

2014: Will the Republicans make any gains in Congress? Or will they barely “hold on”? Or, will they actually suffer losses?

2016: Will the Republicans win the presidency? Or will they lose once again, even in the wake of 8 years’ worth of Obammunism? If the ‘rats take the presidency, how much influence will the Pubbies retain in Congress? Could they actually lose even more seats?

The conventional wisdom no longer applies, because the foundations upon which conventional wisdom had previsouly been based, have changed. Remember all the pundits claiming that no president with Obama’s economic numbers could be re-elected? Where are they now?

If we don’t see the Republicans begin to claw their way back in ‘14 and ‘16, I’m not sure what can revive their fortunes.

As I said above, the Republicans may find themselves “Californized” in the footsteps of the Republican legislators of that state. Not a good future….