Posted on 09/07/2016 2:07:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The highly accurate Emerson College Poll
Emerson College Polling University
finds Democrat Hillary Clinton leading Republican Donald Trump in Deep Blue New England, but will be forced to defend New Jersey and Rhode Island. Among Independents, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton in Rhode Island (+20), Massachusetts (+8) and New Jersey (+4 points), while she holds the edge in Vermont (+22 points), Maine (+12), Connecticut (+9) and New Hampshire (+2).
As Figure 1 depicts, Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Mr. Trump ranges from a high of 21 points in Vermont (47% to 26%) to a low of just 3% in Rhode Island (44% to 41%), which is within the sample’s margin of error. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is doing more damage to Mr. Trump than Mrs. Clinton, taking 14% of the vote in New Hampshire, 13% in Vermont, 12% in Maine and under 10% in the remaining four states. As explained below the table, the support for Gov. Johnson comes disproportionately from potential Republican voters, particularly those who supported Mr. Trump’s former rivals. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has 7% of the vote in Vermont and 4% or less in the remaining six states.
Worth noting, while he trails overall in the state, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton in Maine’s Second Congressional District by a margin of 41% to 36. Maine allocates it’s electoral votes based on the winner of each district, which if it holds, would make him the first Republican to take the 1 electoral vote from the state since the 1980s.
(CHART-AT-LINK)
Mrs. Clinton’s advantage is significantly smaller in several of the deep blue states polled juxtaposed to President Barack Obama’s state-level margins of victory in the 2012 general election. In Massachusetts, former Gov. Mitt Romney’s home state, Mr. Obama won by 24 points. Now, Mrs. Clinton currently leads Mr. Trump by 17. In 2012, Mr. Obama won Vermont by 36%, but Mrs. Clinton only leads Trump by 21%.
She holds a scant 3-point advantage in Rhode Island, which Obama won by a whopping 28 points.
Once again, the polling data indicate that both candidates are having difficulty winning over the voters who supported their former rivals. In six of the states polled by Emerson College, between 60% and 65% of voters who supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders–less than two-thirds–have moved over to Mrs. Clinton. In Rhode Island, that percentage is only 50%. For Mr. Trump, in the six states, less than 50% of his former rivals’ voters combined are backing the party’s nominee, with Gov. Johnson drawing 25% or more in four of the states, including 33% in Vermont and 30% in New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, in the Granite State, incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte appears to be in some trouble, though she leads Democratic governor Maggie Hassan 48% to 46%, which is well within the margin of error. However, Gov. Hassan is viewed more favorably than Sen. Ayotte, enjoying a 52% to 41% (+11) favorable/unfavorable rating juxtaposed to 44% to 48% (-4) for the Republican.
In Vermont, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy is leading Republican challenger Scott Milne, 57% to 34%. Sen. Leahy, who was first elected to the Senate in 1974, is still rather popular with voters. His favorable/unfavorable rating is well above water 64% to 28% (+36). Mr. Milne’s numbers are a less impressive 29% to 33% (-4), even though 34% of voters undecided about him.
In Connecticut, incumbent Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who won reelection in 2010 during a tough bid after lying about his military record, still holds a significant lead over Republican state representative Dan Carter, 54% to 33%. Nearly 6 out of 10 likely voters (57%) view Sen. Blumenthal favorably and 34% have an unfavorable opinion of him. Voters are not familiar with Mr. Carter and his favorable/unfavorable rating is underwater 9% to 18%, with 42% undecided about him and 30% who have never heard of him.
Read Full Results: ECPS_final press release and toplines_ Northeast Polls_9.7 v3a
The Caller IDs for the seven state polls are as follows: •The Emerson College New Jersey poll was conducted September 2-5. The sample consisted of 800 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, age, and congressional district. •The Maine poll was conducted September 2-5. The sample consisted of 800 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age, gender and congressional district. •The Rhode Island poll was conducted September 2-5. The sample consisted of 800 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age, gender and congressional district. •The New Hampshire poll was conducted September 3-5. The sample consisted of 600 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.9%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age and gender. •The Connecticut poll was conducted September 2-5. The sample consisted of 1,000 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age and gender. •The Vermont poll was conducted September 2-5. The sample consisted of 600 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.9%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age and gender. •The Massachusetts poll was conducted September 3-5. The sample consisted of 500 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 4.3%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, party affiliation, age, gender and congressional district.
It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age and party breakdowns carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.
I live in Texas. Hahahahahahahahaha!
That was an online SurveyMonkey poll that was easily manipulated for the desired results.
They have Hillary at +2 in New Hampshire than forget to talk about it in the article. Then they say a low of +3 in Rhode Island while they have her at +2 in New Hampshire. Makes one wonder.
Trump may do far better in New England than could be imagined. We shall see.
Hillary is not winning Texas and Trump is not winning Jersey
I agree, those 3rd party never get on election day what they poll at, so expect several percentage points to go from Johnson to Trump.
I was going to comment on that and forgot to.
I have been trying to point this out for months.
The whole time Hillary was supposedly “leading” she was polling in the low 40’s and high 30’s in places she should be polling in the 50’s and 60’s.
I have been saying for awhile to IGNORE Trumps numbers in the polls and instead pay attention to HILLARY’S dismal numbers in places she SHOULD be 20-30+ points ahead but isn’t.
Democrats who may have grown increasingly disenchanted with Hillary may very well not be willing to publicly admit it, but it may be another thing when they cast their votes.
Jersey is difficult with Camden, Trenton, Newark but all the trades I know are voting Trump as are all of my friends/family etc. The inner cities & union workers are not energized for Hillary. If the inner city turnout is light Trump may pull it off.
It would be a very special moment!
My last post may have set the record on “the number of times the word ‘may’ is used in a sentence”. :)
Just wish there was some other credible way to gauge where the race actually stands.
Kellyanne Conway must be conducting internal polling.
During interviews, she wears a poker face and seems to take the public polls seriously. Praying that her numbers show Trump safely ahead in all the right places for 270!!!
I had the grave misfortune of sharing a Thanksgiving dinner table with, amongst others, an Emerson College senior three years ago. When that boy woke up in the morning and took a dump, he was losing brain fluid.
I trust no poll coming from a libtard source. All they’re trying to do is rally the troops. Part of the mentally underdeveloped GOTV effort.
Look at the chart
I wish that libertarian **** would drop out. But then those people probably weren’t going to vote for Trump anyway. Jill Stein turned out to be practically worthless. I’m sure the mainstream media is fine up to libertarian and never mentioning Stein by name
Hillary is down aa lot more in texas than Trump is in New Jersey. Come on Paisano, have some faith
I think the safe assumption to make is Trump is doing better in blue states than Hillary is doing in red states. What that means on election night we shall see. Even with the spectre of mass vote fraud that we know will be committed by Dems hanging over the election I feel better about Trump winning in November than I did Mittens four years ago and McVain eight years ago. Maybe I’m just being over optimistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.