Why is Hillary rocking national polling but behind in the swing states?

[NewsCenter28]

Any theories?

Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 49, Bush 43 Clinton +6
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 48, Walker 41 Clinton +7
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 54, Trump 38 Clinton +16
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 47, Rubio 42 Clinton +5
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 48, Paul 43 Clinton +5
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 49, Cruz 40 Clinton +9
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Huckabee 41 Clinton +9
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 49, Carson 39 Clinton +10
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Christie 40 Clinton +10
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 49, Kasich 39 Clinton +10
General Election: Perry vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 47, Perry 40 Clinton +7
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump McClatchy/Marist Clinton 44, Bush 29, Trump 20

Is this only a Quinnipiac illusion that she is having trouble in the swing states? It must be although NBC News/Marist polls last Sunday had her despised in Iowa and New Hampshire with monster unfavorables.

The national poll data across the board, however, indicates that Hillary is fine, and ABC even had her national favorability at 52 per cent recently!

I feel great when I see polls like this and relieved but then swing state polls come out and freak me out again.

[dsc]

1. Quinnipiac has a history of polls which are frim left field or right field

I am not sure what happens to them but they get some doozies and then they get normal polls. And it isn't necessarily a left right thing. I remember one day they released polls in three states. In PA they had the GOP candidate up by a ton, in Ohio it was the democrat up by a ton, and the other state was normal. These were Senate polls so it was Toomey vs Sestak, Portman vs Strickland, and I don't recall the last state. By a ton I mean high teens and there is no way Portman is down by that much or that Toomey is up by that much.

[totodeinhere]

2. I would not worry about any polls right now. Next year when the primary and caucus season

starts is soon enough but not now.

[kcjohn1]

3. These early natl polls are

Useless. Most voters are not following race. Only about half voters know most candidates. This gives edge to candidates with high name recognition.

For example the recent Maritz poll just simply asked if you were to vote today would you vote A) Clinton, Dem candidate or B)Bush, GOP candidate. Bush at most has 80% voters know who he is vs ~100% for Clinton. That 20% will choose Clinton at greater rate. Its worse with other candidates. I doubt more than 60% know who Walker is.

This is why fav/unfav is better indicator. By election date almost all people will know the two candidates. Generally they will vote for candidate the view more favorable.

[MADem]

4. If you are going to CITE POLLS, you need to LINK TO THEM--otherwise this thread is garbage. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. The Q poll was discussed yesterday(?) ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7029152

There were some sampling design flaws, e.g., they over sampled republicans, and under-sampled African-Americans and Hispanics. And this has a amplified effect in swing states.

I, initially, wrote it off to sloppy methodology/design; but, then, I recalled the summary narrative (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=482015) ... the language used suggests a lack of objectivity, or maybe a bias.

So, I'm going with "All the Media loves a horse race ... even if one must be invented, for $1,000 Alex."

[Adrahil]

6. The devil is in the details....

Quinnipiacs overall sample was much more favorable the GOP than one intended to model the electorate. Quinn explicitly has said they do not try to model the electorate, or even voter registration numbers. Most of the time that kind of approach won't hurt you too bad, but it will bite you in the ass if you get a bad sample. Compare their general match up numbers to the intra-party results... The intraparty samples look much more like the party electorates, and lo and behold, their results match up with other polls pretty well. It's just the general match up that were odd.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Swing state voters pay closer attention,

her broad name recognition support is misleading.

[NYCButterfinger]

8. Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Clinton is doing fairly well in.

But she has some baggage that she has to clear up. I don't know if she can fix that by November 2016. Hillary Clinton needs to articulate a vision for America that will appeal to progressives and Independents, and if she can't do that, then it will cause problems amongst the base of the Democratic Party.