Clinton Jumps To Double-Digit Lead Over Trump In National Tracking Poll
Hillary Clinton widened her lead over Donald Trump to 10 points in the NBC/SurveyMonkey national tracking poll released Tuesday morning.
Clinton's lead jumped by two points from a 50-42 lead in last week's tracking poll to a 51-41 lead this week.
She still has a six point lead over Trump when third-party candidates are added to the question. The results then were Clinton 44, Trump 38, Libertarian Gary Johnson 10, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein 4.
NBC News/Survey Money polled 11,480 registered voters online August 1-7 with a margin of error plus or minus 1.2 percentage points.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltra...+%28TPMNews%29
Johnson hurting Trash more than Stein is hurting Hillary.
i laughed
If Trump had drawn a similar sized crowd he would have been ripped apart for it.
1. you never asked me a question
2. I responded to your post and even quoted you
3. I appreciate you toning down the emoticons and have noticed you are trying
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-losing-badly/The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly
By Harry Enten
We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.
If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.
Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are “using” more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans. They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.
But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.
The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an at ude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.
A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.
Here’s the margin that Democrats have had in self-identification since 1952, according to the American National Elections Studies and, starting in 1972, exit polls.
And it’s not crazy to think Democrats will have an advantage in party identification in 2016. With a controversial nominee, many Republicans might not want to identify with the GOP, and may be calling themselves independents.
You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.
Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.TSA
I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?
Of course, unskewing is simply one of many ways of pretending Clinton hasn’t jumped out to a large post-convention lead against Donald Trump. You could also ask us to imagine a world without polls. You could allege, without any evidence, that outright election fraud will take place. Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.
People, though, should stick to reality. Right now, Clinton is leading in almost every single national poll. She leads in both our polls-plus and polls-only forecasts. That doesn’t mean she will win. The polls have been off before, but no one knows by how much beforehand, or in which direction they’ll miss. For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.
Looks like the 3rd party candidates take away more from Hillary than Trump.
just the opposite
How Trump’s poll decline could lead to a self-perpetuating death spiral for his campaign
There’s a dynamic developing in the presidential race that’s very dangerous for Donald Trump.
New polls are coming in with increasingly dismal news for the GOP nominee. He now trails Clinton by 8.9 points in a head-to-head national matchup, on average. If that margin holds up, it would give Clinton the biggest popular vote victory in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide.
That’s all bad enough news for Trump in itself. But these polls have effects that will ripple outward, and could turn a possibly temporary poll decline into a permanent one.
Polls can play two roles in a campaign. One is as a reflection of the electoral reality. The other, less common role is as a driver of the electoral reality. In Trump's case, the recent spate of bad polls might be doing exactly that — changing the context in which Trump operates, as opposed to simply describing it.
Specifically, these polls could be driving more and more Republicans to abandon a Trump campaign that looks increasingly like a sinking ship.
The self-perpetuating cycle of bad polls for Trump and GOP defections from him
This cycle starts off with bad polling news for Trump.
This cements the perception that he’s very likely to lose, and as a result, more and more Republican elected officials, staffers, and donors become emboldened to come out against him.
Some of these actors, facing electorates with Trump-hostile populations either this year or eventually, will try to flee the sinking ship to save themselves.
Others will try to curry favor with the likely next president, Hillary Clinton. And others will want to position themselves on the right side of history — or at least the right side of a coming intraparty showdown over who gets the blame for Trump’s defeat.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/9/12404704...on-polls-today
Donald Trump needs a miracle to win
Three months from now, with the 2016 presidential election in the rearview mirror, we will look back and agree that the presidential election was over on Aug. 9th.
Of course, it is politically incorrect to say that the die is cast.
Journalistic neutrality allegedly forces us to say that the race isn’t over until November, and most media organizations prefer to hype the presidential contest to generate viewers and readers rather than explain why a photo finish is unlikely.
But a dispassionate examination of the data, combined with a coldblooded look at the candidates, the campaigns and presidential elections, produces only one possible conclusion: Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump in November, and the margin isn’t likely to be as close as Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney.
First, the polling numbers are stunning.
Pre-convention polls showed the race compe ive but with Clinton ahead by at least a few points in most cases. Post-convention polls show Clinton leading the race much more comfortably. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll puts Clinton’s margin at 9 points, while Fox
News shows it at 10 and The Washington Post/ABC News survey finds the margin at 8 points.
These numbers could close a few points or jump around depending on the individual survey, but the race is already well-defined.
In four-way ballots, Clinton maintains her solid lead over Trump, while Libertarian Gary Johnson draws in the high single-digits or low double-digits.
Green Party nominee Jill Stein generally draws in the low to middle single-digits.
Relatively few voters are undecided. (See RealClearPolitics’ poll numbers here.)
State polls confirm the national surveys, with some normally Republican-leaning states up for grabs or leaning toward Clinton.
Both major party nominees enter the fall sprint with terrible personal ratings. That’s unprecedented and remarkable, but it doesn’t necessarily make the electorate inherently more volatile, as some have asserted.
Clinton’s favorable rating is up to 37 percent in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll and 48 percent in the Post/ABC poll, while Trump’s favorable ratings stand at a much lower 28 percent and 34 percent, respectively, in the two surveys.
Clinton’s unfavorable rating is 53 percent in the NBC/WSJ poll and 50 percent in the Post/ABC survey. Trump’s unfavorable numbers are much higher — 61 percent and 63 percent in the two polls. Clearly, many more registered voters have a net positive view of Clinton than of Trump.
In November, Clinton will need a handful of votes from those with an unfavorable view of her, while Trump will need support from many more voters who have an unfavorable view of him.
Second, major polls show the Democratic electoral coalition holding and the Republican coalition fraying.
Clinton is winning women overwhelmingly, consistently holding margins that are larger (sometimes much larger) than Obama rolled up in 2008 or 2012. At the same times, Trump’s advantage among men generally ranges from somewhere between McCain’s performance (no advantage) and Romney’s (+7), depending on what survey you believe.
Trump is winning white voters by 5 points (NBC/WSJ), 12 points (Post/ABC) or 14 points (CNN). McCain carried that group by 12 points in losing the overall race by over 7 points. Romney lost to Obama by less than 4 points, but he carried whites by 20 points. Again, Trump has a long way to go to get back into the race.
Republican defections remain a huge problem for the GOP nominee, more than likely offsetting any Democratic voters or previous nonvoters Trump can attract. (This was so even before the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, Evan McMullin, announced his candidacy as an Independent.)
The new Post/ABC survey shows 5 percent of Democrats defecting to Trump, a very normal level of defection.
But Clinton is already getting 11 percent of Republicans, a larger percentage than any Democrat has received over the last four elections.
In May, I wrote that Clinton had a “decisive” advantage, an assessment I reiterated in July.
But now that the conventions have passed and the race stabilized, Clinton’s advantage has gone from decisive to overwhelming.
In short, Donald Trump needs a miracle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-09-2016 at 02:41 PM.
How is that? Clinton has a bigger lead head-to-head with Trump. When you add in Johnson and/or Stein, her lead narrows unless I'm missing something.
Johnson, a libertarian fraud who takes votes from Trash, is polling way ahead of Stein, who takes from Hillary.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-09-2016 at 07:43 PM.
Georgia: Clinton 44% Trash 37%
Political Forum: boutons_deux 44% All other posters 37%
You didn't respond . You ran from explaining.Like I said, I will throw away not only the Reuters poll but the Washington Post as well.
Explain the others. More specially, explain why Fox has her up 10. ing Fox.
That wasn't even in this thread for s sake Reck cue the
Donors for Bush, Kasich and Christie Are Turning to Clinton More Than to Trump
People who donated to establishment Republican candidates in the primary season are more likely to give money to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, than to their own party’s candidate, Donald J. Trump.
In a typical election year, donors whose candidates have dropped out of the race funnel additional contributions to another candidate in the same party.
But this presidential election is different. Of the donors who gave at least $200 to Jeb Bush, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Chris Christie or Senator Lindsey Graham in the Republican primaries, more of them have also contributed to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Trump, according to Federal Election Commission filings through June.
People who give to multiple candidates are a small percentage of Republican donors. Of the donors to Mr. Bush who also gave to one of the current nominees, 303 — more than 2 percent of the total — gave to Mrs. Clinton. Less than 1 percent of them gave money to Mr. Trump, the filings showed.
Those crossover donations are adding up. Mrs. Clinton has received $2.2 million from donors to candidates who dropped out of the Republican presidential primary, about $600,000 more than Mr. Trump has received from such donors, the filings showed.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...bile.html?_r=0
Still dodging.That wasn't even in this thread for s sake Reck cue the
I quoted you directly so the I dont look over your post history excuse is bull . And I brought it up on this thread simply because I want an answer and you keep ducking it like the pussy you are.
Just be a man and say you dont have a response and we'll move on.
I don't click the red notification button in the top right corner. I have a red 103 there right now, your quote from a few days ago being one of them. Like I said, I don't go searching for your old posts.Still dodging.
I quoted you directly so the I dont look over your post history excuse is bull . And I brought it up on this thread simply because I want an answer and you keep ducking it like the pussy you are.
Just be a man and say you dont have a response and we'll move on.
Here was my answer directly to you "I never said all polls were fake or skewed, I gave a specific example of the Reuters poll, which you agreed was purposely skewed"
Having said that, there is no reason to answer why she is up in the others I never even mentioned as being skewed.
Here is your little direct quote unlooked at, probably #90Still dodging.
I quoted you directly so the I dont look over your post history excuse is bull . And I brought it up on this thread simply because I want an answer and you keep ducking it like the pussy you are.
Just be a man and say you dont have a response and we'll move on.
Fair enough.
and please don't take anything I say here personally, even when I call you stupid. I say stupid things here all the time and get called out which entertains me even more. I've continued posting on this board for 10+ years because it is one of the funniest boards I've ever read and I intend to help keep it that way.
But do take me serious when I say I hate Hillary. I've never truly hated anyone besides her.
Former Dem Sen. Joe Lieberman Could Endorse Trump
lieberman also endorsed mccain in 2008 and spoke at the republican convention... iirc newt gingrich likes lieberman too. he's been a friend of republicans for some time
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
