August 8th: the polls march against Comrade Donald

[billyerock1991]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

isn't that what you always say Tinydancer when your repub-lie-tard is losing ... but when they are ahead you're all on board

 

[billyerock1991]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

Keep telling yourself that. And don't change a thing.

Can't wait for the debates if trump will dare participate.

he'll get his head handed to him by Hillary ... she will destroy him ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake continues to post one thread after another like this one, and he expects us to believe he's NOT voting for Hillary.

What a joke.

In all fairness to Jake... He said he see the real threat as a Trump Presidency, which I agree with him... Truth is Trump is the worst candidate for president in living memory...

Jake is voting for Johnson... I disagree with him on that but if nothing else he is consistent in his view...

I'm not wild about Trump either. Jake is voting for Hillary, he just can't admit she has his balls.

DD lies as usual, having a real problem understand that real GOP will not vote Trump, and most of those will vote Johnson. NeverRedTrump.

 

[billyerock1991]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

Keep telling yourself that. And don't change a thing.

Can't wait for the debates if trump will dare participate.

Marist over sampled Democrats by 12 % Fox by 6%.

Means the polls are bullshit.

theres tinydancer tap dancing all over the place yeah like they know where the democrats phone numbers are ... you can't stand it your boy with the floppy hair is losing

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kasich says it will be difficult for Trump to win OH.

 

[pwjohn]

Clinton Opens 23-Point Lead Among Women as Trump Struggles


Clinton Opens 23-Point Lead Among Women as Trump Struggles

Since at least 1976, Democrats have never won college-educated whites. She is leading by 6 in that group.

I think what the poll results that I posted earlier in this thread show what I've been saying all along.

Women will rise to the challenge and pave the way for Hillary to the whitehouse. Both repubs and dems.

 

[sealybobo]

Jake continues to post one thread after another like this one, and he expects us to believe he's NOT voting for Hillary.

What a joke.

In all fairness to Jake... He said he see the real threat as a Trump Presidency, which I agree with him... Truth is Trump is the worst candidate for president in living memory...

Jake is voting for Johnson... I disagree with him on that but if nothing else he is consistent in his view...

I'm not wild about Trump either. Jake is voting for Hillary, he just can't admit she has his balls.

DD lies as usual, having a real problem understand that real GOP will not vote Trump, and most of those will vote Johnson. NeverRedTrump.

Im spreading the word. If you are a liberal in a red state, vote green party. Your vote will give more liberal parties more power money and influence. BUT if you are in Texas or Georgia or Arizona vote hillary because she might win those states.

 

[billyerock1991]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

whine all you want TD you assured us that Romney was going to win ...time and time again you told us how the polls were wrong, come to find you were wrong ... just like you're wrong here ... you can't stand it when your party of crooks are losing ...

 

[sealybobo]

Kasich says it will be difficult for Trump to win OH.

I don't know. They were dumb enough to vote for bush twice.

Actually not true. Ken Blackwell quickly certified the vote before gore could ask for recount. Like Florida in 2000 Ohio was stolen in 2004. The GOP needed all 8 years to cause the great recession of 08

 

[sealybobo]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

whine all you want TD you assured us that Romney was going to win ...time and time again you told us how the polls were wrong, come to find you were wrong ... just like you're wrong here ... you can't stand it when your party of crooks are losing ...

I don't want to get complacent and then people don't vote but things look good for dems and bad for GOP.

I'm not surprised usmb GOP are denying it. They are always intellectually dishonest.

 

[billyerock1991]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

reuters web site seems once again your what???? wrong ... this was as of august 7 2016

I’m polled out after last night’s deep dive into the Reuters numbers that Trump fans are buzzing about, but we have to flag the new ones from ABC/WaPo and Morning Consult as points of comparison. WaPo has it 50/42 for Hillary; MC has it 46/37. Both of those results come from registered voters, whereas Reuters’s surprisingly tight race was a poll of likely voters. Apples and oranges? Nope. WaPo also crunched the numbers for likely voters in its data
The fastest way to digest the data is to spend three minutes scrolling the graphs collected here. The most noteworthy thing about the numbers is how strongly they confirm some of the key conclusions drawn from other polls recently. You’ve heard over and over that Trump wins big among whites without college degrees while Hillary, surprisingly, wins with college-educated whites. That’s true here too: 58/33 and 50/44, respectively. You’ve heard that Democrats are more unified behind Hillary now than Republicans are behind Trump. Also true in WaPo’s data. Bernie fans prefer her to Trump, 86/5, whereas Republicans who supported a candidate other than Trump in the primary split 74/17 for him (which is slightly worse than the 76/12 split he enjoyed before the convention.)

You’ve also seen consistently in other polls that Clinton leads, often substantially, on questions about “presidential attributes” (the right temperament, a good understanding of world affairs, etc). Same here. Clinton is comfortably above 50 percent on those while Trump is below 40. On the most basic question, whether each is qualified to be president, they’re mirror images: Clinton splits 60/38 while Trump splits 38/61. The only presidential attribute where they’re competitive is on honesty and trustworthiness, where both are rated abysmally. And even then:

One interesting variation on the “presidential attribute” genre is how “comfortable” people would be with Clinton or Trump as president. I haven’t seen that asked in other surveys but ABC/WaPo asked it here. You can imagine that as something late deciders would be wrestling with as they go into the booth, as it speaks more to gut reluctance to vote for a candidate than more logical questions about who’s more “qualified” do. Voters here split 47/51 on whether they’re comfortable with the thought of President Hillary. They split 28/70 on comfort with the thought of President Trump.

Two interesting results, apropos of nothing, which may or may not be related. Ever since the FBI press conference about her emails, Hillary’s favorable rating in some polls has been about as terrible as Trump’s has. That may be changing:

Being 48/50 on popularity ain’t good in August of a presidential campaign, but when you’re competing with a guy who’s pulling 34/63, it ain’t bad either. What explains the difference? Liam Donovan noticed that Hillary fares far better on popularity among her own base of liberal Democrats (90/9) than Trump does with conservative Republicans (69/27). Her newfound support on the left might help explain this too:

That’s the only genuinely surprising result in WaPo’s data to me. If there’s one thing that’s clear from Trumpmania and Berniemania, it’s that a lot of voters on both sides are hungry enough for change to consider radical alternatives. If the electorate’s now favoring experience over “outsiders,” it may be partly as a backlash to Trump himself. If at this point meaningful change requires making Trump president, some Berniebros may be telling themselves, then maybe we should learn to appreciate Hillary’s experience a bit more.

As for the Morning Consult survey:

The noteworthy part there is the dates. The previous poll showing Hillary with a three-point lead was taken on July 29th and 30th, immediately following the Democratic convention. You might have guessed at the time that her bounce would have evaporated by now. (I guessed that she wouldn’t get a bounce at all, but oh well.) Instead, she’s added six more points to her lead since then. That suggests that what happened after the convention has also helped Clinton, and the most notable thing to happen after the convention was Trump’s war of words in the media with the Khans. Morning Consult didn’t poll that subject specifically — but WaPo did:

Who knows what the race would look like today if Trump hadn’t mused that he noticed Mrs. Khan didn’t speak while she was at the podium in Philly with her husband.

I’ll leave you with this from WaPo’s crosstabs showing the gender split when people are asked whether they view Melania Trump favorably or not. Make of it what you will. By the way, Hillary now leads in all 11 national polls tracked by RCP, including the LA Times daily survey that had Trump up seven points not long ago. (She leads by one there.) In seven of those 11 polls, she’s polling at 47 percent or better.

 

[billyerock1991]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

According to you, td, they have been busted, while in fact, the right wing polling companies are oversampling land lines and online surveys. The numbers I have given a fairly close.

My favorite pollster is PPP. They are D founded but I've never seen them pull any shenanigans so I trust them.

PPP has he up by 9 thought you should know ...

 

[sealybobo]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

whine all you want TD you assured us that Romney was going to win ...time and time again you told us how the polls were wrong, come to find you were wrong ... just like you're wrong here ... you can't stand it when your party of crooks are losing ...

He didn't start creating threads until 2013. Was he even here when Romney was running?

But I know what you mean. Guys just like him thought Romney was going to win.

 

[Norman]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

Keep telling yourself that. And don't change a thing.

Can't wait for the debates if trump will dare participate.

I can't wait for that either.

Hillary has produced scandal after scandal. Against Trump the best argument seems to be that "he is a racist", a completely unfunded assertion based on hard left nonsense. Then you can also observe that Trump is amazing spontaneous speaker, while Hillary is a scripted robot, who suffers from seizures. She will get completely destroyed in debates, I doubt she will even participate.

 

[sealybobo]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

reuters web site seems once again your what???? wrong ... this was as of august 7 2016

I’m polled out after last night’s deep dive into the Reuters numbers that Trump fans are buzzing about, but we have to flag the new ones from ABC/WaPo and Morning Consult as points of comparison. WaPo has it 50/42 for Hillary; MC has it 46/37. Both of those results come from registered voters, whereas Reuters’s surprisingly tight race was a poll of likely voters. Apples and oranges? Nope. WaPo also crunched the numbers for likely voters in its data
The fastest way to digest the data is to spend three minutes scrolling the graphs collected here. The most noteworthy thing about the numbers is how strongly they confirm some of the key conclusions drawn from other polls recently. You’ve heard over and over that Trump wins big among whites without college degrees while Hillary, surprisingly, wins with college-educated whites. That’s true here too: 58/33 and 50/44, respectively. You’ve heard that Democrats are more unified behind Hillary now than Republicans are behind Trump. Also true in WaPo’s data. Bernie fans prefer her to Trump, 86/5, whereas Republicans who supported a candidate other than Trump in the primary split 74/17 for him (which is slightly worse than the 76/12 split he enjoyed before the convention.)

You’ve also seen consistently in other polls that Clinton leads, often substantially, on questions about “presidential attributes” (the right temperament, a good understanding of world affairs, etc). Same here. Clinton is comfortably above 50 percent on those while Trump is below 40. On the most basic question, whether each is qualified to be president, they’re mirror images: Clinton splits 60/38 while Trump splits 38/61. The only presidential attribute where they’re competitive is on honesty and trustworthiness, where both are rated abysmally. And even then:

One interesting variation on the “presidential attribute” genre is how “comfortable” people would be with Clinton or Trump as president. I haven’t seen that asked in other surveys but ABC/WaPo asked it here. You can imagine that as something late deciders would be wrestling with as they go into the booth, as it speaks more to gut reluctance to vote for a candidate than more logical questions about who’s more “qualified” do. Voters here split 47/51 on whether they’re comfortable with the thought of President Hillary. They split 28/70 on comfort with the thought of President Trump.

Two interesting results, apropos of nothing, which may or may not be related. Ever since the FBI press conference about her emails, Hillary’s favorable rating in some polls has been about as terrible as Trump’s has. That may be changing:

Being 48/50 on popularity ain’t good in August of a presidential campaign, but when you’re competing with a guy who’s pulling 34/63, it ain’t bad either. What explains the difference? Liam Donovan noticed that Hillary fares far better on popularity among her own base of liberal Democrats (90/9) than Trump does with conservative Republicans (69/27). Her newfound support on the left might help explain this too:

That’s the only genuinely surprising result in WaPo’s data to me. If there’s one thing that’s clear from Trumpmania and Berniemania, it’s that a lot of voters on both sides are hungry enough for change to consider radical alternatives. If the electorate’s now favoring experience over “outsiders,” it may be partly as a backlash to Trump himself. If at this point meaningful change requires making Trump president, some Berniebros may be telling themselves, then maybe we should learn to appreciate Hillary’s experience a bit more.

As for the Morning Consult survey:

The noteworthy part there is the dates. The previous poll showing Hillary with a three-point lead was taken on July 29th and 30th, immediately following the Democratic convention. You might have guessed at the time that her bounce would have evaporated by now. (I guessed that she wouldn’t get a bounce at all, but oh well.) Instead, she’s added six more points to her lead since then. That suggests that what happened after the convention has also helped Clinton, and the most notable thing to happen after the convention was Trump’s war of words in the media with the Khans. Morning Consult didn’t poll that subject specifically — but WaPo did:

Who knows what the race would look like today if Trump hadn’t mused that he noticed Mrs. Khan didn’t speak while she was at the podium in Philly with her husband.

I’ll leave you with this from WaPo’s crosstabs showing the gender split when people are asked whether they view Melania Trump favorably or not. Make of it what you will. By the way, Hillary now leads in all 11 national polls tracked by RCP, including the LA Times daily survey that had Trump up seven points not long ago. (She leads by one there.) In seven of those 11 polls, she’s polling at 47 percent or better.

Is there a way to track how accurate polls are? Like, if one poll said Romney was in the lead, why would we ever listen to that poll ever again?

 

[billyerock1991]

Jake continues to post one thread after another like this one, and he expects us to believe he's NOT voting for Hillary.What a joke.

The joke is on the far right. Screw them. They tried to take over the GOP, now they are getting the mainstream's foot up the far right's ass.

when the people started see how the republican ran office this last 6 year ...which was work as little as possible ....try and waste tax payers money on the endless benghazi and email hearings and trying to repeal Obama care a zillion times, the people with intellect started to see what these republicans are for and its not them ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

Keep telling yourself that. And don't change a thing.

Can't wait for the debates if trump will dare participate.

I can't wait for that either.

Hillary has produced scandal after scandal. Against Trump the best argument seems to be that "he is a racist", a completely unfunded assertion based on hard left nonsense. Then you can also observe that Trump is amazing spontaneous speaker, while Hillary is a scripted robot, who suffers from seizures. She will get completely destroyed in debates, I doubt she will even participate.

and heres another one living in the land of disney ...

 

[sealybobo]

Everyone is over sampling. Marist and Fox have already been busted. So the polls don't mean jack shit Jake.

Keep telling yourself that. And don't change a thing.

Can't wait for the debates if trump will dare participate.

I can't wait for that either.

Hillary has produced scandal after scandal. Against Trump the best argument seems to be that "he is a racist", a completely unfunded assertion based on hard left nonsense. Then you can also observe that Trump is amazing spontaneous speaker, while Hillary is scripted robot, who has seizures. She will get completely destroyed in debates, I doubt she will even participate.

Are you kidding me? Trumps a good speaker? Only if you are a rabbid fan he is. She's going to destroy him and make him snap. Wait till you see the jabs and how trump reacts.

Please don't be cocky after trumps really bad week. Lol too funny. But I guess we'll wait and see.

You've forgotten what good campaigners the Obama's and Clinton's are.

You don't realize we've heard all trumps arguments and his unfavorable are thru the roof. What planet are you on?

No presidential contender ever didn't get a bump after their convention. That's now referred to as a trump. The opposite of a bump is a trump.

23 point lead among women. Trumps done. You need a miracle

 

[billyerock1991]

Reuters is out with Trump only three points behind. But unless you take the time to actually go to the PDF and see how they sampled I don't think you can trust anyone's numbers these days.

What pisses me off is these wild swings in the polls really does a disservice to the person ahead. Voters might not show up to vote thinking the person ahead is going to win in a landslide. Or a voter might not donate to a campaign or might change their minds about volunteering.

I'm anti Hillary as can be, but while her supporters are thrilled to see a double digit lead, I see that as a major negative for the campaign. The Marist poll for example gave her a 15 point lead. But they over sampled D's by 12%.

Margin of error territory.

reuters web site seems once again your what???? wrong ... this was as of august 7 2016

I’m polled out after last night’s deep dive into the Reuters numbers that Trump fans are buzzing about, but we have to flag the new ones from ABC/WaPo and Morning Consult as points of comparison. WaPo has it 50/42 for Hillary; MC has it 46/37. Both of those results come from registered voters, whereas Reuters’s surprisingly tight race was a poll of likely voters. Apples and oranges? Nope. WaPo also crunched the numbers for likely voters in its data
The fastest way to digest the data is to spend three minutes scrolling the graphs collected here. The most noteworthy thing about the numbers is how strongly they confirm some of the key conclusions drawn from other polls recently. You’ve heard over and over that Trump wins big among whites without college degrees while Hillary, surprisingly, wins with college-educated whites. That’s true here too: 58/33 and 50/44, respectively. You’ve heard that Democrats are more unified behind Hillary now than Republicans are behind Trump. Also true in WaPo’s data. Bernie fans prefer her to Trump, 86/5, whereas Republicans who supported a candidate other than Trump in the primary split 74/17 for him (which is slightly worse than the 76/12 split he enjoyed before the convention.)

You’ve also seen consistently in other polls that Clinton leads, often substantially, on questions about “presidential attributes” (the right temperament, a good understanding of world affairs, etc). Same here. Clinton is comfortably above 50 percent on those while Trump is below 40. On the most basic question, whether each is qualified to be president, they’re mirror images: Clinton splits 60/38 while Trump splits 38/61. The only presidential attribute where they’re competitive is on honesty and trustworthiness, where both are rated abysmally. And even then:

One interesting variation on the “presidential attribute” genre is how “comfortable” people would be with Clinton or Trump as president. I haven’t seen that asked in other surveys but ABC/WaPo asked it here. You can imagine that as something late deciders would be wrestling with as they go into the booth, as it speaks more to gut reluctance to vote for a candidate than more logical questions about who’s more “qualified” do. Voters here split 47/51 on whether they’re comfortable with the thought of President Hillary. They split 28/70 on comfort with the thought of President Trump.

Two interesting results, apropos of nothing, which may or may not be related. Ever since the FBI press conference about her emails, Hillary’s favorable rating in some polls has been about as terrible as Trump’s has. That may be changing:

Being 48/50 on popularity ain’t good in August of a presidential campaign, but when you’re competing with a guy who’s pulling 34/63, it ain’t bad either. What explains the difference? Liam Donovan noticed that Hillary fares far better on popularity among her own base of liberal Democrats (90/9) than Trump does with conservative Republicans (69/27). Her newfound support on the left might help explain this too:

That’s the only genuinely surprising result in WaPo’s data to me. If there’s one thing that’s clear from Trumpmania and Berniemania, it’s that a lot of voters on both sides are hungry enough for change to consider radical alternatives. If the electorate’s now favoring experience over “outsiders,” it may be partly as a backlash to Trump himself. If at this point meaningful change requires making Trump president, some Berniebros may be telling themselves, then maybe we should learn to appreciate Hillary’s experience a bit more.

As for the Morning Consult survey:

The noteworthy part there is the dates. The previous poll showing Hillary with a three-point lead was taken on July 29th and 30th, immediately following the Democratic convention. You might have guessed at the time that her bounce would have evaporated by now. (I guessed that she wouldn’t get a bounce at all, but oh well.) Instead, she’s added six more points to her lead since then. That suggests that what happened after the convention has also helped Clinton, and the most notable thing to happen after the convention was Trump’s war of words in the media with the Khans. Morning Consult didn’t poll that subject specifically — but WaPo did:

Who knows what the race would look like today if Trump hadn’t mused that he noticed Mrs. Khan didn’t speak while she was at the podium in Philly with her husband.

I’ll leave you with this from WaPo’s crosstabs showing the gender split when people are asked whether they view Melania Trump favorably or not. Make of it what you will. By the way, Hillary now leads in all 11 national polls tracked by RCP, including the LA Times daily survey that had Trump up seven points not long ago. (She leads by one there.) In seven of those 11 polls, she’s polling at 47 percent or better.

Is there a way to track how accurate polls are? Like, if one poll said Romney was in the lead, why would we ever listen to that poll ever again?

look for the polling who has a history of accurate polling ... I personally find PPP and gallup polling fairly accurate ... reuters has a history of accurate polling too ... I don't know where TD gets her reuters polling from I just go to the web site ...

 

[sealybobo]

Jake continues to post one thread after another like this one, and he expects us to believe he's NOT voting for Hillary.What a joke.

The joke is on the far right. Screw them. They tried to take over the GOP, now they are getting the mainstream's foot up the far right's ass.

when the people started see how the republican ran office this last 6 year ...which was work as little as possible ....try and waste tax payers money on the endless benghazi and email hearings and trying to repeal Obama care a zillion times, the people with intellect started to see what these republicans are for and its not them ...

And hillary will have the chance to explain all this when everyone is watching. And how will trump respond? Childishly I'm sure