Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[toubab]

Since you're enamored of polls 2bob:



Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held a 6- percentage-point lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll with new wording that was released on Friday, the day after she formally accepted her party's nomination for the Nov. 8 election.

Nearly 41 percent of likely voters favor Clinton, 35 percent favor Trump, and 25 percent picked "Other," according to the new July 25-29 online poll of 1,043 likely voters, which overlapped with the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The poll has a credibility interval of 4 percentage points.

The presidential tracking poll reflects a slight change of wording from previous surveys, replacing the “Neither/Other” option given to respondents with just “Other.” An internal review had found the word “Neither” has, at times, siphoned support away from one or the other candidate. [nL4N1AB4I6]

I don't think much of this particular poll, as I've indicated previously. I don't think much of online polls in general, actually. The change in wording in this poll is more reason not to trust it, in my opinion.

 

[about_average]

I don't think much of this particular poll, as I've indicated previously. I don't think much of online polls in general, actually. The change in wording in this poll is more reason not to trust it, in my opinion.

That's just silly.
Why would you want people who aren't going to vote taking part in a poll about which candidate they would vote for?
If anything, changing eliminating the "neither" option and just having "other" makes it more accurate.

Now if your argument is that previous polls were less accurate because they had "neither" as an option, then yeah, that would be a valid argument.

 

[toubab]

That's just silly.
Why would you want people who aren't going to vote taking part in a poll about which candidate they would vote for?
If anything, changing eliminating the "neither" option and just having "other" makes it more accurate.

Now if your argument is that previous polls were less accurate because they had "neither" as an option, then yeah, that would be a valid argument.

Apparently you think it's unimportant to include people who don't plan to vote for either Clinton, Trump, or a third party candidate in this poll, or any other poll. I do think it's important. I'm quite sure millions of potential voters are so turned off by both Clinton and Trump they will stay home. If you think that won't be an important factor in who becomes president, you're clearly mistaken. It's most likely the reason Romney lost in 2012.

 

[Adre]

Apparently you think it's unimportant to include people who don't plan to vote for either Clinton, Trump, or a third party candidate in this poll, or any other poll. I do think it's important. I'm quite sure millions of potential voters are so turned off by both Clinton and Trump they will stay home. If you think that won't be an important factor in who becomes president, you're clearly mistaken. It's most likely the reason Romney lost in 2012.

I think you missed that these were identified as likely voters.

 

[toubab]

I think you missed that these were identified as likely voters.

"Likely" voters doesn't mean "certain" voters.

 

[toubab]

I just took a look at the Reuters/Ipsos poll being discussed and I see they also conducted a poll with Johnson and Stein as named options. Clinton and Trump are tied 37-37 in that one. Makes it seem all the stranger to me that they eliminated the "neither" option in the other poll.

 

[Beco]

Its more George H Bush following Reagan. Clinton riding coatails of Obama, who had a recent spike in popularity. That said, its the devil you know...

Clinton, if she wins,is a one term President.

 

[Sean]

Its more George H Bush following Reagan. Clinton riding coatails of Obama, who had a recent spike in popularity. That said, its the devil you know...

Clinton, if she wins,is a one term President.

That would depend on what batshit loser the GOP put up against her in 2020.

 

[Wrong Element]

I wouldn't pay much attention to polls for another week or so, unless something truly unusual pops up. By then, the various bumps will have evened out. As near as I can tell, seems like standard bumps for both Trump and Clinton, which means Clinton will probably have a 2-4 point national lead in the end.

I would likewise guard against touting one poll to the exclusion of others, because then you're tied in to whatever biases it has. Different polls make different suppositions about registered voters v. likely voters, the makeup of the electorate, and so on. I tried to tell this to China Bandit four years ago, when he kept trumpeting the alleged superiority of the Gallup Poll despite the increasing evidence that it was an outlier. They ended up fucking up so badly they're totally sitting out this campaign.

 

[toubab]

I wouldn't pay much attention to polls for another week or so, unless something truly unusual pops up. By then, the various bumps will have evened out. As near as I can tell, seems like standard bumps for both Trump and Clinton, which means Clinton will probably have a 2-4 point national lead in the end.

I would likewise guard against touting one poll to the exclusion of others, because then you're tied in to whatever biases it has. Different polls make different suppositions about registered voters v. likely voters, the makeup of the electorate, and so on. I tried to tell this to China Bandit four years ago, when he kept trumpeting the alleged superiority of the Gallup Poll despite the increasing evidence that it was an outlier. They ended up fucking up so badly they're totally sitting out this campaign.

I made the mistake of thinking Gallup was reasonably reliable in 2012. They certainly had the reputation of being the gold standard going into that election. That gold kind of turned green on them.

As for polls in general, I'm biased against online polls. All of them. I actually don't trust polls as much as I did years ago, period. Any of them. But I still find them interesting.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I made the mistake of thinking Gallup was reasonably reliable in 2012. They certainly had the reputation of being the gold standard going into that election. That gold kind of turned green on them.

As for polls in general, I'm biased against online polls. All of them. I actually don't trust polls as much as I did years ago, period. Any of them. But I still find them interesting.

538 has been the gold standard for me, especially after 2012 (when Shitlords Miles Ben Zonah and Vettebigot were swearing on "unskewed polls").

I like how 538 has been pretty upfront about most bets being off in this election as historical norms don't seem to apply. A pissed-off electorate seems to disrupt most modern polling mechanisms.

Gallup has been suspect since 2010.

 

[Beco]

That would depend on what batshit loser the GOP put up against her in 2020.

It may not matter after 4 years of Hillary....how worse our economy is and what kind of unrest is happening in the Middle East.....

 

[toubab]

538 has been the gold standard for me, especially after 2012 (when Shitlords Miles Ben Zonah and Vettebigot were swearing on "unskewed polls").

I like how 538 has been pretty upfront about most bets being off in this election as historical norms don't seem to apply. A pissed-off electorate seems to disrupt most modern polling mechanisms.

Gallup has been suspect since 2010.

I pay a lot of attention to 538, but Nate doesn't do his own polling, as I'm sure you know. He is good at interpreting and evaluating the polls of others. Except for Congressional races. But those are tougher for everybody.

 

[Beco]

72% of people think the country is moving in the wrong direction.

 

[toubab]

WikiLeaks did a poll yesterday on their Twitter account. Shows why I don't think much of online polls:

117,000 votes


Trump 50%

Clinton 22%

Stein 16%

Johnson 12%

 

[Beco]

WikiLeaks did a poll yesterday on their Twitter account. Shows why I don't think much of online polls:

117,000 votes


Trump 50%

Clinton 22%

Stein 16%

Johnson 12%

Polls are worthless and I pay zero attentin to them. Not sure the debates mean anything either. I think people have drawn sides, and they already know who they are going to vote for. They have had plently of time to ponder it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Its more George H Bush following Reagan. Clinton riding coatails of Obama, who had a recent spike in popularity. That said, its the devil you know...

Clinton, if she wins,is a one term President.

I posted some time back an opinion piece that posited just that thought, that no matter who wins, it will most likely be a one-term presidency. However, if she wins, the press will put the wind to the sail of her pantsuits...

 

[Sean]

WikiLeaks did a poll yesterday on their Twitter account. Shows why I don't think much of online polls:

117,000 votes


Trump 50%

Clinton 22%

Stein 16%

Johnson 12%

You can't really get a more self selecting poll than Twitter. For a start, you have to be following the account running the poll.

 

[about_average]

Apparently you think it's unimportant to include people who don't plan to vote for either Clinton, Trump, or a third party candidate in this poll, or any other poll. I do think it's important. I'm quite sure millions of potential voters are so turned off by both Clinton and Trump they will stay home. If you think that won't be an important factor in who becomes president, you're clearly mistaken. It's most likely the reason Romney lost in 2012.

If you don't know which way politically the person who answers the poll leans, counting them is meaningless as you have absolutely no way to know how they'd vote if there were a good candidate on either side.

 

[about_average]

Polls are worthless and I pay zero attentin to them. Not sure the debates mean anything either. I think people have drawn sides, and they already know who they are going to vote for. They have had plently of time to ponder it.

You have a really short attention span don't you?

72% of people think the country is moving in the wrong direction.

But since you brought it up, what does that even mean? It's one of the most idiotic statements I've seen recently, but people keep repeating it. It's a meaningless statement.

 

[RoryN]

Clinton, if she wins,is a one term President.

That would depend on what batshit loser the GOP put up against her in 2020.

It may not matter after 4 years of Hillary...

...which is exactly the sort of dumb-dumb thinking that got Republicans where they are now. Obama is such a disaster, we'll win with anyone, they thought. Result = Trump.

 

[toubab]

If you don't know which way politically the person who answers the poll leans, counting them is meaningless as you have absolutely no way to know how they'd vote if there were a good candidate on either side.

Most polls ask people about their political leanings. Most of them report how Democrats voted in the poll, how Republicans voted, and how Independents voted.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times daily poll

http://96.127.53.23/election/

Trump 46.1

Clinton 41.9


Hillary's bounce continues. Trump has now lost three points since his bounce high of a seven point lead.

 

[Sean]

33% of Trump supporters think Hillary has ties to Lucifer.
36% think she doesn't.
31% don't know.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_7302016.pdf

 

[toubab]

33% of Trump supporters think Hillary has ties to Lucifer.
36% think she doesn't.
31% don't know.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_7302016.pdf

I'm glad you posted that. I found it interesting. You may find this interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...y-Polling-the-biggest-herders-in-the-business

"Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

"A few pollsters are shameless about their herding. One of them is Public Policy Polling (PPP), a polling firm that conducts automated polls for both public consumption and for liberal and Democratic clients."