Exclusive poll: Women lock in on 2020

Do you legitimately believe the survey from the OP supports his interpretation?

 

What are you worried about? Y'all always tell us that Trump's base if full of poor uneducated voters. If you're educated and not living in poverty then you aren't going to have a problem getting an ID. Right?

 

I'm not worried about Trump's inauguration. If he can pull 300,000 to 600,000 people in DC then he's doing something right.

 

Ugh, horrible logic.

 

Hillary did get over 3 million more votes then Trump

I agree, polls assume one vote equals one vote, they need to update that some states votes are worth more than one vote to be accurate

 

And if you remove CA, the biggest bluest state in America, Trump wins the popular vote, too. This is exactly why the EC exists. The Founding Fathers must have known that eventually humanity would sink low enough to desire to have 2 states determining our elections.

 

In other shocking news, if you had eliminated voters who voted for my opponent, then I would have got more votes than my opponent.

 

and if you remove the repub states, a dem wins, duh

 

There are three types of polls, all have margins of errors. Likely voters are the best type for elections. History has shown that with all adults polls, the worst for elections only around 55% of those polled will show up and vote. Then there is the registered voter polls, better than all adults for elections as they average roughly 65% showing up to vote. The best is likely voter polls, but even so you're talking about an historical average of close to 80% actually turning out to vote.

The poll you shown has an margin of error of plus or minus 3.39 point. The numbers shown could be 3 points higher or 3 points lower. I also didn't see who this Benenson polled. They may have over polled Democrats and under Republicans or vice versa. Your more credible polls, trusted and reliable if you will always let you know how many they polled of each group. Also this is an on-line poll which leaves everyone out that doesn't have a computer. 538 doesn't have anything on Benenson, so there is no way to check out the reliability of Benenson. At Least that I know.

All I can say, I've never heard of these guys.

 

Do you see anything in the poll to support @Blaster3 assertion that only 31% of these respondents are claiming that they will vote?

 

Trump didn't win by 1.5% of anything, electoral votes don't work that way. You folks are just setting yourselves up for another four years of crying and whining. I'm going to be laughing in November...

 

Polls do not measure Electoral College votes either, but thanks for playing.

 

Exactly, polls are completely worthless and indicate nothing about election results. Yet you folks still cling to them. Go figure...

 

One of the many, many reasons why polls are NOT useless is because politicians have to make decisions without the benefit of knowing the future result from an election where the popular vote decides, let alone the electoral college.

Politicians need to rely on the present and the recent past and the best method for understanding how the public will react to a given decision is to measure their sentiment as accurately as possible with a poll.

 

I didn't look that close. Mainly because it was done solely on line and by a firm I never heard of. It was done by a firm that isn't listed or rated in the list of over 200 polling firms. That alone, for me means I take the poll with a grain of salt. you can see the ratings for the polling firms here.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Click at the bottom on the See more polls to get all the polling firms with their ratings.

 

They certainly aren't getting good information if they trust the morons that polled for 2016, why would anyone trust that? Anyway, we all know that liberals rely on manufactured nonsense polls, so not sure what your point would be. If you don't believe me, pick a poll, we can go through it, and you'll see exactly why its unreliable nonsense...

 

The final RCP average of the polls in 2016 was accurate to within 1.1%. The final 538 average of the polls was accurate to within 1.5%.

The final RCP average of the polls in 2018 was accurate to within 1.1%. The final 538 average of the polls was accurate to within 0.3%.

 

They were for Hillary. lol

 

Accurate for what? The presidency isn't a popularity contest, so what possible point is there in measuring that nonsense? I certainly didn't see any polls that indicated Trump was leading or winning 60% of the states, but that's what happened, how is that within this imaginary 1.1% you are on about?

 

He lost the popular vote - the only thing that polls measure - by 2.2%. The final average of the polls before that moment was accurate to within 1.1-1.5%

In 2018, the combined popular vote for the House was won by Democrats by 8.4%.. The final average of the polls before that moment was accurate to within 0.3-1.1%

And if you don't know, now you know.

 

Indeed, they were largely accurate in 2016 - to within ~1.1-1.5%.

In 2018, they were largely accurate to within 0.3-1.1%

 

Oh yea, so accurate she was given over a 90% chance to win the EC.

lol

 

The likelihood that Trump would win the election was roughly equal to the likelihood that Trump would lose the election by a landslide.

 

That is why they gave her a 90% plus chance to win.

Yea, sure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hillary-clinton-why-polls-wrong-2017-5

 

That is exactly why they gave her 90% chance of winning. The likelihood that Trump would win was roughly equal to the likelihood that Trump would lose the election in a landslide.