RCP: Post-debate polls have Trump leading Clinton by slim margin

Actually, the twelve people at her last rally were pretty pumped!

 

I'll bet you don't even know what the error range for the poll might be.

So, yes, picking one poll is a mistake.

First, you should be looking at aggregators, not single polls from one organization. Smart aggregation ends up covering a wider range of methodology and far more individuals (obviously).

Next, we need to be looking at the electoral college. As seen with Gore, the candidate with the most votes across the USA does not necessarily win.

 

It's not astonishing. Both polls have favored Trump compared to other polls and reveal no change compared to their priors (well +1 rasmussen, which is probably margin of error). I suspect Clinton is really up by 5 or 6.

 

I'd like to know where they get this data from. Do they call 1 state or all around the country?

 

Trump cant win and has no intention of winning -and he never did. Trump is a saboteur. There is no way in hell Trump actually wants to be president. I would like to see it but I really do not think it will happen. The election is rigged. Sure, it is more than obvious that the majority do not want Clinton, and that the majority of people hate Clinton, but that is what USA is going to get apparently. It is crazy. I am honestly worried about what is going to happen when she is made President. US society is going to be impossible to manage.

It is obvious that elites underestimated how hated Clinton is. But there is nothing that can be done at this point.

 

A group like IBD/TIPP is doing a good job of polling the US as a whole.

Nate Silver at 538 rates polls (because they combine numerous polls to form their result), and 538 gives them an A rating.

IBD says their margin of error is +-3.6. They talk to about 750 people across the nation.

The advantage of aggregators like fivethirtyeight.com is that with a large number of polls one can base a conclusion on far more individuals (everyone polled by each of the polls they use). Also, they rate the polls, and allow the higher quality polls (like IBD, but NOT like Rassmussen) to have slightly more influence in the final result. Plus, they incorporate trend lines that help determine when a specific poll is an outlier, and should be deemphasized.

 

Sort of true. Clinton's favorability rating has slid to equal Trump. So, there is no longer any difference there.

Clinton is a solid performer who has serious understanding of policy because of her experience. One can see that by looking at her policy page and noting that, unlike Trump, she is incredibly consistent in her direction.

Trump is hopeless. I agree with your "saboteur" comment, but not intentionally. I'm of the opinion that he really does want to be president, though. I really can't imagine Trump not believing that he himself would be fantastic for America.

I have NO idea what you mean about "managing" "US society".

 

Yes.

That's not the only great polling agency, and their focus on shortening the time between starting a poll and publishing results leaves them with fewer contacts.

Good aggregators are going to be more accurate.

 

Hillary Clinton is " has a serious understanding of policy" does she? Nobody cares about that and as if a career politician is any more qualified for government than a random person off the street. Understanding of policy.. Ok then. People hate Hillary Clinton - even most of the people that will be voting for her.

And what is she so consistent on? She was against gay marriage but now is for it. She was for the TPP but is now against it. There is two major flip flops off the top of my head.

And Trump has clearly been installed as GOP candidate by the elites to give Clinton the win because US elites seem to think that everyone hates USA because of George Bush but that is just not true. And do you really think that Trump or any elites care about 'America'?

What I mean is that you are going to get a lot of protests and unrest, patriot trouble and probably strong pushes for states to secede. Hillarys approval rating will go lower than Obamas at its worst - and Clinton will be hated around the world.

 

when those polling aggregators average in skewed pulls then their average becomes skewed
crap in crap out

- - - Updated - - -

when those polling aggregators average in skewed pulls then their average becomes skewed
crap in crap out

 

Are you related to Nate Silver or something?

 

Well, we are miles apart on this one. You seem to think that leading the free world while moving America forward is something anyone can do, and I see that as profoundly and totally wrong.

Then, you make with the hate.

The whole nation moved on same sex marriage, so that charge seems unwarranted.
The TPP bill changed and her opinion of it changed. That doesn't sound improper.

I don't believe the RNC or other establishment did anything for Trump other than provide the kind of platform (such as those crazy debates) that were designed to be all bombast and no policy comparison.


Today, the world is pretty darn happy with Clinton and they see Trump's candidacy as a discredit to America. How would YOU think other nations would respond? Bigotry works better when everyone is just like you. But, it certainly does not travel well. Plus, they listen to foreign policy because it affects them, and Trump is an empty suit on foreign policy.

 

Well according to the libs, Russia apparently wants Trump to win. How's the rest of the world been responding to us since Obama, Clinton, Kerry, etc have been in charge? Frankly I could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s what anyone thinks of us.

 

If good polls are used, one actually gets an improvement, because the aggregate will include more voters.

Also, one single polling methodology (land lines? cell phones? time of day? wording? etc., etc.) can cause skew while a combination of methodologies can correct for the skewing by accepting polls that have methodological differences.

fivethirtyeight.com has a description of what, how and why they do what they do when they combine polls to form a single outcome.

 

exponential moving averages were invented for a reason.

 

Nope. I've just watched them for a while and I really like their approach.

They had some key elections right when others did not - Obama, for example. In general, they have a great track record and if you look at their methodology you can see why.

 

yup, she can sure f#@k things up consistently.
Never met a muslim who she didn't want to drop a bomb on, unless they donated to her foundation that is.

 

Wow.

Even Trump notices that we have to be in a position to work with other nations.

Our strategy in Syria depends on the more than 30 nations that are predominately Muslim and are on our side against terrorism, ISIS in particular, but also including al Nusra, AQ and the rest.

Our deal with Iran involved 8 nations. We wouldn't have gotten squat without serious work with all those nations.

We don't all have to be foreign policy experts (I'm not), but suggesting that we can blow off the world is just ridiculous. We're 5% of the population. Blowing off the 95% is absolute nonsense.

 

It's impossible to blow off the rest of the world. Nobody is suggesting that. But starting with Obama's apology tour, and continuing with their meddling in Syria, the Iran deal, etc etc. Nothing, not a single thing Obama and Hillary have done has worked out. Nothing. The world laughs at them.

 

Do you think Brexit voters prefer Trump or Clinton? And do you really think a lot of UK leftists are huge Clinton fans? Dont bet on it. The corporate media will tell us how well liked Clinton is but as we all know they are total liars - and seemingly clueless since they clearly have underestimated the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton. They talk to themselves and believe their own nonsense - but that doesnt mean you have to believe it. We conservative governments in Australia and New Zealand - and Europe is a nation of extremes so Clinton is not leftist enough for the majority of leftist voters and with the rise in nationalism/anti-immigration Clinton is going to be hated across Europe. Your American media wants to pretend that being anti-immigration is unique to Trump supporters but these Americans were against wild immigration long before Trump and they will be after he has gone - even though we all know your media will continue to try to use Trump to dismiss anti-immigration sentiment. The anti-immigration movement is global and no we are not racists or even nationalists really - we just want sane immigration policy that serves the national interest. Plus Clinton and liberalism is hated across Asia and it is the reason USA is losing on the South China Sea and the reason for your little 'pivot' to Asia to steal the Asian Century ( or Pacific Century as you Americans like to call it ) from China. Liberalism is a loser but you Americans cant seem to get it through your heads. And you think that Hillary being a woman is going to protect her too dont you? Think again.

 

Trump made history by confronting another presidential candidate about high crimes and treason. If people would actually listen to what he's said and what he's brought up they would side with him hands down.

BTW you can't trust anything the media has to say.

 

Why astonished? Hillary just edged him out for a win in the first debate but Trump stomped her into the mud in the second and third debates. So why shouldn't he he be ahead even after a week of saturated sex story bombing of him by the Left-Allied mainstream media on Hillary's behalf?

 

Yesterday forum leftists were HOWLING at me that no way was the L.A. Times stating that Trump is ahead of Hillary, but there you have it; according to the L.A. Times, Trump is ahead of Hillary.

 

"Brexit voters"?? Brexit had to do with relations between UK and Europe. Brexit voters want to be free of their responsibilities, yet have advantaged trade relations with the EU. Brexit has nothing to do with "socialist" issues. Does that match what's going on in the US? I don't think so.

No, our media knows full well that NO American is interested in open borders. Our bi-partisan immigration reform bill was oriented to closing our borders, employing at least three different significant approaches costing tens of billions of dollars. It would have passed, except that Republicans blocked it from coming to a vote in our House.

I don't know where you are, but if you're in the EU (or most other industrialized nations) your version of "conservative" is probably closer to our Democratic party.

 

WOW did you stick your foot in it THAT time!!

Obama:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29...e-and-asia/ga_2016-06-29_balanceofpower-1-00/

Clinton:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29...e-and-asia/ga_2016-06-29_balanceofpower-1-07/

Trump:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29...e-and-asia/ga_2016-06-29_balanceofpower-1-09/