Other Resources The Political Joe » Polls Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 14
 
 
2016-10-19 7:52 PM
in reply to: ChineseDemocracy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Oh sweet Jesus Tony...Survey Monkey? Is this a legitimate poll? Does the LA Times know you are posting non-LA Times polls????

How about IBD/TIPP with Trump +1?

I mean, I know they were the most accurate poll in 2012 according to Nate, but they're probably garbage as well, right. 

 



2016-10-19 10:06 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Oh sweet Jesus Tony...Survey Monkey? Is this a legitimate poll? Does the LA Times know you are posting non-LA Times polls????

How about IBD/TIPP with Trump +1?

I mean, I know they were the most accurate poll in 2012 according to Nate, but they're probably garbage as well, right. 

 




Lots o' cherry trees out your way...that's some mighty fine cherry pickin'.
2016-10-19 10:46 PM
in reply to: ChineseDemocracy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Oh sweet Jesus Tony...Survey Monkey? Is this a legitimate poll? Does the LA Times know you are posting non-LA Times polls????

How about IBD/TIPP with Trump +1?

I mean, I know they were the most accurate poll in 2012 according to Nate, but they're probably garbage as well, right. 

 

Lots o' cherry trees out your way...that's some mighty fine cherry pickin'.

I post numerous polls that are tied I'm cherry picking, but you picking ones at the opposite end and you aren't? Lol

2016-10-21 2:45 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Oh sweet Jesus Tony...Survey Monkey? Is this a legitimate poll? Does the LA Times know you are posting non-LA Times polls????

How about IBD/TIPP with Trump +1?

I mean, I know they were the most accurate poll in 2012 according to Nate, but they're probably garbage as well, right. 

 

Lots o' cherry trees out your way...that's some mighty fine cherry pickin'.

I post numerous polls that are tied I'm cherry picking, but you picking ones at the opposite end and you aren't? Lol




Actually, you are incorrect.
If you've read what I've posted, I've been pretty consistent about posting averages. I'm not posting non-stop about polls that have Hillary thwacking your guy.
The averages are what they are.
The trends are what they are.
Hillary has led since the end of July, through, August, September, and October, widening her lead to 6.3% currently.

I know you are searching hard for positives...but there's a reason the Trump team and the GOP establishment is jumping ship.
The guy's just not fit to be president.


2016-10-21 3:43 PM
in reply to: ChineseDemocracy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Oh sweet Jesus Tony...Survey Monkey? Is this a legitimate poll? Does the LA Times know you are posting non-LA Times polls????

How about IBD/TIPP with Trump +1?

I mean, I know they were the most accurate poll in 2012 according to Nate, but they're probably garbage as well, right. 

 

Lots o' cherry trees out your way...that's some mighty fine cherry pickin'.

I post numerous polls that are tied I'm cherry picking, but you picking ones at the opposite end and you aren't? Lol

Actually, you are incorrect. If you've read what I've posted, I've been pretty consistent about posting averages. I'm not posting non-stop about polls that have Hillary thwacking your guy. The averages are what they are. The trends are what they are. Hillary has led since the end of July, through, August, September, and October, widening her lead to 6.3% currently. I know you are searching hard for positives...but there's a reason the Trump team and the GOP establishment is jumping ship. The guy's just not fit to be president.

Best I can tell the only ones jumping ship are the ones who were never on the ship in the first place.  If you recall there was an outright revolt vs. Ryan when he had his little conference call after the tape went public. 

On a side note, it doesn't appear that things are necessarily going smooth with Hillary's relationships within her party either. 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009

 

2016-10-21 3:48 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

I saw this quote from somebody on a conservative site earlier today and thought it was interesting:

How can the polls be accurate if there isn't even any consistency from one poll to the next? Not only can't they all be right, but by definition MOST OF THEM MUST BE WRONG! 

Food for thought.



2016-10-21 3:54 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Hillary's campaign is so dishonest.  Of course this is a conservative website, but the story speaks for itself. 
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/20/trump-wins-breitbart-debate-poll-despite-massive-foreign-pro-clinton-infiltration/

Why would they cheat on a conservative website poll?

2016-10-21 4:10 PM
in reply to: tuwood

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by tuwood

Hillary's campaign is so dishonest.  Of course this is a conservative website, but the story speaks for itself. 
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/20/trump-wins-breitbart-debate-poll-despite-massive-foreign-pro-clinton-infiltration/

Why would they cheat on a conservative website poll?

Nate Silver had a couple good articles about "live polls" versus online polls.  He basically will tell you that online polls have value but should be weighted less than live polls.  As a computer guy, I'd call them crap, knowing how much online polls can skew (e.g. non-voters or non-citizens participating in online polls, or people casting multiple votes, etc).  Basically, the voting fraud that's been mostly debunked in a real election is EASILY possible in online polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

 

2016-10-21 4:12 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Hillary's campaign is so dishonest.  Of course this is a conservative website, but the story speaks for itself. 
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/20/trump-wins-breitbart-debate-poll-despite-massive-foreign-pro-clinton-infiltration/

Why would they cheat on a conservative website poll?

Nate Silver had a couple good articles about "live polls" versus online polls.  He basically will tell you that online polls have value but should be weighted less than live polls.  As a computer guy, I'd call them crap, knowing how much online polls can skew (e.g. non-voters or non-citizens participating in online polls, or people casting multiple votes, etc).  Basically, the voting fraud that's been mostly debunked in a real election is EASILY possible in online polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

 

For sure and I totally agree online polls are garbage.  if anything they just give you a feel for the audience of a particular site.
My only comment was why somebody would intentionally "bot" online polls to make it appear as though Hillary was really winning.  If anything this very articles shows exactly why online polls aren't scientific in any way.   

2016-10-21 4:29 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Hillary's campaign is so dishonest.  Of course this is a conservative website, but the story speaks for itself. 
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/20/trump-wins-breitbart-debate-poll-despite-massive-foreign-pro-clinton-infiltration/

Why would they cheat on a conservative website poll?

Nate Silver had a couple good articles about "live polls" versus online polls.  He basically will tell you that online polls have value but should be weighted less than live polls.  As a computer guy, I'd call them crap, knowing how much online polls can skew (e.g. non-voters or non-citizens participating in online polls, or people casting multiple votes, etc).  Basically, the voting fraud that's been mostly debunked in a real election is EASILY possible in online polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

 

For sure and I totally agree online polls are garbage.  if anything they just give you a feel for the audience of a particular site.
My only comment was why somebody would intentionally "bot" online polls to make it appear as though Hillary was really winning.  If anything this very articles shows exactly why online polls aren't scientific in any way.   





Tony, continue to disregard the polls.
Continue to flout the outliers that have Trump ahead.

Here's my question for you. When it's all said and done...let's just say the election does go the way the overwhelming majority of the polls say it's going...will you Tuwood accept the outcome of the election? Will you admit that polling scientists know what they are doing? OR, like your candidate, will you claim that BOTH the polls AND the election were "rigged?"

2016-10-21 9:52 PM
in reply to: ChineseDemocracy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Hillary's campaign is so dishonest.  Of course this is a conservative website, but the story speaks for itself. 
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/20/trump-wins-breitbart-debate-poll-despite-massive-foreign-pro-clinton-infiltration/

Why would they cheat on a conservative website poll?

Nate Silver had a couple good articles about "live polls" versus online polls.  He basically will tell you that online polls have value but should be weighted less than live polls.  As a computer guy, I'd call them crap, knowing how much online polls can skew (e.g. non-voters or non-citizens participating in online polls, or people casting multiple votes, etc).  Basically, the voting fraud that's been mostly debunked in a real election is EASILY possible in online polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

 

For sure and I totally agree online polls are garbage.  if anything they just give you a feel for the audience of a particular site.
My only comment was why somebody would intentionally "bot" online polls to make it appear as though Hillary was really winning.  If anything this very articles shows exactly why online polls aren't scientific in any way.   

Tony, continue to disregard the polls. Continue to flout the outliers that have Trump ahead. Here's my question for you. When it's all said and done...let's just say the election does go the way the overwhelming majority of the polls say it's going...will you Tuwood accept the outcome of the election? Will you admit that polling scientists know what they are doing? OR, like your candidate, will you claim that BOTH the polls AND the election were "rigged?"

lol, it's not so much that I'm flouting the outliers showing him ahead so much as me wondering if the polls are accurate due to the disparity in turnout models used.  Then more importantly what polls of the polls are accurate?  Are you banking your bet on the average to be accurate or any one particular poll to be accurate?  We have almost a 20 point spread in the outliers so I can almost guarantee that one of them will be right.  ;-)

I think the poll scientists have proven they don't know what they're doing this year no matter what happens because they're all over the place.  Sure we can average them, but that doesn't mean they're all right.  Usually they have a spread of maybe 5 points or so to work with 

That being said I have no problem accepting the ultimate poll which is the election itself.  I do believe there is fraud, but I don't think it's crazy bad.  Sure, if there's one or two states with fractional percentage point differences then we can get into the muck.
As for Hillary I'm far more comfortable with her as President than I am Obama.  He's a train wreck ideologue that wants to fundamentally change America.  Hillary is just a traditional corrupt politician that will continue with the Bush/Clinton status quo.  It's not good, but it's way better than Obama. 

I don't really get the sense that it's going to be a tight race either way.  If the polls averages are right then Hillary will win comfortably.  If they're wrong then it's going to be fun watching all the Liberals explode.   

 



2016-10-21 10:11 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

I was just looking at the latest RCP polls and it's so curious.
All of the daily tracking polls (IBD/TIPP +1, Rasmussen +2, and LA Times +1) have Trump in the lead, but all of the non daily tracking polls have it up big for Hillary.  Quinnipiac +7, Bloomberg +9, YouGov +4, Reuters +4, FoxNews +6, NBC +6, Boston Globe +10.

They're all scientific polls so what makes them different?

I've learned over the years to trust the polls because they've generally been pretty accurate, but they've generally been pretty close to each other as well.  All of the RCP polls prior to the 2012 election were within a couple points of each other.  ALL of them!
So, no matter how much you want to pretend it's not there is something different about this year and I think the pollsters are struggling to capture it.  It could be as simple as the wild swings we've been experiencing from bombshells happening almost daily pulling people back and forth wildly.  It could also be that nobody has a clue whose going to turnout this year because it's so different then anything we've ever seen before.

You are very confident in Hillary winning and that's cool.  I'm not very confident in Trump winning, but I'm also not very confident in Hillary winning.  I simply realize that it's anybodies game at this point.  Shoot, there's probably 10 more bombshells to drop in the next couple weeks that could be devastating to either candidate so even that makes the polls today completely irrelevant. 

2016-10-22 10:59 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by tuwood

I was just looking at the latest RCP polls and it's so curious.
All of the daily tracking polls (IBD/TIPP +1, Rasmussen +2, and LA Times +1) have Trump in the lead, but all of the non daily tracking polls have it up big for Hillary.  Quinnipiac +7, Bloomberg +9, YouGov +4, Reuters +4, FoxNews +6, NBC +6, Boston Globe +10.

They're all scientific polls so what makes them different?

I've learned over the years to trust the polls because they've generally been pretty accurate, but they've generally been pretty close to each other as well.  All of the RCP polls prior to the 2012 election were within a couple points of each other.  ALL of them!
So, no matter how much you want to pretend it's not there is something different about this year and I think the pollsters are struggling to capture it.  It could be as simple as the wild swings we've been experiencing from bombshells happening almost daily pulling people back and forth wildly.  It could also be that nobody has a clue whose going to turnout this year because it's so different then anything we've ever seen before.

You are very confident in Hillary winning and that's cool.  I'm not very confident in Trump winning, but I'm also not very confident in Hillary winning.  I simply realize that it's anybodies game at this point.  Shoot, there's probably 10 more bombshells to drop in the next couple weeks that could be devastating to either candidate so even that makes the polls today completely irrelevant. 





Your quote, "wild swings we've been experiencing from bombshells happening almost daily pulling people back and forth wildly..." no, that's not happening.
As much as you'd like to think that "wild swings have been occurring," they haven't.

Go back to 2012's RCP averages. It got as high as a 4% Obama lead in the last 3 months. (Aug through October) Romney actually led by less than 1% on Oct 22nd. The final RCP average was 0.7%.
Obama beat Romney by 3.9%.
The RCP average underestimated the size of Obama's victory.
Also, to your point that ALL of the RCP polls were within a few points of each other, um, no they were not. There were 6 point swings among them in the middle and end of October. At one point Monmouth is +3 Romney, Wash Times +3 Obama...and so on.

The RCP average lead for Clinton is currently at 6.1%.

Go back to 2008. RCP average for Obama was 7.6%. Obama won by 7.3%.

Go back to 2004. RCP average for Dubya was 1.5%. He beat Kerry by 2.4%.


If you've read any of my earlier posts on the election, you'd know I didn't come into this general election confident about Hillary. I had low expectations. While she did have a 1-1 record debating Obama back in '08, her public speaking was likely going to hold her back.
BUT, then the debates happened.
There was one candidate with detailed responses. One candidate who could articulate a substantive message. It was Hillary Clinton.
She dominated Trump by exposing his greatest weakness...thin skin.
She remained calm, cool, and collected. He could not help himself. He failed to prepare.
When they do the post-mortem on his run that will be the biggest source of anguish for conservatives. His failure to prepare. His inability to stay on-message. His rude interruptions. His childish name-calling: Crooked Hillary, Nasty Woman, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, etc. I'm sure Newt, Rudy, and Ailes told him a thousand times, but hell, how could Donald resist 3am twitter wars with ex-pageant winners?






2016-10-24 2:18 PM
in reply to: ChineseDemocracy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

The irony of you're argument CD is that I agree with you historically.  The polls have been pretty decent at predicting the winners and they've been fairly consistent over time.  However the polls this year are downright whacked in a way that we've never seen before.

For example ABCNews just released a poll with Hillary +13 and when you dig into the details they have it skewed to a Democrats +9 turnout.  That number is larger than any Democrat turnout since the 70's, so how are they justifying their data?
In contrast you have Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP, and LA Times that have Trump even or in the lead.  I'm not saying they're more right, but you can't in any way say the "polls are accurate" when the delta is almost 20 points between the outliers.  Even your example above had a 6 point swing between the outliers with everybody else in the middle which bolsters using an average.

To top it off, you have RCP who seems to be selectively omitting certain polls from the same pollster that they include already to even further skew the "average".  I forget which one it was, but they were leaving an older poll less favorable to Trump in place of a newer one that was more favorable.

When you cast the fact that the "media" polls such as NBC/ABC/CNN/etc. are way out there against the proven narrative of the media being in the tank for Hillary it has to at least make you wonder if they're intentionally skewing the results.  As I mentioned earlier there is absolutely zero scientific or historic basis to skew a poll by +9 Dem, but ABCnews is doing it.

 

2016-10-24 4:02 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Polls
Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward.

I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter.

Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.





(FLPA.PNG)



Attachments
----------------
FLPA.PNG (262KB - 4 downloads)
2016-10-24 4:20 PM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ejshowers Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward. I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter. Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.

Yet again, what is the bias the polls are using and do you Trust them as accurate?  I'm finding it harder and harder to.

I do agree Trump needs to win FL for sure.  PA is likely optional but a much harder road if he doesn't.
I saw that Monmouth had NC as Clinton +1.  Been a steady slide for her there the past few weeks. Monmouth is also one of the most egregious for over sampling of Dems so Trumps likely up 5 there.  :-D 

I'm genuinely fascinated to see what shakes out with the election compared to the polls this year.



2016-10-24 4:43 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward. I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter. Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.

Yet again, what is the bias the polls are using and do you Trust them as accurate?  I'm finding it harder and harder to.

I do agree Trump needs to win FL for sure.  PA is likely optional but a much harder road if he doesn't.
I saw that Monmouth had NC as Clinton +1.  Been a steady slide for her there the past few weeks. Monmouth is also one of the most egregious for over sampling of Dems so Trumps likely up 5 there.  :-D 

I'm genuinely fascinated to see what shakes out with the election compared to the polls this year.




Hmm, I don't exactly see a steady slide for her there since the first debate. She is not killing it there, but she doesn't really need to win NC, he does.



Edited by ejshowers 2016-10-24 4:44 PM




(NC.PNG)



Attachments
----------------
NC.PNG (57KB - 3 downloads)
2016-10-24 4:58 PM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward. I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter. Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.

Yet again, what is the bias the polls are using and do you Trust them as accurate?  I'm finding it harder and harder to.

I do agree Trump needs to win FL for sure.  PA is likely optional but a much harder road if he doesn't.
I saw that Monmouth had NC as Clinton +1.  Been a steady slide for her there the past few weeks. Monmouth is also one of the most egregious for over sampling of Dems so Trumps likely up 5 there.  :-D 

I'm genuinely fascinated to see what shakes out with the election compared to the polls this year.

Hmm, I don't exactly see a steady slide for her there since the first debate. She is not killing it there, but she doesn't really need to win NC, he does.

I was referring to the Monmouth poll specifically.  I saw a graphic earlier that showed her going from up 6% to the 1% now.  As I've said before I tend to look at same polls for trends because comparing monmouth today to reuters from a month ago doesn't really tell us anything. 

2016-10-24 9:13 PM
in reply to: tuwood

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward. I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter. Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.

Yet again, what is the bias the polls are using and do you Trust them as accurate?  I'm finding it harder and harder to.

I do agree Trump needs to win FL for sure.  PA is likely optional but a much harder road if he doesn't.
I saw that Monmouth had NC as Clinton +1.  Been a steady slide for her there the past few weeks. Monmouth is also one of the most egregious for over sampling of Dems so Trumps likely up 5 there.  :-D 

I'm genuinely fascinated to see what shakes out with the election compared to the polls this year.

Hmm, I don't exactly see a steady slide for her there since the first debate. She is not killing it there, but she doesn't really need to win NC, he does.

I was referring to the Monmouth poll specifically.  I saw a graphic earlier that showed her going from up 6% to the 1% now.  As I've said before I tend to look at same polls for trends because comparing monmouth today to reuters from a month ago doesn't really tell us anything. 

I think the stats that will determine the election are these (as of last week):

Trump leads Clinton by about 7% with male voters
Clinton leads Trump by about 20% with female voters

2016-10-25 9:38 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers Here's the bottom line for Trump with 2 weeks to go: If he doesn't win both FL and PA, he really has no viable path forward. I was playing around with the RCP electoral map and it is pretty interesting and must be humbling if you are a Trump supporter. Here are all the RCP polls since the first debate for those two states. Not good.

Yet again, what is the bias the polls are using and do you Trust them as accurate?  I'm finding it harder and harder to.

I do agree Trump needs to win FL for sure.  PA is likely optional but a much harder road if he doesn't.
I saw that Monmouth had NC as Clinton +1.  Been a steady slide for her there the past few weeks. Monmouth is also one of the most egregious for over sampling of Dems so Trumps likely up 5 there.  :-D 

I'm genuinely fascinated to see what shakes out with the election compared to the polls this year.

Hmm, I don't exactly see a steady slide for her there since the first debate. She is not killing it there, but she doesn't really need to win NC, he does.

I was referring to the Monmouth poll specifically.  I saw a graphic earlier that showed her going from up 6% to the 1% now.  As I've said before I tend to look at same polls for trends because comparing monmouth today to reuters from a month ago doesn't really tell us anything. 

I think the stats that will determine the election are these (as of last week):

Trump leads Clinton by about 7% with male voters
Clinton leads Trump by about 20% with female voters

Yet again, what polls do we trust?
IBD has almost the exact opposite demographic data showing in their most recent poll.  Trump +14 with men and Clinton only +8 with women and only a 7 point lead among voters 18-44.  Those numbers would be horrible for Clinton. 

 



Edited by tuwood 2016-10-25 9:39 AM
2016-10-25 8:41 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Black Likely Voters trend for TRUMP in the Rasmussen poll

Oct 3 – 9%
Oct 6 – 12%
Oct 7 – 13%
Oct 10 – 14%
Oct 11 – 19%
Oct 12 – 19%
Oct 13 – 24%
Oct 17 – 17%
Oct 18 – 19%
Oct 19 – 18%
Oct 20 – 15%
Oct 21 – 16%
Oct 24 – 15%
Oct 25 – 16%

For comparison Obama got 93% of the black vote in 2012 to Romney's 6% and in 2008 Obama got 95% to McCains 4%.



2016-10-26 10:43 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Polls

Latest Florida CNN poll shows Trump with a 2 pt. lead over Clinton.......a week ago they had Florida as leaning Democrat.

2016-10-26 11:42 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Polls
Yesterday ABC News had Clinton up by 12. Today Clinton is only up by 9. That's a big swing for 'statistical noise'....but is within the margin of error.
2016-10-26 12:25 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Polls

Originally posted by Left Brain

Latest Florida CNN poll shows Trump with a 2 pt. lead over Clinton.......a week ago they had Florida as leaning Democrat.

2016-10-27 11:15 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Polls
Originally posted by Rogillio

Yesterday ABC News had Clinton up by 12. Today Clinton is only up by 9. That's a big swing for 'statistical noise'....but is within the margin of error.


Same poll now shows Clinton up by 6.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Polls Rss Feed  
 
 
of 14