Polls (Page 4)

The enthusiasm thing is probably true but like I said before, the national polling means squat.  What matters is what happens in a couple key states.  The way the electoral votes are, a Republican has to almost, but not quite, run the table in those swing states in order to get 270 to win.

In my opinion, Trump's biggest risk right now is Florida, because of his antagonism toward the hispanic community.  He'll have a fight in Virginia.  And then the rust belt is probably better for him because of his protectionist ideas.  But if he loses Florida it's pretty grim.

The other long shot for Trump is if he can win his home state of New York, which has as many votes as Florida.  But that's a pretty tall order.

I do agree that the states are what matters and Florida is a must win for Trump. 
I know there's a lot of talk about Trump alienating the hispanic community, but from what I've seen there's a lot of hispanics that support shutting the borders down.  Especially among those that came here legally. 
The recent polls I've seen have Trump polling better with hispanics than Romney and Bush, but as we continue to say they're just polls.   

In Florida, I've been seeing quite a few articles about voter registrations shifting in Florida since the last election.  (Remember, Obama barely beat Romney there in 2012)

Republican registrations have increased from 4,245,991 in October 2012 to 4,431,400 now — a gain of 185,409 voters.
Democratic registrations have declined from 4,781,978 in October 2012 to 4,690,721 now —  a decrease of  91,257 voters.
The number of voters registered with no party affiliation has increased from 2,572,901 in October 2012 to 2,913,948 now — an increase of 341,047 voters.

Assuming the polls hold and Trump pulls the same number of Hispanic voters or more than Romney I think Florida will be a lot easier than many people suspect.  The RCP average has some wild swings in the polls with a Clinton +3 advantage today. 

btw, you should have seen conservative land blow up when a poll came out the other day showing Trump in the lead by 5 in PA.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-poll-donald-trump-leads-hillary-5-points-swing-state-pennsylvania/

I don't give much credit to that poll, but the media fed into the conspiracy after multiple news outlets reported it and then took their articles down.  I suspect it was because they found the poll not to be credible and wasn't part of a bigger conspiracy. hah

What you said on Pennsylvania doesn't surprise me.  Trump has been careful not to go after unions, and that's going to help him in states like that.

Florida - I think Trump improved there once Rubio said he'd support him.  But that state will always be close.  I can't remember the last time they had an election that *wasn't* close.

The more articles you post from 538, the more I think they're a wing of the Huffpo.  So the author basically states that the data is true, but he thinks they're already voting republican so it doesn't mean anything.
Demographics in states do change over time.  Texas and Arizona have been gradually getting more and more democrats and it does reflect in the votes.  

Reuters has it tied up now & LA Times has it Trump +3.  I saw that Emerson had PA at Clinton +3 yesterday which was a big surprise.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160710-20160830/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

Even polling averages aren't that useful because our media is so polarized anymore.  I'd guess that *most* polls are designed with a desired conservative or liberal bias.  Averaging them out just muddles the few polls done by real statisticians.

I'd generally look towards someone with Nate Silver's background (doesn't have to be him - but you get the idea).  If I pick up a poll from the New York Times and another from the New York Post, you can blindfold me and I'll tell you which way they go.  Sad but true.  Same for MSNBC / Fox, etc.

Even they get it wrong. 

I remember Carl Rove talking about how even Romney's internal polls got it wrong.  Presumably those polls are taken and analyzed without any bias to give the campaign some truth. 

I think the usefulness in polls is in showing trends.  Same poll, same ground rules and assumptions, same adjustments, etc.  Then look at the week to week trajectory of that poll.....for movements outside the margin of error.  Doesn't matter what the numbers are, if you go down (or up) every week, week after week, that will tell you if you are on the right or wring trajectory. 

How is it the LA Times poll is showing Trump on top now and everybody else is showing HC on top?  I would think if I were the LA Times editor I'd call in the polling group and ask some questions.......

I tend to agree to an extent.  There are obviously super biased pollsters who do push polling and cherry pick things to fit their agendas.  For the most part, they're fairly easy to pick out and very much so fit your description above.

I don't in any way feel the scientific integrity of the polls from the major outlets are in question.  LA Times, Reuters, Ipsos, Monmouth, Rasmussen, etc.
However, when you dig into the science of polls they have to make assumptions based on historical data.  For example if the majority of the polls that show Hillary way out in front are using turnout models comparable to 2012 turnout models.  However, it's pretty easy to see that Obama was a rock star and got rock star turnout numbers in comparison to Romney who was a dud that half the Republican base couldn't stand.  Now on the flip side we have Trump who is a rock star and Clinton is a completely dud that half the democratic base can't stand.  It is just silly to think the turnout numbers will be the same.
So, with the polls their science is solid but the assumptions going in are what are potentially in question.  The LA Times poll is a sound poll, but they are assuming a little different turnout model than the rest.

The irony of the flatline is that RCP seems to only put in polls that continue the flat line and ignore the rest.  Even the Reuters poll (which they included previously) hasn't made it into the average now that they have it tied.
Another indicator of whose worried is to watch what they do.  Hillary went full on desperation mode in her last appearance labeling Trump supporters racists and her KKK add about his supporters takes the race to a whole new level of desperation.
Love or hate Trump, he's working his tail off to sell his message of a greater America.  Hillary is doing maybe one campaign event a week to a few hundred people for 20 minutes and only attacking Trump the person.  She has no platform at all and it's showing more and more as the days go by.
Trump also continues to whittle away her support among African Americans by daring to go where no recent Republican has gone before.

If you Truly believe Trump has been flat lined for the past couple weeks as the RCP average depicts then I really can't help you.  I guess you can live in your bliss and pretend Hillary won after she loses in November and go back to the flat line polls.  ;-)

Whose this "you guys" you speak of? 

Perhaps RCP uses a rolling average of the daily reuters/ipsos poll, but it's been essentially tied for the last three days with a solid trend towards Trump since Aug 21st and an equal freefall for Hillary during this same time period.
So, my question about RCP was simply a matter of why they weren't reflecting this trend?  The other question is why they leave legitimate polls that are more favorable to Trump off of their average?  I know you like to bag on the LA Times, but they're the furthest from a conservative rag and your almighty Nate even rates them as an A-.  Yet, other pollsters who are rated lower on the Nate scale are included in the RCP average.I don't know the answer, but you would think if RCP wanted to give a clear picture of what's going on in the race they'd include all reputable polls, right?
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160710-20160830/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

ok, that made me laugh out loud for real.

Um, Republicans are more likely to vote this year because the Democrats have a dud candidate.  Weren't you paying attention to what I said above?
Every person who responds to a poll is asked if they're likely to vote in the general election no matter what their response and the ones that respond yes to that question are considered "likely voters". 

If you look at the poll with LV selected it shows a Clinton +7 lead on 8/24 which is exactly what the RCP average poll shows for the poll ending on 8/24 so this is the poll they're using.  There have been 5 Reuters/Ipsos polls released since the 8/24 one they're showing in the average and they all show a steady improvement for Trump and have all been omitted from the RCP average (apparently) to make guys like you feel better about Clinton in the polls.

You keep saying Trump is a rock star, but I honestly don't see it. I mean, he certainly has a cult-like following that pack the arenas. But so does Nickelback. Outside of his base, he's hated. I cannot ever remember a nominee who's struggled getting endorsements from within his own party. From Cruz and the Bushes being sore losers, to Romney and Kasich refusing to vote for him, to Paul Ryan's extremely reserved endorsement, the party has not rallied behind him. #nevertrump is still a thing. He can't even get Koch money. 

Trump has a larger hard-core base than Hillary. But I think Hillary has more reluctant enthusiasms (can't think of a better way to phrase that) with Dems than Trump does with Reps. What's going to drive large crowds to the polls this year is voting against the person they hate. And right now, that's pretty much a toss up with Trump holding an ever so slight lead. 

Of course, Trump's core could disappear tonight depending on what he says with his big immigration speech. The base won't like it if Amnesty Don starts backtracking too much. 

Trump absolutely killed it yesterday.  One of the best days a presidential candidate has ever had.
Even before his Mexico trip Rasmussen has Trump in the lead now as well (statistically tied):
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Even the oracle Nate Silver is finally acknowledging that Trump is rising and Hillary is fading.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/

Agree, it was a good day for Trump.  Awesome speech last night.

Saw this, this morning:

"The latest weekly Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 40% support to Clinton’s 39% among Likely U.S. Voters, after Clinton led 42% to 38% a week ago. "

So leading up to Trump's speech last night the media kept pounding on Trump saying they did not discuss who would pay for the wall and then the Mexican president tweets that he made it clear Mexico would not pay for the wall.  But then finally someone reported that Trump said they did not discuss who would pay for the wall in a press conference standing right beside the Mexican president...and he didn't refute Trump's claim. It was fun watching the talking heads try to spin that one. 

The media is a clown show this year.  If the only thing they can say after the meeting is "he said you did talk about this and you didn't" then you know you've won the day.
Trump did more for Mexico/America relations in a few hours yesterday then Obama has done in almost 8 years.
Purely from a political standpoint can Hillary even meet with Nieto now?  It will just appear as though she's trying to be like Trump if she does.  Same thing with visiting LA flooding areas.  Once Trump led the way she could either follow or not go at all.  Which one of these two is a leader and which one isn't?

On a total side note, I'm getting really annoyed at googles selective searching for Clinton this year.  There have been numerous times where I search for something and get flooded with pages of negative trump articles that have nothing to do with what I'm searching for.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but reading the tea leaves written on the wall (mixaphorically speaking).....Clinton gave a speech yesterday and that was her first public appearance in almost a week......and she has nothing planned for the next 4 days.   Looking at her yesterday I couldn't help but think she does not look well.....maybe it was her hair....it looked like it hadn't been washed.  My guess is she has been sick....bug or virus or something.  Most politicians burn both ends toward the middle and that weakens your immune system....and when you are in constant contact with people.  Nothing wrong with getting sick....but if she really happens to be sick it would feed the conspiracy theorist that she is not healthy enough to be POTUS.

Anyway, I hope she gets to feeling better and make some more speeches.  With the poll numbers tightening she is not gonna be able to just sit on her lead and hope it holds.

She could be sick or She could simply be pulling a Romney and coasting until election day.  Politically speaking they both have the same result and result in her losing the election.

I am no fan of hers in any way, but I truly do wish her the best with her health if she is having issues in that regard.