PDA

View Full Version : Clinton Landslide poll: ABC/WaPo has party ID at Democrat+12




RandallFan
06-26-2016, 08:02 PM
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/747084772984381440



One difference b/w the NBC/WSJ and ABC/WaPo polls? NBC/WSJ has party ID at D+4 advantage. ABC/WaPo has party ID at D+12

CPUd
06-26-2016, 09:39 PM
http://i.imgur.com/xwRnj1A.png

http://i.imgur.com/3ODY1YL.png

http://i.imgur.com/btraXAx.png

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1178a12016Election.pdf

TheCount
06-26-2016, 11:04 PM
Quick, call the unskewed polls guy; maybe this time he'll be right!

francisco
06-27-2016, 12:03 AM
Man, that is an ugly poll for the Trumpkins.

Trump can withstand, for the moment, bad polling like that IF AND ONLY IF he gets the fundraising geared up, to offer the possibility that the polling numbers can be turned around. If the so-far bleak fundraising isn't improved, there's going to be a lot of pressure on Trump to voluntarily withdraw before the convention. Crap prospects for the top of the ticket would portend disaster for the Republicans downticket.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to high level RNC conversations about now. I wonder what the panic level is.

Petar
06-27-2016, 12:19 AM
Trump will start beating the shit out of Clinton as soon as he gets a chance to debate her live on national television.

hells_unicorn
06-27-2016, 01:04 AM
Not to rain on the orgasm parade of everybody thinking that Donald Trump is going to lose the election, but you people do realize that ABC employs a bunch of former Clinton operatives and that the Washington Post has been part of the whole #NeverTrump effort, right?

Sorry, can't put much stock in this poll, though I will agree that currently Trump is trailing, but the margin is slim and will probably turn when the polls start accounting for all the Sanders people that are going to stay home.

Short of Trump suddenly keeling over dead, I don't see him losing this one. I'm not particularly thrilled about the prospect, but I'm not in the denying reality camp either.

libertyjam
06-27-2016, 04:25 AM
really who but dumbocrats watch abc or read the wash. post anyway?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 04:47 AM
Not to rain on the orgasm parade of everybody thinking that Donald Trump is going to lose the election, but you people do realize that ABC employs a bunch of former Clinton operatives and that the Washington Post has been part of the whole #NeverTrump effort, right?

Sorry, can't put much stock in this poll, though I will agree that currently Trump is trailing, but the margin is slim and will probably turn when the polls start accounting for all the Sanders people that are going to stay home.

Short of Trump suddenly keeling over dead, I don't see him losing this one. I'm not particularly thrilled about the prospect, but I'm not in the denying reality camp either.

You have any numbers to back this up, or are you just going by emotions?



http://i.imgur.com/3S03qWw.png

silverhandorder
06-27-2016, 04:58 AM
You have any numbers to back this up, or are you just going by emotions?



http://i.imgur.com/3S03qWw.png

Weren't you the guy that thought Trump will lose nomination and still spaming the forum with posts that Trump might still get denied.

Yeah you are that guy. Also supported Hillary.

Danke
06-27-2016, 05:01 AM
Weren't you the guy that thought Trump will lose nomination and still spaming the forum with posts that Trump might still get denied.

Yeah you are that guy. Also supported Hillary.

Guy?

silverhandorder
06-27-2016, 05:09 AM
Guy?
Guy gal it. W.e

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:44 AM
Weren't you the guy that thought Trump will lose nomination and still spaming the forum with posts that Trump might still get denied.

Yeah you are that guy. Also supported Hillary.

You're just posting words.

silverhandorder
06-27-2016, 09:45 AM
You're just posting words.

That are true and you are the subject.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 10:57 AM
http://i.imgur.com/pBOQzz9.png

francisco
06-27-2016, 12:05 PM
@ CPUd:

Stop clouding the issue with facts. :rolleyes:

Jamesiv1
06-27-2016, 01:02 PM
You're just posting words.
[adopt an angry, drunken sneer]

"You're a Hillary-luvuh!!!" -Bob Ewell to CPUd in "To Kill A Mockingbird"

Peace&Freedom
06-27-2016, 02:53 PM
@ CPUd:

Stop clouding the issue with facts. :rolleyes:

You mean, CPUd should stop oversimplifying the issues with a misleading, Ross Perot chart mentality.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 03:24 PM
You mean, CPUd should stop oversimplifying the issues with a misleading, Ross Perot chart mentality.

Did you have some polling numbers you were going to post, or are you also relying on emotional arguments?

Peace&Freedom
06-27-2016, 05:23 PM
Did you have some polling numbers you were going to post, or are you also relying on emotional arguments?

I have posted facts about how the actual voter turnout numbers from the past primary season supersedes the situational poll numbers you have cited, and are a more accurate indicator of how the election will turn out. I have pointed out the facts about how the current month's polls reflect the expected drop that Trump was going to have this month, and that the average differential between him and Hillary remains near the margin of error, while your cites repeatedly omit these mitigating circumstances, to support a "Trump is sinking, hooray" narrative. I suggest it is you who are using polls out of context to buttress an emotional argument.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 05:36 PM
I have posted facts about how the actual voter turnout numbers from the past primary season supersedes the situational poll numbers you have cited, and are a more accurate indicator of how the election will turn out. I have pointed out the facts about how the current month's polls reflect the expected drop that Trump was going to have this month, and that the average differential between him and Hillary remains near the margin of error, while your cites repeatedly omit these mitigating circumstances, to support a "Trump is sinking, hooray" narrative. I suggest it is you who are using polls out of context to buttress an emotional argument.

You mean the turnout that mobilized to vote against Trump? I agree, it is record setting:

https://i.imgur.com/U2lM6nJ.jpg

euphemia
06-27-2016, 05:44 PM
Pollsters have been dismally wrong this cycle. Polling samples are chosen according to the projection of the pollster. They all start with a premise and poll to give a result that proves their premise. This is not a true sampling of opinion. It is a way to try to convince nonresponders that they are the minority.

AngryCanadian
06-27-2016, 06:21 PM
Pollsters have been dismally wrong this cycle. Polling samples are chosen according to the projection of the pollster. They all start with a premise and poll to give a result that proves their premise. This is not a true sampling of opinion. It is a way to try to convince nonresponders that they are the minority.

Just like how the pollsters have been wrong with the Brexit Vote poll lol.

Peace&Freedom
06-27-2016, 07:23 PM
You mean the turnout that mobilized to vote against Trump? I agree, it is record setting:


Trump stands apart as an energizing candidate, both pro and con. The crucial dynamic being those not voting for Trump will be almost certainly not voting for Hillary, but either (mostly) staying home or voting for Johnson. Based on the energizing turnout FOR Trump alone, he is expected to get up to 12 million more votes than Romney did in 2012, as per the monster wave analysis:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/09/oh-my-new-york-times-quietly-discusses-data-evidence-of-the-monster-vote/

CPUd
06-27-2016, 08:21 PM
Trump stands apart as an energizing candidate, both pro and con. The crucial dynamic being those not voting for Trump will be almost certainly not voting for Hillary, but either (mostly) staying home or voting for Johnson. Based on the energizing turnout FOR Trump alone, he is expected to get up to 12 million more votes than Romney did in 2012, as per the monster wave analysis:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/09/oh-my-new-york-times-quietly-discusses-data-evidence-of-the-monster-vote/

That blog is claiming up to 73 million GOP votes for the general election, which is supposedly significant because something something about his core demographic has been underestimated. Suppose it were true, this would be 100% of registered GOP voting for Trump (which we know will not happen) plus about half of independents (possible) plus 10% of registered Dems (maybe 5%). The first problem with that is the registered GOP is not 100% white over 45 non college. To be competitive, Trump would need 60-75% of GOP voters to be in that demographic, and 90% turnout, which won't happen even if you throw in those 12 million votes. The next problem is over 40% of Trump's primary votes came from solid blue states in the Northeast, in a general election, these are literally wasted votes. Trump can't even raise money in those states now, unless it is with small gatherings of wealthy people representing special interests.

This is without even getting into his issues with the religious groups.

Petar
06-27-2016, 08:28 PM
CPUd: you've gotta admit that you were the guy who spent the whole primary posting information to support the idea that Trump was going to lose, and in the end, your methodology/thesis failed completely.

What makes your methodology/thesis any less garbage this time?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 08:37 PM
CPUd: you've gotta admit that you were the guy who spent the whole primary posting information to support the idea that Trump was going to lose, and in the end, your methodology/thesis failed completely.

What makes your methodology/thesis any less garbage this time?

I've already admitted I (like a lot of folks) thought the primary polling was wrong, but it turned out to be mostly accurate.

Petar
06-27-2016, 08:48 PM
I've already admitted I (like a lot of folks) thought the primary polling was wrong, but it turned out to be mostly accurate.

The point is that you did not have the intuition to be able to see that Trump was being massively underestimated for quite some time.

I was noticing the sea-change back in SEPTEMBER and was anticipating his primary victory then.

Why were you unable to see what was happening?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are just really bad at anticipating what is going to happen when it comes to Donald Trump?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 08:54 PM
The point is that you did not have the intuition to be able to see that Trump was being massively underestimated for quite some time.

I was noticing the sea-change back in SEPTEMBER and was anticipating his primary victory then.

Why were you unable to see what was happening?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are just really bad at anticipating what is going to happen when it comes to Donald Trump?

I didn't underestimate him, I overestimated his opponents. They should have all been going after him form day 1 the way Rand did, and the way the Dems are now.

Petar
06-27-2016, 08:59 PM
I didn't underestimate him, I overestimated his opponents. They should have all been going after him form day 1 the way Rand did, and the way the Dems are now.

The guy who lasted the longest against Trump (Cruz) was the guy who avoided a confrontation with him for the longest amount of time.

Objectively speaking, all of the available evidence shows that you are really bad at anticipating anything that is going to happen with Donald Trump.

Why don't you start listening to the people who were actually correct about his performance?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:01 PM
The guy who lasted the longest against Trump (Cruz) was the guy who avoided a confrontation with him for the longest amount of time.

Objectively speaking, all of the available evidence shows that you are really bad at anticipating anything that is going to happen with Donald Trump.

Why don't you start listening to the people who were actually correct about his performance?

The polls are correct about his performance. I am paying attention to the polling.

Petar
06-27-2016, 09:14 PM
The polls are correct about his performance. I am paying attention to the polling.

The purpose of a poll is to help anticipate an outcome.

Being that all available evidence shows that you are unable to predict an accurate outcome - through the way that you choose to interpret polls - then why do you continue to spread what likely amounts to a giant pile of misinformation?

Are you intentionally trying to confuse people when it comes to anticipating how he will perform?

If you are not trying to confuse people, then why don't you start taking the opinions of people who actually have credibility on the subject into account?

Your behaviour is not consistent with the actions of someone who is acting in a sincere manner.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:20 PM
The purpose of a poll is to help anticipate an outcome.

Being that all available evidence shows that you are unable to predict an accurate outcome - through the way that you choose to interpret polls - then why do you continue to spread what likely amounts to a giant pile of misinformation?

Are you intentionally trying to confuse people when it comes to anticipating how he will perform?

If you are not trying to confuse people, then why don't you start taking the opinions of people who actually have credibility on the subject into account?

Your behaviour is not consistent with the actions of someone who is acting in a sincere manner.

It's pretty clear how he will perform, based on current polling and fundraising. If the numbers start to change, it may require reevaluation, but all evidence so far shows he will fail hard.

Petar
06-27-2016, 09:27 PM
It's pretty clear how he will perform, based on current polling and fundraising. If the numbers start to change, it may require reevaluation, but all evidence so far shows he will fail hard.

Given that the way that you chose to interpret the primary polls was proven to be a failure, what makes you believe that you have any credibility this time around?

BamaAla
06-27-2016, 09:33 PM
A national poll of 836 registered voters before the conventions is as useless as tits on a boar hog. At this point, the only polling that is even remotely useful is in the important states and that is still extremely premature. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia are fairly tight; that is where the hay will be made.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:35 PM
Given that the way that you chose to interpret the primary polls was proven to be a failure, what makes you believe that you have any credibility this time around?

The primary polling was proven once the voting started. While it was competitive, Trump was losing most of the closed contests and winning in solid Dem states, just as I (and everyone else paying attention to the polling) said he would.

Petar
06-27-2016, 09:41 PM
The primary polling was proven once the voting started. While it was competitive, Trump was losing most of the closed contests and winning in solid Dem states, just as I (and everyone else paying attention to the polling) said he would.

All you did was post polls/arguments to combat the idea that Trump was going to win.

I was able to anticipate that as far back as September.

Why do you refuse to take the opinions of people with actual credibility into consideration with the way that you choose to interpret polls?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:44 PM
All you did was post polls/arguments to combat the idea that Trump was going to win.

I was able to anticipate that as far back as September.

Why do you refuse to take the opinions of people with actual credibility into consideration with the way that you choose to interpret polls?

I can't tell candidates like Cruz or Rubio how to run their campaigns, if they ignore what the polls are showing them and get beat, it's on them.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:46 PM
A national poll of 836 registered voters before the conventions is as useless as tits on a boar hog. At this point, the only polling that is even remotely useful is in the important states and that is still extremely premature. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia are fairly tight; that is where the hay will be made.

He should be doing better than this in FL:

http://i.imgur.com/eZ8IJDJ.png

At this rate, TX will be a swing state by November, along with NC, UT, KS, MO, AZ.

UT Poll: Trump Leads Clinton by 8 in Texas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497188-UT-Poll-Trump-Leads-Clinton-by-8-in-Texas)

Petar
06-27-2016, 09:56 PM
I can't tell candidates like Cruz or Rubio how to run their campaigns, if they ignore what the polls are showing them and get beat, it's on them.

You are the one who was anticipating a Trump loss.

If you are unable to admit that you are bad at anticipating whether Trump will win or lose, then that is on you.

Why don't you start listening to people that are actually good at anticipating whether Trump is going to win or lose?

Don't you want to promote realistic expectations?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 09:59 PM
You are the one who was anticipating a Trump loss.

If you are unable to admit that you are bad at anticipating whether Trump will win or lose, then that is on you.

Why don't you start listening to people that are actually good at anticipating whether Trump is going to win or lose?

Don't you want to promote realistic expectations?

I listen to 1st hand sources, then polling, then internet randoms, in that order. If you don't value my input, that's OK, but you are going to have to find a way to deal with it. You are in the minority, and as long as that is true, I will continue to post when I can.

timosman
06-27-2016, 10:00 PM
https://i.sli.mg/amtVv6.jpg

BamaAla
06-27-2016, 10:03 PM
He should be doing better than this in FL:


At this rate, TX will be a swing state by November, along with NC, UT, KS, MO, AZ.

UT Poll: Trump Leads Clinton by 8 in Texas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497188-UT-Poll-Trump-Leads-Clinton-by-8-in-Texas)

Maybe, but we'll have to wait to see. My point remains, the wapo poll is window dressing at best; Trump has to flip battle ground states and Hillary has to hold the line, but an outlier poll in late June provides zero insight to either proposition. I'm still of the opinion that Trump flips several of those states and wins, but I can't quantify or substantiate that position...but at least I admit that. Trumpkin 4 lyfe!

Petar
06-27-2016, 10:06 PM
I listen to 1st hand sources, then polling, then internet randoms, in that order. If you don't value my input, that's OK, but you are going to have to find a way to deal with it. You are in the minority, and as long as that is true, I will continue to post when I can.

The question is, why do you value your own input?

Why do you continue to espouse opinions that are based on the same, failed methodology?

And call me a "random" if you want, but at least I was able to actually predict how Trump would perform during the primaries.

Why do you insist on ignoring people with actual credibility?

Are you trying to spread ignorance on purpose?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 10:08 PM
Maybe, but we'll have to wait to see. My point remains, the wapo poll is window dressing at best; Trump has to flip battle ground states and Hillary has to hold the line, but an outlier poll in late June provides zero insight to either proposition. I'm still of the opinion that Trump flips several of those states and wins, but I can't quantify or substantiate that position...but at least I admit that. Trumpkin 4 lyfe!

The big poll movement will slow down after the tickets on both sides are revealed. I think after that it will take a month of campaigning in a state to gain just 1 or 2 points.

Petar
06-27-2016, 10:10 PM
The big poll movement will slow down after the tickets on both sides are revealed. I think after that it will take a month of campaigning in a state to gain just 1 or 2 points.

What gives you the credibility to accurately predict that?

CPUd
06-27-2016, 10:25 PM
Looks like he is struggling to crack 40% when they poll 4 candidates.

http://i.imgur.com/FN9LqmD.png
https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06212016_Sfw34kbm.pdf

Petar
06-27-2016, 10:30 PM
The big poll movement will slow down after the tickets on both sides are revealed. I think after that it will take a month of campaigning in a state to gain just 1 or 2 points.


What gives you the credibility to accurately predict that?

The answer, of course, is that you totally lack the credibility to predict that.

If you were honest, that is something that you would readily admit.

CPUd
06-27-2016, 10:36 PM
This one does not bode well for a candidate who has supposedly locked up the nomination:

747534975843635201

RandallFan
06-28-2016, 12:21 AM
Looks like he is struggling to crack 40% when they poll 4 candidates.


https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06212016_Sfw34kbm.pdf

So does Clinton