Debate bounce: Trump-Hillary tied in latest poll

[John F Kennedy III]

Pollsters don't know anything. I'll show you how the election is really going to turn out:

First, I know a guy who voted for Sanders in the primary, who is now voting for Trump. This put Vermont in Safe Trump territory.

Second, he's going to win all the states that Romney won except Utah because Utahns don't want to make America great again.

Third, Trump will win all the swing states because who's going to vote for crooked Hillary?

Fourth, Trump will win the Hispanic vote, that locks up New Mexico and puts California in play.

Fifth, Trump is from New York, so home state advantage.

Sixth, Christie endorsed Trump so Trump wins New Jersey.

Seventh, Trump has not specified whether or not he will win the Asian vote. It is impossible to know who will win Hawaii until he does.


262 Solid Trump

105 Likely Trump

49 Lean Trump

59 Tossup

54 Lean Clinton

3 Solid Clinton

6 Johnson

Trump gets at least 416 Electoral Votes!!!!!

$#@! at this point I'm hoping he does get 400+. $#@! all these disgusting pieces of $#@! that still support Hillary even knowing all the insane $#@! she has done.

[John F Kennedy III]

What's wrong calling out conspiracy theories for what they likely are in some sarcastic manner?

Do you believe what was shown on TV in 1969 was a real moon landing?

[Mordan]

Do you believe what was shown on TV in 1969 was a real moon landing?

P(MordanBrain + what was shown on TV in 1969 was a real moon landing) = 90 to 98 on a ]0 to 100[ scale.

[Nighthawkeye]

First off the La times daily tracker has had Trump winning all along its the only one that they post daily, this is the first time it actually has Clinton up less than a percent. This poll has been claiming a Trump lead all along. As for the whining of the polls taking more democrats than republicans that is because more democrats about 10 percent more have voted in the last several presidential elections. If they took even numbers it would not be representing the population. There is more people claiming to be democrats than their are people claiming to be republicans, and the polls take that into account, specially for presidential elections where democrats tend to come out in higher percentage than they do for midterms. Republicans tend to be more reliable voters.

So this poll having Trump tied with Clinton is bad for Trump, not a positive.

[enhanced_deficit]

Other polls are trickling in:

RASMUSSEN: HE'S BACK IN LEAD

[torchbearer]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...rginia-n665541

Donald Trump's campaign is "pulling out of Virginia," a move that stunned staff in the battleground state, three sources with knowledge of the decision told NBC News.The decision came from Trump's headquarters in New York and was announced on a conference call late Wednesday that left some Republican Party operatives in the state blindsided. Two staffers directly involved in the GOP's efforts in Virginia confirmed the decision.
The move to pull out of Virginia shows Trump is "running essentially a four state campaign," with the focus now shifting to battlegrounds critical to his chances in November: Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, a source with knowledge of the decision told NBC News.

[TheCount]

They ALWAYS poll too heavily leaning Democrat, but they shift the numbers around constantly to create a narrative depending on what is happening, or what they have planned.

Party identification isn't 50/50 split in the country, so it shouldn't be in the polls - and it's just a survey question not a fact, so depending on how the question is asked, people may answer how they feel at the moment rather than based upon what party they are actually a member of. This is especially true for those people who answer that they 'lean' towards a particular party. They're likely not a member, and they may be answering based upon which candidate they support at the moment.

That Zerohedge link you posted shows exactly that: Independents are 13% instead of 40%. Why? Because they're asked which party they identify with, not which party they're a member of.

A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-losing-badly/

[torchbearer]

[Madison320]

I don't understand what would motivate the polls to lie. Are you less likely to vote if a poll shows your candidate is losing? If a poll is consistently wrong won't it lose respect?

That being said I think the polls are going to misjudge the difference in how many people actually go out and vote for each candidate. I think the Trump voter are MUCH more enthusiastic. They'll vote in snow, rain, sickness, whatever. Clinton supporters will stay home if there's any reason.

[Cleaner44]

The polls are all now just as suspect as the corrupt media and political organizations that conduct them.

Forget the polls. Use your senses.

[silverhandorder]

Polls lies for the same reason news organizations lie. They are creating a narrative.

[timosman]

Polls lies for the same reason news organizations lie. They are creating a narrative.

The primary objective is to sell ads. A very close race creates a lot of excitement.

[enhanced_deficit]

The primary objective is to sell ads. A very close race creates a lot of excitement.

Youtube probably making lot of money in ads.

Incidentally, alleged Obama plane sexual harassment video has almost 1.5 Mil views in 2 days and alleged Trump sexual bragging vid has 800K views in 5 days.

[seapilot]

Somehow the polls were accurate during the primary, but now they aren't because they cause cognitive dissonance. It is a sad display for sure.

The ones that are the most accurate are taken a week before the vote. Right now it is whatever they want to set as a narrative. A week before the vote they have to get real if they want to show how reliable and accurate they are( the polling companies that have a reputation to uphold).

[nikcers]

[silverhandorder]

I follow him I call bs. He tweets polls from no name companies during dry spells. You pushing bs.

He also tweets less now. So is that weighted?

[Zippyjuan]

"Just look at how we are doing in the polls!!" was great when he was leading during the Republican primaries. You don't flaunt polls when they show you trailing.

[enhanced_deficit]

Yea he used to talk about MSM polls at every speech, because he used to be No.1, no mention of polls in recent speeches because it does not suit him politically.

Same way, Hillary has stopped tweeting about supporting women victims of sexual harassment ever since Obama plane video came out.

[Jan2017]

As much as I'm not a Trump fan, the polls are total bull$#@!.

They create a narrative by polling mostly Democrats to show that Trump is down - then slowly they poll more Republicans to show a picture that is closer to reality, then they release some stupid bull$#@! like the Access Hollywood interview, or wait for a debate or a convention or something and then they do some more polls that lean more heavily Democrat to create a narrative that Trump is down and his campaign is ending.

Biggest pile of media horse manure since Ron Paul ran.

The machine can sure churn out alot of chit -
I recall polls just before Brexit were under representing public sentiment against a status quo/immigration themed referendum.

Yea he used to talk about MSM polls at every speech, because he used to be No.1, no mention of polls in recent speeches because it does not suit him politically.

Same way, Hillary has stopped tweeting about supporting women victims of sexual harassment ever since Obama plane video came out.

I really hated that about Trump - the bravado at every debate was bad imo

[enhanced_deficit]

The machine can sure churn out alot of chit -
I recall polls just before Brexit were under representing public sentiment against a status quo/immigration themed referendum.



I really hated that about Trump - the bravado at every debate was bad imo

It is execessive bravado... but he seems to use it cleverly to win support.

RASMUSSEN: HE'S BACK IN LEAD

White House Watch: No Sign of Allegations Fallout Yet

Friday, October 14, 2016

At the close of a week that began with him trailing by seven points, Donald Trump still holds a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in today’s White House Watch survey despite a flurry of news reports alleging a history of sexual harassment on his part.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...se_watch_oct14

[enhanced_deficit]

The polls are all now just as suspect as the corrupt media and political organizations that conduct them.

Forget the polls. Use your senses.

The ones that are the most accurate are taken a week before the vote. Right now it is whatever they want to set as a narrative. A week before the vote they have to get real if they want to show how reliable and accurate they are( the polling companies that have a reputation to uphold).

Good points.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politi...dential-polls/

Clinton leads Trump, two new polls show

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump nationally among likely voters -- but two new polls diverge on the size of her lead.

Clinton is 11 percentage points ahead of Trump, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Sunday.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, meanwhile, pegs her lead at 4 points.

In the NBC poll, Clinton has 48% support compared to 37% for Trump, 7% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2% for the Green Party's Jill Stein. In a two-way race, Clinton leads 51% to 41%.

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politi...dential-polls/

Big difference there.
So it's a he said/he said situation? Who should we trust, professional polling company Rasmussen or 'Iraq has WMD' reportting professionals at WSJ/NBC?


Friday, October 14, 2016
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...se_watch_oct14

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, there is a big difference. Rasmussen seems to be about the only one claiming Trump tied or ahead. Why?

Rasmussen polls (Gallop does even worse despite their reputation):
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...p-up-5-points/

But it's also true that Rasmussen polls are, well, something Trump might stand in front of. As early as 2010, Nate Silver—then of The New York Times—called them "biased and inaccurate." In that election, Rasmussen missed the final margin between candidates by an average of 5.8 points, and almost always leaned towards Republican candidates. In 2012, the firm overestimated Mitt Romney's strength in polls by an average of 4 points—the same margin Trump supposedly leads Clinton by now.

Accuracy of polls in the last presidential election with most accurate at the top of the list:

[IMG]https://static01.********/images/2012/11/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1-blog480.png[/IMG]
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...idential-race/

Rasmussen Reports uses an online panel along with the automated calls that it places. The firm’s poor results this year suggest that the technique will need to be refined. At least they have some game plan to deal with the new realities of polling. In contrast, polls that place random calls to landlines only, or that rely upon likely voter models that were developed decades ago, may be behind the times.

Perhaps it won’t be long before Google, not Gallup, is the most trusted name in polling.

[enhanced_deficit]

Yes, there is a big difference. Rasmussen seems to be about the only one claiming Trump tied or ahead. Why?

EM.
That is not true, Trump has just moved ahead of Hillary in LA Times tracking poll also:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/


Do your remember who pushed more bogus stories about Iraq WMDs, LA Times/Rasmussen or WSJ/NBC?

I would venture a guess that the latter has worse record.

[Zippyjuan]

EM.
That is not true, Trump has just moved ahead of Hillary in LA Times tracking poll also:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/


Do your remember who pushed more bogus stories about Iraq WMDs, LA Times/Rasmussen or WSJ/NBC?

I would venture a guess that the latter has worse record.

LA Times tracking poll admits that their methods (which look more at voter intensity than simply voter preferences) are biased towards Trump.

So that means a candidate with very enthusiastic supporters who say they are certain to vote may do better than one with wishy-washy backing?

Yes. Earlier this summer, Trump benefited from this method — he had more supporters than Hillary Clinton who were 100% certain of their vote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

[r3volution 3.0]

Do your remember who pushed more bogus stories about Iraq WMDs...

Trump On Cavuto, March 21, 2003: .

...it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re going to see after the war is over...The main thing is to get the war over with and just make it a tremendously successful campaign and it will be very interesting to see what kind of weapons they find.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/don...-the-iraq-war/

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump On Cavuto, March 21, 2003: .



http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/don...-the-iraq-war/

If that is true, he flip flopped very quickly. It is rare for a prominent US public figure to express care for Iraqi children so publicly in argument against Iraq war. He seems very anti-neocons in this article.
In contrast, SWC Hillary was still singing praises for Iraq war in 2003-2016.


Trump tells Bush: 'You're fired'
July 13, 2004 - 11:22AM

Donald Trump.
The billionaire host of NBC's The Apprentice has weighed in on the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, terming it a "brutal mistake" that would "make it very hard for Bush to get re-elected".

"Look, the war is a disaster. The war should not have been entered into," he told The Dallas Morning News while his fiancee, Melania Knauss, looked on.

"To lose all of those thousands and thousands of people, on our side and their side. I mean, you have Iraqi kids, not only our soldiers, walking around with no legs, no arms, no faces. All for no reason. It is a disgrace."
The Bush campaign declined to comment but noted that the president in a speech today had forcefully defended his decision to go to war.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...484339401.html

[enhanced_deficit]

Now there is a dangerous poll about Nov Polling getting rigged:

Poll: 41 percent of voters say election could be 'stolen' from Trump

Politico-6 hours ago
The new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll -- conducted among 1,999 registered voters Oct. 13 through Oct. 15..

[enhanced_deficit]

LA Times tracking poll admits that their methods (which look more at voter intensity than simply voter preferences) are biased towards Trump.



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

Do you believe WSJ/NBC/CBS etc are biased against Trump?

If yes, do you likewise questions their polls too?