Elections Clinton vs Trump Polls thread (Clinton's Bounce Larger than Trump's)

[Madmick]

Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Quinnipiac University Poll: Clinton and Trump run neck-and-neck

 

[Lead]

FiveThirtyEight has begun their General Eleciton forecasting. They have it 80/20 Clinton right now. It's an ongoing thing until Nov 8th to keep an eye on. Same with RCP's map

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[Michaelangelo]

forget these 2

its time for a change

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Not quite.

Let's say Hillary gets the Dem. nod, not Bernie. Where do all the Berniepeople go? There's three options, as far as I can see:

1. They vote Trump.
2. They vote Hillary.
3. They stay home.

Nobody knows what that breakdown will be until this is all done with. Trump could pull solid amounts of Bernie fans, though.

There's also a good chance that there are people who are ashamed to openly admit that they're voting Trump, but when the curtain closes in the voting booth, they'll pick Trump.

All of this is not to mention independents and other people who are not registered R's or D's.

Nice + 1

I feel like there is an elite. The presidential election is a prop and novelty venture rather than something that is in actuality in motion. The elites have decided. The good news is that it's the beginning of consciousness flowering. Mainstream media is a hack job. People are going to steer clear but there are still far too many sheep and not nearly enough free thinkers. The fact that people are opening their eyes is the beginning of change.

 

[Space]

Nice + 1

I feel like there is an elite. The presidential election is a prop and novelty venture rather than something that is in actuality in motion. The elites have decided. The good news is that it's the beginning of consciousness flowering. Mainstream media is a hack job. People are going to steer clear but there are still far too many sheep and not nearly enough free thinkers. The fact that people are opening their eyes is the beginning of change.

Yep; just look at the past few days. Trump once again attacked free trade, globalism, and now even the Chamber of Commerce.

No other candidate, besides Bernie, would think to do this. It would be political suicide, and yet Trump is chugging along, and his poll numbers are slowly going up. Brexit was just a taste of things to come in the world.

 

[shamaniac]

Don't trust it

 

[Cmart]

Trump takes his first lead in the polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

More to come.

 

[Madmick]

Trump takes his first lead in the polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

More to come.

That's not his first lead, and that's also the Rasmussen. It becoming difficult not to suspect some sort of manipulation when the CNN polls have Hillary at +12 and the Rasmussen polls have Trump at +4 within a few weeks of each other. It would seem that whatever game is being played with the population surveys is being played to opposite sides between these two.

*Edit* Nvm, I take it that you mean in national GE H2H polls with Clinton.

 

[Bilbo Gaggins]

I flipped on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC this morning, the last primary day, and it is wall to wall coverage of Trump.

Clinton is being drown out by the media's obsession of Donald Trump.

As long as Trump is being given a bully pulpit that seems louder than the presidents, I don't know how people think these numbers are going to move much with this fact in place.

The media isn't telling people anything about trump that people don't know.

Now when trump starts using that bully pulpit to tell people things about Clinton that most people don't know, you will see these numbers move, but not the way the status quo'ers want.

the new media approach is to throw Trump in your face so much you end up hating it, sort of like how radio stations treated the classic "MMm. Bop!" by Hanson...

 

[Cmart]

That's not his first lead, and that's also the Rasmussen. It becoming difficult not to suspect some sort of manipulation when the CNN polls have Hillary at +12 and the Rasmussen polls have Trump at +4 within a few weeks of each other. It would seem that whatever game is being played with the population surveys is being played to opposite sides between these two.

*Edit* Nvm, I take it that you mean in national GE H2H polls with Clinton.

I definitely like to refer to an aggregation of the poll numbers like RealClearPolitics does to average out the biases. That said, I still think it's notable that Trump topped a poll at this time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's not his first lead, and that's also the Rasmussen. It becoming difficult not to suspect some sort of manipulation when the CNN polls have Hillary at +12 and the Rasmussen polls have Trump at +4 within a few weeks of each other.

Jesus, this kind of post is depressing (people have such a hard time understanding probability and are so quick to jump to CTs). If Clinton is really up 7%, in a 600-person, representative sample, the expected range of polling results is Clinton +15% to Trump +1% (a bigger sample would have a tighter range, and a smaller one would have a wider range).

The rule of thumb for tight races is that 1/sq. rt. of the number is the 95% CI.

 

[Madmick]

Jesus, this kind of post is depressing (how people have such a hard time understanding probability and are so quick to jump to CTs). If Clinton is really up 7%, in a 600-person, representative sample, the expected range of polling results is Clinton +15% to Trump +1% (a bigger sample would have a tighter range, and a smaller one would have a wider range).

I was describing a 15 point flip, but that's because I was conflating the unfavorability polls with the GE polls (which I didn't fix after realizing this with the edit). You clearly failed to spot the simple discrepancy when you pointed to the +7pt margin (I presume for the most recent CNN poll).

I don't require an explanation of standard deviation. What would be more interesting, if you really wanted to dispel such a notion mathematically, decisively, would be to track the history of Rasmussen vs. CNN polling (either for general elections or favorability ratings) and establish whether-- accounting for varying margins of error-- if there is no statistical trend one way or the other that deviates beyond the expected threshold.

Also, even a mere few weeks often separate such significant incidents as yet another mass murder by terrorists abroad. My instinct would be to presume this might be more likely to describe a reversal than polling body differences.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

That's not his first lead, and that's also the Rasmussen. It becoming difficult not to suspect some sort of manipulation when the CNN polls have Hillary at +12 and the Rasmussen polls have Trump at +4 within a few weeks of each other. It would seem that whatever game is being played with the population surveys is being played to opposite sides between these two.

*Edit* Nvm, I take it that you mean in national GE H2H polls with Clinton.

Why would anybody trust CNN aka the Clinton News Network? I've seen hour long segments where a large panel endlessly smear Donald Trump.

Also, I do not find it difficult to believe Trump has jumped in the polls when you consider how disgusting the liberal media is regarding its coverage of Brexit. People don't appreciate constantly being called hateful, racist xenophobes. My guess is that a lot of people on the fence are watching the left act like spoiled children and as a result, they are turning to Trump out of frustration and disgust.

This interview alone probably drove thousands to support Donald Trump:

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Yep; just look at the past few days. Trump once again attacked free trade, globalism, and now even the Chamber of Commerce.

No other candidate, besides Bernie, would think to do this. It would be political suicide, and yet Trump is chugging along, and his poll numbers are slowly going up. Brexit was just a taste of things to come in the world.

+ 1

Free thinking is incredible and an opportunity to see flowering of consciousness without fear. The problem for the average voter is that, you need to have financial independence. Why? Because some piece if shit like the media or mob mentality accuses you of racism.

First and foremost, public health and safety must be priority #1. No exception. You can see a culture of victim hood in society prevalent especially in feminism and #blm. You have sheep that bandwagon hop. Common here with mma fighters. Again we are seeing a shift in awareness.

Women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Helen Smith phd writer of men on strike are speaking out against female victim hood culture. You have black males coming out and denouncing #blm channels like 'domeblackguy' and others. This is common sense. If I hate rape naturally I hate FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS. If I hate murder I would hate black on black crime. In either feminism or #blm you don't see these issues addressed. Instead victim hood is the narrative. Others in opposition are an example of consciousness flowering.

Sadly, there are still not enough free thinkers. If everyone has independence from employment they can speak out freely. As long as we are on the hamster wheel it makes it very difficult.

The elites have decided. I don't look at the pool numbers as its all smoke and mirrors. As long as their is a culture of victim, a population of sheep, zombies just durring around, change can't happen. The good news is the process has begun. Like that scene in the matrix, the general population will fight tooth and nail even kill to protect the system that enslaves everyone.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Interesting that Nate Silver is giving Trump basically no chance.
Between his call and the polls all summer, we'll get a pretty clear picture of how things will pan out.

 

[TheStruggle]

Interesting that Nate Silver is giving Trump basically no chance.
Between his call and the polls all summer, we'll get a pretty clear picture of how things will pan out.

If Nate says Trump will lose, Trump will win by DD

 

[waiguoren]

Interesting that Nate Silver is giving Trump basically no chance.
Between his call and the polls all summer, we'll get a pretty clear picture of how things will pan out.

You mean the guy who gave Trump a 2% chance of getting the Republican nomination?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was describing a 15 point flip, but that's because I was conflating the unfavorability polls with the GE polls (which I didn't fix after realizing this with the edit). You clearly failed to spot the simple discrepancy when you pointed to the +7pt margin (I presume for the most recent CNN poll).

Read more closely. I wasn't pointing to any particular poll. I was making a general point. If, hypothetically, Clinton's actual margin is +7%, it wouldn't be unusual (or indicative of a polling conspiracy) to see anything from Clinton +15% to Trump +1%. That was in response to you jumping to that conclusion on the basis of a minor difference in two polls.

I don't require an explanation of standard deviation.

Your post indicates otherwise.

What would be more interesting, if you really wanted to dispel such a notion mathematically, decisively, would be to track the history of Rasmussen vs. CNN polling (either for general elections or favorability ratings) and establish whether-- accounting for varying margins of error-- if there is no statistical trend one way or the other that deviates beyond the expected threshold.

Again (sigh), you misunderstood my point. The fact that polling group A and polling group B have the differences in results that you outlined doesn't say anything at all about the existence of a polling conspiracy. The fact that you think it does is another example of the kind of flawed thinking that is too common here. The kind of thing that in another era would lead to you to think that a dead rooster on your lawn is a sign of a coming invasion.

Also, even a mere few weeks often separate such significant incidents as yet another mass murder by terrorists abroad. My instinct would be to presume this might be more likely to describe a reversal than polling body differences.

Well, good luck with that. My instinct is to presume that an individual layperson's analysis of an extremely difficult and complex subject like how world events will cause some people to change their minds about who they'll vote for in November is completely worthless (and I wouldn't put much stock in expert analysis either). Betting odds and polling analysts are the best guides.

http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

Since both candidates are known to have a chance (a +260 underdog winning wouldn't be an Earth-shattering event) and humans generally have a great ability to interpret events as confirming their pre-existing biases, I don't expect anyone will learn anything here.

An interesting realization I had when discussing the state of the race with Judo was that if someone genuinely believes that polling is nearly irrelevant--particularly at this point in the race, but it applies broadly--no particular outcome could ever be seen as evidence that they're wrong! That works both for "polling skeptics" and "polling CTers" (the difference is just--"polls don't tell you anything" vs. "polls are not reported accurately"). If you look at results as a whole, that's a different story (you'll be forced to the conclusion that polling works), but people don't do that.

Interesting that Nate Silver is giving Trump basically no chance.
Between his call and the polls all summer, we'll get a pretty clear picture of how things will pan out.

Silver is giving Trump a 20% chance. That's way better than "basically no chance."

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Interesting that Nate Silver is giving Trump basically no chance.
Between his call and the polls all summer, we'll get a pretty clear picture of how things will pan out.

When was the last time Nate Silver was wrong about a presidential election?

I know he was dead on about the last two.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

You mean the guy who gave Trump a 2% chance of getting the Republican nomination?

Fucking multiquote doesn't do shit on a cell.
Anyways, he's got a damned good track record, and yes that's the Silver.
The GOP doesn't want Trump, it shouldn't be surprising that pundits are giving him such slim chances.