Gallup Trump & Clinton favorability numbers megathread

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ouch! Those numbers looks terrible for Trump

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton is back again to her [almost] all-time low.

Clinton is at 38/56. Her all-time low 37/58
Trump is at 33/61. His all-time high 37/58; the same as Clinton's all-time low

What does it mean? Yeah, red hacks who laughed at Seriously? threads ("who cares", "but Trump") are not laughing anymore now, are they? @ Nigele Farage
Those little and big scandals did hurt. They did create "Clinton is corrupt" narrative

On other hand, Trump can not break 33%. "Beeing nice" helped just marginally (Trump's tweet about Dwyane 28 will probably impact?)
Hopefully, he won't need it. He might bring her down instead. Easier [?] and much more fun

Note, that this is among "National Adults" what Hillary should, at least in theory, benefit from. If they asked RV/LV, it would probably be tie.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Note, that this is among "National Adults" what Hillary should, at least in theory, benefit from. If they asked RV/LV, it would probably be tie.

I'm probably right. It is the case in latest ABC poll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Today's numbers for August 24-30: Trump 33-61 (-28), Clinton 39-55 (-16).

Interestingly enough, Trump has actually had 33% for the last 9 polls in a row.

10 today!
Hillary back to 38/56

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But why is Clinton doing so much worse now than a week or two ago. I don't really see what could have happened to change the race like that. Unless it is just her convention bounce finally fading away. Seems strange...

The emails were once again in the news. Everytime they pop up, she falls in the polls ...

And that's not a coincidence. The media wants a horse race. Whenever she starts to pull too far ahead, they spam more about the emails. It's like clockwork at this point.

The timing does seem to fit, although now it looks like the "scandal of the week" is more about a few thousand dollars of taxpayer money that would barely pay for a Clinton Foundation staffer for a month...

But....but...but.... but, the "Liberal Media" loves Clinton and is trying to stack the race for her....  isn't that the narrative that Trump apologists have been hammering for the past 7-8 months?

Do you mean that media have being nicer towards Trump?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But why is Clinton doing so much worse now than a week or two ago. I don't really see what could have happened to change the race like that. Unless it is just her convention bounce finally fading away. Seems strange...

The emails were once again in the news. Everytime they pop up, she falls in the polls ...

And that's not a coincidence. The media wants a horse race. Whenever she starts to pull too far ahead, they spam more about the emails. It's like clockwork at this point.

The timing does seem to fit, although now it looks like the "scandal of the week" is more about a few thousand dollars of taxpayer money that would barely pay for a Clinton Foundation staffer for a month...

But....but...but.... but, the "Liberal Media" loves Clinton and is trying to stack the race for her....  isn't that the narrative that Trump apologists have been hammering for the past 7-8 months?

Do you mean that media have being nicer towards Trump?

During the primaries absolutely 100%, not only in terms of total coverage that allowed the Trump campaign to win the primaries with the equivalent of over $1 Billion of free advertising, but also relatively little coverage of his actual policy plans, that are heavy on rhetoric and light on substance.

Arguably, Hillary had the worst media coverage of any candidate during the primary season, although one could make a case that MSNBC had a strong Hillary bias during the primaries, namely from several core anchors, as well as surrogates, etc...

Post-Primary/Pre-convention, Trump continued to receive significantly more media coverage than Clinton, although there was greater media scrutiny of Trump's actual policy positions than there had been during the primaries, and many media stories involving Clinton had more to do with how could she consolidate the Democratic Party base, of whom 46% supported Bernie in a two person primary battle.

Post-convention- Media starts to focus more heavily on Trump controversies (Khan, etc...) that were essentially self-inflicted wounds, and goes full-tilt on the Clinton "email controversies" and now "Clinton foundation controversies" that are mostly manufactured BS without any foundation in fact, other than in a worst-case scenario perhaps a lapse in judgement. Meanwhile the narrative in increasingly shifting into a typical "horse-race interpretation", which instead of talking about the actual policy implications of both candidates platforms, are feeding into the media spectacle, which courtesy of Mr Trump, of the 2016 General Election which is increasingly looking like an utterly sick joke.

Amount of coverage, yes. But it was Trump who "forced" media by not being politically correct.

That media didn't cover his controversies under primaries? We have totally differnet perception.

But anyway. Even among Clinton's supporters 19% thinks that the media is biased towards Hillary vs 16% towards Trump. I mean, c'mon

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Good news, everyone!

It is probably noise, but great one!

After having 33/62 10 days in row, Trump's got now 34(+1)/61. It is his best result in last 30 days.

Meanwhile Hillary's got now 38/57(+1), her second worst result ever

Note, that they poll All Adults. In latest ABC poll there is a 5-6% difference towards Trump between Adults and RV. That means that Hillary would likely be more disliked than Trump among RV in Gallup


Gallup
ABC

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Note, that they poll All Adults. In latest ABC poll there is a 5-6% difference towards Trump between Adults and RV. That means that Hillary would likely be more disliked than Trump among RV in Gallup

This may or may not be true.  Mixing data from different polls is not a sound practice.

I know, but it is likely to be true, since All Adults includes for instance many non-USA-born Latinos with very low registration; those are ext remally negative towards Trump.

At least it is a tie.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

More evidence are comming!

Latest  IBD/TIPP Poll
http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/POSTING_Tables_Sep2016_Horserace_Registered_And-_Likely-Voters.pdf

Tie among RV/LV
Both have 40/59.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Still boggles the mind anybody would trust Trump to do anything.

Welcome to reality!

[Erich Maria Remarque]

From latest CNN, September 1-4

Among 886 RV, compared to July 29-31:
Trump 42(+7)/56(-5)
Clinton 41(-2)/57(+3)

Trump +1 (+9 compared to July 29-31)


Among 786 LV, first time:
Trump 45/54
Clinton 42/56

Trump +3

Should we have general favourability thread?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Seems like it have stabilized for now.

Trump   34/62
Clinton  38/57

Just 4% difference among All Adults

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Sept 3-10, 2016

Clinton have stabilized on 38/57.
Trump got 35/60, his highest since RNC.

Just 3% difference among All Adults

There is a Trump'ish bump at September 10. I wounder if it has something to do with Deplorables

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Something did clearly happen Sep 10. And it might lag a little

Sep 5-12:

Trump  36/59 (his next best result ever)
Clinton 38/57 (her next worst result ever)


Among National Adults

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx

[Erich Maria Remarque]

No wonder why LittleBigwhatever hasnt been updating this thread.

No wonder you hasn't been posting while I updated it

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton has seen a bump, Trump a decline

We should see some polling returning Hillary to a clear lead soon because Gallup pretty much has the trend of the election perfect with their favorable ratings

Lol, no. According to them last week was pretty much stable. You have to look at the trends, not at the single days

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm basically saying that Gallup is the best leading indicator of all the polls that follow (national and state)

Evidence?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Look at the Gallup favorables graph and transpose it onto either the RCP average or Pollster and you'll see the leading indicator from Gallup

Lol, of course, they are correlated, but you said it is the best indicator. Look at LA Times and 538/RCP average, and you'll see it is a good indicator as well. All the polls are correlated — surprice, surprice! But all the polls have noice as well.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Look at the Gallup favorables graph and transpose it onto either the RCP average or Pollster and you'll see the leading indicator from Gallup

Lol, of course, they are correlated, but you said it is the best indicator. Look at LA Times and 538/RCP average, and you'll see it is a good indicator as well. All the polls are correlated — surprice, surprice! But all the polls have noice as well.

So a trend over 2/3 days which point towards Clinton? While Reuters (junky as it is on its own) corroborates? That's noise? ok then whatever you say

Not me, Nate
It might be noise.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Look at the Gallup favorables graph and transpose it onto either the RCP average or Pollster and you'll see the leading indicator from Gallup

Lol, of course, they are correlated, but you said it is the best indicator. Look at LA Times and 538/RCP average, and you'll see it is a good indicator as well. All the polls are correlated — surprice, surprice! But all the polls have noice as well.

LA Times pollsters admitted it had a Republican bias, and they use the same pre-selected sub-sample, which as others have pointed out, isn't necessarily demographically representative of the electorate.

I will say it slowly. Treeeeeends. We are talking about treeeeeends. Gallup treeeeeends vs LA Times treeeeends.
Just check who is doing better vs average on RCP/Upshot/538 etc.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Also, Gallup's sample sizes are 5 times that.

Didn't know that. There is nothing about sample size on their page.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

BUT MUH DATA POINTS

Lol, I agree

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Also, Gallup's sample sizes are 5 times that.

Didn't know that. There is nothing about sample size on their page.

Here you go:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/faqs.aspx#!mn-us

I see, but the margin of error is still pretty big anyway. That's why one should look at average over few polls. If the trend is real, it will be revealed by all the polls eventually

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Looks like getting sick might have actually helped Clinton's favorables.

Counterintuitively, but so far the limited evidence may suggest that...

Lol, no. Even if trend is real, there is no evidence at all that it was her illness.

As I said in some other thread. I'm more happy about slow, but steady growth, then large bump caused by news. Slow growth usually sticks, while news go away. We need one-two week of polling before we know for sure.