St. Leo University (Florida): Hillary up 3-16 points

[IceSpear]

http://polls.saintleo.edu/clintons-numbers-slip-but-she-maintains-frontrunner-position/

Clinton 47
Bush 44

Clinton 50
Rubio 42

Clinton 51
Christie 37

Clinton 52
Paul 38

Clinton 51
Walker 35

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Paul, Christie, and Walker will get WAY more than that in FL. JUNK POLL!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Paul, Christie, and Walker will get WAY more than that in FL. JUNK POLL!

I agree absolutely. IceSpear is insisting that Gravis is junk because of Hillary only leading slightly in their polls, yet he accepts this poll because Hilldawg is leading by a completely unrealistic margin. Oh, come on...

Edit: I mean, this poll is worse than Mason-Dixon or Gravis. It is complete junk. Seriously. Why don't they release the complete numbers (breakdown by age, by race...)? Also, their small sample.

It's probably like rasmussen where you have to be a subscriber to see crosstabs.

[IceSpear]

Paul, Christie, and Walker will get WAY more than that in FL. JUNK POLL!

I agree absolutely. IceSpear is insisting that Gravis is junk because of Hillary only leading slightly in their polls, yet he accepts this poll because Hilldawg is leading by a completely unrealistic margin. Oh, come on...

Hold your horses for a second here. Gravis was being blindly accepted by many of you a few days ago. By that standard, this poll should be blindly accepted as well.

Moving on, I insist Gravis is junk because of their track record, not their results. Ayotte only being up 2 on Hassan was arguably good news for the Dems, but I dismissed it regardless. Same for other junky D-friendly polls they let out during the 2014 cycle. This pollster has a fairly thin track record, so the jury is still out on them. That puts them far higher up on the chain than Gravis which is objectively terrible.

I don't believe single polls (particularly ones with little, no, or a bad track record.) I look at the totality of the evidence. From that, this poll does seems a bit inflated. Nowhere did I call it the gold standard (in fact, I made no comments whatsoever upon posting this.) In the other thread, I said the self proclaimed experts who claimed emailgate would destroy Hillary were dead wrong. The totality of the evidence bears that out, not just from this poll, but many others.

[Xing]

Obviously Hillary won't win Florida by double digits, but if I were a Republican, I'd be at least a bit worried that not a single poll her shown her behind anyone in Florida. I know, I know, that could change, but still, Florida is crucial for a Republican victory.

[IceSpear]

Paul, Christie, and Walker will get WAY more than that in FL. JUNK POLL!

I agree absolutely. IceSpear is insisting that Gravis is junk because of Hillary only leading slightly in their polls, yet he accepts this poll because Hilldawg is leading by a completely unrealistic margin. Oh, come on...

Hold your horses for a second here. Gravis was being blindly accepted by many of you a few days ago. By that standard, this poll should be blindly accepted as well.

Moving on, I insist Gravis is junk because of their track record, not their results. Ayotte only being up 2 on Hassan was arguably good news for the Dems, but I dismissed it regardless. Same for other junky D-friendly polls they let out during the 2014 cycle. This pollster has a fairly thin track record, so the jury is still out on them. That puts them far higher up on the chain than Gravis which is objectively terrible.

I don't believe single polls (particularly ones with little, no, or a bad track record.) I look at the totality of the evidence. From that, this poll does seems a bit inflated. Nowhere did I call it the gold standard (in fact, I made no comments whatsoever upon posting this.) In the other thread, I said the self proclaimed experts who claimed emailgate would destroy Hillary were dead wrong. The totality of the evidence bears that out, not just from this poll, but many others.

Now, I agree with you on this E-Mailgate had literally NO effect, it probably even helped Hillary. And regarding this poll: The numbers for Bush seem to be okay, but the rest is really junk. Hillary leading Walker by 16 points in a battleground state that was decided by 1 point in 2012? Did they conduct this poll in Palm Beach County?
And I also consider Mason-Dixon polls or some Gravis/Marist polls to be junk. Now, this pollster has almost NO track record and therefore I consider it to be even worse than Mason-Dixon and Gravis. The PPP Florida poll was much more realistic.

Actually it does seem like emailgate had a small negative effect if you look at the trends, though obviously nothing even close to the apocolyptic scenarios many people were predicting.

Interestingly, this and the PPP poll actually agree on Hillary vs. Jeb, it's everywhere else that they disagree. I do agree the PPP numbers look more realistic (except perhaps against Rubio, considering no other pollster has ever shown him outperforming Jeb.)