NYT/CBS-National: Clinton +6

[IceSpear]

Also how is Clinton only up 6 if she is only losing the white vote by 12 points. If that result actually happens in the election, she wins by 12-13 points......

That depends heavily on what assumptions you make about turnout and margins of the groups that aren't provided in the crosstabs.

If the margins of whites and blacks are the same as in this poll, and if you assume whites drop to 70% and Hispanics rise to 12%, with turnout and margins for all other groups remaining identical to 2012, it would be:

Whites (70%): 56-44 Trump
Blacks (13%): 92-8 Clinton
Hispanics (12%): 72-28 Clinton
Asian (3%): 74-26 Clinton
Other (2%): 60-40 Clinton

That gives a 55-45 election. But that's a lot of assumptions. If the election defies the hype and white turnout stays stagnant, it's 54-46. If black turnout drops a point, it's down to 53-47.

[Sbane]

Also how is Clinton only up 6 if she is only losing the white vote by 12 points. If that result actually happens in the election, she wins by 12-13 points......

That depends heavily on what assumptions you make about turnout and margins of the groups that aren't provided in the crosstabs.

If the margins of whites and blacks are the same as in this poll, and if you assume whites drop to 70% and Hispanics rise to 12%, with turnout and margins for all other groups remaining identical to 2012, it would be:

Whites (70%): 56-44 Trump
Blacks (13%): 92-8 Clinton
Hispanics (12%): 72-28 Clinton
Asian (3%): 74-26 Clinton
Other (2%): 60-40 Clinton

That gives a 55-45 election. But that's a lot of assumptions. If the election defies the hype and white turnout stays stagnant, it's 54-46. If black turnout drops a point, it's down to 53-47.

True. I would assume the Hispanic and Asian vote will swing even more towards Hillary than 2012 but that is not supported by the data as of now.

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

NYT - Anti-Clinton AND Anti-TRUMP organization (though they seem to consider Clinton to be the lesser of two evils)
CBS - Did polls with yougov that had an anti-Clinton house effect in most states

So the balance is ok. Definitely better than Rasmussen and Fox (I know fox uses the combination of a D pollster and an R pollster, but their results frequently suggest that the R pollster has more power in terms of the specifics of conducting the poll.)

[Gass3268]

Saw this in a tweet:

May 2008, NYT/CBS poll: 60% of Clinton backers say they'd vote Obama

May 2016, NYT/CBS poll: 72% of Sanders backers say they'd vote Clinton

[Holmes]

Saw this in a tweet:

May 2008, NYT/CBS poll: 60% of Clinton backers say they'd vote Obama

May 2016, NYT/CBS poll: 72% of Sanders backers say they'd vote Clinton

It's a positive sign.

[BlueSwan]

Clinton by default probably gets at least 85% of the black vote and with Obama likely campaigning rigorously for her, that should take her well above 90%

[RJEvans]

Interesting thing to note, almost all of Clinton's weaknesses as compared to Sanders' matchups come from young voters.

Looking at this poll and the Fox News poll both Clinton and Sanders are almost identical when it comes to voters over the age of 45. But Sanders performs far better than Clinton with voters under 45.

His behavior after June 7 and a strong endorsement is going to be key to a sustainable Clinton lead.

[KingSweden]

Interesting thing to note, almost all of Clinton's weaknesses as compared to Sanders' matchups come from young voters.

Looking at this poll and the Fox News poll both Clinton and Sanders are almost identical when it comes to voters over the age of 45. But Sanders performs far better than Clinton with voters under 45.

His behavior after June 7 and a strong endorsement is going to be key to a sustainable Clinton lead.

On a positive note, though, voters above 45 are a more reliable voting bloc.

[Seriously?]

Favorability:
Clinton: 31-52 (-21)
Trump: 26-55 (-29)

Her numbers will improve.

No. They won't. Republicans uniformly hate Hillary!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Favorability:
Clinton: 31-52 (-21)
Trump: 26-55 (-29)

Her numbers will improve.

No. They won't. Republicans uniformly hate Hillary!

No shiite Sherlock.

Anyway, Alan Abramowitz made an interesting observation.
Among the GE polls between Clinton and TRUMP, Fox and Rasmussen found TRUMP ahead or tied 44% of the time.
Among the GE polls between Clinton and TRUMP done by all the other polling outfits they found TRUMP ahead or tied 7% of the time.

Also, if you toss out the Fox and Rasmussen polls from the pollster aggregate then her lead jumps from 2.7 to 7.7 points.

[Angrie]

Also, if you toss out the Fox and Rasmussen polls from the pollster aggregate then her lead jumps from 2.7 to 7.7 points.

So you're telling me that if you selectively ignore parts of the data, you can arrive at whatever result you want to arrive at. Good to know.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also, if you toss out the Fox and Rasmussen polls from the pollster aggregate then her lead jumps from 2.7 to 7.7 points.

So you're telling me that if you selectively ignore parts of the data, you can arrive at whatever result you want to arrive at. Good to know.

Yeah, if you ignore pollsters who engage in propaganda, not polling, that's what happens.

[Angrie]

Yeah, if you ignore pollsters who engage in propaganda, not polling, that's what happens.

Sometimes what seems to be "propaganda" can turn out to be more accurate than what seems like "good polling." That's what happened in 2010 and 2014, IIRC. True, those were midterm years and this is a presidential year... but we have already seen plenty of major polling goofs in the primaries.

I agree that it is more likely that the other pollsters are right, but there is nonetheless a non-negligible chance that they are wrong and Fox/Rasmussen are right. To pretend otherwise is to dabble in dangerous delusion...

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, if you ignore pollsters who engage in propaganda, not polling, that's what happens.

Sometimes what seems to be "propaganda" can turn out to be more accurate than what seems like "good polling." That's what happened in 2010 and 2014, IIRC. True, those were midterm years and this is a presidential year... but we have already seen plenty of major polling goofs in the primaries.

I agree that it is more likely that the other pollsters are right, but there is nonetheless a non-negligible chance that they are wrong and Fox/Rasmussen are right. To pretend otherwise is to dabble in dangerous delusion...

I think we have enough evidence, especially from Rasmussen, to safely ignore them.
There is a reason why their output has fallen dramatically after 2012.
   

[Ljube]

Rasmussen is a poll of likely voters.
This is a poll of registered voters.

[Ebsy]

Rasmussen is a poll of likely voters.
This is a poll of registered voters.

Pollsters don't typically employ likely voter screens until after the convention, but the fact that Rassy is doing it now makes it all the more hilarious. Apparently Clinton can't even get 50% of nonwhite "likely" voters with Rassy's screen.