Gravis: Clinton +7 in MI, +2 in CO
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2024, 04:35:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  Gravis: Clinton +7 in MI, +2 in CO		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Gravis: Clinton +7 in MI, +2 in CO  (Read 962 times)
HillOfANight
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,459
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 14, 2016, 08:39:41 AM »
« edited: July 14, 2016, 08:48:58 AM by HillOfANight »
https://twitter.com/GravisMarketing/status/753564716308500480
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-colorado-polling-2/
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-michigan-polling/
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/753580805667053568

Michigan

Clinton 48
Trump 41

Clinton 37
Trump 34
Other 26
Johnson 2
Stein 1

Colorado

Clinton 43
Trump 41

Clinton 39
Trump 38
Johnson 9
Stein 4
Logged
mds32
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,090
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2016, 09:12:06 AM »
Colorado is believable. I am not certain on Michigan
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2016, 09:13:04 AM »
Reasonable poll from Gravis given the state of the race. MI and CO numbers seem about right, for what is an Even-Clinton +3 race right now.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2016, 09:27:20 AM »
Except Colorado doesn't look reasonable, because we just had 3 polls in Colorado that were Clinton +7, +10, +13.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2016, 09:28:29 AM »
lol Gravis. They just can't poll Colorado. Or anything really. Sad!
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,684
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2016, 09:29:46 AM »
Quote from: Gass3268 on July 14, 2016, 09:27:20 AM
Except Colorado doesn't look reasonable, because we just had 3 polls in Colorado that were Clinton +7, +10, +13.

Agreed. CO is likely Dem. The Trumpster wouldn't take CO, even if he wins the election.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2016, 09:32:21 AM »
Also why the hell in Michigan do they give "other" as a choice when they also ask about Johnson/Stein?
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2016, 09:35:56 AM »
Quote from: Gass3268 on July 14, 2016, 09:32:21 AM
Also why the hell in Michigan do they give "other" as a choice when they also ask about Johnson/Stein?
Because it's Gravis. While they may be terrible, they are not as bad as they used to be.
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,974


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2016, 09:46:07 AM »
Quote from: Gass3268 on July 14, 2016, 09:32:21 AM
Also why the hell in Michigan do they give "other" as a choice when they also ask about Johnson/Stein?

Write-in.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2016, 11:13:12 AM »
/Gravis

These numbers aren't that implausible, though it would mean every other recent poll in CO is wrong.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,283
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2016, 04:09:35 PM »
Clinton +2 in CO is plausible if Clinton is up 1-4 nationally.
Logged
swf541
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,916


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2016, 04:12:30 PM »
Quote from: Seriously? on July 14, 2016, 09:35:56 AM
Quote from: Gass3268 on July 14, 2016, 09:32:21 AM
Also why the hell in Michigan do they give "other" as a choice when they also ask about Johnson/Stein?
Because it's Gravis. While they may be terrible, they are not as bad as they used to be.

True, Gravis actually seems to not be too horrid at times this season
Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2016, 04:30:48 PM »
Quote from: Gass3268 on July 14, 2016, 09:32:21 AM
Also why the hell in Michigan do they give "other" as a choice when they also ask about Johnson/Stein?

can't snub the US Taxpayers (Darrell Castle) and Natural Law (somebody) candidates.
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2016, 06:34:41 PM »
Michigan is probably a couple of points favorable to Trump. Colorado is way off considering the fact that three other more reputable pollsters (Fox's polling unit leans R but isn't ideologically rigid like the network) have a big lead for Clinton
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2016, 11:40:41 PM »
Michigan polling is always terrible.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.