Talk Elections

Article. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)

Trump - 46%
Clinton - 44%

Clinton - 37%
Trump - 35%
Romney - 22%

Favorables:

Clinton 41/57
Trump 40/57

I still think Trump is down about 5 right now, but this race is admittedly tightening.

So the Fox Poll wasn't an outlier after all.  Interesting.  I'm not worried yet, though.

Rated A- by 538. Boom!

This is interesting.     The Hillary hacks on here were talking about this election being 1964 lol

It might still be a 1964-esque landslide.  We have 5 and a half long months until election day.

Are you really that anti-Clinton that you're cheering on Trump?

I'm not even a hillary fan and god damn is jfern one putrid poster.

America is going to be made great again, We are just helpless bystanders

Trump is getting 76 PERCENT of working class white males according to this poll, hillary gets 14%.

!!!!!

There are Trump supporters here that, while I may disagree with their preferences, I can respect their choice. Democrats (or progressives/liberals or whatever) that root for Trump purely out of a hatred for Clinton are taking recklessness to a whole new level.

Whats the lowest % of male vote vote you win and still win the election?


Hillary is getting crushed among men.

Setting aside the topline of the poll, which is what it is (my instinct is to say a favorable outlier for Trump, but maybe he really does have a narrow lead at the moment; who knows), some interesting pieces of data inside:

Trump is getting 85% of the Republicans surveyed in this poll. Historically high total.

In spite of this, and in spite of voters' documented tendency to claim to have supported the winner after the fact, only 33% of those Republicans claim they wanted to see Trump win the nomination. 7% are unsure, and 60% would've preferred another candidate. (Specific candidates were named, though not in head-to-heads; named candidates usually perform worse than Generic). Goes to show what a travesty the Republican primaries were. (On another note, this poll's respondents claim to have voted for Obama against Romney 54-42, showing the existence of a bias towards the winner).

On the question of whether Trump reflects the values of the Republican Party (asked of Republicans), there is an even split, 46/46. Represents drastic improvement from last time the question was asked, in July 2015, when Republicans said no, 29/56, but it's still a historically low total for a nominee. 60% of the party want someone else, and fully half feel he doesn't represent them. (Hillary Clinton is Trump's saving grace. A skilled Democrat could've had half the Republican Party flee in terror).

53% of Trump supporters say they are merely opposing Clinton as opposed to actively supporting Trump. This is an incredibly high number in comparison to previous races, but it's pretty similar to Clinton's own totals (48% of her voters are merely opposing Trump). In a negative campaign, which both candidates have said they intend to wage, both of those numbers should rise.

44% of registered voters want a third party. 22% of those would support Romney. Really hope Romney comes around soon to realizing Johnson is his only option and campaigns for him aggressively.

Democrats are 88% confident their party will ultimately coalesce. Republicans are 78% confident their party will coalesce. Probably shows the core BernieOrBust and NeverTrump totals -- 12% and 22% of the parties, respectively. The difference is Bernie will probably campaign for Hillary, whereas NeverTrump politicians will endorse him either tepidly or not at all. I expect the 22% to be much firmer than the 12%.

The Democratic Party is viewed positively, 48/44. The Republican Party is viewed negatively, 36/56. About half of respondents don't care who congressional candidates support presidentially; endorsing Trump seems to hurt more than endorsing Hillary, but then no congressional candidates are running for a national audience.

Lots to pick apart in issues, but very odd in a poll that's one of the most favorable ones to Trump released, at least in the toplines, saying Clinton is more trusted on immigration issues. Very odd.

"Trade with other countries" is declared to cost U.S. jobs, 33/53. Other polling has shown "free trade" getting consistent majorities in favor. People have no idea what they're talking about.

Well at least if Trump becomes president Dems will probably have an amazing midterm in 2018 and gain control of state legislatures before congressional lines are drawn again.

This sample is also among an Obama +12 electorate, Clinton might seriously blow this

Maybe, but there also tends to be a "bandwagoning effect" of sorts when this type of question is asked.

No it is not?

The nation has 5 or so months to wake up against such as dangerous candidate as Trump... I hope it does.

Look at the detailed results, The Past voters voted Obama 54 Romney 42

Why are people lighting their hair on fire over polls in May? If we go by polls in May, Jimmy Carter was coasting to a landslide in 1976 and relatively easy reelection in 1980. Obviously, everyone in May 1988 knew Michael Dukakis was heading towards a landslide victory after eight years of Republican rule. And, of course, GWHB and Ross Perot were locked in a tight battle with little known Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in third place.

Let's step back and look at the facts here. Polling is really all over the place right now. The Republican primaries are over and Republicans are largely rallying to their nominee. The Democratic primary is still being heavily contested. I can't say I like polls like these, but I'm not worried right now. The point at which I'll be very concerned with polling like this is after Labor Day.

Okay, thanks, I found it. It was cut in half on the pdf lol.

Poor ABC.

Democrats/lefties tend to be lame debbie downers and constantly think the sky is falling. I still remember in October 2008 when the lefty blogosphere was in full scale panic mode about a few polls showing Obama up "only" 5-6 points in PA...when most showed him up double digits. lol

Then again, maybe if people weren't dumb enough to believe Hillary was a lock, this wouldn't be that shocking to them. Seriously, it should not be surprising to anyone that the country could possibly vote for Trump when 46% of them voted for Sarah Palin to be an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency. Interestingly, Trump is actually at 46% in this poll.

Still you must admit it is concerning for the left that Hillary has gone from putting Louisiana and West Virginia in play to now at serious risk to lose Michigan and Pennsylvania to Donald effing Trump

Perhaps Trump is the GOP's best hope at retaking the WH. A good short term play, but terrible long term. He's the only one willing to say and do the things that can take down Hillary Clinton and I think he may be successful. Look, Trump lies. He blatantly lies on national TV and no on calls him out on it. Meanwhile Clinton can't evolve on a position without being called some misogynistic name. Unfortunately, this man could be President.

I don't know anyone who seriously thought that Louisiana and West Virginia would be in play.

It's a trade-off, Nobody would care who she was if she were male

Like most of the BernieOrBust numbskulls, jfern and his other progressive masqueraders would vote for a serial murderer/rapist/pedophile over Hillary.

I'd be curious to see what the numbers would be if they polled this matchup in Utah and Idaho.

Yeah, polls change. In fact, they've gone back and forth multiple times already. In 2013-2014 she was leading by double digits. Then in fall 2015 it was a dead heat. Then she opened up a double digit lead again as Trump got more attacks from his competitors and the media. Now it's a dead heat again as he gets a post nomination bump. None of this is particularly surprising. She'll likely pull ahead after she clinches the nomination. He'll probably pull ahead after the RNC bounce, only to be reversed by the DNC bounce. Only when that recedes will we see the true state of the race.

And no, I'm not being a hypocrite either. If you want to go back in my posting history, I was predicting a ~5 point win for her even when she was beating everyone by 20+ points. That's still my prediction. I've not wavered at all, even with all the ups and downs over the past years. Only in September when we start to get a true picture of the race will I consider a revision.

She's only +2 with Romney pulling 22%? That's a bit hard to believe.

It'd be interesting to see the numbers in a Clinton/Trump/Romney/Sanders race.

I imagine Romney would be leading decisively in both of those states.  Though I wonder if he'd be leading elsewhere.

Oh, I didn't even notice those Romney numbers. What total garbage. As if two Republicans would combine for nearly 60% of the vote?

WP/ABC Poll (5/16-5/19, 829 RV)

Realistic Convertion(Realistic Party Affiliation %)
TRUMP beat Hillary with +10% margins.

1. WP/ABC Poll (5/16-5/19) + Realistic Demographics

1) WP/ABC Poll (5/16-5/19, 829 RV)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)

White: TRUMP 57% | Hillary 33%, Non White: TRUMP 21% | Hillary 69%
Dem: TRUMP 11% | Hillary 86%, Rep: TRUMP 85% | Hillary 8%
Ind: TRUMP got 13% more than Hillary.


2) WP/ABC Poll (5/16-5/19, 829 RV) + Realistic Party Affiliation
Party Affiliation: Dem 38% | Rep 34% | Ind 28%
(Election 2012, it was Dem 38%, Rep 32%, Ind 29%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics)
But TRUMP brought so many new republican via Primaries.)

TRUMP vs Hillary
1) Party Affiliation
TRUMP : 
DEM(38%) X -75% Margins  (=Hillary 86% - TRUMP 11%)
+ Rep(34%)x+77% Margins (=TRUMP 85% - Hillary 8%)
+ Ind(TRUMP > Hillary, +13% Margins)
= Total +10.32%.  TRUMP beat Hillary with +10.32% Margins.

I meant as in nobody would ever consider her a realistic senate candidate or decide to make her Secretary of state had she not been female or rode into prominence on her husband's coattails

Someone should ask ABC if they hire Atlas posters to write their polls for them.

Well we're not voting for Bill Clinton, who has been accused of rape, and took many plane flights with a pedophile.

There was some encouraging polling for LA back in 2013/2014, and "Hillary will be competitive in Kentucky and West Virginia because bill won there and muh racism" was a common atlas meme in the pre-campaign period. It fell out of fashion after democrats did so poorly in WV and KY in 2014.

Hillary's numbers with whites are brutal.

Who would have thought that maybe running a year long campaign insinuating that your primary opponent's supporters were all sexist and racist white males might not have been the best strategy?

When specifically has Clinton or her surrogates come anywhere near insinuating this?

Wow. I respect and like Bernie and he's one of my favourite US Senators, but I think you're an insult to everything he believes. If you haven't already, I'm sure within a few years you'll be calling President Obama one of the worst war criminals in American history. Not that you care, but President Clinton gave us two outstanding Supreme Court Justices (including the truly amazing Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that have worked hard to preserve human rights and equality (and now support ruling the death penalty itself unconstitutional). Your hatred of the Clintons blinds you to the fact that we have the potential to have five liberals on the Supreme Court for the first time in 45 years.

I think it's quite clear right now that Hillary wants to nominate a different Supreme Court Justice as opposed to President Obama's compromise choice. If she is elected, she is going to want to nominate someone of her own choosing. I realize I may be speaking to a wall here, but would it make any difference to you if she was willing to nominate someone like Goodwin Liu (or he himself)?

I will say that I'm glad that the average Bernie Sanders supporter is more interested in keeping Donald Trump out of the White House than keeping Hillary Clinton out. As for those on the left that believe the latter, I tune them out and keep them blocked whenever possible. If that is you, I'd prefer to know now.

Oh give me a break, that's about everything that comes out of Blue Nation Review, which is owned by David Brock, whose SuperPAC directly coordinates with the Hillary campaign. They insinuate that every white male who doesn't support Hillary must be a racist and sexist. Such a disgusting campaign.

Shes meeting with Travon Martins mom and other thugs while Trump is out in Appalachia meeting (NRA) white working class folks.  

The optics of that speaks volumes.

delete.

You. Need. Help.

I think it's quite apparent that any criticism like you've made means you'll be ignored. I recommend you use the ignore button, as I've now done (the first time I used it was only the result of being terrible right-wing hack, although I suppose essentially enabling a right-wing lunatic isn't too different).

Ignore button is for low energy losers.

I love it!

Romney led in multiple polls in may you asswipe.

Its hard for the posters who choose not to always stay logged in. I have jfern on ignore but his posts are visible if im logged out.

Just wow. This election might not be that settled after all.

Its gonna be a long trek to November.

()

Have you just gone into full on troll mode now?

^No, but saying that this election will be a 1964-style landslide is pretty ridiculous. This nation is way too polarized for that to happen, with both candidates being as popular as Ebola.

And BNR and that connection are both known nationally? Even I had never heard of BNR or David Brock prior to this post.

Romney @ 22%? And getting a substantial amount of democrats? What?

Republicans combining for almost 60% is not believable at all. I think at least half of the undecideds are Bernie voters, let's see if she gets a bump after the Democratic primary is over. Also I'd rather see more state polling than national honestly.

Secured borders (?!?), realistic military budgets/intervention, actual reform instead of hopeless political chit chat.. OH MY!!

Clinton will obviously rise a bit after she finally puts Bernie to bed in early June, but it's been pretty clear that her campaign is slow to realize the danger that Trump poses her. If they don't start taking this challenge seriously, they'll find themselves seriously on the wrong foot here.

Trump is an absolute master of both new and old media and one of the most gifted self-promoters ever. He is not to be trifled with.

She is the worse possible candidate for 2016. People don't want someone who has been in the upper echelon of elite society for 25 years. The Democratic Party establishment is so out of touch. Only 1 competitor, and he was a 73 year old socialist. People are angry, and she doesn't get it.

I hope this makes Democrats take a hard look in the mirror, and realize you actually have to court white working voters instead of demonizing them as racist morons.

Mathematically?  0% if one wins 100% of women.

She's off message, as well. The country says the economy and national security are the top issues, and she's out there discussing gun control (which is a much a losing issue for Dems as gay marriage was for GOP).

You're a Trump hack now? That was quick, lol.

What? Her campaign has known from the start this was going to be a fierce battle. It's all the pundits and the rank and file that thought it would be a lock. Hopefully that fiction begins to get dispelled.

Clinton campaign looking a lot like the Udall campaign. Only concerned about the women vote/issues and then blown out by men on election day. It doesn't really matter if your winning women by 10 then lose men by 20.

He lost men by 17, won women by 8. Hick lost men by 8 points and one campaign focused solely on women issues.

Considering the GE campaign has barely even begun, perhaps it's a tad premature to argue what her campaign has focused too much on and/or not enough on.

Why do you hate Hillary Clinton?

She's not winning 100% of women.    Like others have pointed out shes losing men by soo much that its going to be irrelevant of this "trump is sexist " 

Something to note: the survey's sample seems to dislike Obama a lot more than other recent survey samples have; his approval is sitting at -4.

This war on women nonsense that the Democrats are trying to trump on Trump is utter nonsense.

For starters, he in glass houses should not throw stones. Bill Clinton is the white Bill Cosby when it comes to sexually assaulting/harassing women. Hilary has done nothing other than enable his behavior.

Secondly, women get paid 37% less on average than their male counterparts at the Clinton Foundation.

Most importantly, Trump promoted women in a predominately male field of construction/construction management when promoting women into positions of power was honestly unheard of in NYC.

I really don't get how it's a winning issue. It failed in Colorado. It also will backfire in the Presidential election of 2016.

You really never heard of David Brock? Well, he's the white male who slimed Anita Hill saying "she's a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" who runs Correct The Record, which likes to insinuate that Bernie supporters are all racist and sexist white males. He really should stop projecting.  

He's been running a gutter campaign for Hillary right up there with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.  There can be zero unity with him running a SuperPAC that directly coordinates with the Hillary campaign.

Oh, and it turns out David Brock was responsible for the lie that Michelle Obama railed against whitey.   No self respecting Bernie supporter will support a campaign with someone that vile as part of their campaign.

I see that you don't even pretend now and you're just copying and pasting RNC and Fox News talking points.
Well done.

Pretty much what Ice Spear said, but I'll add a little more.

Building a wall won't secure the border. A more realistic approach to it would be address the issues causing the immigration, such as people like Trump who employ them when they cross, and the issues they face at home that force them to cross to begin with. There are tunnels and complex systems developed and can quickly adapt to such a simplistic "securing" method.

Since when does killing families and supporting torture and widespread religious political branding actually count as a "realistic" approach to any of our complex foreign policy issues?

Your actual reform remark was actually pretty weak. Trump has no political experience of any kind, and has made more than a number of questionable moves within his own area of expertise, business. He doesn't understand the issues, much less how to address them. What he's selling to you, is an idea, that you can shape into whatever you think is applicable for our contemporary issues, but he has no substance and no methods as to how to implement them. I can comment more on this snarky remark if you actually provide more details. So much for that.

You're right, Trump doesn't have the "political experience" and time in washington to know whats going on.  The alternative that you are suggesting we "wake up" to is Hillary R Clinton who can become presdent and finish selling out the middle class and working class Americans to the highest bidder.  So the issues that are screwed up now with regards to immigration, healthcare, income etc.. can continue with the same folks running the show.  Gee.. all that "political experience" is sure helping things right now.

Its funny how you admit we have issues that need fixing yet advocate continuing more of the same.   

Yes, I am aware of the issues of the current system, but Trump is not the answer to any of these. He's a power-hungry man with no discipline and, frankly, with no concern for any of us in any way. Trump would not only make things worse through sheer inexperience and ignorance, but would also worsen other areas in which we have made improvements, such as certain social rights and healthcare (albeit flawed, improved).

I would much rather put up with a détente on change, than have change for the worse, where Trump is clearly representative of the latter.

My friends car is constantly breaking down, yet never once have I suggested to her that taking a blowtorch to the engine was a viable solution just because those pesky establishment car mechanics couldn't fix the problem.

That's actually pretty shocking that the Republicans manage to get 20% more than her.

I imagine the 20% come from really pissed off Sanders and Cruz supporters.

I'd rather take my car to the shade tree machanic (trump) than the certified Corrupt  mechanic Hillary Clinton.