Talk Elections

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/751116317911027713

()

()

Trump leads among white, non-Hispanic voters (51%-42%), while Clinton has an overwhelming advantage among African Americans (91%-7%). Clinton also holds a wide, 66%-24% advantage among Hispanic voters.

A majority of registered voters (56%) say the phrase “personally qualified to be president” better describes Clinton than Trump; just 30% say the phrase better describes Trump. Far more voters also say the phrase “would use good judgment in a crisis” better describes Clinton (53%) than Trump (36%).

Lots of great info...

Clinton 51
Trump 42

Clinton 45
Trump 36
Johnson 11
Other 8

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/

LOL I just posted this too...I'm always late :-)
Great news for Hillary

Beautiful poll!

Considering Hillary's abysmal position with white men, if she's at 42% with whites she could very well be winning with white women (probably with a plurality though).

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/751116747898585088

Nate noticed that in 2008 and 2012, Pew's June numbers were predictive of the final margin.

2008 June Pew: Obama 48 McCain 40 (final margin 7.2)

2012 June Pew: Obama 50 Romney 46 (final margin 3.9)

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
It says R+22 white men, D+8 white women. She gets 30% WM to his 52%, and she gets 44% WW to his 36%.

Winning college educated whites by 12 points! Here comes the landslide!

Well never mind them, the topline numbers suggest that.

Great resource to compare all Demos between 08, 12, 16:

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

This is real significant because Pew is as accurate as it gets

Looks a bit friendly for Clinton, but it doesn't seem like Trump is getting a bounce from those damn emails.

The only close polls this cycle have been the autodial robopolls (PPP, Rasmussen).

Why was this poll released so late? It says it taken June 15-26.

This makes the poll outdated and irrelevant.

Yeah, doesn't factor in the boost that Hillary's gonna get from being cleared.

They have 9 pages of analysis, and as the new york times has noted, their June polls have been very predictive of the last 2 elections.

But! but! but!! I was told that brexit and emails would boost Trump!!!!!

Interesting, if you go to table on page 3, Clinton has consolidated Dem party much more than Obama did at this point in 08.

Consistent with findings 2 weeks ago by the ABC/Washington Post poll.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=239661.msg5134393
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/

Trump support among Bernie supporters
May: 20%
June: 8%

McCain support among Clinton supporters
June: 20%
July: 22%
August: 18%
September: 19%
October: 14%

Why do noncollege whites support Trump at all????? Noncollege grads don't have any money.

They have plenty of welfare money, and Trump's more liberal than the GOP on social security, more protectionist on trade, more racist.

Oh no, a dated poll from Pew when Hillary! was at her peak. The race is over... /sarcasm

Good to see Ljube and Seriously aren't phased by a Hillary +9 poll.

Heh... Yep, just like those dated Pew polls from 08, 12 that called Obama's margins almost perfectly as well.

The white nationalist candidate is only winning white people by nine points and only leads the evil Wicked Witch of the Westchester by six points among MEN?! Absolutely amazing.

Past performance is no indication of future success.

That's just mere coincidence that the June number was the same as the final result when it should not have been. It just tells me they took a bad poll in June.

If Pee-ewww was in lock step with the rest of the legitimate pollsters, that's one thing. When they provide an outlier, which they have here, it's another. Just about everyone else who has done more recent surveys is in the 3-5 point range (and that's being generous to Clinton, arguable 2-4 at this point).

I put this in the same ballpark as Trump +2 with Rasmussen.

Hillary took quite a beating from Trevor and Larry last night, but Trump is doing his best to distract everyone's attention from Clinton's email BS.

The big boost Clinton will get from college educated whites is when Sanders endorses her.

Seriously?

Lol. You're not very good at spinning poll results for your side, are ya?

Clinton is +30 for folks 18-29. Much higher than Obama was in June of both 08 and 12. But I was told younger millennials were more conservative. :(

Also, holy crap Clinton is winning white women by 10 points!

I'm sure the Bobby Knight convention speech will fix that.

He also doesn't think that Sarah Palin is an imbecile and that if you say she is, you're a woman-hating misogynist. The ripest fruit in the orchard, he is not.

I was told the same thing about how the younger below 25-year-olds are the new pro-life generation. Lol but hey, once the college kiddies rediscover what a corrupt neoliberal warmongering corporatist plutocratic militartistic hawk she is, they'll come flocking to Trump.

She's only winning white women because she is one. That darned woman card she keeps playing.

No, it's called being intellectually honest with math. When one poll is not like the other, it's generally an outlier.

I don't try to spin math.

The average lead for Clinton is 6 points in Pollster. This is 9. Rasmussen is off by 8 points, this is off by 3. You don't try to spin math, but you aren't very good at it either.

I don't really take issue with the rest of your post. Two isn't much of a sample size, sure. And who knows what "the truth" really is right now (not that it really matters). However, the bold confuses me. Why "should it not have been" the margin in 2012?  In hindsight, nothing major really changed between June and November 2012. The Pew poll was also about twice as D-friendly as the RCP average was for that point in time in 2012. Just because something is an outlier doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, particularly with increasingly dodgy stuff like opinion polls. Like Jesus, take a look at 2014 polling sometime.

The average lead in the RCP average is Clinton +4.7. This poll is 9. It's off significantly. The relevant polling time this poll was taken is mid-to-late June. They released the results over a week later. That is when Clinton was surging a bit from the wrap up of the nomination.

The polls concluded in the past week have the race in the 3-5 point range. They have shown a consistent narrowing.

This poll was roughly int he 5-8 point Clinton ballpark at the time period that it was taken. It is not representative of where the race is right now. That bounce has faded.

In June 2008 most polls showed Obama leading by about 5-6%. Pew was an outlier showing Obama leading by 8%. Obama won by 8%.

In June 2012 most polls showed Obama leading by about 1-2%. Pew was an outlier showing Obama leading by 4%. Obama won by 4%.

In June 2016 most polls showed Clinton leading by about 6-7%. Pew was an outlier showing Clinton leading by 9%.

If 2008 and 2012 was stable since June, then I stand corrected. They just happened to get the margin right with June as a bellwether. But more likely than not, in most cycles, there will be ups and downs and the June numbers will matter little come November.

This particular race has a ton of undecideds with both candidates struggling roughly in the 35-45% range depending on the polling. (Low-to-mid 40s in most polls). Thus, I have a hard time buying the argument that it's over because one poll was right in 2008 and 2012.

Polls are just snapshots of the electorate at the time they are taken.

I'll wait while you show your work to establish how this poll is off by a statistically significant margin.

Unfortunately, this poll is ancient, so it doesn't take into account the emails crap. Still nice to see though.

LOL at the education crosstabs. I can't wait to see RINO Tom's reaction to that!

5 days after he announces Palin, McCain was up in the race. You can blame the McCain race for many things, but Palin is not one of them.

Yeah, the whole world was excited about this fresh, young, female governor who took on her own state party establishment, yada yada.  She electrified the convention.  Then she started doing interviews, and... we all know the rest.

Trump is a true conservative, TNVolunteer?  What?

That's because they live in a fantasy world where they still think this is the 1950s where only the voices of WASP heterosexual males (The Silent Majority) matter. After losing in 2008 and 2012, they said it was because John McCain and Mitt Romney were RINO moderates who didn't energize and excite the base to turn out to vote, but as you mentioned, the "true conservatives" (Todd "legitimate rape" Akin, Richard "getting pregnant from rape is what God intended" Mourdock, Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell, Ken "Vote for me because I don't wear high heels" Buck, Sharron "Second Amendment remedies" Angle, etc. etc.) kept the Senate in Democratic control. You watch, when Trump gets shellacked by the Wicked Witch of the Westchester in November, those same voices will be crowing that Trump was a Democratic plant/Hillary Trojan horse who only got in the race to say such outlandish things that no one in his right mind would vote for him (even though 99 percent of all the asinine garbage he's spewed is what a majority of Republicans believe).  

Also, the country keeps getting more liberal because it's getting less white, less religious, and more educated, and we all know how those demographics tend to vote.

Ignoring for now the fact that FiveThirtyEight's polls-only forecast, which takes into account the relative biases, absolute errors, and recentness of all the national polls, suggests that the current state of the race is a Clinton +5.5 margin (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/), even if we go with your +4.7 number, that still leaves Pew off by 4.3 and Rasmussen off by 6.7. So your statement earlier that they're in the same class of wrong seems shaky at best. If we go with the more realistic 5.5 current state, then Pew is off by 3.5 and Rasmussen is off by 7.5.

As for the "polls conducted in the last week" point, there are three on RCP, and two of them are clear outliers. How do you get a "polling average" from one poll? Indeed, if you average all three of them, you get Clinton +4.8, and the non-outlier is Clinton +5, so how you possibly calculate "the 3-5 range" is beyond me. Unless "3-5" is code in your book for "5". Which doesn't change the idea that the Pew poll way closer to reality than the Rasmussen poll.

It was a convention bump, nothing more. By the time Lehman brothers went bankrupt Obama had retaken the lead.

() (http://www.pictureshack.us/)

I never equated Pew to Rasmussen except to put both polls in the same trash heap for the reasons I have stated twice now.

Rasmussen is an outlier. However, I will continue to point out that Scott Rasmussen does not have anything to do with Rasmussen anymore, so comparing 2012 to 2016 may be a bit fallacious. The R house effect may be even worse under new management.

Pew was slightly out of the range when Clinton was surging at the time, but not by that much. A few weeks ago, it was basically Clinton in the 5-8 point range with the Washington Post and Reuters as outliers at +12 and +14 or whatever crazy Reuters number they had at the time. It's a reasonable poll for the two week period ending 6/26, but not so much 7/7.

With that said, I put stock in neither of those polls and restate the narrative is roughly in the 3-5 point range at this point in time, down a slight bit from a few weeks ago. If you want to make it 3-6, that's fine. There have been a few polls at +1 or +2 and a few at +6 as well, IIRC.

Try again. Ted Cruz was just fine, also. Kasich really is no better than a Democrat. He was soft on immigration and Ohio took the Obamacare Medicaid money, which will come back to haunt them after Kasich leaves office.

Yep, gonna call B.S. on that one.



You don't remember correctly, and I don't want to make it "3-6", I want to make it "4.5-5.5", which is really the only defensible range at this juncture (and the 4.5 is generous). Tacking on 3, or even 4.0, is wholly partisan wishcasting. As I said earlier, using your own "past week" cutoff and your own choice of RCP, there have been precisely three general matchup polls, Clinton +5, Clinton +11, and Trump +2. Extending it back to polls that ended within the past two weeks, we have the two Rasmussens at Trump +4 and Trump +2, two Clinton +2 polls, three Clinton +4 polls, two Clinton +5 polls, two Clinton +6 polls, a Clinton +9 poll, Clinton +10 poll, a Clinton +11 poll, and a Clinton +12 poll. That gives a mean of Clinton +4.9 and a median of Clinton +5.

These are just the facts.

I'll also point out that, according to a standard analysis of what makes an "outlier" an outlier (that a data point is greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range outside the first or third quartile), the only outlier over the past two weeks is the Rasmussen Trump +4 result.

Specifically, 1.5*IQR is 6.75, the first quartile is at Clinton +3, and the third is at Clinton +7.5. So, any poll over the past two weeks that gives Trump a bigger margin than +3.75 or Clinton a bigger margin than +14.25 is an outlier. So if we re-did the analysis without the Trump +4 outlier, it only looks more favorable for Clinton.

Ted Cruz was the true conservative. There wasn't one issue where Trump was more conservative than him.

He was "more conservative" in hating minorities.

Isn't that a redundancy (a minority-hating conservative)? :P

But yes, Lyin' Ted Cruz was arguably the more conservative candidate. For all of his faults, Trump does seem like the kind willing to negotiate and compromise, whereas Cruz prides himself on sticking it to all the baby-killing God-hating liberals and Democrats and socialists and communists who want to destroy our Amurika. Trump only came off as more "conservative" because he was anti-PC and more controversial. I think people confused conservative and controversial, although the two are often interchangeable. 

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html
Most polls said Iowa senate 2014 was going to be close, except Des Moines Register, and they got it right. Just because it's an outlier doesn't mean it's wrong.

Figuring that Hillary Clinton will do as well among every obvious religious, racial, and ethnic minority as Barack Obama... Donald Trump could fare as badly as Barry Goldwater in 1964. He probably wins the sorts of people who would vote for Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968, which will prevent him from losing in a 49-state landslide. 

Can we talk about the fact that Johnson's leading Trump among 18-29 year olds?

()

I know a lot of that's probably disgruntled Sanders people, but still.

The right-leaning of the Millennial generation are less religious and have nothing to gain from the GOP's crony capitalism. For them, libertarianism is a new and practically revolutionary ideology. The GOP seems to them a cause for price-fixing, heavy personal debt, and low pay. 


The more that Sanders supporters see or hear of Donald Trump, the more realistic they will get about him.

....All in all, margins seem to shrink once one recognizes Gary Johnson as a Third Party nominee who can take a big  piece of the vote --  but by doing so he also reduces the threshold for a Clinton victory.

Eh it isn't that surprising. I've been following his polls for a while and he usually polls around 16-26% with 18-29 year olds and Independents.

Every pollster has a model, a different set of assumptions. Assume certain things, and Clinton is up by middle-single digits. Assume others, and she is up in the high-single digits or low-double digits.

We have a political insider, probably the most blatant political insider since the elder Bush, running against someone with no experience in elected or appointed office. We also have a lame-duck President who could be re-elected if he so wished, except that the 22nd Amendment gets in the way. But that does not help someone running to replace him. 

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.

Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.

No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

Huh?  When they say that men are Trump 49% Clinton 43% from a 917 person sample and women are Clinton 59% Trump 35% from a 738 person sample, that doesn't mean that every single one of those men is weighted the same or every single one of those women is weighted the same, or that the men as a group are weighted the same as the women.  It just means that 917 of the people they polled were men and 738 were women.  There's still weighting done after the fact.

Those are the final weighted subsamples. Seriously, do the arithmetic, or maybe have a grownup do it for you.

McCain never lead prior to this and them promptly 'suspended' his campaign.

McCain was a terrible campaigner.

 
 

I can get my map with 53 percent support from college educated white people from the democrats.

12 point lead among college educated whites means that Trump might not win a state.

Touching nothing else, 56-44 will give us, my prediction, but with AK, MT, TX, LA still with the Republican.

To match my map, we need a 56-44 Clinton win, 84 percent Hispanic, 79 percent Asian, and a drop in the whites without a degree turnout to 51 percent.

That's it.

Actually with the 58-42 map, you would need 83 percent Hispanic, 74 percent Asian and a drop in White turnout without a degree to 52 percent. That is a 13 point Hispanic shift away from the Republican party, and a 4 percent shift in the Asians away from Trump.

Trump is in *deep* trouble.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't see turnout of whites w/o a college degree *dropping* under Trump.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/
http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-to-resume-oil-exports-but-analysts-skeptical-2016-7

Just read this Business Insider article and the Pew poll came to mind.

It noted Romney led whites 18-49 by 7. Trump is only leading this group in Pew (white nonhispanic) by 1.

Specifically white women 18-49 have gone from R+2 in 2012 to D+17. White men 18-49 have moved insignificantly from R+14 to R+17.

White men 50+ have swung 8 points to Trump while white women 50+ have swung 15 to Clinton.

All signs point to a large Clinton win, but the headline numbers. Weird.

The only state that affects is Louisiana.

Pew poll for June 2004 indicates a 48-46 advantage for Bush, once again nailing the margin of victory. Obviously, past success is no gurantee of future success, but this is a solid trend over the past three cycles.

Even shifts might be rough approximations for elections differing in the national margin by 4% or less. Obama 2008 is the max-out for Democratic performance in a binary election in many states. so should Hillary Clinton win in 2012 by something like a 10% in a binary election, then she wins about everything that Obama won in 2008 (Indiana is a possible exception because 2008 was the Perfect Storm to wreck Republican chances of winning the state that year. Replicating that would require a credit crunch, exorbitant petroleum prices, and an economic meltdown with a Republican incumbent. With a Democratic incumbent? The Democrat would lose Indiana about 65-35 and the US as a whole about 55-45).

A number as Pew has suggests the possibility of a Trump collapse. If he is getting 68-20 with the votes of under-educated white people, practically breaking even with white people, and losing badly with Asians, Hispanics, an blacks, then he stands to lose about like Stevenson did to Eisenhower... twice. Under-educated white people are not going to convince any other people  to go their way.  It is more likely that such people will meet someone who disabuses them of their hollow reasons for voting for Donald Trump.

I look at the overlay between the electoral maps of Eisenhower and Obama and I see Obama winning practically nothing (North Carolina, once, and barely in 2008) that Eisenhower didn't win. Ike won the ranching states that Obama did not win...  

Could it be that Barack Obama and Dwight Eisenhower have similar temperaments (cautious, trusting legal precedent over fickle opinion, scandal-avoiding)? Maybe that is reflected in the states. Where educational standards were highest in the 1950s, Eisenhower did well.  Those are roughly the same states today. At least one historical pattern suggests that Barack Obama acts like a 60-something member of the Lost Generation, like Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower.      

What happens if the pattern of "solid education, vote against Trump" holds?  I can see Hillary Clinton winning some states that Eisenhower won but Obama didn't.