Talk Elections

Trump 45
Clinton 42

http://www.protectmofamilies.com/images/15290/Aug2016MissouriPresidentResultsPPP_PMF.pdf

Sponsor is a pro-union org.

Looks like they only asked a few questions though... and the Demos are rather R leaning.

MO is fool's gold for Democrats.

Nice topline obviously, but why wouldn't they ask gubernatorial and Senate races? If Trump is only +3 that could be bad news for Blunt.

If it's between MO and TX, I say Texas.

Fits almost perfectly with the 538 Nowcast so this is probably the state of the race in MO

Things must be going well for Koster, if this is the case. It's telling that Hillary is winning Florida by more than Trump is winning Missouri, lol.

Man, I wish they would have polled the Senate race (and Governor too).  If it's competitive, a Clinton investment in the state would be worthwhile, even if there are juicier targets like Georgia.

Trump +3 sounds about right, and they even got a decently Repub friendly sample.

Shes only winning women by 2 in this and there are more undecided women. But that probably still leaves it at about trump 2.

Almost certainly. The real question is whether Trump can be baited into spending on KC and STL. Neither market is cheap.

Probably, though given a large enough national margin who knows what could happen. Regardless Clinton should only pay attention here to help out the Senate and Governor races.

Always be leery of these PPP polls that are done for an advocacy group. It's not the same poll that PPP would normally do.  There would be other questions that PPP would have ran if it was their own poll.

If nothing else, it bears very well for Koster.

Another poll that seems roughly consistent with a 7 or 8 point lead nationally for Hillary. I'll take it.

Trump seems to have a very big problem with these whites that have a college degree, who voted for Mitt four years ago. That's bringing him down in many solid red states.

Possibly attainable by Clinton .... especially if trump's new team makes his campaign more of a mockery than it was yesterday.

This isn't looking good.

Democrats paid PPP to skew this for them. Enough said.

Legitimately cannot tel if you're being serious

PPP has too good of a reputation to skew their polls for their clients.

This poll was paid for by a pro-union group, it's not normal PPP. That makes it an internal poll, which is basically 100% guranteed to be at least slightly skewed toward what the client wants to see. If the client sees what they want, they are more likely to hire the pollster again, so the pollster skews the poll sample or doesn't push undecideds, or both, to satisfy the client.

No, just no. 

It's worth considering that possibility, but the fact that it is consistent with the last two polls from Missouri makes me think that there is a decent chance that it is at least close to correct.

Of course PPP or any other pollsters does not skew the polls, but there is always a "but"...

The real problem with such polls that it is [usually] up to client to publish the poll or not. And of course, the client is much more likely to let publish those polls that look good for him than those that don't. That's why those polls are more often outliers than "regular" polls.

So it depends on pollsters policy.

And it's difficult to get clients as a pollster if you can't show examples of your work. Obviously PPP has its array of "regular" polls, which is why its internals are less bad than other internals. But most internal pollsters do little or no "regular" polling, so their primary method of getting examples to show future clients is skewing the polls for their current cilents.

The numbers sound about right, although again it looks like there are a significant chunk of voters <45 that are undecided, so if Hillary's current lead holds, this could end up being a squeaker on election day circa 2008.

The record shows a house effect for whomever is paying for the poll. It's a slight one (a few points), but it's a house effect nonetheless. This happened with the Senate races PPP was doing for an advocacy group prior to the 2014 midterms. PPP followed with their own polls that were on average a few points more favorable to the Republicans.

Keep in mind that the client in these instances will likely control what gets released.

With that said, this one is a little better than some of the obvious partisan polls PPP put out last week that were RV instead of LV. PPP usually just puts out LV polls, but the SC poll for the Democrats was RV for obvious reasons. The Missouri poll went back to likely voters.