Reuters- Clinton 13.3+

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Clinton 46.6%
Trump 33.3%

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZA3KG

Dem decimals though.

[LLR]

Can we just make a tracking thread? Sick of these crap polls taking up so much space.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is this the Ipsos poll that showed Clinton +9 a few days ago?

[Ebsy]

Is this the Ipsos poll that showed Clinton +9 a few days ago?

Yes.

A tracking thread could be a good idea.

[pbrower2a]

We see more polls with Clinton ahead of Trump by high-single digits or low-double digits.

A double-digit advantage for a Democratic nominee for President? We haven't seen that since 1964. Could we be seeing a candidacy in collapse?

[Lief 🗽]

MAGNIFICENT!

[Xing]

B-b-b-b-but muh Brexit Trump boost!

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I mean the poll was released the same day as the result so that's an odd comment...

[HAnnA MArin County]

Are the Sandernistas finally leaving the Dead Sea, or is Trump just having a bad week (again)?

[136or142]

We see more polls with Clinton ahead of Trump by high-single digits or low-double digits.

A double-digit advantage for a Democratic nominee for President? We haven't seen that since 1964. Could we be seeing a candidacy in collapse?

Bill Clinton led George H.W Bush in the polls by nearly 30% after the Democratic convention in 1992. (A    2-1 margin.)

[Wisconsin+17]

Wow. My prediction could be right on.

I have 456-85 off the sliders. Same as my prediction, but AK and MT stay republican.

[pbrower2a]

Consistent with some of the outlier polls involving states, especially Kansas and Utah. 

[Wisconsin+17]

not really, Utah and KA are still outliers.

[pbrower2a]

Take the electoral map of 2008 and figure that Hillary Clinton gets at most 1% more in states that Barack Obama won with 60% of the vote, 2% more in states that he won with 55% or more of the raw vote, and 3% in states that he won with 50% or more of the raw vote.  Where Obama won big (really, getting 55% or more of the raw vote is winning big) he won with margins characteristic of Reagan in 1984. There's just not much room for more growth in the Democratic vote in a state like Connecticut from 2008.

The 7.2% margin by which Barack Obama won in 2008 nationally is less than half of the margin (13.3%) shown in the Reuters poll.  In a strict binary split of the vote, that gives a national margin of 56.6 for Clinton and 43.4% for Donald Trump. That is NOT in the range of losses by Landon in 1936, Goldwater in 1964, or McGovern in 1972 -- or even Reagan in 1984.

There aren't many states in which Hillary Clinton can gain more than 7.6% of the vote over Obama in 2008 except under the sort of shift that happened between 1972 and 1976. Nixon won by huge margins in 1972  (Alabama about 48%, Arkansas 38%, Florida 43%, Georgia 50%, Kentucky 29%, Louisiana 37%, Missouri 24%, Mississippi 58%, North Carolina 40%, South Carolina 43%, Tennessee 38%, Texas 33%, West Virginia 27%)

Carter won every one of those states in 1976.

To say that George McGovern was a poor cultural fit for the Mountain and Deep South is like saying that the 2003 Detroit Kittens were a bad baseball team. Jimmy Carter was a good march for those states, at least in 1976, and he could not have won without them. Sure, a 13.3% lead by Hillary Clinton suggests that she could be wining states like North and South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, ans Kansas -- but those states do not have enough votes to explain why   
Hillar4y Clinton could be up 13.4% nationwide.
 

[136or142]

Take the electoral map of 2008 and figure that Hillary Clinton gets at most 1% more in states that Barack Obama won with 60% of the vote, 2% more in states that he won with 55% or more of the raw vote, and 3% in states that he won with 50% or more of the raw vote.  Where Obama won big (really, getting 55% or more of the raw vote is winning big) he won with margins characteristic of Reagan in 1984. There's just not much room for more growth in the Democratic vote in a state like Connecticut from 2008.

The 7.2% margin by which Barack Obama won in 2008 nationally is less than half of the margin (13.3%) shown in the Reuters poll.  In a strict binary split of the vote, that gives a national margin of 56.6 for Clinton and 43.4% for Donald Trump. That is NOT in the range of losses by Landon in 1936, Goldwater in 1964, or McGovern in 1972 -- or even Mondale in 1984.

There aren't many states in which Hillary Clinton can gain more than 7.6% of the vote over Obama in 2008 except under the sort of shift that happened between 1972 and 1976. Nixon won by huge margins in 1972  (Alabama about 48%, Arkansas 38%, Florida 43%, Georgia 50%, Kentucky 29%, Louisiana 37%, Missouri 24%, Mississippi 58%, North Carolina 40%, South Carolina 43%, Tennessee 38%, Texas 33%, West Virginia 27%)

Carter won every one of those states in 1976.

To say that George McGovern was a poor cultural fit for the Mountain and Deep South is like saying that the 2003 Detroit Kittens were a bad baseball team. Jimmy Carter was a good march for those states, at least in 1976, and he could not have won without them. Sure, a 13.3% lead by Hillary Clinton suggests that she could be wining states like North and South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, ans Kansas -- but those states do not have enough votes to explain why  
Hillar4y Clinton could be up 13.4% nationwide.
 

At first I thought you must have been a little drunk when you wrote this, then I realized the 2003  Detroit Kittens are the Detroit Tigers.  (They did though win their last 4 or 5 games to avoid having the least wins of any team in modern day Major League Baseball.)

Reminds me of this joke I came up with a number of years ago:  What do you get when you combine the Detroit Lions of the National Football League and the B.C Lions of the Canadian Football League?

You get the Detroit Lions and 55 released players. (Number of players on the B.C Lions roster.)

[Hammy]

Junk poll.

Clinton +13 is junk, but Trump is "doing good" when he's -1 with 20% undecided?