Pew: Clinton +9

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

[Seriously?]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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This makes the poll outdated and irrelevant.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.

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.

[Joe Republic]

Pee-ewww

Seriously?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

[Gass3268]

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!

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

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

[HAnnA MArin County]

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

He thinks John Kasich is more liberal than Hillary Clinton and that Trump can win NH. What do you expect?

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.

[HAnnA MArin County]

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 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.

[Seriously?]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Wiz in Wis]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Reginald]

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.

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.

[Seriously?]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Wells]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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%.

[Seriously?]

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.

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.

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.

[Wiz in Wis]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

[IceSpear]

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!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ronnie]

Trump is a true conservative, TNVolunteer?  What?

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's so hilarious when Republicans nominate a TROO CUNSURVATIVE (MO 2012, IN 2012, DE 2010, CO 2010, CO 2016, Trump, etc.) and as a result the country keeps getting more liberal.

Like... Seriously?

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.

[Mallow]

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.

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, 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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

[ElectionsGuy]

It's so hilarious when Republicans nominate a TROO CUNSURVATIVE (... Trump ...) and as a result the country keeps getting more liberal.

[Seriously?]

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 polling was roughly in the 5-8 point Clinton ballpark at the time period that this Pew poll was taken. It is not representative of where the race is right now. That bounce has faded.

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, 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.

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.