Pew: Clinton +9

[Seriously?]

Where are Ljube and Seriously?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Seriously?]

^I know it sounds crazy, but in the eyes of many Republican primary voters like Seriously?, Trump is the only true conservative in this race. Kasich and Rubio are immigration-loving RINOs.

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.