Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll

[Maxwell]

i mean, Trump is winning whites without a college education by 44 points. If he keeps up that margin and pumps up turnout a win is not inconceivable.

That's going to be hard considering he has such a weak ground game, and less education is correlated pretty strongly with weaker turnout.

that's the hope!

[Matty]

i mean, Trump is winning whites without a college education by 44 points. If he keeps up that margin and pumps up turnout a win is not inconceivable.

That's going to be hard considering he has such a weak ground game, and less education is correlated pretty strongly with weaker turnout.

Brexit says not so fast.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

i mean, Trump is winning whites without a college education by 44 points. If he keeps up that margin and pumps up turnout a win is not inconceivable.

That's going to be hard considering he has such a weak ground game, and less education is correlated pretty strongly with weaker turnout.

Brexit says not so fast.

And LV polls should actually count that it. There are a different methods, but simple question "Are you going to vote?" is usually included and is pretty much correlated to actual vote. Of course, one should also take to account voting history and voter pattern etc.

[Virginiá]

No offence, but it is sad, if it is enough to revert the race from Clinton +10 to tie...
Actually, I'd panic if it was enough and I was you...

She've outperformed him 15 to 1 in ads so far...
Just saying

What, her numbers from earlier in August? I thought there was a consensus that convention bumps don't last. What's more, this was when Trump was practically imploding at warp speed. Her bump was always going to even out, and the only thing I am surprised of is that Trump can do and say the things he does and not suffer more long-term damage from it.

On the other hand, Clinton is damaged goods and this slow trickle of bs about emails and the foundation is really hanging like a cloud over her. It just reinforces my view that Democrats made a mistake backing her run. Keeping young people in the coalition is vital to Democratic interests, and they went and backed a person absolutely reviled by Millennials.

Anyway, here's how I see it: When Trump starts leading for 2+ weeks with decent leads, then I will go crazy. Clinton has been leading in the vast majority of polls, many times by good, comfortable leads or even near/above double digits, so the fact that Trump gets a small lead in a few polls here and there is hardly something for Trump supporters to gloat about, or Clinton supporters to worry about.

[Maxwell]

This poll also shows Trump favorables that I actually don't believe - (45/54). This is shocking because every other poll shows his numbers around -25.

[dspNY]

This poll also shows Trump favorables that I actually don't believe - (45/54). This is shocking because every other poll shows his numbers around -25.

Well when your polling model shows that 30% of the democratic base is not included, that's how you get an outlier

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This poll also shows Trump favorables that I actually don't believe - (45/54). This is shocking because every other poll shows his numbers around -25.

Those numbers are among LV. You can't compare it to RV or, even worse, to All Adults (Gallup).

Trump's favorability ratings among RV:
CNN               42/56  (-14)
FOX               42/56 (-14)
IBD/TIPP        40/59 (-19)   
Monmouth      26/57 (-31)

As you see, Monmouth is clearly an outlier (just 26 had favourable view on Trump), but neither Dems nor Reps were complaining about it or trying to unskew it. Am I Right?

But this time we've got a Trump friendly poll. WE NEED TO UNSKEW THIS!
What a coincidence, huh

[Erich Maria Remarque]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

[Fusionmunster]

I admit, I hue'd.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This poll also shows Trump favorables that I actually don't believe - (45/54). This is shocking because every other poll shows his numbers around -25.

It's definitely got a R friendly sample. Seems like a pretty clear outlier, but we shall see.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Four pages talking about this poll, which I guess means than it worked exactly the way CNN wanted.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Four pages talking about this poll, which I guess means than it worked exactly the way CNN wanted.

Are you implying something?

Latest nationall poll from Reuters/Ipsos hade 4 pages as well

[DrScholl]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

[cinyc]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.

[Wiz in Wis]

The one thing I find fascinating about the crosstabs is that the age gap is huge. Trump is winning those 65+ years old 55/38 (and that age group has the smallest MOE, so largest share of sample), and winning 50-64 years old 53/38. Among 35-49 years old, the race is Trump 45/44.

That would mean Hillary would have to be winning Millenials by a an absolutely huge margin to get the overall race to 45/43 Trump! If they are so small a segment as to not be reported out separately, then they cannot be closer than a 35 point Clinton lead, at the smallest.

[DrScholl]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.

Did you not learn anything from 2012? You were predicting a Romney win, because the electorate surely couldn't look like 2008 and would be whiter. I don't have to remind anyone how that election turned out, but the fact of the matter is the electorate never regresses in presidential elections.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This poll is in line with the Rassy polls and La Times polls. But Clinton has the lead of 5-6 points

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Even if the electorate looks exactly like 2012, a four point lead two months out is not at all secure and Clinton should be very worried.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The race looks to be tightening, but there is way too much noise at the moment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The votes need to be tallied. So the election isnt over. However, Trump gaffes have a familiar Sarah Palin tone to it.

[Fusionmunster]

Even if the electorate looks exactly like 2012, a four point lead two months out is not at all secure and Clinton should be very worried.

Concern noted.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not worried as when Clinton was under the gun with FBI. Trump is losing VA, Pa, Co and NH.

[Fusionmunster]

Not worried as when Clinton was under the gun with FBI.

Clinton had a bad week, and the poll was taken over Labor Day weekend. Im gonna wait to worry.

[Alcon]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.

Did you not learn anything from 2012? You were predicting a Romney win, because the electorate surely couldn't look like 2008 and would be whiter. I don't have to remind anyone how that election turned out, but the fact of the matter is the electorate never regresses in presidential elections.

The electorate never regresses in Presidential elections?  What does that mean?  We've certainly had years when the electorate did shrink, and keep in mind that party self-ID is fluid.  You're absolutely doing the same kind of unskewing Romney supporters did in 2012.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

LOL

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN

That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.

Ugh, no. Unskewing is a very specific process based on the GOP obsession that 2004 was a default and 2008/12 were flukes. I'll wager a decent whack of money that the 2016 electorate is closer to 2012 than 2000/2004.