FL-PPP: Clinton +4

[The Other Castro]

Clinton - 48%
Trump - 44%

PPP surveyed 742 likely Florida voters from October 25-26, 2016.

*Poll was sponsored by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC.

http://www.politico.com/states/f/?id=00000158-0ab5-d236-ad5d-dab74e5e0001

[ApatheticAustrian]

there is nothing to four but four itself.

[Devout Centrist]

Lights out Donny.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Make sure to note that this is a Democratic internal for a gun control group....

[Podgy the Bear]

A steady result here.  The early voting has been beneficial for the Democrats.  I think the final margin will resemble 2008--a close but definite victory for Hillary.

[The Other Castro]

Make sure to note that this is a Democratic internal for a gun control group....

*Poll was sponsored by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Make sure to note that this is a Democratic internal for a gun control group....

*Poll was sponsored by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC.

I wasn't talking to you silly, I was talking to the people calling it over because of a gun control group commissioned poll

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Single-issue left-leaning advocacy group that also produced an unusual Senate result while trashing Rubio in the press release.  I think Trump can pull this one out!

[ApatheticAustrian]

PPP is a credible pollster....would harm them if they are far off.

[The Other Castro]

Single-issue left-leaning advocacy group that also produced an unusual Senate result while trashing Rubio in the press release.  I think Trump can pull this one out!

As mentioned in the senate thread, that group sponsored the poll but did not conduct it. PPP conducted it.

[Person Man]

I think this is a reasonable result by a reasonable pollster...even if I am not totally on board with who commissioned it.

[Dr. Arch]

Single-issue left-leaning advocacy group that also produced an unusual Senate result while trashing Rubio in the press release.  I think Trump can pull this one out!

As mentioned in the senate thread, that group sponsored the poll but did not conduct it. PPP conducted it.

Yep, this is PPP guys.

[BoAtlantis]

Yawn......at 4.

[Figueira]

This is the same margin as their last poll of Florida. I'd say it's a pretty good result for Clinton.

Even if it's a slightly Democratic-leaning poll, losing Florida by 4 points less than a fortnight before the election is very, very bad news for Trump.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The group commissioning the poll isn't going to affect the result, if the pollster is sound (which PPP is).  What it might affect is whether the poll gets released or not.  If this poll had been Trump+4, the gun control group might have decided to sit on it.  So yes, it's more likely that polls commissioned by advocacy groups are likely to favor their preferred side, but this is because the unfavorable ones are less likely to be released, not because the favorable poll has been manipulated.

Assuming this behavior is true, what can we conclude from it?  We probably need to look at the totality of all such polls, from groups on both ends of the spectrum.  If there are more such polls being released by one side than the other, then that side has more favorable polls that they can release -- i.e., they're ahead.

[Seriously?]

The group commissioning the poll isn't going to affect the result, if the pollster is sound (which PPP is).  What it might affect is whether the poll gets released or not.  If this poll had been Trump+4, the gun control group might have decided to sit on it.  So yes, it's more likely that polls commissioned by advocacy groups are likely to favor their preferred side, but this is because the unfavorable ones are less likely to be released, not because the favorable poll has been manipulated.

Assuming this behavior is true, what can we conclude from it?  We probably need to look at the totality of all such polls, from groups on both ends of the spectrum.  If there are more such polls being released by one side than the other, then that side has more favorable polls that they can release -- i.e., they're ahead.

Of course it is. Clients drive the narrative. And also note what's NOT released here. The internals, like they are in just about every other PPP poll (even the advocacy ones). Come on now. It's like you all were born yesterday.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The group commissioning the poll isn't going to affect the result, if the pollster is sound (which PPP is).  What it might affect is whether the poll gets released or not.  If this poll had been Trump+4, the gun control group might have decided to sit on it.  So yes, it's more likely that polls commissioned by advocacy groups are likely to favor their preferred side, but this is because the unfavorable ones are less likely to be released, not because the favorable poll has been manipulated.

Assuming this behavior is true, what can we conclude from it?  We probably need to look at the totality of all such polls, from groups on both ends of the spectrum.  If there are more such polls being released by one side than the other, then that side has more favorable polls that they can release -- i.e., they're ahead.

Of course it is. Clients drive the narrative. And also note what's NOT released here. The internals, like they are in just about every other PPP poll. Come on now.

Please stop stinking this place up with your dog sweat, I just had lunch. 

That said...

ABSOLUTELY FANTABULOUS NEWS!!!  CONFIRMS ALL OF OUR DELICIOUS C+4 FLORIDA POLLS!

[Podgy the Bear]

PPP hit the nail on the head in 2012.  Not only did they call it for Obama (the Tampa Bay Times poll had Romney +6--I was in Florida that last week of the election), they had the percentage perfectly (50-49 for Obama, which was the final result).

[pbrower2a]

Not even Rick Scott can stop the Hillary Clinton steamroller.

[Classic Conservative]

So much for adding five to internal and advocacy polls.

[Dr. Arch]

So much for adding five to internal and advocacy polls.

This poll is neither an internal nor was it conducted by an advocacy group.

[heatcharger]

So much for adding five to internal and advocacy polls.

Shouldn't you be in class or something?

[DrScholl]

It doesn't matter who the poll was conducted for. Trump is done, but all but a few desperate

[Figueira]

The group commissioning the poll isn't going to affect the result, if the pollster is sound (which PPP is).  What it might affect is whether the poll gets released or not.  If this poll had been Trump+4, the gun control group might have decided to sit on it.  So yes, it's more likely that polls commissioned by advocacy groups are likely to favor their preferred side, but this is because the unfavorable ones are less likely to be released, not because the favorable poll has been manipulated.

Assuming this behavior is true, what can we conclude from it?  We probably need to look at the totality of all such polls, from groups on both ends of the spectrum.  If there are more such polls being released by one side than the other, then that side has more favorable polls that they can release -- i.e., they're ahead.

Does the advocacy group actually have the ability to decide whether to release the poll?

Anyway, we should stop the ageist attacks on Classic Conservative, as terrible as we find his views.

[Seriously?]

So much for adding five to internal and advocacy polls.

This poll is neither an internal nor was it conducted by an advocacy group.

Yeah, because Republicans are universally for gun control.