General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

The difference between LA times "survey" and the average of traditional polls has been 5-6 pts (and rather consistent). Again, difference between surveying and polling is predicting turnout and elimination of lying (since surveys are anonymous and polling is not). Don't you see why there is a large delta between the LA times survey and the polls when Trump is in the race? Finally do you really think the poll people are going to admit this while they are getting paid? They will admit it after the election and then say 2016 is one-off that won't be repeated.
 
Okay, I checked the poll averages. Some are still using polls within a week after the Dem convention. Yeah, that's relevant. My guess it will be Clinton +3 after Labor Day.
 
The Dornsife study isn't anonymous. It's the same 5000 people and tracks their names (they're paid for responses), age, gender, etc. Case in point: LA Times showed that Trump was +7.3 percent from his post-convention bump, and Hillary was only +0.6 from the Democratic convention. This is antithetical to every other piece of polling data out there, and obviously shows the overall mettle of the 5000 respondents. It's got more Trump supporters than not. This is why it's unreliable.

The national polls might as well be irrelevant anyhow. Everyone knows this is going to come down to about 11 states, and out of those 11 right now, only North Carolina and Iowa are seriously in play for Trump. He's going to have to convince 10 million Republicans who didn't vote in the primaries to vote for him, and that's going to be an issue in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.
 
I think it simply comes down to turnout in African Americans. It will be much closer than the polls predict because AA's are not big fans of HRC either.
 
Beginning to look like HRC is losing control of the media narrative on this issue --


CqVwhz-VYAAm09s.jpg
 
Horns11 said:
The Dornsife study isn't anonymous. It's the same 5000 people and tracks their names (they're paid for responses), age, gender, etc. Case in point: LA Times showed that Trump was +7.3 percent from his post-convention bump, and Hillary was only +0.6 from the Democratic convention. This is antithetical to every other piece of polling data out there, and obviously shows the overall mettle of the 5000 respondents. It's got more Trump supporters than not. This is why it's unreliable.

The national polls might as well be irrelevant anyhow. Everyone knows this is going to come down to about 11 states, and out of those 11 right now, only North Carolina and Iowa are seriously in play for Trump. He's going to have to convince 10 million Republicans who didn't vote in the primaries to vote for him, and that's going to be an issue in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.
Click to expand...
There is anonymity in numbers. Also, they don't have to talk with anyone.
 
.
Horns11 said:
I can't imagine anyone saying that they'd vote for Hillary because of social desirability in their responses. Maybe some moderate women.
Click to expand...

I certainly can. She'd be the first woman president. That's a big deal for some people, and people like to say they are on the "right side of history." I also think there's a social undesirability in claiming to support Trump. People don't like to admit that they support someone who's associated with stupidity and racism.
 
Trump +2 today in LA Times poll, which means look for traditional polls to show Clinton +3 to +4 on average. That should raise the alarm in Clintkn's media friends.
 
mchammer said:
If Trump supporter did not vote in last election, he is not counted in the polls as a likely voter. Also, a liar is doubly significant - subtract one from Hillary and add one for Trump. If it is Clinton +3 in Nov, Trump wins
Click to expand...

First, I think you have to look at it on state by state basis rather than by a national poll. By the way, I think that may actually favor Trump. With a big Latino population and a liberal, politically correct white population, I could see Trump getting completed routed in California (perhaps not even reaching 30 percent), which would make it very tough for him to win the popular vote but no harder to win the electoral vote than if he barely lost the state.

Second, I might agree if Trump and Hillary were running similar campaigns, but they aren't. Trump might have a Bradley Effect helping him some, but it's going to be mitigated by the much stronger ground have that she has. All the support in the world doesn't help if your people don't turnout.

The bottom line is that if Hillary is up by 1-1.5 points in a given battleground state, Trump will probably narrowly carry it. If Hillary is up by 3, she probably wins that state.
 
Mr. Deez said:
People don't like to admit that they support someone who's associated with stupidity and racism.
Click to expand...

Which isn't true at all. I agree with him shutting down the borders until we can come up with a way to ensure everyone is vetted with 100% accuracy. If a person can't be vetted then they are turned back. If there isn't a way to be 100% accurate, then so be it. Safety should always trump social correctness. I'm thinking about my kids, grandkids, great grandkids and on and on. Everyone here should feel the same no matter what party they agree with. This shouldn't be up for debate. We can't be stupid when dealing with refugees from countries that support terrorist regimes. That doesn't make me a racist. Also we have to control our borders because a ton of drugs are making their entry there. Illegal immigrants have to do it the right way and come here legally which is what Trump has always said. That will help with the crime that crosses the boarder. That doesn't make me a racist. That's just one of many issues that makes Trump much smarter than Hillary who wants thousands and thousand of refugees and open boarders.
 
NJlonghorn said:
The 10% grant factoid is accurate and there is no reason for anyone to back away from it; what is inaccurate is your interpretation of that fact.
Click to expand...

"...... The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.

* * * *

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico......."

*******
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
 
Mr. Deez said:
First, I think you have to look at it on state by state basis rather than by a national poll. By the way, I think that may actually favor Trump. With a big Latino population and a liberal, politically correct white population, I could see Trump getting completed routed in California (perhaps not even reaching 30 percent), which would make it very tough for him to win the popular vote but no harder to win the electoral vote than if he barely lost the state.

Second, I might agree if Trump and Hillary were running similar campaigns, but they aren't. Trump might have a Bradley Effect helping him some, but it's going to be mitigated by the much stronger ground have that she has. All the support in the world doesn't help if your people don't turnout.

The bottom line is that if Hillary is up by 1-1.5 points in a given battleground state, Trump will probably narrowly carry it. If Hillary is up by 3, she probably wins that state.
Click to expand...
Deezer, going to hold you to that prediction. You going to owe me a German beer.
 
So this DNC guy got caught with another one of their nasty emails that came out in the hack and leak.
He got fired/quit.
Anyone want to guess where he ended up?



 
mchammer said:
Deezer, going to hold you to that prediction. You going to owe me a German beer.
Click to expand...

Well, I just stocked up, so I've got I've got you covered on the off-chance that I lose. My favorite getränkemarkt just got its Oktoberfest beers in, so I loaded up with 100 half-liter bottles.

IMG_20160821_213932.jpg
 
New Pennsylvania poll --

"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has surged to a 5-point lead over democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania as per the poll conducted by CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution, on Friday (19th Aug 2016).

Trump leads Clinton 41.9 percent to 36.5 percent, with 21.5 percent voters undecided. Trump’s lead is just inside the margin of error and marks the first time that the Republican candidate is catching up in the traditional stronghold state of the democratic party......."

http://www.cbs8.com/story/32806609/...in-the-key-battleground-state-of-pennsylvania
 
That Pennsylvania poll methodology is wacko. It used landline robocalls, which means that it didn't even sample enough people below the age of 30 to include in the results. And the first question on the survey was "Who are you voting for? Press 1 for Donald Trump..."

Cherry-picking random polls that show unbelievable Trump gains is exactly that: unbelievable. The "reputable" polls from a week ago had Clinton up anywhere from 8 to 10 in PA. If her health concerns (or the myriad of other Clinton concerns) were enough for a 13-point swing in a week, so be it, but that doesn't smell kosher.

Mr. Deez said:
The bottom line is that if Hillary is up by 1-1.5 points in a given battleground state, Trump will probably narrowly carry it. If Hillary is up by 3, she probably wins that state.
Click to expand...

It was the opposite for Obama in 2008/12. Places like Florida (2012) had him down 1 percent to Romney then he won by 1 percent. Ohio was even tied in some polls going into election week and then he carried the state by 3 percent. I guess Hillary is so much more unlikable than Obama that your hypothesis is entirely plausible, but Democrats seem to be heading to the polls more reliably than 12+ years ago.
 
There's never been a presidential election in my adult life in which mentioning a choice in public to strangers puts one at risk of nasty backlash and resentment (or worse) as those openly supporting Trump.

It's got nothing to do with a lack of conviction in the choice, but everything to do with how absurdly aggressive the other side is when learning of it.

I don't seem to recall any HC rallies where her supporters were beaten, cussed up and down, and/or pelted with food and foreign objects. Most Trump rallies carry the threat of such and more than a few delivered.

Those voting for Trump have eyes and ears...we've seen how irate people can get over it.

Trump faithful will praise him from the rafters. But a large portion of those who didn't support Trump as a first choice (but now whole-heartedly choose him over HC) prefer to keep their voting intentions to themselves if the subject is broached in public.

Win or lose, people are going to realize these polls falsely inflated HC (and/or deflated Trump) much more than assumed.

To assume most of these polls are anywhere near as accurate as the past is ignoring reality. Then again you'd have to favor Trump to understand the scrutiny it brings.

I guarantee anytime Trump is within M.O.E the Clinton campaign starts to panic knowing how poorly measurable and unpredictable his support is compared to past elections.
 
Last edited:
Horns11 said:
It was the opposite for Obama in 2008/12. Places like Florida (2012) had him down 1 percent to Romney then he won by 1 percent. Ohio was even tied in some polls going into election week and then he carried the state by 3 percent. I guess Hillary is so much more unlikable than Obama that your hypothesis is entirely plausible, but Democrats seem to be heading to the polls more reliably than 12+ years ago.
Click to expand...

It was a very different election with very different candidates. Most of the polls back in 2008 and 2012 underestimated black turnout. Furthermore, there wasn't a stigma associated with admitting to being a Romney supporter, so the polling likely didn't not understate Romney's level of support.

Don't get the wrong idea. I don't think the polls are "rigged" or think they are heavily skewed against Trump. Like I said, if she's winning in the polls by significant margins, she's going to win. But do I think the polls could be skewed by point (which would be within the margin of error)? I think so.
 
I think the polls are being skewed to favor Clinton so that, when she wins via massive voter fraud, the MSM can say, "Well the polls all said this was going to be the result, so it must be right."
 
There is nothing that can give a candidate more momentum like skewing the polling. I don't think it's just skewed a little bit for this election either. There is an all out assault on Trump like never seen before. They will stop at nothing to change the election and anyone believe that's not true is pretty naive.
 
I35 said:
Which isn't true at all.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter if it's true. The perception is all that matters in this context. He's campaign is associated with racism and stupidity for two reasons. First, he's running as a Republican, and Republican nominees are always expressly or impliedly called stupid and racist by the media. Second, Trump basically does everything he can to reinforce and confirm the media's accusations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top