Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clinton and Trump and Johnson all hold steady whether you measure Clinton/Trump/Johnson or Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein.
Maybe Stein voters are simply Green voters who will not vote for anything other than Green Party. No Green Party; no vote.
I think the Stein voters are mostly liberal. With Johnson you get a mix of liberals and conservatives. Of course I could be wrong as well. Stein bleeding might simply help Johnson more than anything too.
It's been said many times before, but we must constantly remind ourselves that a president is elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. In other words it not so much the national polls that count but the polls in the "battleground" states.
If Donald wins Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and the rest of the Romney states ... Hillary is finished.
If Hillary just wins two of the above states then Donald is finished.
I do not believe Texas or Georgia or even Arizona will go for Hillary; I think the deep South (AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, TN, KY) is in Donald's corner. On the other hand I cannot see anyone but Hillary winning the entire Northeast (NY, NJ, PA, MD, DC, VA, DE, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME) as well as the Pacific Coast states.
I had to go to a Canadian pollster on the CBC website to find some untainted analysis on trending.
Quote:
"The three most recent U.S. polls in the Presidential Poll Tracker point to a trend line that is slowly moving against Hillary Clinton. (dated 8/23 - today)
■An Ipsos/Reuters poll put Clinton ahead by five points among decided voters. Her edge in the Ipsos poll done a week earlier was six points.
■A poll from Morning Consult had Clinton ahead by four points among decided voters, compared to a lead of seven points earlier in the month.
■And the daily tracking poll from UPI/CVOTER has gone from a Clinton lead that was as wide as seven points to a tie with Trump.
If you look at trending you should always compare the same polling outfit's results over time because the methodology doesn't change. Pick a pollster and stick with them.
If CNN/ORC is still polling (haven't checked since the primaries) they include it in their actual poll data but often, the person doing the reporting on the CNN website doesn't mention it.
It's been said many times before, but we must constantly remind ourselves that a president is elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. In other words it not so much the national polls that count but the polls in the "battleground" states.
If Donald wins Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and the rest of the Romney states ... Hillary is finished.
If Hillary just wins two of the above states then Donald is finished.
I do not believe Texas or Georgia or even Arizona will go for Hillary; I think the deep South (AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, TN, KY) is in Donald's corner. On the other hand I cannot see anyone but Hillary winning the entire Northeast (NY, NJ, PA, MD, DC, VA, DE, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME) as well as the Pacific Coast states.
Which makes it all the more strange that Trump is holding rallies in Texas and Mississippi. It's down to days now, and for a candidate to expend time and resources in places he doesn't need to, just doesn't make sense.
I had to go to a Canadian pollster on the CBC website to find some untainted analysis on trending.
If you look at trending you should always compare the same polling outfit's results over time because the methodology doesn't change. Pick a pollster and stick with them.
If CNN/ORC is still polling (haven't checked since the primaries) they include it in their actual poll data but often, the person doing the reporting on the CNN website doesn't mention it.
I appreciate the utter desperation of Trumpies for some good news, but a one point move in a poll is statistically neither a change nor a trend. From other more sensible posts of yours, I am sure you know this.
Which makes it all the more strange that Trump is holding rallies in Texas and Mississippi. It's down to days now, and for a candidate to expend time and resources in places he doesn't need to, just doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense if his real goal is not to win the election, but to develop an avid following among the alt-right that he can later financially exploit with a Trump Network that tries to outfox Fox News.
I can see a Trump News Network being even more Paddy Chayefsky inspired "Network" modeled than Fox ever was. We may eventually see Sybil the Soothsayer on TV news.
Which makes it all the more strange that Trump is holding rallies in Texas and Mississippi. It's down to days now, and for a candidate to expend time and resources in places he doesn't need to, just doesn't make sense.
Money most likely is his issue. He had about 30 some million cash on hand at the start of August but half of that goes right back into fundraising. I'm guessing that his post RNC troubles dried up the well a bit. These next two weeks are the last chance to hit major donors.
Likely a bit of an outlier but it does give us insight into why Clinton stopped advertising in Colorado and Virginia as well. The guys that run Benchmark Politics and Brandon Finnigan of Decision Desk HQ have said both states demographically are out of Trumps reach for months.
Might be an outlier but virtually every poll has this by double digits. It isn't close and Trump is a tire fire in VA.
Which makes it all the more strange that Trump is holding rallies in Texas and Mississippi. It's down to days now, and for a candidate to expend time and resources in places he doesn't need to, just doesn't make sense.
A fundraiser with a ralky here and there is one thing, but doing so at times he is cancelling events in Colorado and Nevada makes no sense.
Likely a bit of an outlier but it does give us insight into why Clinton stopped advertising in Colorado and Virginia as well. The guys that run Benchmark Politics and Brandon Finnigan of Decision Desk HQ have said both states demographically are out of Trumps reach for months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Might be an outlier but virtually every poll has this by double digits. It isn't close and Trump is a tire fire in VA.
Definite outlier.
But, as you say, even if this poll is off by, say, 6%... it still means Trump is losing VA by 10%.
The 18 states + DC that every Democrat has won since 1992, plus VA and CO and NM and NH - in all of which Clinton has large leads - comes out to 273 Electoral College votes (Clinton needs 270 to clinch).
So, Trump has to hold AZ and GA, where he's barely hanging on.
And he has to take back NC and FL and OH and NV and IA, in all of which Clinton has staked out leads - pretty solid leads in FL, OH, NV, narrower ones in NC and IA.
And finally, he has to poach a state where he not only trails but trails badly now.
And he has no ground game. And he's being outspent. And half of his party treats him like he has flesh-eating bacteria.
It's no wonder the Trumplings are praying for Clinton to drop dead, or for an October Surprise. Really, what else is there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
