Featured BREAKING: Trump Shocks In Newest Poll

So you say. Show us historically where polls have changed significantly after a debate (or after the debates) or in the last two weeks. It just doesn't happen that often. You can go back 50 years for all I care.

 

"There you go again."

 

Okay, okay, okay, it is tightening up in these polls but they still aren't anything to depend on.

The demographic argument is difficult to tackle, you have to remember the non-hispanic white population is made up of a lot of under eighteens and illegals

What? She doesn't have one EV yet. Hope you're not talking about Larry "the DNC hack' Sabato's EC map again - this is one is much better analysis:

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9855

Cook is a democrat outfit, too but all their "analysis" of the EC is really whack. The launching point for both Clinton and Trump should be this one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

and go from there. The EC is not set in stone and the demo arguments are volatile - just because some state voted for GWB or Kerry doesn't mean they'll do the same years later.

Hillary ought to make the Sabato/Obama map a reality, Trump needs to turn big EV states like PA and OH back to the GOP. I know they're basing all this on the state polls but those tend to lag behind the others and they're unreliable comparatively-speaking.

 

Salty said Trump was getting close in electoral votes and provided a link to a map showing Clinton with 272 EV's. That's what prompted my comment that Clinton as being shown as having won.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

272 to 170 is a 102 vote advantage, not a 2 vote advantage.

And 270 is enough to win the presidency.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

A reality check for Trump supporters. Even this biased poll that is heavily tilted in Trump's direction is now a tie.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

 

The LA Times is biased toward Trump? Now I've heard it all.

 

I didn't say that. I said the poll was biased.

 

We're anxiously awaiting your evidence. Please explain.

Until then, Trump's not doing too bad considering the media blitz. My guess is they were hoping for more than just tied.

 

ITL you know that any poll that has Trump losing is rigged, because of course he is going to have a huge win, unless of course he loses there, in which case it will be a rigged election because there is just no way the Donald who is absolutely not a loser can lose, nor could he possibly be responsible for his loss, that will be the Republican parties fault. Only polls that show he is winning are accurate, and you know they are accurate because they show him winning.

note: the above is meant to be read sarcastically

 

Yes, it is funny that during the primaries when Trump was winning in the polls he was tweeting them out daily, talking them up at rallies, and bragging them up in the GOP debates. Now that they show him losing, they're "rigged".

Meanwhile Hillary's rallies are drawing more and more people, she had over 18,000 at one recently, while the GOP is canceling fundraisers for lack of attendees. Also, Utah, Georgia and Arizona are in play.

 

Just some advice. If you have to label your comments as "sarcastic" it's likely not good sarcasm.

I just remember in the primaries Trump usually outperformed polls and NBC was busted a bunch of times for some wild outliers.

Also, media, lately, has been shown to be very biased, including the LA Times. If this were a conservative media outlet it would be more plausible, but the LA Times has a history of trying to bring down conservative candidates and support liberals ones. Why would they then do a biased poll toward Trump? They hate Trump!

But all I'm asking for is evidence for the claim. Do either of you have any?

 

Yes, she will probably ascend to her throne January 2017 But when I stand before the Bema seat I will be able to say I did all I could to defeat the queen of baby murder.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

HankD

 

I know, but I also have been around this board long enough to know that if someone really wanted to they could take it literally, and try to beat me over the head with it, so I was just cutting that off at the pass. I have no idea if that one poll is biased toward Trump, but one look showed it is definitely an outlier. All one really has to do at this point is look at any pro-trump twitter feed or website to see that the whole thing is imploding, and they are going to take as much as the GOP with them as possible.

 

The way the poll is conducted makes it an inherently flawed poll. For example:

* The poll is based on 3,000 people. Not registered voters, not likely voters, simply people.

* Every week the poll asks 400 of these 3,000 people three questions, then another group of 400 people the next week and so on. The questions:
Will you vote?
Will you vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else?
Who will win?

So, it's a simplistic tracking poll that asks people that might not even be voting who they would vote for. Who would consider the polling data of a person that says they are NOT going to vote?

The questions that are asked are ridiculous. Who will win? Really? Consider the possible thought process going on inside a participants mind. Example: "Well, Trump is getting big crowds at rallies, so I think he's going to win, and I want to be a winner, so I'm going to say I'm voting for Trump."

The poll has been going on since July, meaning the same group of 400 people could be asked the same questions up to three times. But since you are asking a different group of 400 people every week, it's not really a tracking poll.

Bottom line: This is an experimental poll that uses unconventional and unreliable methodology.

 

Whew!

HankD