2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part VII

[Mertex]

man you got it bad for the old girl Hillary. I bet you were one who turned on her the last time she ran and voted instead for that NOBODY community agitating thug Obama

too bad she doesn't tell you all to go to hell, but she want THE POWER she could give a shit about you little peons. you saw how long her get and mingle with the litlbe people lasted. TWO whole week was she could stand...

How sad to be a slave/subject to a Party. you don't care who runs

I am so sorry that you are this incredibly stupid, Stephanie.

I mean, I am really sorry that you are this pathetic, that you cannot read, you cannot comprehend, nix, nada.

It's really sad.

I've been doing this analysis series for 2.5 years, long before I was forced to stumble upon you.

Now, go play with your tonka toys.

Thanks.

Staph is too po' to have tonka toys. She plays in a cardboard box.

But she gets welfare.........maybe she's the "Welfare Queen" the conservatives see everywhere shopping in her Cadillac buying beer and cigarettes?

I don't think Staph is smart enough to figure out how to get away with fraud.

She's not.......she just shops in conservative owned stores and wears the Confederate Flag on her shorts.

 

[mamooth]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

 

[HenryBHough]

All general election polls comparing Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky to GOP contenders are without meaning as she can never be the Democrat Party candidate. No, not her slime trail....that bothers them not at all. But she's too old; too white; too female.

 

[westwall]

​

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond 2016 GE Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field Part VII

At the link is the 7th installation in a series that deeply examines ALL of the Clinton-vs.-GOP polling to-date. I also reported parts IV, V and VI here in USMB in May and October of 2014, again in January 2015, right here in the elections forum..

By "all", I mean 1,537 polling matchups to-date, and it's not even election year yet.

There are too many tables and such data to port over here and I am not going to quote any of it here, so I recommend that you go to the link and read it for yourself.

In the analysis:

-how many states have been polled to date.

-exact numbers on how many polls per state, also by GOP candidate, meaning, an exact listing.

-a detailed explanation of the raw-data, with links to a large EXCEL-table, with every single poll, linked and noted. Also, a download link for that EXCEL-document for anyone who wants to see it offline. GoogleDocs doesn't always work well online. The nice thing about that is that each state has its own tab, you can tab to where you want to go to see all of the stats. Every poll is hyperlinked to its source.

-a listing of the 42 separate pollsters who have polled thus far (it was 33 just 6 months ago).

-a in-depth analysis of state-polling, with emphasis on the 7 most key-states. I bet you already know which ones those are. But also analysed are a number of RED states that might surprise you.

-a section on national polling and the entry of Donald Trump into the Republican nomination race.

-also a listing of 3, maybe four factors to be watched, with benchmarks.

-my polling wish-list

-a Facit: at the end.

Because I am not taking averages yet, there is no reason to be making predictions yet. But trends and currents can be seen.

The one thing that sticks out the most is how unbelievably stabile and consistent the data has been over the last 2.5 years.

Barring any strange or jolting happenings in the nomination race, the next analysis comes out shortly before or after the Iowa caucuses in January 2016. And as of that point in time, this series ceases and the "2016 Electoral Landscape" series begins, with averages and predictions, including predictive EV maps.

It's a long read, so bring your coffee with you.

-Stat

What I find interesting is she can't get people to show up to her events without paying them it seems, and Sanders is drawing tens of thousands. He's a serious threat to her presidential aspirations and rightly so.

 

[westwall]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

When you only poll those who have given her money that makes sense.

 

[mamooth]

What I find interesting is she can't get people to show up to her events without paying them it seems, and Sanders is drawing tens of thousands. He's a serious threat to her presidential aspirations and rightly so.

And during the 2012 campaign, we were deluged here with those same kinds of threads, about how Obama was doomed because he didn't speak to a full house at some event.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not so much he wasn't playing to a full house as that he was not playing with a full deck. But that didn't seem to matter.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

When you only poll those who have given her money that makes sense.

That is not what IPSOS does.

That statement was just plain old silly on your part, and you know it.

 

[westwall]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

When you only poll those who have given her money that makes sense.

That is not what IPSOS does.

That statement was just plain old silly on your part, and you know it.

It's not?


"NO HARD DATA

Statistics is all about numbers – without those the process of analyzing data doesn’t exist. And, yet, journalists constantly try to make sense out of their data sets, taken from unsubstantiated research methods that continuously fill the scientific process with “information” that is void of all truth, according to Steve Gillman, author of A Book of Secrets.

Reuters/Ipsos took this phenomenon one step higher.

Not only did they report unspecific information, they didn’t even provide Americans with access to the hard poll data so that they could judge the analyses for themselves. There are many times throughout the article where hard numbers could have been used if the poll conducted was indeed valid. For example:

Six in 10 of those who strongly identify with the conservative Tea Party movement said they loved or liked the ad. An almost equal percentage of people who self-identified as mainstream Republicans either disliked or hated it.

They, essentially, used illogical reasoning instead of quantitative fact to form their thoughts– something that Gillman says is common in online polls because of their deceptive nature. And they did this by basing their knowledge from a skewed population sample.

The population – or the people questioned in a survey – determines a polls validity, accuracy and reliability. If the population sample isn’t large enough, then the results will give the researcher a contorted view of the population’s characteristics. It’s through this rose-colored lens that analyzers see the data, and they ends up making uncertain, unsubstantiated arguments at best.

Polls that are skewed cannot be believed."



The art of deception Reuters Ipsos poll is unbelieveable The Washington Journalism Center Blog

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

The real devil is in the details and this is a point I am hammering home every time the data shows it:

The question asks the poll respondents how their view of candidates has changed based on the debate from 5 days ago. The question is then broken down by D,R and I.

Forget the "No - has not changed my view" because, since we have no idea how many out of that percentage already had a positive or negative view of a candidate, registering no change in this poll tells us little. But those who recorded either a more positive view or a more negative view - now that is data worth looking at.

Look at Rand Paul.

Among all voters in the poll, 9% now have a more positive view of him, while 19% have a more negative view of him. That's a 10 point deficit, not something that a candidate wants to get from a debate. Now, people could say, "yeah, but the Democrats are generating that statistic". Ok, let's see about that.

Rand Paul:

among Democrats: 9 yes, 16 no, = -7. His deficit among Democrats is SMALLER than among all voters in this poll.

among Republicans: 8 yes, 22 no, = -14. Paul tanked among Republicans.

among Independents: 14 yes, 25 no, = -11, one point larger in definite than the poll overall.

So, actually, Democratic input kept his deficit from getting any larger, which also backs the theory that some of his views actually do resonate with some Democrats, which also explains why Rand Paul often comes closer to Hillary Clinton in matchups than Bush, Walker or Trump.

Now, to Trump:

all voters: 21 yes / 31 no, = -10 (deficit of 10 points)
among Democrats: 17 yes / 35 no, = -18
among Republicans: 30 yes / 28 no, = +2
among Independents: 15 yes / 37 no, = -22

And those are the numbers that really tell us something. Roughly 30% of Republicans are choosing Trump to be their nominee in matchups. And 30% of Republicans in this poll now have a more favorable opinion of him based on his behavior in the debate. I think it's pretty fair to say that that's a common intersection between those who selected him in the primary polling (Trump 21, Bush 11, Rubio 6 and so on, in this poll) and those who like what they heard. 28% of Republicans now view him less favorably. This doesn't mean they won't vote for him, but it means they may wobble. Among Democrats, who do not like Trump, the -18 (deficit) is not surprise. A Republican nominee is probably going to get 7-9% of the Democratic vote in a GE and that's that, anyway.

But it's the INDEPENDENT number that is killing Trump. With a whopping -22 (deficit) and the highest negative number in this category (37), Indies did not like what they heard, and a nominee must win the Indies in order to win the election.

I have been making this point over and over and over again about Trump.

He is winning in GOP polling, but is getting creamed in GE matchups, in large part to the fact that he is tanking terribly among Independents.

Among Independents, Trump is trailing by 13 points, Cruz is trailing by 15 points, Carson is trailing by 27 points, Walker by 26 points.

With Bush, Walker and Christie and Carson, we see a traditional electorate figure forming, with each side getting 6-9% of the opposing party's vote. With Cruz, Rubio and Trump, the number is 10-11%, but among the own party, Clinton is doing better with the D's and the Rs are doing with the R's. There are lots of "neither/or", "wouldn't vote" and "DN/refused" - this is normal for this far out from an election. It's the margins that count.

This is just one poll, but I am seeing these kinds of internals all over the place.

The GOP is losing because it is getting crushed in the I-vote.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ipsos-Reuters poll just out. Hillary polls ahead of all the GOP candidates by double digits.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14724

Clinton 41% Bush 29%
Clinton 44% Walker 24%
Clinton 42% Christie 25%
Clinton 44% Carson 24%
Clinton 41% Cruz 27%
Clinton 41% Rubio 28%
Clinton 43% Trump 29%

When you only poll those who have given her money that makes sense.

That is not what IPSOS does.

That statement was just plain old silly on your part, and you know it.

It's not?


"NO HARD DATA

Statistics is all about numbers – without those the process of analyzing data doesn’t exist. And, yet, journalists constantly try to make sense out of their data sets, taken from unsubstantiated research methods that continuously fill the scientific process with “information” that is void of all truth, according to Steve Gillman, author of A Book of Secrets.

Reuters/Ipsos took this phenomenon one step higher.

Not only did they report unspecific information, they didn’t even provide Americans with access to the hard poll data so that they could judge the analyses for themselves. There are many times throughout the article where hard numbers could have been used if the poll conducted was indeed valid. For example:

Six in 10 of those who strongly identify with the conservative Tea Party movement said they loved or liked the ad. An almost equal percentage of people who self-identified as mainstream Republicans either disliked or hated it.

They, essentially, used illogical reasoning instead of quantitative fact to form their thoughts– something that Gillman says is common in online polls because of their deceptive nature. And they did this by basing their knowledge from a skewed population sample.

The population – or the people questioned in a survey – determines a polls validity, accuracy and reliability. If the population sample isn’t large enough, then the results will give the researcher a contorted view of the population’s characteristics. It’s through this rose-colored lens that analyzers see the data, and they ends up making uncertain, unsubstantiated arguments at best.

Polls that are skewed cannot be believed."



The art of deception Reuters Ipsos poll is unbelieveable The Washington Journalism Center Blog

They provide the same internals that most pollsters provide and they provide far more internals than Rasmussen.

Furthermore, in the 2012 election, IPSOS/Reuters scored a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias based on comparing their end polling to the actual results:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond End Polling Table - USA - alphabetical by pollster name

Ipsos final Colorado poll: Obama +1. Actual result: Obama +5.4. IPSOS was off to the right by 4.4 points.

Ipsos final Florida poll: Romney +1. Actual result: Obama +1. IPSOS was off to the right by 2 points.

Ipsos final Virginia poll: Obama +2. Actual result: Obama +4. IPSOS was off to the right by 2 points.

Ipsos final Ohio poll: Obama +4. Actual result: Obama +3. IPSOS was off to the Left by 1 point.

IPSOS final national poll: Obama +4. Actual result: Obama +4. IPSOS was off to the Right by 2 points.

5 large end-polls: IPSOS was off to the Right in 4 of five polls. Average mathematical bias: 1.88 points to the RIGHT.

So, based on it's most recent performance in presidential elections, no one can, with any credibility, accuse IPSOS of being in the tank for the Democrats.

That is just plain old bullshit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, and westwall , the NJC that you quote (National Journalism Center) is a hard-right think-tank:

National Journalism Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at it's list of alums.

Now, you can feel free to list as partisan a source as you wish, but I will point out to you that it is extremely partisan and biased to begin with.

As a pollster, in 2012, Ipsos/Reuters did far better than Rasmussen, Pulse, Gravis, WAA, McLaughlin, etc.

It's mathematical bias was on par with Quinnipiac.

 

[JimH52]

As bad as everyone says Hillary is....as much as everyones says her campaign is imploding....she still easily wins over all the GOP clowns in every poll.

HOW.SAD IS THAT?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a heads up match. Let me know when we're heads up, the rest of this is just silly

 

[JimH52]

It's a heads up match. Let me know when we're heads up, the rest of this is just silly

Well, with Trump, he has had his head up his "wherever" since he announced he is running. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[jasonnfree]

In the meantime, even go along to get along joe biden gets mentioned as a standby for hillary, and not a word about bernie sanders who's packing the audiences in. I guess bernie's not in the club. Strange? No, sanders and even trump speak out against these insane trade deals that favor american jobs going to low wage countries. They are not politically correct. Where's hillary on the transpacific partnership? I'm sure she's for it but won't tell us her position on it until her coronation. What good are all these politicians who were lawyers such as hillary and obama, if they can't understand that the tpp is unconstitutional?

 

[Statistikhengst]

In the meantime, even go along to get along joe biden gets mentioned as a standby for hillary, and not a word about bernie sanders who's packing the audiences in. I guess bernie's not in the club. Strange? No, sanders and even trump speak out against these insane trade deals that favor american jobs going to low wage countries. They are not politically correct. Where's hillary on the transpacific partnership? I'm sure she's for it but won't tell us her position on it until her coronation. What good are all these politicians who were lawyers such as hillary and obama, if they can't understand that the tpp is unconstitutional?

Hart once got huge audiences. So did Mo Udall. They didn't get nominated.

 

[westwall]

Oh, and westwall , the NJC that you quote (National Journalism Center) is a hard-right think-tank:

National Journalism Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at it's list of alums.

Now, you can feel free to list as partisan a source as you wish, but I will point out to you that it is extremely partisan and biased to begin with.

As a pollster, in 2012, Ipsos/Reuters did far better than Rasmussen, Pulse, Gravis, WAA, McLaughlin, etc.

It's mathematical bias was on par with Quinnipiac.

ALL polling groups are biased. The only thing that matters is do they present accurate information that is repeatable by anyone using the methods that they provide. In the case I posted to, they didn't.

 

[westwall]

As bad as everyone says Hillary is....as much as everyones says her campaign is imploding....she still easily wins over all the GOP clowns in every poll.

HOW.SAD IS THAT?

No, what's sad is you believe them. According to the polls from 7 years ago she is now our POTUS.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, and westwall , the NJC that you quote (National Journalism Center) is a hard-right think-tank:

National Journalism Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at it's list of alums.

Now, you can feel free to list as partisan a source as you wish, but I will point out to you that it is extremely partisan and biased to begin with.

As a pollster, in 2012, Ipsos/Reuters did far better than Rasmussen, Pulse, Gravis, WAA, McLaughlin, etc.

It's mathematical bias was on par with Quinnipiac.

ALL polling groups are biased. The only thing that matters is do they present accurate information that is repeatable by anyone using the methods that they provide. In the case I posted to, they didn't.

Yes, they are, to some degree, and we can measure bias, accurately and mathematically, without any warts, boils, toils or troubles.

Which is why I accept ALL polling from accredited pollsters and have learned that the aggregate usually comes damned close to truth.