Hillary ahead by 15% (!!!) in first fully post-convention poll

[Iceweasel]

founded in 2016

--LOL

even
Nate Silver says from his Twitter:
"They're new-ish so don't know much about em. "

so he will post results anyway
too funny

did Nate say anything about whether it's scientific or not? You're losing this one, my friend.
We're not discussing new-ish vs. old-ish. We're discussing scientific vs. unscientific.

What exactly makes it scientific in your mind?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first question, how likely are you to vote. 83% said they would be voting.
Considering that 83% will never vote in an election, I suspect this whole poll is worthless. It says what they want it to say.
I maintain my theory that there is only one poll that is accurate, and that will be in November. And even that poll is only as accurate as the one tasked at counting the votes.
With a secret ballot there is no way to prove results after the "count" has been concluded.

Your math is wrong.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The first question, how likely are you to vote. 83% said they would be voting.
Considering that 83% will never vote in an election, I suspect this whole poll is worthless. It says what they want it to say.
I maintain my theory that there is only one poll that is accurate, and that will be in November. And even that poll is only as accurate as the one tasked at counting the votes.
With a secret ballot there is no way to prove results after the "count" has been concluded.

Your math is wrong.

how is my math wrong, the poll says 83% are going to be voting. Its not my math, its the liberal math thats wrong, as always.

 

[Neotrotsky]

founded in 2016

--LOL

even
Nate Silver says from his Twitter:
"They're new-ish so don't know much about em. "

so he will post results anyway
too funny

did Nate say anything about whether it's scientific or not? You're losing this one, my friend.
We're not discussing new-ish vs. old-ish. We're discussing scientific vs. unscientific.

What exactly makes it scientific in your mind?

He likes the results

 

[A Perez]

Hey right wing nuts butthurt about the results: Is Reuters/Ipsos (Internet) a scientific pollster?

**Warning: You risk the possibility of me digging in the archives and finding posts where you kiss Reuters' ass when they showed good Trump results in the past.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first question, how likely are you to vote. 83% said they would be voting.
Considering that 83% will never vote in an election, I suspect this whole poll is worthless. It says what they want it to say.
I maintain my theory that there is only one poll that is accurate, and that will be in November. And even that poll is only as accurate as the one tasked at counting the votes.
With a secret ballot there is no way to prove results after the "count" has been concluded.

Your math is wrong.

how is my math wrong, the poll says 83% are going to be voting. Its not my math, its the liberal math thats wrong, as always.

No, it says that they selected out likely voters from the whole.

 

[jon_berzerk]

founded in 2016

--LOL

But they're affordable!

yes nbc says so

--LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey right wing nuts butthurt about the results: Is Reuters/Ipsos (Internet) a scientific pollster?

**Warning: You risk the possibility of me digging in the archives and finding posts where you kiss Reuters' ass when they showed good Trump results in the past.

Reuters last poll polled a ratio of 1.2 Democrats for every Republican. The 2012 exit polls show that ratio to be 1.19.

I can't see how that's biased on Reuter's part.

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

 

[Iceweasel]

Hey right wing nuts butthurt about the results: Is Reuters/Ipsos (Internet) a scientific pollster?

**Warning: You risk the possibility of me digging in the archives and finding posts where you kiss Reuters' ass when they showed good Trump results in the past.

I don't know but in the scientific realm what would be called a deflection.

 

[JoeMoma]

It is an internet poll

"956 interviews among voters were conducted July 29, 2016 via internet survey"
non-scientific
Democrats party of science- yeah right



Like your local TV station says
go to our website and vote on something




Democrats desperation is too
funny

but it does look like Queen Hillary has gotten a traditional convention bump
small one so far- which must explains the Democrats desperation to use non-scientific polls


Real Clear Politics
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton- oddly enough RABA is not to be found in the mix
funny that works


RCP Average 7/18 - 7/29 -- -- 43.7 43.3 Clinton +0.4
Reuters/Ipsos 7/25 - 7/29 1050 LV 3.5 40 35 Clinton +5
LA Times/USC 7/23 - 7/29 2188 LV -- 42 47 Trump +5
Rasmussen Reports 7/26 - 7/27 1000 LV 3.0 43 42 Clinton +1
Economist/YouGov 7/23 - 7/24 1057 RV 4.5 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/ORC 7/22 - 7/24 882 RV 3.5 45 48 Trump +3
CBS News 7/22 - 7/24 1118 RV 4.0 43 44 Trump +1
NBC News/SM 7/18 - 7/24 12931 RV 1.2 46 45 Clinton +1

It is a scientific poll. Unscientific polls are the ones that do not control for race, gender, etc. HuffPo only lists scientific polls, but you pretended that RCP is the only poll aggregator in the world RABA Research (7/29 2016)
HuffPo included RABA

And Vulcans don't lie. (The Trekies will understand.)

 

[Iceweasel]

The first question, how likely are you to vote. 83% said they would be voting.
Considering that 83% will never vote in an election, I suspect this whole poll is worthless. It says what they want it to say.
I maintain my theory that there is only one poll that is accurate, and that will be in November. And even that poll is only as accurate as the one tasked at counting the votes.
With a secret ballot there is no way to prove results after the "count" has been concluded.

Your math is wrong.

how is my math wrong, the poll says 83% are going to be voting. Its not my math, its the liberal math thats wrong, as always.

No, it says that they selected out likely voters from the whole.

No, not "they". The people willing to answer the affordable robo call routine. How do you know more men didn't say fuck you and hang up?

 

[MarathonMike]

Nate Silver has proven to be the most accurate predictor of recent elections. Check out NateSilver538.com. Three months ago Hillary had a +100 electoral vote lead in his model. Today her electoral vote lead is 2.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The first question, how likely are you to vote. 83% said they would be voting.
Considering that 83% will never vote in an election, I suspect this whole poll is worthless. It says what they want it to say.
I maintain my theory that there is only one poll that is accurate, and that will be in November. And even that poll is only as accurate as the one tasked at counting the votes.
With a secret ballot there is no way to prove results after the "count" has been concluded.

Your math is wrong.

how is my math wrong, the poll says 83% are going to be voting. Its not my math, its the liberal math thats wrong, as always.

No, it says that they selected out likely voters from the whole.

oh, so If I do a poll and only ask Trump supporters who they will be voting for, you will accept the fact that 100% of the vote will go to Trump?
their math is wrong.

 

[yiostheoy]

A new Raba Research poll shows Hillary Clinton defeating Donald Trump by a humongous 15%.

http://www.rabaresearch.com/documents/RABA-Updated-National-Survey-July-2016-2.pdf

I assume that the convention per se isn't the reason Trump is crumbling, but also his ties to Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Once again, it is the swing states that matter, not the overall polling.

We need swing state data.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Nate Silver has proven to be the most accurate predictor of recent elections. Check out NateSilver538.com. Three months ago Hillary had a +100 electoral vote lead in his model. Today her electoral vote lead is 2.

still waiting for the November poll.
Even if they come out and say its going to be Trump by a landslide I would have to question the methods.

 

[yiostheoy]

All three of Nate Silver's methods have Hillary in the lead.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

What a difference a week makes!

These aren't polls they are just projection bullsh!t.

 

[yiostheoy]

Nate Silver has proven to be the most accurate predictor of recent elections. Check out NateSilver538.com. Three months ago Hillary had a +100 electoral vote lead in his model. Today her electoral vote lead is 2.

still waiting for the November poll.
Even if they come out and say its going to be Trump by a landslide I would have to question the methods.

It definitely will not be Trump by a landslide.

He needs to sweep all the swing states to win.

Hillary only needs one big one or a couple of others.

It may be close or it may be a Hillary landslide but it won't be a Trump landslide. He has alienated too many voters.

 

[yiostheoy]

How cute. The Democrats are self soothing after their disaster of a convention.

"Head to your safe space and take solace....Everything will be OK."

So you thought the DNC Convention was a disaster? Too bad ALL the tv news commentators including BBC and PBS disagree with you.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Nate Silver has proven to be the most accurate predictor of recent elections. Check out NateSilver538.com. Three months ago Hillary had a +100 electoral vote lead in his model. Today her electoral vote lead is 2.

still waiting for the November poll.
Even if they come out and say its going to be Trump by a landslide I would have to question the methods.

It definitely will not be Trump by a landslide.

He needs to sweep all the swing states to win.

Hillary only needs one big one or a couple of others.

It may be close or it may be a Hillary landslide but it won't be a Trump landslide. He has alienated too many voters.

Im counting on the wall
I want the filthy scum illegals out of the country. All of them, and their diseased spawn

 

[oreo]

A new Raba Research poll shows Hillary Clinton defeating Donald Trump by a humongous 15%.

http://www.rabaresearch.com/documents/RABA-Updated-National-Survey-July-2016-2.pdf

I assume that the convention per se isn't the reason Trump is crumbling, but also his ties to Russia's Vladimir Putin.

I am certain she is ahead a lot further ahead than that. I know a lot of Republicans and not one of them are voting to put this emotionally unstable male drama queen in the Oval Office.

Trump publicly encouraging Russia to do a cyber attack on the United States put the final nail in his Commander & Chief aspirations also--LOL

Here is what Leon Panetta, CIA Chief & Secretary of Defense had to say about that.