Hillary beats Trump in Latest National Poll by 11%

[Redfish]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

They are no better than educated guesses. They are statistically garbage. The sample size is so small that it is meaningless mathematically.

That's my point, yes, some of them have guessed correctly, so have I, so have you.

It's not meaningless mathematically. You keep saying that.

Yes, it is. Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 text book. Unless a sample is 5% of the population it is not statistically meaningful.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim that their tiny samples are structured to proportionally represent every demographic in the country-------------but its bullshit.

Do you really think they can take 1000 people and accurately proportionally represent every demographic in the USA? Think about it.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

They are no better than educated guesses. They are statistically garbage. The sample size is so small that it is meaningless mathematically.

That's my point, yes, some of them have guessed correctly, so have I, so have you.

It's not meaningless mathematically. You keep saying that.

Yes, it is. Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 text book. Unless a sample is 5% of the population it is not statistically meaningful.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim that their tiny samples are structured to proportionally represent every demographic in the country-------------but its bullshit.

Do you really think they can take 1000 people and accurately proportionally represent every demographic in the USA? Think about it.

Demonstrate how it's bullshit. Show a majority of trusted polling firms getting it wrong...let's say 40% of the time. Also, take a look at how close they are to the vote totals and how often the trusted pollster are close, they are pretty accurate, not perfect as that would be impossible.

Also, read this:

How Political Polling Works

At least for starters.

 

[bripat9643]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

 

[Toro]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

 

[bripat9643]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

Unlike your graph, mine shows carter in the lead except for right after the Republican convention and right up until the election.

 

[Boss]

At the point. we have come to I support anyone showing even the slightest bit of violence at any political event, on either side or no side, should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A couple of key points here... what has happened at Trump rallies, where protesters were kicked out of the rally by security, is nothing at all related to what happened in San Jose. Those people were innocent citizens who attended a peaceful political rally and were physically assaulted and battered by a mob outside the venue. There is no "equals-pequels" here... it's apples and hand grenades. The venue security cannot be responsible for what happens outside the venue, that's on the mayor and police chief.

Hillary had her chance to condemn, in no uncertain terms, what took place in San Jose. She chose to try and SPIN the responsibility for it on Trump for "creating the environment of anger" or some such nonsense. That is NOT going to go over well with the average citizen in America regardless of politics. We Can NOT... have a breakdown of our political election process like this. Citizens MUST be protected when attending political gatherings from violent protest. There can be no "pass" or "shift the blame" on this... there can be no "excuses and rationalizations" for it... there is NO justification for it whatsoever and it can NOT be allowed in this country. Left, right, Democrat, Republican... nutbag third party... NO ONE should ever be intimidated or threatened in ANY way when attending a political rally... that is the keystone to Freedom of Speech.

 

[Kosh]

UH OH, the polls have switched again and it appears Hillary is now in a double digit lead against Trump, Nation wide... I'm sure it will change another 20 times before the election but this was simply a really bad week for Donny Dangerous!!! This poll went thru mid day today....if it had gone a few more days, I bet she would have been 20 points ahead of The Don, with more people getting time to hear her speech from yesterday...

Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump nationwide: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.

See how the far left will rig the polls so they can claim that their worse than Bush candidate is a good thing..

If you want to see what the polls say go here:

PollingReport.com

 

[Kosh]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

That you are a far left drone that is voting for Hilary Clinton..

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

That you are a far left drone that is voting for Hilary Clinton..

last I heard,,,Trump is ahead of Hillary by 98 points.

 

[sonic]

Don The Con is getting the crap beat out of him - every bit of it completely deserved. The man is intellectually and emotionally unfit for office, and we're making damn sure more Americans know it each and every day.

 

[Kosh]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

That you are a far left drone that is voting for Hilary Clinton..

last I heard,,,Trump is ahead of Hillary by 98 points.

Maybe to Donald Trump..

But then again the far left actually believes they get a choice in their nominations..

 

[auditor0007]

UH OH, the polls have switched again and it appears Hillary is now in a double digit lead against Trump, Nation wide... I'm sure it will change another 20 times before the election but this was simply a really bad week for Donny Dangerous!!! This poll went thru mid day today....if it had gone a few more days, I bet she would have been 20 points ahead of The Don, with more people getting time to hear her speech from yesterday...

Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump nationwide: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.

I still do not know how this election is going to play out. I am certain that Hillary will be our next president. I just don't know if it will be close or a landslide. I am still going to stick with my original prediction that she will win by at least ten percentage points. When the FBI finalizes their investigation and tells us that while they found Clinton's actions to be unwise and that she skirted some regulations, there was no intent to do anything wrong and therefore there is no evidence to push for any kind of indictment against her, then many voters will realize that the E-mail scandal was not a scandal and not reason to vote against her. At the same time, Republicans will push back saying that she is a criminal, even though there is no indictment, then independents will realize just how nuts Trump's supporters are. All this along with the fact that Hillary will eat Donald up in the debates, because unlike the Republican debates, voters for the general election will be interested in actual policy debates. Trump calling Hillary an old hag, won't cut it in the presidential debates.

Now, Trump could become some born again politician and actually find a way to talk real policies, but he won't. In the end, he is going to end up looking pretty silly, and Hillary will win this quite easily. The real question is whether or not she can become a strong enough candidate to help the down ticket in a big way or not.

 

[Toro]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

Unlike your graph, mine shows carter in the lead except for right after the Republican convention and right up until the election.

First, I was responding to the claim that Carter was ahead by 13 points right before the election. He was not. Your graph shows that Carter was not ahead by 13 points right before the election. So thanks for reinforcing what I said.

Second, my graph shows all the polls. Yours shows only the Gallup polls.

 

[Redfish]

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

They are no better than educated guesses. They are statistically garbage. The sample size is so small that it is meaningless mathematically.

That's my point, yes, some of them have guessed correctly, so have I, so have you.

It's not meaningless mathematically. You keep saying that.

Yes, it is. Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 text book. Unless a sample is 5% of the population it is not statistically meaningful.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim that their tiny samples are structured to proportionally represent every demographic in the country-------------but its bullshit.

Do you really think they can take 1000 people and accurately proportionally represent every demographic in the USA? Think about it.

Demonstrate how it's bullshit. Show a majority of trusted polling firms getting it wrong...let's say 40% of the time. Also, take a look at how close they are to the vote totals and how often the trusted pollster are close, they are pretty accurate, not perfect as that would be impossible.

Also, read this:

How Political Polling Works

At least for starters.

I already said that they are very good at getting it right. But that doesn't change the mathematical fallacy that is inherent in such a small sample.

Now, question for you: Do you think political polls commissioned by someone with a vested interest in a political race are designed to report on public feelings or to influence them?

If a poll comes out and says that "90% of people polled are voting for Harry Hogan" Will that help or hurt Harry with undecided voters?

 

[Redfish]

UH OH, the polls have switched again and it appears Hillary is now in a double digit lead against Trump, Nation wide... I'm sure it will change another 20 times before the election but this was simply a really bad week for Donny Dangerous!!! This poll went thru mid day today....if it had gone a few more days, I bet she would have been 20 points ahead of The Don, with more people getting time to hear her speech from yesterday...

Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump nationwide: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.

I still do not know how this election is going to play out. I am certain that Hillary will be our next president. I just don't know if it will be close or a landslide. I am still going to stick with my original prediction that she will win by at least ten percentage points. When the FBI finalizes their investigation and tells us that while they found Clinton's actions to be unwise and that she skirted some regulations, there was no intent to do anything wrong and therefore there is no evidence to push for any kind of indictment against her, then many voters will realize that the E-mail scandal was not a scandal and not reason to vote against her. At the same time, Republicans will push back saying that she is a criminal, even though there is no indictment, then independents will realize just how nuts Trump's supporters are. All this along with the fact that Hillary will eat Donald up in the debates, because unlike the Republican debates, voters for the general election will be interested in actual policy debates. Trump calling Hillary an old hag, won't cut it in the presidential debates.

Now, Trump could become some born again politician and actually find a way to talk real policies, but he won't. In the end, he is going to end up looking pretty silly, and Hillary will win this quite easily. The real question is whether or not she can become a strong enough candidate to help the down ticket in a big way or not.

That's your prediction and you are free to express it. But you have some facts wrong. When classified data is illegally disclosed there is no requirement to prove intent. Negligence is guilt. Not knowing the rules is not an excuse. Failure to mark the data is not an excuse----------the content makes in classified, not the markings.

Many people holding security clearances have been convicted of much less than Hillary did. The only question is what Obama and Lynch will do when the FBI makes its findings public.