Shock Poll: Clinton 44.0% Trump 43.4% (Trump Has Closed Within Less Than 2)

[sealybobo]

Hill-Bots gettin' a lil' nervous?..........

Why? Better than a 3-1 chance to win and over a 4 pt. lead nationally.

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

You know, Hillary did win the primaries with stacked insider Super delgates and a rigged voting system that favored her from the start.

Just ask any of her supporters back then, her nomination was a sure thing, and you Democrats just accepted it like....., well, not like critical thinkers.

Meanwhile Republicans rejected their appointed nominee and took their own man, and you slam them for being gullible? roflmao

Do you really think we wanted to nominate a socialist? We know YOU wish we did that but hillary was our best candidate. That's why your star trump is losing to her.

If she's beating trump imagine what she'd do to jeb, lyin ted Cruz, Paul, Christie, huckabee, carson, Perry, kasich, santorum, fiorino and little marco

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

How astonishing it is Trump has closed within 2 as reality has set in about Hillary being unfit to be President. People are waking up to the fact that Trump will make a strong leader for all people (even though he should be only for White people of European heritage, the people this country was created for by the founders) and he will make America great again.

Politics - Los Angeles Times

The other day I went back to August 2012 and found a bunch of republicans polls and threads claiming it was close between mitt and Obama. Then I went back to 2008 and same thing only McCain was supposedly tied. Fucking liars

But I'm glad you lie. It makes people get out and vote.

The LA Times is not republican

 

[JimBowie1958]

But I'm glad you lie. It makes people get out and vote.

The LA Times is not republican

The polls are turning back in Trumps favor as the daily barrage from the Clinton Media inures the public to their lies as is predictably so.

Now that voters are starting to focus more ont he issues Trumps numbers will climb again.

In the last two weeks we will see a huge move toward Trump.

Hillary does not have issues that favor her, only that Trump is worse and that she is inevitable, the corporations have picked her to be POTUS and we just need to learn to live with it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IT is hilarious when the libtards content themselves with clicking the smiley icon as if that means that they think the post stupid.

No, dumbass libtards, it means you think it is humorous and you still give the poster points.

 

[konradv]

Better than a 3-1 chance to win and over a 4 pt. lead nationally. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

You know, Hillary did win the primaries with stacked insider Super delgates and a rigged voting system that favored her from the start. Just ask any of her supporters back then, her nomination was a sure thing, and you Democrats just accepted it like....., well, not like critical thinkers. Meanwhile Republicans rejected their appointed nominee and took their own man, and you slam them for being gullible? roflmao

Irrelevant. That was the primaries. It's the show now. Hillary is bigly. Trump is the low minors.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Irrelevant. That was the primaries. It's the show now. Hillary is bigly. Trump is the low minors.

Lol, keep telling yourself that, dear.

When you gloss over cheating, thuggery, and theft what does that say about your nominee? About you?

Your inability to stop yourself from jumping up and shouting 'Me too!' whenever the Hillary bandwagon rolls by is just palpable.

roflmao

 

[konradv]

Irrelevant. That was the primaries. It's the show now. Hillary is bigly. Trump is the low minors.

Lol, keep telling yourself that, dear. When you gloss over cheating, thuggery, and theft what does that say about your nominee? About you? Your inability to stop yourself from jumping up and shouting 'Me too!' whenever the Hillary bandwagon rolls by is just palpable.

Now you're just making shit up and the "dear" thing is kind of creepy. I'll be glad when this thing is over, so you can crawl back into the hole you came from.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Now you're just making shit up and the "dear" thing is kind of creepy. I'll be glad when this thing is over, so you can crawl back into the hole you came from.

I am just trying to be polite to a retard like yourself, that is all.

You clearly have no ability to think whenever the topic is the Top Dyke Hillary Clinton of the royal House Clinton.

 

[konradv]

Now you're just making shit up and the "dear" thing is kind of creepy. I'll be glad when this thing is over, so you can crawl back into the hole you came from.

I am just trying to be polite to a retard like yourself, that is all. You clearly have no ability to think whenever the topic is the Top Dyke Hillary Clinton of the royal House Clinton.

Is that what it is? It reads as condescension from someone with your impolite form of expression. You need to do something about your anger issues. It's only going to get worse as 11/9 approaches.

 

[Flopper]

This is a good poll that publishes all their criteria, methodology and demographics used.

It has good break downs by age, race, etc, and then gives the information on how they got their numbers and then derived their percentages from it.

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

Now it shows the Presidential race tightening, as does this poll as well, but this will provoke another round of Democrat sponsored morale building polls that will show Hillary at a double digit leads and restack her stats on the RealClearPolitics running average, lol.

From the LA Times poll:
The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll asks more than 400 people each day about their voting intentions. The poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.

Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?

Results are weighted to match demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and are aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using self-reported votes in that election.

These charts are updated daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week's responses.

Now the real key item to look at here are the methods they use to demographically 'balance' their results.

So they take the data they have and where there are more Republicans in it percentage wise than voted in 2012, they toss out a bunch of them till they have the numbers reflected in the 2012 turnout.

But which Republicans get tossed? Are they tossing out traditional conservatives that would vote for Trump or are they tossing Romney Republicans who would never vote Trump? We dont know that, but if you think that they dont care and it is just a random culling of over-represented GOP, then you need to put down the crack pipe and read up on these bastards a little more often.

All these polled people are broken down into detailed demographic analysis by zip code and they stack the deck to favor their own perception of what the reality is among voters out there, and this is heavily influenced by their own private lives and the opinions expressed among those they know. Since the media industry is heavily leftwing ideologically, we know what that perception is, dont we?

They have detailed zip code analysis of every zip code area of the country, and they know the demographics of these areas and whether they have peculiarities that differentiate them from other similar Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, or moderates, and this gives them more tools for 'sampling' to get the results that they want.

So if there are 156 Republicans out of 400 in the total sample, which is the 39% Pew shows people self identify as GOP, but this is more than the 32% that represented the GOP in the exit polls for the 2012 election, which would give us a target of 128 Republicans for the survey/poll. So 28 Republican polled samples are tossed, and who gets tossed is often determined by their zip code if other questions are asked in the survey and there usually are.

So to shore up the results of the other issue results to reflect what they think is more representative of the public, they toss out the poll samples of people from the "crazy" more conservative zip codes and keep the more liberal ones. Thus we get amazing polling numbers like 51% of people who attend Trump rallies are not going to vote for Trump, and 80% of Catholics support Abortion on Demand and similar nonsense.

Now the people running the polls are not thinking that they are trying to skewer the poll results usually, they think that they are correcting randomly bad samples using statistical methods to reflect society as they personally perceive it. And since they live around and among 99% libtard sheep skinned morons they think that they have to push the sampling further to the left every time.

This is why these polls are so unreliable and no longer really reflect the broad American public but only the liberal half of the spectrum that is left of Hillary Clinton.

Now there are also other factors that skewer polls to the left, such as people being too afraid or ashamed to express their real intentions. These poor folks know that if it gets out that they really plan to vote for Trump they will have huge arguments and lose respect among their friends and maybe even their own family and spouse or even lose their jobs if these people get wind of it. So when speaking over the phone to a pollster and a friend/family member is within ear shot, it is "Hell no! I would never vote for Trump!" to the pollster but when they eventually get in the booth and vote for Trump.

I saw a discussion of this effect whose name I cannot remember, and they sampled some voters with a show of hands as to how many planned to vote for Hillary or Trump and it was something along the lines of 50% for Hillary and 40% for Trump. Then at the end of the documentary and discussion (the discussion had nothing to do with politics, AIUI) they passed around a secret ballot and this time they got over 50% for Trump and low 40's for Hillary. This represents about a 10% slice of the public that is intimidated by the Democrat thuggery, but will still vote for Trump when they have a secret ballot.

Then there is the "Registered voter" vrs "Likely Voter" skewering of the samples. A large number of Trump supporters, about 10% of the broader vote, are first time voters and are not yet registered. So you get a huge shift toward Trump when you poll Likely voters instead of Registered voters. Normally Registered voters are far more likely to vote and "likely" voters are not really so likely to vote as they may think today. But with Trump they have been showing up to the polls and casting their votes in record numbers for the GOP.

So while in previous elections Registered voters gave a more reliable result, this year I think an average of the registered voters and the likely voters is more realistic. Both of the last two factors suggest that there is very likely anywhere from 5% to 15% of the vote for Trump support hidden from the LA Times polls and other polls (not 25% due to overlap in the categories), and thus when you see these polls, adding 5% to Trump and reducing Clinton's results by 5% is a reasonable adjustment to bad sampling adjustments by the polling companies.

Combining the bad polling with the trends for Trump overall, and I think this election is in the bag for Trump, if he can keep his team encouraged, motivated and effectively organized to get out the vote for him that is embedded in the public and ignored by the media.

But this LA Times poll is a great specific example of why the polls should not discourage any Trump supporters at this time. It certainly should not discourage Trump supporters from going out and voting.

I think you are on the wrong track. Democrats in the campaign are certainly not trying to build moral except of course on blogs or boards such as this.
The campaign's biggest fear is that people will just take it for granted that Clinton is going to win because of her lead in polls. That will mean less registration drives, less volunteers and ultimately less supporters voting. Polls showing Clinton way ahead is a problem for the Democrats.

 

[Flopper]

How astonishing it is Trump has closed within 2 as reality has set in about Hillary being unfit to be President. People are waking up to the fact that Trump will make a strong leader for all people (even though he should be only for White people of European heritage, the people this country was created for by the founders) and he will make America great again.

Politics - Los Angeles Times

This poll is asking a vastly different question than most of the polls, thus you will see different results because of the question.
The LA Times Poll ask:

What the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale.

Most of the other polls such Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc ask:
If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote?

If you change the question, the results will change.
BTW, the LA Times has always shown a closer race than the other polls. Most of the polls ask the respondent to make a decision for one candidate or the other just like they would do in the voting booth. The LA Times Poll allows the voter to spit his vote. For example, if the respondent says there is a 60% chance I will vote for Clinton, then there is 40% he will vote for Trump or someone else.

The advantage of the LA Times method is it tends to eliminate non-respondents; that is those that have not made up their mind. The disadvantage is that this is not the situation a voter faces in the voting both.

So, different questions, different results.

 

[bill718]

Hill-Bots gettin' a lil' nervous?..........

Why? Better than a 3-1 chance to win and over a 4 pt. lead nationally.

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

If you had any idea how stupid this is, you wouldn't post it at all. Back here in the real world Donald Trump is down by double digits nationally, and is losing big time in all the swing states. So, post all the little dancing men you want, but you're living in fantasy-land.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think you are on the wrong track. Democrats in the campaign are certainly not trying to build moral except of course on blogs or boards such as this.

Do you mean 'morale'? Of course they are, inevitability is one of their two main claims aside from Hillary possessing a vagina.

They astroturf EVERYTHING THEY CAN ON THE INTERNET.

The campaign's biggest fear is that people will just take it for granted that Clinton is going to win because of her lead in polls.

Dimbocrats are stupid enough to do that. Oh well, I guess that is part of the package when you target the bottom third of the nation ranked by IQ.

That will mean less registration drives, less volunteers and ultimately less supporters voting. Polls showing Clinton way ahead is a problem for the Democrats.

Then they should ask these fools to stop pumping the bullshit for them, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How astonishing it is Trump has closed within 2 as reality has set in about Hillary being unfit to be President. People are waking up to the fact that Trump will make a strong leader for all people (even though he should be only for White people of European heritage, the people this country was created for by the founders) and he will make America great again.

Politics - Los Angeles Times

This poll is asking a vastly different question than most of the polls, thus you will see different results because of the question.
The LA Times Poll ask:

What the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale.

Most of the other polls such Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc ask:
If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote?

If you change the question, the results will change.
BTW, the LA Times has always shown a closer race than the other polls. Most of the polls ask the respondent to make a decision for one candidate or the other just like they would do in the voting booth. The LA Times Poll allows the voter to spit his vote. For example, if the respondent says there is a 60% chance I will vote for Clinton, then there is 40% he will vote for Trump or someone else.

The advantage of the LA Times method is it tends to eliminate non-respondents; that is those that have not made up their mind. The disadvantage is that this is not the situation a voter faces in the voting both.

So, different questions, different results.

No, same question better results for Trump.

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

Who would you vote for?
We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

Hillary Clinton 43.1% Donald Trump 45.3%

Trump is massacrating that stupid crook.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you had any idea how stupid this is, you wouldn't post it at all. Back here in the real world Donald Trump is down by double digits nationally, and is losing big time in all the swing states. So, post all the little dancing men you want, but you're living in fantasy-land.

ROFLMAO

 

[Flopper]

I think you are on the wrong track. Democrats in the campaign are certainly not trying to build moral except of course on blogs or boards such as this.

Do you mean 'morale'? Of course they are, inevitability is one of their two main claims aside from Hillary possessing a vagina.

They astroturf EVERYTHING THEY CAN ON THE INTERNET.

The campaign's biggest fear is that people will just take it for granted that Clinton is going to win because of her lead in polls.

Dimbocrats are stupid enough to do that. Oh well, I guess that is part of the package when you target the bottom third of the nation ranked by IQ.

That will mean less registration drives, less volunteers and ultimately less supporters voting. Polls showing Clinton way ahead is a problem for the Democrats.

Then they should ask these fools to stop pumping the bullshit for them, lol.

In one of Hillary's recent registration drive rallies she was warning about complacency because of polls showing she was ahead. It certain is a problem for Democrats as it is for any party leading by a wide margin in the summer before an election. Developments in the fall can certainly change voter preference rapidly. Just because you're leading in the polls is no reason to rest on your laurels and no reason to crow about winning in the polls.

 

[Flopper]

How astonishing it is Trump has closed within 2 as reality has set in about Hillary being unfit to be President. People are waking up to the fact that Trump will make a strong leader for all people (even though he should be only for White people of European heritage, the people this country was created for by the founders) and he will make America great again.

Politics - Los Angeles Times

This poll is asking a vastly different question than most of the polls, thus you will see different results because of the question.
The LA Times Poll ask:

What the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale.

Most of the other polls such Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc ask:
If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote?

If you change the question, the results will change.
BTW, the LA Times has always shown a closer race than the other polls. Most of the polls ask the respondent to make a decision for one candidate or the other just like they would do in the voting booth. The LA Times Poll allows the voter to spit his vote. For example, if the respondent says there is a 60% chance I will vote for Clinton, then there is 40% he will vote for Trump or someone else.

The advantage of the LA Times method is it tends to eliminate non-respondents; that is those that have not made up their mind. The disadvantage is that this is not the situation a voter faces in the voting both.

So, different questions, different results.

No, same question better results for Trump.

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

Who would you vote for?
We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

Hillary Clinton 43.1% Donald Trump 45.3%

Trump is massacrating that stupid crook.

No, these polls are not asking the same question and you will get different answers if you ask different questions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, these polls are not asking the same question and you will get different answers if you ask different questions.

No, there is no significant difference between "If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote? " vrs "Who would you vote for?"

 

[mamooth]

This NYT piece explains the problem unique to the LA Times poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/u...or-donald-trump-has-a-major-problem.html?_r=1

Summary:

The LA Times poll asks people about their vote for president in 2012, and then selects people so their sample roughly matches the 2012 results of 51-47. It is the only poll out there currently using that method.

That's a problem because people don't accurately report who they voted for. They tend to say they voted with the winner. Thus, a sample of people will report they voted for Obama over Romney by, say, 58-40, even though the results were 51-47.

That means some people who actually voted for Romney are being classified as Obama voters, which means the poll is oversampling Republicans, which skews the results to favor Trump.

 

[Flopper]

No, these polls are not asking the same question and you will get different answers if you ask different questions.

No, there is no significant difference between "If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote? " vrs "Who would you vote for?"

LA Times:
We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale.

Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal and most other polls ask:
If the election were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Democrat and Donald Trump, Republican,.... for whom would you vote?

If you read these questions as the same, further discussion is pointless.