Breaking - Trump Takes Lead In ABC/Washington Post Poll 46% to 45%

[Old Rocks]

Election 2016 Clinton Trump Spread
RCP Poll Average 47.5 45.3 Clinton +2.2

4-Way RCP Average 45.3 43.1 Clinton +2.2

Favorability Ratings -9.3 -21.0 Clinton +11.7
Betting Odds 74.0 26.0
Electoral College Clinton Trump Spread
RCP Electoral Map 263 164 Clinton +99
No Toss Up States 305 233
Battlegrounds

Clinton Trump Spread
Michigan 46.0 39.3 Clinton +6.7
Wisconsin 47.0 41.3 Clinton +5.7

Virginia 47.5 42.3 Clinton +5.2

Georgia 43.5 47.5 Trump +4.0

New Hampshire 45.2 39.6 Clinton +5.6

Maine 45.3 38.3 Clinton +7.0
Arizona 43.3 42.7 Clinton +0.6
Electoral Map | No Toss Ups | Senate Map | Latest Polls

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Clinton still well ahead

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am amazed Arizona is that close and George is not more.

 

[miketx]

Tick tok losers.

 

[saveliberty]

She cheated on Bernie and Trump, now its your turn America...

 

[miketx]

She cheated on Bernie and Trump, now its your turn America...

We got this. Libtard scum not withstanding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

drip drip drip drip drip

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Oh yes, point to individual polls that were wrong in the past. That is called cherry picking. But the average of the polls were pretty accurate. '

Once again, 9Nov16 is going to be fun. I will be quoting many individuals here with mocking glee. LOL

 

[AntonToo]

If the polls were meaningless, they wouldn't have called every election in the last 30 years.

You are so full of shit, it must be leaking out of your ears.

Late Upsets Are Rare, but Have Happened

There have been only 2 instances in the past 14 elections, from 1952 to 2004, when the presidential candidate ahead in Gallup polling a week or so before the election did not win the national popular vote: in 2000 (George W. Bush) and 1980 (Jimmy Carter). And in only one of these, in 1980, did the candidate who was behind (Ronald Reagan) pull ahead in both the popular vote and the Electoral College and thus win the election.


Gallup Poll: Jimmy Carter 47 -- Ronald Reagan 39

Past polls have also shown Democrats leading their Republican opponents up to the election. One of the most dramatic was a Gallup Poll result 2 weeks before the 1980 General Election that showed Jimmy Carter to be far ahead of Ronald Reagan. Rush Limbaugh stated,

In a Gallup poll on October 26th in 1980, two weeks before the election, Gallup had it Jimmy Carter 47, Ronald Reagan 39. That election two weeks later ended up in a landslide that was so big that Carter conceded before California closed. ​

The New York Times verified this poll,

Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980.​

As did Wikipedia,

Arguably the most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (October 28).[24] On October 26, two days prior to the debate, Gallup released a survey that suggested that Carter was leading Reagan by a margin of 47% to 39%.​

A Gallup Poll of July 26, 1988, showed Michael S. Dukakis leading George H. W. Bush by 17 points. The New York Times reported,

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.​

This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

INDIVIDUAL polls are far more volatile than the AVERAGE of major scientific polls.

 

[AntonToo]

LOL Oh yes, point to individual polls that were wrong in the past. That is called cherry picking. But the average of the polls were pretty accurate. '

Once again, 9Nov16 is going to be fun. I will be quoting many individuals here with mocking glee. LOL

Go easy, they aren't Trump supporters because they can think clearly.

 

[paulitician]

Man, gotta stop obsessing over polls. They really are meaningless. That'll be the case, no matter how many polls you cite and post. It's just wishful thinking. Sorry, but that is the reality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL Oh yes, point to individual polls that were wrong in the past. That is called cherry picking. But the average of the polls were pretty accurate. '

Bullshit. Prove it with links to all those polls. The only things saying Reagan was ahead in October that I have seen are summaries, not actual polls.
Pew was wrong and so were the rest of them that I have found.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the polls were meaningless, they wouldn't have called every election in the last 30 years.

You are so full of shit, it must be leaking out of your ears.

.

Show me which final poll average was wrong in the last 30 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL Oh yes, point to individual polls that were wrong in the past. That is called cherry picking. But the average of the polls were pretty accurate. '

Bullshit. Prove it with links to all those polls. The only things saying Reagan was ahead in October that I have seen are summaries, not actual polls.
Pew was wrong and so were the rest of them that I have found.

So you're agreeing with the other poster who said the polls are MEANINGLESS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

pauli, no, they are meaningful.

Your opinion is not.

 

[miketx]

pauli, no, they are meaningful.

Your opinion is not.

Spoken like a true gangster.

 

[LaDexter]

Summing up the Dems response to this poll is....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Almost every polls had Reagan either behind, way behind or "too close to call" when Reagan won by 10%, folks.

Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something? | TIME.com

In November 1980, the great TIME correspondent and editor John F. Stacks (a mentor to such stars as John Dickerson and many others) won the unenviable task of analyzing how and why every single public pollster (including ours) missed the Reagan landslide earlier that month. WroteStacks:

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you're agreeing with the other poster who said the polls are MEANINGLESS.

No, they are not meaningless, as they do tend to show trends well.

Taking samples of a group of people is difficult to do as the sample you have has variations between the sample and the set of people we are trying to measure. The set of people we are trying to measure are the people who are going to go out and vote. What is actually sampled is the set of people willing to spend ten minutes on a phone talking to a stranger. Those two sets are very different from each other in ways that often are only discovered after the election.

IBD, which has lately shown Clinton gaining, up until the FBI announcement Friday anyway, and the LA Times polls and Rasmussen take enthusiasm into the mix of their data analysis and normalization of their sample to the group of voters who will actually show up and vote. The others are not so much and are over sampling Democrats as well.

But the deltas in their tracking is informative and generally accurate. Though the polls missed how much Reagan won by in 1980, they did show a tightening of the race that was moving toward Reagan in the last week. That is informative.

 

[Siete]

I'll give the polls until Thursday or Friday to catch up to the recent FBI/email bullshit ..

Trump is playing to his supporters, nothing changes

Clinton supporters are sick of the email crap, nothing changes

fence sitters may or may not give Trump a bump, but there's not enough of them to make up the lead Clinton had, and push Trump ahead 5 points

Trump is still fucked .

 

[Indeependent]

I'll give the polls until Thursday or Friday to catch up to the recent FBI/email bullshit ..

Trump is playing to his supporters, nothing changes

Clinton supporters are sick of the email crap, nothing changes

fence sitters may or may not give Trump a bump, but there's not enough of them to make up the lead Clinton had, and push Trump ahead 5 points

Trump is still fucked .

Your language belies your lack of confidence.