Pro Hillary liberal LA Times / USC poll still shows Trump leading, now by +5

[WheelieAddict]

What about the poll I showed that Clinton is winning. Why is only yours right? Typical.......ehh nevermind I don't have it in me to hurl childish insults like yourself.

Show us the DEMOGRAPHICS with a LINK!

I already posted a link, blind one. Fox news.

He didnt ask for the source, dummy, but for the poll demographics, which will undoubtedly show far heavier sampling of Dems than GOP.

Provide all the demographics for your poll with links.

Whatever.

I dont have time for dumbasses, have fun, dipshit.

Man, it must suck going through life with a stick stuck up your ass like that, no wonder you are so pissy.

 

[Vigilante]

Show us the DEMOGRAPHICS with a LINK!

I already posted a link, blind one. Fox news.

He didnt ask for the source, dummy, but for the poll demographics, which will undoubtedly show far heavier sampling of Dems than GOP.

Provide all the demographics for your poll with links.

Whatever.

I dont have time for dumbasses, have fun, dipshit.

Man, it must suck going through life with a stick stuck up your ass like that, no wonder you are so pissy.

Really, damn now you're going to starve, I can't get you shit for lunch anymore!

 

[candycorn]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Yeah, it’s been an outlier throughout. One of those statistical anomalies.

This is their first year predicting the Presidential race. Good for us (by “us” I mean Americans) that Trump is nowhere near leading the race. More experienced pollsters have Clinton comfortably ahead:

Nate Silver

View attachment 91959

Electoral-Vote.com

View attachment 91960

RCP:

View attachment 91961

Not sure why the LA Times has different readings….

Won’t Matter. HRC is Cruising!

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

 

[JimBowie1958]

%1 reported lead is considered a dead heat, but in this case actually a significant lead in favor of Trump. Considering that a big chunk of his supporters are actually quiet about it.

In the open primaries where ANYONE could vote, Trump was coming in from 5% to 10% or more higher percentages of the vote than the polls were showing and it is because of three things:

1) many who have decided to vote for him were too embarrassed or vulnerable to the criticism of friends and family to feel safe saying out loud that they were voting for Trump (the various assaults on Trump supporters around the country justify this concern),

2) people who are not yet registered broke heavily to Trump and are not showing up in these polls of registered or "Likely as previously voted" samples of the population, and

3) undecideds tend to break in the same direction as independents do, and Trump has had a heavy representation among independents from the time he entered the race.

From looking at the primaries, Trump seems to have a hidden support of about 5% to 10% of the total vote, which in the general election probably translates into a 3 to 5% shift toward Trump.

So if the polls say that Trump is tied with Hillary, well he is really probably ahead.

 

[Toro]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

 

[WheelieAddict]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

**** off ye snob! lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

Yeah, the basket weaving majors are all up Hillarys giant ****.

 

[Toro]

%1 reported lead is considered a dead heat, but in this case actually a significant lead in favor of Trump. Considering that a big chunk of his supporters are actually quiet about it.

In the open primaries where ANYONE could vote, Trump was coming in from 5% to 10% or more higher percentages of the vote than the polls were showing and it is because of three things:

1) many who have decided to vote for him were too embarrassed or vulnerable to the criticism of friends and family to feel safe saying out loud that they were voting for Trump (the various assaults on Trump supporters around the country justify this concern),

2) people who are not yet registered broke heavily to Trump and are not showing up in these polls of registered or "Likely as previously voted" samples of the population, and

3) undecideds tend to break in the same direction as independents do, and Trump has had a heavy representation among independents from the time he entered the race.

From looking at the primaries, Trump seems to have a hidden support of about 5% to 10% of the total vote, which in the general election probably translates into a 3 to 5% shift toward Trump.

So if the polls say that Trump is tied with Hillary, well he is really probably ahead.

Trump underperformed his polls in the primaries by over 1% according to 538.

 

[Toro]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

Yeah, the basket weaving majors are all up Hillarys giant ****.

Class warfare?

Awesome.

 

[WheelieAddict]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

Yeah, the basket weaving majors are all up Hillarys giant ****.

I hear it was very accommodating for you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

Yeah, the basket weaving majors are all up Hillarys giant ****.

I hear it was very accommodating for you.

You should really get help for that Projecting Reflex Syndrome you suffer from, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

White elitist snobs who look down their noses at everyone are of course for Hillary.

i.e., whites with a college education.

Yeah, the basket weaving majors are all up Hillarys giant ****.

Class warfare?

Awesome.

And the Rich ALWAYS lose 99% of the time.

 

[tigerred59]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

Next?

 

[rdean]

Dick Morris?

 

[Roudy]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Yeah, it’s been an outlier throughout. One of those statistical anomalies.

This is their first year predicting the Presidential race. Good for us (by “us” I mean Americans) that Trump is nowhere near leading the race. More experienced pollsters have Clinton comfortably ahead:

Nate Silver

View attachment 91959

Electoral-Vote.com

View attachment 91960

RCP:

View attachment 91961

Not sure why the LA Times has different readings….

Won’t Matter. HRC is Cruising!

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

That's what a tracking poll is, it tracks.

 

[Roudy]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

Next?

"NY Times" analysts? That paper is a joke.

 

[candycorn]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Yeah, it’s been an outlier throughout. One of those statistical anomalies.

This is their first year predicting the Presidential race. Good for us (by “us” I mean Americans) that Trump is nowhere near leading the race. More experienced pollsters have Clinton comfortably ahead:

Nate Silver

View attachment 91959

Electoral-Vote.com

View attachment 91960

RCP:

View attachment 91961

Not sure why the LA Times has different readings….

Won’t Matter. HRC is Cruising!

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

That's what a tracking poll is, it tracks.

Yes. And if they leaned Trump to start with, it won’t change.
Watch and learn or, if you’re a trump supporter, watch and blame everyone else.

 

[Roudy]

Poor leftist media, all this propaganda and hundreds of millions of negative advertising by the Clinton camp, and Trump now expanding his lead.

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

Yeah, it’s been an outlier throughout. One of those statistical anomalies.

This is their first year predicting the Presidential race. Good for us (by “us” I mean Americans) that Trump is nowhere near leading the race. More experienced pollsters have Clinton comfortably ahead:

Nate Silver

View attachment 91959

Electoral-Vote.com

View attachment 91960

RCP:

View attachment 91961

Not sure why the LA Times has different readings….

Won’t Matter. HRC is Cruising!

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

That's what a tracking poll is, it tracks.

Yes. And if they leaned Trump to start with, it won’t change.
Watch and learn or, if you’re a trump supporter, watch and blame everyone else.

If, but they didn't lean Trump to start with. Making up an explation that doesn't apply.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, it’s been an outlier throughout. One of those statistical anomalies.

This is their first year predicting the Presidential race. Good for us (by “us” I mean Americans) that Trump is nowhere near leading the race. More experienced pollsters have Clinton comfortably ahead:

Nate Silver

View attachment 91959

Electoral-Vote.com

View attachment 91960

RCP:

View attachment 91961

Not sure why the LA Times has different readings….

Won’t Matter. HRC is Cruising!

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

That's what a tracking poll is, it tracks.

Yes. And if they leaned Trump to start with, it won’t change.
Watch and learn or, if you’re a trump supporter, watch and blame everyone else.

If, but they didn't lean Trump to start with. Making up an explation that doesn't apply.

The pollsters even explain why their poll is different than other:

Using the 0-to-100 scale, however, almost certainly makes the Daybreak poll differ somewhat from other surveys. As with the bounce, any difference that results should shrink as election day gets closer and voters become more certain of their choices.

Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

The Daybreak poll goes a step further and weights the sample to account for how people say they voted in 2012: It’s set so that 25% of the sample are voters who say they cast a ballot for Mitt Romney and 27% for President Obama. The rest are either too young to have voted four years ago or say they didn’t vote.

The potential problem is that people tend to fib about how they voted. Polls have often found that the percentage of people who say after an election that they voted for the winner exceeds the winner’s actual vote.

If that’s the case this year, then weighting for the vote history would result in slightly too many Republican voters in the sample, which would probably boost Trump’s standing by a point or two.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure until we can compare the final vote to the poll’s final forecast. Given how long it takes to count all the votes, that answer won’t be available until at least a week after election day.

 

[Roudy]

Meh, an "outlier" from a highly liberal outlet, using totally scientific methodology (for a change) keeps coming up with the same results, for the last two weeks? I don't think so.

When you have a tracking poll and the participants don’t change; that is what happens sometime.

That's what a tracking poll is, it tracks.

Yes. And if they leaned Trump to start with, it won’t change.
Watch and learn or, if you’re a trump supporter, watch and blame everyone else.

If, but they didn't lean Trump to start with. Making up an explation that doesn't apply.

The pollsters even explain why their poll is different than other:

Using the 0-to-100 scale, however, almost certainly makes the Daybreak poll differ somewhat from other surveys. As with the bounce, any difference that results should shrink as election day gets closer and voters become more certain of their choices.

Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

The Daybreak poll goes a step further and weights the sample to account for how people say they voted in 2012: It’s set so that 25% of the sample are voters who say they cast a ballot for Mitt Romney and 27% for President Obama. The rest are either too young to have voted four years ago or say they didn’t vote.

The potential problem is that people tend to fib about how they voted. Polls have often found that the percentage of people who say after an election that they voted for the winner exceeds the winner’s actual vote.

If that’s the case this year, then weighting for the vote history would result in slightly too many Republican voters in the sample, which would probably boost Trump’s standing by a point or two.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure until we can compare the final vote to the poll’s final forecast. Given how long it takes to count all the votes, that answer won’t be available until at least a week after election day.

I agree with you on one thing, many of these polls are wrong. Just like the BREXIT vote in the UK, there are a large number people that will be voting for Trump (some in secret) that the polls are not able to gauge. The percentage point will probably be enough to give Trump the White House. You are playing down the anger and resentment the American public has for the corrupt career politicians, the radical ideologues, and the liberal elite media that is bought and paid for by the Democrat party. People are sick and tired of being told what to think, or that they're greedy racists if they don't agree with the leftist fascist point of view.

It should come as no surprise that the BREXIT leader is now a Trump supporter and VIP guest to the next debate.

Here's why most Brexit polls were wrong

Britain leaves the EU: How the pollsters got it wrong.... again