Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Part of this tightening is not that Trump is gaining unforeseen highs in support, any GOP candidate will get 45% in this polarized climate, it is Sanders people refusing to say they will vote for her.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New ABC / Washington Post poll for 2016 General Election
- Thread starter Oddduck
- Start date
- Status
InaSnowBoundLand
Member
An apparent shift is noteworthy but the key word there is apparent. We can only guess this is the case based on the results of *many* polls that have Trump gaining ground. But it is absolutely relevant to point out that other polls released over the weekend have had Clinton upward. We should prioritize poll averages. Earlier, I wrote that Clinton still has the advantage there. That is not correct, they are in a virtual tie. However, HuffPost's model still has Clinton ahead.
The real alternative should be reporting on groups of polls or on how specific polls relate to poll averages.
Looking at the broader picture is the only honest choice. A thread like this one is not as informative because poll samples and methods vary .
For reference:
The Weekend polls released so far:
■Reuters: Clinton +5
■CBS: Clinton +6
■ABC: Trump +2
■Fox News: Trump +3
■NBC/WSJ: Clinton +3
https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/734384033946177538
Spend less time on NeoGAF (which is an echo chamber on these issues), talk to people outside your comfort zone, and you'll quickly find out.
I once worked with a whole slew of people that were very much in the "Paul Ryan isn't conservative enough" camp, let alone the kinds of people that race to stock up on guns at the mere mention of a proposal to tighten gun restrictions, and they'd be squarely in this camp. Even better, one of our coworkers was openly Muslim, but, you know, he's one of the "good ones".
Team Alucard
Banned
Romney's states + FL, OH, and PA.
Two rust belt states where his message resonates the most (not to mention Hillary going nuclear on coal) and a traditional battleground state that Obama won by less than one percent.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Stop throwing out "Trump can win Pennsylvania" as if that's a meaningful or plausible path to victory. PA is fool's gold for Republicans. Philadelphia will always outvote the state.
Wait, why are people not more worried that this is so close again?
TheLaughingStock
Member
Things are looking up for the loose cannon. : )
Monocle
Member
Democracy was a mistake. It's nothing but trash.
timetokill
Banned
It's funny, Hillary is an awful candidate but the GOP managed to put up an even more unlikable one. Truly inspiring, God bless America.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
You mean the voting bloc that is hella unreliable during general.
At least minorties and women will vote en mass.
Good luck with 1/3 of those assholes remembering to vote.
The general view here is: the Democratic primary isn't over, at which point Bernie will wildly endorse HRC, general polls are garbage this far out, [insert poll] is garbage because [reason], teh maths, Diablosing.
I don't take much of a stance on it, just providing a quick summary of the responses outlined not the ten thousand threads on this topic.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Trump is enjoying a fully unified party, something Clinton does not have.
When the Dem primary wraps up there will be a rally effect for her that puts her in a solid lead again.
I am from the rural part near the Chesapeake bay area and Trump is not very popular there either (although they probably will vote him over Hillary) if he has any chance it's in the western coal country areas. If Rubio or Kasich won I would be be right with you cause those are the types of candidates that would do very well here. Also the population growth is mainly in Nova and Richmond area which should benefit Hillary. I am really interested and seeing some polling I think it could be telling that this year polling is low here and in 2008 and 2012 they were polling here like crazy I think that shows it that pollsters think it favors Hillary.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
If I hear that bullshit lie that Missouri is a swing state during general, I will be so mad.
What a horrible lie to speak when MO never went for Obama or any democratic candidate in the last 20 years.
Rural voters gave us that fuck awful GOP Super majority in state house that will cease it's humiliating and choking grip on the state in general.
Jesus fuck that old adage.
What a horrible lie to speak when MO never went for Obama or any democratic candidate in the last 20 years.
Rural voters gave us that fuck awful GOP Super majority in state house that will cease it's humiliating and choking grip on the state in general.
Jesus fuck that old adage.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Right now, the movement is clearly in the direction of trump, so the interesting polls are the ones putting him slightly ahead, while the polls showing Clinton slightly ahead aren't quite as surprising and thus newsworthy.
If trump were the frontrunner and clinton started leading some polls, or it started to shift toward a clinton landslide, I would say the pro clinton polls are a little more interesting.
In the end, the aggregate is all that matters, but right now Trump +2 is moving the aggregate a lot more than clinton +3.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Missouri was the closest state in the country in 2008 (by 4000 votes) how is that not literally the definition of "swing state"
It still went for McCain but the point is it was extremely close. And it's not like several blue states don't have the same problem (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all likely Dem states where the GOP has a death grip on state government).
Obama didn't compete there in 2012 so his voter share collapsed whereas Romney barely improved over McCain. If Hillary pumps some money in there it could swing.
titiklabingapat
Member
Uh, there are tons of African Americans in Philadelphia that will outvote the rest of the state. Especially with Trump at the top of the ticket.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But it's freaking trump. What happened to the slam dunk party killing landslide that was supposed to be brought about by the combination of Trump's racism and the Republican blockade on the supreme court?
Maybe if your expectations were for another McCain or Romney style victory this isn't worrisome, but I thought expectations were higher than that for democrats and lower than that for republicans. If I were a republican I would be overjoyed by these numbers, just seeing that trump isn't going to hurt anything but the 2016 chance at the white house.
Hell, if Hillary can only do average against trump, how is she ever going to carry the party in 2018 and 2020, when census redistricting elections happen again?
I think people are being way too dismissive of these numbers thanks to a laser focus on the 2016 presidential race when there's a lot more to these numbers than just this election's presidency.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sure, until that cannonball goes straight up only to come back down on his orange face.
Aaron Strife
Banned
As fun as it is to dream about a 1984 style blowout, you're not going to see those margins again. The country is too polarized. In fact 08 was probably the high water point for Dem performance - everything that could possibly break Dems' way did, and you had a political rock star at the top. McCain wasn't as bad as Trump but Palin certainly was, and that likely cost McCain a fair amount of support. All the same he still won 46%.
Trump is getting more support now because republicans are lining up behind him. That's it. Not because he's making inroads with Hispanics or women or any of the demographics the GOP actually needs to win in the future.
The most I could see any Democrat winning by is about ten points. Even against Trump. But all the same that would earn Hillary nearly 400 EC votes, give Dene a firm majority in the Senate and even put the House in play. In today's political climate that really is the most you can hope for.
Also - the biggest mistake any liberal can make is assume a presidential contest is in the bag for them just because one of the candidates is crazy. Trump wants to ban Muslims from the country. 43% agree with him. That's what we're up against. I think especially for those of us who only really started paying attention in 08/12 we're just too used to winning. This I think is what drives much of the sentiment behind "Of course Sanders will win the primary, and the GE easily". Never underestimate the resilience of the GOP base or the effect of hundreds of millions of dollars of negative advertising.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
I want you to notice that you said if
If
If
Just so you know, i've lived in Missouri all my life and have voted since with the dems since 08.
Hill will not give a fuck about this state because she will focus on OH and FL.
Would be a damn miracle if that pot initiative was on the ballot in Nov,
Would even be more of a miracle if it passes and the MOGOP doesn't try and subvert it somehow
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean no, it won't be as important as OH/FL but there's been plenty of talk from the Clinton campaign over the past year about planning compete in McCain-Romney states including Missouri, Georgia and Arizona. MO and AZ in particular have Senate elections that could flip so the Democratic Party will be pouring millions there even if Hillary herself doesn't have as much of a presence. Look at 2012, Obama lost the state but McCaskill, Nixon, Kander etc still won.
This seems like a lot of needless cynicism.
Sickening. Fuck every single person who voted yes in that poll.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Because graphs like this are a bit meaningless when the only numbers that matter are in a few states. The vast majority of the country's vote is already decided as far as electoral college. Over 40 states probably won't even see a presidential campaign commercial for the general because it would be throwing money away. A few states decide who's president. What are the numbers like in JUST those states?
I actually laughed
For a guy who was banking everything on a brokered convention, he didn't have much of a delegate game, either.
You didn't understand them then, or the context, or the chronology.
gutter_trash
Banned
a Sanders endorsement (if any) is going to be lukewarm full of less of two evils with a dash of salt
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Trump has one not terrible poll all day and people start freaking out.
+2 isn't even outside of the MoE of the poll either.
+2 isn't even outside of the MoE of the poll either.
People pay way too much attention to individual polls. What matters is the average, and that currently shows Clinton ahead by several points. Combine that with the fact that she's still in the primary, and Clintons in pretty good standing right now. This can change, but it's nothing to worry about yet.
I don't see much room for Trump to expand his supporters in these crosstabs. Where's the bad news for Clinton?
Funny how party unity is only important to people when their candidate is winning.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Byakuya769
Member
Part of this tightening is not that Trump is gaining unforeseen highs in support, any GOP candidate will get 45% in this polarized climate, it is Sanders people refusing to say they will vote for her.
Bernie bros playing cute with the polls so they can have Bernie talking about how his chances are better against Trump.
Cute, but it won't work. Stop it and be adults.
No I think it's because people really hate Hillary Clinton. This is the first presidential election a bunch of my friends and I will not be voting for. (We will be voting for other positions just not president) All of the options such and I refuse to vote for the cream of the crap.
Combine that with the low name recognition Sanders has, people see his name and Trumps, and think "sure I'd vote for this Democrat guy over Trump!". Sanders has the biggest GE lead but the most variability of all the candidates.
Team Alucard
Banned
The average has her +1.6
That is not a commanding lead.
It is. People talk about Trump's unpopularity (57% unfavorable) but Hillary is right there with him (55% unfavorable).
The difference is that Trump has more or less stabilized and is even starting to improve. Hillary's public image keeps freefalling.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That would be a terrible idea. If nobody gets 270 electoral votes, the House votes for the President, which currently means President Trump.
Why is this such a bad thing? If neither candidate could win with a third party running that should show neither is all that strong to begin with.
Obama had between +.7 and +1.5 depending on who you asked on election night, and look how that turned out. Back in February, which actually is a better predictor than now, Clinton had an even stronger lead.
She's in good standing right now and that's something that's undeniable. I'm not sitting easy, nor should you but don't freak out like news outlets want you to.
Have never understood this. Why is she awful? Very few are more qualified for the position than her.
Clinton simply hasn't done enough in Government and has actually done the opposite of what she needs to do in the campaign to shake off the feeling she's just going for the role to say she got it and move out from under the shadow of first lady. People just don't like her and her rise has been so public that her campaign seems synthetic.
Also let's be frank she has the Presidential Election no-no - she lacks energy.
It's difficult to tell if the Democrats lack talent or if they are unambitious - I mean we could be talking 8 years without a shot at the Oval Office - why weren't there more contenders? The Dems are on a long painful nomination campaign thats utterly pointless in its length as despite he campaign there's no one to challenge what are IMO two very weak individuals.
I mean right now the only think Bernie has is hes not Clinton. Which doesn't suggest either are great.
Also let's be frank she has the Presidential Election no-no - she lacks energy.
It's difficult to tell if the Democrats lack talent or if they are unambitious - I mean we could be talking 8 years without a shot at the Oval Office - why weren't there more contenders? The Dems are on a long painful nomination campaign thats utterly pointless in its length as despite he campaign there's no one to challenge what are IMO two very weak individuals.
I mean right now the only think Bernie has is hes not Clinton. Which doesn't suggest either are great.
Same question I always ask - what's the achievement or policy she can hold up as something she owned and an example for her presidency?
Not saying it's not there but she's not talking about it.
Because decades of Republican smear have made her less popular than she otherwise would be. She's a fine candidate, not the worst or best in recent times, just compared to Obama she's rather weak.
Clinton is probably THE most qualified person for president in the country. First lady who consistently helped on matters of political importance, a two term Senator in a large state, and tenure as Secretary of State. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that she hasn't "done enough".
TheLaughingStock
Member
I think voting for an unpredictable bigot or a predictable shill are better ways to satisfice.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I know I'm going to sound like "increasingly nervous man" and I know that maybe I lean too much on what Sam Wang says and I know part of the reason I like him is because he usually is predicting what I want to happen. However, according to the recent article on the Princeton Election Consortium, we're actually right at the point in the general where GE National polls are the least predictive. Like, February polls were better. I'm not sure why, although the conventional wisdom that it's due to one party being settled while one isn't is a tempting explanation. Either way, I'm gonna continue not to Diablos yet. Maybe in July or August, if Trump is actually leading, I'll worry. For now, I'm still feeling good about President Clinton.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked