Perhaps as many state polls in one day as there have been since the start of the election.
I think it is fair to say only 1 was good for Clinton.
Quinippiac:
OH tied, PA Trump +2, Fl Trump +3
Marist
PA Clinton +9, OH tied, Iowa Clinton +3
Marquette
Wisconsin, Clinton +4
Marist National
Clinton +3
YouGov National
Clinton +2
Monmouth
Nevada, Clinton +4, Iowa Trump +2, CO Clinton +9
Harper
Co Clinton +9
JMC
Florida Trump+5
Gravis
Florida Trump +4
I compare polls by taking the swing from the prior election, and see how they stack up:
Quinippiac, -2.66 (Implies Clinton +1.2) from ’12
Marist, -2.89 (implies Clinton +.9 from ’12)
Marquette, -2.94 (implies Clinton lead of .8)
Monmouth, +.84 (implies Clinton lead of 4.6)
So the state polls actually agree with other, and with the Marist National poll.
Clinton still probably wins with these numbers, but these are pretty bad.
It’s funny, the liberal blogs are all silent on them. When Loras came out some rushed to show Clinton was going to blow Trump out, and that Grassley was in trouble. Every poll since then indicates that poll was an outlier, but no one is rushing out to correct the record either.
It’s like the end of Animal Farm. The bloggers rose in part because they called bullshit on cherry picking polling. But now they are as guilty as anyone.
Since I wrote this:
Fox News
VA +7, CO +10 (Implied National Lead 7.7)
CBS National: Clinton 40, Trump 40
Morning Consult 50 state survey
Shows IA tied, OH, PA and FL within a point. Clinton leading in GA, Trump in Maine (yea right). But they too show leads for Clinton in VA (4) and CO (7). They show a close race, with a Clinton advantage in the EC.
Big picture: basically a race that has closed, but one with emerging Clinton leads in VA and CO – which are quite important. If she takes those two and wins PA, it is hard for Trump to put 270 together.
But this race has closed – frankly it is closer than I thought it would get.
New this morning:
Marist:
CO Cl+8, VA Cl +9, Fl Cl +7, NC Cl +6
The intuition is a break in patter from 2012 and 2008, with states with increasing minority populations trending Democratic, and those without trending GOP. Thus PA is close and Oh is close, but VA and CO are not.
I don’t buy the Florida number, nor the NC one.
Love how you cherry pick polls as well. Reuters/ Ipsos has a national poll showing Clinton up 13% while RABA also has a national poll showing Hillary up 12% Funny how those never made it into your so-called polling data. Another thing, why are you reporting on these so-called polls now, when earlier on, Clinton had a bigger lead, and no one on here even bothered to put those numbers up?? Anti-Clinton much???
Who the hell is RABA research? No record I can find.
538 ratings
Quinnipiac, A-
Marist, A
Monmouth A+
Marquette, A
The poll comparison I did was of pollsters with excellent track records.
I wrote about a Pew +9 poll on Dkos when it came out.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/07/07/1546099/-The-best-pollster-there-is-has-Clinton-9
The statewide analysis, which suggested a Cinton lead of 7, now suggests a Clinton 2.31
Rueters looks liike an outlier.
You are welcome to your denial – just don’t pretend like you have looked at the data before you try to convince the rest of us.
Perhaps flashing caution would be more apt. It’s probably too soon to get a decent read on what’s driving the numbers for these two candidates. The candidate narratives don’t appear to be well in sync with the mood and character of the general electorate.
The narrative forming around Clinton by her team seems to be that Trump is a lying, incompetent nincumpoop and Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever. (Echoes of 2000 for me, but IMO Gore was qualified in his own right.)
The Trumpsters are pushing the Hillary lies and is untrustworthy envelope and the Donald is different and unique.
The regular base voters in each party respond to the candidate’s positive self-promotion. The size of those bases in any election cycle will vary depending upon the strength and perceived authenticity of the candidate’s PR. Seems weak for both HRC and Trump. So, it’s a battle of between the negative narratives. Clinton’s is more professional (not dissimilar to GWB’s), but Trump’s is more outrageous and emotionally engaging. Both are mostly true. Considering that HRC has the more skilled/experienced negative campaign team and that she has more to work with wrt to Trump, he should be much further behind at this stage of the election cycle. HRC’s problem is that what Trump has to work with isn’t trivial or insignificant, but he’s making the material sound like birther nonsense and therefore, his current poll numbers uptick is more likely a blip than a trend.
flashing neon red or orange alert, there’s a real disconnect happening here.
l’m assuming that it’s common knowledge that HRC and Herr Trump are two of the most
despiseddisliked and mistrusted candidates for POTUS in my memory…which given my advancing age is rather long.we’re on very unstable grounds here and the seemingly sanguine attitude about the inevitability of victory in november that the hillbots and the powers that be in the democratic party are exhibiting are, imnsho, seriously misplaced. HRC is, like it, admit it or not… viscerally despised by the ratpublicans, and not all that popular with the population at large
that being said, l’ll err on the side of caution, l’ll contain my naysaying until after the conventions. let’s see who gets the bounce and where it goes. but l would counsel that caution is warranted.
That light, be it red, orange, or yellow, has been flashing for eighteen years. The problem is that a majority of Democrats have only seen it once and that was just barely in 2008. They simply can’t wrap their brains around the evidence that those on the left and right don’t appreciate the Clintons’ policies or character. That their wins are mostly due to drawing incredibly weak opponents (virtually non-existent opponents in Hillary’s senate elections).
In ’08 McCain (without Palin) would have been the experienced one. A third GOP win after the disastrous GWB admin and his age would have decided the election in her favor. That timing advantage is with the GOP in this cycle. Combined with the loathing (manufactured and legitimate) for all things Clinton among non-Democrats, the GOP candidate should have a decent lead at this point. Trump is behind because like GHWB, Dole, McCain and Romney, he can’t knit together the four factions available to a GOP candidate.
’92 remains and interesting election for me because that’s when we saw the ordinary, “bread and butter” issues voters that lean right and left split off from the Democrats and Republicans. HRC, like Bill in ’92 and to a lesser extent Gore in ’00, alienates progressives and ordinary, left leaning “bread and butter” issues voters. Trump appears to be resonating with the right leaning “bread and butter” issues voters that are more responsive to scapegoating foreigners than they are to purely racist appeals. Those would be the ’92 and ’96 right leaning Perot voters. GHWB retained the fundies, racists, and self-styled economic conservatives and elites. Trump is losing with the last faction and he may manage to depress fundie turnout.
While it’s too soon to tell, I expect Johnson/Weld to draw more potential GOP votes than Stein will take from HRC. In part because Johnson/Weld aren’t political novices. However, they are beginning to run out of time to make it onto the big stage and therefore, will be limited to receiving GOP protest votes. Trump is not only a horrible candidate, but he’s sucking up most of the national political oxygen.
He’s only a “horrible candidate” if he loses, Oui. Ignore the polls. That “sucking up all Of the oxygen” idea? That is exactly what a fire does unless it is truly put out. He’s hot media, as opposed to the McLuhan “cool” idea.
Fashions change. The U.S. has been led “cool” for a long time now. Eight years of “cool.”
Preceded by eight years of what can only be described as “tepid.”
Preceded by eight more years of “cool.”
HRC is so biased towards the intellectual that she is often seen as the extreme of “cool.”
Cold.
Trump?
Firecracker hot!!!
The times…and the temperatures…they are a’changin’.
Watch.
He’s gonna catch fire late in the game if she can’t freeze him out.
Watch.
AG
When I labeled Trump a horrible candidate, I was not including his ability to get lots of votes from emotionally driven and thoughtless people. He looks ridiculous and spouts ridiculous things. One or the other quality has been enough in the past to defeat other wannabes.
As a super-“hot” candidate existing on a “cool” medium (TV), Trump is breaking McLuhan’s formulation. He’s like Perot on steroids and less articulate and comprehensible.
He’s not “on” TV, first of all. He’s in the media.
That means digital media.
Digital media favors the hot. ‘T’ain’t “cool” at all.
Porn.
Scandal.
Idiot celebrities.
Flashes in the pan.
Violent vid games.
“HOTTEST THING EVER!!!” news that last about a week.
Argumentative tweets.
Nonsensical trolls on bullshit sites like DKos.
Hot, Hot, HOT!!!
Watch.
He fits right in.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Even his rallies don’t work on TV. Endless waits w/pics of masses of stupid people. he’s is being watched in bits and bytes, not long speeches. It’s the next day, when the media have culled his most outrageous statements (Read “hottest statements.”) that people go to the vid.
On their digital devices.
Bet on it.
AG
The Trump-set is consuming cable TV news, which granted is a hotter medium than standard TV, it’s still TV.
His rallies have been smaller and less frequent than Bernie’s were. News flash — lots of people, some otherwise reasonable people, show up at celebrity appearances and cheer. Wrapping their identity around “I seen X.” As Dave Eggers reported from Trump’s Sacramento airport rally (a small venue), they didn’t care what he said. TV clips don’t reveal if his audiences are in the tens or the thousands. Same distortion as what has been used for HRC clips. (And her fans don’t care what she says either.) The primary season video difficulty was minimizing the size of Bernie’s crowds and glossing over the fact that what he said was important to his audiences.
How about… the e-mail scandal, even if it didn’t result in any legal consequences for Hillary Clinton, is still a scandal in the eyes of the public?
The premises are pretty simple.
A.) Despite the perception of the blogosphere, most voters don’t vote by ideology. They especially don’t vote by min-maxing policy outcomes. They vote by brand. Democrats may insist that we should ignore HRC’s faults because she’d result in better policy outcomes than Trump, and we may accept that logic, but most voters don’t.
B.) Resentment of elites is at an all-time high in both parties. See: Sanders and Trumps’ surprising successes despite their manifold weaknesses due to attacking the system and shadowy elites.
C.) HRC getting away with something that would’ve resulted in actual jailtime for most non-elites feeds into the narrative that there’s a shadowy cabal of elites who are above the law and are protecting each other. This is a problem because of B.)’s existence.
D.) HRC has already been seen as untrustworthy well before the denouement of Emailgate. This too feeds into B.) and C.)’s narrative.
This isn’t just speculation. Just read the polls. Almost 2/3rds of people disapprove how Emailgate was handled.
how about AA voters reading Clinton’s email server and certain activities of the Clinton Foundation as a betrayal of Obama? result, i’d guess, depressed turnout. furthermore, from the pov of international players, many USA presidents are buffoons anyway and Trump appears to be more pragmatic, less ideologically driven than HRC, hence less risk for inflaming international conflict.
As AA voters have dismissed what the Clintons said and implied about Obama in the ’08 primaries, why would anything more like that turn off AA voters today? Hell, Bill Clinton publicly stated that he loathed Obama. IMHO the Clintons didn’t take a primary challenge to Obama off the table until the killing of OBL in May 2011.
well, there’s theory and then there’s what I hear from actual people – (I have not asked if they’ll stay home, that’s why I only suggest it might happen)
Doubt that AA voters will be as motivated to show up and vote as they were in ’12. However, that only means that their voting participation will drop to ’08 or ’04 levels. AA participation in the ’16 primaries were at or below that of ’08, but less divided between the two main Dem contenders.
That’s one reason why the “Clinton by 10+ points” seems wildly optimistic to me. The high regard AA leaders and by extension AA voters have for the Clintons is real if inexplicable to me (and recall that in ’08 Obama didn’t begin to break through that Clinton firewall until after NH). Any other politician that plays a “Sister Souljah” card even once is immediately and forever rejected by AA leaders and voters. Only in the ’08 primaries were the Clintons punished by AAs for going there, but she probably gained more additional white voters than lost AA votes; so, from her perspective it was worth it and could be confident that she could win them back in the future if need be.
Clinton’s home-brew communications server is a legitimate part of what the GOP has to work with to discredit her. (Assumed readers here would appreciate that and didn’t need me to repeat that specific charge.)
We here know that most people vote by brand. But as those people roughly split 50/50 D/R, we also know that they aren’t election “deciders.” A rough split of 40/40 for HRC/Trump is a bit high brand voters as this stage of on election cycle, but interest this time is higher than usual; so, retreating to brand may be happening earlier. If so, the impact of HRC’s e-mail issue would be seen in the undecideds and not Hillary or Trump’s numbers.
Trump isn’t an elite? GMAFB. He may play “Archie Bunker” for the crowds (an appears to be an authentic crude boor), but it’s an act and he’s without a deep-seated nice person or lovable quality.
Both candidates have records that would land other people in jail or financially destitute. Both have so far gotten away with their unsavory actions. No mystery as to why these two have the highest unfavorable ratings for the two major presidential nominees that have ever been seen since such numbers have been collected.
Polls measure the combined assessments of each individual candidate and that then filters into the comparative assessment of the candidates. They say little to nothing about the variables that lead to the summation for the candidates. In part because people aren’t articulate and/or thoughtful enough to identify them. HRC has plenty of personal baggage, but she also hooks into that anti-dynasty ethos that continues to exist among ordinary American voters. Yet so far, Trump is coming up short compared to HRC because he’s nothing but a vanity candidate with a big mouth. Without her “I am woman” ace card, she would be coming up short.
“Resentment of elites is at an all-time high in both parties…” Too late now to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
At this moment Trump has a path to victory.
That scares the hell out of me.
I think this will turn into a status quo/competence vrs need change/shakeup the system election. Neither candidate is trusted, neither is liked.
If that frame holds, and Trump can convince people that he isn’t crazy, he can win. There is a minor echo of Reagan in 80, who was every bit as crazy as Trump in his own way. Trump needs to shore up his right.
For Clinton the e-mail scandal hits not just on trust, but possibly on competence. This is the right play to message on both this and Benghazi.
I still think Clinton wins by more than 10.
But I never thought I would see numbers like this.
I am surprised.
Trump’s “path to victory” is like drawing an inside straight flush. Can happen but that’s luck and outside the control of his campaign.
To beat Trump by more than 10, GOP turnout will have to be depressed or go heavily, at least 15%, for Johnson/Weld. Obama was exciting and he energized the electorate as no candidate had done in decades. And he beat McCain/lipstick by just under 8%. If forced to guess, I can’t see HRC doing better than Obama/Biden.
I was interested in Tarheeldem’s OT comment over on the David Duke thread; if I read it correctly, observing that the nominations are not set yet and there may be some unforeseen glitches, or at least that vp nomination will be an issue. at least Sanders will be working on taking back the Senate and House
Trump is supposed to announce his VP pick in a few hours. Supposedly between Christie, Pence, and Gingrich.
Pence is pretty wacky but not a poison pill like Christie or Gingrich. Maybe he’s looking for someone to blame for failure. I read somewhere that Johnson’s Libertarians are surging among Republicans. Looks like a replay of 1964.
Except in ’64 the default vote was for LBJ and not a third party candidate. Defaulting to Johnson has more echoes of ’92, but it’s a different actual and potential GOP voter faction that’s defecting. (Trump has the GOP Perot voters because he’s doing the trade talk turkey strut.)
Pence wears the mask of sanity persona more comfortably than either Newt or Crispy. But he’s still dull and gray and looks older than his 57 years. A VP Pence and Kaine debate sounds so not exciting. Weld might do well if he can get in on that one. (Johnson in the HRC-Trump debate more likely to fade into the curtains than make a mark.)
Mea Culpa! I was thinking of Anderson’s Independent run which, of course, was in 1980.
I wonder why Carter objected to having Anderson in the debates. Surely, he could only help Carter. But Carter seemed rather inept at the mechanics of politics. I bet he wouldn’t have won in ’76 if the Republicans had run someone not associated with Nixon, let alone had pardoned him.
Anderson was a GOP ringer to bleed off soft support for Carter and raise Reagan’s chances to win. The Anderson needs X% to get federal campaign funding and it’s not fair if he doesn’t get that appealed to those with a sense of fairness.
Check out where that worked best. Ignore the west coast because the election was called hours before the polls closed. It cost Carter a few states, most likely DE, MA, and NY, but in the end wouldn’t have changed the outcome. What it did do is distort/reduce the popular vote for a Democrat.
If Bernie had Carter level electoral skills, he would have struggled to break 20% and wouldn’t have won a single primary or caucus. Carter was sort of an arrogant twit and believed that in a one-on-one debate with Reagan, he could peel off the rational GOP voters and retain the Dem left flank that remained unhealed from Kennedy’s primary challenge. He didn’t consider that in a three person debate that Anderson could take a few big bites out of Reagan’s hide and that the left could see that Anderson wasn’t an acceptable option.
GHWB didn’t have the option to make the same mistake because Perot had maintained much higher poll ratings. CW says that Perot hurt GHWB and WJC equally, but I’ve long suspected that Perot gave WJC the small opening and boost that he needed. Without Perot, WJC had nothing to run on except healthcare.
Hadn’t thought that about Anderson, but maybe you’re right.
Re: WJC, I’ve always been rather puzzled about “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell”. Younger people think it was a big sellout but you and I are old enough to remember the milieu. You are probably not as familiar with the military as I am, but they know nothing about how it was for gays in the military. First off, it was a crime! An automatic discharge. So what puzzled me was after promising to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy, he instead spent considerable political capital on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. I believe it was precisely to spend that political capital on a social issue to have an excuse to not follow through on the economic issues. Fortunately for him, the PC revolution was taking over the economy and Microsoft/Intel were leading a technology boom.
WJC ran on a promise that gays could serve in the military. I think it was fairly common knowledge that homosexuality was a crime under the USMCJ and most people recognized that gay men and women had been serving since like forever. DADT was Colin Powell’s construction of how to implement WJC’s promise to the gay community. Ended up being worse for gay service members than the prior unofficial “don’t tell” and we’ll pretend not to notice as more gay service members then before were booted out.
After handing off what was supposed to be his signature issue, health care reform, to Hillary, WJC did focus on the economy. Shoved through an appropriate income tax increase and then set to work on the tougher to sell dismantling of New Deal economic legislation/regulation stuff with Rubin, Summers, and the Republicans. Gore’s assignment, streamlining government was a piece of that (and worked out very well for the Bush/Cheney military contractors and Wall St banksters because the skeleton staffing of regulatory agencies were incapable of handling all the fraud, theft, etc.
Doesn’t seem to be common knowledge today. You remind me that around that time I heard a Public radio discussion of gays in the military. This expert said that in wartime gays in the military are tolerated because there’s no nonsense, it’s war and they need every man, but in peacetime they can engage in harassment games. Sounds logical.
2 new Marist polls came out today. Hillary 44-35 in Colorado. Hillary 46-37 in Florida. Red flag time??