Moreover the poll suggests that Republicans will only make up 27% of the electorate... which would be a significant drop from the "lowest" percent that the GOP has had in a Presidential race in recent history (in 2008, the GOP made up 32% of the vote). It would also represent an unprecedented drop from the 37% of the vote the GOP enjoyed two years ago.
I am skeptical of this poll for two main reasons:
- It is an unreasonable change from their previous poll released just a week ago which showed the race within four points. Nothing has happened over the past week that would justify an eight point "vault" (as the story states) in Clinton's favor. While most of the polling from the third debate showed Clinton with a marginal victory... the same polls suggested that undecideds thought Trump won, and that it made them more likely to vote for Trump (not Clinton). Other national polling (Ipsos, TIPP, Morning Consult, CVoter, Rasmussen) has shown the race tightening or holding steady over the past week.
- The demographic breakdown is questionable, and "appears" to be a static number they weighted. I could be wrong and that demographic breakdown may be dynamic, but otherwise it is well out of line with other weighted tracking polls who show the GOP having more historically traditional numbers. While there may actually be some Republicans who will chose to vote third Party or even vote for Clinton, I am not sure that you will see a 27% decrease in the actual number of Republicans voting from 2014. Certainly not when you consider that in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats were coming out in record numbers for a much more popular Barack Obama. There is every indication that both minority and younger voters are not enthused and will not come out to the same degree. Hard to objectively see "both" a decrease in traditional Democratic voters "and" a significantly lower "percent" of the electorate being Republican.
Overall, it's another poll to mull over and watch over the last two weeks. It will interesting to see if it continues to show Clinton with double digit leads.
47 comments:
Repeat after me:
"Many Republicans are upset and depressed."
Trump Campaign Admits He’s Losing
“Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, a longtime Republican pollster, admitted Sunday that her candidate is currently losing to Democrat Hillary Clinton,” the Washington Post reports.
Said Conway: “We are behind. Clinton has some advantages, like $66 million in ad buys just in the month of September, thereby doubling her ad buys from August. Now, most of those ads are negative against Donald Trump — classic politics of personal destruction, cesspool kind of ads. And she has tremendous advantages: She has a former president, who happens to be her husband, campaigning for her. The current president and first lady, vice president, all much more popular than she can hope to be.”
__________
Or that you wish they were not.
*Or than you wish...
Re 12:46
Nate Silver Election Update, one hour ago:
Trump May Depress Republican Turnout, Spelling Disaster For The GOP
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-may-depress-republican-turnout-spelling-disaster-for-the-gop/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Pretty much the media trying to stampede the election for Clinton.
God knows they want "business as usual" politics.
It is an unreasonable change from their previous poll released just a week ago which showed the race within four points.
Just another fix to keep R's home november 8...Sucks to be an R......
I find it kind of amusing that you take your time to analyze the polls that show Clinton is in the lead. I don't remember you ever apply the skeptical analysis on the polls that are showing it close or leaning towards Trump.
Nate Silver seems to be thinking along the lines, I've been laughed at by our esteemed host.
The problem for Trump is that taken as a whole, his polls aren’t very good — and, in fact, they may still be getting worse. An ABC News national poll released on Sunday morning — the first live-caller poll conducted fully after the final presidential debate — showed Clinton leading Trump 50 percent to 38 percent. Clinton’s 12-point lead in that poll is toward the high end of a broad range of results from recent national polls, with surveys showing everything from a 15-point Clinton lead to a 2-point Trump edge. But the ABC News poll is interesting given its recency and given why Clinton has pulled so far ahead in it — Republicans aren’t very happy with their candidate and may not turn out to vote:
The previous ABC/Post poll found a sharp 12-point decline in enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters, almost exclusively among those who’d preferred a different GOP nominee. Intended participation now has followed: The share of registered Republicans who are likely to vote is down 7 points since mid-October.
I’d urge a little bit of caution here, given that swings in enthusiasm can be transient and can sometimes exaggerate the underlying change in voter sentiment. Our polls-only forecast has Clinton up by about 7 percentage points instead of by double digits — and our polls-plus forecast would still bet on the race tightening slightly.
But you can easily see how the worst-case scenario is firmly on the table for Trump and Republican down-ballot candidates, where the bottom falls out from GOP turnout. Consider:
Trump is getting only about 80 percent of the Republican vote, whereas candidates typically finish at about 90 percent of their party’s vote or above.
Furthermore, the Republicans missing from Trump’s column tend to be high-education, high-income voters, who typically also have a high propensity to vote.
Voters are increasingly convinced that Clinton will win the election, and turnout can be lower in lopsided elections. (Although, this presents risks to both candidates: complacency on the part of Democrats, despondency on the part of Republicans.)
Republicans and Trump have a substantial ground game deficit, with Clinton and Democrats holding a nearly 4-1 advantage in paid staffers.
Trump’s rhetoric that the election is rigged could discourage turnout among his own voters.
Trump’s base is relatively small, especially if he underperforms among college-educated Republicans.
The nightmare scenario for the GOP is that high-information Republican voters, seeing Trump imploding and not necessarily having been happy with him as their nominee in the first place, feel free to cast a protest vote at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, lower-information Republican voters don’t turn out at all, given that Trump’s rigging rhetoric could suppress their vote and that Republicans don’t have the field operation to pull them back in. That’s how you could get a Clinton landslide like the one the ABC News poll describes, along with a Democratic Senate and possibly even — although it’s a reach — a Democratic House.
That isn’t the only scenario in play, but it’s an increasing possibility. Overall, Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency are 87 percent according to our polls-only model and 85 percent according to polls-plus.
Clinton will get close to 50% or higher, because Trump is going to get only his core of Republicans that got him the nomination. It may be even better, because his supporters are not going to vote for a loser.
You watch, if Georgia and Texas go to Clinton, it will be revised to Clinton in a landslide.
The following three articles in the order in which they appeared at politicalwire.com today:
_____________
Bonus Quote of the Day
"I have never seen a campaign that has less discipline, less focus than Donald Trump’s.”
— Frank Luntz, in an interview on CBS News.
_______________
Politicalwire.com article for members only:
A Wave May Be Forming
_______________
A Potential Disaster for Republicans
Nate Silver: “The nightmare scenario for the GOP is that high-information Republican voters, seeing Trump imploding and not necessarily having been happy with him as their nominee in the first place, feel free to cast a protest vote at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, lower-information Republican voters don’t turn out at all, given that Trump’s rigging rhetoric could suppress their vote and that Republicans don’t have the field operation to pull them back in.”
________________
Outside GOP Groups Already Concede Trump’s Defeat
New York Times: “Two outside groups aligned with Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Senate Leadership Fund, have begun running television commercials in Senate races implying that Mr. Trump’s defeat is likely and asking voters to send Republican lawmakers to Washington as a check on Mrs. Clinton.”
“And the Congressional Leadership Fund, a powerful ‘super PAC’ that supports Republicans in the House of Representatives, will begin running ads in the coming days that attack Democratic candidates as ‘rubber stamps’ for Mrs. Clinton, and urge voters in swing districts to support a Republican instead.”
Roger - I have analyzed the LA Times poll, I have talked about the demographic make up of the tracking polls. I have very specifically written about the differences between the various polling.
Do you judge Nate Silver by the same standards. He has consistently attacked the LA Times poll, has gone after Rasmussen, ignores People's Pundit, and lowers the weight of the TIPP poll (in spite of previously grading it an A- poll). He consistently uses his own version of the Ipsos poll (by fiddling with the Reuters tracking numbers) which is sometimes as much as five points different than what Ipsos itself releases.
On the flip side, he takes the Washington Post poll at face value. Doesn't address that it moved by eight points. Doesn't include in his analysis the fact it is weighing only 27% Republicans (other than to defend reasons why it would be that way). A dubious suggestion considering many other pollsters are not seeing that sort of break down (in fact almost none of them are).
Bottom line Roger: You will noticed that my analyse rarely uses my personal opinion as to how "I" believe the race is going or what might move "me". I inherently understand that doing so would simply allow my own bias to taint my analysis. Rather my analysis involves what the numbers show me (such as the polling results regarding the debate) as well as what the pollster specifically shows us in terms of demographics. Nothing I wrote can be really argued as not being factual.
Objectively...
There were two polls and two focus groups that all stated the same thing. A narrow majority/plurality of undecideds believed Trump won. That was consistent in all four of these examples. Those same undecideds suggested that the debate made them more likely to vote for Trump. Again, consistent in all four measures.
Meanwhile about eight different polls were released since the debate, and seven of them either showed Trump gaining or the numbers holding steady. Only the ARG poll (which had not polled in nearly two months) showed Hillary expanding her lead over the previous result.
Then ABC/Washington Post poll comes out showing Clinton's lead expanding from four points to twelve... and we are supposed to ignore all of the other factors and simply assume that that one poll is the bell weather for how the public is reacting to the past week.
Is that your argument?
Seems to me the argument is that the ABC/Washington Post poll is the first to reflect more fully the impact of BOTH the Trump "grab them by the p***y" recording AND the last debate.
James...
Well first, ABC/WashPost already released a poll since the p****y comment. It showed the race at four points. The only thing that happened since then was the debate. So objectively the poll would not reflect that comment.
Secondly, this is now the ninth poll released since these two events, not the first. It's only the "first" to show a big difference. So objectively you have to believe that the other eight polls were all wrong, and only the ABC/WashP poll is getting it right.
You may be correct, that Silver is somehow suggesting that this poll is somehow the bell weather poll. But all of this coupled together (objectively), this would seem to be a poor overall argument James... wouldn't you agree?
There's a new Podesta email that encourages poll manipulation by oversampling demographics that they like.
Sorry to spoil your fantasy.
And I encourage you, ballz, to keep thinking the polls are fixed and post BS that you like. LOL
This is factual, unlike some of the other stuff. The Republicans are beginning to accept that Trump is going to bring the GOP Senate with the. Well, with Trump losing so badly in the polls, that stance now appears to be changing.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, the guy in charge of deciding whether President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland will have a confirmation hearing before the Senate, said that it’s now possible they might do so during a “lame-duck session” of Congress.
This is pure try and save out ass strategery. ® W
Ch, at 6:10PM above I only tried to put in my own words what Roger posted above, quoting from Nate Silver:
____________
"An ABC News national poll released on Sunday morning — the FIRST live-caller poll conducted FULLY AFTER the final presidential debate — showed Clinton leading Trump 50 percent to 38 percent."
__________
I just went to RCP and it lists that poll as the ONLY poll conducted between Oct 20-22, so I don't know where you get your claim that "this is now the ninth poll released since these two events."
See for yourself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Now please list those other eight polls that were released FULLY AFTER both the tape and the final debate.
TO QUOTE ONE OF THE CANDIDATES:
“I really think those polls are very inaccurate when it comes to women. I think we’re doing better with women than with men, frankly.”
— Donald Trump
TO QUOTE THE OTHER OF THE CANDIDATES:
"Dream on, Donald."
-- Hillary Clinton
_________
Frankly.
"An ABC News national poll released on Sunday morning — the FIRST live-caller poll conducted FULLY AFTER the final presidential debate — showed Clinton leading Trump 50 percent to 38 percent."
What this means James, is that Silver is ignoring any poll that does robocalling or anything that solicited online. In other words, he is ignoring about 80% of the current polling out there.
Furthermore, whether you believe live phones, robocalls, or online polls are most accurate... there is no evidence that "movement" within an individual poll would behave differently. Only that the baseline of these polls would be different. Silver is suggesting something (that only a live phone interview poll would pick up a trend) that he simply cannot prove. In fact, it can easily be proven otherwise.
There are seven different tracking polls, James... some of them such as Rasmussen are two day rolling polls, some are three, others are five, etc... but even if you have four of five or four of seven... you would begin to see movement. Non-tracking polls - ARG, Morning Consult, Google Consumer... have all come out with polling with results since the debate.
Silver's observation is a distinction without a difference. He is simply "trying very hard" to convince people that one poll means more than all of the rests combined. It's simply intellectually dishonest.
President Obama is now in the record books. He just reached a record-setting 78 months of job growth. Since 2010, businesses have added more than 15.1 million jobs. That’s longer than any president ever has before.
In fact, it can easily be proven otherwise.
In your opinion..
Worth as much as mine. Silver is quoted extensively in the evil, Clinton controlled media. You are quoted...
Hmmm
President Obama is now in the record books. He just reached a record-setting 78 months of job growth. Since 2010, businesses have added more than 15.1 million jobs. That’s longer than any president ever has before.
Job creation - Temp, contract, part time and low wage service jobs. This is what you're bragging about??
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=gb4HAW--5T0
Karl Rove and Nate Silver agree.
10:02 Silver knows as well as anyone else that one poll does not an election make. However, a poll which before the debate gave Hillary a four point lead and after the debate gave her an astonishing twelve point lead may be quite significant, particularly if supported by other polls.
Where is that list I asked for?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/#item-2
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."
"I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling."
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters." Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
- On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
- Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
- Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
manipulate the polling to discourage trump supporters, then declare the election "over" via the WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-trump-stumbles-clinton-weighs-a-striking-choice-expand-the-map-or-stick-to-the-plan/2016/10/16/f0f77470-93a7-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html
as predictable as the sun rising in the east. and nate silver's "anal-ysis?
yup.
pulled straight from his own ass.
Balls, do not state the facts, HB is the blogs economic Retard.
He looks at blacks owning less homes then before Obama took office as a Yuge Success.
Sorry, Rat, but there are---
Virtually No Paths Left for Trump
“With two weeks to go, Donald Trump’s path to an Election Night win is almost entirely closed,” Politico reports.
“Hillary Clinton enters the final 15 days of the race safely ahead in states worth more than 270 electoral votes. Indeed, the suspense of this final stretch is less about whether Trump can turn it around than how many down-ballot Republicans he will drag down with him.”
The Podesta emails just confirms the suspicion that the media is polling just to create a narrative.
And the narrative they are desperately trying to create is of an easy Clinton victory.
The Podesta emails just confirms the suspicion that the media is polling just to create a narrative.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this is what trump was referring to when he said the whole deal is rigged.
the state-run media is nothing more than the PR firm/steno pool for the DNC.
lf the polling is so bad, you and others need to do a better job of convincing your fellow Republican of that, for they are abandoning Trump all up and down the ticket.
*Republicans
I don't think there will be any problem convincing Republicans to go to the Polls.
Clinton Camp does 2nd U turn over TPP.
She was for it, then Bernie beat the shit out of her over it, then suddenly she was against it, NOW, yep Full in for it again.
Weird Hillary
Jane, tell us where you see your team winning down ballot.
Watergate's Bob Woodward: "Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It's A Scandal"
Re 7:32AM I meant your Republican leaders, candidates and campaigners. They are increasingly abandoning all hope of electing Trump and concentrating on defending as many downticket seats as they can.
Rasmussen Reports 10/19 - 10/23 1500 LV 2.5 41 43 5 3 Trump +2
IBD/TIPP Tracking 10/18 - 10/23 815 LV 3.6 41 41 8 4 Tie
ABC News Tracking 10/20 - 10/22 874 LV 3.5 50 38 5 2 Clinton +12
Quinnipiac 10/17 - 10/18 1007 LV 3.1 47 40 7 1 Clinton +7
Economist/YouGov 10/15 - 10/18 925 RV 3.9 42 38 6 1 Clinton +4
FOX News 10/15 - 10/17 912 LV 3.0 45 39 5 3 Clinton +6
Bloomberg 10/14 - 10/17 1006 LV 3.1 47 38 8 3 Clinton +9
Reuters/Ipsos 10/13 - 10/17 1190 LV 3.3 42 38 6 2 Clinton +4
Monmouth 10/14 - 10/16 726 LV 3.6 50 38 5 2 Clinton +12
The average of all the Clinton polls is 7%
A week ago it was about 5%
The rrb crooked polls are going to improve Clinton's numbers are going up as Trump is collapsing.
only an imbecile re-posts and offers anal-ysis on polls that are already on the sidebar.
stop trying to be something you ain't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj70gs4fE9Q&sns=fb&app=desktop
This is where you got your information.
By the way, I got it from RCP.
You know, the Clinton foundation funded secretly to make Trump look bad, site. Right?
rrb's site is ummm.. interesting.
Did Russia Hack the DNC … Really?
by George Washington - Oct 24, 2016 3:33 PM
“I Can Tell You With 100% Certainty That It Is Not Any Russian State Actor Or Proxy That Gave The Democratic National Committee And Podesta Material To Wikileaks”
Is China About to Go “Scorched Earth” on the US Dollar?
by Phoenix Capital... - Oct 24, 2016 8:28 AM
Buckle up, because as I write this Monday morning, China just began to aggressively devalue the Yuan AGAIN.
Central Bank Austria Claims To Have Audited Gold at BOE. Refuses To Release Audit Report
by BullionStar - Oct 24, 2016 5:20 AM
The central bank of Austria claims to have completed the audits of its 224 tonnes of gold stored at the BOE. However, it refuses to publish the audit reports and the gold bar list.
Fed Risks Lehman Crisis As US Recession Storm Gathers
by GoldCore - Oct 24, 2016 7:36 AM
“The risk of a US recession next year is rising fast” and “the Federal Reserve has no margin for error” according to Ambrose Evans Pritchard writing in the Telegraph.
Did Russia Hack the DNC … Really?
by George Washington - Oct 24, 2016 3:33 PM
“I Can Tell You With 100% Certainty That It Is Not Any Russian State Actor Or Proxy That Gave The Democratic National Committee And Podesta Material To Wikileaks”
Is China About to Go “Scorched Earth” on the US Dollar?
by Phoenix Capital... - Oct 24, 2016 8:28 AM
Buckle up, because as I write this Monday morning, China just began to aggressively devalue the Yuan AGAIN.
Central Bank Austria Claims To Have Audited Gold at BOE. Refuses To Release Audit Report
by BullionStar - Oct 24, 2016 5:20 AM
The central bank of Austria claims to have completed the audits of its 224 tonnes of gold stored at the BOE. However, it refuses to publish the audit reports and the gold bar list.
Fed Risks Lehman Crisis As US Recession Storm Gathers
by GoldCore - Oct 24, 2016 7:36 AM
“The risk of a US recession next year is rising fast” and “the Federal Reserve has no margin for error” according to Ambrose Evans Pritchard writing in the Telegraph.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
rrb's site is ummm.. interesting.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
on the sauce again, sport?
you might as well at this point.
James said...
lf the polling is so bad, you and others need to do a better job of convincing your fellow Republican of that,
A. no one has said they weren't idiots
B. I for one don't care what they do with campaign efforts. I hope they lose the Senate.
Post a Comment