White House Watch: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%

[avaistheone1]

Source: Rasmussen Reports

The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.

Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.



Read more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

[Gothmog]

1. Who trusts a rassie poll?

You got to be kidding

[LannyDeVaney]

2. At least a few ...

judging by how may folks have posted this story today already.

Weird how it keeps getting posted, right?

əˈjendə/

[William769]

6. People hoping to see Hillary Clinton fail.

That's who likes rassie polls.

[phazed0]

18. That's silly, what's this?

Oh look, here's some Rass polls used against Bernie by Hillary supporters:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251752410
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512164635

Here's some posts by you (William769) all the way back to 2007 and newer where you have no problem partaking in discussing Rass polls, not mentioning that they are garbage of a sort.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021322311#post2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014787386
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023907019#post3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3394595

Here's one from 2007 where you (William769) implicity recommend a post using Rasmussen:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3390155
that leads here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3389727&mesg_id=3389727
Where it is cited the "torturous" 5 day a week daily tracking polls - showing why Obama isn't going to win and that Hillary had a 11pt lead (Rassmussen poll)... oops.

Funny how people are willing to quote "bad polls" when it favors their views; tear them down when they don't like the results. In fact, overall, it looks like your dislike for Rassmussen starts in 2016.

Just sayin'

[LanternWaste]

36. I'd also point to anecdotes as trend if it validated my biases.

I'd also point to anecdotes as trend if it validated my biases.

Just sayin', part deux.

[Shebear]

23. Rasmussen tends to lean Repub...

... but still comes close. The fact that Clinton beats Trump even now by single digits in other polls makes me nervous. It shouldn't be this close.

[leftynyc]

31. LOL - who do you think you're kidding?

Rass had Romney winning the election right up to election day in 2012. They're right wing crap. In a country as polarized as this one is, the election will be decided by a single digit win - that's the reality.

[Shebear]

38. The difference between one point and a few...

... is usually within the MOE.

[moonscape]

32. It's alarming that any poll shows

Trump with any support - at all. This should be a 50-state sweep. How this country ended up with Trump as a candidate is mystifying, even from Republicans.

I've not stopped rubbing my eyes and ears.

[onehandle]

3. A poll with 18% outside of the two parties is a total joke. nt

[MynameisBlarney]

4. Ah, they called them folks what still got landlines

LOL

[moonscape]

33.

Now, they didn't call me. But, this is how much of a dinosaur I am:

I've not one, but two landlines

[Eugene]

5. Rasmussen polls skew Republican.

Even for a Ras poll, this one is an obvious outlier.

[avaistheone1]

7. Note: last week their poll favored Clinton

Still consider them skewed Republican?

[whatthehey]

19. You know these things can be objectively measured, right?

And yes, it's easy for a poll with Clinton leading to be skewed Republican.




And no that doesn't mean you just subtract 3.7% and say Trump's really still winning. Look at polls holistically to get a better view.

[Lord Magus]

47. Rasmussen is quite infamous for their bias toward Republicans.

It's not something that's newly cropped up today.

[forest444]

8. While Rass polls are always suspect, there might be something to them this time.

That being: all the Rethug voter ID/restriction laws put in effect since the last general election - and the fact that many of them were strategically enacted in swing states.

To say nothing of the huge potential for black-box vote tampering.

Hillary will need all the turnout we can muster, and with any luck a strong Gary Johnson candidacy as well.

[0rganism]

9. exactly - much depends on the turnout model used to weight the results

their core results might differ little from other polls, while they're weighting for an energized GOP base and disenfranchised Democratic minority voters.

HRC needs to run like she's 10 points behind at all times, regardless of what the polls say.

[forest444]

12. Bingo (unfortunately).

Your post pretty much captured the subtext of the 2016 elections.

We'll need all hands on deck.

[MynameisBlarney]

44. This!

1000X this!

[Shebear]

25. The DNC has been weirdly quiet about election fraud since 2000...

... maybe the vote suppression/tampering efforts of Repubs during GEs also favor incumbents in primaries (and for most congressional races, the primary is the only race that matters), so there is no incentive for any given Dem member to push back on this issue.

After the 2012 GE, the Repub gov. of Pennsilvania bragged about how their "vote integrity" efforts resulted in a 5% Obama win, rather than the 10% win the polls were showing right up to election day. The DNC needs to act months, even years before major elections to root this kind of nonsense out.

[Happyhippychick]

10. Rasmussen also predicted Romney would win

[CrowCityDem]

11. Every other poll, state and national, has big and growing leads. OUTLIER.

[apnu]

13. Holy crap, this Ras poll again?

I've seen it EVERYWHERE on DU.

Make it stop!

[asiliveandbreathe]

14. Rasmussen through 11/5/2012 had romneybot by +1 -

Final - Obama by +3.9 -

BTW - how many times is someone going to post this crap? - this so called poll was up this morning...

[ananda]

15. Interesting.

All the other polls have Clinton ahead by double digits.

[Doctor Jack]

21. Rasmussen only gets about 70% of elections correct

They are doing slightly better than if they just flipped a coin for each race. I don't know if I have ever seen a dem do well in a rasmussen poll.

[former9thward]

34. Most polls have it very close..

IBT C 44- T 40

Fox C 44 T 38

Ras C 39 T 43

PPP (Which is a Democratic Polling firm) C 48 t 44

Quinnipiac 42 T 40

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[MFM008]

16. President Romney by 4 in 2012

Came from a Rasmusson poll.
It seems like all these newest polls are showing a "horse race" as it gets close to convention time.
...or is it just me???

[LynneSin]

17. More information on why this poll is BULLSHIT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Criticism

Nate Silver
In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect." He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model, and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election. In June 2012, Silver wrote that "Rasmussen Reports, which has had Republican-leaning results in the past, does so again this year. However, the tendency is not very strong – a Republican lean of about 1.3 points." Silver ranked Rasmussen Reports as having the third lowest house effect of the 12 polling firms that Silver analyzed.


Other
Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group." The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster." John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[85] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

20. She had better get to work

it would be horrible if she let this one get away

[RBInMaine]

22. This stupid right wing propaganda bullshit.

[still_one]

24. Why did you leave out the Reuters/IPOS poll? Clinton 41 Trump 32 or the

or the PPP poll? Clinton 48 Trump 44

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Doesn't fit your talking point perhaps, so you post only the rasmussen poll.

The OPs selective filtering of the polls speaks volumes

[Shebear]

26. 48-44 is way too close... especially with Trump having a bad week...

... he shouldn't even be withing spitting distance. I would try to figure out what's behind this... all polls have sampling bias, the good ones try to compensate, but every election is different, assumptions made from previous elections may not apply...

[still_one]

30. Did you just ignore the IPOS/Reuters poll I posted, or do you perhaps have other designs

These are national polls which also don't take into consideration adequately states with larger populations which factor in more electoral college votes

In addition the convention hasn't even been factored in yet

Then again I suspect you have a different purpose

Hillary won the nomination. 81% of Sanders supporters have already moved to Hillary

That may bother you but it is the facts

The majority of women, African Americans, Latinos overwhelming support Hillary

Most of the swing state polls are in Hillarys favor

Deal with it

[RAFisher]

28. I wouldn't make a big deal out of this but it's naive to completely dismiss it.

At this point it's just an outlier. But even right leaning Rasmussen had her up for the last 5 weeks. So what happened? Random anomaly? Where the demographics drastically different in this poll than in the previous 5? I think it's important to look at the details instead of just dismissing Rasmussen as a right leaning poll.

Rasmussen makes you pay to see the cross tabs and breakdown. But from their summary it says that Trump is winning among whites and other minorities. While Clinton is winning blacks. So that seems bizarre that Trump could be leading amount latinos.

[bluedigger]

29. Trends bear more watching than the numbers at five months out.

After all, this country has gone down to the wire neck and neck pretty much for the last four straight.

[PSPS]

35. "telephone and online survey" = meaningless. But it gets click$

Any poll that has an "online" component is not a real poll.

[VMA131Marine]

37. Rasmussen is the only poll in the RCP average using Likely Voters

The Ras poll has Clinton and Trump tied among voters under 40 and has Trump leading with all minorities except African-Americans. Trump is also leading by 18% among independents. These three things are all very likely to be untrue, implying that Rasmussen's likely voter model is suspect (e.g. they based it on the 2014 off-year election). It is a clear outlier among all the other polls so it deserves very little weight unless one of the other poll shows similar results.

[Lord Magus]

48. Rasmussen's "likely voter" model has always been suspect at best.

And they always use "we poll likely voters" as an excuse for their results being consistently more Republican-leaning than other polls.

[Night Watchman]

39. RASMUSSEN?????

[we can do it]

40. Yea, right

[Jazzgirl]

41. Oh bullshit!!

I am sick of these bullshit headlines. I seriously refuse to believe the US is stupid enough to elect an idiot asshole like this. Someone so dumb, so business unsavvy, so racist.....seriously are we in the fuckin' twilight zone???

[seabeckind]

43. Bush. Twice.

Reagan. Twice.

[Person 2713]

50. Seriously he has at the very least, 30% of voters . That there is twilight zone shit

[seabeckind]

42. Sometimes when you hear footsteps

being crazy and prone to hearing things doesn't mean there isn't someone there.

Wanna bet there'll be some serious discussions in some meeting rooms?

[NewsCenter28]

45. It's Brexit

Brexit, Trump's trade speech, the improper AG meeting, the terrorist attack on Istanbul.

Bad bad times for the Clinton campaign right now. Fortunately, this will be reversed by the conventions and debates.

[Cryptoad]

46. Nate says if election held today

it would be a HRC landslide,,,, 358 to 179 ECVotes

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

[Lord Magus]

49. Does Rasmussen count as a RW source under DU rules?

I'm wondering, because it really should. Just because Rasmussen masquerades as a legitimate polling firm doesn't make them any less of a RW propaganda outlet. It's rather like how Fox News masquerades as a legitimate journalistic outlet.