***National Bloomberg Poll: Trump 43, Clinton 41***

[piechartking]

4-way

Trump 43
Clinton 41
Johnson 8
Stein 4

No link yet.


GOTV!!!!!

[molova]

1. The media has rushed pre-debate polls showing things tight

Ratings?

[Fast Walker 52]

6. no doubt-- I don't buy this shit at all

plus they are pushing overall numbers instead of likely voters

[speaktruthtopower]

2. Looks like..

the debates are going to be decisive in any event. Let's see what happens.

[mucifer]

3. Oh my stomach hurts!

[Thrill]

4. Unreal

[geek tragedy]

5. Ugh. Clinton needs to shake up the race tonight with a strong performance.

Because the trend line over the past 6 weeks is unmistakeable--the race is tied at best and the numbers are all going in the wrong direction.

Talking about Trump being a bigot--NOT WORKING. Uneducated white men LIKE the fact that he's a racist and a misogynist.

Time to stop talking about that.

[DarthDem]

8. Oh, Stop

Your pearl-clutching is so tiresome. And it seems as though you should be clever enough to see fake horserace polls for what they are.

[geek tragedy]

10. I generally don't embrace conspiracy theories about the media rigging/skewing polls.

That's what the Romney fans did in 2012, and they had a very unhappy ending.

[DarthDem]

14. No

What the "Romney fans" did in 2012 was to embrace of bunch of silly polls that made no sense, including those showing, like Lucy with the football, a tight race in Pennsylvania. They were wrong. Those polls ran counter to political norms.

You, and plenty of others, are making the exact same mistake here, despite the Rmoney lesson of which you seem to be aware. But you're supposedly supporting Hillary. That's why your act is wearing a bit thin.

[geek tragedy]

15. I desperately want Clinton to win. Desperately.

The problem is that, plainly, what she's been doing in terms of the air war against Trump has failed miserably. She's outspent him 10-1 in tv ads and she's lost ground in virtually every state in the Union during that time.

Her gambit was that there were enough white Americans who would just refuse to vote for a white nationalist pig like Trump in order to give her a victory.

That was a strategic error. She overestimated white Americans' sense of public morality.

[DarthDem]

20. Oh Man

1. She has not lost any ground. Her supporters didn't answer the phone for a while after the September 11 swoon. She has now reclaimed that ground.

2. Every darn presidential cycle, stupid polls come out in PA showing that Rethugs have a chance there. They never come close. Why would Donald Trump break that trend if Mitt Romney (a candidate with similarities but far less flawed) was unable to do so?

3. CNN has a vested interest in making you think that the race is tight. That's the only way they can make money. Hence, silly polls.

4. You act as though her ads have achieved nothing, but there's no evidence of that.

5. Even if you were right, her ads are not all she's been doing.

6. I don't think your assessment of her "gambit" is even close to correct. If what you imply is true, that white Americans have an improper "sense of public morality," then there was and is nothing she can do. So it's not a "gambit."

7. When you watch the debate tonight and analyze everything she does with a negative perspective, maybe step away from the computer for a few hours, take a walk, etc. Rather than post about what a failed candidate she is, etc.

[geek tragedy]

21. Daily Kos elections: Clinton drops from 90% likelihood of winning to 64%

in one month.

http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016

That's not a good trend line.

What did her ads achieve in the month where her probability of winning started plummeting?

Republicans don't need to win PA to win the WH--Bush did twice. Democrats absolutely need to win Pennsylvania to have any chance.

If the election were held today, she would probably eek out a very narrow victory. But the election is in 5 weeks, and she needs to stop losing ground.

[Charles Bukowski]

55. 90% was never going to be sustainable.

Neither were her massive 10-point lead in the polls.

Trump was destined to make inroads.

[geek tragedy]

56. Sam Wang now has her below 70%

Part of the issue is that we don't know where the equilibrium point in this race is. Was Trump always considered to be the favorite in Ohio, Nevada and Iowa? No. He wasn't ahead in those states until the past month.

So we don't know whether the past month has been the state of the race being revealed, or the state of the race being changed.

Clinton hasn't stopped bleeding votes since mid-August. At some point that has to happen. Until it does, the trendlines are going to scare people.

[NWCorona]

23. And Bernie fans.

[democrattotheend]

65. In defense of Bernie fans

The polls showed that Hillary was going to basically put Bernie away in Michigan, where she had a double digit lead in the polls. So the rest of the season, most of us kept hoping for another Michigan Miracle.

[NWCorona]

66. Agreed

[Cosmocat]

22. It SO is not about Hillary

she is running a very solid campaign overall.

End of the day the choice for POTUS is absurdly clear - an experienced and compete public servant vs truly despicable meglomaniac who has no interest in serving anyone other than himself, and that is not even remotely debatable.

That we are where we are today is 100 percent about the people of this country - the hatefulness of those who are lining up being Trump and the inability of this country to find the sensibility to tune in and fight like crazy to elect the infinitely superior candidate.

[JRLeft]

48. She's not running a good campaign, she made the mistake of pivoting instead of staying

progressive she pivoted towards the center. She has been moving back to the left lately she should continue doing that.

[Cosmocat]

52. Please

we make up the .00005% of this country who has even the first clue as to the "positions" of the candidates.

We are where we are right now because the right wing and media have effectively cast her as something she is not.

My wife hates her, not because of her policies but just as a casual observer things she is as bad personally and ethically as she is made out to be.

The only hope we have there is that she is not an idiot and as much as she hates Hillary personally, she knows full well what Trump is ...

[JRLeft]

58. OK, you are one of the reasons she's losing, why does our side have to pretend like our candidates

have no issues?

[Cosmocat]

59. Yeah, OK ...

I have a sign in my yard (one of the few amongst many more Trump signs here), I flat tell everyone I am voting for her, I flat tell everyone that she is not even remotely as bad as she is made out to be, I flat tell people who are voting for the idiot how bad he is, but I am one of the reasons she might lose?

I hate to tell you this, but the reason she might lose is the STUPID that surrounds people like me.

[JRLeft]

60. My reasons for voting for HRC is the SC and keeping the maniac away from the football.

[Cosmocat]

61. Great

good reasons ...

Look, she is a politician and most certainly has said and done some regrettable things.

But, in the context of being a politician, who ALL say and do regrettable things at some point, she is a very competent and well meaning public servant.

Side note - as a progressive, I absolutely don't like that she is a comfortable with big money as she is, but I knew that about BHO before I voted for him and I like him a LOT.

I also don't particularly mind how hawkish she is given her status as the first legitimate threat to win POTUS as a female.

[JRLeft]

62. The money influences decision making otherwise, politicians

wouldn't be able to raise money from special interests. Even with that she's better than the idiot.

[BlueStateLib]

63. (:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512422493#post7

[JRLeft]

64. She has far more money and is barely ahead, the election isn't looking too promising.

She needs to be more populist instead of establishment.

[Fast Walker 52]

7. Here's some sanity--

http://election.princeton.edu/

[Rstrstx]

67. Holy cow HRC is up to 87%!

It was at like 79% this morning. Probably due to leads in the latest polls out of FL and OH. I thought the PEC model was more stable, but I'll take it

[book_worm]

9. Several polls with HRC in the lead over the last few days and now one with Trump

and I'll bet this will be the one everybody obsesses about.

[geek tragedy]

11. Multiple polls showing Clinton barely ahead in Pennsylvania--by 1-3 points

with Colorado also severely tightening.

It's been a long time since Clinton had back to back good weeks--steadily losing ground for a solid 6 weeks begins to take its toll on morale.

[book_worm]

12. She's ahead

there were several polls that showed Obama barely ahead thru-out 2012 in PA and he ended up winning by 5.2%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html#polls

but none of these polls matter right now until after tonight.

[geek tragedy]

13. that race was fairly stable.

this race has shown an undeniable trend towards Trump over the past 6 weeks.

That vector needs to shift.

[remaineruk]

17. Sam Wang on the link above believes it's actually

The most stable race for years. It's very interesting you should read it

[geek tragedy]

19. I've read his stuff, and his Clinton win probability was down to 73%

over the weekend--BEFORE the latest awful poll numbers came in.

If the race were really as stable as he said it was, that wouldn't be happening.

[DarthDem]

16. Don't Bother

No matter what you say, geek tragedy will come up with some reason why you're wrong. S/he is, for whatever reason, not persuadable. Don't waste your time.

[remaineruk]

18. Thanks will take note of that :)

[sweetapogee]

24. fine

but I say this as an individual that lives in PA. I agree with Greek Tragedy but my reason is that tRump really hasn't spent much on advertising in Pennsylvania and Hillary has. He has also had several rallies in the state, more than Hillary. Once he starts spending money on advertising it might have more of an influence than normal. Why do I say this? Because time is running out and dems will not have a whole lot of time to respond to falsehoods from the trump camp.

Thanks for the food for thought. I think the whole thing comes down to discipline. Whoever stays on message the most is going to do better overall.

[DarthDem]

42. You're Welcome

I lived in PA for several years. It will not vote for Trump. If you believe otherwise, phone bank or donate if you can.

[Barack_America]

26. You do realize that Geek Tragedy is a 100% Hillary supporter, no?

And also just generally pretty smart about politics?

The truth is, there is reason for concern here. Panic? Certainly not. But concern? Absolutely.

PA is pretty frickin critical to Hillary's path to victory.

[geek tragedy]

27. support Clinton, believe in math nt

[Barack_America]

40. I know you do. Between us...

You know that I am a "sentiment" person and I supported Sanders because I sensed the sentiment of this election was "anti-establishment". This is the point of the election season where I am wishing I was wrong. But what I am hearing from people I know who are voting for Trump is scary. These are GOP prior-holdouts, mind you, not Sanders supporters, but they are now willing to risk what they recognize as a likely disaster in electing Trump just to, "shake things up". Less able to verbalized why they, as relatively privileged white voters, hate the establishment so much.

Brexit has made it across the pond. Scary. May whatever sanity is left prevail.

[JRLeft]

51. I'm glad you don't live in a bubble. I think Hillary needs to embrace

Marijuana legalization.

Hillary is being hurt by who she takes money from, whether people on this site want to believe it or not. Hillary has to sell them, I don't know how? On how she won't be influenced by monied interests.

[DarthDem]

44. No, I Don't Realize That

At all.

[kennetha]

28. The Colorado Poll is worthless

but actually good news for Clinton, if you look seriously at the cross tabs and just think a little bit.

It was a poll with MASSIVE sampling error among minorities. So large (because of the smallness of the sample) that minority voters were excluded from the likely voter cross tabs (sample error of greater than 8.5%). Minority voters came close to being excluded from even the registered voter cross tabs. (sampling error was 8.0%).

This means that the survey is likely to be WAY off when compared with the actual voting population -- unless you think no minority voters will turn out in Colorado on election day.

[remaineruk]

29. And no under 35's either nt

[geek tragedy]

31. have you talked to many milennials about this election?

we'll be lucky to see 40% turnout amongst that generation

[kennetha]

33. That' a helluva lot more than 0%

[geek tragedy]

34. white milennials lean Republican/libertarian a lot more than they lean Democratic.

The youth vote ain't gonna save us. The kids don't know what it's like when a Republican controls the federal government. They just shrug and assume everything sucks because of Obama.

[kennetha]

35. 0% minorities and 0% under 35. Why are we talking about this poll at all?

[geek tragedy]

36. n/a doesn't mean zero, it means not enough sampled to produce meaningful statistical analysis

by crosstab

[kennetha]

37. so eliminated from the sample.

It means that it's piss poor unrepresentative sample.

I will bet you everything you're total net worth against my total net worth that this sample does not represent at all the turn out on election day.

Do we have a bet?

[geek tragedy]

38. No, I don't bet on anything like that. I'm not even saying this poll is accurate.

But, trying to unskew polls that we don't like isn't necessarily a good idea.

[kennetha]

39. It's not a matter of unskewing

It's a matter of not obsessing over lousy non-information.

It's a matter seeing how useless the press is. The press is willing to report this useless uninformative polls because they are lazy. They give them something to talk about on a regular basis without having to actually go out and dig for real news. But they are too intellectually dishonest to even help the listener interpret these polls. That would undercut the use they themselves put them to.

[DarthDem]

46. Exactly

I already explained why the "unskewing" meme doesn't apply, but geek tragedy wasn't interested.

[Foggyhill]

50. This has nothing to do with "unskewing" polls

I wish people should actually take a course on polling.

If you're poll is not a random sample that's REPRESENTATIVE of the underlying population you're polling, IT IS TRASH.

It cannot be unskewed, it needs to be discarded.

It is not sufficient to poll 500 people and then say you got a margin or error of 4.5%
but seemingly those very very bad polls work like that.

Minorities and the young are harder and harder to reach and it seems those bad pollers are not even trying to do so
cause they can't reach them quickly when doing those snap polls.

If likely voters under 35 are 30%, and you poll 10%, well you're poll is TRASH
If minority voters are 15% and you get 5%, well you're poll is TRASH

It has nothing to do with crosstab and what not, you have to make an effort to reflect the underlying pop you're polling.

Otherwise, you won't get a valid polling result.

Polls/studies of convenience often lead to skewed results.

[geek tragedy]

30. Colorado is a must win for Clinton like Arizona is a must win for Trump.

We don't get to take a lot of comfort to her clinging to tiny lead there

[tavernier]

49. Wow, your posts have her dead and buried

with a bit too much gleefulness. You may want to re-express your deep desire for an HC victory.

[geek tragedy]

53. is what I said incorrect?

Do you find a 1 point lead in a must-win state--a state where Clinton has withdrawn all advertising money because it was supposedly so safe just a month ago--to be comforting?

[Dem2]

25. These posts remind me on the "we're doomed" emails I get from Democrats

I delete them, just like I hide this post. 5 polls where she's ahead, and someone posts !***! one where she's not ahead. It's not funny.

Also, they're tied in a 2-way. I don't trust you any more.

[Mass]

32. This poll polls only people who say they are DEFINITIVELY going to vote.

It also has only 50% of women (may be because women are less likely than men to say they will DEFINITIVELY vote).

So, while it is clear that the race is closer than it should do, it is difficult to draw prediction from this poll (who are the people who said they are probably voting but not definitively? Are those more Clinton or Trump vote, for example).

The pollster that did this poll is excellent, but Bloomberg wants a close race to increase ratings.

[MyNameIsKhan]

41. I have no reason to doubt Ann Selzer

But she is Iowa specialist, she seems to be having agenda in 2016... Either she will fall flat on face or prove everyone wrong

[DarthDem]

43. You Should

She got IA wrong in the primaries.

[Eric J in MN]

45. What did she say would happen in IA? NT

NT

[DarthDem]

47. She Was Wrong

Had Trump winning the caucus. He came in third. I believe she had Clinton winning, but the margin was all off.

Polling isn't very reliable anymore, for a variety of well-documented reasons.

[MyNameIsKhan]

54. Yes she has been wrong but she is A+ rated pollster

I do not doubt her sincerity but her voter screens are messed up, she is keep on using 2004 voter model. The country has changed in 12 years, demographics is different. Once Early vote numbers are out, you can see lot of these polls will fall in place as they will have better idea about voter intensity.

HRC Campaign probably knows 90+ % voters in swing states and they have been called once twice already, they know how many votes they are getting based on various turnout models.

I heard from some news they pulling out of Ohio, which will prove Ann Selzer theory.

[mvd]

57. Probably an outlier

When this and CNN/ORC are the worst polls, I am not too worried. Need a good debate tonight.