The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Rasmussen has Trump up by 2, and the NYT/CBS has it tied.

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

I don't recall this many polls that had Romney tied or ahead of Obama 4 years ago.

IIRC, Romney was always down 2-4 points or tied at best in most polls.

Romney was tied or ahead in most polls after the first debate when Obama bombed. Before that he was consistently behind. That's how valuable the debates can be.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Romney was tied or ahead in most polls after the first debate when Obama bombed. Before that he was consistently behind. That's how valuable the debates can be.

It was a temp. bump that eroded after the second and third debates.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You mean when he did poorly? Like there's a very good chance Trump will do if the moderators do their job? Yeah that tends to happen, big audiences watch the debates. That's Trump's big problem, if he gets pressed and isn't allowed to lie, will he avoid the disaster? We'll see. But as we saw in the Flint Pastor video, when you press him he looks like, well, a ####. Of course today he's blasting (and lying) about the Pastor, which shows what a coward he really is. Can always slam behind the back, but face to face he looks really weak.

[Street Pharmacist]

Most of Trump's improvement in the polls is Clinton slipping. Trump's share of the vote hasn't risen much.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

That is true, but I also think Clinton may be in trouble here. She really needs to stop the bleeding and get on the offensive. She needs a big debate performance, and I would guess that if the election were held today she would be hard pressed to win, and could well lose narrowly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But isn't this where the ground game gap really comes into play? Yes Trump has "support", but we know that doesn't necessarily translate to votes without the ground game. If he loses even 2% of his numbers because of a poor ground game, he basically has no chance.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Rasmussen has Trump up by 2, and the NYT/CBS has it tied.

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

I don't recall this many polls that had Romney tied or ahead of Obama 4 years ago.

IIRC, Romney was always down 2-4 points or tied at best in most polls.

Rasmussen has a conservative leaning bias, and had Romney overestimated in 2012.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But isn't this where the ground game gap really comes into play? Yes Trump has "support", but we know that doesn't necessarily translate to votes without the ground game. If he loses even 2% of his numbers because of a poor ground game, he basically has no chance.

Maybe I'm naive but I'm thinking that too. There are just too many swing states where Clinton has a big ground game advantage; as long as that advantage holds, I think Trump needs to have a clear edge in the polls going into election day to eke out a victory.

[troutman]

Even with Trump winning Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, Clinton still wins:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo

[Flamenspiel]

Wow, 39% chance now. If that were the Flames chances of winning the cup, I would be quite happy. The debates are going to decide this, either way.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It'll be 45% by tomorrow I would think with these new polls, especially that he's apparently ahead in Colorado, with more polls showing the women's gap is gone.



http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_b53c...32bd7e74cb.pdf

[photon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Maybe I'm naive but I'm thinking that too. There are just too many swing states where Clinton has a big ground game advantage; as long as that advantage holds, I think Trump needs to have a clear edge in the polls going into election day to eke out a victory.

That's where I am too, on one of the podcasts I listen to they said out of the 10 closest battleground states Clinton would need like 11 of the available electoral votes to win while Trump would need 140, or something like that.

Imagine if Trump won the popular vote but Clinton won the electoral college!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by photon

That's where I am too, on one of the podcasts I listen to they said out of the 10 closest battleground states Clinton would need like 11 of the available electoral votes to win while Trump would need 140, or something like that.

Imagine if Trump won the popular vote but Clinton won the electoral college!

Meh, then it's basically 2000 except the right person would get in this time.

[Senator Clay Davis]

At this point it's looking like unless Hillary really falls apart, there's almost no scenario where Trump wins both the electoral college and the popular vote. If he does win the electoral, he's very likely to lose the popular vote. So yet another George W. Bush comparable for Trump.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by photon

That's where I am too, on one of the podcasts I listen to they said out of the 10 closest battleground states Clinton would need like 11 of the available electoral votes to win while Trump would need 140, or something like that.

Imagine if Trump won the popular vote but Clinton won the electoral college!

That would finally get some red states to adopt the NPVIC.

[octothorp]

Polls have been clearly moving toward Trump but Clinton's Pennsylvania firewall is looking stubbornly intact. I think the Trump campaign would be well-served by switching over to offense now and trying to challenge her in some light blue states, see if they could get somewhere like Michigan or Colorado or Nevada into play and give themselves a second path to 270.

[Senator Clay Davis]

State polls from a variety of sources last couple days

Hillary +5 in Florida (Monmouth, 4 way); also +1 in a 4 way (NYT/Siena)
Trump +3 in Nevada (Rasmussen, 3 way)
Trump +1 in North Carolina (Elon, 3 way)
Trump +3 in Georgia (Monmouth, 3 way)
Maine tied (MPRC, 4 way)

[octothorp]

Yeah, I've got no idea what to make of the state polling right now... so many counter-intuitive results all over the place. This may be a 'redrawing the map' election after all. Or maybe not.

[octothorp]

538 has launched their senate forecast projection, with Dems hold a slight (58%) edge in taking control.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The anti-establishment election, where every single incumbent in the Senate is expected to win except where incumbents are retiring, or in Wisconsin's case an even more establishment Dem is probably taking his seat back in Feingold. Anti-establishment indeed...