The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

It seems that the GOP were at least somewhat counting on Rubio (or perhaps less so a Spanish speaking Jeb) to bring over some of the Latino vote and reverse the tide, but well...you know who happened.

Really what the GOP needs is structural change in the nomination process. No more winner take all/most states (move to full proportionality) and a strong push to have GOP controlled state houses that currently have closed/semi-closed primaries to move to semi-closed/open.

They need to dilute the power of their activist mob. Lipstick on the pig won't cut it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Really what the GOP needs is structural change in the nomination process. No more winner take all/most states (move to full proportionality) and a strong push to have GOP controlled state houses that currently have closed/semi-closed primaries to move to semi-closed/open.

They need to dilute the power of their activist mob. Lipstick on the pig won't cut it.

lipstick! they barely bothered to hose the **** off it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

There could also be a "shy Clinton" effect in places like Texas, where women are disgusted by Trump but might not voice it until election day.

Samantha Bee jokes about this.

As far as their husband's know, those women are voting Trump.

[DropIt]

nm

[Senator Clay Davis]

Like our minds were being read, here's a new Georgia poll

GA: Trump 44, Clinton 42, Johnson 9 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump speech:
Trump says he's going to introduce a constitutional amendment to impose term limits; 6 years house, 12 years senate. Good luck.

A one term limit for the house and two term limit for the senate? Not likely.

Originally Posted by photon

Also a ban on White House and Congressional officials fund raising during business hours.

This is even less likely as a lot of members of congress devote half their working hours to fundraising.

[GGG]

Double

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Reaper

A one term limit for the house and two term limit for the senate? Not likely.

This is even less likely as a lot of members of congress devote half their working hours to fundraising.

House current term is two years Senate is six. So it's a 3 term house limit.

The fundraising ban during business hours would be great policy. There's a real good John Oliver about it.

[troutman]

I hear men who think their wives are voting for Trump are wrong by 10%. This could turn some red states blue.

Trump Is Tearing My Marriage Apart

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/trum...age-apart.html

He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/fa...nton.html?_r=0

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

I hear men who think their wives are voting for Trump are wrong by 10%. This could turn some red states blue.

Yes, but what about women who think their husbands are voting for Clinton? What have you heard about that?

[Senator Clay Davis]

More good news for McMullin. Since he can basically direct all his resources there and Trump simply can't do anything at all being spread so thin to begin with, I'm thinking Evan is probably a slight favorite at this point.

UT: Trump 30, McMullin 29, Clinton 25, Johnson 5, Stein 1 (UtahPolicy/Dan Jones)

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

More good news for McMullin. Since he can basically direct all his resources there and Trump simply can't do anything at all being spread so thin to begin with, I'm thinking Evan is probably a slight favorite at this point.

UT: Trump 30, McMullin 29, Clinton 25, Johnson 5, Stein 1 (UtahPolicy/Dan Jones)

What happened - did you order come down from the president of the Church to include McMullin for President endorsements in Sunday sermons? The shift is very sudden.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

What happened - did you order come down from the president of the Church to include McMullin for President endorsements in Sunday sermons? The shift is very sudden.

One affect was adding him to the polls as opposed to being other. The other affect was that once he hit 15 or so he became a viable protest vote. Johnson was at 10 or 12 maybe even 15 in Utah recently.

So I would say that early polling that did not include him did not pick up on his support. I suspect that a lot of the disillusionment was lost in the likely voter screen where Mormons not voting for trump just weren't going to vote but that is pure speculation on my part.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If I remember this right, Hillary has a 74% unfavorable view in Utah, while Trump is at 72% unfavorable. Mormons really don't like either, so there was always a vacuum there for someone to swoop in. Now that McMullin has visibility and now that Hillary voters see a chance to humiliate Trump by voting strategically, I think we'll see McMullin's numbers continue to rise.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bunk

What happened - did you order come down from the president of the Church to include McMullin for President endorsements in Sunday sermons? The shift is very sudden.

It's Utah... normally that state is so safe that burning the money for warmth would be a better use of funds then buying a poll of it. You probably would have seen it coming if it were polled as often as the battlegrounds (and those polls included McMullan by name).

When you get right down to it I think Mormans were skeptical enough of Trump because of the Muslim rhetoric (calls to persecute a religious minority aren't going to go over well with other religious minorities) and his immigration rhetoric (because of their obligation to mission Mormans tend to have more exposure to south/central American culture then average) and Romney's vocal opposition. Throw in the Access Hollywood tape and subsequent accusations (Not going to go over well with social conservatives) along with a suitable protest vote candidate and here we are.

[Senator Clay Davis]

More Georgia polling. Close for sure, but Trump will probably squeeze through.

GA: Trump 47, Clinton 43, Johnson 5 (Landmark Communications); Trump 50, Clinton 46, Johnson 3 (FOX 5/Opinion Savvy)

[Drak]

538 shows Trump has climbed a percentage point. Uptick?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Drak

538 shows Trump has climbed a percentage point. Uptick?

Maybe, though most of the prediction is done on trend. Meaning: the 13% was based on Clinton continuing to trend up. That has stabilized, so Trump's odds increase a little

I think anyways

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Drak

538 shows Trump has climbed a percentage point. Uptick?

Maybe it's because it's been a relatively quiet couple of days since the debate, and there have been no seriously damaging revelations about Trump in that span. Also, his remarks about not accepting the results of the election didn't seem to have any effect on Republican voters. However, all it takes is another sexual assault allegation or Trump saying something really stupid (which is very likely), and he'll drop back down one or two percentage points. Maybe the uptick is from the recent IBD/TIPP poll that shows him 2 points up on Hillary nationally. But can one poll move the needle that much?? Every other poll I've seen this morning shows Clinton still in the lead by a pretty wide margin.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...election-poll/

[photon]

The polls coming in haven't really reflected the results of the debate yet either, though generally the 3rd debate doesn't move the polls much.

It wouldn't surprise me for things to move back to a 4-5 point lead rather than stay at a 7-8 point lead.. which isn't great since at 7-8 points Clinton could probably withstand some late bad news cycle AND a major error in the polling (i.e. hidden votes, or poor turnout, or just error in the polling), but at 4-5 points she probably couldn't withstand both.

I'm still preparing for lots of bedwetting between now and election day.