The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Yeah I think it is fair to say that an election today would be an electoral college landslide--Clinton likely would sweep all of the swing states and win more than 320 EVs.

With that said we are still 12 weeks from the election. Time is running out for Trump (early voting starts in mid-September in some states) but this thing isn't quite over yet. It's getting close, but there is still a bit of time left on the clock.

Add to that the uncertainty of Trump's bizarre candidacy, the unpopularity of both candidates, and lots of undecided voters, and it all adds up to a little bit of uncertainty. On the other hand, the smart money is on a Clinton landslide.

[Parallex]

State Polls out today...

Iowa: Clinton +2
Colorado: Clinton +8
Virginia: Clinton +11
Indiana: Trump +11
Missouri: Trump +3

http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/qu...ReleaseID=2373
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-inst...oll_IN_081716/
http://www.protectmofamilies.com/ima...ltsPPP_PMF.pdf

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

It is quite interesting that Iowa is consistently showing a closer race than other states that are traditionally "more republican," like Colorado and Virginia. I've been reflecting on it, and I suspect the answer is demographics. Trump does best among white voters, particularly without a college degree. Virginia has a relatively well-educated population, and Colorado has more Latino voters than your median state.

Iowa is demographically one of the "whitest" states in the Union, so maybe that accounts for the fact that Trump is running slightly better than the national average there.

[Parallex]

Two State Polls out today...

Nevada: Clinton +2
Georgia: Tie

_________________________________________________

Also here are some of the latest competitive Senate race polls

Nevada Senate - Heck(R) vs. Cortez Masto(D): Tie
Indiana Senate - Young(R) vs. Bayh(D): Bayh +7
New Hampshire Senate - Ayotte(R) vs. Hassan(D): Hassan +1
North Carolina Senate - Burr(R) vs. Ross(D): Ross +2
Ohio Senate - Portman(R) vs. Strickland(D): Portman +9
Pennsylvania Senate - Toomey(R) vs. McGinty(D): McGinty +3
Iowa Senate - Grassley(R) vs. Judge(D): Grassley +9

If you go back to June for the latest poll Arizona is close as well...

Arizona Senate - McCain(R) vs. Kirkpatrick(D): McCain +2

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It is quite interesting that Iowa is consistently showing a closer race than other states that are traditionally "more republican," like Colorado and Virginia.

Iowa, as a early-voting-state in the primaries, has been inundated with pernicious partisanship for decades.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Iowa, as a early-voting-state in the primaries, has been inundated with pernicious partisanship for decades.

I don't really want to start an argument here, but I lived in Iowa for 9 years and never really noticed that it was any more "inundated with pernicious partisanship" than anywhere else.... :/

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't really want to start an argument here, but I lived in Iowa for 9 years and never really noticed that it was any more "inundated with pernicious partisanship" than anywhere else.... :/

*looks at username.


.....story checks out.

[peter12]

Pernicious is a great word though.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't really want to start an argument here, but I lived in Iowa for 9 years and never really noticed that it was any more "inundated with pernicious partisanship" than anywhere else.... :/

But it fits my narrative!

Sincere question (I dont mean to argue, I couldn't find Iowa on an unmarked map, and certainly know less than you about it);
Do think there are any negative consequences to having the nation's first caucus?

My narrative stems from think-pieces about rotating the early-voting-states to limit the negative influences of excessive campaigning by idealogues.

Edit: This was the best link I could find on the matter.
http://m.dw.com/en/iowas-inflated-ro...ics/a-19012024
There's plenty of complaints that Iowa has an disproportionate influence, but that's not my question.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think there are good reasons to rotate the first primaries, sure. I'm not sure that it creates a negative environment in the state per se, but the US is in a perpetual state of electioneering, and that is worse in a primary state like Iowa.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah I think it is fair to say that an election today would be an electoral college landslide--Clinton likely would sweep all of the swing states and win more than 320 EVs.

With that said we are still 12 weeks from the election. Time is running out for Trump (early voting starts in mid-September in some states) but this thing isn't quite over yet. It's getting close, but there is still a bit of time left on the clock.

Add to that the uncertainty of Trump's bizarre candidacy, the unpopularity of both candidates, and lots of undecided voters, and it all adds up to a little bit of uncertainty. On the other hand, the smart money is on a Clinton landslide.

I think you are 100% wrong, the polls that MSM are posting are such bs when there is so much proof that most MSM outlets have given money to that crook.

With Trumps speech's this week there is going to be a huge swing in his favour.

But the US would be crazy to put Clinton in office, hands down the most corrupt person to ever run for POTUS.

But Nov is going to be interesting, cant wait to see the deleted Emails when Wikileaks lets them out.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by MikeN

I think you are 100% wrong, the polls that MSM are posting are such bs when there is so much proof that most MSM outlets have given money to that crook.

With Trumps speech's this week there is going to be a huge swing in his favour.

But the US would be crazy to put Clinton in office, hands down the most corrupt person to ever run for POTUS.

But Nov is going to be interesting, cant wait to see the deleted Emails when Wikileaks lets them out.

Lol

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well, this is the polls and data thread. If the polls are "such bs," surely you can point to some actual evidence?

I don't care if you dislike Clinton (well, I only care to the extent that you should discuss that in the other thread) -- but I would have thought, after Karl Rove's humiliating 2012 meltdown, we would no longer be hearing that argument about how the polls are "skewed." Polls aren't skewed, they're just polls. They aren't a perfect tool, and don't give you a perfect picture of what is happening in the electorate. They also aren't completely worthless, and it makes no sense to just ignore them based on the fact that they come from "the MSM", if that is even a thing. (Serious question: you know that media outlets don't do the polling themselves, don't you? That they hire professionals for that?)

We heard this EXACT argument in 2012: the polls are skewed! The "MSM" wants Obama to win! They sample too many democrats!

And in the end? The polls weren't "skewed"--in fact, as a group; they were pretty well bang on, and now Karl Rove will always be remembered for his ludicrous rants about Ohio on election night, which proved to be so laughably wrong that his reputation is forever tarnished.

[Street Pharmacist]

Yeah...

I'm gonna need more than your word on that one. We've heard this song and dance before. Polls are BS, Trump gets bigger rallies.

You know who had yuuuuuge rallies? Goldwater

[Flash Walken]

You guys are arguing with someone who is out of touch with reality.

A debate requires both sides to at least agree on the framework of the discussion.

This guy is the calgarypuck incarnation of "which polls?".

You have already lost this debate and you aren't even aware of it.

[corporatejay]

Says who?

[White Out 403]

all of them. thats who.

[GGG]

The best part is he discounts the polls yet says there will be a big swing toward trump next week(which is suspect will me measured by polls)

I still see this tighten considerably going into the debates into the 3-4% range before trump blowing up

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

all of them. thats who.

.................................................. .................................................. .............................................. says who?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

And in the end? The polls weren't "skewed"--in fact, as a group; they were pretty well bang on, and now Karl Rove will always be remembered for his ludicrous rants about Ohio on election night, which proved to be so laughably wrong that his reputation is forever tarnished.

On that note, I think Fox anchor Dana Perino deserves some credit for standing up to other republicans and refusing to dismiss the polls this time around, as she was guilty of in 2012. She addresses the fact that a lot of Republicans want to hear the most rosy possible picture, which involves dismissing all this polling data as skewed.

https://medium.com/@perinodana/i-wil...7ec#.x76fv6uep