Reuters updates today
on their tracking poll:
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton regained a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.
The June 20-24 poll showed that 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent supported Trump. Another 20.1 percent said they would support neither candidate
Trump had enjoyed a brief boost in support following the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, as he doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, cutting Clinton's lead to nine points.
But Trump's rise in popularity appeared to be only temporary, unlike his lasting surge among the Republican field last year after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California.
Clinton's 13.3 percentage point lead is about the same as she had before the Orlando attack.
No candidate has won the White House by double figures since Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984, besting former Vice President Walter Mondale by over 18 points. Before 1984, you have to go back to Richard Nixon's landslide in 1972 and Lyndon Johnson's sweeping victory in 1964 for double figure popular vote victory margins.
The article notes that the poll only captures a portion of the response to the Brexit referendum outcome which many analysts suggest will benefit Trump.
Poll, moles, schmoles, and schmucks. Since I lost my land line telephone I don't get polls of any sort anymore. I do have a telephone, of course, and I use it from time to time. So, if I am excluded from the polled universe then the universe isn't accurate, is it? No laws of statistics then apply for sampling if randomness can't be assured. Lots of people don't have land lines anymore and virtually none of them are sampled by THESE QUACKS posing as numbers sorts.
Your commentary relying on witch doctors of the modern era are not really as good as those old diviners who used the entrails of birds to determine whether a battle should proceed. Augeries. Something like that is all you have. I'd suggest you move over to pig's knuckles cast and examined. I am not sure what the witch doctors use in South America....perhaps voodoo?
Leon, many pollsters randomly call cell phones too...though the problem is those phones don't have names attached. Most polls though have proven to be accurate. You just have to take them all with a grain of salt.
Mushy metrics reveal several of these as more trucking than tracking "polls."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch More dumb polling for trolling sorts. Notice, with all the money in the world, Romney's campaign depended on polling that was NOT ACCURATE and the dummy did not wake up until it was too late.
Leon, I think every independent poll had Romney losing. His loss was not a surprise, not in the least. Virtually every poll taken has Trump losing. I know the Trumpites like to pick and choose which poll they pay attention to, but that's not very smart. You have to look at them in total to get a feel of where the race is.
Far more important at this point are things like favorability v. unfavorability. When 70% of voters view you as unfavorable, that's a problem. When over 50% of your party wants another candidate, that's a problem. Trump's fundamentals are horrible. He will almost certainly lose, perhaps badly, to the worst Democratic candidate that party has fielded in a generation. That's tough to do.
Post a Comment