What are Robby Mook and CNN finding out?
All the record setting 24-7 CNN Trump bashing in the world and Clinton’s $150 million barrage of negative advertising over the last 15 days and this is what the Clinton camp has to show for it: a virtual polling dead heat.
No wonder why sheer panic has set in.
After trumpeting every new poll showing Clinton pulling away from Trump as “breaking news,” the mainstream media has grown eerily silent in the last 48 hours. They don’t like the latest polling results.
First Bloomberg came out with a survey that showed Clinton’s lead over Trump, once thought to be as high as 15 points, had dwindled to four percent with Johnson and Stein. That was dismissed as a bad sample by media lapdogs.
Then on the same day, a new LA Times/Dornsife poll shocker showed the race a virtual dead heat: Clinton 44.8 percent to Trump 43.3 percent. That poll’s methodology was mocked as an “outlier.”
Now today the newest Rasmussen public opinion survey has Clinton up by three points: 43% to Trump’s 40%. This is within the poll’s 3% margin of error.
Three polls. Three days. Three virtual ties.
Now what?
This might explain Clinton surrogate Christine Quinn’s hair on fire hysteria on CNN last night. Talk about embarrassing.
They know they are going to lose this election. To Trump.
Trump had the worst two weeks of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history.
He was pummeled non-stop-around the clock by the entire U.S. mainstream media, and he was outspent $150 million to zero in negative broadcast advertising.
But What About Those 50 Republican Turncoats?
And what of the 50 GOP members of the Committee on Foreign Relations who signed the letter that disavowed Trump?
Good riddance.
Mr. Trump should wear that letter like a badge of honor.
The discredited band of Bush era neo-cons who signed it have been dead wrong on every foreign policy decision/position they have taken in the last 30 years, and their foreign interventionist policies have failed America.
The end result of their disastrous Paul Wolfowitz style interventionist policies: body bags, limbs blown off, wheelchairs, thousands of wounded Vets with no care and $20 trillion in debt.
The Middle East is a mess, ISIS is running amok and China is dumping billions of tons of steel in the U.S. in an effort to kill the off the U.S. steel industry.
To these band of 50, America’s role in the world is to control Russia, defend Europe, manage China, isolate Iran, threaten North Korea, nation build all over the globe, and meddle in every regime change to promote western values.
The Republic-con 50 also want to convert Syria, dump Assad, dictate Iraqi politics, run Libya, tell Yemen what to do and turn Afghanistan into pro a Washington style democracy.
All this while embracing global trade deals that run up $800 billion trade deficits in perpetuity and gut our manufacturing base on the alter of outsourcing.
They fear a Trump administration would further expose their warped vision of “Masters of the Universe”, they would be dismissed, and their paid contributor gigs and book deals would dry up.
Come to think of it, they should vote for Mrs. Clinton.
She’ll continue their disastrous policies unabated.
Trump will not.
Trump’s foreign policy vision of America First doesn’t include their appetite for Washington’s international meddling, NATO building and war mongering
57 comments
I do not trust Republican interpretation of polls. See Carl Rove.
Nate Silver is the boss.
Best for us not to trust any interpretation of polls. Look at the questions, the methodology, and interpret on our own.
Actually, the polls have been consistency favoring Clinton for the past week
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
While individual polls have different numbers, overall, Trump is not in a virtual tie. You have misinterpreted the data to portray a changing opinion of the guy. Then, your minions here repeat your missteps as truth – typical FOX approach to reality
Did you even read the polls quoted in your own link? The last four national polls aggregated by realclearpolitics in the past two days has Trump with an average that is within 4% of Clinton. You dispute this is a virtual tie? Yes, Clinton has a lead, but barely outside the margin of error in these polls, unless you are using your typical MSNBC/CNN approach to reality.
What a shame he’s not carrying more states, since we have that pesky Electoral College, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
Yes indeed. But one step at a time.
Outside the margin of error would not be a virtual tie. Also, aggregating past polls is nonsense. Only the latest matters
This sad attempt to sway any undecided or t make yourselves feel better by interpreting polls is sad
Sounds like Mr. Fredericks has been visiting Colorado.
People need to remember those faux, Republican, Benedict Arnold type turncoats who jumped on the Hillary train.
Wait until the establishment runs “their” enforcers for office.
Just wait.
#NeverComstock
No one here has “jumped on the Hillary train”, except of course Chin Turret who was always on it.
Well, if they are not on the Hillary train, not on the Trump train, what train are they on?
Great analysis. Trump is going to win handily.
The 50 did nothing over the last eight years under Obama except line their own pockets, sorry they had their chance. Good riddance is correct.
I don’t think they’re leaving…
“The discredited band of Bush era neo-cons who signed it have been dead wrong on every foreign policy decision/position they have taken in the last 30 years”
That’s an impressive assertion. The records of 50 individuals over 30 years of foreign policy decisions. If they went on record only once per year, you’d have tracked 1,500 policy positions.
Or is it just bloviation?
Yes: 0 for 1,500. Good math
So Matt Waxman was a pretty young when he worked for Condi Rice at the NSC, his first government job, in 2001, probably under 30. And Matt’s take on policy included opposition to torture. (Which, oh by the way, Dear Orange Leader favors).
So your count on Waxman is over half error without examining any record of his position.
So opposition to Clinton? Check. Favor Trump? Check. Not unheard of among TBE readers. But could you stick to facts and stop writing pieces that could discredit conservatives? It’s embarrasing.
When Clinton is asked about those facts you want to stick to, she says she had a “short circuit”. Just what the hell kind of fact is that?
Are you saying that we should employ Hillary Clinton’s standard of honesty in our discourse with one another?
Are you saying that most people don’t already?
Anybody who feels that disinformation has a place in conversations between conservatives, in a conservative forum, is an imbecile.
In Trump math equations are not understood.
In Trump World, bloviation = math.
…,,.
538 politics agrees, Trumps chances of winning have gone from 12% a few days ago to 13% today.
There are 90 days and 3 debates.
The debates won’t help Trump. He is unprepared. His off the cuff goofiness will not play well.
The first debate especially will be big. If Trump can keep his cool and focus the debate on fixing the economy and taking it to ISIS, it could be a game changer.
If, if, if……….
If the Hildebeest drops out of the race 2 weeks before the election for “medical problems”, what will happen ???
If Trump was smart (I know big stretch but stay with me) he would find a way to avoid the debates. A one on one format is going to expose him for how shallow he really is. By debate 2 and 3 he will have run out of sound bites to repeat.
In one-on-one debates, the moderators won’t be consumed with sharing on-camera time between candidates. They will have more ability to contain the excesses of both candidates.
Ha, you really think a moderator is going to control Trump? He should wish.
Control as in make him behave like a well-mannered, mature adult? No way. More like putting tighter boundaries on chaos.
Ability, perhaps, but not a motivation. Moderators will be anxious to highlight how smart they are by showing how dumb Trump is. People will watch for the same reasons they stare at a bad accident. Or a train wreck. Like Trump.
As crazy as this sounds, I am agreeing with you! Make note of the date and time! I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump declined to debate at all. Hillary has far more experience and far more institutional knowledge.
Will the Hildebeest drop out of the race before the first debate ??
It will be like a combination of the Sarah Palin /Katie Couric interview and the movie Groundhog Day. Should be banned on the grounds of being a cruel and unusual punishment, for everyone.
A few hundred people show up for a Clinton rally while tens of thousands show up for Trump’s rallies. I believe the rally numbers show the true level of support for the candidates, not the fake MSM polls.
How do you gather your data on the attendance at rallies? And if rally attendance is an index of support, why aren’t they regularly employed as indicators of campaign success?
That may well be every Trump supporter in the state at the Trump rally!
That would be impossible since there are always just as many or more people outside the rallies who could not get in..
I have a great idea. Perhaps YOU should attend a Hildebeest rally and tell us what goes on. If you check the wants ads first. perhaps the Clinton campaign will even pay you to go !!!
You sound like Shaun Kenney
538 is looking at trend lines in a highly volatile race with two candidates with high disapprovals. This is based on Nate Silver’s own words, and he noted a single poll can sway the prediction models. The current trend line prediction is a snap shot in time and based on Clinton’s post-convention bounce, which John Fredericks noted above appears to be ending based on the most recent polling. Just two weeks ago, 538 had Trump with a 44 percent chance of winning. His numbers will rise over the coming weeks as the race tightens again.
It’s fair to say the effects of the DNC on Clinton’s polling numbers will diminish. But as you pointed out, the race is volatile. The polls could swing in either direction suddenly, pursuant to the next release of Clinton emails or the next Trump gaffe.
Does this help? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
I have not studied the data behind New York Times and I don’t know if it incorporates the most recent polling.
it is at 12.7 today. Would you say that this is a decline for trump from you 13% 15 hours ago? Or were you rounding and trying to project the .7% difference as indicating rising popularity? You can make the polls say anything you like, from what they actually say to what you would want them to day.
Your narrower point about interpretation is valid, bit it isn’t sufficient argument to disregard polls altogether. As long as the polling questions are made available along with the sampling methods, any reader can reasonably interpret the results.
Interesting site. Looks like they maintain decent standards of attribution. Impressed by the article debunking a site that cries foul over polls
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behind-a-mysterious-website-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/
Just to try and set some grounding here (likely hopeless I realize) but today’s FiveThirtyEight is NOT the Nate Silver owned and managed independent poll group that contracted for the NYT back in 2010-12 and won several awards in the industry. Silver sold the group to ESPN in 2013, yes ESPN that progressive political entity with a little sports thrown in the mix that currently is hemorrhaging away its media following as it makes CNN and MSBC look balanced and fair in reporting it’s pro Democratic/Progressive bias. Silver is no longer hands on in 538 regardless of his largely ceremonial title of editor-in-chief. He took the cash buy out and moved on. What has happened hence to Silver’s unique polling methodology that went along with the sale as proprietary content god only knows.
It you want any actual accurate and unbiased poll reporting on this presidential race you would be better off likely going to the DNC as at least occasionally they let slip with a real fact here and there. Employees and associated individuals at ESPN aren’t allowed to speak their opinions in the hallways (look at the firings and flood of resignations, retirements) so what actually do you believe they would tolerate in published polling output?
You are applauding and upvoting a progressive, left-wing partisan poll aggregator that is shaping a message not delivering insight. Just as the electronic media has destroyed a significant degree of their creditability on their constant partisan reporting behavior this election cycle many of the partisan left polling groups are following their lead as well. Believe what you want but at least try to grasp who you are listening too for your repeated opinions and perspectives.
Then show me a “conservative” poll aggregator that has the same past success rate that shows Trump has any chance of you don’t like the liberal ones.
Past success is predictive until shown otherwise.
I don’t believe it’s my job to show you anything It seems you totally missed my only point and here it is again to repeat it for you – understand whom you are using as political poll justifications for your opinions. If they have a history of poll opinion shaping rather then poll statistical reporting (with either a conservative or progressive slant) you may be repeating a methodological worked “political message” not factual statistical quantitative results.
Today two general types of individuals use polls. The first are those looking to attempt to underlie their opinions with some semblance of a larger consensus opinion and the other are those that just shop the polling agencies to find something that agrees with them upfront. Today the latter, because of the deterioration of some polling science groups into little more then quasi candidate messaging entities, has become much more frequent because it is simply easier to locate and repeat due to this shift in some polling agencies and their perceived partisan role. Which general category do you fall into I have no clue, don’t really care and wouldn’t presume to judge.
i was going to respond, reiterating my initial response, but now realize that would only result in another 2 to 3 paragraphs of navel gazing. So please continue being the smartest guy in the room and rejecting demonstrably correct predictive methods due to perceived bias.
I don’t believe I’m the smartest guy in the room so insult rejected but I do know garbage when the source comes from a well docummented land fill . Do you?
Agreed. Results matter. Even facts matter, eventually.
Looking at this compilation of polls and surveys, things are very grim indeed, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0