Poll: Clinton leads Trump by double digits

[bshole]

`

 

[dullard]

+50% doesn't seem like a great bar to set.

Obama didn't surpass 50% in 2008 until the economic meltdown in October '08, and even then he just barely capped out at 52%... at no point in 2012 did either candidate hit +50%, and likewise for 2000 and 2004.

for Hillary to be +50% today, that would imply that she could win even if 100% of the undecideds broke for Trump.

It isn't a perfect measure, but nothing is perfect at this point in the race. It is just a simple guide to see how things are going at this point in time. If you can get over 50% regularly, then you have the POTENTIAL to win. It is your race to lose. If you never get over 50%, or only did it 2 years before the election, then you have a major uphill battle.

I'm not sure you looked at the actual data though what that post. In 2008, Obama passed 50% in polls many times. Not all the time, certainly, but he did it quite a few times. Here is one as early as Feb 2008 with Obama at 52%: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/index.html

In 2012, he also topped 50% in polls, here is one at 51%: http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/oct/nprpoll.pdf

Same is true in 2004. In each case, the winner regularly topped 50%, the loser never did or only did well before the election on a couple of occasions. This simple test starts to fail in the Bill Clinton election since the third party votes were such a large part of the race. But if you have a reasonably major third party then of course you don't need 50% of the votes to win.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Rubio was shown up to be a 5 year old by Trump.

and drumpf was shown to be a petulant 6 year old by almost everyone else, everywhere.

 

[Vic]

This election was over the second that Trump clinched. Trump has no chance to win. Even if Clinton herself was killed, her replacement would beat Trump. This isn't an election, it is a coronation.

It is not the Democrats' fault that the GOP base is monumentally stupid.

 

[Vic]

Sadly, putting a person in a race that looks like some voters will get some votes. Obama got votes simply because he looked black. Trump will get some votes simply because he looks white and more simply because he looks male. Rubio would get some votes simply because he looks Hispanic.

But, the voters aren't all that pathetic. There are a lot of Hispanic voters who care about how a politician will make their lives better. Not how the politician looks. The campaign of "I'll make you miserable but, hey, I look like you" is not as easy as it sounds. Especially, since then Rubio loses the votes of those who would never vote for someone who is Hispanic looking.

Obama didn't get many votes simply because he looked black. He would have already gotten those votes simply because he has a D after his name. Instead, Obama did well because he offered policies that actually appealed to blacks and whites alike.

Yes, Rubio would do better than Trump in a general election. But even Rubio never got over 50% in the polls. I don't see Rubio offering policies that are widely appealing.

To truly knock one out of the park, the GOP needs to learn to reach out to the young and Hispanic. Not in the "I look like you" way. But in a way that says how conservative views will make their life better in a specific way. The GOP can't likely do that without bending a bit towards Hispanic and the youth in their policies though.

This is a good post, but I feel like I have been misunderstood. I was not trying to infer that it was about skin color. Just that it is powerful for a minority group (racial, ethnic, or religious) to see proof that they too can be included in the American dream. But Rubio wasn't ready for prime time (and may never be), and the nativist GOP base was having none of that shit.

 

[dullard]

This is a good post, but I feel like I have been misunderstood. I was not trying to infer that it was about skin color. Just that it is powerful for a minority group (racial, ethnic, or religious) to see proof that they too can be included in the American dream. But Rubio wasn't ready for prime time (and may never be), and the nativist GOP base was having none of that shit.

I wasn't sure if you were going the Rubio would get votes because he is Hispanic route or the Rubio would get votes because he is inspiring route. After thinking it over, I decided that Rubio is only charismatic in 2D and didn't really inspire in video format so you must have meant the former. Combine that with the GOP's 2012 post-election thought that they lost simply because they didn't have enough minorities running. Sorry that I misinterpreted your intention.

I think people are beginning to realize that the American dream died generations ago. We are actually one of the hardest countries to do better than your parents. As generations pass, I suspect that Hispanic and other minorities are realizing that they are having it just as bad as their parents/grandparents. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions now and no longer the rule. I don't think the "first ___ to do ___" is working that well as a slogan any more.

Trump has a certain appeal there with his make America great again line. But then he shoots himself in the foot by insulting the very people that he wanted to inspire with his next line.

To get back into power the GOP needs an inspirational candidate that can convince people that the American dream applies to them (Sanders had that appeal but was too far out there for most voters) and THEN actually follow through with it with policies that are implemented. Until then, the GOP looks more and more ivory tower to the average voter with each election.

 

[Exophase]

Obama didn't get many votes simply because he looked black. He would have already gotten those votes simply because he has a D after his name. Instead, Obama did well because he offered policies that actually appealed to blacks and whites alike.

I agree with this, most black people or people who were very enthusiastic about a black president would have voted Democrat anyway.

But one thing that people don't mention is the primaries, and I doubt a hypothetical white Obama would have won them. I just couldn't that working out in the deep south, where Hillary would have been seen as much more of an ally to black communities. Much like she was this time vs Bernie. The results were pretty close and losing any lead in the black vote would have pretty easily tipped the balance.

 

[dainthomas]

This election was over the second that Trump clinched. Trump has no chance to win. Even if Clinton herself was killed, her replacement would beat Trump. This isn't an election, it is a coronation.

I honestly can't comprehend how anyone says he has a chance. The entire left and a significant percentage of the right loathe him. That guy couldn't be elected dog catcher.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I honestly can't comprehend how anyone says he has a chance. The entire left and a significant percentage of the right loathe him. That guy couldn't be elected dog catcher.

I wouldn't want that fucker anywhere near my dog.

 

[nageov3t]

It isn't a perfect measure, but nothing is perfect at this point in the race. It is just a simple guide to see how things are going at this point in time. If you can get over 50% regularly, then you have the POTENTIAL to win. It is your race to lose. If you never get over 50%, or only did it 2 years before the election, then you have a major uphill battle.

I'm not sure you looked at the actual data though what that post. In 2008, Obama passed 50% in polls many times. Not all the time, certainly, but he did it quite a few times. Here is one as early as Feb 2008 with Obama at 52%: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/index.html

In 2012, he also topped 50% in polls, here is one at 51%: http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/oct/nprpoll.pdf

Same is true in 2004. In each case, the winner regularly topped 50%, the loser never did or only did well before the election on a couple of occasions. This simple test starts to fail in the Bill Clinton election since the third party votes were such a large part of the race. But if you have a reasonably major third party then of course you don't need 50% of the votes to win.

that's fair, I was looking at the RCP polling averages, not individual polls.

if single polls is the metric, Clinton hit 50% or higher in a whole bunch of polls during the spring

 

[buckshot24]

I was trying to be charitable to you when I said I wasn't sure what you meant by that. I knew exactly what you meant but didn't want to call out your attempt at misquoting that verse. But you took that charity for granted.

You aren't the first person to misquote it and won't be the last.
Here is Rick Perry misquoting it.

I didn't misquote the verse, you're bearing false witness against me now. You assumed what you wanted to assume and nothing I could say can change your mind. You are being the exact opposite of charitable. You're more charitable with atheists (it appears) than you are with a brother in the Lord. I wonder why that is?

You're putting all this baggage on me that simply wasn't intended. We are responsible to follow the commands of God to help the poor. Your "help" doesn't really help people, remember the disintegration of the black family you keep ignoring? That is what your "help" produces.

Paul also makes it clear that we CAN'T follow the law so we won't ever be in a situation where there is no poor.

And here goes a strongly worded(probably wouldn't have worded it the same) blog post. The title says it all.

Now I see the baggage clearly. None of the things this blogger was saying applies to my usage of this phrase and you can't prove otherwise. Remember who the accuser of the brethren is? Quit accusing me of things I don't believe and haven't argued for.

Honestly man, you should learn to move on when you are wrong.

I'm not wrong. You are wrong but there is forgiveness for sin if we ask for it. You need to ask for it and I already forgive you for lying about me.

 

[buckshot24]

Well you posted it, didn't attribute it to anyone else so whom should I attribute it to? Your parents? Your pastor? Your bible?

I didn't post that, it was your interpretation.

Well of course scientifically God has nothing to do with it. But you (or someone) who was arguing from a religious point of view.
Most Christian Pro-Lifers believe in a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God. Who in Genesis created the world, Adam and Eve, then kicked them out of Eden and told them to be fruitful and multiply. In creating us he also created our ability to reproduce. So

So you can't do what I asked of you so I won't answer your questions based on your unproven and unprovable assumptions.

• He's fine with all those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages because if he wasn't he wouldn't have created us that way or he's not a loving God to sacrifice the innocent in that way.

• If you designed a car and 20 years later it had a leaky exhaust pipe would it be fair to say you were fine with a loud exhaust? No it wouldn't.
  

  So it appears in your judgement of abortion as murder you don't believe in the loving God that Christians do. (This is a problem shared by most hard-line fundamentalist Pro-lifers).

  Murder requires an action, a direct action, you can't establish any action so therefore your argument is null and void.
  

  Because they are live people and most are wanted and loved by their parents. In the event the parents are unable to / won't care for them others can easily care form them.

  Some aren't wanted, can we kill them?
  

  This link should provide all the information required to refute your well thought out defense of your "resume".
  
  

  Resume Refuted ​

  You made an assertion, I didn't offer any defense and I couldn't care less if you think it is imaginary or not. I wasn't talking to you when I mentioned it. And you can't show it to be imaginary so quit saying it as if it is a fact.
  

  Legally no children are being killed.

  Jim Crow laws were once the law of the land. Being legal doesn't make it right.

  Scientifically there's no possibility of a distinct person being killed until there is at least a functioning brain.

  Says who?
  

  Luckily the first amendment should protect us from relgious laws.

  Like don't steal or don't murder? You want those repealed?

 

[buckshot24]

I agree with this, most black people or people who were very enthusiastic about a black president would have voted Democrat anyway.

Him being black brought a higher percentage of them to the polls which was one key for him. I doubt Hillary is going to have black people as excited to vote for her and a higher percentage will probably not come out to vote like they did for Obama.

 

[jackstar7]

Like don't steal or don't murder? You want those repealed?

nm.

I know better.

 

[buckshot24]

It isn't a perfect measure, but nothing is perfect at this point in the race. It is just a simple guide to see how things are going at this point in time. If you can get over 50% regularly, then you have the POTENTIAL to win. It is your race to lose. If you never get over 50%, or only did it 2 years before the election, then you have a major uphill battle.

I'm not sure you looked at the actual data though what that post. In 2008, Obama passed 50% in polls many times. Not all the time, certainly, but he did it quite a few times. Here is one as early as Feb 2008 with Obama at 52%: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/index.html

In 2012, he also topped 50% in polls, here is one at 51%: http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/oct/nprpoll.pdf

Same is true in 2004. In each case, the winner regularly topped 50%, the loser never did or only did well before the election on a couple of occasions. This simple test starts to fail in the Bill Clinton election since the third party votes were such a large part of the race. But if you have a reasonably major third party then of course you don't need 50% of the votes to win.

This could be summed up with, the person who had better poll numbers won the race.

 

[dullard]

This could be summed up with, the person who had better poll numbers won the race.

I'm trying to give an objective measure to an early "better poll number".

Poll "leads" (as typically reported) switch positions all the time. Following that idea, you'll never know anything until the election day comes. That is because the typical idea of a better poll number is very misleading. Consider these two cases:
A) Candidate X at 41% and Candidate Y at 39% and has a 2% "lead".
B) Candidate X at 51% and Candidate Y at 49%, also a 2% "lead".

If you look at both and only think that the candidate has the same lead, a better poll number, then you miss out on something very important. The difference is that in case (A) the undecided can easily sway the election both ways. In case (B) the undecided cannot sway the election. In case (B) the only way for candidate Y to win is to get a better turnout than what was planned on the day of the poll. Persuading an undecided voter to go your way is a whole lot easier than persuading a current non-voter to come out and vote for you.

That is why, this early on, I focus more on whether a candidate can pass that 50% mark. And not just on one fluke poll, because, well that could be a fluke. A candidate that regularly passes 50% really has a far easier campaign challenge than a candidate that never passes 50%.

* Kerry led Bush in many polls, but never broke 50% in the year before the election.
* Up until 2 months before the election, McCain regularly had better numbers than Obama, but never broke 50%.
* Even the week of the election, Romney often had better numbers than Obama, but again Romney never broke 50%.

The "better numbers" don't tell you as much as you think unless you bring in an additional metric. I provided one possible additional metric to consider. As it is now, Trump needs to both get more people to the poll AND have those people vote for him. He needs two difficult successes each of which requires different techniques, different campaign ads, different policies, different appeals to voters. Clinton simply needs to get her current supporters to come to the voting booth; a much easier task. Trump can win, but his campaign needs to be dual pronged and successful on both prongs.

 

[Paratus]

I didn't post that, it was your interpretation.
So you can't do what I asked of you so I won't answer your questions based on your unproven and unprovable assumptions.
If you designed a car and 20 years later it had a leaky exhaust pipe would it be fair to say you were fine with a loud exhaust? No it wouldn't.
Murder requires an action, a direct action, you can't establish any action so therefore your argument is null and void.
Some aren't wanted, can we kill them?
You made an assertion, I didn't offer any defense and I couldn't care less if you think it is imaginary or not. I wasn't talking to you when I mentioned it. And you can't show it to be imaginary so quit saying it as if it is a fact.
Jim Crow laws were once the law of the land. Being legal doesn't make it right. Says who?
Like don't steal or don't murder? You want those repealed?

What did you ask? You didn't post that remember?

Car analogies? So God is analogous to General Motors?

Well that certainly was a quality buckshot post! :thumbsup:

 

[buckshot24]

What did you ask? You didn't post that remember?

I didn't make the point you said "according to you" about.

Car analogies? So God is analogous to General Motors?

In my analogy, yes. I think you get a gold star for understanding the basics of analogies.

You keep blaming God for things but haven't been able to establish that God has done these things, even from my perspective.

Let me put it another way, I don't accept the premise of your questions.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm trying to give an objective measure to an early "better poll number".

Poll "leads" (as typically reported) switch positions all the time. Following that idea, you'll never know anything until the election day comes. That is because the typical idea of a better poll number is very misleading. Consider these two cases:
A) Candidate X at 41% and Candidate Y at 39% and has a 2% "lead".
B) Candidate X at 51% and Candidate Y at 49%, also a 2% "lead".

I get your point. If you assume poll A has 20% undecided and not 20% for other candidates then I can agree with you.

 

[jackstar7]

Let me put it another way, I don't accept the premise of your questions.

From your perspective, what is the root cause of a fetal miscarriage?

Actions of a human being, or actions of a divine being, or other? Please explain.

 

[Paratus]

I didn't make the point you said "according to you" about.
In my analogy, yes. I think you get a gold star for understanding the basics of analogies.

Buckshot, GM isn't all knowing and all powerful, (except maybe the current Z06), so they can't make a car that doesn't eventually fail.

You keep blaming God for things but haven't been able to establish that God has done these things, even from my perspective.

Let me put it another way, I don't accept the premise of your questions.

Well I won't really be blaming him because we're talking about a biological process which is well understood, no real place for him.

But an omnipotent, omniscient God knows all the outcomes and had the power to make all the choices so whatever happens, happens because it was allowed.

 

[First]

I'm not trying to persuade you.

A perfect sig for you if there ever was one.

 

[First]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Hillary pushing 50%, up 8 points over Trump in national poll. Obama at 50%+ in approval as well.

Poor Trump and Republicans probably going to go down in the biggest landslide in decades.

 

[disappoint]

Rubio was shown up to be a 5 year old by Trump.

Trump was shown to be a 5 year old by John Oliver.

 

[disappoint]

Let me put it another way, I don't accept the premise of your questions.

From your perspective, what is the root cause of a fetal miscarriage?

Actions of a human being, or actions of a divine being, or other? Please explain.

Not sure who is more pitiful, BS or people who ask for explanations from him.