Rasmussen poll 5/2: Trump 41%, Clinton 39%

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,479
6,565
136
A well reasoned critique as always, lol.

Can you enlighten us about how we should view the current state of the election and what can be inferred from the information available?

I know this one! Answer: Pretty much nothing.
Six months is about 23 political years. Everything can change between now and November. Best bet is Trump says something that pisses off everyone, and I mean everyone. I'd say that's even money. The long shot is Hillary being charged over the email debacle, I'd go 10 to 1 against that. Even if Trump doesn't step on his dick, Hillary will win it as long she isn't actually in jail. Americans love "change" as long as everything stays the same.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,874
6,409
126
In related news, polling indicates Trump should easily win Indiana tomorrow. Tomorrow at 8pm, Cruz is expected to give a press conference...

...where he reveals his Cabinet choices.

His SC nominees and Ambassador choices should be interesting. I wonder if he'll give the Turkey a Pardon soon as well?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
I know this one! Answer: Pretty much nothing.
Six months is about 23 political years. Everything can change between now and November. Best bet is Trump says something that pisses off everyone, and I mean everyone. I'd say that's even money. The long shot is Hillary being charged over the email debacle, I'd go 10 to 1 against that. Even if Trump doesn't step on his dick, Hillary will win it as long she isn't actually in jail. Americans love "change" as long as everything stays the same.


I'm going to make a prediction, stupid idea...yep, actually more like a hunch. I think during a debate, Trump is going to say something far over the line even for him to Hillary, and it'll cost him the election.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Assuming this election is Trump v. Clinton, it will be no closer than 2012, and probably more unbalanced than that. I very much doubt Trump will get 200 electoral votes, and given the overall incompetence of his campaign, and his 70% disapproval rating, there is a distinct possibility he will not win a single state.
 

echo4747

Golden Member
Jun 22, 2005
1,979
156
106
General election polls at this time are about as meaningful as the score is about 3-4 min into the 1st quarter of an NBA game.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
It's funny to me that you're saying 'thanks for smacking down the person that tried to engage with my dumb argument'.

Low IQ post there, haha.
Comparing how many votes Clinton got vs Trump is low-IQ, I agree. And why are you calling your libtard buddy dullard "low IQ"? Not very nice of you. :biggrin:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,448
10,733
136
I'm going to make a prediction, stupid idea...yep, actually more like a hunch. I think during a debate, Trump is going to say something far over the line even for him to Hillary, and it'll cost him the election.

"She's got blood coming out of her eyes... and who knows where else"
Like he can top that... :wub:

But you're right. The media might actually care and run with the next one, since this time it is to their advantage to win the General.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Assuming this election is Trump v. Clinton, it will be no closer than 2012, and probably more unbalanced than that. I very much doubt Trump will get 200 electoral votes, and given the overall incompetence of his campaign, and his 70% disapproval rating, there is a distinct possibility he will not win a single state.

Trump in any normal election would get blasted into next week. But Clinton has high unfavorable ratings as well. Have we ever elected a president with more than 50% unfavorable?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,800
126
You are free to assume that an examination of the available data is no better than reading tea leaves. I would counter that with the suggestion that there's a reason we don't read tea leaves anymore.

Not really. Reading tea leaves performs a function. The human brain, particularly the right hemisphere in most people, and in those relative rare individuals who have access to it by various mystical techniques, tea leaves included, represent a profound amalgamation and synthesis of real world data collected by such individuals in the course of their daily lives. The tea leaves themselves are merely a canvas on which those impressions are superimposed. Polls are for linear minds have difficulty accessing themselves, regurgitating instead data by which they were programmed.

As a small example, the announcement by Trump that he would seek the Presidency caused me to experience the certain knowledge we were heading for a Black Swan event.

Thanks to the accumulation of human experience over eons of time many people know what to do when they see the tide going way out.

Put differently, I agree that polls give us a numerical count of how a cross section of people hopefully matching a group profile answer specific questions at a particular time and place. They give hard data as opposed to the softer and more psychologically oriented purposes of reading tea leaves. I wasn't trying to say the two are on the same level of predictive accuracy regarding a larger group regarding particular questions, only that the factors that go into how people answer the same question over time will change owing to changes in what people experience.

Trump hasn't won the Republican nomination. If he does, that fact alone can change things. People in general and Republicans in particular, like to unite behind a winner. This is one reason why losing politicians hate polling data.

Furthermore, we have yet to see the nature of how Trump and Hillary react one on one. The polls that develop if that contest happens will tell us much more than any poll taken today, so much so that I could care less what today's polls say. I'm reading the tea leaves according to my own intuition.

Again, when Trump announced the world pronounced him dead on arrival but I saw a wreaking ball on its way and I've been laughing my ass off ever since.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,868
126
General election polls at this time are about as meaningful as the score is about 3-4 min into the 1st quarter of an NBA game.
Care to back that up with any proof?

Polls this far out that I've seen have tended to be pretty accurate when the election comes. Not perfect, but far from meaningless.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,407
136
Honestly its irrelevant who is polling where this early. The only poll that matters is the ones a week or two before the election. These are simply trending information that the candidates can use to reverse trends.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,555
146
Once again assuming that I am saying turnout = success. A.s.s.u.m.e Tell your liberal friend dullard who is touting more votes for Clinton with 2 candidates like it means anything, which it does not. Thanks for smacking down your liberal friend for me.

please point out on the doll which part of your pee-pee the liberal touched.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,868
126
What are you smoking?
I'm smoking this thing called "reality". I mentioned that Clinton and Trump have had stable poll averages (with the drift/noise being within the polling margin of error) since mid-Aug 2015. Then you posted data from June 2015. Do you understand how to read calendars? June 2015 is before August 2015.

Here are the ratings in the last 8.5 months. Clinton has ranged from 44.0% to 50.4% (47.2% +-3.2%). Trump has ranged from 38.6% to 44.3% (41.45% +- 2.85%).
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dullard/RatingsSinceAug2015.JPG
 
Last edited:

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,868
126
Once again assuming that I am saying turnout = success. A.s.s.u.m.e Tell your liberal friend dullard who is touting more votes for Clinton with 2 candidates like it means anything, which it does not. Thanks for smacking down your liberal friend for me.
The difference between you and I is simple. If the poll results and voting tallies were switched, I would say Trump is ahead. If the poll results and voting tallies were switched, you wouldn't change your tune at all.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Trump in any normal election would get blasted into next week. But Clinton has high unfavorable ratings as well. Have we ever elected a president with more than 50% unfavorable?

Clinton's unfavorables are the result of relentless propaganda applied for 25 years.

Trump's unfavorables? He earned them on his own merit over decades of effort.

The fact that elements in the Repub base see him as anything vaguely resembling presidential timber is a source of great puzzlement to most Americans who see him as a joke in very poor taste.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Clinton's unfavorables are the result of relentless propaganda applied for 25 years.

Trump's unfavorables? He earned them on his own merit over decades of effort.

The fact that elements in the Repub base see him as anything vaguely resembling presidential timber is a source of great puzzlement to most Americans who see him as a joke in very poor taste.

Yeah yeah Clinton is a victim of no fault of her own. What a surprising response from you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,251
55,804
136
Yeah yeah Clinton is a victim of no fault of her own. What a surprising response from you.

I believe that Clinton is responsible for quite a bit of the negative attitudes displayed towards her but you have to admit she's been relentlessly attacked by Republicans for decades now. That's going to take a toll on anyone.

We have never elected a president with a more than 50% unfavorable rating, no. Things might be a bit different now though as negative partisanship is so much stronger.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I believe that Clinton is responsible for quite a bit of the negative attitudes displayed towards her but you have to admit she's been relentlessly attacked by Republicans for decades now. That's going to take a toll on anyone.

We have never elected a president with a more than 50% unfavorable rating, no. Things might be a bit different now though as negative partisanship is so much stronger.

She has been attacked like any politician. Does it play a part? I am sure it plays a part. But I dont think GOP attacks are soley why Clinton is over 50% unfavorable. She is just a horrible person in general and not likeable at all.

I think the combination of 24/7 news cycles and social media may change how this goes in the future. The new norm may be presidents with sub 50% approval ratings and candidates with 50% or more unfavorable. Have the wait and see. This election cycle is a first in my lifetime. Two candidates that are both hateable and have the majority of the american people disliking them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,251
55,804
136
She has been attacked like any politician. Does it play a part? I am sure it plays a part. But I dont think GOP attacks are soley why Clinton is over 50% unfavorable. She is just a horrible person in general and not likeable at all.

Definitely not solely, although I have to admit I've never understood why people think she's some horrible person. I honestly believe that were she to be a man her unfavorables would be substantially lower than they are.

I think the combination of 24/7 news cycles and social media may change how this goes in the future. The new norm may be presidents with sub 50% approval ratings and candidates with 50% or more unfavorable. Have the wait and see. This election cycle is a first in my lifetime. Two candidates that are both hateable and have the majority of the american people disliking them.

I think the new norm will be presidents with somewhere around 50% approval ratings, yes. Obama is a perfect example: he's been a moderate democrat with basically no scandals and a pretty decent record overall. Should that lead to 90%+ of Democrats approving of him and 90% of Republicans disapproving? Absolutely not, that's ridiculous. Clearly people are acting on partisanship as opposed to actually evaluating what he's doing.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Definitely not solely, although I have to admit I've never understood why people think she's some horrible person. I honestly believe that were she to be a man her unfavorables would be substantially lower than they are.
If she were a man, they'd be calling her Lyin' Ted. :D
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,868
126
She has been attacked like any politician. Does it play a part? I am sure it plays a part. But I dont think GOP attacks are soley why Clinton is over 50% unfavorable. She is just a horrible person in general and not likeable at all.
She is very unlikeable, yes. But she is certainly not a horrible person.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. But, she really hasn't done anything truly horrible. And according to this thread, I am a libtard.

Yes, she should be attacked politically. But the scale of the attacks against her are far outsized to the things she has done. It is almost like beheading a child since he stayed up 2 minutes past his bedtime. I've seen plenty of political attacks (deserved and undeserved) for different politicians over the years. But the scale and ferociousness of these attacks relative to Clinton's actual actions are what is different this time around.
 
Last edited:

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
I think the new norm will be presidents with somewhere around 50% approval ratings, yes. Obama is a perfect example: he's been a moderate democrat with basically no scandals and a pretty decent record overall. Should that lead to 90%+ of Democrats approving of him and 90% of Republicans disapproving? Absolutely not, that's ridiculous. Clearly people are acting on partisanship as opposed to actually evaluating what he's doing.

50% approval rating for a president that is near the end of their term is actually pretty high. Some historical comparisons here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Obama's favorable rating in 2008 was far higher than Bernie's or Kasich's today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/sanders_favorableunfavorable-5263.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/kasich_favorableunfavorable-4260.html

And they're the favorable choices this cycle. Hillary, Trump, and Cruz are looking much, much worse:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/cruz_favorableunfavorable-3887.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

They're not really more partisan than Sanders or Kasich, in a lot of ways they're less so. But they're all controversial figures in their own right. It's worth mentioning that Cruz actually has worse numbers than Hillary, which I wasn't expecting.

And I don't think Hillary's numbers are significantly hurt by being a woman, because they were very good until April-May 2015 when they took a huge dive. Unless she also changed gender then I'm going to attribute that more to the e-mail controversy which I would hardly consider gender targeted.

At any rate, I expect the approval rating of whoever gets elected (probably Hillary) to be at historic first year lows.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,251
55,804
136
50% approval rating for a president that is near the end of their term is actually pretty high. Some historical comparisons here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Obama's favorable rating in 2008 was far higher than Bernie's or Kasich's today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/sanders_favorableunfavorable-5263.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/kasich_favorableunfavorable-4260.html

And they're the favorable choices this cycle. Hillary, Trump, and Cruz are looking much, much worse:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/cruz_favorableunfavorable-3887.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

They're not really more partisan than Sanders or Kasich, in a lot of ways they're less so. But they're all controversial figures in their own right. It's worth mentioning that Cruz actually has worse numbers than Hillary, which I wasn't expecting.

And I don't think Hillary's numbers are significantly hurt by being a woman, because they were very good until April-May 2015 when they took a huge dive. Unless she also changed gender then I'm going to attribute that more to the e-mail controversy which I would hardly consider gender targeted.

At any rate, I expect the approval rating of whoever gets elected (probably Hillary) to be at historic first year lows.

I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with her email controversy and a great deal to do with her entering the news as the likely democratic nominee. People generally dislike it when women act like men, and in order to be the president you need to act like a man.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Some people don't quite get it.

On one side we have an utterly self indulgent & self aggrandizing born rich billionaire whose greatest achievements have been in the realm of ego satisfaction & talking trash.

On the other side we have a person who may not be particularly likeable but whose experience, track record & loyalty to Democratic ideals is utterly obvious.

On paper, she has greater qualification to be president than any modern candidate.

When it turns from reality TV to reality most people can tell the difference & will vote accordingly.