RCP poll average: Trump passes Hillary

[DrPizza]

But, if you want to bet on the election,
Bovada has:

• Hillary Clinton -220
• Donald Trump +190
• Bernie Sanders +1800

On another site, I saw

Clinton 4/9
Trump 2/1
Sanders 20/1



So, it appears that those willing to put their money where their mouth is are betting on Clinton. You, on the other hand, are all hat.

 

[mizzou]

I'm really just not seeing the appeal of Hillary in the general election. Trump is Trump and Bernie is Bernie, I don't know how else to say that, but these guys who are alternatives have their own issues. What they have going for them is that they are not "Crooked Hillary"

I haven't met one person in my circle that has said, "Hey, I like that Hillary!" All of them are either in love with Bernie Sanders or in love with Donald Trump. NOBODY likes Hillary!

This is coming from someone who voted for Barack twice. :\

Hillary has some legit and serious character flaws, and it will be hugely damaging in a general election.

 

[HomerJS]

I agree he appears to want to legitimately help the people, but his nutty socialist ideas for doing so make him possibly even worse than either of the other two terrible candidates.

Congress would never bow to the nutty socialist part so maybe the compromise is legitimate reforms and reasonable help for average people.

BTW - The only Sanders policy I find "nutty" is free college. I prefer him way more then Trump but neither has a hold on foreign policy.

 

[dullard]

Hillary has some legit and serious character flaws, and it will be hugely damaging in a general election.

She has serious campaigning flaws. Character flaws are mostly hype. Just because someone hypes an item up for decades doesn't make it true.

Clinton isn't energizing, isn't dynamic, for some reason thinks she needs to shout every single word with vocal cords that can't take it any more, etc. These are not features that make for great sound bites or generate a lot of enthusiasm.

But, she is a known result. Most likely her reign would be fairly similar to Bill Clinton and Obama's reign. It would most likely be fairly slow, steady, stable. That alone has appeal compared to Trump.

When Sanders is gone from the picture, those who wildly supported him have a big decision to make. The known to be good for the US vs. rolling the dice. I suspect that maybe a quarter of Sanders supporters will just not vote, maybe up to 15% will go to Trump, but the rest will shrug and vote Clinton out of the fear of what Trump would do. To win, Trump needs at least 2/3 Sander's supporters and I just don't see any evidence of that happening.

Note: I am a fiscal-libertarian with a left-leaning social bent. Sanders would probably get my vote, but he just takes things too far for me to be a big Sanders supporter (especially his too-strong union support and anti-trade tirades). I'll probably reluctantly go Clinton.

 

[glenn1]

I haven't met one person in my circle that has said, "Hey, I like that Hillary!" All of them are either in love with Bernie Sanders or in love with Donald Trump. NOBODY likes Hillary!

Reminds me of the 1:56 mark

https://youtu.be/HRqZhJcae3M?t=1m42s

 

[trenchfoot]

So Trump has finally got the numbers he needs to clinch the Repub nomination. This achievement brings to mind a horde of lemmings following each other over the precipice, or a pair of sorrowful souls hopelessly entangled in a love/hate relationship solemnly signing a suicide pact.

Anyhoo, it should be quite interesting to see how the media's ratings-minded agenda influences the election process, and knowing this, how the nominees attempt to manipulate the media into their favor.

 

[zinfamous]

sp33dy makes yet another irrelevant prediction about a poll whose timing in the cycle has historically shown it to be, well, irrelevant.

*golf clap*

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Had to post this from the other thread regarding this topic.

While things can change from this point out, they actually need a reason to change. Polls in April are usually pretty accurate as Eskimospy showed earlier. Some curveball can change it, but unless that happens, these polls are actually quite meaningful.

 

[fskimospy]

Had to post this from the other thread regarding this topic.

What do you think in his post or in my post that he was referring to was wrong?

 

[dullard]

What do you think in his post or in my post that he was referring to was wrong?

I'm suspecting that he fell victim to the fallacy that thinks a poll result that moves within the margin of error of a poll means that the actual election result changed.

Clinton and Trump have been in narrow support bands for the last 9 months. Nothing has changed in their support.

 

[Subyman]

The comment about Romney vs Obama is decent. The media had Romney very, very close to Obama even after the first debate (which Obama didn't have a strong showing for.) The polls show them tighten up even more right up before the election in October. Some polls even show Romney winning. Then Obama won by well over 100 electoral votes, which was a landslide.

The media wants a very close race. I'm not sure Trump can survive his own hubris for 6 more months.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm suspecting that he fell victim to the fallacy that thinks a poll result that moves within the margin of error of a poll means that the actual election result changed.

Clinton and Trump have been in narrow support bands for the last 9 months. Nothing has changed in their support.

I think it seems more like he mistook polls in April as being relatively predictive of the election outcome as saying that polls between April and November wouldn't fluctuate. I think we can both agree that's a really really wrong way to look at things.

February is actually the most predictive month until after the conventions. If you go back and look at 2008 you'll see several times where McCain closed the gap or even took the lead in polling averages which would have presumably prompted a similar post from DSF that would have missed the point equally well, haha.

 

[Exophase]

The comment about Romney vs Obama is decent. The media had Romney very, very close to Obama even after the first debate (which Obama didn't have a strong showing for.) The polls show them tighten up even more right up before the election in October. Some polls even show Romney winning. Then Obama won by well over 100 electoral votes, which was a landslide.

The media wants a very close race. I'm not sure Trump can survive his own hubris for 6 more months.

The electoral college is a funny thing. It can turn a few very close states into what looks like a landslide win. Look at 1948, Truman won by 114 electoral votes. But he won Ohio, California and Illinois by not even 1%. All huge states worth 78 electoral votes in total. Had he lost those states he would have been behind 42 electoral votes instead (Dewey would have been just barely behind the 270 needed, I don't really know what the House would have voted on). Of course, there were other states that Dewey only narrowly won that could have gone to Truman and given him an even larger electoral college lead. The point is that it'd have been pretty fair to call it a very close race and a toss-up right until the vote was held, and the extreme confidence pundits had in Dewey was actually a sign of poor polling predictions of the time.

Obama vs Romney was not nearly so close, but this still sort of applies. Romney could have taken it had he won the close-ish states of Florida (-0.88%), Ohio (-2.98%), and Virginia (-3.87%) along with less close Colorado (-5.37%). These states were all closer than they were in 2008.

 

[Subyman]

The electoral college is a funny thing. It can turn a few very close states into what looks like a landslide win. Look at 1948, Truman won by 114 electoral votes. But he won Ohio, California and Illinois by not even 1%. All huge states worth 78 electoral votes in total. Had he lost those states he would have been behind 42 electoral votes instead (Dewey would have been just barely behind the 270 needed, I don't really know what the House would have voted on). Of course, there were other states that Dewey only narrowly won that could have gone to Truman and given him an even larger electoral college lead. The point is that it'd have been pretty fair to call it a very close race and a toss-up right until the vote was held, and the extreme confidence pundits had in Dewey was actually a sign of poor polling predictions of the time.

Obama vs Romney was not nearly so close, but this still sort of applies. Romney could have taken it had he won the close-ish states of Florida (-0.88%), Ohio (-2.98%), and Virginia (-3.87%) along with less close Colorado (-5.37%). These states were all closer than they were in 2008.

Gore and Bush is the election to debate. Romney needing to win 4 specific states to clench the election is nearly impossible. My main point was, the media had several polls showing a Romney win even right before the election and we see what happened there.

 

[Exophase]

Gore and Bush is the election to debate. Romney needing to win 4 specific states to clench the election is nearly impossible. My main point was, the media had several polls showing a Romney win even right before the election and we see what happened there.

2012 is not by any means as close 2000, but it's not what I'd call a landslide and I don't think the polling was particularly inaccurate (or biased). The final results were roughly within the margin of error of the polls. Getting different results in those four states only looks nearly impossible in hindsight. They constituted 3/4 of the toss-ups (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results) and I don't think that was an unfair characterization (why Ohio wasn't considered a toss-up too I don't really know)

 

[Bart*Simpson]

... and the extreme confidence pundits had in Dewey was actually a sign of poor polling predictions of the time.

The media back then was overwhelmingly populated by Republicans and their inherent bias was for the Republican.

While the demographics of the media have changed over the years the fact that they still report according to their biases remains.

Seriously, how many times in this election cycle were we told by the media that "Trump is over!" or something like that?

Yet here he is the GOP nominee.

On to November.

 

[Subyman]

2012 is not by any means as close 2000, but it's not what I'd call a landslide and I don't think the polling was particularly inaccurate (or biased). The final results were roughly within the margin of error of the polls. Getting different results in those four states only looks nearly impossible in hindsight. They constituted 3/4 of the toss-ups (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results) and I don't think that was an unfair characterization (why Ohio wasn't considered a toss-up too I don't really know)

I think we are saying the same thing. What the reported numbers are and who the polls say will win aren't necessarily accurate even days before the election where Obama ended up winning by 100+ electoral votes although some polls showed Romney winning (which I remember being widely discussed in the media.) Looking deeper into the margin of error pretty much means that any poll that doesn't show a 10%+ different is likely meaningless. The "true" result is somewhere in that +/- 5% ethereal cloud.

 

[zinfamous]

The media back then was overwhelmingly populated by Republicans and their inherent bias was for the Republican.

While the demographics of the media have changed over the years the fact that they still report according to their biases remains.

Seriously, how many times in this election cycle were we told by the media that "Trump is over!" or something like that?

Yet here he is the GOP nominee.

On to November.

While that's valid, it's also fair to point out that these statements were made every time Trump has publicly said or endorsed something so universally intolerable that each one of those statements would have individually doomed any previous historical candidate. (one example: Trump 2012)

Such statements from the media are not due to bias, but simply due to historical evidence.

That is what is so weird and uniquely unpredictable about the state of US politics right now.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

i didn't have any issues during the last hillary clinton presidency.

ftfy. ()🙂

 

[Bart*Simpson]

While that's valid, it's also fair to point out that these statements were made every time Trump has publicly said or endorsed something so universally intolerable...

Obviously your perception of 'universally intolerable' warrants consideration on your part. So does that of the people who thought that everyone in the USA should automatically agree with what they're told to think by the media.

Myself, I like Trump just because he doesn't play the game of being nice to the Democrats and the left while they're savaging him. He's a street fighter and after two consecutive spineless toads like McCain and Romney the meat-and-potatoes wing of the GOP is ready for someone who comes out swinging.

And Trump has now secured the nomination.

Therefore his ideas appeal to a broad enough segment of Americans that they've voted for him.

Myself, I like the idea of securing the border and tightening workplace regulations such that illegal aliens leave the USA for lack of work. They'll self-deport just as they did when Eisenhower was President.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm prepared for the coming Trumpian dystopia. After all we elected George W Bush (sort of) and we survived him (sort of).

A lot of people didn't survive bush.

 

[zinfamous]

Obviously your perception of 'universally intolerable' warrants consideration on your part. So does that of the people who thought that everyone in the USA should automatically agree with what they're told to think by the media.

Myself, I like Trump just because he doesn't play the game of being nice to the Democrats and the left while they're savaging him. He's a street fighter and after two consecutive spineless toads like McCain and Romney the meat-and-potatoes wing of the GOP is ready for someone who comes out swinging.

And Trump has now secured the nomination.

Therefore his ideas appeal to a broad enough segment of Americans that they've voted for him.

Myself, I like the idea of securing the border and tightening workplace regulations such that illegal aliens leave the USA for lack of work. They'll self-deport just as they did when Eisenhower was President.

right: you think this is an election for high school class president, so you are voting for the candidate that wins those type of elections.

 

[Darwin333]

I actually laughed, and it really mirrors my feelings, these 2 are the best we could come up with?

Sigh...

Sadly it is our fault that this is the best that we get. We are the ones that let shit like absurd mudslinging and dragging a candidates family and even children through the mud be effective. What sane person who is only interested in bettering the country would ever want to run for President and have all of their, their wives, childrens, other family and even friends drug through the mud? What rationale 45 year old person wants to defend, at extreme length, some dumb shit that they or their wife did when they were 19 in college?

Just look at all of the mostly new shit that our current two candidates have been accused of. I sure as hell wouldn't put my family and friends through that, would you?

 

[shady28]

right: you think this is an election for high school class president, so you are voting for the candidate that wins those type of elections.

So you don't get your way and people don't cow-tow to your beliefs so you denigrate them? Sounds like your comment is about yourself, not the well-reasoned post you were responding to.

 

[zinfamous]

So you don't get your way and people don't cow-tow to your beliefs so you denigrate them? Sounds like your comment is about yourself, not the well-reasoned post you were responding to.

"I like a man that bullies people when they point out his flaws and proposes no sound policies for what he would do as a leader. He doesn't even have a single position where he has not held every single angle on that position. I want a leader that acts like a grown child that confuses maturity for petulant yelling."

That's what he said. I didn't denigrate him, I merely made an accurate observation that Trump is the type of douchebag that runs for High School class president and he has run his campaign in exactly that way. I did not see one argument for "He's turning the establishment on its head!" And even if I did, I would ask...how? There would be crickets, because the only way he is doing that, supposedly, is by acting like a petulant child.

I'm not denigrating anyone, I'm just pointing out the reality of how they have been duped into voting for a drained turnip. A "well reasoned argument?" sorry, that's as empty of a position as the policies of candidate turnip. I'm sorry if I have offended you, but it seems that you are easily triggered?