Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

[JEDI]

she only leads him by single digits?!?!
would have thought 20point lead minimum.

wtf tight race?

 

[fskimospy]

she only leads him by single digits?!?!
would have thought 20point lead minimum.

wtf tight race?

A ~6 point lead is not a 'tight race' in modern terms. It's a blowout. As an example, Obama won by 7 points in 2008, which is widely considered to be a landslide.

Partisanship in the US is extremely, extremely strong. Trump is an interesting case in just how strong in fact, as he's easily the worst general election candidate in modern history.

 

[Ackmed]

Because all people aren't that stupid. Both candidates suck ass for mostly different reasons, equally bad to me. She's a lying piece of shit, who is extremely untruthful. He's no better.

 

[dullard]

When given the choice:
A) Vote for America,
or
B) Vote for your party,

Then option (B) wins hands down. On both sides of the issue.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

American politics has devolved to my team their team. As such you will see narrow gaps because people won't vote for the other team at any cost. It's rarely about position or candidate. The independents are the support swing.

 

[MrA79]

Couple reasons - 1, polling methodology can be all over the place. 2, she's almost as unlikeable as Trump, just for different reasons (she has that Palpatine thing going and is probably guilty of everything from treason to murder to just being a horrendous, vile woman), whereas he's more of a WWE heel).

 

[vi edit]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-blue-state-polling-abyss/

The polls tend to heavily work with "red states" and swing states. They don't focus as much on long time democrat strongholds and thus margins aren't necessarily representative of what they really are.

 

[JEDI]

American politics has devolved to my team their team. As such you will see narrow gaps because people won't vote for the other team at any cost. It's rarely about position or candidate. The independents are the support swing.

true that voters wont switch sides if they don't like their candidate.

but they also wont make the effort to go out and vote to him either.
so they abstain from voting.

guess that's not captured in the polls?
or people say they will vote for trump and actually stay home on election day when its time to actually put up or shut up?

 

[fskimospy]

Because all people aren't that stupid. Both candidates suck ass for mostly different reasons, equally bad to me. She's a lying piece of shit, who is extremely untruthful. He's no better.

I think this sort of false equivalence is really dangerous. Even if you think Clinton is untrustworthy and a liar, there is simply no comparing the two. Trump lies so frequently, so egregiously, and seemingly without purpose that to say he is 'no better' is ridiculous. He's much, much, much worse.

 

[yllus]

The 40% of voters that vote Republican will vote Republican in 2016 even if they put a reanimated Karl Marx up as their candidate. Party trumps all for most people. Ditto the Democrat side.

 

[Blackjack200]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-blue-state-polling-abyss/

The polls tend to heavily work with "red states" and swing states. They don't focus as much on long time democrat strongholds and thus margins aren't necessarily representative of what they really are.

That wouldn't impact the national polls, which sample registered or likely voters across the U.S.

Silver is saying that there's not much individual state polling in blue states. While fskimospy's point about a 6 point lead being strong is true, I have to say I'm disappointed that such a high percentage of Americans continue to support Trump.

 

[DeathReborn]

she only leads him by single digits?!?!
would have thought 20point lead minimum.

wtf tight race?

Have you tried to kill a cockroach? Trump is one of the biggest cockroaches to exist (as far as science is concerned at least).

 

[HumblePie]

Can't vote for either. Going with any other option on the card I can when I vote. Yes I know it's throwing away my vote more than likely, but can't stand to see either win.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think this sort of false equivalence is really dangerous. Even if you think Clinton is untrustworthy and a liar, there is simply no comparing the two. Trump lies so frequently, so egregiously, and seemingly without purpose that to say he is 'no better' is ridiculous. He's much, much, much worse.

It's a huge problem. So many people will bend over backwards to say it's both sides. Look at this:

When given the choice:
A) Vote for America,
or
B) Vote for your party,

Then option (B) wins hands down. On both sides of the issue.

I mean, Clinton has an "A" rated foundation, while Trump is fucking funneling campaign contributions into his own pocket and only donated the funds he raised for the troops when The Washington Post shamed him into it. But, you know, Both SidesTM.

 

[First]

A 20 point victory I think would be the biggest victory in U.S. history or something close to it.

 

[dullard]

It's a huge problem. So many people will bend over backwards to say it's both sides.

Trump is maybe 10x worse than Clinton, in my opinion. That isn't what I was talking about, and you know it. Both D and R voters will vote for a D or R candidate based mostly on party rather than on substance. Just look at the very common down-the-line technique. Do you really know the policies of the assistant to the secretary to the deputy of the local municipal airport authority? Or are you voting for him because of the letter next to his name?

Clinton is ranked pretty well on the bipartisan groups that track politicians as for being mostly truthful. Trump is off the charts, often contradicting himself mid-speech or even mid-sentence. It is not both sides with regards to truthfulness. No candidate is 100% truthful, you can't be when you are a career politician since you know sensitive information that you can't spread. But Clinton is far less of a liar than Trump.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

A 20 point victory I think would be the biggest victory in U.S. history or something close to it.

Johnson beat Goldwater by about 22.6%.

 

[vi edit]

And I'm still not convinced that Polls are picking up all pockets of people. When you break down to specific groups...Hillary has something like 90% of all women (white women recent numbers are hard to find), and minorities and 65% of the 35 and under crowd. There's not enough old white dudes out there to make up the difference.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Can't vote for either. Going with any other option on the card I can when I vote. Yes I know it's throwing away my vote more than likely, but can't stand to see either win.

I'm the same, both candidates are utter trash. Worse than trash.

 

[dank69]

Trump is maybe 10x worse than Clinton, in my opinion. That isn't what I was talking about, and you know it. Both D and R voters will vote for a D or R candidate based mostly on party rather than on substance. Just look at the very common down-the-line technique. Do you really know the policies of the assistant to the secretary to the deputy of the local municipal airport authority? Or are you voting for him because of the letter next to his name?

Clinton is ranked pretty well on the bipartisan groups that track politicians as for being mostly truthful. Trump is off the charts, often contradicting himself mid-speech or even mid-sentence. It is not both sides with regards to truthfulness. No candidate is 100% truthful, you can't be when you are a career politician since you know sensitive information that you can't spread. But Clinton is far less of a liar than Trump.

A major difference between Democrats and Republicans IMO is the reason they refuse to vote for the other side. Ask a Democrat why they won't vote for the GOP and they'll likely list 1 or more policies that the GOP is actually pushing. Ask a Republican why they will never vote for a Democrat and you are likely to hear some serious nonsense from how liberals just want to expand the nanny-state and/or socialism to how they want to implement Sharia law. In fact, ask most Republicans if they support a policy they've never heard of and they likely will right up until the point when they find out it is supported by Democrats. You saw this with Obamacare. Tons of Republicans supported the provisions of the ACA until they found out they were part of the Obamacare. One side is mostly rational. The other side is mostly bonkers.

 

[sm625]

Oh, btw, Trump is rayciss. And Carter was leading Reagan in the polls. Go look it up.

 

[HTFOff]

wtf tight race?

This is an easy one. Hilary is cheney with a uterus. She is toxic. Fortunately she is running against the donald.

Trump does everything he can, to be disliked, whether intentionally or unintentionally. He is historically disliked.

Hilary has the best PR machine and handlers that money can buy. A massive braintrust, and rarely going off script. She is also historically disliked.

bill'o/ you cant explain that! /bill'o

 

[dank69]

Apparently people think anyone caught being cordial to a known racist in public is also a racist.

 

[glenn1]

I think this sort of false equivalence is really dangerous. Even if you think Clinton is untrustworthy and a liar, there is simply no comparing the two. Trump lies so frequently, so egregiously, and seemingly without purpose that to say he is 'no better' is ridiculous. He's much, much, much worse.

It's not false equivalence to say both are terrible. You can make the argument that one may be more terrible-er than the other, but that's not a refutation of the less terrible one being good.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, btw, Trump is rayciss.

I mean yes, his racism is pretty obvious, wouldn't you say? Nice attempt to make Clinton racist by association with Robert Byrd though. That's pretty desperate.

And Carter was leading Reagan in the polls. Go look it up.

Carter last led Reagan in the polls in approximately May of 1980, which is when the polls are not very predictive of the outcome. It's now almost September, when the polling averages are actually pretty predictive. Trying to compare the two reeks of desperation.