Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

[ivwshane]

So to be clear, eskimspys citation doesn't count because negative coverage before the primaries doesn't count or matter and because the majority of negative coverage came from a network that has almost double the amount of viewers as its competitors, it doesn't count because it's fox?

That's some solid reasoning...

I'm attacking their reasoning, not their data. I don't particularly care if one or the other is favored in the MSM, as I don't watch it and I don't like either candidate. It's still a study with many glaring holes, and the incorrect one for eskimospy to cite given sm625's contention regarding a bias towards Clinton in favor of Trump, when the study does not address the general election at all.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

1) Again, sm675 was talking specifically about his view that the news is portraying Clinton more positively in the polls concerning Trump vs Clinton. Trump and Clinton were not opponents at that point. How exactly is news coverage prior to event X relevant to an argument regarding news coverage after event X? Having to reiterate this made me just realize another massive flaw in this study; they're including the first three months for Clinton when she was not even officially a candidate yet. I personally don't care about all the private email bullshit and all that other stuff, but the fact remains she was a massive public figure, a presumptive nominee, and naturally would attract negative press since positive press doesn't sell before campaigns. None of the other candidates on either side come close to her notoriety prior to the primaries, and therefore the study artificially biases her perception negatively. Actually, figure 6 there tells part of sm675's case; her most negative month by a long shot was before she announced candidacy, and her three most favorable months all came in the last three months of 2015, the same time Sanders' coverage suddenly takes a massive hit.

2) FOX has a plurality of viewers, but in the grand scheme of all networks they aren't *that* big. The fairest way might be to take stories according to total news coverage; e.g. if FOX makes up 15% of the eight companies covered, then 15% of the data collected should cover their stories. Conveniently, FOX is the only news source they report in raw numbers on (all other data are taken in percentages), so it's difficult to say how much things are being skewed. I suppose it's possible that they just worded things poorly and maybe there are thousands of reports from the other 7 networks covered to balance out the ~330 from FOX on Clinton. Considering the poor methodology shown elsewhere, I have little faith in that.

 

[compuwiz1]

Rump is headed to Mexico today. From a safety standpoint, this is potentially a dumb move. Not sure what he thinks he's gonna accomplish there, but it was Mexico's president who invited him. He also invited Clinton, who has yet to respond. I wonder if she'll go as well?

 

[fskimospy]

That study compares coverage over the primary period, not since then. Libbies wanted Trump to win the primary, for obvious reasons.

Wait what? You're saying that positive primary coverage of Trump was due to the fact that liberals wanted him to win so the media was conspiring to aid him? Bad reasoning. There is no evidence that such a consensus existed, much less any of the other necessary components of a media conspiracy.

Other questionable things there too; they mix "positive and neutral" together in figure 2 for Trump without showing how Clinton would using the same metric, rather than just the positive vs negative in the first graph you posted.

The study was about the character of media in the two primaries, not Trump vs. Clinton specifically. There is nothing questionable about it whatsoever. I was simply quoting a convenient graph that did make such a direct comparison.

Additionally, the way they define positive coverage seems skewed and ridiculous. They cite a WP article as an example of positive coverage, simply because it commented on the unexpected popularity of Trump during the primary cycle (a neutral, objective observation) and quoted a Trump supporter within. An entire fifth of his coverage was about his success. Trump's success is arguably the biggest story behind Trump, and certainly if you were to use the same standards today, Clinton would be dominating with positive feedback on the basis that there are no stories of Trump's poll successes in the general election (minus one brief blip).

This is not skewed in any way and was consistently applied across all candidates. Clinton had a similar lead in the polls but it was not reported on nearly as much. That right there is the whole point, by the way.

I hope they do update it for the general election and I would bet money when they do Clinton still has abnormally low positive coverage.

EDIT: lmao, they later even admit that most of the criticism of Clinton came from FOX. Oh no, not all those FOX-viewers that totally would have voted Clinton if it wasn't for the mean stories on her! No shit, what about trying to balance representation of news organizations according to viewership? What percent of the coverage of Clinton from the other major networks was negative?

No, they said Fox criticized her more than other networks, not that most of the criticism came from Fox or that other networks gave her net positive coverage. If you read it more closely you will see that her net negative reporting came from tens of thousands of reports from across the whole media landscape.

 

[fskimospy]

1) Again, sm675 was talking specifically about his view that the news is portraying Clinton more positively in the polls concerning Trump vs Clinton. Trump and Clinton were not opponents at that point. How exactly is news coverage prior to event X relevant to an argument regarding news coverage after event X? Having to reiterate this made me just realize another massive flaw in this study; they're including the first three months for Clinton when she was not even officially a candidate yet. I personally don't care about all the private email bullshit and all that other stuff, but the fact remains she was a massive public figure, a presumptive nominee, and naturally would attract negative press since positive press doesn't sell before campaigns. None of the other candidates on either side come close to her notoriety prior to the primaries, and therefore the study artificially biases her perception negatively. Actually, figure 6 there tells part of sm675's case; her most negative month by a long shot was before she announced candidacy, and her three most favorable months all came in the last three months of 2015, the same time Sanders' coverage suddenly takes a massive hit.

This is badly flawed reasoning. Why would coverage only after her formal announcement matter? It's not like everyone in the world didn't know she was running for president. To exclide coverage based on pretending that they didn't would introduce inappropriate bias.

Also what is your basis for the statement that public figures get more negative press than positive press before their announcement? If anything it is likely that the opposite is true, and it is certainly not the case that there is no positive sell before a campaign starts.

2) FOX has a plurality of viewers, but in the grand scheme of all networks they aren't *that* big. The fairest way might be to take stories according to total news coverage; e.g. if FOX makes up 15% of the eight companies covered, then 15% of the data collected should cover their stories.

Weighting media sources by viewership would bias the results in a way that would exchange consumers' preferences for the very thing they were trying to look at, it would destroy the purpose.

Conveniently, FOX is the only news source they report in raw numbers on (all other data are taken in percentages), so it's difficult to say how much things are being skewed. I suppose it's possible that they just worded things poorly and maybe there are thousands of reports from the other 7 networks covered to balance out the ~330 from FOX on Clinton. Considering the poor methodology shown elsewhere, I have little faith in that.

Their methodology is actually quite good and the evaluation of coverage comes from an established group for that. I think you are mistaking the descriptive statistics provided for something more than they are and are putting your own views into it. If you read the footnotes you will see that tens of thousands of statements were evaluated overall.

 

[Genx87]

GOP should be ashamed. Trump is the worst nominee in history, but only trailed by Hillary as the second worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/

Seriously, a 59% unfavorable rating among registered voters and she is going to win in a landslide.

 

[Atreus21]

GOP should be ashamed. Trump is the worst nominee in history, but only trailed by Hillary as the second worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/

Seriously, a 59% unfavorable rating among registered voters and she is going to win in a landslide.

I'm pleased that, since I don't live in a swing state, I don't have to vote.

 

[trenchfoot]

GOP should be ashamed. Trump is the worst nominee in history, but only trailed by Hillary as the second worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/

Seriously, a 59% unfavorable rating among registered voters and she is going to win in a landslide.

I do realize that Hillary has a problem with being like-able. However, I wonder what Hillary's favorability rating would be if the Repubs in Congress, FOX News, Conservative AM radio and the RNC propaganda spin machine would cease their campaign of innuendo, falsehoods and rumor mongering that they saturate the airwaves and other mass media venues about her?

 

[fskimospy]

I do realize that Hillary has a problem with being like-able, However, I wonder what Hillary's favorability rating would be if the Repubs in Congress, FOX News, Conservative AM radio and the RNC propaganda spin machine would cease their campaign of innuendo, falsehoods and rumor mongering that they saturate the airwaves and other mass media venues about her?

I personally think that 'two historically disliked nominees' will be the rule rather than the exception going forward. Maybe Clinton (and especially Trump) are particularly disliked, but I doubt you're going to have many nominees with significantly positive favorable ratings in the future. Look at Clinton's favorable numbers when she wasn't an electoral threat, they were very good! As soon as conservatives started thinking of her as an electoral threat they returned to hating her. With Trump it's a bit harder as he was never well liked, but I imagine the same will hold true for 2020 Republican nominee.

Similarly, I wouldn't be that surprised if halfway through a Clinton presidency Republicans suddenly start talking more favorably about Obama. This will partly be an attempt to concern troll the Clinton administration, but it will probably also be partially a true reflection of their feelings. Once he isn't the Great Enemy anymore then people are freer to form an unbiased opinion.

 

[agent00f]

I personally think that 'two historically disliked nominees' will be the rule rather than the exception going forward. Maybe Clinton (and especially Trump) are particularly disliked, but I doubt you're going to have many nominees with significantly positive favorable ratings in the future. Look at Clinton's favorable numbers when she wasn't an electoral threat, they were very good! As soon as conservatives started thinking of her as an electoral threat they returned to hating her. With Trump it's a bit harder as he was never well liked, but I imagine the same will hold true for 2020 Republican nominee.

Similarly, I wouldn't be that surprised if halfway through a Clinton presidency Republicans suddenly start talking more favorably about Obama. This will partly be an attempt to concern troll the Clinton administration, but it will probably also be partially a true reflection of their feelings. Once he isn't the Great Enemy anymore then people are freer to form an unbiased opinion.

When I think "likable" (and not necessarily "favorable") I think along the lines of someone fun to hang out with. In that sense, bush can be considered more likable than hillary but less so than bill or barrack. This is an important attribute in a democratic election, which are at its roots a popularity contest. In that kind of competition, someone people can identify with and folksy charisma matters, and while a lot of (particularly career) women can identify with hillary, she really isn't much of a charmer.

 

[Jhhnn]

GOP should be ashamed. Trump is the worst nominee in history, but only trailed by Hillary as the second worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/

Seriously, a 59% unfavorable rating among registered voters and she is going to win in a landslide.

Decades of relentless character assassination have an effect?

Say it ain't so!

If you think that's bad, check the approval rating of our Repub led congress which is lower than whale shit.

The right wing has been promoting shitty irrational attitudes for decades. Your forebrain can't evaluate what your lizard brain rules out.

 

[Genx87]

I do realize that Hillary has a problem with being like-able. However, I wonder what Hillary's favorability rating would be if the Repubs in Congress, FOX News, Conservative AM radio and the RNC propaganda spin machine would cease their campaign of innuendo, falsehoods and rumor mongering that they saturate the airwaves and other mass media venues about her?

Avg people dont listen to the spin machines. But they can see a constant stream of questionable acts coming from Clinton from all news sources.

 

[Genx87]

Decades of relentless character assassination have an effect?

Say it ain't so!

If you think that's bad, check the approval rating of our Repub led congress which is lower than whale shit.

The right wing has been promoting shitty irrational attitudes for decades. Your forebrain can't evaluate what your lizard brain rules out.

U mad? Seriously that response is funny.

 

[Genx87]

I personally think that 'two historically disliked nominees' will be the rule rather than the exception going forward. Maybe Clinton (and especially Trump) are particularly disliked, but I doubt you're going to have many nominees with significantly positive favorable ratings in the future. Look at Clinton's favorable numbers when she wasn't an electoral threat, they were very good! As soon as conservatives started thinking of her as an electoral threat they returned to hating her. With Trump it's a bit harder as he was never well liked, but I imagine the same will hold true for 2020 Republican nominee.

Similarly, I wouldn't be that surprised if halfway through a Clinton presidency Republicans suddenly start talking more favorably about Obama. This will partly be an attempt to concern troll the Clinton administration, but it will probably also be partially a true reflection of their feelings. Once he isn't the Great Enemy anymore then people are freer to form an unbiased opinion.

We will have to see of course. But if the GOP produces another trump in 2020. Then at least the next election cycle will prove your theory true.

 

[fskimospy]

We will have to see of course. But if the GOP produces another trump in 2020. Then at least the next election cycle will prove your theory true.

Well I more meant that I think someone like Trump would probably be hated no matter when they ran. He's always been viewed pretty poorly by a lot of the country. What I think is more interesting is that I think whoever the GOP/Democrats (assuming God Emperor Trump wins) nominate in 2020 they will be substantially less well liked than the average nominee has been historically. Partisanship has become both stronger and more negative in recent years and I think this makes people dislike the nominees more even when all else is equal.

 

[agent00f]

Avg people dont listen to the spin machines. But they can see a constant stream of questionable acts coming from Clinton from all news sources.

That's just your confirmation bias arbitrarily splitting things you like/dislike into news/spin respectively.

 

[agent00f]

Well I more meant that I think someone like Trump would probably be hated no matter when they ran. He's always been viewed pretty poorly by a lot of the country. What I think is more interesting is that I think whoever the GOP/Democrats (assuming God Emperor Trump wins) nominate in 2020 they will be substantially less well liked than the average nominee has been historically. Partisanship has become both stronger and more negative in recent years and I think this makes people dislike the nominees more even when all else is equal.

I don't think trump was that disliked until he opened his mouth on topics outside his little reality show. Frankly it's probably not just conservatives watching it and thinking that's how srs bidness is done in the real world.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think trump was that disliked until he opened his mouth on topics outside his little reality show. Frankly it's probably not just conservatives watching it and thinking that's how srs bidness is done in the real world.

No, people have disliked him for a long time. Maybe not as much as they dislike him now and he seemed to have a brief stint where people liked him okay in the mid-2000's, but his reputation has been very bad for years.

 

[Genx87]

That's just your confirmation bias arbitrarily splitting things you like/dislike into news/spin respectively.

You really believe the avg person watches fox news or its left equivalent MSNBC? Ratings says otherwise. Clintons issues stem from a constant stream of poor behavior that casts doubt on her ability to lead. She comes off as a scumbag. People dont view scumbags as favorable. As evidenced by both scumbags running for President having historically high unfavorable ratings. I still cant believe one of these two will be our president with over half of registered voters viewing them as unfavorable.

 

[Genx87]

Well I more meant that I think someone like Trump would probably be hated no matter when they ran. He's always been viewed pretty poorly by a lot of the country. What I think is more interesting is that I think whoever the GOP/Democrats (assuming God Emperor Trump wins) nominate in 2020 they will be substantially less well liked than the average nominee has been historically. Partisanship has become both stronger and more negative in recent years and I think this makes people dislike the nominees more even when all else is equal.

I agree Trump would be hated no matter when he ran. We will have to wait and see what the GOP does in 2020. Clinton will be in the same position unless she cures cancer or our economy grows like crazy under her leadership.

This is a bit off topic but...

I was watching some round tables last night about Clintons drop in national polling in the last two weeks. What I found interesting was Trump didnt gain on her in the sense he became more popular. He is still topping out at 37-38ish%. But Clinton lost support by about 4-6% percentage points. Jill Stein picked up 4 points and Johnson gains 1 point to sit at 7 and 11%.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree Trump would be hated no matter when he ran. We will have to wait and see what the GOP does in 2020. Clinton will be in the same position unless she cures cancer or our economy grows like crazy under her leadership.

This is a bit off topic but...

I was watching some round tables last night about Clintons drop in national polling in the last two weeks. What I found interesting was Trump didnt gain on her in the sense he became more popular. He is still topping out at 37-38ish%. But Clinton lost support by about 4-6% percentage points. Jill Stein picked up 4 points and Johnson gains 1 point to sit at 7 and 11%.

That actually doesn't surprise me that much. I've read in several places that people aren't super enthused to vote for Clinton but hate Trump with a passion. In those cases of the race doesn't seem close they will support Johnson or Stein, but if it's close they say they will vote Clinton. That makes sense to me.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

edit....
I am really not surprised she's not doing better, as the smear campaign against her has been going on for 20+ years now.
What is disappointing is how many people actually support drumpf. That is really disappointing considering his message.

 

[emperus]

Well it's dishonest stories like this below. Read it and tell me if the headline matches the story, or you can even make out what the story here is.

Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...vate-email-support-teneo-227613#ixzz4J1Wzzzms

 

[agent00f]

You really believe the avg person watches fox news or its left equivalent MSNBC? Ratings says otherwise. Clintons issues stem from a constant stream of poor behavior that casts doubt on her ability to lead. She comes off as a scumbag. People dont view scumbags as favorable. As evidenced by both scumbags running for President having historically high unfavorable ratings. I still cant believe one of these two will be our president with over half of registered voters viewing them as unfavorable.

Try reading what I wrote again in light of your reply. The "constant stream of poor behavior that casts doubt on her ability to lead" is the spin. But "spin" has a negative connotation to it so you mentality cast it as something else to make yourself feel better.

 

[TheGardener]

New Rasmussen poll is in. It's a dead heat for Clinton and Trump. The article linked below calls Trump ahead of Clinton. One percent is a rounding error for any poll.

Hillary Clinton’s post-convention lead has disappeared, putting her behind Donald Trump for the first time nationally since mid-July.

The latest weekly Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 40% support to Clinton’s 39% among Likely U.S. Voters, after Clinton led 42% to 38% a week ago.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

The negative campaign has impacted both candidates unfavorability ratings. Clinton is not doing any better than Trump, as she is clearly slipping. Clinton has been spending all the campaign ad money in the last month. Her ads have been the most negative in US history. At least in the age of television. And they are backfiring.

Regardless, one of them will be the president-elect on November 9th.