"Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to less than three points: Reuters/Ipsos poll"

Is this an outlier?  The MJ crowd as well as the show on the Clinton News Network are busy this AM conducting Trump's funeral.  pl 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10G2BQ

Comments

[NotTimothyGeithner]

A few thoughts:

-one elite Republicans on TV aren't the same as the Republicans in even Prince William County. TV Republicans get more media time, but they represent a class of appointed Republicans who don't know their place or even if they have a place in the Trump order of things. Trump's only real competitors have been Cruz and Carson both fairly religious guys from movement conservative backgrounds. Recent elections (Romney and McCain) have shown Republicans come home. They are still a shrinking party. As far as Hillary appealing, my belief is the GOP id is dedicated to despising Democrats. They simply can't crossover.

-the permanent GOP political class is awaiting a paycheck Trump isn't producing. They are annoyed.

-voters are partisan, much more partisan than they would care to admit. They know little about issues a day rely on a mix of nostalgia and dog whistles. The ignorance for the voting behavior reinforces their stubborn nature. If they leave now, why didn't they leave then when they should have known how awful the party was?

-The Clinton Democratic Party is also shrinking. There isn't much demand for a faux multicultural neo Republican Party given the GOP already exists. The popular revolt that brought Dean to the head of the DNC reversed the trend as Democrats ran and won on popular issues (imagine that) and took advantage of a new voter boomlet going through the population, but Obama jettisoned this popular revolt as soon as he was elected in favor of Clinton Inc elites (Rahm Emmanuel). Fear, nostalgia, and blind faith (ex. Obama is workin' hard when he doesn't golf) hold the Democrats together hence the apocalyptic language about Trump so early. These factors don't draw in new voters, and Democrats have demonstrated the 2006 and 2008 voters might not be there. Fear worked in 2012 but failed miserably in 2014. The old adage about flies and honey is still true, and Hillary will never be able to offer honey because she is perceived as untrustworthy, anyone entering her orbit is deemed untrustworthy.

Hillary isn't going to soar, and Trump isn't going to collapse. If Hillary was an even tolerable candidate, she would already already be President.

The election can still be won or lost because the margins in states that matter aren't very large and weren't very large in 2012 despite reports of Obama's commanding electoral college victory.

[Eric Newhill]

The recent polls that have shown Clinton with a large lead over Trump had poor sampling methodology.

Surveys conducted over the past few years have been pretty consistent about the proportion of Democrats to Republicans in the country. The resulting being that there are 1% or 1.5% more Ds. However, in the recent polls, the samples have consisted of 10% more Ds. That alone can explain the Clinton "lead".

There are other interesting confounds in the recent polls; one such being a high "Undecided" proportion. One of the major polls had it 19%. With 19% undecided, things could go either way in November.

Some of the other confounds are real, but a little technical. The above should sufficiently illustrate why the polls should not be believed. I have not seen the methodology behind the most recent Reuters/IPSOS poll that contradicts the previous week and has Clinton only up by 3%, which is within the margin of error and therefore a statistical tie. Maybe someone screwed up and did the sampling right for once.

I don't understand what the MJ thinks it's accomplishing by quoting poorly done poll numbers, in August nonetheless. Is it to demoralize? Is it mindlessness and stupidity? Childishness? My more paranoid side thinks it's setting the stage for manipulation of the voting machines in November (i.e. why are you surprised Hillary won? She was always ahead in the polls).

[bks]

If the best cherry-picked poll for Trump shows Clinton +3, Trump is in trouble. Compare:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[Kooshy]

Colonel LANG
Apparently Trump' notice of obituary was twitted this morning by no other than your favorite morning TV personality, JOE S. I think Borg is getting worried and don't want to miss/ leave/ give any slight possibility/chance to Trump' election.
" Citing “multiple sources” in a series of posts to Twitter, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was the first to announce McMullin's bid. He said McMullin will kick off his campaign Monday and has “the backing of key $$ contributors in the Republican Party.”

"Joe Scarborough ventured into Bill Kristol territory Monday morning, saying on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that unnamed sources tell him an unnamed independent presidential candidate will enter the race at this late stage to try to stop Donald Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/08/joe-scarboroughs-mysterious-new-independent-candidate-is-evan-mcmullin/

[Bill Herschel]

If it doesn't gel, it isn't aspic, and this ain't geling.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7333

[Freudenschade]

Col.,

Poll averages have it at about 7%. Looks like it's within one stddev, but probably a bit low.

The electoral map is more interesting (and, in fact, should probably be the only serious way of discussing the likely outcome). 538 has, IMHO, the best projections. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Even with a modest national lead, Trump is still less likely than Clinton to win. Right now it looks like an electoral vote landslide.

[Muzaffar Ali]

Two things going for Trump....First he is not a hypocrite Second he does not crack under pressure. He is mentally stronger.

Presidential elections is all about mental toughness when everything else is equal.

Zero Hedge has an interesting graph with Clinton lead peaking in the latest Reuters poll. For six days Trump numbers have been going up and Clinton's downward....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

[Degringolade]

Next

I have written off this election. We're fucked either way.

You can spend hours trying to figure out what got us here, but where we sit is that we are a country making a choice between the worst two candidates ever to grace the center ring of this quadrennial circus. Neither major party candidate is worth a bucket of warm spit.

In a nutshell, no matter who wins, we are going to have a clown in place for the next four years, with an idiot running the Administrative branch for the next four years. The odds of the country actually improving will be minimal, the chance that things will either not improve or get worse is increased.

So, what comes in two years when the next election is held? Who will take over the house and how? What happens in four years when someone competent captures the anger of the Trumpeteers? What happens when the Democratic party continues spitting on the poor, who will rise out of that?

Look, we are fresh out of problems here in the US. All we have left is predicaments.

What happens next?

I wrote this over at my place (http://mightaswellliebackandenjoyit.blogspot.com/)

[BabelFish]

IMO, HRC is one more mini-stroke from campaigning from a hospital bed. If and when WikiLeaks whips out their October surprise, who knows if her narcissistic self will be able to physically handle the shock? Libertarian, anyone?

[divadab]

Noise. Signal noise. How can it be otherwise when the choice presented by the ruling classes is between bad and worse - "would you rather be hit on the right side of the head or the left?"

The whole spectacle is depressing. I have work to do. Actual work actually making something for my family and clan's future. I'm sick of these worthless parasites and their filthy lies on behalf of their paymasters, creating chaos and misery for personal power and wealth.

[Lina]

May I suggest Prof. Sam Wang for accuracy in polling and predictions? His methodology is based on state (not national) polls.

http://election.princeton.edu/

Cheers!

[Tyler]

Sir,

You gotta look at the metrics in these polls. A lot of the are oversampling Dems by double digits, undersampling men and independents, and geographically focusing on Dem strongholds.

Meanwhile 15k people show up to his Florida rally while Hillary can't fill the floor of a HS gym.

[LondonBob]

Polls only gain predictive power a couple of weeks out. Nicholas Nassim Taleb amusingly ripped Nate Silver for ignorant use of stats to go from predicting a Trump win at 55% to 20% 10 days later.

I think it will come down to the debates, Trump has more charisma, far superior policies and it will be his opportunity to present himself without the distorting impact of the media. Until then he just needs to be in touch and most polls show that is the case, allowing for the rough patch.

[Matthew]

Col: Following up LondonBob's comment, Nassim Nicolas Taleb has been addressing the risks of--and inaccuracy of--this constant polling. See https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762048739334885380.

Beyond the jargon, it's pretty clear that the more pollsters granulate their polis, the more arbitrariness they inject into them.

And, frankly, how do you poll these profound differences from 2012? (1) There is significant revulsion at both candidates, which one would think would imply lower voter turnout; (2) There is much more obvious excitement among Trump supporters; and (3) the rapid rise of non-affiliation with either party.

The more the elites from both parties attack Trump the more obvious it is that he is the real change candidate. I have no idea how this election will turn out, but then neither do the "pros."

[Eric Newhill]

bks, Nate Silver at 538 has sold out to the NY Times and Bill Kristol. He contracts with both. Yes, yes, he appears to have been pretty good in 2008 and 2012. That was before selling out to Borg Propaganda Central.

[divadab]

FYI -

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/06/hillary-clinton-stroke-seizure-coughing-fits/

[Mark Gaughan]

The technician who repairs the large format plotter in my office says that the voting machines are very secure. He had training on them when he was thinking about taking a job with that company. I don't remember the specifics but he's a very smart fellow and I trust his judgment.

[bks]

Trump was also ahead in the GOP primary polls. In fact, the pollsters did very well in predicting the state results during the primaries for both parties. There were a few mistakes, but that's what one expects of real data. The idea that the polls are slanted and the election rigged is tinfoil-worthy.

[Hank]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/evan-mcmullin-independent-presidential-campaign-000000187.html
Ex-CIA officer launches presidential campaign aimed at thwarting Donald Trump

A former CIA case officer who has served as top policy aide to House Republicans is launching an independent campaign for the presidency on Monday with the backing of veteran GOP strategists and donors determined to block Donald Trump from getting anywhere near the White House.
Feeding off mounting discontent within GOP ranks over Trump, Evan McMullin — who is resigning today as chief policy director for the House Republican Conference — will announce his campaign with an open “Letter to America” aimed at rallying independents and conservatives to his cause...

[ISL]

The polls (including the much accoladed and repeatedly incorrect this year, nate 538 silver) and the media were overwhelmingly in agreement with themselves one day out on Brexit). I think voter turnout is key and also honesty with poll takers, particularly when the media trash one side as ignorant buffoons.

[robt willmann]

The recent rash of publicized opinion poll results that say that Donald Trump is behind Hillary Clinton are described in terms of results only, that Hillary is ahead by 'X'. To evaluate an opinion poll includes obvious questions, such as: how many people were in the sample? what were the characteristics of the people in the sample? where were the people in the sample located? was the survey by phone, in person, or by computer? what were the questions asked? what statistical formulas were used to arrive at the prediction? And so on.

There is no way to know if the polling results are valid within the norms of opinion research, or not. Unfortunately, with the present sad state of media conduct, one cannot rule out that some of the "results" are just disinformation.

Related to the recent topic of health exams for the presidential candidates, there is additional information of interest.

Hillary appears recently to have a black man near her who may not be in the U.S. Secret Service. Particularly intriguing is the behavior of both of them at a recent rally. This brief clip from ABC News down the web page a little shows the black man going up to the podium and he is saying, "Are you OK?" "Keep talking." "You handled it." "We're not going anywhere." She then starts talking again. The three men who also go up to the podium look like Secret Service in their job of scanning for threats; but not the black man--

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/oh-hillary-handler-carries-diazepam-pen-seizures/

Further down the web page is a photograph of what looks like the same man near her on the day of her speech at the Democratic Party national convention. In his left hand is an object that has created speculation that it may be a type of medical drug dispensing device.

This next link contains a photograph from Reuters and Getty of Hillary getting assistance going up some stairs, taken from the back. The same black man may be on her left helping her to walk up the stairs. The Drudge Report headline aggregator has that photo, and in a more circumspect manner, he links to four stories with his lines being: "2016: Hillary conquers the stairs... 2012: Falls at home, blood clot... 2011: Falls boarding plane... 2009: Falls going to White House, broken elbow..."

http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/

[Eric Newhill]

what is it with you people. I have foolish left leaning friends that parrot the exact same thing. Either the sampling was done right or not. It's obvious to anyone with a moderate understanding of basic logic that the samples were wrong. There are 1% more Ds than Rs in the country, yet the big polls were sampling with 10% more Ds.

Is this too confusing for you? Why?

[Jack]

bks

Nate Silver completely botched the Republican primary forecasts. I would take their projections with a grain of salt.

https://mishtalk.com/2016/04/20/piss-poor-analysis-by-financial-times-nate-silver-others-on-trumps-chances-of-winning/

[Eric Newhill]

Degringolad, As Col. Lang has pointed out, the big difference is the Supreme Court. With Trump's appointees, the country can always bounce back. With Clinton's we will never be the USA again.

[Jack]

A Borg financed candidate to peel some Trump voters is not gonna work in this election. Many in the Borg don't get this election and the attraction to Trump by a segment of our population.

IMO, there's not a lot of undecided voters. Everyone is locked and loaded. The question is which side has more motivated voters who will show up.