• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New ABC/WaPo Poll: Hillary +12 Points

Ah, election season. When each party grasps onto the righteousness of polling when it supports their nominee, and lambasts it when it does not.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah, election season. When each party grasps onto the righteousness of polling when it supports their nominee, and lambasts it when it does not.
Click to expand...

We have an outlier of Hillary+2, and an outlier of Hillary+12.

We'll see what happens post-convention. But both major candidates have pretty much complete saturation when it comes to name-recognition, and people feeling like they know who the person is. The likely scope for post-convention shifting might be reduced this year v next year.
 
cpwill said:
We have an outlier of Hillary+2, and an outlier of Hillary+12.

We'll see what happens post-convention. But both major candidates have pretty much complete saturation when it comes to name-recognition, and people feeling like they know who the person is. The likely scope for post-convention shifting might be reduced this year v next year.
Click to expand...

I generally agree. I heard an interesting point on a political podcast yesterday to the effect that Hillary's problem is that everybody feels like they already know who she is, the problem being that nobody's researching her and where she stands on any issues. As a result, this will hang on Trump (whom nobody really knows) and how he continues to implode (and explode). There is definitely a segment of the population whose opinion of him will increase if he goes a whole week without drowning a baby on live television.

And of course, there is that very specific segment of the population whose opinion of him will increase if he does drown a baby on live television.
 
Cardinal said:
I generally agree. I heard an interesting point on a political podcast yesterday to the effect that Hillary's problem is that everybody feels like they already know who she is, the problem being that nobody's researching her and where she stands on any issues. As a result, this will hang on Trump (whom nobody really knows) and how he continues to implode (and explode). There is definitely a segment of the population whose opinion of him will increase if he goes a whole week without drowning a baby on live television.
Click to expand...

I think at this point Trump is a known quantity. That's why his unfavorable are so sky high. I agree with the latter points' direction, but would amend it to say that there is a portion of the populace who wants to forget what they think of him, so that they can vote for him against Hillary, and that if he lets them, they will.

And of course, there is that very specific segment of the population whose opinion of him will increase if he does drown a baby on live television.
Click to expand...

Woo Hoo! He's Breaking The Rules! Take That, Political Correctness!!!

:doh
 
cpwill said:
I think at this point Trump is a known quantity. That's why his unfavorable are so sky high. I agree with the latter points' direction, but would amend it to say that there is a portion of the populace who wants to forget what they think of him, so that they can vote for him against Hillary, and that if he lets them, they will.



Woo Hoo! He's Breaking The Rules! Take That, Political Correctness!!!

:doh
Click to expand...

If you have a commute or a job that's compatible with listening to podcasts as mine is, I think you will enjoy this.

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/pumped-on-trump/
 
Mycroft said:
Dude...that ABC/WaPo poll is another one of those useless bogus polls. ABC even admits that it's useless. And yet, you grab onto it like it's a life ring that'll save Hillary.
Click to expand...

I haven't been following the polls closely. Can you show me where ABC said that they are useless/bogus polls?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Do you realize...............that it doesn't matter............................what polls say......................... because it's the Electoral College that matters...............................not the popular vote..........................dude.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd hardly say that they just don't matter. You do understand that it would be absolutely stunning, and damn near impossible, for a candidate to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote by 10%. If the polls show the margin of error or close, then I'd say that it doesn't matter because someone could win the popular vote by a percent or two and barely win the electoral college. It's possible. But the polls do give you a good idea of the ups and downs in the elections.

BTW, this is all said while 100% recognizing that a single poll doesn't even come close to being a predictor, and this far out only gives us a tiny snapshot and could/probably will be very far off by the time of the actual election.
 
Mycroft said:
That RCP average is useless because they include two bogus polls. Without those polls, Hillary's lead would be well within any margin of error making their race a dead heat...not this "land slide loss" you keep spouting off about.
Click to expand...

How are the polls bogus? I just don't understand this. Because they asked more democrats than Republicans? You realize that the exact same thing was done in 2012 and republicans complained about it exactly as they are now, and the polls were still fairly accurate, and the RCP average actually underestimated Obama's winning percentage by IIRC 3%?

When figuring out averages, it doesn't help to just throw out all items that you don't like. If you can find a good reason to discount the poll, and it makes you feel better, then go ahead, but they have a decent record on polling by everything I've seen. In 2012 their last presidential poll had Obama up by 3% and he won by 3.9%, and yet republicans back then were screaming about how rigged the polls were. And btw, I'm not saying they are the only ones to do it, but it does seem like it's becoming quite the trend and it's annoying as **** to see a segment of the country just refuse to accept reality. No, the polls don't mean Hillary is going to win. At all. Should they worry Trump supporters? Yes, they should. Can the ground be made up? Of course. But not if Trump and his supporters just stick their head in the ground and assume that everyone is just out to get them any time they hear something they don't like. The two groups in america that are currently pissing me off the most and on a regular basis are the liberal twatty kids on college campuses talking about trigger warnings and safe spaces and getting PTSD because someone said something all the while they are trying to limit other peoples free speech, and conservatives who do nothing but play the victim card and talk all day about how they are constantly called racist, and are victims of reverse racism, and are being so greatly marginalized because there's no white entertainment television channel and how Christianity is being attacked. And they both piss me off because they are so similar in such different ways. But at least the college twats don't act all manly and self reliant all the while complaining about every conceivable sleight against them all day long.
 
roughdraft274 said:
How are the polls bogus? I just don't understand this. Because they asked more democrats than Republicans? You realize that the exact same thing was done in 2012 and republicans complained about it exactly as they are now, and the polls were still fairly accurate, and the RCP average actually underestimated Obama's winning percentage by IIRC 3%?

When figuring out averages, it doesn't help to just throw out all items that you don't like. If you can find a good reason to discount the poll, and it makes you feel better, then go ahead, but they have a decent record on polling by everything I've seen. In 2012 their last presidential poll had Obama up by 3% and he won by 3.9%, and yet republicans back then were screaming about how rigged the polls were. And btw, I'm not saying they are the only ones to do it, but it does seem like it's becoming quite the trend and it's annoying as **** to see a segment of the country just refuse to accept reality. No, the polls don't mean Hillary is going to win. At all. Should they worry Trump supporters? Yes, they should. Can the ground be made up? Of course. But not if Trump and his supporters just stick their head in the ground and assume that everyone is just out to get them any time they hear something they don't like. The two groups in america that are currently pissing me off the most and on a regular basis are the liberal twatty kids on college campuses talking about trigger warnings and safe spaces and getting PTSD because someone said something all the while they are trying to limit other peoples free speech, and conservatives who do nothing but play the victim card and talk all day about how they are constantly called racist, and are victims of reverse racism, and are being so greatly marginalized because there's no white entertainment television channel and how Christianity is being attacked. And they both piss me off because they are so similar in such different ways. But at least the college twats don't act all manly and self reliant all the while complaining about every conceivable sleight against them all day long.
Click to expand...

It's not that they "asked more Democrats", though that's related. It's that they asked a disproportional number of Democrats. That causes an automatic error in the numbers...in this case, in Hillary's favor. But the numbers in the poll are still wrong.

So...you add two such bogus polls to the rest and calculate the average and you end up with a skew in Hillary's favor. That makes RCP's average useless...at least until those bogus polls are no longer used in their calculation.

In any case, it's not a case of wanting to "throw out all items that you don't like". It's a case of tossing polls that are deliberately designed to 1) give the impression to the low-information voters that Hillary is doing better than she actually is and...2) falsely skew the RCP average.


The rest of your post is quite irrelevant to the topic and therefore...dismissed.
 
Mycroft said:
It's not that they "asked more Democrats", though that's related. It's that they asked a disproportional number of Democrats. That causes an automatic error in the numbers...in this case, in Hillary's favor. But the numbers in the poll are still wrong.
Click to expand...

Disproportionate by what standard? Can you give me a source for this? You have to understand that when a random person on a forum declares that a long standing reputable national polling firm is purposefully skewing their polls it's quite an accusation and it would be nice to have a source so I can see where the truth lies.

Mycroft said:
In any case, it's not a case of wanting to "throw out all items that you don't like". It's a case of tossing polls that are deliberately designed to 1) give the impression to the low-information voters that Hillary is doing better than she actually is and...2) falsely skew the RCP average.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Please demonstrate that they are deliberately designed to give that impression and that it's not just a case of "I don't like it" as it was in 2012. You are making an astounding claim. I'd love to see evidence of it. As I pointed out, and you completely ignored, they have a fairly good history of accurate polling. They are by no means inaccurate. Yes, this poll is higher than the others, and very likely the truth is closer to the other polls, but it's very very possible that the truth is between the two high polls and the more abundant lower polls.

Mycroft said:
The rest of your post is quite irrelevant to the topic and therefore...dismissed.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure. :ssst:
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
Disproportionate by what standard? Can you give me a source for this? You have to understand that when a random person on a forum declares that a long standing reputable national polling firm is purposefully skewing their polls it's quite an accusation and it would be nice to have a source so I can see where the truth lies.


Very good point. Please demonstrate that they are deliberately designed to give that impression and that it's not just a case of "I don't like it" as it was in 2012. You are making an astounding claim. I'd love to see evidence of it. As I pointed out, and you completely ignored, they have a fairly good history of accurate polling. They are by no means inaccurate. Yes, this poll is higher than the others, and very likely the truth is closer to the other polls, but it's very very possible that the truth is between the two high polls and the more abundant lower polls.



I'm quite sure. :ssst:
Click to expand...

Blog: Shocker: CBS News and ABC/WaPo find that liberal-biased polls disfavor Trump

And no...ABC/WaPo do NOT have a very good history of accuracy. Rather they are consistently biased in the liberal direction. I suggest a search to see the numerous examples of such bias.
 
Mycroft said:
Blog: Shocker: CBS News and ABC/WaPo find that liberal-biased polls disfavor Trump

And no...ABC/WaPo do NOT have a very good history of accuracy. Rather they are consistently biased in the liberal direction. I suggest a search to see the numerous examples of such bias.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the blog you sourced is using the exact same argument that was used in 2012 to diminish the polls? Can you point out a single difference between this and the argument that started "unskewed polls" in 2012? Yea, this poll has more democrats than republicans. The polling that they did in 2012 also had more democrats than republicans. And guess what? They were right. Beyond that, notoriously accurate pollster guru nate silver at 538 has rated ABC/Wapo polling as "A+". It's hilarious. This poll is probably on the very top side of the margin of error, or maybe it really just is an outlier, which happens, but to suggest a systematic effort that would undermine their entire organization, and to do it more than 4 months out from the election, before the conventions even, when it means very very little, is a stupid suggestion by every conceivable measure.
 
imyoda said:
New ABC/WaPo Poll: Hillary +12 Points - Joe.My.God.
New ABC/WaPo Poll: Hillary +12 Points

“……….Following a month of self-inflicted controversies, the survey shows that support for Trump is plunging, including among fellow Republicans, and propelling Democrat Hillary Clinton to a double-digit lead nationally. The poll reveals fresh doubts about Trump within his own party just three weeks before Republicans convene in Cleveland for their national convention…………..

The survey finds broad objections to Trump’s candidacy — from his incendiary rhetoric and values to his handling of both terrorism and his own business — foreshadowing that the November election could be a referendum on Trump more than anything else.

Roughly 2 in 3 Americans say that they think Trump is unqualified to lead the nation………
SEE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page.../26/National-Politics/Polling/release_428.xml

I know some folks here argue the polls are "fixed".........

But what cannot be denied is all of them have an ever increasing difference between HRC and Trump........

HRC is up

Trump is down
Click to expand...

Washington (CNN)A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump by just two points, 42% to 40%, a much closer race than other recent surveys have shown.

With third-party candidates included, Clinton leads 39% to 37%, with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 8% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 4%.


Poll: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump run neck-and-neck - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

Polls are polls. By their very nature they vary a bit here and there. So just keep blowing your smoke, if it makes you happy.
 
I wonder which 3rd party candidate is going to big enough and middle grounded enough to steal the election?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roughdraft274 said:
You do realize that the blog you sourced is using the exact same argument that was used in 2012 to diminish the polls? Can you point out a single difference between this and the argument that started "unskewed polls" in 2012? Yea, this poll has more democrats than republicans. The polling that they did in 2012 also had more democrats than republicans. And guess what? They were right. Beyond that, notoriously accurate pollster guru nate silver at 538 has rated ABC/Wapo polling as "A+". It's hilarious. This poll is probably on the very top side of the margin of error, or maybe it really just is an outlier, which happens, but to suggest a systematic effort that would undermine their entire organization, and to do it more than 4 months out from the election, before the conventions even, when it means very very little, is a stupid suggestion by every conceivable measure.
Click to expand...

All that means is that the tactic worked back in 2012...which is a good reason to attempt the tactic again, don't you think? But it doesn't mean the tactic is a good thing.
 
blackjack50 said:
I wonder which 3rd party candidate is going to big enough and middle grounded enough to steal the election?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

None.

However, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary drop out and Biden step in. If that happens, we'll be addressing him as President Biden.

The only consolation to that happening is that Biden will be less harmful to our country than either Obama has been or Hillary will be.
 
Mycroft said:
All that means is that the tactic worked back in 2012...which is a good reason to attempt the tactic again, don't you think? But it doesn't mean the tactic is a good thing.
Click to expand...

The tactic worked? The tactic of what? Producing accurate polls? I mean, now you don't even have an argument I guess. Do you even understand why there are more democrats being polled in general? Or do you not care to educate yourself on the matter?
 
roughdraft274 said:
The tactic worked? The tactic of what? Producing accurate polls? I mean, now you don't even have an argument I guess. Do you even understand why there are more democrats being polled in general? Or do you not care to educate yourself on the matter?
Click to expand...

The tactic of using "inaccurate" polls in the hopes of influencing the low information voters with false information. It worked in 2012 and it's being attempted again in 2016.

It's not working with intelligent voters because they are smart enough to see the purpose of those bogus polls. But others aren't. Those are the people the Democrats are trying to influence.

Are you smart enough to understand this tactic? Or do you approve of lying polls if they help your chosen candidate win? Do the ends justify the means?
 
Mycroft said:
The tactic of using "inaccurate" polls in the hopes of influencing the low information voters with false information. It worked in 2012 and it's being attempted again in 2016.

It's not working with intelligent voters because they are smart enough to see the purpose of those bogus polls. But others aren't. Those are the people the Democrats are trying to influence.

Are you smart enough to understand this tactic? Or do you approve of lying polls if they help your chosen candidate win? Do the ends justify the means?
Click to expand...

Obviously, any result that is different from the one you insist upon can't be due to something like actual democracy in action, but instead MUST be because those doggone lib'ruls somehow manipulated the people into voting for the lib'rul candidate, huh? There's absolutely no chance that the majority of the American people might vote just opposite of the way you expect.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Obviously, any result that is different from the one you insist upon can't be due to something like actual democracy in action, but instead MUST be because those doggone lib'ruls somehow manipulated the people into voting for the lib'rul candidate, huh? There's absolutely no chance that the majority of the American people might vote just opposite of the way you expect.
Click to expand...

shrug...

The proof of the manipulation is there. Whether you accept the proof is another thing.

I know facts can be quite inconvenient and the tendency of some people is to just deny or ignore the facts.

So it goes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom