Trump overtakes Clinton in poll average for first time - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has overtaken Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in an average of head-to-head national polls, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Trump leads Clinton by 0.2 percentage points, 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent in the average, overtaking the Democratic front-runner for the first time in the average of polls. Several recent surveys have shown Trump with an advantage over Clinton. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted May 16–19 shows a tight race between the two candidates, with Trump holding a 2-point lead over Clinton. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted May 17–18 had the presumptive GOP nominee up 5 points over Clinton. A recent Fox News poll also showed Trump with a lead. Clinton's lead over Trump has been decreasing over the past several weeks, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls.[/QUOTE] [url]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280848-trump-overtakes-clinton-in-rcp-average[/url] Inevitable. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Quit spamming these threads" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50375095]"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.[/QUOTE] "What's a trend?"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50375095]"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.[/QUOTE] what? Trump is tied with Clinton when we all thought it would be an easy 60 40 win for Clinton. This is news, whether you like it or not.

[Quote]Ok disagree with 70 % of Americawho think of liar when they think of old lady[/Quote] The comment section on this article is art.

The trumpeth approaches

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50375095]"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.[/QUOTE] There is an unfortunate trend with this. Like it or not.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50375110]what? Trump is tied with Clinton when we all thought it would be an easy 60 40 win for Clinton. This is news, whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] So let's take a look at sources. This is being posted by Reshy, who apparently has nothing better to do than post every single bit of anti-Hillary news he finds. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong but it doesn't indicate that it's right, either, since I'm pretty sure the National Inquirer could have a "Hillary eats babies" headline and Reshy would have it reposted here within an hour. The direct source here is a site called "The Hill", whom I have not hear of. Some quick research shows them to be at least decent, at least as far as any newspaper can be, but poking around the site shows that they will cover basically anything Congressional/Presidential, no matter how small. So while this source is an indication that it's probably not wholly falsified, it doesn't necessarily mean anything in the long run. The Hill did not do the averaging themselves, though. That was done by RealClearPolitics, whom I also have not heard of. Some background research shows them to be only a news/data aggregator, not an independent source, but this is an average after all, so looking to an aggregator is perfectly fine. While RCP doesn't explicitly list their methods, it's implied (and the math confirms) that it's a simple arithmetic mean of five polls - ABC/WaPo, NBC/WSJ, Fox, CBS/NYT, and Rasmussen. Fox has a well-known conservative bias (it was literally one of their founding principles), and Rasmussen also has a history of inaccurately overstating the conservative side. Now, there are also pollsters with a distinct liberal bias present, but basically what this boils down to is garbage data in, garbage results out. Particularly since, even with all five polls combined, less than 5000 people were polled. So this particular set of polls isn't particularly trustworthy even without further context, but there's another issue: Bernie fucking Sanders. The primaries have not concluded yet, and Sanders could conceivably run as a third-party. So 30-40% of Democrats have not had to mentally accept Clinton's candidacy. Trump's polls similarly suffered until Cruz and Kasich finally dropped out. In a few weeks when the conventions happen, unless Bernie starts a real third-party campaign, Clinton's numbers will jump considerably. I guess my ultimate point here is "small polls this far from Election Day are pointless except for zealots to have something to yell about", which is... exactly what we see here.

Just for the record, [url=https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1055601034478814/]Hillary Clinton has never, I repeat, NEVER, been able to reverse a polling trend.[/url] Not with senate elections, not with presidential campaign primaries. This is a statistical fact. If this trend exists, and it's plausible that it does, then that's a major issue for Secretary Clinton going into November. What worries me most is that if Clinton takes the nomination and then loses in November, that the Democrats might use the defeat to stoke their anti-progressive smear campaign. i.e., "See what Bernie did to us?" Not good, not good at all. And this is the party that voluntarily favorites a candidate with the second-highest unfavorability rating in the history of all U.S. presidential candidates. The one exception? Donald Trump. What a year...

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]So let's take a look at sources. This is being posted by Reshy, who apparently has nothing better to do than post every single bit of anti-Hillary news he finds. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong but it doesn't indicate that it's right, either, since I'm pretty sure the National Inquirer could have a "Hillary eats babies" headline and Reshy would have it reposted here within an hour. The direct source here is a site called "The Hill", whom I have not hear of. Some quick research shows them to be at least decent, at least as far as any newspaper can be, but poking around the site shows that they will cover basically anything Congressional/Presidential, no matter how small. So while this source is an indication that it's probably not wholly falsified, it doesn't necessarily mean anything in the long run. The Hill did not do the averaging themselves, though. That was done by RealClearPolitics, whom I also have not heard of. Some background research shows them to be only a news/data aggregator, not an independent source, but this is an average after all, so looking to an aggregator is perfectly fine. While RCP doesn't explicitly list their methods, it's implied (and the math confirms) that it's a simple arithmetic mean of five polls - ABC/WaPo, NBC/WSJ, Fox, CBS/NYT, and Rasmussen. Fox has a well-known conservative bias (it was literally one of their founding principles), and Rasmussen also has a history of inaccurately overstating the conservative side. Now, there are also pollsters with a distinct liberal bias present, but basically what this boils down to is garbage data in, garbage results out. Particularly since, even with all five polls combined, less than 5000 people were polled. So this particular set of polls isn't particularly trustworthy even without further context, but there's another issue: Bernie fucking Sanders. The primaries have not concluded yet, and Sanders could conceivably run as a third-party. So 30-40% of Democrats have not had to mentally accept Clinton's candidacy. Trump's polls similarly suffered until Cruz and Kasich finally dropped out. In a few weeks when the conventions happen, unless Bernie starts a real third-party campaign, Clinton's numbers will jump considerably. I guess my ultimate point here is "small polls this far from Election Day are pointless except for zealots to have something to yell about", which is... exactly what we see here.[/QUOTE] The RealClearPolitics averages have been quoted in basically every single thread on polls on this forum. It's hard for me to believe you've never heard of it. Also, Bernie won't run as a third party. It's funny how you call people zealots for posting a totally legit piece of news and say totally unfounded, zealot like, ideas about Sanders.

Ok I swear I've seen this headline like once a week for the past month. It's just propaganda

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]In a few weeks when the conventions happen, unless Bernie starts a real third-party campaign, Clinton's numbers will jump considerably.[/QUOTE] It sounds like you haven't met very many Sanders supporters. A lot of these folks will never vote for Hillary Clinton. The number of those who will is dwindling by the day, so I'd advise you against taking their votes for granted. (Particularly if the DNC tries to pull more bait-and-switch BS at the convention.) RealClearPolitics is one of the most reliable polling/analysis sites on the net. This isn't exactly Rasmussen we're talking about.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50375244]The RealClearPolitics averages have been quoted in basically every single thread on polls on this forum. It's hard for me to believe you've never heard of it.[/QUOTE] I usually avoid the politics threads on this forum, they seem to be mostly fanboys for one side yelling at fanboys for another, without regard for who's actually right and no middle grounds accepted.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;50375248]Ok I swear I've seen this headline like once a week for the past month. It's just propaganda[/QUOTE] I doubt it since it's the first time it's happened.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50375110]what? Trump is tied with Clinton when we all thought it would be an easy 60 40 win for Clinton. This is news, whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] Romney was supposed to tie with Obama too, but that didn't work out and he had an even broader base than trump

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50375095]"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.[/QUOTE] you give bernie supporters shit for being in denial

wouldn't it be better to accept that maybe trump is pulling ahead and work to do something about it rather than ignoring it, saying "it doesn't matter" or "it doesn't mean anything"?

What part of unstumpable does she not understand?

[QUOTE=wystan;50375385]What part of unstumpable does she not understand?[/QUOTE] They said the Titanic was unsinkable and look what happened to that.

[QUOTE=kyle877;50375396]They said the Titanic was unsinkable and look what happened to that.[/QUOTE] titanic didnt have glorious hair :buddy:

Trumps not gonna win because becoming president without the support of minorities is statistically impossible. There simply isn't enough white people anymore.

[QUOTE=kyle877;50375396]They said the Titanic was unsinkable and look what happened to that.[/QUOTE] Well I don't expect Donald Trump to crash into an iceberg and sink to the freezing depths of the North Atlantic any time soon, but fingers crossed.

[QUOTE=kyle877;50375396]They said the Titanic was unsinkable and look what happened to that.[/QUOTE] If Trump were a boat then he's already crashed into dozens of icebergs that should've sunk him, yet he remains afloat.

If America is going to get fucked up either way you may aswell go the whole hog.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]This is being posted by Reshy, who apparently has nothing better to do than post every single bit of anti-Hillary news he finds. [/quote] I'm female, thanks. [QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong but it doesn't indicate that it's right, either, since I'm pretty sure the National Inquirer could have a "Hillary eats babies" headline and Reshy would have it reposted here within an hour.[/quote] Thanks for the vote of confidence. [QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]The direct source here is a site called "The Hill", whom I have not hear of. Some quick research shows them to be at least decent, at least as far as any newspaper can be, but poking around the site shows that they will cover basically anything Congressional/Presidential, no matter how small. So while this source is an indication that it's probably not wholly falsified, it doesn't necessarily mean anything in the long run.[/quote] "I am digging for biases." [QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]The Hill did not do the averaging themselves, though. That was done by RealClearPolitics, whom I also have not heard of. Some background research shows them to be only a news/data aggregator, not an independent source, but this is an average after all, so looking to an aggregator is perfectly fine.[/quote] "I literally have no idea what these people are, but I know I am averse to it." [QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]While RCP doesn't explicitly list their methods, it's implied (and the math confirms) that it's a simple arithmetic mean of five polls - ABC/WaPo, NBC/WSJ, Fox, CBS/NYT, and Rasmussen. Fox has a well-known conservative bias (it was literally one of their founding principles), and Rasmussen also has a history of inaccurately overstating the conservative side. Now, there are also pollsters with a distinct liberal bias present, but basically what this boils down to is garbage data in, garbage results out. Particularly since, even with all five polls combined, less than 5000 people were polled. So this particular set of polls isn't particularly trustworthy even without further context, but there's another issue: Bernie fucking Sanders. The primaries have not concluded yet, and Sanders could conceivably run as a third-party. So 30-40% of Democrats have not had to mentally accept Clinton's candidacy. Trump's polls similarly suffered until Cruz and Kasich finally dropped out. In a few weeks when the conventions happen, unless Bernie starts a real third-party campaign, Clinton's numbers will jump considerably.[/quote] "Facts are inconvenient." [QUOTE=gman003-main;50375208]I guess my ultimate point here is "small polls this far from Election Day are pointless except for zealots to have something to yell about", which is... exactly what we see here.[/QUOTE] "We should ignore a problem till it becomes a crisis."

Whichever way this election goes everyone still loses.

[QUOTE=mcharest;50375219]Just for the record, [url=https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1055601034478814/]Hillary Clinton has never, I repeat, NEVER, been able to reverse a polling trend.[/url] Not with senate elections, not with presidential campaign primaries. This is a statistical fact. If this trend exists, and it's plausible that it does, then that's a major issue for Secretary Clinton going into November. What worries me most is that if Clinton takes the nomination and then loses in November, that the Democrats might use the defeat to stoke their anti-progressive smear campaign. i.e., "See what Bernie did to us?" Not good, not good at all. And this is the party that voluntarily favorites a candidate with the second-highest unfavorability rating in the history of all U.S. presidential candidates. The one exception? Donald Trump. What a year...[/QUOTE] Alternatively young people/progressives/liberals might be motivated to participate in the next election and someone like Elizabeth Warren might get a shot at presidency.

I feel like it'd be better organised to have a single thread to discuss election opinion polls. It'd probably be a nightmare to moderate, though

I don't know if we are going to be as fucked as we think we might be if either one get's to be president. Both are largely unpopular with the ruling class and if Obama's term means anything that means nothing will get passed. At worse Trump's supporters would probably start rioting, but this will only prove the hypocrisy of them, and will put a nail in the coffin that is the GOP. In basics, this will be the last "traditional" election.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50375095]"0.2%" Stop the election, get Hillary to concede. Let's cancel November, it's a done deal.[/QUOTE] Holy crap we get it you really like Clinton.