Reuters Baffled As Clinton's Lead Over Trump Suddenly Evaporates

Time Magazine Image, Reuters Graphics, RealClearPolitics on zero hedge ^ | 6AUG16 | Reuters, RealClearPolitics copied by Tyler Durden

[vannrox]

Reuters Baffled As Clinton's Lead Over Trump Suddenly Evaporates

by Tyler Durden

Aug 6, 2016 2:55 PM

0

SHARES

We're gonna need another polling methodology 'tweak'...

Having seen her poll numbers suddenly explode higher (and Trump's collapse) following Reuters' decision to tweak its polling methodology, it appears we just witnessed 'Peak Hillary' as Reuters reports Clinton's lead over Trump has tumbled back to just 3 points (the poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points) meaning, as Reuters is forced to admit, that the results suggest the race is roughly even...

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.

 

About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump's 39 percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly even. Among registered voters over the same period, Clinton held a lead of five percentage points, down from eight percentage points on Monday, according to the poll.

Reuters tweaked data shows Hillary's lead has peaked...

Reuters subtly points out the folly of their survey respondents...

Clinton had pulled well ahead of Trump on the heels of the Democratic National Convention last week, where she became the first woman to accept the U.S. presidential nomination from a major political party.

 

Since then, Trump has engaged in a days-long feud with the family of an American soldier killed in Iraq and squabbled with the Republican leadership over his comments and leadership turmoil within his campaign.

But as RealClearPolitics' aggregated data shows, the swings are dramatic to say the least...

 

The noise in these polling numbers is incredible and prompted MishTalk's Mike Shedlock to take a caustic look at the prognostications of the web's forecasters... Peter Atwater, President of Financial Insyghts and Author of Moods and Markets asked an interesting question today: “Have we reached peak Hillary yet?” 

In Atwater’s tweet, he posted a flashback to this January 2014 Time Magazine cover.

The answer to the question “Can anyone stop Hillary?” is pretty obvious: Yes, Trump can easily win if he can ever learn to control his mouth (a recession hits or some dirt that matters comes out on Hillary that matters).

Ridiculous Forecasts

I watch with amusement as Nate Silver posts his ridiculous forecasts on the Presidential Election Odds.

Rest assured, Hillary does not have a 79% chance of winning.

Pure Idiocy

• Supposedly, Hillary has a 79.9% chance of winning in November as of today.
• Supposedly, Trump had a 50.1% chance of winning in November on July 31, just four days ago!
• Supposedly, Hillary had a 77.4% chance of winning in November on July 12.

This is pure idiocy.

Silver is clearly taking the news of the day and projecting it out to November when voters clearly have a time span of about three days.

How Silver can look himself in a mirror and make such widely varying off the wall predictions is a mystery.

Social Mood

Atwater had a second tweet today that is quite interesting...

It says a lot about current social mood when a modest rise in people's level of happiness can upend a candidate. pic.twitter.com/Us4EFpYV3I

— Peter Atwater (@Peter_Atwater) August 4, 2016

Social Mood is clearly in control here.

 

 

Silver is totally clueless about what social mood will be in November, just as he was totally clueless about social mood the entire Republican nomination process.

*  *  *

We leave it to Reuters themselves to conclude with their thoughts on the drop in Hillary's support and revival of Trump...

The reasons behind the shift were unclear.

Unclear indeed.

[Dr. Sivana]

She made a huge strategic error, picking Kaine as her running mate.

Whom should she have picked instead? Dems have a thin bench, and some of them like flunked vetting.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Dems have a thin bench, and some of them like flunked vetting.

That's really saying something (the vetting part), considering who they are running as a presidential candidate.

[jetson]

It’s all BS. Trump is going to win. The cheating just has to be addressed before the elections.

[Eddie01]

Silver understands unreported political hits.

[Liz]

I have no idea what Hillary's VP requirements are. Clearly, she figured Kaine was an asset.....b/c why would she pick him?

She and Bill have big plans....to romp allover the US Treasury.

The Clinton's looting and pillaging will have no equal in American history.

So, if anything, her VP should be somebody who would be OK w/ that.

[randita]

If one is going to live and die by the polls, then IMO, it’s foolish to pick and choose the polls that look good for your candidate (especially ones done by the same pollster with the same methodology) and find numerous flaws with the ones that don’t.

If there are flaws with the polls (same pollster/same methodology) that don’t favor your candidate, wouldn’t it make sense that there are flaws with ones that do?

It makes more sense to look at overall trends. The trend last week was very bad for Trump, but the trend over the past few days looks as if he has staunched the bleeding and is starting to rebound a bit.

People really do not like Shrillary and the email scandal keeps rearing its ugly head.

[Ted Grant]

There’s something she didn’t figure when she chose such a weak, weird looking little guy as her running mate.

She came across as seeking out a beta make to help her lead.

Armchair pydchols, have at it!

[MayflowerMadam]

This morning I was thinking that Trump’s PACs should spam the airwaves with 30-second clips by Rudy (everyone loves Rudy!), those sports coaches (don’t do sports - can’t recall their names), Jamiel whose son was murdered by an illegal, Benghazi mothers, Ivanka, etc. Show them during breaks in shows like “American Idol” and such where non-political-junkies spend their time. Cram as much pith into each clip and dumb it down.

All of these surrogates can spend hours as talking heads on news shows and at rallies, but probably 80% of voters wouldn’t turn on one of those shows in a million years.

[bankwalker]

She would’ve done much better with Jim Webb.

[ctdonath2]

I recall that the big talk on FR was the inevitability of Romney winning. And McCain at his time.
Wanting Trump to win, whether or not he will, won’t make him win.
If he’s behind in the polls, be concerned - don’t just rationalize an explanation why they’re wrong.

[Crolis]

I think Jim Webb is on record saying he will not vote for Hillary. I think even Webb thinks she is a fraud.

[Dr. Sivana]

She would’ve done much better with Jim Webb.

I think a prerequisite is he cannot goo off the reservation. Webb might be too much his own man for her to accept.

[IronJack]

Especially puzzled since they rigged their numbers specifically to forestall that happening. Someone in the Creative Lies division is going to get sacked.

[Cowgirl of Justice]

The only commercials running in Raleigh are Hillary and anti-Trump.

[sergeantdave]

“If he’s behind in the polls, be concerned - don’t just rationalize an explanation why they’re wrong.”

And all the polls had Jeb Bush winning the Republican presidential primary.

The polls had Trump losing the Florida primary.

The polls had Scott walker losing the 2012 Wisconsin recall election by five points. He won by 7 points. That’s a 12 point error.

Those are three examples of many erroneous polls.

[Chewbarkah]

The RCP chart of aggregated polls certainly shows the enthusiasm gap. Hillary is far ahead in the Registered Voter polls the media uses to promote her, but leads a statistically meaningless 1% with Likely Voters.

Obama’s popular vote margin of victory in 2012 was about 4 million votes. This 4M was covered by the Dem “overvote” in New York and California. If you give Hillary the NY and CA electoral votes, and examine only the poll results for the entire rest of the US, the story becomes a large Trump lead, not +1 for Hillary. Obviously, state by state polls are what matter at this stage.

[WalterSkinner]

..Pat Caddell blew the lid off of Reuter’s cooked numbers—don’t believe them...

[RitaOK]

FOXMegyn News Corp was bad on TRUMP Saturday. One wimp interviewed a HRC supporter. The guest criticised TRUMP using No tell.

FOX wimp asked if this was the same Morrel who now works for the firm that supports Hillary? That was it. Guest lady said “no” and launched into Morell’s fine resume. Wimp blinked and moved on.

It begins.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The Sunday shows this morning are gleefully announcing Trump’s campaign is imploding and he’s basically done. They are like a pack of rabid bats.

[Grampa Dave]

CONFIRMED: Pollsters Loading Polls with Democrats to Give Hillary a Lead Over Trump

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/new-polls/ ^ | August 2, 2016 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 8/3/2016, 1:02:43 PM by NKP_Vet

Donald Trump shattered the previous GOP primary record by 1.4 million votes this year — and that was with 17 candidates in the race!

Hillary Clinton received 1.5 million fewer votes this year than she did in 2008 - when she lost!
Democrats are in a panic. So leave it to the media to jump in and help their candidate. Reuters tweaked their polling methods this week to give Hillary a lead.

Reuters -Ipsos used more than 100 more Democrats in their poll to give Hillary a lead over Donald Trump. Does anyone in their right mind think DEMOCRATS will have more people voting this year than Republicans?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3456146/posts