Posted on 11/05/2016 3:15:52 AM PDT by FlyingFish
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump remained all tied for the fourth straight day, 44% to 44%, despite continuing revelations surrounding the FBI's investigation into Clinton's emails and a possible "pay for play" scandal at the family Clinton Foundation, according to the latest IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll.
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gets 5% in the poll, while Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein remains stuck at 2%.
In a head-to-head matchup excluding the third-party candidates, Hillary leads Trump 46% to 43.4%. A day earlier, Clinton stood at 45% to Trump's 43.8%.
With just three days until Election Day, Clinton holds a 44.2% to 43.7% lead, or half a percentage point, in the unrounded IBD/TIPP polling data.
Breaking the two candidates' support down further, some patterns have emerged. Trump is leading among all voters over age 45, while Clinton comfortably leads among the 18-44 set. Women and men are mirror images, with men preferring Trump over Clinton 48% to 40%, while women prefer Clinton over Trump by the exact same numbers.
Trump also wins the votes of all voters earning over $50,000 a year, while Hillary runs strongest among those who earn less than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Only about 4% undecided. That’s gone down a little.
The poll is way off - D +7 and the best Hillary can do is manage a tie or cling to a tiny lead?
It won’t hold if turnout isn’t D +7 and it won’t be.
I have a problem with this poll’s methodology that doesn’t make sense.
Consistently, Trump gets less in a 2-person race than with 4.
So I emailed one of the authors.
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 3:29 AM
To: Terry Jones -terry.jones@investors.com-
Subject: Binary Question on Prez Poll Nov. 2
The 4-candidate Clinton-Trump score is 44.0-44.4.
The 2-candidate score is 44.0-44.2. Trump’s score is less.
But since the binary choice should be only offered to those who did not choose Clinton or Trump initially, the scores should only be the same or higher for both. (Respondent can still refuse to choose either.)
I’ll report your explanation of the discrepancy to freerepublic.com.
Thank you.
############
From: Terry Jones -terry.jones@investors.com-
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: Binary Question on Prez Poll Nov. 2
I talked to our pollster and here’s why the numbers come out the way they do.
In the poll, voters are asked first who they support: Clinton or Trump.
But since the actual ballot will include four candidates, the next question we ask is which of the four candidates they plan to vote for. Some of Clinton supporters in the two-way question shifted to the other two candidates, and some of Trump’s do. (On some days, more shifted out of the Clinton column in this poll.)
Then, those who said they “don’t know” which of the four they will vote for are asked which way they are leaning. And these leaners then get assigned to the candidates to which they say they are leaning. But even then, 3.7% still say they don’t know 1.6% say they are leaning to someone other than those four.
The reason for including leaners is that the poll is trying to accurately gauge the actual election results. The net result of all this is the percentages reported in the poll.
Hope this helps.
Terry Jones
Commentary Editor, IBD
############
Mr. Jones,
Thank you for responding.
Strictly my opinion, but it doesn’t make any sense. There doesn’t seem to actually be a two-candidate choice.
I have read the questionaires of the other polling agencies whose results for both 4 and 2 candidates are reported in the Real Clear Politics averages. The others start by listing the 4 tickets in random order. Then, in subsequent questions only to those who chose other than Clinton or Trump initially, respondents are asked to choose between those two which are added for the two-candidate result. Those who still refuse the two major candidates go to other or not sure. Thus the two-candidate results are always higher for Clinton and Trump than when there were 4 options.
The IBD poll questions are backwards, so it sometimes has fewer votes for Clinton or Trump as if they were the only choices than when other choices are available. This is counter intuitive.
I hope you will convey my opinion to your pollster. (I’m not a pro but I do have a political science B.S.)
Regards
Its just garbage.
And the poll’s finding rests on the assumption Hillary will get the same or even a higher D turnout than Obama.
We already know from early voting that’s not true.
They know the raw unweighted finding is R +2 but they don’t take the data at face value and they try to shoehorn it into a 2012 turnout model.
It makes sense if the model is correct. If it isn’t, the poll falls apart.
I think you are right, IBD has it backwards. They should ask the four-way question first. For their first question they ask: Clinton or Trump; then, after that they ask: Clinton, Trump, Johnson or Stein. Seems odd you would first ask peoples’ opinion on a contest that does not exist, which might only serve to bias subsequent questions, including the real 4-way contest.
Pollsters still trying to pass off 2012 demographics, and Clinton still can’t do better than a tie in a 4-way race.
Why do pollsters still give us worthless two-way numbers? It's pure propaganda. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all fifty states plus D.C., regardless of if pollsters want to acknowledge his existence.
I wish there was a law against “polls”. Of course, they’re all true, remember you read about them on the internet.
At this point in the race the head to head number is totally irrelevant, I'm not even sure why pollsters are still polling it. It's not as if Johnson and Stein are going to drop out of the race in the next 72 hours and with early voting averaging about ~5% for Johnson and ~2% for Stein. These totals are pretty much already "baked in" to the final outcome. I know there is some evidence that support for third party candidates tends to collapse near the end of the campaign as voters decide not to "waste" their vote, but as I said, that hasn't happened yet and many have already early voted and those votes aren't going away.
I’m assuming Investor’ Business Daily only polls those whose businesses depend on investing daily in Cankles’ campaign.
USC poll has Trump up over 5 points today which seems more in line with the way the state polls are going. Reports are that Hillary is now forced to make campaign stops in states that were once considered Democratic locks.
The poll has several big holes.
D+7 is the Obama turnout and we are probably looking at D+0 with a white Democratic nominee.
The libertarian is not getting 5%, probably closer to 1 or 2.
The “undecided” are mostly lying. We know that based on previous presidential races. Many undecided won’t vote. The true undecideds who will vote three days before an election are in the 3-4% range, and they normally vote against the incumbent or proxy incumbent by a 2 to 1 margin.
Trump +8, 9, or 10 is the real number imho.
We also know from Rasmussen that the 100% decided group is now T +10.
Not good.
Look at this Breitbart story about a last tied poll in 2012:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/11/06/politico-final-poll-obama-romney/
We know what happened. Pray this reverses.
...as sure as the sun rises...
I’m honestly at the point where the mods need to give him a time out until the election.
Since day one when this tracker was heralded as the litmus test—and showed Trump leading—it has seemed to do nothing but prop her up.
Pessimism: 1. A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view: “We have seen too much defeatism, too much pessimism, too much of a negative approach” (Margo Jones).
Just stop posting until November 9th please. So annoying with the “Not good” on every post.
Just as personal experience, it is a crap shoot if the under-30 crowd even bothers to come out and vote. In 2008, they bought into the load of sh*t the Kenyan Klown was pedding. Animosity and loathing of the Marxist-In-Chief aside, he was affable and almost likable. This was part of the reason deluded youth voted for him in droves. In 2016, the same cannot be said of the Hildebeast. She is strident and nagging in tone, very off putting. Maybe I fail to see the b*tch’s ‘charm’, but I cannot see the young vote going to someone that looks and sounds like a nastier, older, sicklier version of someone’s maiden aunt.
The polls aren’t good for Hillary because obviously the Dems are desperate.
For example, is this (now trending on Twitter) their attempt at a November surprise? Accusing Trump of an affair (10 years ago):
Hillary’s strategy is to keep pulling the Trump is a misogynist card (that’ what her ads are centered on). There’s nothing positive - she’s not touting her positions like Trump and she doesn’t have an amazing record to run on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.