Posted on 05/22/2016 12:43:14 AM PDT by GonzoII
There’s a whole lot of good news and ‘splodey head angst in the latest ABC/Washington Post national poll (full pdf below). The poll sample size of 1005 includes a mix of 33% Democrat, 27% Republican and 35% Independent. Democrats over sampled by eight points, (D+8).
However, even with the sample skew (D+8) Donald Trump still beats Hillary Clinton 46% to 44%, and Trump is crushing Clinton with Independent voters 48% to 35%.
In addition to the overwhelming 13 point polling lead among independent voters, the same poll shows that 20% of Bernie Sanders supporters will vote for Donald Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Great graphic in post 1
There were more democrats than republicans voting in 2012 - that is why Obama won, Sherlock.
In fact, the percent of republican representatives in the House exceeded their vote by a fairly wide margin, which is why the democrats complained about republican gerrymandering, again.
She will use well-funded surrogates and it will be effective. She and her surrogate army could make it a real contest. And don’t forget the voter fraud. Trump has to win big to beat the fraud.
This will not be a cake-walk.
There is more straight ticket voting now than there has been in two generations. That is why the republicans were panicking about losing both the house and senate just a few weeks ago since so many voters are straight ticket voters now. Since the polls are much better now, republicans should still keep the house, but keeping the senate is going to be a bit iffy.
I can see Hillary offering Carly a fat check to slam The Donald in a few speeches. And I can see Carly taking that check to pay off some expenses from her failed campaign.
Anyone have a link to PDF of cross tabs for NBC/Wall St poll?
Absolutely. Carly is an unprincipled hag, just like Hillary. If Carly were Hispanic, she’d probably be Hillary’s VP choice, or at least on her list.
Look, if you will check your attitude at the door, we can have a civil discussion. Otherwise, you can go pound sand.
I followed up with a posting that cited the 2012 results. It was nearly identical to 2008. Neither was D+8, despite your own admission that Republican vote was depressed. That's why a D+8 sample for this election is not reasonable -- something like 2000 is more representative, with a Republican challenger after 2 years of a divisive Democrat President and the Democrat candidate considered a heir apparent. That was D+3.
In fact, the percent of republican representatives in the House exceeded their vote by a fairly wide margin, which is why the democrats complained about republican gerrymandering, again.
Back in the 80's, it was the opposite: Democrats had more House seats than the vote distribution, and for the same reason: gerrymandering.
Republicans started a concerted effort to take control of state legislatures, and it has paid off. In the past 8 years of Obama, it's actually gotten worse for the Democrats.
It will continue until the Democrats start taking back control of state legislatures. But, that's will be difficult when Democrat control tends to lead to financial mismanagement, followed by tax increases, and people migrate to Republican-held states.
Presidential elections always have more democrats voting because many blacks and Hispanics don't vote in off year elections. 2012 was the first year that blacks voted in a greater percentage than whites.
The other thing is that polls are as of today. A poll today is not necessarily reflective of November, it is if the election is held today. I have to assume that the democrat +8 percent will vary. If it is a bad election for the democrats, their turnout will be depressed and republicans could very well be competitive in turnout.
Perhaps, but if this poll is accurate, compare it to 1980:
1980: Reagan/Carter
Republicans were 85/11
Democrats were 27/67
2016: Trump/Clinton
Republicans are 85/8
Democrats are 11/86
Trump has a way to go to match Reagan's appeal with Democrats. But, the 1980 election was 43/28/23, or D+15.
That kind of imbalance in party affiliation simply isn't going to happen in 2016. So, Trump doesn't need the same level of Democrat crossover.
However, I agree with your comment about Senate control. I haven't looked at what seats are vulnerable, but unless Trump can put those states in play and boost Republican turnout, we could have mixed control of Congress.
Yes, and that's why the party identification is important. If the ID breakdown is significantly different than recent comparable elections, you have to at least consider the effect on the outcome of the poll.
("Push polls" become obvious when you consider this metric. Some pollers conduct these "polls" to reinforce a pre-determined outcome, and make their candidate look good.)
And, you have to consider whether this is a registered or likely voter sample. At this point, registered vs. likely is probably meaningless, because I don't know how one can reliably measure that 5-6 months early. But, it can be a useful measurement of voter enthusiasm.
But, since a random phone poll only uses people that accept the call, it tends to over-sample people that are at home and answer the phone. This almost always oversamples Democrats.
I doubt it will be +8 on election day since I think the democrats will have a depressed turnout if I believe what I am reading in the paper since many democrats think the superdelegates are stealing the election from Bernie.
Probably the more important thing is to look at the trend from now to November. We should expect that democrat advantage to gradually disappear.
But, I am realistic and well aware of 2012 that Romney had a new data driven get out the vote machine and it didn't work. Romney was so convinced he was going to win that he had no one prepare a concession speech on election night. Obama knew how to get out his supporters. Black vote made up 13% of the vote - a record. The black vote over represented their population for the first time in this country and no republican thought Obama could duplicate the turnout of 2008. Obama did better. He beat Romney in the ground game. Polls are one thing, but your voters have to get to the polls.
I'm a bit concerned that Trump is going to let the republicans worry with the ground game based on his disinterest of that in the primaries. We will see.
Interesting numbers and I agree completely with your comments.
No, I expect polls to continue to oversample Democrats. A random phone poll will always do that. Some pollsters will adjust the results, but others won't.
Obama did better. He beat Romney in the ground game. Polls are one thing, but your voters have to get to the polls.
Yes, Obama did very well: he had a higher voter turnout in some districts than there were known to be voting-age adults.
I think one of the big stories 50 years or more from now is just how corrupt the media is. I work in the media, but I am ashamed of how biased the media is in general.
Of course, the media has always been biased - yellow journalism in the 1800s, etc. Nothing new but it is so pervasive and blatant.
The last two presidential elections, perhaps...but the Messiah is not on the ballot this year.
The same in Florida. He opened over 100 offices in Florida, many in the panhandle which is heavily republican. Obama knew he couldn't win the panhandle, but if he lost by 20% instead of 22%, he could win the state. He was correct. I think Obama won Florida by 70,000 votes out of 8 million or so. If 35,000 voters flip, Romney would have won Florida. Obama was much more strategic than Romney. He paid for it, too. We all paid for it.
Agreed and what a relief.
I'm concerned about a tendency to "split the difference." I suspect any RATs that crossover for Trump will not vote R for the Senate.
Check out graphic at # 100 .
Thanks, Brown Deer.
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.
