Posted on 09/17/2016 8:01:59 AM PDT by Mariner
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An election analysis conducted in the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project shows that the race has tightened considerably over the past few weeks, with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump projected to win Florida, an essential battleground state, if the election were held today.
The project, which is based on a weekly tracking poll of more than 15,000 Americans, shows that the 2016 presidential race could end in a photo finish on Nov. 8, with the major-party candidates running nearly even in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president.
The States of the Nation project, which delivers a weekly tally of support for the candidates in every state, shows that the race has tightened in several traditional battlegrounds. Pennsylvania has been moved from a likely win for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to a tossup; Ohio has been moved from a tossup to a likely win for Clinton. And Florida is now considered a likely win for the Republican nominee, with 50 percent support for Trump to 46 percent support for Clinton.
If the election were held today, the project estimates that Clinton has a 60 percent chance of winning by 18 electoral votes. Last week, the project estimated that Clinton had a 83 percent chance of winning the election.
In a separate national Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll, Clinton continues to lead Trump by 4 percentage points, and her recent bout with pneumonia doesn't appear to have scared away her supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Does anybody know why Trump has dipped in Ohio?
He clearly leads in Ohio.
This analysis doesn’t make sense - Pennsylvania moves toward Trump but Ohio toward Clinton at the same time? Ohio is the more Republican of those two states. If there is a trend nationally that does not make sense at all.
Reuter’s “polling explorer”: http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1,CP14A1:2
I find this “polling explorer” awful. So someone please check my findings.
Nonetheless..
In their sample of “likely voters” 23% voted for Romney, 30% voted for Obama. That’s not at all close to the actual relative percentages in 2012, it favors Democrats by a lot.
But here’s the kicker....
47% of their “likely voters” didn’t vote for ANYONE in 2012!
What kind of “likely voter” sample is that?
Real Clear Politics has him up by 3 in Ohio.
It makes all the sense in the world if the polling is slanted.
They are telling their Hillbot friends to focus equally on OH and PA.
Where is Sarah Silverman when you need her? What was Sarah’s ‘08 program for Jewish grandparents living in FL? The Grand Schlep? Only last week the little harlot was showing off her extensive vocabulary and medical expertise by calling anyone who said Hillary! was sick “a$$...s,” and assuring one and all the Hillary was “just fine!”
Thread from yesterday evening on this poll if anyone is
interested in reading it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3470201/posts
100+ comments
It makes all the sense in the world if the polling is slanted.
Yes, I thought early on, it was Reuters who changed their polling methodology, so they could show Hillary was in the lead.
But now, even their doctored polls are tightening up. So now what will they do, to put Hillary on top again?
from the link you put up, it looks like there are TWO factors in the demographics: 1. Likely voter *and* 2. voted for Romney.
Of all of those voters (voted for Romney and likely to vote this year), 81.4% say they’re voting for Trump, 7% say Johnson, and 3% say Hitlery.
I did another scenario, except changed the second factor to “voted for Obama” instead of Romney.
Results: 77.1% vote for Hitlery, 10.3% for Trump, 4.5% for Johnson and 3.3% for Stein.
Looks like former Obama voters are more likely (by 7.3 points) to vote for Trump than Romney voters are for Hitlery.
Hope that makes sense.
They’ve been hearing us, they are still trying to silence us.
Nothing they do at the Ministry of Propaganda seems to be working, people are ignoring them.
Really ticking them off, too.
This is a set of polls, including many that are quite small. Also, there is stale data in the estimates of voter intentions of the small to mid-sized states. You cannot put much confidence in any one state’s result. There are states indicated to be pro-Hillary that we suspect, based on much better polling data, to be pro-Trump. And, visa versa. But, the overall conclusion, that the Electoral College has tightened up is valid. As of last week, polls (warts and all) showed Her Illery to have a lock on the Electoral College. This week, the polls show the race to be even up.
Resources become scarce if Clinton gets in, and it’s amazing how many don’t get that...
I was talking to somebody, and they said something about the “electrical vote”.
I don’t want to sound like some self important elitist, but, just saying, it stuns me sometimes how people just don’t know certain basics.
Just received a land-line automated polling call from a number in FL. In OH.
The first question was will you definitely vote. I answered yes.
The next Q. was ethnicity, for statistical purposes only. I listened to all the choices b/f I answered cauc.
Hispanic was option 6.
As soon as I answered cauc. the call ended with a thank you.
Not interested in knowing who you are going to vote for if you are cauc. and going to vote?? Obviously ethnicity was not for statistical purposes only if it caused the call to end.
Anyone know about this strategy of polling?
For years we have been getting polling calls in Spanish b/c my husband’s name ends with a vowel, but this was in English.
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.