Posted on 10/22/2016 11:35:48 PM PDT by WilliamIII
If you ask most pundits – and indeed, most voters – who’s likely to win the presidential election on November 8th, the answer, overwhelmingly, would be Hillary Clinton. Some odds-makers, including noted statistician Nate Silver, place her chances of victory at somewhere near 90%.
And, of course, a spate of new national polls, most of them sponsored by media companies that unabashedly support Clinton, suggests that the former First Lady enjoys a large and widening lead over Donald Trump.
The race is over, many analysts say.
But not all pollsters agree. In fact, three of the most recent national surveys still show the 2016 contest as a statistical dead heat (or Trump slightly leading). And when non-conforming polls come in threes, they’re not so easy to dismiss as “outliers.” They even beg the question as to whether any of the polls can be trusted to predict the election.
If history is any guide, they can – and these outlier polls may be closer to the truth than many people realize.
For one thing, the firms sponsoring two of the polls have a sterling record. One is IBD/TIPP, which is considered by experts like Silver to be the nation’s single most reliable pollster. Not only did the firm accurately predict the outcome of the last four presidential elections, it did so with uncanny accuracy. Silver found that it came closest to predicting the 2012 election, not just Romney’s victory, but the actual point spread.
And it’s not just IBD/TIPP. The second polling group that finds the current race a dead heat has also successfully predicted past elections. Its sponsor is the LA Times/USC consortium (hereafter LAUSC), a partnership between the nation’s third ;largest newspaper and two prestigious research centers at a prestigious university
(Excerpt) Read more at natmonitor.com ...
Amen, in His name
I’m amazed that this Gatlin Brother’s video has not been posted yet on FR.
Larry Gatlin song “STAND UP AND SAY SO”, HILLARY’S AMERICA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VSMPzXAaPw
My wife found this on Facebook (barf) and she is still laughing about it.
This tells you the intensity of those away from DC feel in this election.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/ibd-tipp-15832
Right now, IBD/Tipp is 42-40 Trump, with 5% undecided. With a LOT more going 3rd party this year.
I guess the question to ponder is why the 2012 undecided went so heavily to Obama and how can Trump get them instead? Normally I'd expect the undecided to be the most ignorant voters and perhaps to be easily swayed by the media, but this year they might actually be informed and just genuinely confused and torn. GOP-leaners because of Trump's unusual nature as a candidate and DEM-leaners because of Hillary's untrustworthiness.
This year the 3rd party question is really a new one. We have almost 11% voting 3rd party vs. roughly 2% in the 2012 poll! I think that might be the most underreported story in this election. Can a candidate sway those people not to "waste their vote?" Are these 3rd party voters just throwing a tantrum before they agree to do what "mommy and daddy" say or are they unpersuadable?
I have never heard of the National Monitor.
Looks like a bunch of retired folks from various fields. And one recent high school graduate.
They must be at least as good and the NYT or the WaPo. (serious, not sarcastic). smile.
Surprised they didn’t mention Rasmussen either. Had an off year in 2012 but did well in 2004 and 2008.
The thing about the 2012 election though is the polls were tight. The most favorable Romney Poll was Rasmussen (R+1) and Gallup (R+1). The most favorable Obama poll was (D+3). That’s a 4 point spread on all the polls. Today the polls range from +2 Trump to +12 Clinton and all in between for a 14 point delta - more than 3x 2012. Either there was more herding in 2012 or polling has gotten less accurate (or both)
It’s hard to say about the 3rd party vote. Who can tell? I’m thinking of at least 55 maybe as much as 10% but relay I don’t know.
Aside from all the other factors, Romney apparently really had a problem with his turnout machinery, his “ORCA” system. Maybe that cost him 1 or 2% maybe a state or two, probably still would have lost.
I worry about the Trump turnout machine although maybe he doesn’t need one.
My fear is that Trump wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote.
Besides those 3 polls, PPD's poll has closely mirrored the LA Times/Rasmussen poll as well (and now IBD) throughout this cycle so that's basically 4 polls showing the same thing.
https://twitter.com/IBDinvestors/status/261165831994626048
Definitely suggests
Entirely possible, considering the number of NY and CA electoral votes, and that they’ll go Dem for sure.
Sounds like Utah is doing their best to shave down his popular vote margin.
A seeing person need only to look at the size of EVERY Trump campaign speaking event and compare that with the pitiful few people who’ve been conscripted to be at ANY Hillary speaking event.
Given that sight, it is not very hard to imagine a Trump win, a big one in fact if the election isn’t stolen by fraud on the part of Democrats, Media and all these ‘pundits’ who claim to be ‘principled conservatives’ who just can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump.
It’s not hard to believe at all. I can see 1980 from here.
I think that’s based on an average though. Not a snapshot of what the polls said 2 weeks out. I don’t remember them being that far apart myself though.
But like you said, I think the ones showing a huge Clinton margin are the more questionable ones. They’re predicting something unusual if not unprecedented. They have the bigger burden of proof. Even Obama/McCain was a 7.2 victory margin. And that was with Obama being a fawned-over, beloved folk hero and McCain getting the entire market crash hung around his neck.
I agree. I believe he race is between Trump by 1 or 2 and Clinton by 4. So maybe a Clinton 2 point lead...That is nothing.
NO way she’s leading by 5 or 7
Clinton is faking it as a strong poll leader right now. It’s all fake. She knows better!
You can look at the history on RCP for 2012 - it was much tighter the entire time for polling results.
As will Illinois. It boils down to the swing states - Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats just take one of the three then they can take it all. The Republicans basically have to run the board and take all three to win. Or take Nevada and Colorado if they lose Pennsylvania.
So I really appreciate the phrase by DJT - "Give me a chance" focus-tested or not, the phrase rings true for me.
I also appreciate some of the Never-Trumpers sliding over to Never Hillary side. Once they embraced the concept of voting against a candidate as their passion, it became easier to identify the greater evil.
Those two factors are in play for some, Never-Hillary and give Trump a chance, What do you have to lose?
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.