What happened to convention bounce 4 Dems?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Well, this is off to a bad start!
Huge LA Times Poll: Trump Takes 7-Point Lead


http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-clinton-poll-los-angeles-times/2016/07/27/id/740785/

Yeah, I have been saying this for months. Look what's ahead for Hillary with the deleted emails coming our way soon.

There isn't a convention "bump" just because there is a convention, I know you understand this. But the media was acting like Trump's bump was a given, and I just don't see it that way. The convention did draw attention, but it can go up, down, or sideways.

So he just keeps this run of doing everything right. "Right" in the sense of electoral victory. A big bump here, yet again after going on a year now of assuring us Trump was about to implode.

I am hoping for big third party turnout, no matter the result. There are two third party options that agree on foreign policy, on the principle of non-aggression.

So I will lose as I have for this last quarter century in every presidential election but it looks to me like Trump is going to hand Hillary her rear end in this election. She will have done it to herself. Got a little greedy there, Hillary. Forgot about the little people.

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure it's an outlier. It's taking the daily temperature, so to speak. The same group called the CA primary better than most. They had the mythical dead heat but then continued.... but with likely voters Hillary is outpolling him considerably. The latter proved accurate.

And have to be very careful about discounting the outliers, ignoring those are part of the reason the pollsters in the UK got it wrong last general election.

 

[Foolmewunz]

And have to be very careful about discounting the outliers, ignoring those are part of the reason the pollsters in the UK got it wrong last general election.

Particularly since the "highs" are being reported in a few polls. Conventional wisdom and Democratic bragging had a new ceiling for Trump just last week. "Yeah, but you'll notice he hasn't ever topped 45% in anything other than that one outlier." Except that now he has in a number of polls.

Pollsters may be their own worst enemies, though. They had a pretty bad record in the off-year elections in '14. This is because they'd been weighted too far to the GOP side in '12, causing Romney's shock and Karl Rove's attack of the vapors on election night. But they over-adjusted and missed some key calls in '14. Have they done so, again? Only time will tell.

The jury's still out on the LA Times poll in the OP as far as I'm concerned. It's an opt-in poll but with a "standing panel". I'm not sure how well that works in a day-to-day rolling forecast. It would seem that the mere fact that you're on such a panel would tend to influence you one way or the other and might not be conducive to change.

 

[eeyore1954]

For the charting yes. Info is DAILY. The 7 points is TODAY!

ETA: Try reading the poll link! Chart starts on the 10th.

The final blue and red figures on the right side of the chart represent our most recent estimates of Hillary Clinton's vote (blue squares) and Donald Trump's (red diamonds). These estimates represent weighted averages of all responses in the prior week.

ETA: I see this was pointed out. sorry

 

[Fudbucker]

And have to be very careful about discounting the outliers, ignoring those are part of the reason the pollsters in the UK got it wrong last general election.

I would really like to see someone else reporting Trump is up 7 before I believe it. I think Clinton is a terrible candidate, but I would expect even a sack of **** would poll about even with Trump at this point in time. I don't know how he even got a bounce out of that convention if you believe the maxim that if you can't even run a competent convention, how can you run a country?

 

[wareyin]

I would really like to see someone else reporting Trump is up 7 before I believe it. I think Clinton is a terrible candidate, but I would expect even a sack of **** would poll about even with Trump at this point in time. I don't know how he even got a bounce out of that convention if you believe the maxim that if you can't even run a competent convention, how can you run a country?

Regarding the highlighted, yes, we know. You've said as much every single time you mentioned her name.

Regarding the polls, I've only seen one poll conducted exclusively since the Democratic Convention began. Rasmussen has Clinton up by one, when their last poll (last Thursday) had Trump up by one. And yes, this is the same Rasmussen that fivethirtyeight finds skews 2 points Republican.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If the poll cited in the OP is to be believed, as of midnight tonight CA time, Hillary has had a single small bounce.

I did some checking on the LA Times/USC poll. Unfortunately, Nate Silver hasn't weighed in so there's no R+ or D+ trends to record, but taken against a bunch of polls with known trends, the LA Times poll seems to tilt seven full points to the GOP. Even Rasmussen doesn't go to R+7. And they currently have Clinton +1. We also have nothing to compare them to because their first presidential poll was the opening day of the RNC, with no records prior.

But, during the RNC, they actually had Hillary going up. That makes no sense, of course and goes against the trend of every other poll. Those "others" may not be perfect, but we know their weighting, to a certain degree.

Maybe their methodology is good but they just got a bad batch of people signed up. How else do you explain Trump showing 34% support among Hispanic voters.

I notice that RCP has no MoE for their poll, either. No explanation at RCP. Maybe rolling polls don't get a MoE? Maybe because there's no track record to speak of.

All things considered, I'd consider this poll an outlier, or view it like you do other heavily biased polls.

 

[Brainster]

There was always a flaw in the notion that a week of non-stop Hillary coverage was going to help her candidacy.

 

[Upchurch]

There was always a flaw in the notion that a week of non-stop Hillary coverage was going to help her candidacy.

You also thought Palin sealed the deal for McCain. So, yeah...


To be fair, you were dead on about Palin being the future of the GOP. However much they have left, that is.

 

[NoahFence]

There was always a flaw in the notion that a week of non-stop Hillary coverage was going to help her candidacy.

Her opponent asking Russia to engage in espionage against her helps.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There was always a flaw in the notion that a week of non-stop Hillary coverage was going to help her candidacy.

Actually, it was, to be honest, a calculated risk. There was always the chance that she'd book some has-been B-list celebrities, old crazy bigots and wrestling promoters to whip the crowd into a lynch mob frenzy by lying to them and telling them that the opposing candidate was coming across the border in armed bands of dark hordes and planning to eat their brains with chipped rusty spoons.

Then the Republicans stole that script so she went with the B Plan.

>Hillary: Gah. What are we going to do now? I wanted to go the frothing crazy route. Find out who leaked our plans? We better come up with something, quick.
> Bill: Chorus Girls? Dressed as Tweets?
> Obama: Down, Bubba.
> Michelle: Could we just bring on notable speakers, present the case for our own history and our proposals, and run on a "high road" ticket?
> Bill: Is that done? Could we get away with it? Dancing Tweets still sounds good.
> Hillary: Ya know. In this crazy year, Michelle, it might just work.

 

[dudalb]

You also thought Palin sealed the deal for McCain. So, yeah...


To be fair, you were dead on about Palin being the future of the GOP. However much they have left, that is.

At least two life long GOPers I know are voting for Clinton, and one reason is that if Trump is elected, he will be such a disaster that the GOP might not recover, whereas they can recover from a loss in November.

 

[Fudbucker]

At least two life long GOPers I know are voting for Clinton, and one reason is that if Trump is elected, he will be such a disaster that the GOP might not recover, whereas they can recover from a loss in November.

The conservatives I talk to say that in any normal election, Trump wouldn't have anywhere near this level of support. But the next president is going to nominate probably three SCOTUS justices, maybe four, and if conservatives take the moral highground and denounce Trump, they're going to lose SCOTUS for decades, and that is so unacceptable, they'll vote for Trump.

 

[sunmaster14]

The conservatives I talk to say that in any normal election, Trump wouldn't have anywhere near this level of support. But the next president is going to nominate probably three SCOTUS justices, maybe four, and if conservatives take the moral highground and denounce Trump, they're going to lose SCOTUS for decades, and that is so unacceptable, they'll vote for Trump.

I believe this is the case for the vast, vast majority of Republicans. Trump may be a jackass, but he's a Republican jackass, and that means he is pulled, as if by a tractor beam, to Republican policies. Furthermore, Mike Pence, a perfectly level-headed and presentable conservative, would be a heartbeat (or an impeachment) away from the Presidency. It would be idiocy for a Republican to vote for Hillary over Trump. I have to think that in most cases, such claims are nothing more than virtue signaling and grandstanding. For a modest few high-profile Republicans, there will be a genuine desire to see Trump lose, but that's mostly because, with their high-profile dissents, they would lose face if Trump were to prevail. I count George Will and Mitt Romney in that category, as well as many of the most intelligent writers at National Review. As for the Bushes, well, there's an understandable amount of butthurt that Trump humiliated Jeb! so thoroughly.

The bottom line is that the opposition to Trump by Republicans is no longer principled. His flaws are not that serious in the grand scheme, but the ways in which he is not-Hillary are crucial. Even more tantalizing, from my point of view, is the prospect that his obvious flaws might, paradoxically, turn into advantages as President. There's nothing like having a little bit of boldness, or even some crazy, fighting on your side.

 

[Tony Stark]

I believe this is the case for the vast, vast majority of Republicans. Trump may be a jackass, but he's a Republican jackass, and that means he is pulled, as if by a tractor beam, to Republican policies. Furthermore, Mike Pence, a perfectly level-headed and presentable conservative, would be a heartbeat (or an impeachment) away from the Presidency. It would be idiocy for a Republican to vote for Hillary over Trump. I have to think that in most cases, such claims are nothing more than virtue signaling and grandstanding. For a modest few high-profile Republicans, there will be a genuine desire to see Trump lose, but that's mostly because, with their high-profile dissents, they would lose face if Trump were to prevail. I count George Will and Mitt Romney in that category, as well as many of the most intelligent writers at National Review. As for the Bushes, well, there's an understandable amount of butthurt that Trump humiliated Jeb! so thoroughly.

The bottom line is that the opposition to Trump by Republicans is no longer principled. His flaws are not that serious in the grand scheme, but the ways in which he is not-Hillary are crucial. Even more tantalizing, from my point of view, is the prospect that his obvious flaws might, paradoxically, turn into advantages as President. There's nothing like having a little bit of boldness, or even some crazy, fighting on your side.

Weren't you claiming that you are going to vote for her?

And being literally the most unfit nominee ever isn't a big deal? Who cares if he is stupid, a pathological liar, a literal conman, literally has a personality disorder, is Putin's bitch and doesn't care about NATO? You Republicans have seriously gone off the deep end.

 

[sunmaster14]

Weren't you claiming that you are going to vote for her?

I am going to vote for her because I lost a bet with my wife. Also, it allows me to say that I voted for her in certain social gatherings where it would be awkward to have voted for Trump.

And being literally the most unfit nominee ever isn't a big deal? Who cares if he is stupid, a pathological liar, a literal conman, literally has a personality disorder, is Putin's bitch and doesn't care about NATO? You Republicans have seriously gone off the deep end.

In my view, the three most important issues in this election are (1) immigration; (2) Islamic terrorism; and (3) Supreme Court nominations. I am with Trump on all three.

Now, I wish the dealer hadn't loaded the package up with a whole bunch of accessories I didn't want, but the only other car on the lot is out of date, has no pep, shimmies to the left, and leaks oil and gas even though the gauges won't tell you the truth.

 

[Tony Stark]

I am going to vote for her because I lost a bet with my wife. Also, it allows me to say that I voted for her in certain social gatherings where it would be awkward to have voted for Trump.



In my view, the three most important issues in this election are (1) immigration; (2) Islamic terrorism; and (3) Supreme Court nominations. I am with Trump on all three.

Now, I wish the dealer hadn't loaded the package up with a whole bunch of accessories I didn't want, but the only other car on the lot is out of date, has no pep, shimmies to the left, and leaks oil and gas even though the gauges won't tell you the truth.

So basically Republicans will vote for literally any piece of garbage that has the R by his name. Just like I knew. David Duke would be on your side in those issues too. Does that mean you would vote for him?

Pathetic.

 

[sunmaster14]

So basically Republicans will vote for literally any piece of garbage that has the R by his name. Just like I knew. David Duke would be on your side in those issues too. Does that mean you would vote for him?

Pathetic.

In David Duke's case, the flaws would probably be too serious. I would certainly consider it though. It would depend a lot on whether or how his views had changed. Robert Byrd became a revered Democratic Senator, and he was a far more malicious racist when he was younger than David Duke was.

 

[Fudbucker]

Looks like we're starting to see a bounce. Reuters has Clinton up by 5.

 

[beren]

http://www.rabaresearch.com
I'll be interested to see if this turns out to be an outlier.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk