Trump 6 point lead

[LegendKiller]

and now the USC/LA Times poll only shows Trump with a 2 point lead and is the only national poll in the last week (other than the always biased Rasmussen) that shows any Trump lead.

And now morning consult poll. La times at 4%

 

[cbrunny]

Oh shit, OP. only one more day before Hillary steps down. Excited?

 

[Blanky]

LA times shows lead trump, others show lead clinton. This is why RCP is the only place you should go to for current polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

2.5% lead hillary. Although this election will come down to battlegrounds, those states are polling close overall with the popular. The odds of one winning electoral, even closely, without popular are not high.

 

[shady28]

and now the USC/LA Times poll only shows Trump with a 2 point lead and is the only national poll in the last week (other than the always biased Rasmussen) that shows any Trump lead.

And yet another google challenged lefty appears.

Rasmussen shows Trump up 5% nationally.

Morning Consult shows Trump up by 1 nationally.

Reuters/Ipsos came out 5 days ago and shows trump +2 nationally.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And yet another google challenged lefty appears.

Rasmussen shows Trump up 5% nationally.

Morning Consult shows Trump up by 1 nationally.

Reuters/Ipsos came out 5 days ago and shows trump +2 nationally.

Now check the Electoral College forecasts

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

 

[shady28]

Now check the Electoral College forecasts

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

Which is completely beside the point when I was responding to someone who said :

"USC/LA Times ... is the only national poll in the last week ... that shows any Trump lead."​

 

[Jhhnn]

Which is completely beside the point when I was responding to someone who said :

"USC/LA Times ... is the only national poll in the last week ... that shows any Trump lead."​

What part of "The presidency is not won by popular vote" do you fail to comprehend?

 

[Capt Caveman]

NBC has Clinton up by 5 - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election

 

[Victorian Gray]

Which is completely beside the point when I was responding to someone who said :

"USC/LA Times ... is the only national poll in the last week ... that shows any Trump lead."​

Sorry, I thought that as an American you understood how your presidential elections worked. Apparently I was wrong.

 

[MongGrel]

And yet another google challenged lefty appears.

Reuters/Ipsos came out 5 days ago and shows trump +2 nationally.

It seems you are 5 days out of date then.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN11T2F4

 

[LegendKiller]

Bloomberg out with +2 for Trump. Clinton appears to be backing away somewhat from Ohio and Colorado. Is she conceding there? Nevertrumpers collapsing in CO, Trump took over Kasich's ground game in Ohio (Bossie).

All he has to do is not have Cookie Monster eyes and let the old battleaxe do what old battleaxes do, lecture, henpeck, harangue, scold, and potentially keel over.

 

[Roflmouth]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

LOL, holy shit.

 

[LegendKiller]

Gravis has them tied in *minnesota*. Holy. Fucking. Shit.

It is almost incomprehensible that minnesota could be in play. It hasn't happened in 44 years.

 

[senseamp]

Sold my long term capital gain stocks and bought Nov SPY puts to insure the short term ones while I hold. Markets are super complacent, and a Trump win could be like Brexit on steroids. No need to be a hero as the increased probability gets priced in.

 

[shady28]

Sorry, I thought that as an American you understood how your presidential elections worked. Apparently I was wrong.

Typical lefty antagonist, it's for people like you that there can never, ever, be any discussion between left and right on this forum. You get called out for your goalpost shifting and then resort to personal attacks and trolling. I was responding to a post on national polls, not on the electoral college, but keep on propagating the information \ knowledge vacuum that exists here as a result.

 

[zinfamous]

Gravis has them tied in *minnesota*. Holy. Fucking. Shit.

It is almost incomprehensible that minnesota could be in play. It hasn't happened in 44 years.

That's because it isn't in play

 

[sportage]

Polls constantly shifting.
Neither can close the deal.
Then I wonder what a Trump economy would look like?
Maybe THIS?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Since the dumbass OP likes to quote from the LA Times, they've updated their electoral college predictions. 352 electoral votes for Clinton.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...lectoral-map-of-the-1478473458-htmlstory.html

 

[senseamp]

Trump will be the President of LA Times/USC poll panel. Hillary will be POTUS.

 

[BoomerD]

If Hillary wins, will TexasHiker throw himself overboard?

 

[Sunburn74]

The only site I follow and trust is 538. They are extremely conservative/guarded in their ratings and look at a ridiculous cross section of polls. Throw out the LA times poll (they have always given trump a lead even when he clearly should not have one). 538 gives him a 1/3 chance of winning.That is uncomfortably high for me, but they are also banking on small polling (1+ ) error. Other sites have trump's chances of winning being generally less than 20% and some say essentially zero.

 

[JSt0rm]

never underestimate the unwashed masses.

 

[nickqt]

The only site I follow and trust is 538. They are extremely conservative/guarded in their ratings and look at a ridiculous cross section of polls. Throw out the LA times poll (they have always given trump a lead even when he clearly should not have one). 538 gives him a 1/3 chance of winning.That is uncomfortably high for me, but they are also banking on small polling (1+ ) error. Other sites have trump's chances of winning being generally less than 20% and some say essentially zero.

Check out the Princeton Election Consortium.

 

[zinfamous]

If Hillary wins, will TexasHiker throw himself overboard?

He hasn't been allowed back on the boat for several months.

 

[fskimospy]

The only site I follow and trust is 538. They are extremely conservative/guarded in their ratings and look at a ridiculous cross section of polls. Throw out the LA times poll (they have always given trump a lead even when he clearly should not have one). 538 gives him a 1/3 chance of winning.That is uncomfortably high for me, but they are also banking on small polling (1+ ) error. Other sites have trump's chances of winning being generally less than 20% and some say essentially zero.

They are actually banking on not only large polling error but a large polling error that is highly correlated between states. If you look at their model Trump's chances are almost entirely driven by that uncertainty. Without it they would have Clinton at 90%+. Other aggregators think they are overestimating uncertainty, which is why her odds are much better there.

I think 538 is a great site and I love how transparent they are, but it seems that no matter the outcome of this election their model will need revision. It's hard for me to believe that in an electorate this polarized that Clinton has really gone from a 90% chance of winning to a 51% chance of losing back to a 90% chance of winning back to a 66% chance. Regardless of who you think will win that's not likely to have actually happened.