Hillary Tanks in the Polls - Trump rises like a Hero

[Deleted]

I can't wait for dignity to return to this country.

[Annoying]

If anything Rasmussen is a left leaning source. The polling is taken from 1000 likely voters. Random polling is random. You need to figure some things out.

Nah, I'd say that while Rasmussen might have a tendency to show higher results for (R), that they aren't inherently leaning either way. I like the way Nate Silver put it
( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eports-biased/ ):

If you’re running a news organization and you tend to cite Rasmussen’s polls disproportionately, it probably means that you are biased — it does not necessarily mean that Rasmussen is biased.

That being said...

I’m not saying that Rasmussen’s question wording is always biased. It isn’t. And I’m sure you could find a couple of cases where the wording tend to portray the liberal argument more favorably. But cases like these happen consistently enough with Rasmussen that I’d say it’s a concern. And when they do use unorthodox question wording, nine times out of ten it favors the conservative argument. I would describe this as a form of bias — although it should generally implicate only the poll in question, and not their overall enterprise.

I'm gonna have to go read the poll questions on this Rasmussen poll to make an educated opinion on whether or not this poll is biased.

Edit: It was a single question poll:

1* If the 2016 presidential election were held today, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/-3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

So I'm not seeing the bias. Maybe in how they select the 1000 people?

Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation.

Tough to say.

[Machismo]

Hillary couldn't even debate Obama. How is she going to debate a man who juggled the simultaneous attacks of two competent politicians and won in a landslide?

Wait, you just seriously suggested that guy throw away his vote. Never mind.

I'm not sure how choosing to not vote for the lesser of two evils is throwing away your vote...

Hillary debated Obama just fine. He simply offered a look that people wanted to see. Like Bernie, he got voters excited. Their debates were very well matched.

As for Trump, his debates have been circus sideshows. The GOP candidates looked pathetic up on those stages.

[mvaliz]

I can't wait for dignity to return to this country.

When the hell have you or Dump ever demonstrated anything dignified? The mere idea im calling him "Dump" is because im mocking his undignified childish use of "crooked Hillary"

[hachidori]

When the hell have you or Dump ever demonstrated anything dignified?

How does someone spend six years on an internet forum and still argue like he's 12?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I can't wait for dignity to return to this country.

The 2072 election is a long way off, I'd settle in if I were you.

[Reeve]

Nah, I'd say that while Rasmussen might have a tendency to show higher results for (R), that they aren't inherently leaning either way. I like the way Nate Silver put it
( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eports-biased/ ):


That being said...


I'm gonna have to go read the poll questions on this Rasmussen poll to make an educated opinion on whether or not this poll is biased.

Rasmussen Reports' historical results vs. predictions show a consistent 2 point bias in favor of Republicans, and their methodology is given a C+ by the same Nate Silver you just cited.

As I recall, this poll only allowed a straight up choice between Clinton and Trump, without allowing for third parties. ("1* If the 2016 presidential election were held today, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton?") In those situations, Trump picks up the votes that would have otherwise gone to Johnson or Stein. You can see this effect in the other polls that ask for both 1v1 matchups and multiple candidate matchups. The Gravis Poll here, especially starkly shows this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...to_28_2016.pdf

[Rizendragon]

Hillary couldn't even debate Obama. How is she going to debate a man who juggled the simultaneous attacks of two competent politicians and won in a landslide?

Wait, you just seriously suggested that guy throw away his vote. Never mind.

I'm not sure how choosing to not vote for the lesser of two evils is throwing away your vote...

Hillary debated Obama just fine. He simply offered a look that people wanted to see. Like Bernie, he got voters excited. Their debates were very well matched.

As for Trump, his debates have been circus sideshows. The GOP candidates looked pathetic up on those stages.

Except I even stated that I was thinking of "throwing away my vote" on Bernie Sanders who won't even appear on the ballot in my state due to "Sore Loser" laws unless he is the DNC nominee...

[Annoying]

Rasmussen Reports' historical results vs. predictions show a consistent 2 point bias in favor of Republicans, and their methodology is given a C+ by the same Nate Silver you just cited.

As I recall, this poll only allowed a straight up choice between Clinton and Trump, without allowing for third parties. ("1* If the 2016 presidential election were held today, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton?") In those situations, Trump picks up the votes that would have otherwise gone to Johnson or Stein. You can see this effect in the other polls that ask for both 1v1 matchups and multiple candidate matchups.

I'd assume that C+ is a whole lot more than just the R+2, considering the polster ratings of A's and B's with similar biases in either direction. Probably that second chunk I quoted, wherein Silver has issues with how they phrase questions. As for the third party, that's an interesting thought.

[Reeve]

I'd assume that C+ is a whole lot more than just the R+2, considering the polster ratings of A's and B's with similar biases in either direction. Probably that second chunk I quoted, wherein Silver has issues with how they phrase questions. As for the third party, that's an interesting thought.

Well, the questions, but also other methods. Like according to the pollster ratings, Rasmussen Reports doesn't consistently call cellular phones, which means that they often miss out on responses among the younger generation, many of whom don't have land lines.

[The Stormbringer]

Rasmussen hasn't been accurate since something like 2008. In the 2012 election, they had Romney winning by a lot. It's the poll conservatives go to when they don't want to face reality...

BTW, before anyone cheers on Trump, you should take the time to actually look at his business history. He isn't particularly successful (i.e. he's had more failures than successes). When he is successful, it usually involves breaking business deals (something you can't do economically with a country BTW). And he has an extremely uncomfortable number of connections to Russia (including elements of Russian mobs).

Clinton is hardly an angel, but that doesn't mean you should support a devil instead...

I wasn't aware he had that many connections with Russia. I'll have to look into that (not calling you a liar, just for fact checking).

[araine]

Rasmussen all you need to know, they have a track record of being grossly wrong and over value republicans

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._obama_handily


From the day before the election they said Romney was gonna win in basically a landslide. So yeah thats the polling accuracy of Rasmussen for you.

You should read it for good laughs at least since they where wrong on everything in that one just the day before the election but really you expect to be right when you only call fixed landline phones? really noone under the age of 50 has those anymore.

[Annoying]

Well, the questions, but also other methods. Like according to the pollster ratings, Rasmussen Reports doesn't consistently call cellular phones, which means that they often miss out on responses among the younger generation, many of whom don't have land lines.

I actually can't believe that anyone would consider land lines to be accurate, wow. Yeah, that's a glaring flaw. I don't know if it's just not discussed or something, but (not counting work), I don't know anyone with a land line.

[araine]

If anything Rasmussen is a left leaning source. The polling is taken from 1000 likely voters. Random polling is random. You need to figure some things out.

Did you read that poll from the day before teh election in 2012? and no you do NOT get a correct sample if you only use land lines since you are only getting the old white republicans when you poll that way. really anyone with at least common sense knows you cant just ask people over the age of 65 to get a result.

[Miow]

I don't think "Trump" and "Hero" should be in the same sentence to be honest with you.

[zenkai]

A new poll indicates that Hillary Clinton has taken a nose dive in public opinion primarily due to the perception that she committed crimes that the FBI have announced that they won't recommend the DOJ to charge her with.

Trump now has a commanding 4 point lead and looks to widen that gap even further leading up to the RNC.

This is great news indeed!

Source:

Rasmussen Reports Polling Shows Clinton Tanks


Personally I can't wait to see Hillary forever forgotten in American Politics going forward after she loses in November.

It's way to early to say this will help Trump. Hillary supporters don't care either way, now independent voters, that might piss them off enough

[araine]

I actually can't believe that anyone would consider land lines to be accurate, wow. Yeah, that's a glaring flaw. I don't know if it's just not discussed or something, but (not counting work), I don't know anyone with a land line.

Exactly and it is due to this we cant take anything from Rasmussen seriously. remember this gem from 2012
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._obama_handily

the day before the election in 2012 and they had romney basically winning in a landslide they had Romney winning by over 90 electoral votes. And we all know that didnt happen. in fact Obama won it in an even bigger landslide by being 126 electoral votes more than Romney.

[spinner981]

Citing their poor record isn't criticizing their methods?

You didn't do such a thing though. You literally just repeated the name of the source, as if that is intended to discredit them. It's not, whether the source is known for using poor methods or not.

[derpkitteh]

it's sad, but trump is a hero when compared to clinton.

he's the only hope of stopping her. it's not even a matter of policy right now, she came into this process anointed to be the next president, she thought it her divine right to rule and that she deserves it. nobody like that should ever be rewarded, it's just wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

And then the week after that we'll learn something like "75% of Americans support changing the constitution to allow Obama 3rd term."

Someone should actually do this poll. I'm willing to bet a lot of people would be for Obama round 3 instead of either Clinton or Trump.