It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. God
Roughly a week ago, this blog predicted that one of the major poll aggregators would place Trump ahead of Clinton in the national polls by the end of September 6. During this time, the TPM poll tracker had the closest spread -- a mere 1.4 points .
Fortunately, that spread widened today, to a whopping 2.2 points.
Good news -- but hardly great
news. Unfortunately, TPM also sounded this worrying note
We have two new horserace polls out this morning (perhaps more shortly). But before that I want to note a big issue that's been affecting the numbers in recent weeks: a major difference between the premium national phone polls and various online polls. The former have shown a relatively unchanged race, with Clinton holding a sizable lead, while the latter have shown a tight or even tied race. The problem is that the premium polls don't come out that often. And we haven't had many recently. Welp, this morning CNN/ORC has a poll out at it shows Trump 49%, Clinton 48%. In a four way race, Trump is up by two. There's also a NBC/SurveyMonkey poll out showing Clinton up by 6, more in line with what we've seen over the last month.
Here's CNN's story
So what's up? As I've said before, I take the premium national phone polls more seriously than the online polls. CNN is the former, NBC/SurveyMonkey is the latter.
about that poll.
Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey, with Libertarian Gary Johnson standing at 7% among likely voters in this poll and the Green Party's Jill Stein at just 2%.
This is a controversial matter
, of course.
MSNBC 'unskewed' a CNN national poll on Tuesday that showed Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by two points, re-weighting the results to match the 2012 electorate and showing a four-point lead for the former secretary of state.
The poll of likely voters, released Tuesday by CNN/ORC, showed Trump ahead of Clinton nationwide in a four-way contest, 45 percent to 43 percent. But MSNBC host Chuck Todd explained that the poll, in his network’s estimation, may have oversampled white voters without a college degree, one of Trump’s strongest groups.
With the numbers adjusted to reflect how the electorate shook out four years ago, Clinton’s two-point deficit shifted to a four-point lead, 46 percent to 42 percent.
I just don't see how Hillary can prevail when the "liberal" media are so deeply prejudiced against her -- even though all right-wingers and many progressives remains transfixed by the delusion that she has the media in her pocket.
At least one CNN personality has admitted that there is an anti-Hillary bias
Bash was talking about the presidential debates when she provided a perfect example of the media’s double standard in the way they cover Trump and Clinton.
Dana Bash said, “I think the stakes are much higher in this debate and all the debates for Hillary Clinton because the expectations are higher for her because she’s a seasoned politician. She’s a seasoned debater. You know, yes we saw Donald Trump in the primaries debate for the first time, but he is a first-time politician. So um, for lots of reasons. Maybe it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. The onus is on her.”
Since when does being a first-time candidate mean that the media expects less and grades on a curve?
It's not as though Trump will have less power if he wins, so why should he be judged by a different standard?
I'm also troubled by Nate Silver's latest
Between the unusually early conventions and the late election — Nov. 8 is the latest possible date on which Election Day can occur — it’s a long campaign this year. But just as important, many voters — close to 20 percent — either say they’re undecided or that they plan to vote for third-party candidates. At a comparable point four years ago, only 5 to 10 percent of voters fell into those categories.
High numbers of undecided and third-party voters are associated with higher volatility and larger polling errors. Put another way, elections are harder to predict when fewer people have made up their minds. Because FiveThirtyEight’s models account for this property, we show a relatively wide range of possible outcomes, giving Trump better odds of winning than most other statistically based models, but also a significant chance of a Clinton landslide if those undecideds break in her favor.
They won't. If they're not for her now, they never will be. Johnson is taking more from the Clinton column than the Trump column. The BernieBros don't really care about socialism, because they know almost nothing about economics. They know only that they hate anyone named Clinton.
We will talk later about the Trump Foundation -- which, as some of you may recall, was the topic of a post here before it became the focus of so much recent attention.
And yes, I'm still predicting a Trump victory in November. I may have been wrong this time. But I wasn't that
wrong, was I?