Posted on 06/27/2016 8:47:46 AM PDT by Maceman
The conservative blogosphere is lighting up again with accusations of polling bias against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his race against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. However, Trump supporters should avoid giving into this temptation to assume unfavorable results must be biased results. Clinton really is leading Trump, and by nearly 6 percentage points.
The blogospherian argument goes something like this: Clinton is leading Trump by 5 to 7 points in certain polls because the pollsters oversampled or over-weighted Democrats by about 5 to 7 points. If the polls are “corrected” to include fewer Democrats then the race is actually tied, they say.
For instance, one blogger argues that a recent CBS News poll inflated the number of Democrats in the poll, comprised of 28 percent Republicans and 35 percent Democrats. Citing one pollster’s calculation, she thinks party identification in the United States is closer to parity, with 28 percent Republicans and only 29 percent Democrats rather than a seven-point Democratic advantage. She reasons that if you erase the partisan gap that would erase Clinton’s six-point lead over Trump.
For Trump supporters, this is a tempting narrative to believe. But this simply isn’t so. The fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans, and this has largely been the case at least since the New Deal. That obviously doesn’t mean Democrats always win, but it’s unwise to assume a pollster is biased because its sample included more Democrats than Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
First comment: "Look at history. Over the past 50 years, the candidate leading the polls in June has always gone on to win the election, save for Michael Dukakis for reasons we all know. Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Dubya, Obama = all led in June and went on to win the Presidency."
Except that anyone who isn't parroting stuff someone else said could easily look this up. Gallup poll results are available online for the past 20 (twenty) election cycles. Gallup might or might not be good, but they have a track record.
If June/July poll leaders always won, there would have been President Dewey, President Humphrey, President Jimmy Carter 2.0, President Dukakis, President Perot, President Kerry and George Bush would have won the popular vote in 2000. (If Hillary had a huge lead, like FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ or Reagan, I'd believe this. But she's not even near the 50% mark in most polls.)
Hey, what’s a sampling of +20 Dems between friends?
I just caution people about building a false narrative like we did in 2012. Polls that showed obama ahead were routinely dismissed as being biased, and polls with Romney ahead were used as proof that the other polls were biased.
Trump is the superior candidate in this race and he's a real street fighter when he has to be. But most importantly, he's absolutely fearless and willing to take on the Clintons. There's no one else in he GOP about whom that can be said.
9%
White men voted for Barack Obama they are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
My suspicion is that Hillary is not going to be able to turn out the yute and minority vote as much as Obama. The 2016 presidential electorate is going to look different than in 2008 and 2012.
I don’t disagree. I’m just remembering what happened last time and it was just about every poll cited here. CNN/ORC, ABC, CBS, Real Clear, PPP... you name it. I just don’t want to cling to that hope again. I want Trump ahead and I want him to clean Hillary’s clock.
Neither candidate has named their VP.
That decision could sink or spur a campaign.
The problem is that if the Ds have a 20% advantage-—but only 50% turnout they lose. If Rs have a 3-point deficit, but only a 75% turnout they lose. It’s always a factor of registrations PLUS turnout. Wl Cankles get even 95% of Zero’s 2012 turnout? No. George Will said Trump would need 60 m to win. I think be will get closer to 70 m.
No The Federalist is Anti Trump though Ben Domenech is pretending to take the high road and not endorse any #NeverTrump plans because he knows his site is toast.
Just like the polls that predicted Brexit wouldn’t win. I’m just sayin’...
Not only that but the author Emily Ekins is Libertarian, once wrote for Libertarian sites like Reason and the Libertarian Republic and was once part of Real News on The Blaze. She is probably 30 to 40 years old.
The ABC poll said “Partisan divisions are 36-24-33 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents, in the full sample, 37-27-30 among registered voters.”
But recently, I believe there could have been a 12 point advantage in turnout.
I believe it too. Any country that would elect obongo twice and would elect him again if he could run would poll to show any democrat to be in the lead. Plus the demographics have dramatically changed since barry took office, this country has changed. The majority of the country is influenced by the mainstream media, Trump has more work to do be get ahead.
Forget POLLS...compare actual registrations.
An ABC poll is already biased.
Polling 1000 people who claim one way or the other, doesn’t give you an accurate count of 130 million people
They shouldn’t use 12% more Dems in poll.
Only using registered voters will show the Democrat winning.
The writer Emily Ekins, is libertarian and was once with the Cato Institute. She is the definition of anti Trump. Now I get some libertarians support Trump. But Emily sounds like the writers at her former publication Reason.
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.