Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to 9 points: Reuters/Ipsostle

[uawchild]

Source: Reuters

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's lead over Republican Donald Trump has dipped into the single digits among likely U.S. voters for the first time in nearly two weeks, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The June 27-July 1 poll showed a 9.4 percentage point lead for the former secretary of state over the New York businessman, down slightly from an 11.2 point lead in a previous five-day poll that ended on June 28.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0ZH5TZ

[uawchild]

1. Don't underestimate the threat Trump presents

Trump has tapped into a slew of angst over economic insecurity, rascism, xenophobia and just out right fear of the future.
Populist demagogues like Trump can run searinging hot thru the electorate if they time their rants just right.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. +1,000,000

[YOHABLO]

2. He'll turn the U.S. into a rogue state. It's time to get unified against him.

[oswaldactedalone]

3. Agree

While the horse race numbers are less important than the electoral map, it's still worrisome that a buffoon like Trump could be this close with his joke of a campaign.

[skepticscott]

7. You mean like Ted Cruz?

Ben Carson?

[forest444]

10. You're right, Scott.

Just as the "autopsy" from their 2012 debacle only led Rethugs to adopt a "if you can't beat'em, cheat'em" strategy in the form of voter ID/restriction laws, their 2016 autopsy (assuming they lose) will probably only lead them to veer even further to the right - right into openly fascist politics.

I suppose they need to work it out of their systems before we can ever hope to see them get better.

[pnwmom]

8. Hillary is an excellent candidate and that is why the R's have been bashing her

for decades. They know it will take enormous firepower to pierce her armor.

Dems and progressives shouldn't be helping them along.

[skepticscott]

6. The media are so full of shit

when it comes to polls.

In the first place, national popular vote polls are not meaningful in a presidential election when we have the electoral college. Even if they were, trying to attribute significance to week-to-week fluctuations that are smaller than the margin of error for the polls is just blatantly dishonest journalism.

[pnwmom]

9. And this is an experimental online poll, that pretends to have accuracy

within a tenth of a point, but can't even report a margin of error -- because it doesn't use a random sample.

[billhicks76]

16. Clinton Supporters Quoted Polls All Day Every Day

At the beginning of the primary that's all I heard? They didn't mean crap then because Sanders name recognition was accelerating from almost zero to 60. Trump and Clinton are already well known.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. How can it be this close?

Donald Trump is full-fledged crackpot, and she should be up by 20 or more.

I don't understand how this can be happening. Seriously.

(please don't dismiss the polls, there has to be some truth in them)

[jtuck004]

23. Donald Trump is John Silber redux

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/08/25/donald-trump-john-silber-redux/jfKd9v7DAQo5SgNXzEDrlL/story.html

You can read it, and may be more familiar with it than I. But what interested me is that the polls showed Slbers's opponent winning the primary, until it came time to vote.

Silber won, and mostly none of the polling data saw it coming. People would not admit they would vote for a Democrat who said things like

“Why has Massachusetts suddenly become so popular for people who are accustomed to living in the tropical climate?” he asked shortly after entering the race. “There has got to be a welfare magnet going on here.”"

Cohen's Law of Research: ""If you ask them something, they will give you an answer".

When they got to the primary some think voters were dissatisfied with the way things are, maybe got rid of who they saw as the entrenched. Polls be damned, they voted for Silber. In the later race for Gov, in a different pairing and after some time, he ultimately lost.

People today are afraid, and that makes things precarious. In addition, given the two different kinds of campaigns, an event such as a terrorist attack, or a conflict that makes gas prices take a significant hike could cause a complete reversal of polling data less than a week old.

If something like that happens, the voters could easily exit what we have to go with the real estate swindler. A Trexit. He won't build a wall so much as a Coliseum starring The Bill of Rights as lion bait.

Any given Tuesday...

[book_worm]

12. The polls are going to be up and down

don't be surprised if he has a narrow lead after the GOP convention, but she is doing what is important right now--and she has a ground game which he doesn't and is also spending big (like Obama did) in the key battleground states while Trump is missing in action.

[Jnclr89]

33. Up Down Up Down

Yes. This happens every election, I'm not going to panic about it. Polls go up with conventions and VP picks. Nothing new here.

[Ford_Prefect]

13. The polls at this point are meaningless for a measure of voting turnout or specific popularity.

They will rise and fall depending on how the MSM wails and moans over too may other things, rather like the stock market.

The MSM likes a horse race to show the viewers and doesn't care too much for facts that do not fit their predetermined narrative. Unless some actual event occurs like an earthquake in Manhattan, or a nuclear attack on Rome, or hell frozen over, those polls are mostly crap and no better than name recognition.

When we have substantive questions about issues that people vote for, or against, that make up the polls, that's when you can worry about the answers and the results.

[msongs]

19. hillary meets obama all the time and he is the AG's boss. is that a prob too? nt

[tavernier]

15. It would be helpful if other Dems would support her.

Oh well... perhaps they think Frump won't be so bad. I guess we'll see how that goes.

[Android3.14]

26. This runs deeper than simple R vs. D

She needs to show some leadership. She needs to demand he condemn the racism in his supporters. She needs to deal with college debt.

[840high]

27. My biggie is TPP.

[7962]

30. Thats a good point; as he has come out strongly against it

Whether thats his REAL opinion or not, who knows

[msongs]

17. all those union members who love stuff from china will fall for his brint he jobs back baloney nt

[REALforever]

18. Seems like this polls following the RASMUSSEN narrative, and tryin to make a horse race that's not

We saw with Quinnipiac and Rasmussen in 2012 trying to keep Mitt afloat. Heck, when did the term "skewed polls" start?

We had a poll showing Hillary up 12pts and they reacted.. FOX has it a deadheat all of a sudden!! Hello?

[MFM008]

32. yes all 17 days before the Rump convention

if its not a horse race, shoot all the horses..........

[PSPS]

20. Utter hogwash

A 3.5% error margin poll showing a 1.8% "swing" is nothing more than the desire to create a headline that will get clicks. But this is what the media will do until election day -- do anything necessary to be able to write "breathless" headlines to garner interest, clicks, and eyeballs they can sell to advertisers.

[broadcaster75201]

21. *yawn* Margin of error. Just noise. And no Conventions yet

While if we don't vote, Trump would win ... be assured we will vote.

[RandySF]

22. .

[George II]

24. Pretty bizarre polling there - the "new" poll ran from June 27 to July 1 (isn't it STILL July 1?)...

....and is a drop from the previous poll that ended on June 28?

That's an overlap from the previous to the "current" poll, never saw that before. I think it's a stretch as to credibility.

No matter, the November election isn't a nationwide election anyway, the votes are tallied and Electoral votes won state by state.

National polls are pointless.

[Android3.14]

25. See that? That's a bubble about to burst.

People underestimate the power of human stupidity.

It always gets us in deep shit.

[nest]

28. Hillary is invincable against Trump

I can't wait for the debates!

[7962]

29. Narrows to "still a helluva lot". Wait till he picks Gingrich. Triple digits nt

[Midnight Writer]

31. I will tell any pollster that I am voting for Trump. We need close polls to boost turnout.

My biggest fear is that this election will be so uneven that Democrats will not turn out to vote, our biggest problem.

We need to win not only the White House, but the Senate, the Congress, the Governors, and the State Legislatures. It is time to clean house, and Trump is our Golden Opportunity.

[George II]

34. Here is the reality of the Reuters/Ipsos polls:

Reuters/Ipsos 6/25 - 6/29 1247 RV 2.8 42 32 Clinton +10
Reuters/Ipsos 6/18 - 6/22 1339 RV 2.8 44 34 Clinton +10
Reuters/Ipsos 6/11 - 6/15 1323 RV 2.8 41 32 Clinton +9
Reuters/Ipsos 6/4 - 6/8 1440 RV 2.9 42 34 Clinton +8

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

So, in reality the Reuters/Ipsos poll has barely budged since the beginning of June, but it makes good headlines to say that the lead "narrows".

As a matter of fact, going back to the June 4-8 polls, one could say that Clinton's lead has WIDENED! No headlines about that though.

[Rapidly]

35. This poll narrows all the time

And widens and narrows and widens etc etc.

[CobaltBlue]

36. 1.3M

The presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 saw over 131 followed by 129 million votes cast for the nation's highest office.

What this means is that the average has been about 130 million with these two most recent elections.

It also means that the U.S. Popular Vote in increments of 1 percent are with every 1.3 million in raw votes.

Carrying the U.S. Popular Vote by +9.4 percentage points would mean winning by about 12.2 million raw votes.

In 2008, when Barack Obama flipped the presidency from the Republican to the Democratic column, his raw-vote (U.S. Popular Vote) margin was about 9.5 million (+7.26 percentage points). With re-election in 2012, with an underperformance, he prevailed by about 5 million (+3.86 percentage points).

What this is indicating is that the 2012-to-2016 shift would go further in the direction of the Democrats and by an additional 7.2 million.

What that would do is: Take the 2012 re-election map of Barack Obama and flip about four or five states (at a minimum). That's because, even though there is no established bar for however many hundreds of thousands and/or millions of shifted votes could get a party to flip a state, it appears that about every 1 to 1.5 million in gains (direction of either party) has yielded a state switching party support for a given election. Barack Obama, in 2008, shifted between 12.5 to 13 million and won nine pickup states. He suffered a 4.5 million decline, with re-election, in 2012 and saw two states, plus Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, flip. A 7.2 million addition, for the Democratic Party, wouldn't bring in only North Carolina. It would likely also flip Georgia and Arizona. Any more would be followed by Missouri and Indiana.