Clinton Holds Slight Lead Over Trump As General Election Race Begins
Hillary Clinton has a slight lead in national polling over Donald Trump as the battle for the White House really begins.
With both the Republican and Democratic races for President now essentially decided, and the nation facing the prospect of a Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it seems like as good a time as any to take a look at the polling in the race to see where things stand. As has been said before, there are several caveats worth keeping in mind when looking at numbers this early in the cycle. The first, of course, is the fact that the race for President is not a national race but effectively a race in each of the fifty states plus the District of Columbia that make up the Electoral College and, more importantly, the ten or so states that could potentially be considered toss-up states that will most likely end up deciding the election. With only a handful of exceptions, there has not been very much reliable polling in those states so it’s hard to say what the Electoral College Map looks like at the moment. Nonetheless, it has generally been the case that the outcome in the states tends to mirror the national popular vote in all but the most exceptional cases. Second, most polling is still focused on polling Registered rather than Likely Voters due to the fact that it is generally deemed to be too soon to start trying to develop likely voter models that at least come close to estimating the demographic makeup of the electorate that will actually vote in the fall. This will be especially important this year due to the fact that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have attracted people to the polls who don’t typically vote very often. The extent to which these groups turn out for the General Election could go a long way toward deciding the winner in more than one state. Finally, polling five months prior to the General Election doesn’t necessarily tells us much of anything. The numbers we’re looking at today will fluctuate many times over the next five months. So, consider this a snapshot of where the race stands today, not a prediction of where it will be on November 8th.
With all of that in mind, let’s take a dive into the most recent national polls, all of which tend to show Hillary Clinton with a slight lead over Donald Trump by looking at the newest Fox News poll:
Most voters feel the upcoming election matters more than ones in the past. At the same time, majorities dislike the presumptive nominees — and think they lack the integrity to hold the nation’s highest office.
Eighty-five percent say there’s more than usual at stake in this year’s presidential race, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. That’s up from 70 percent who felt that way in 2012. Clinton (83 percent) and Trump supporters (87 percent) are about equally likely to feel like there’s more at stake.
The new poll shows Hillary Clinton with a three-point edge over Donald Trump (42-39 percent) in a hypothetical matchup. That’s within the poll’s margin of error.
The poll was conducted Sunday through Wednesday — right as Clinton finally captured enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. Trump hit that mark May 26.
Clinton’s edge over Trump is due to a six-point drop in support for him rather than an increase for her. Trump was up by 45-42 percent three weeks ago (May 14-17, 2016). Since then, he lost three points among self-identified Republicans and 11 points among independents.
Clinton is ahead among blacks (+76), unmarried women (+34), women (+18), lower-income households (+14), and voters under age 30 (+13).
Trump is preferred among white evangelicals (+42), whites without a college degree (+25), whites (+16), men (+15), and independents (+5).
Expect the race to remain tight, as people are pretty set with their choice.
Voters were asked if there is a chance their candidate “could say or do something” that would make them change their mind before Election Day. More than 8-in-10 Clinton backers say there is no chance at all (57 percent) or only a small chance (24 percent). Sentiment is almost identical for Trump supporters: 57 percent say no chance and 23 percent say just a small chance.
Voters may be committed to their candidate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re happy about it. Trump supporters are split between being happy to vote for him (51 percent) and holding their nose (48 percent). Clinton backers are more upbeat: 60 percent happy vs. 37 percent holding their nose.
For comparison, in March 2000, only one quarter of George W. Bush supporters (24 percent) and those backing Al Gore (25 percent) said they would have to hold their nose.
Both candidates have reason for optimism. Among just those “extremely” or “very” interested in the election, Trump is up by 45-41 percent. That’s because more Republicans (78 percent) than Democrats (67 percent) are interested.
On the other hand, far more see Clinton (69 percent) as qualified to be president than feel the same about Trump (47 percent). And more than twice as many think she is “very” qualified: 37 percent Clinton vs. 17 percent Trump.
Roughly 6-in-10 say Trump is not likeable (58 percent), and he does not have the knowledge (59 percent) or temperament (62 percent) for the job.
By a 39-point margin, voters think Trump is the one who “will shake things up in Washington.”
Majorities feel Clinton (54 percent) and Trump (58 percent) lack the integrity to be president.
Some 36 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Trump supporters think he does not have the temperament to be president.
These numbers are largely consistent with other recent national polls that have shown Clinton in the lead, albeit by single digits and often within the margin of error. The most recent Rasmussen poll, for example, has Clinton ahead of Trump by four points at 42% to 38%. A Reuters/IPSOS poll that shows Clinton ahead by eight points at 42% to 34%. A IBD/TIPP poll that put Clinton five points ahead by five points at 45% to 40%, and a Quinnipiac poll that put Clinton ahead by four points at 45% to 41%. Earlier polling, which stretches back to mid-May shows somewhat similar numbers as well as the apparent impact of the early end of the race for the GOP nomination and Trump’s consolidation of support. All of this leaves Clinton with a 3.8 point advantage in the RealClearPolitics average, somewhat lower than it has been in the past, but also indicating other trends that could become important as the race goes on:
Looking at the chart, we see several interesting things. First of all, while there have been a handful of polls that showed him with a lead over Clinton inside the margin of error, there hasn’t been any point in the past six months when Donald Trump led Hillary Clinton in the polling average. There have been a few times when he’s come close, obviously, but each time that has happened his poll numbers have dropped, Clinton’s have risen, and we’ve gone back to the status quo of a race with a slight Clinton lead. All of this occurred while Clinton was fighting off a particularly vociferous challenge from Bernie Sanders. Trump’s most recent rise came as he consolidated Republican support behind him but quickly seemed to fall away as his poll numbers dropped in the immediate after math of his recent attacks on a Federal Judge, along with coverage of other things he’s said in public. It’s also worth noting that this polling all took place before Clinton wrapped up the Democratic nomination, so it’s possible we’ll see the gap between Clinton an Trump grow in the coming weeks.
The picture looks about the same at Pollster:
As things stand, then, it does appear that Hillary Clinton has the advantage as the race begins. Given both the controversies surrounding the presumptive Republican nominee and the fact that Democrats have long held an advantage in Presidential races going back to Clinton v. Bush in 1992, it’s not entirely a surprise that the numbers are where they are. Indeed the question going forward will be whether Trump will be able to gain even a temporary lead in the polls and the poll averages, or whether we are looking at a year in which Clinton maintains at least a slight lead for the balance of the race only to pull off a landslide win in November, or one where the race remains close right up until the end and the race ends up going about the same a what we saw in 2008 and 2012. Instinct and intuition would suggest that the GOP is headed for a massive blowout loss, but that’s by no means certain. We’ll simply have to wait and see which direction the polls take over the coming months.
I’m betting that even these polls understate the lead, as the Democratic race is just ending and the the process of bringing the Sanders supporters in behind Clinton has just begun. I suspect the read lead is in the 7/8 point range.
Let’s check back again in a couple of weeks when the unification process is well advanced.
National polls don’t matter though. State polls translated into electoral college votes do.
Huffington Post shows a larger, six-point lead for Clinton, which will probably grow after the Convention.
Sanders would have been a much wiser choice for the Democrats, much as John Kasich would have been a much wiser choice for Republicans.
Clinton’s disastrous advocacy of intervening in Libya is a strike against her, since it led to thousands of deaths, and terrorists taking root in Libya. (She prodded a reluctant Obama to intervene).
Clinton also shares Trump’s antipathy to free speech and civil liberties. As a publication that detests Trump notes, “Clinton wants to censor video games, censor television shows, censor encryption, and censor documentaries that are critical of her.” And she has has voted for numerous laws voided by the Supreme Court in challenges brought by the ACLU and others.
@Civil Libertarian:
She does?
@pylon:
No, no, no, NO!!!! I see this fallacy pop up all the time. It is simply wrong.
National polls are the single biggest indicator of where the race is at right now. They don’t necessarily predict what will happen in November, but they do give us the best idea of who would win if the election were held today.
It’s true that US presidential elections are decided by electoral vote, not popular vote. But it doesn’t follow that the popular vote doesn’t “matter.” Out of 56 elections in our history, in all but 3, the candidate who won the most votes nationally was also the candidate who won the most electoral votes.
Once we get near Election Day, state polls generally become a slightly more reliable metric for predicting the outcome than national polls. But right now, there simply aren’t enough state polls to paint a clear picture, since the sample sizes are too small. Even though the national numbers won’t determine the race, they present the most accurate picture of the likely outcome at this point.
For those who still think the private email thing is going to sink her: we learned today that John Kerry is the first SoS that used a state.gov email address. None of her predecessors did. But according to James, those past instances have no meaning, mere trivialities, but in Clinton’s case it is a direct indication of her dishonest nature and unfitness for office.
Got it.
“Clinton wants to censor video games, censor television shows, censor encryption, and censor documentaries that are critical of her.”
Any links you can point us to re this? Seeing as, for some reason, you fail to mention the title of the magazine from which the quote was taken.
@MarkedMan:
And I’m sure if Hillary Clinton is indicted by the FBI for a criminal offense, you won’t at all seek to attack, question, undermine or delegitimize the conduct of the upstanding members of ou legal system who made that decision.
And by the way, given the Stanford graduate judge who just gave a Stanford athlete only three months behind bars for raping a woman, does anyone want to reconsider the recent freak out over allegations of judicial bias by a certain candidate for President?
Mike
@stonetools:
Yep. I agree. I think a couple points of Trump’s support is people who want to register unhappiness but who will sober up (or not vote) in November.
It’s become quite fashionable to hate on Hillary, there’s a definite degree of misogyny, there are Bernie dead-enders, and the FBI thing still hangs over her. 7-8 points sounds about right. In the end I think that will widen. I would expect a 54/42/4 race, give or take.
Even national polls don’t matter that much right now. They’ll go up and down, Republicans will get a bump after their convention (unless it’s a real mess with a delegate revolt, which is now openly being discussed according to Politico) and then the Dems will get their boost the following week.
In all of this, I’d recommend looking at Fivethirtyeight’s poll of the polls–it was a fascinating analysis (well, fascinating to me at least) of different poll taker’s accuracy levels.
@MBunge:
Dude, how are criticisms of the Stanford sentence comparable to racist attacks by Trump?
There is criticism and then there’s racism. Criticism = OK. Racism = Evil.
@cian:
This appears to be a link to Reason Magazine, which is not a fan of Donald Trump:
“Clinton wants to censor video games, censor television shows, censor encryption, and censor documentaries that are critical of her.”
Reason’s Matt Welch also said today:
“the presumptive Democratic nominee’s long and terrible record on all things free speech. . .
You can read about our putative Censor in Chief in my March cover story, and in a couple of follow-ups: ‘Tech/Gaming Journalist: ‘I think’ Hillary Clinton’s ‘war on video games’ was ‘well-intentioned,’ and ‘Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump’s Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?’ It’s also worth remembering something I didn’t mention in any of those pieces: She also led a futile charge to recriminalize flag-burning as recently as a decade ago.”
@MBunge: Is anyone saying that the Stanford judge was biased in favor of the rapist because he is a man? Has a presidential candidate from a major party said that men cannot judge rape trials because of bias?
No?
Well, then, sit down and shut up.
@Civil Libertarian:
These sound like Reason.org talking points, which aren’t likely to find much purchase with the public. Yes, the Libya policy didn’t work out, but the alternative-non-intervention-would most likely have led to a worse outcome (see Civil War, Syria).
As to her antipathy to free speech and civil liberties, I’m betting she is similar to Obama-and in agreement with the majority of the public. For general election purposes, this won’t hurt her -although the ACLU types won’t be happy. They would be a lot less happy with “let’s loosen the libel laws” Trump, though
@MBunge: “And by the way, given the Stanford graduate judge who just gave a Stanford athlete only three months behind bars for raping a woman, does anyone want to reconsider the recent freak out over allegations of judicial bias by a certain candidate for President?”
No.
And frankly I feel I need to take a shower after this disgusting attempt to justify Trump’s despicable behavior. I know that Republicans can’t feel shame, but this is a new low.
Don’t forget the mind control rays, mass arrests, and gun confiscation.
@MBunge:
This was asked by EddieInCA in a previous thread.
The GOP has finally been exposed as either…
a) Racist
or…
b) willing to support a racist over a Democrat.
MBunge, what are you an A or a B.
—–
This question should be asked of everyone who still supports the Republican party; are they an A or a B.
I criticize you a lot but the analysis here is spot on. State polling I want to see is PA, IA, FL, VA and WI.
The great thing is that Trump the “billionaire” has a broke-ass campaign. He has no money. He’s walked back from a billion, to half a billion, to 300 million as his projected fundraising. The Kochs are out. Wall Street is not crazy about him. The GOP establishment thinks they should spend their money on down-ballot races. The neocons hate him. He’ll need a Bernie Sanders level grassroots fundraising effort, and given that his typical voter is an old white guy with a basement full of guns and a “beware of owner” sign stapled to his front door, I’m thinking he may not reap great rewards there.
Anyone who saw Trump’s TelePrompter speech the other night, sees the problem. Trump pretending not to be a scumbag is boring and he won’t get free media. Trump gets free media when he releases his inner George Wallace slash Silvio Berlusconi, and every time he does that every Republican candidate has to defend or reject. Sooner or later even a spine as amazingly flexible as Paul Ryan’s has to break.
Trump’s shot his wad. If he goes boring he loses free media and has no cash to make up the difference. If he goes full-on rancid, mold-topped jack o’ lantern to charge up his idiot base he screws with every other Republican running and forces a chorus of rejection from his own party. In writerly terms we’d say he has no second act, no middle, and Hillary’s Act II (or Two Act as Trump would say) is Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and the entire Democratic Party, plus a good half of the GOP punditocracy, the entire foreign policy establishment and, I suspect, major elements of the military.
Trump’s hired buffoons and amateurs and clowns, he has zero effective proxies, his message is already tired, the media has turned on him, his own party’s professionals are ashamed of him and he’s eaten his own seed corn. He can’t even label effectively anymore, “nasty mouth Elizabeth Warren?” Nah, that’s not it, Donald, try again.
@michael reynolds:
That’s the bigee. Once the supposedly liberal MSM settle on a narrative, they don’t easily give it up. And the narrative on Trump seems to be converging on racist buffoon. For once the media narrative may be correct.
I want Mitt Romney. Maybe Trump will drop dead before November. I can’t take this buffoon anymore. You would think this clown would have an ounce of intellectual curiosity to actually learn about some issues since he started his circus campaign, but doubling down on racist rhetoric is his strategy.
It’s a shame because I think Romney is the right man for this country today. I have friends on the Left who were Bernie supporters and would vote for Romney in a second for Hillary. I guess I can dream.
You should try to heed Bobby Jindal’s suggestion from 2013.
After the horrible week that Trump just had (on top of his other issues), the very fact that this poll is remotely close shows what kind of problem we have with the electorate in this country.
dumb.
@Kylopod:
Actually, it’s four, not three (1824,1876, 1888 and 2000.) But most importantly, one of eight elections since the great Southern Strategy realignment was subject to this effect, which makes it worth remembering.
Nobody would have been able to predict 2000 by relying upon your argument. It’s a historical ratio that provides us with little predictive value and few tools for campaigners to shape the outcome of future elections.
It’s a matter of correlation being only somewhat related to causation. Obviously it would be difficult to win the popular vote with a wide spread while losing the electoral vote. But if it was as simple as relying strictly upon national poll numbers, no political strategist would bother focusing on state-level strategies. You might want to consider that those who win elections for a living know something that you don’t.
That’s an argument for better data, not for the glib use of national polling numbers. The reason the media focuses on national numbers is because they are cheaper and easier to gather.
@michael reynolds:
I love Trump’s strategy of trying to flip deep blue states like NY. This should be fun to watch. Maybe he really does believe the bullshit he serves the media every day. Part of me thinks that he will be down in the polls by 20 points in August and may drop out to prevent further embarrassment. We all know how fragile his ego is.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/today-in-trumps-campaign-is-a-garbage-fire.html
WRT Trump, what the Clinton campaign has to do is keep “pounding the rock”. Trump will eventually break. I find that Republicans are much better at that exercise which they do with zombie relentlessness. Democrats tend to quit too soon and divert into some irrelevant eddy. The last week was quite excellent but I hope it continues. Focus more on the con man and fraud aspects, his flakiness and unreliability, and his unsuitability. Personally, I find the revelations that he is a two bit chiseler who bullies and cheats the little guy to be much more damaging because that is who he pretends to be representing. Lose those guys and he’s done.
@Raoul: Well here in PA a recent poll shows more people would vote for the Philly Phanatic than Trump for POTUS, so…
@Pch101:
In 1824, Jackson not only won the most popular votes, but the most electoral votes as well. But since he only won a plurality of electoral votes and not a majority, the race was thrown into the House, which then chose Adams, the runner-up in both popular and electoral votes. It’s often lumped together with the other three elections in which the popular-vote winner failed to secure the presidency, but it wasn’t quite the same situation.
My argument was simply to refute the statement that “National polls don’t matter.” They do matter, and at this stage in the race they’re on balance a better indicator of what’s going on than state polls. Just because I make this argument doesn’t mean I’m going to the opposite extreme of arguing that state polls don’t matter. I think both kinds of polls are worth paying attention to, and that state polls become increasingly accurate as we head toward November. But it’s still important to maintain perspective that popular/electoral splits are historically rare (and two of the three times they did happen, in 1876 and 2000, the electoral results were extremely questionable).
But that doesn’t change the fact that the state data we have at this stage is still lousy. That needs to be taken into account when examining the polls.
@Kylopod:
But you missed the general point being made, namely that we have 51 elections in November and state-level demography shapes the outcome. The 2000 election results are an example of how that works; elections like that come down to the margins.
All of the data is less than optimal because the election is five months away. That’s an argument for patience and better data.
If the media had unlimited resources and we wanted the best data, then we would do extensive 50 state+DC polling and crunch the results. But (a) that isn’t necessary when most of the state-level results are probably pre-determined and (b) it’s expensive. There is even less incentive to do it because (c) it would be difficult to discuss this in a typical soundbite news story. So we settle for inferior data with the knowledge that there aren’t too many circumstances when the approach will backfire.
@Pch101:
The 2000 election was literally the narrowest election in history, coming down to 537 votes (or one SCOTUS vote, depending on how you look at it). For all we know, something totally random like the weather could have affected the results. Trying to draw conclusions about elections in general from that one is like consulting a lottery winner for financial advice. In contrast, think about the many narrow elections in history that did not lead to an electoral/popular split (1960, 1976, 2004, etc.).
That’s part of the reason, but the state data right now is still plagued by the small sample sizes in a way that the national polls are not.
@bookdragon:
I dunno. I think Trump would have a decent chance against the Philly Phanatic. Especially since birther allegations might stick, as he was born in the Galapagos Islands.
Polling conducted between October 1 and the day before election day in 2012 showed Obama leading Romney by 0.7.
Less than one point.
He won the popular vote by some 5%, and the electoral vote by 24%,
Moral of the story – we don’t have one gigantic election for the presidency. We have 51 little elections for the presidency, and all but two of them are winner take all.
@michael reynolds:
Also, there is this idea that Trump is a successful (false) billionaire (false) who has been self-financing his campaign (false), so I doubt that his supporters are going to open their wallets and give enough.
Good afternoon. Who did Hillary Clinton sell the American people, and her soul, to for raw financial gain today??
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/10/abc-did-hillary-sell-access-to-key-national-security-board-for-foundation-donor/
@Guarneri:
You sad little man. Your party – the party you kept insisting was not racist because Al Sharpton was the only real racist – is now denounced as racist by Republicans. Every debate you and I have ever had on race is now resoundingly concluded in my favor. 100% Not that you have the integrity to admit it.
And you’ll cast your vote for a woman-hating bigot, an ignoramus, a fraud, a compulsive liar, a toddler in the body of a rancid old racist.
So, as usual, rather than demonstrating any understanding whatsoever, let alone a shred of honesty, we get this from you.
Time for another name change, Drew. You stink of Trump.
At least she is doing well. And she can run on a fantastic economic record and robust economy.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-10/we-do-not-have-explanation-home-improvement-luxury-spending-unexpectedly-crashes
And thank god she’s not a racist, you know, not making remarks about running on colored people time, or using faux black dialect to pitifully ingratiate herself, or even cynically capitalizing on the black vote, as always promising the moon even as blacks have done so miserably under her predecessor, or her pal and fundraiser and now “shoot first, cover it up second” Chicago mayor. Yeah, at least she wouldn’t do that.
@Guarneri:
Actually, as we can see here black incomes rose sharply under Bill Clinton, fell slowly under George W. Bush before falling really fast after the crash engineered by the kinds of people you adore, before beginning to rise again under Obama.
So, as usual: you are full of Trump.
@Joe Gage:
How? I think a statement like that demands some explanation.
And of course there is her Maginot Line, running on her and Obamas foreign policy successes, like Libya, punishing offensive YouTube filmmakers and getting us out of Afghanistan.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/10/fight-or-flight-obama-order-in-afghanistan-ramps-up-combat-role/
I think she should have quit at her highest and best use: extraordinary cattle futures trading. A/k/a securities fraud and bribery.
@Guarneri:
Oh, my God! You are Trump! Is that you, Donald? Let’s see: insecure? Yep. Ignorant? Yep. Racist? Yep. Desperate to appear “classy?” Yep. A transparent liar? Yep. Ridiculous? Yep.
Answer one question: is there or is there not a dead, orange muskrat on your head?
Interesting poll in The Guardian:
And that’s a poll now, before Sanders endorses, before Warren can really go to work, before Hillary’s crushing superiority in organization, talent, experience and money can be turned fully against Trump. The 3rd party candidates will shrivel, Trump will continue to appall, and Hillary will (barring some catastrophic event) wipe the floor with Trump and quite possibly the GOP Senate.
@Guarneri:
Guarneri…
Aren’t you and ZeroHedge the ones who, back in February, predicted that the EU was going to collapse in 10 days?
Are you and ZeroHedge ever right about anything?
Seriously…how do you make it thru the day being wrong about everything????
Here’s the link you provided then.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/we-are-heading-anarchy-official-says-eu-will-completely-break-down-10-days
@Kylopod:
Once again: That is an argument for better data.
Perhaps an analogy will help. The Rose Parade was launched to promote Southern California weather (and real estate) to the rest of the country. There usually isn’t rain on the day of the parade, so the goal is generally met, but there are exceptions when it does rain.
One can use historical data to prove that it usually does rain on the day of the parade.
One can conclude that it’s usually a pretty safe bet that the parade can be held on New Year’s Day without there being rain.
But if one wants to specifically predict the weather for a particular future New Year’s, then it isn’t enough to consult a historical ratio and use it to assume that it can’t rain. Knowing the macro (what usually happens) doesn’t give us the micro (what will happen on a particular date in the future), and no analyst worth his salt would rely upon a historical inevitability argument when there are so many variables that can lead to a given day becoming an outlier.
@C. Clavin:
He also predicted the death of GM (record earnings and margin) and all 8 of the last 0 recessions. He’s an idiot.
@anjin-san:
Two out of three is pretty good, but really – mind control rays?
@Pch101:
That doesn’t have anything to do with my argument. My argument is an “is”: I’m describing the reality that state polls at this stage are likely less accurate than the national ones because of the typically small sample sizes. You’re making an “ought” argument: you’re saying there should be better polls. Maybe there should be, but that doesn’t change anything I said.
@Kylopod:
When the necessary data is absent, then the appropriate response is to acknowledge that you don’t have the necessary information instead of overstating the value of what you do have.
@MBunge: “And by the way, given the Stanford graduate judge who just gave a Stanford athlete only three months behind bars for raping a woman, does anyone want to reconsider the recent freak out over allegations of judicial bias by a certain candidate for President?”
Yes.
First, Trump didn’t base his allegations on actions by the judge, but rather the judge’s ancestry.
Second, the judge has bent over backwards favoring Trump. Pushing the trial back after the election was something which should not have been done.
Other than the facts, you have a great point.
@Joe Gage: “I have friends on the Left who were Bernie supporters and would vote for Romney in a second for Hillary. I guess I can dream.”
First, that’s likely a lie, and second, if it was true, it says far more about them than anybody who’s sane.
@al-Alameda:
Johnny’s in the basement, mixing up the medicine…
@Pch101:
Perhaps there would be a benefit for the campaigns to have better State level polling data. But does the public really “need” such a thing 5 months out?
For some reason we take comfort (as longs we can imagine it turning out in our favor) in trying to predict future events. But the reality is, we don’t know what will happen over the rest of the summer and fall. State level polling would probably just confirm what the national polls are already telling us … Hillary Clinton is leading, but it’s a slightly smaller lead than we should probably be comfortable with.
If there’s another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next 5 months, or the economic trend continues to weaken (imagine a negative jobs report in October, or even worse in November, right before we vote) all bets might be off. Nothing we’re seeing in polling now, whether national or State level would be relevant to what might happen in November.
… and the scary thing is that who the candidates are would likely only matter marginally.
Either one of those hypothetical events would be unequivocally bad for any Democrat this year, regardless of who they’re running against, or even how they react to the news. This is probably the main reason that anybody who was rooting for Donald Trump to get the Republican nomination was off their rocker. Yes, right now he’s proving to be every bit as fantastically awful for the Republican party as any lefty could have dreamed up in their wildest fantasy. But if some outside shit does hit the fan and he ends up in the oval office, we’re all going to be wishing that boring old Jeb had gotten the nod instead.
@Barry: Or that Joe Gage is so far to the right that everyone is a lefty/socialist to him.
@Todd:
The point is that state-level data would be more accurate than national-level data, and the relative lack of state-level data doesn’t make the national data more accurate.
Whether or not the public “needs” it isn’t relevant to a point that I am making about the appropriate use of statistics.
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: “Or that Joe Gage is so far to the right that everyone is a lefty/socialist to him.”
Yes, there are a lot of people who are so far right that they have Stormfront blocked as a ‘liebral’ site.