Most national polls this year are junk. An exception is Rasmussen which was the most accurate presidential poll in 2016. Here is their latest presidential poll:
President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The race has narrowed over the past two weeks. Biden had a two-point lead last week, but that survey also marked the first time Trump had edged above 45% over the past two-and-a-half months. Prior to this week, Biden has bested Trump in every weekly survey since White House Watch began at the beginning of July.
President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The race has narrowed over the past two weeks. Biden had a two-point lead last week, but that survey also marked the first time Trump had edged above 45% over the past two-and-a-half months. Prior to this week, Biden has bested Trump in every weekly survey since White House Watch began at the beginning of July.
Go here to read the rest. Watch panic start to set in among Biden’s puppet masters. Their scam isn’t working
Deo gratias!
Really good news. The MSM media will be all over this saying its wrong, meaningless,poorly done, and worst of all non-scientific. Note: MSM knows what’s scientific, i.e., that which agrees with the NARRITIVE,.
Here’s my son Matt’s comment. He’s the chief political analyst for ABC-TV:
“Lordy. Look at the averages. Hasn’t changed in months. Rasmussen had Democrats losing in the days before 2018 while all others had dems ahead by eight points. Dems won by 8.4%. Rasmussen is junk polling. Seriously.”
The purpose of the vast majority of political polls is not to find out the public opinion. The real intentions are:
-To demoralize conservatives (“a dem victory is inevitable so why bother voting”)
-To give cover for voting fraud (“sure it may seem suspicious that we just found tons of uncounted dem votes, but that puts the totals in line with earlier polling so it’s likely the correct result.”)
You forgot “push the undecided toward our desired candidate.”
With all due respect to your son Matt, Michael, I guess he does not know the difference between a Presidential election year and an off year election. Tell him he needs to be less Never Trump and more analyst.
His twitter feed is a trip:
https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd
Was he a lefty crazy when he worked for Bush 43 in 2004, and kept it concealed, or is this a post 2004 development?
I bet he is still grinding his teeth over his November 6, 2016 prediction that Clinton had a 95% chance to win:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/06/matthew_dowd_clinton_has_95_chance_will_get_higher_margin_than_obama.html
Dunno. Rasmussen’s an outlier. Reuters is the outlier on the other side. I assume some of the polls are corrupt and they all suffer from bad sampling these days.
The thing is, the behavior of the Democratic Party has been so atrocious the last several years that there should be manifest revulsion, and that’s hard to detect. Rioting over a non-issue (which suggests something quite sinister about what the issue actually is); contrived refusal to enforce the law by Democratic mayors; misplaced priorities in public health measures (most severe in Democratic states); abusive favoritism in public health measures; antagonism to the enforcement of immigration law; the security state conspiring against the Republican presidential candidate, the president, and his appointees: a vicious campaign of defamation against a Republican judicial nominee. None of it seems to register with swing voters at all. None of it seems to pick off any partisan Democrats. Now they have a candidate who sounds wretchedly confused when he speaks, and that has no effect as well.
I’m quite puzzled about what interests and motivates people. I’ve seen what the partisan Democrats among our friends have to say, but they’re not and have not done any serious thinking on any issue.
On top of this, I have little doubt this will be the most corrupt general election in four generations, if not ever. Even if Trump manages an upset, the ballots will be found in the trunk of Al Franken’s car.
The one swing voter I’m acquainted with is a retired schoolteacher in Duchess County, NY. Her complaint is that Trump is ‘divisive’ and that he has to go. I actually think well of her generally, but I have to say the sheer vacuity of her reaction to current events is dismaying.
I’ve been reading magazines and newspapers for 40-odd years, and never in my life has public discourse been so viciously and so gratuitously so.
@Art Deco – I feel ya. Behold the grip the media has on gaslighting the voters. Even moreso than 2016, this election isn’t Trump vs Biden, but Trump vs the Media. Biden is almost a perfect puppet for them to test their power with.
Dunno. Rasmussen’s an outlier.
Judging from the moves of the campaigns Rasmussen is likely on the money. The campaigns are focusing on the blue states taken by Trump and to a much lesser extent on Florida. I don’t see the Biden campaign fighting for Ohio, Iowa or Texas, all of which they would be doing if they believed the public polls showing a seven point lead for the Biden campaign. On the other hand Trump would not be fighting for Minnesota which hasn’t gone for the GOP since 1972. It is a one to two point race either way, and that is bad news for the Dems.
“Divisive” is one of those motte and bailey words.
When people use it about President Trump they will simply point that people under his presidency are divided and disagree about his policies. Hence he is objectively “divisive.”
But when it comes to Obama, you’ll have to struggle to get any acceptance that he might have been “divisive” despite people being quite obviously divided under his presidency. Then it will become about intentions. Obama wasn’t “divisive” because he didn’t want people to be in conflict, and furthermore people only disagreed because they were stupid and racist, or so they explanation will go.
It’s equivocation all the way down, like all leftist rhetoric.
Agreed on the campaigns telling us more about the reality than the polls. According to the mainstream polls Trump trails Biden by about 9 points in MN, and so grabbing the state is impossible (some even say by 16 points!). But both candidates have been having events weekly or more here. If it were really so much of a lost cause, why would the Trump campaign bother? Even if it was just that he miscalculated and was wasting his time, why would the Biden campaign bother with events to counter his campaigning in the state? Wouldn’t they focus their efforts on states that were closer to 50/50?
“but they’re not and have not done any serious thinking on any issue.”
That’s not unusual. It’s all unfounded emotion created by lies and untruths. My experience is that when there is any sort of attempt with a mutual examination of the “facts”, that we no longer have a common experience or what the meaning of common words are or what the “facts” are, which result in an explosion of anger and fury when anything is brought up. It has gotten quite demonic.
“Divisive” is one of those motte and bailey words.
I’ve never known how to use the term ‘motte-and-bailey’ correctly.
The complaint that someone is ‘divisive’ is a transposition to the public and political sphere of a disposition in family life and schools. The party branded a problem by the mother or the inept elementary schoolteacher is the one for whom sanctions are less likely to be met with defiance. In all conflicts, the obnoxious behavior of one side is treated as a weather event; the countervaling behavior as wrongdoing. It surprises me from the woman in question. She was actually quite capable in the domestic sphere, and amply endowed with grandchildren as a result. (She had problems with her employers, but it had to do with office politics). She’s about the last person I’d expect to manifest the fallacy in question.
I’d really like to say to her that recruiting some dame in California to manufacture a cock-and-bull story about two men we have every reason to believe she never met’s pretty divisive. That the chronic lawfare by Democratic operatives in robes is pretty divisive. That making use of the IRS to harass the opposition’s pretty divisive. That manufacturing criminal charges against incoming officials is pretty divisive.
I’d also point out to her what comes over the Fakebook wall. Virtually 100% of the aggression I see in pixels is aimed at one side.
Heck, the fact the Trump campaign is forcing the Biden campaign to spend resources in Minnesota is prima facie evidence that Biden is on the defensive.
And the media will likely be shocked again at the outcome of this electoral duel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERmM5l2ceoY
!.) The margin of error between the extreme polls on both ends do not overlap. Normally it would be expected.
2,) The straight commercial polling companies tend to be closer than polls with an ideological frame, and media polls where they are trying to increase click count. The polling companies want to be close so they can tout their accuracy to cash paying customers.
3.} Due to cell phones the net and such the traditional sampling j=methods are not reliable and there differing theories on how to do it.
4.) polling companies report there is a reluctance to publicly state voting intent this year, much more so for possible Trump voters than Biden.
5.) Long term Rasmussen has a very good record on presidential polls.
As we from the Chicago area know the election is not over until the outlying graveyards report.
the media will likely be shocked again at the outcome of this electoral duel
When you have to slash, slash, don’t talk.
—Tuco Benedicto Juan Maria Ramirez Montoya
The guy Vizzini meant to hire, but settled for his 2nd cousin instead.
Donald–Thanks for your notes on Matthew. I have never looked at his Twitter feed until now. He and I have little conversation. I do send him stuff from time to time but he tells me never ever send him this (conservative) opinion again. He calls it fake news and conspiracy theory. Matthew, I think, is an opportunist. It is been very profitable for him money wise. But for everything else, not so much. Please pray for him. One of these days he will hopefully get a comeuppance before it is too late.
I will pray for him Michael. Unfortunately in his case the apple fell far from the mighty tree that sired him.
The reason for the…oddness… in polling is probably at least in part for the same reason Matthew would be unwise to familiarize himself with conservative opinions; any sign of tainted thought can and will get you fired and destroyed in any manner they can come up with, and that includes your entire social network.
Shunning was used because it works.
Polling firms are fairly clear on their own limitations and margins of error. That being said, conservatives come off as rather juvenile claiming these for-profit corporations of whom 90% of their business is not political polling but consumer surveys, have some sort of evil or biased intent. It contradicts the conservative claim that private businesses in a competitive environment will deliver a quality product at a fair price. These polling firms are not only private businesses but most of their clients are private businesses marketing their products.
Polling firms are fairly clear on their own limitations and margins of error. That being said, conservatives come off as rather juvenile claiming these for-profit corporations of whom 90% of their business is not political polling but consumer surveys, have some sort of evil or biased intent.
They are simply bad pollsters, no evil intent is required. Some pollsters like PPP push a point of view, but most are simply bad at their job. College based polls tend to be the worst. Most pollsters have never adjusted to a world where getting through on a land line is an increasing rarity. 2016 demonstrated how bad national polling has become. A good article on some of the issues in contemporary polling.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-polling
The best polls tend to be internal campaign polls which are rarely revealed to the public. Seeing which states campaigns are going to and in which states they are spending money is usually a more reliable indicator of the state of the race than most public polls.
Objection, unsupported assumptions; most basically, that “quality product” means accurate numbers distributed to the public.
Public opinion polls are more valuable– that is, will sell for a higher price– to those who value social manipulation, and that value goes up as it is focused on changing social pressures, and their business model is based on social pressures. (If you look at the national parties, pretty obvious which one is a better customer for that.)
That means that their customer is not buying “give the public accurate measures of the general public view;” what they sell is “provide public support for what our customers want, so they will buy from us again.”
As I have told before, it’s been at least seven years since I answered a phone poll because the fellow calling let it slip that he was listing me– as a happily married mother whose husband was deployed, although if he’d been on a business trip or even a weekend fishing trip it would have been the same– as “divorced or separated.”
While technically accurate for one of the meanings of “separated,” is is obvious and shameless equivocation.
Since I’ve started telling folks about that, I have gotten MANY folks telling similar stories.
A startling number are now viewing polling companies as propaganda at best– and the accuracy of their responses varies accordingly.
That is in addition to the “ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer” effect where the question itself is so **** insulting that people choose the wrong answer quite deliberately.
Incidentally, if the polling company calls you on your cellular phone and you don’t want them to– remind them that the same law that put the “do not call” list in place also put penalties in place for unsolicited calls to cellphones or any other number where the receiver is charged for the call, and there is no good will exception for numbers that were not ported over from a land line.
This works very well for those places (looks at Pew with a glare) that like to “inform” you that polling is not covered by the Do Not Call list.
I only had to file a few complaints before my phone number magically was removed from their calling list.
Polling firms are fairly clear on their own limitations and margins of error. That being said, conservatives come off as rather juvenile claiming these for-profit corporations of whom 90% of their business is not political polling but consumer surveys, have some sort of evil or biased intent.
I think when you have a set of polls where the distribution of responses to a given question asked during the same week has a range of x% + / – 12%, you don’t have people making use of reliable methodology. They used to be able to gin up probability samples through random-digit dialing. They cannot do that anymore, so they gin up convenience samples and then noodle around with them making use of demographic data, models of turnout, models on the distribution of party identification, &c. So, you end up where we are, with… unreliable instruments.
And, of course, we’ll have controversies all over the country in re tabulating posted ballots and fraud like we’ve never seen before. The 20th Amendment provisions presume we’re all confident about the rightful occupant of the Speaker’s chair in the House of Representatives. One way around that might be to elect a pro-forma Speaker from outside the body of the membership. You’d have to locate someone not entirely distrusted by all factions and the Democratic Party would have to do something public-spirited. Fat chance.