54% of respondents thought Clinton was going to win vs. 35% for Trump. That’s far more predictive at this point because it shows that people are projecting how they will vote. Many moderate Republicans have mixed feelings about supporting Clinton, but they know they can’t support Trump. In the end, they’ll do the right thing even if they really don’t want to.
Will we forever curse the name of Johnson and Stein as we now curse the name of Nader?
Many, many more registered Democrats voted for Bush than Nader. Democrats have never owned up to Gore’s weakness as a candidate. Those weaknesses included, unfairly, the press’s glee at belittling him. It’s a similar case with Clinton. It’s not fair, but it’s the truth of the situation. Hate Nader all you want, but he didn’t cost Gore the election. Hilary might be the best candidate for the job, but she is far from the best candidate for the campaign.
What’s round on the edges and high in the middle?
The press belittles Clinton for two reasons. One they want to look “fair and balanced.” Possibly more important, they want a photo finish horse race, not a blowout.
According to rating/bias at 538 Emerson College is B/R + 1.3 lean, which probably falls right in line with the basic almost tied with Clinton slightly ahead of everyone else.
So I guess maybe GOTV and organization may matter in Ohio…but I guess Trump will just tweet directions on the day of the election.
But just the one that crushed all other Democrats in the race? Okay.
I think Johnson’s taking more Republican protest votes than Johnson and Stein are taking Democratic votes combined. As a fairly active former Sanders supporter, I don’t know any liberal friends or colleagues who aren’t voting Clinton. And I have a few conservative in-laws who are voting Johnson because Trump horrifies them.
What happened in Florida would have been irrelevant if Gore had won his own danged state of Tennessee.
What is wrong with people? I’m so dejected. Faith in humanity, once again, dropping precipitously.
If Nader (or another Green Party candidate) did not run, Gore would have won. That is indisputable, and the point that some Dems voted for Bush is irrelevant. Like it or not, we live under a two party system. Running as a third party candidate to the left of the Democratic candidate has only one significant effect - increasing the likelihood that the Republican candidate wins, and the progressive agenda is defeated. Self-defeating and foolish.
Yep, but the RCP average for Ohio still has HRC up by 3.8. No worries…
The poll was taken over “landlines” only. In other words, older votes - Trump’s best demo, and he is only tied.
Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida. If Nader was not on the ballot, all of those 97,421 would have stayed at home or voted for Bush? Implausible.
A 3.4% error with a survey of 800 landline owners?
Give me a break. They couldn’t have targeted a Trump-leaning universe better if they tried.
Hillary is definitely ahead, and as long as Donald’s campaign strategy is piss-off-the-liberals-to-make-them-turn-out, he won’t even know what hit him on Election Day.
Edit: right you are @tropicthunder
Keeping democrats and progressives on their toes and afraid of Trump is a good thing for GOTV.
There’s a slate of new state polls out today. They all appear to be from Emerson and they’re all showing Clinton performing worse than she does in other recent polls of the same state. But the biggest thing is “landlines only” because it means minorities and young people are being greatly underpolled. I don’t know of anyone under 65 who still has a landline.
Thank you. This point gets overlooked by so many people. Al Gore was twice elected to the Senate from Tennessee with more than 60 percent of the vote. And Bill Clinton won the state twice, including only four years before.
Yes, Al Gore got a raw deal in Florida. But he also screwed himself over plenty too.
Um, yawn. Wake me in November — until then, it’s click bait.