>Trump 4 point lead
Really makes you think
Rassmussen is a shit tier pollster
>>79286883
>Trump how holds a 14-point lead among men, while Clinton leads by six among women. The candidates are tied among those under 40, while Trump leads among older voters.
>>79286938
Rasmussen had Romney leading the entire election.
>>79286787
bump
>>79287503
>>79287338
You're right, I will now listen to a true professional. Maybe someone who has been wrong this entire cycle so far, like Nate Silver.
>>79288640
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by six points, 44% to 38%, in a Fox News poll of registered voters released Wednesday, marking an uptick from similar polls released in May and June.
The Fox News results follow a rough patch for the Trump campaign: In May, the presumptive Republican nominee enjoyed a three-point lead in the same survey. But by early June, those numbers had flipped, with Clinton jumping out to a 42% to 39% advantage.
CNN's Poll of Polls -- an average of results for the five most recent publicly released national polls that meet CNN's standards for publication -- has Clinton leading Trump 46% to 40%.
Her lead among women in this latest round -- 51% to 32% -- outpaces Trump's with men, where his edge has dwindled to 10 points, 46% to 36%.
>>79286787
What do they mean by this?
>>79287338
Other polls had Romney winning too
>>79288869
>that meet CNN's standards for publication
discarded
there was a meme about this... what was it.... muh something. MUH RAMMUSSEN
>>79288869
Cockmaster, my point is that polls, any polls (good for trump, bad for trump) are all near-useless in an election cycle like this. All they do is maybe give you two *distinct* trend lines to follow- other than that they are too dependent on turnout calculations.
You apprently don't understand how these polls function, so let me break it down for you: They do not sample people randomly, they use calculations and formulas based on predicted turnout to determine how many of what type people to poll. These calculations are inherently based on previous turnout models that have been made based upon previous results. This is why Nate Silver was so accurate in 2012, because the election resembled the model- it was a very "typical" election. What we have here is a black swan situation that the old model simply cannot accommodate. >This is like not a normal situation.
We can feel free to make predictions about turnout though (that's what this is all about after all). I suggest that unless Hillary can go back in time and run as the first black president, she will be sorely disappointed in turnout calculations based upon elections involving... the first black president .
