So good news all around in the Monmouth poll of likely voters:
PENNSYLVANIA President:
"Poll: Clinton tightens grip on Pennsylvania base."
"Hillary Clinton holds an 8 percentage point lead over Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, according to the results of the latest Monmouth University poll of likely voters out Tuesday, which also shows Democratic Senate candidate Katie McGinty eking out a narrow advantage over Republican incumbent Pat Toomey."
"Buoyed by strong support from non-whites and voters in the Philadelphia area, Clinton is shown leading the Republican nominee 48 percent to 40 percent in a four-way race including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who received 6 percent, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who earned 1 percent. Four 4 percent said they are undecided among those candidates."
"Clinton’s level of support in the four-way matchup is roughly the same as the 9-point lead she had in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll conducted in early August. Overall, Clinton holds a 10-point advantage of 48.8 percent to 38.8 percent in the POLITICO Battleground States Polling Average of tracking polls in the field back to late July."
"Independents are generally split in the latest Monmouth survey, with 39 percent going for Trump and 36 percent for Clinton. Seventeen percent of independents in Pennsylvania said they would vote for Johnson, while 2 percent backed Stein."
"Among black, Hispanic and Asian voters, Clinton leads Trump by 85 points — 90 percent to 5 percent. Trump leads by a margin of 9 points — 48 percent to 39 percent — among white voters. President Barack Obama won the non-white vote by 71 points in 2012, while Mitt Romney prevailed by 15 points among white voters."
"Trump holds a substantial 18-point lead among white men (50 percent to 32 percent) but ties with Clinton among white women, taking 45 percent to her 46 percent. The Manhattan businessman is behind by 10 points among college-educated white voters, a voting bloc that Romney won by 15 points in 2012. Trump leads by 25 points (57 percent to 32 percent) among whites without a college degree, a group Romney won by 13 points in 2012."
Hillary has led from wire to wire, and according to Monmouth her average has been 7 points.
PENNSYLVANIA President:
Clinton (D) 48%
Trump (R) 40%
Johnson (L) 6%
Stein (G) 1%
(Monmouth U. Poll, LV, 8/26-29)
https://twitter.com/pollreport/status/770683341246861312
It's also very gratifying to see Jill Stein at just 1%. It shows you most Berners are listening to Bernie who is campaigning for her by himself the day before labor day.
"Poll: Clinton tightens grip on Pennsylvania base."
"Hillary Clinton holds an 8 percentage point lead over Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, according to the results of the latest Monmouth University poll of likely voters out Tuesday, which also shows Democratic Senate candidate Katie McGinty eking out a narrow advantage over Republican incumbent Pat Toomey."
"Buoyed by strong support from non-whites and voters in the Philadelphia area, Clinton is shown leading the Republican nominee 48 percent to 40 percent in a four-way race including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who received 6 percent, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who earned 1 percent. Four 4 percent said they are undecided among those candidates."
"Clinton’s level of support in the four-way matchup is roughly the same as the 9-point lead she had in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll conducted in early August. Overall, Clinton holds a 10-point advantage of 48.8 percent to 38.8 percent in the POLITICO Battleground States Polling Average of tracking polls in the field back to late July."
"Independents are generally split in the latest Monmouth survey, with 39 percent going for Trump and 36 percent for Clinton. Seventeen percent of independents in Pennsylvania said they would vote for Johnson, while 2 percent backed Stein."
"Among black, Hispanic and Asian voters, Clinton leads Trump by 85 points — 90 percent to 5 percent. Trump leads by a margin of 9 points — 48 percent to 39 percent — among white voters. President Barack Obama won the non-white vote by 71 points in 2012, while Mitt Romney prevailed by 15 points among white voters."
"Trump holds a substantial 18-point lead among white men (50 percent to 32 percent) but ties with Clinton among white women, taking 45 percent to her 46 percent. The Manhattan businessman is behind by 10 points among college-educated white voters, a voting bloc that Romney won by 15 points in 2012. Trump leads by 25 points (57 percent to 32 percent) among whites without a college degree, a group Romney won by 13 points in 2012."
"And while Trump leads Clinton by 30 points in the less populous northeast and central areas of the state, the Democratic nominee leads by 33 points in the seven congressional districts in and around Philadelphia, the state’s largest metropolitan area."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/08/poll-clinton-trump-pennsylvania-227544#ixzz4Ir5X3JUO \
Yes, speaking of the burbs, Harry Enten:
"Monmouth echoes Marist in SE PA. Marist had Clinton up ~35 in Philly + burbs."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/08/poll-clinton-trump-pennsylvania-227544#ixzz4Ir5X3JUO \
Yes, speaking of the burbs, Harry Enten:
"Monmouth echoes Marist in SE PA. Marist had Clinton up ~35 in Philly + burbs."
"Monmouth has her up 33. Obama won it by 25. #lotsofvotesthere"
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/770676564493295616
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/770676564493295616
This is also very good news about McGinty leading Pat Toomey, 45-41. Yesterday's Emerson poll had Toomey up 46-39.
So which one is the truth? Good news there as well. Nate Cohn:
"Choose yer PA SEN news: Monmouth has Katie McGinty up 45-41."
So which one is the truth? Good news there as well. Nate Cohn:
"Choose yer PA SEN news: Monmouth has Katie McGinty up 45-41."
Emerson has Pat Toomey up 46-39 http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_865
"I'll choose the one calling cell phones."
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/770734214199345154
That would be Monmouth.
Yesterday's Monmouth's general election poll had Hillary up by 7. This is pretty consistent with the trend we've seen in Monmouth over the last three months.
"Clinton+7, 46-39 in 4-way and 49-42 in the 2-way in new Monmouth poll."
"I'll choose the one calling cell phones."
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/770734214199345154
That would be Monmouth.
Yesterday's Monmouth's general election poll had Hillary up by 7. This is pretty consistent with the trend we've seen in Monmouth over the last three months.
"Clinton+7, 46-39 in 4-way and 49-42 in the 2-way in new Monmouth poll."
"She was up 13/14 last time, 2/3 in July, 7/7 in June."
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/770312322720133120
Nate Silver now says those claiming her bounce is over may have jumped too soon.
Clinton national polling average
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/770312322720133120
Nate Silver now says those claiming her bounce is over may have jumped too soon.
Clinton national polling average
Aug. 9: 45.2
Aug. 16: 43.8
Aug. 23: 43.4
Aug. 30: 42.9
https://53eig.ht/29vlkLI
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770652897239597056
Trump national polling average
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770652897239597056
Trump national polling average
Aug. 9: 37.8
Aug. 16: 36.7
Aug. 23: 37.3
Aug. 30: 37.7
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770653010930401280
In other words Hillary might have dropped a couple of points in her peak but Trump is not gaining any ground: he's actually a tenth a point beneath where he was just after the Dem convention.
"So, not clear that Trump is improving, so much as Clinton is declining. People maybe jumped the gun in declaring her convention bounce over."
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770653615916810240
At the end of the day, this has been a very predictable, consistent race-as was the Democratic primary.
Trouble is the media doesn't like that frame. They need to create this sense of suspense. So we hear absurd things like this race will all come down to the debates. But the demographics is destiny theory of the race is holding up very well so far.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770653010930401280
In other words Hillary might have dropped a couple of points in her peak but Trump is not gaining any ground: he's actually a tenth a point beneath where he was just after the Dem convention.
"So, not clear that Trump is improving, so much as Clinton is declining. People maybe jumped the gun in declaring her convention bounce over."
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/770653615916810240
At the end of the day, this has been a very predictable, consistent race-as was the Democratic primary.
Trouble is the media doesn't like that frame. They need to create this sense of suspense. So we hear absurd things like this race will all come down to the debates. But the demographics is destiny theory of the race is holding up very well so far.
Hillary has led from wire to wire, and according to Monmouth her average has been 7 points.
Obama won by 7 over McCain in 2008, but his average lead in the polls from wire to wire was just 4.2.
A lot of times you hear Hillary is a bad candidate. The pundits saying that don't have a clue about what a good candidate looks like anyway.
In truth-and this is an unsexy truth. The candidate matters much less than is conventionally believed, even in 2016.
Bernie and Trump certainly suggested that the party no longer matters and it's all about the candidate.
But I think in retrospect the lesson about 2016 is very simple: The GOP is a dysfunctional, divided, mess while the Dems are very healthy and the most unified they've ever been; the 2016 Dems will go down as one of the most unified parties in US history in a long time.
Why did Trump win? Is it that he's such a transcendent candidate that he swept all the laws of physics aside? No. Trump's win is about the 2016 GOP and what a mess it is. Full stop.
Trump is a joke which begs the question of how he won? The answer is the 2016 Republican party is an even bigger joke.
P.S. What it takes to win a campaign is not glamorous. It's not about giving some speech that shakes the heavens. What Hillary does is not appreciated because this is not understood.
What Sasha Issenberg talks about is how to win a campaign without anyone noticing.
https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Lab-Science-Winning-Campaigns/dp/0307954803/ref=as_li_ss_tl?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&linkCode=sl1&tag=thesuseco-20&linkId=954330fef6b5fd72bb0460ef9baa7c8a
Trump is the opposite. He's about making everyone notice. But that has a big downside:
"For Roger Ailes, there was no cost to reminding someone who prefers MSNBC or CNN that Fox existed. There’s a huge cost for Donald Trump to remind Hillary Clinton’s supports that Election Day exists. I think that everything that he does is so ridiculously untargeted that even if it were to have a mobilizing effect, even if it were to be so emotionally resonant that it shocked or nudged nonvoters out of their complacency, it is likely to do so in such a broad-based way that I’m not sure Trump would benefit from it."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/08/how_badly_will_trump_s_lack_of_a_ground_game_cost_him.html
A lot of times you hear Hillary is a bad candidate. The pundits saying that don't have a clue about what a good candidate looks like anyway.
In truth-and this is an unsexy truth. The candidate matters much less than is conventionally believed, even in 2016.
Bernie and Trump certainly suggested that the party no longer matters and it's all about the candidate.
But I think in retrospect the lesson about 2016 is very simple: The GOP is a dysfunctional, divided, mess while the Dems are very healthy and the most unified they've ever been; the 2016 Dems will go down as one of the most unified parties in US history in a long time.
Why did Trump win? Is it that he's such a transcendent candidate that he swept all the laws of physics aside? No. Trump's win is about the 2016 GOP and what a mess it is. Full stop.
Trump is a joke which begs the question of how he won? The answer is the 2016 Republican party is an even bigger joke.
P.S. What it takes to win a campaign is not glamorous. It's not about giving some speech that shakes the heavens. What Hillary does is not appreciated because this is not understood.
What Sasha Issenberg talks about is how to win a campaign without anyone noticing.
https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Lab-Science-Winning-Campaigns/dp/0307954803/ref=as_li_ss_tl?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&linkCode=sl1&tag=thesuseco-20&linkId=954330fef6b5fd72bb0460ef9baa7c8a
Trump is the opposite. He's about making everyone notice. But that has a big downside:
"For Roger Ailes, there was no cost to reminding someone who prefers MSNBC or CNN that Fox existed. There’s a huge cost for Donald Trump to remind Hillary Clinton’s supports that Election Day exists. I think that everything that he does is so ridiculously untargeted that even if it were to have a mobilizing effect, even if it were to be so emotionally resonant that it shocked or nudged nonvoters out of their complacency, it is likely to do so in such a broad-based way that I’m not sure Trump would benefit from it."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/08/how_badly_will_trump_s_lack_of_a_ground_game_cost_him.html
No comments:
Post a Comment