Trump up 5.6% in latest USC/LA Times poll, a +1.8 gain from yesterday

cesrusc.org/election/

This poll includes respondents from the days following the debate. How will Clinton ever recover?

Other urls found in this thread:

latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-endorsement-20160923-snap-story.html
cbsnews.com/news/early-voting-surge-benefits-hillary-clinton/
mobile.wnd.com/2016/09/republicans-lead-early-voting-in-florida-by-120000/
countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
cesrusc.org/election/
graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/15/fivethirtyeight-is-wrong-primary-turnout-matters-a-lot/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Jesus. He's out of the gray area. While I didn't think he won the debate, I never really thought he lost it. Sometimes when you lose, you actually win. Let's hope this trend continues and he becomes the first Meme President.

Praise KEK!

clinton won't recover. there's a huge gray area here as well, which is the shame factor. hillary need a +5 % lead to even be considered leading to trump. the race is over before it even began.

>LA TIMES

LOL

if you want trumps popular support then take what he is polling and add 5 %. this is what guys like nate silver doesn't understand. people lie to the polling companies. that's why his projections are flawed, they are using corrupt data.

When you let your opponent win, you win

Why do you people take a clearly pro trump newspaper LA time's poll seriously?

Oh shit! Did we meme something into reality again?!

>pro trump
is dis nigga serious?

Even Nate Shillver says their methodology is sound for a national poll

You gotta be trolling. The LA Times is far-left and recently endorsed Hillary Clinton.

latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-endorsement-20160923-snap-story.html

The fact that the LA Times, a leftist news source, has Trump ahead in their poll is saying something.

Well it could be margin of er-
>he's out
Oh
Well then

WHAT THE FUCK?

Holy Shit

Pretty sure they're just trying to scare their liberal readers into voting.

The poll is conducted by USC. USC is pretty conservative in the academic sense, which means they're objective and run polls well.

He's only polled this high twice - at the height of Clinton's 9/11 weekend, and at the height of his RNC bounce. Voters seem to have a short attention span though. I think this is why so many people are claiming they have hard hitting stories against Clinton that they won't release until October.

Why does the LA Times poll show him on the up but most other polls show him down overall in the popular vote?

Serious question.
Do they poll differently?

>LA Times
Disregarded

Other polls have ridiculous demographics

>700 democrats
>500 republicans
>200 independents

whereas turnout shows us that republicans are outnumbering democrats

>Not knowing they intentionally rig polls to get a desired result.

Ipsos/Reuters claimed Clinton is up +6, but oversampled Democrats by +11!

>Do they pol differently?
Yes. The Reuters poll, for example, interviewed about ~60% Democrats, ~30% Republicans, ~10% Independents. Even in that completely lopsided poll, Shillary was only up 2.5%, within the margin of error.

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the ongoing Understanding America Study: (UAS) at the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times. Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election panel to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in, we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week’s responses. To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. The team responsible for the USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology.

#DeutscheBankBroke


ATTENTION
>ATTENTION
ATTENTION
>ATTENTION


GET IT TRENDING NOW!!

IF EVEN 50 PEOPLE SEE THE HASHTAG AND WITHDRAW STOCKS THE ECONOMY CRASHES AND WE WIN THE ELECTION IN A LANDSLIDE


THE ECONOMY IS LITERALLY CRASHING RIGHT NOW
NO SURVIVORS


#DeutscheBankBroke

ITS OVER


NOT A DRILL

They poll with a special likely voter methodology not really used by others. Instead of asking "do you plan to vote in November" they ask the percent chance someone is going to vote in November, and weigh it differently.

They also use correct samples of republicans, democrats, and independents based on polling which shows us the biggest group is independents.

Always check whether they oversample dems and undersample independents.

Not if you're a Hillary supporter. This is bad news coming from a liberal rag that has endorsed you and receives your campaigns talking points by fax daily.

>Leftist Newspaper that endorsed Hillary
>Trump winning in their poll
>disregarded

kek
The shills are in denial.

Is USC/LA Times credible?

I'm not trying to knock them, but it seems strange how much of an outlier they are compared to other national polls.

The newspaper that publishes it is wholly irrelevant

You have to look at the university / company that takes the poll

see

Trump has consistently done well in this poll. It would be interesting to compare its methodology to other polls.

>egging on an economic collapse to further your political goals
I'm not expecting any real reflection here, but think about this for a second

LA Times polls the same group of people and they have a rolling average, so the LA Times poll is a better indicator of momentum than anything.

They poll according to actual demographics, rather than meme-tier "how can independent voters be real if there are only two parties lmao" polls.

American polling is a clusterfuck. So many shitty polls, shitty samples sizes, over/undersampling. And people treat them all equal. I wish there was at least one company that would do weekly, 50 state polls, large samples, reasonably stratified, so there is one data source that people can trust

Rofl. Even LA Times reporters hate their poll.

>"Our own USC/LA Times "Daybreak" tracking poll of the election still shows Trump with about a four point lead. But the Daybreak poll uses a seven-day average, so nearly all of the data currently comes from polling done before the debate."

Even so, it wouldn't be fucking RISING if that tidbit mattered.

Hillary is fucked.

You're on Cred Forums, man.

MUH SHEKELS

I don't know what to believe any more!

>cbsnews.com/news/early-voting-surge-benefits-hillary-clinton/

>cbs
into the trash it goes

Kek. Why did I laugh so hard?

>While I didn't think he won the debate


Define "winning the debate"

His lines weren't rehashed, he slipped sometimes, he wasn't prepared, but he was honest as fuck.

Hillary was basically a robot giving preprogramed answers (and allegedly cheating as well). People are getting tired of this bullshit. Rubio lost because of that and Shillary will as well. Doesn't matter how smooth and snappy her lines were, she lost in the eyes of the majority.

I'm swedish and I refuse to believe until you show me that he's up with the AA, female, Hispanic, Other votes

I don't want to sound autistic but:

POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL
>POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL
POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL
>POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL
POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL
>POST MORE DETAILS OF THIS LA TIMES POLL

For the past two election, democrats won in early voting. They won the elections. This year, Republicans have been winning in early voting. Hopefully we win the election.

This. Is "winning the debate" giving the more impressive performance, or is it winning more support as a result of having participated in that debate?

...

No brakes

He's doing better than any other Republican ever has in black, Hispanic, and female approval. Democrats have always been ahead in approval for those demos, but that didn't stop republicans from winning in the past.

They praise Clinton all day
But they at least don't rig the polls

Early voting is up this cycle, yes. However in key states Trump seems to be sweeping the early voting.

Trump lost the debate, this is clearly a rigged poll.

Kiwis out in force for Hillary today.

Is that legit?

all the pundits have been attacking Clinton because Trump didn't. The man is a genuis

Yep
mobile.wnd.com/2016/09/republicans-lead-early-voting-in-florida-by-120000/

countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

cesrusc.org/election/
Click "Characteristics of support"
Trump is leading all age groups. He has more than double the lead that Clinton has when it comes to male/female voters. He is at an all time high for middle income voters. You can see the rest for yourself.

>WASHINGTON -- More people are seeking or casting early ballots in the critical states of North Carolina and Florida than at this point in 2012, with Hillary Clinton the likely beneficiary, as early voting shows signs of surging nationwide.

Not going to bother fully dissecting this propaganda, but Republicans have requested MORE ballots in Florida, and these polls CONSISTENTLY sample more democrats. They are saying "Oh, if you ignore parties and poll demographics, then Clinton is leading nationally unconditionally and more nonpartisan ballots have been requested haha (:"

That is entirely misleading, but I'm sure that was the intention. See

graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Same poll hosted on LA times. I personally like their graphs better, but it's all the same data.

Its amazing how desperate they are getting

...

You guys, I'm a Trump supporting Nazi Cred Forumsack

But I dunno about this poll. It's been super favorable to Trump all along, even when he was way down after the Convention. It's a clear outlier from every other poll

It kinda seems like they're just chasing publicity by dominating headlines of pro-Trump outlets. Either that or they have a strange methodology

LA Times is not pro-Trump in the slightest.

Please give me some >you's

TRUMP IS ACTUALLY GONNA DO IT ISN'T HE?

Beware the winds of change

Quick, get Nate Silver on the phone to (((adjust))) this poll again!

Yep

Also, does pic related prove that college is a scam? It appears people who don't graduate college are more successful.

Well reading through the thread some user is saying that they repeatedly poll the same pool of voters each week.
Call me crazy, but it seems like a bad methodology. They may just have a pro-Trump group in their polling sample

It just doesn't feel right to me, it feels more like this one poll is being blown out of proportion by places like Breitbart and Drudge because it seems to help Trump

This has now become a permanent lead.

The Los Angeles Times is one of the most stalwart Leftist rags in the country, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post.

I can't believe some here are so butthurt by the polls they'd claim such a thing. It's like claiming The Washington Post or NBC have a pro-Trump bias.

It just doesn't feel right, something screwey is going on here

How come this one poll shows Trump up, while every other one has him about 4 points behind?

scott adams said that trump sort of won the debate on the idea that he wasn't the monster the media made him out to be.

Yes.
boards.Cred Forums.org/pol/thread/90931500

This is still the 'democratic' cycle of participants, right?

Because almost every other poll is blatantly rigged by oversampling democrats, while the LA Times one for whatever reason isn't.

I'm only worried about NC. I'm confident in other states.

I want to believe you, but I dunno man

The polls pretty much predicted the results in the primaries (more or less).
I think the pollsters know what they're doing

I would like to address the fact that the polled demographics are not necessarily a problem for polling
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/15/fivethirtyeight-is-wrong-primary-turnout-matters-a-lot/

Here is what Nate said about that poll

"Apart from these polls, the only other data we have is from the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times and UPI/CVOTER national tracking polls, but I’d discourage people from paying very much attention to them. It’s nothing against the polls themselves — in fact, I’ve defended the USC/LA Times poll’s methodology in the past — it’s just a matter of timing. Each poll uses a 7-day field period, which means that only about one-seventh of their interviews were conducted after the debate. I’d wait a couple of days before making too much of these surveys — until they consist mostly of post-debate interviews."

Except the DNC email hacks revealed that the party has been in cahoots with the MSM for years. The polls were outright fudged for the Democratic Primaries.

Huh. That's actually a good, succinct, non-biased explanation. Maybe Nate isn't so bad sometimes.

Yeah those same pollsters were right about the win, but wrong about the margins by double digits in many states.

ie poll says Trump +3, wins the state by 15

It's been a couple of days already. According to his reasoning and the graph, Trump won the debate in the eyes of the voters.

>Nate Mud doesn't like it when the narrative isn't conformed to
I thought he said he was gonna stop being a pundit

It may be 1/7ths, but this still shows a trend.

(you)

>while the LA Times one for whatever reason isn't.
Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

The Daybreak poll goes a step further and weights the sample to account for how people say they voted in 2012: It’s set so that 25% of the sample are voters who say they cast a ballot for Mitt Romney and 27% for President Obama. The rest are either too young to have voted four years ago or say they didn’t vote.

The potential problem is that people tend to fib about how they voted. Polls have often found that the percentage of people who say after an election that they voted for the winner exceeds the winner’s actual vote.

If that’s the case this year, then weighting for the vote history would result in slightly too many Republican voters in the sample, which would probably boost Trump’s standing by a point or two.

They add new people over time so it's not the same group. Also you don't know what you're talking about, that poll has been very accurate in predicting when Trump has dropped in the polls, and Clinton overtook him during the Khan Saga.

Going to do a little math to further disprove this. Basing these results of the most recent Florida poll from Suffolk which actually has Trump by a point. This poll had a 39/36/24 spread. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents + other/refused. Other is likely libertarians, green, etc. Refused is a toss up, so I'll let you make your own conclusions on that.

Shows that 2,293,922 ballots have been requested. 997,993 Republican, 857,607 Dem, and 438,322 No party/other ballots.

Republicans make up 43.5 percent of those ballots. Dems make up 37.3 percent, and other makes up 19.1 percent.

You are more or less guaranteed to vote for your own party, so Trump has a 6.2% lead in early voting, while this specific poll has democrats +3 over republicans in the margin. Someone else can feel free to look over the other Florida polls, but I think I've pretty much summed up how most of them will appear.

CBS is claiming that polls that are biased against republicans are going to help Clinton win a state that has more Republican voters voting. Are liberals braindead, or are they so gullible that they just start eating up their own propaganda?

How can you have all these "scientific" polls, each generating results outside the margin of error of the others?

If this were a legit scientific study, there'd be an inquiry and someone's credentials would get pulled

I've never liked the LA times poll because I don't think it's accurate

>poll the exact same people from the start
>already Trump is more popular than Hillary for some reason
>so of course Trump is always leading in the LA poll

ITT trumptards dismisses all polls claiming they are rigged.

The same retards thinks online polls and twitter polls are legitimate.

No wonder Trump loves the uneducated.

He "lost" in my opinion because the debate was 1 against 2 with him actually debating the moderator at times as the moderator was stating falsehoods as facts. Moderator also asked him about his four "scandals" and didn't ask hillary about her 9 gorillion scandals.

With the 1v2 setup he objectively lost, but that's the best they can throw at him and he didn't get destroyed. Next debate, even if it's a 1v2 again, they can't really bring up his "scandals" again as they've already been covered. He can definitely open up on Hillary's scandals though.

This is just an outlier, as you can see by every other poll which has Drumpf way down after his disastrous debate 'performance'.

Also funny thing is all the media does is shit talk Trump about how he has no substance in his policies but he absolutely destroyed her on every policy question which is why after 15 minutes or so the moderator just stopped asking policy questions and only asked things like "your birther statements, your tax returns, you didn't pay your workers" etc..

>polls I don't like are rigged

hi CTR

>other (((poll)))

Just noticed something else. Clinton is actually polling at the lowest ever with millennials in this poll. This also the only day millennials have had Trump as the predicted winner, although it was a small margin. I hear everyone say "Clinton needs millennials, that's why she brought Bernie out! She'll lose without 'em!" but her retarded Pepe witch hunt is driving her numbers down.

This.

Trump came for policy, delivered a few 8/10 answers about policy and then the moderator sperged out and talked about irrelevant shit.

Hillary gave a few robotic 5-6/10 answers and then stood there smiling like a carnival clown while the moderator jerked off about FAT SHAMING REEEE

Hmm. Does anybody play Gwent in The Witcher 3? The easiest way to win a match in Gwent is to lose your 1st round on purpose. The enemy will use all of their good cards in the first round while you'll still have your good cards for the 2nd and 3rd rounds. That's the same strategy Trump seems to be using.

Do you think these rallies Trump is doing are actually accomplishing anything?

Like, are they really going to boost turnout, or is he just preaching to the choir every time?

hes tied with her despite spending 1/100 on ads, its working

They have registration booths at each of them. People come and drag along others who then register and vote Trump.

Besides, getting the choir to vote is half the battle. Hillary hasn't energized her base much, so he could win just with the gap in enthusiasm.

kek, Nate Rust is in denial
>muh Clinton bounce

The problem with Nate Plumbum is that he thinks he can influence the election with his polls. If Trump wins he will have lost any credibility.

betting markets are even dumber, they're going full retard

I don't care if the numbers are inflated for Trump, because the trends are likely not.

>Maybe Nate isn't so bad sometimes.

They result of the last election turned out just as he had predicted. They only reason Cred Forumstards hate (((him))) is because they don't like to hear that their man is losing. For people who prefer to deal in reality the statistical methodology he uses isn't something so easily dismissed.

?

This is literally the Trump platform. Calling everything biased that doesn't comply.

He's ahead, just take it.

Nate Plumbum isn't an objective observer as the Republican primaries have shown. He has even admitted to this. He and many other pollsters think they can influence the election and try to rig their polling accordingly.

whenever some retard opens his mouth about betting markets just show him this pic and that should shut him the fuck up

dude what? the USC/LA Times poll has like a +4 bias in Clinton's favour

Exactly. People lie and overstate their support of Trump.

>tfw USC fag
for a California school, we have a lot of Trump support thanks to rich white kids

kys

HITLERY BTFO

yeah, so much for the "wisdom of the crowd"

people who push that meme don't understand that stupid biases don't magically go away when you take the opinions of thousands of people

>Hillary is supported by low earner and college grads
>mfw her supporters are gender studies graduates working at starbucks or flipping burgers
one large coffee please

t. Someone that plays Gwent on easy.

Yeah it's pretty hilarious actually. The so-called "I am veri smert" educated liberals are the same ones who are poor as dirt.

3rd TIME ABOVE THE CLOUD OF ERROR
THIS IS NOT A DRILL

>i don't always talk to women studies graduates.

but when I do, I ask for the large fries

>Suits