Trump 41%, Clinton 39%

Written By: - Date published: 12:03 am, May 6th, 2016 - 103 comments
Categories: International, Politics - Tags: , ,

A couple of days ago a US-wide poll by major polling company Rasmussen put Trump ahead of Clinton for the first time ever.

But Trump edges slightly ahead if the stay-at-home option is removed. Trump also now does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 41% support to Clinton’s 39%. Fifteen percent (15%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is the first time Trump has led the matchup since last October. Clinton held a 41% to 36% advantage in early March

Trump holds a significant lead on Clinton amongst independents:

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads 37% to 31%, but 23% like another candidate. Nine percent (9%) are undecided.

I think it’s safe to guess that the ‘other candidate’ that independents like is Bernie Sanders.

The phone polling – a small sample size of 1000 – was conducted April 27-28, before Trump clinched the Republican nomination with the withdrawal of Cruz and Kasich from the race.

Trump’s numbers will be even higher now.

We have to bear in mind that this is just one poll and there is a long road ahead before the Presidential Election in November.

But the bottom line here is that a Clinton/Trump match up may be much closer than some think. My bet is that the ever-strengthening anti-establishment vote will mean that the advantage is going to Trump’s camp.

Contrary to beltway expectations, I am picking that if it is a Trump vs Clinton election day, turnout will be high.

103 comments on “Trump 41%, Clinton 39%”

  1. happynz 1

    The House of Ras is a Republican leaning polling outfit in case anyone is interested.

    • weka 1.1

      Thanks, I was wondering.

    • Lanthanide 1.2

      538 gives them a rating of C and considers them to have a fairly big built-in bias towards the right:
      http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

        According to that over a total of 623 analysed polls, they are biased towards Republicans by 2.3%.

        • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1

          Yes, 4th worst out of all of those ranked.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1

            Here’s what 538 say about their bias calculations:

            As is the case for measures of poll accuracy, measures of bias and house effects can sometimes reflect statistical noise rather than anything systematic. But if they occur over dozens or hundreds of surveys, they should be a concern.

            Given that Rasmussen has conducted the 2nd most polls of any organisation (600+) and is the 4th most biased, then this level of bias should be a concern.

            Also this is the average bias. So some individual polls could easily be biased in favour of the republicans by 5 or 6 points.

      • swordfish 1.2.2

        ” … considers them to have a fairly big built-in bias towards the right.”

        I think you may be pushing it a bit there, Lanth. The differences look relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. And I see a number of generally highly-regarded Pollsters are sitting on a 538 rating in the B minus to C minus range.

        • Phil 1.2.2.1

          I see a number of generally highly-regarded Pollsters are sitting on a 538 rating in the B minus to C minus range.

          Nate Silver’s recent quote: “Rasmussen Reports is so bad at polling that Rasmussen left it”.

          RR skews Republican a bit. We’re still six months out from the election. It’s ONE POLL.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.2.1.1

            538 have been saying that the national polls aren’t predictive of the November election this early in the year – they say they aren’t very predictive until after the party conventions.

            This article produced by researchers at Princeton university thinks otherwise: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/01/what-do-head-to-head-general-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/

            Based on their model and aggregating many recent polls, they project Clinton currently has a 93% chance to win over Trump. Quite different from CV’s cherry-picked 41/39 defeat.

            I know who I would trust more when projecting a November outcome.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.1.1.1

              Quite different from CV’s cherry-picked 41/39 defeat.

              I think I made it quite clear in the post that those numbers depend on ruling out the “stay at home” choice for voters. This is not “cherry picking” poll results, I am simply saying that this is going to be a closer election fight than you and others are expecting.

        • Lanthanide 1.2.2.2

          Sort the pollsters by the bias. Rasmussen at 2.3% is 4th equal for worst bias out of the field of about ~150 pollsters or so. Normally one would expect the bias to revert to the mean as the number of polls go up – Rasmussen is 2nd for total number of polls and has the 4th worst bias. The top pollster has a bias of only 0.2. So yes, it is fairly big, compared to other pollsters, and that’s the comparison that makes sense when judging quality amongst peers.

          They also have a ‘predictive’ rating of +0.7 – that actually seems to be the largest factor that results in them getting a C grade. Negative scores for predictive are better, on this rating they’re about middle of the pack.

    • AmaKiwi 1.3

      The electoral college decides the winner. Who wins which states is the key.

      It’s a race to the bottom. The least disliked candidate will win.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1

      According to Lanth’s 538 link, CNN/ORC polls tend to favour Republicans by 0.6%.

    • swordfish 2.2

      Yep, and in the same Poll, I notice Sanders leads Trump with a 16 point lead.

      With some demographics, there’s very little difference between a Clinton and a Sanders candidacy, but Sanders has a clear edge over Clinton (vis-à-vis a one-on-one match-up with Trump) among: …
      Younger voters
      Whites
      Poorer voters
      Independents
      Liberals
      Republican-leaners
      Core Republicans
      Regionally in the North-East and in rural areas
      White Evangelicals

      In each of these Demographics, Sanders has a 3 to 6 point advantage over Clinton in a match-up with Trump.

      The one and only demographic where Clinton has a similar sized lead over Sanders (vis-à-vis Trump) is among Ethnic Minority voters (3 point advantage).

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1

        Yep, and in the same Poll, I notice Sanders leads Trump with a 16 point lead.

        Is there something wrong with picking and choosing what results we want to acknowledge from within the same poll 😛

  2. happynz 3

    I suppose it needs to be repeated. It’s all about collecting 270 electoral votes. In the upcoming GE in November which “Obama” states can Trump flip? He is toxic to the AA community. He’d be lucky to get over 10% with Latinos. His talk of banning entry to Muslims might cost him any chance in Michigan (goodbye to any chance of grabbing that rust belt state). He has little chance of getting a majority of female voters. Who does he have to get him the electoral majority?

    • joe90 3.1

      Who does he have to get him the electoral majority?

      The right mob, of course.

      So who is voting for Trump? Whites who are many generations removed from their immigrant ancestors, so much so that they think of themselves only as “Americans”; who are struggling economically and feel left behind by the new global economy; who fear the country’s demographic shifts. They want to make America “great” again, in the way they believe it was, once, for their forebears.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/05/these-two-maps-are-incredibly-revealing-about-whos-voting-for-trump-and-why/

    • Ovid 3.2

      This is the first election where the white vote is under 70%. With the way Trump has been alienating women as well, I’m confident Clinton will win in November.

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

        I think it will be a close contest.

        The electoral weaknesses you point out are overall weaknesses of the Republican Party as much as they are of Trump.

        So Clinton may prevail in the end but she is going to have to fight for every inch of forward progress.

        With her historical comments about “super-predators”, her clear support of job losing free trade agreements, her big dollar donations from the banksters, her role in the destruction of Libya and attempted destruction of Syria, she has provided Trump with a target rich environment.

        And now, Trump has a head start on Clinton in campaigning for the November election.

        • Crashcart 3.2.1.1

          That and the Bernie or bust group who will probably not vote makes it close. I would like to say I have faith that they wouldn’t elect Trump but they did elect Bush the 2nd twice so who knows what the hell is going to happen.

      • D'Esterre 3.2.2

        Ovid: “…I’m confident Clinton will win in November”

        Crikey! If you want peace in the Western Pacific and no further aggression toward Russia, you better hope she doesn’t get elected. She’s a neocon warmonger, who’s responsible for the mess in Libya and the attempted destruction of Syria. AND she’s had a hand in the relentless drumbeat of hawk talk in respect of Russia.

    • AmaKiwi 3.3

      happy nz

      Spot on. But these polls are meaningless because we haven’t seen Trump’s attack plan for Clinton nor how effectively she throws it back at him.

      I foresee the Greatest Show on Earth turning into a mud slinging battle of epic proportions. According to Noam Chomsky on Nine to Noon, Americans will love it because they are angry as hell.

      “The hatred and anger [towards] virtually all institutions is just overwhelming.”

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201799712/noam-chomsky-on-the-death-of-the-american-dream

  3. Sanctary 4

    A interesting post in many ways, not the least it being a slam dunk demonstration that CV is a defeatist who loves listening to Tokyo Rose.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      Defeatist? So, tell me what you consider being a “winner” is then, in a match up between Trump and Clinton?

      Tokyo Rose? I’m afraid you got the analogy wrong – you’re the one who has decided to sleep with the MSM here.

    • Wayne 4.2

      One of the more amusing analogies.

  4. Sabine 5

    rejoice, there is a saviour coming, bringing back the light to the hill and he will make them great again, and also he will be making deals, and deporting the others, and the other others will build for the great wall of US American stupidity.

  5. Jack Ramaka 6

    If Sanders can’t get past Billary Hinton it will be a close race between Trump and Billary, I am not sure who is the worst of two evils, the KKK vs Corporate America?

    A reflection of American Stupidity, hopefully the Democrats see some common sense and choose Bernie Sanders?

    • Wayne 6.1

      I hope Americans/Democrats see sense and choose Hillary.

      However, I am pretty confident they will. I think it is pretty unlikely that Sanders can win California and New Jersey, the last two big primaries on June 7. But I think Sanders will win Oregon, seems like a natural Sanders state.

      Sanders would be really bad for New Zealand and the world generally, especially in his opposition to all free trade deals.

      Essentially if Standardnistas are for Sanders, I will therefore be automatically against him, since I think Standardnistas are typically wrong on most things.

      • integralenz 6.1.1

        Whilst you are, of course, typically right on everything.

        • Wayne 6.1.1.1

          integraenz,

          I imagine most us believe that we are right on most things, and those who hold different views are not.

          Mind you I really only put the last paragraph in for the effect.

          • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1.1

            You mean you were trolling.

          • reason 6.1.1.1.2

            The ‘rt honorable’ Wayne Mapp is a shit of a man who should be commentating in this thread /slane-on-burning-our-reputation/ …………. Follow a bad Mapp and you will end up in a shitty place 😉

            He is a troll and while the most obvious bits of the Nats ‘dirty politics’ like whale oil have been exposed our bad Mapp sails on….,. giving out advice that is as valuable as Ukrainian carbon credits…………… he’s a fraud.

            I recommend watching the hollow men and observe how entitled pricks like wayne the wanker used divisive racism to perpetrate lies and attack the most disadvantaged ……. ugly nasty stuff gutter stuff with the purpose of electing Don Brash. http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-hollow-men-2008

            Also Mapp is a warmonger and in Nat Inc style has a crony appointment ( with pay of course ), to some board or committee to do with peace or something like that ( there’s a post at norightturn about it somewhere ).

            So wayne is still playing his part in trashing NZs reputation.

            Wayne Sabine.

          • reason 6.1.1.1.3

            waynes work http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=Mapp&max-results=20&by-date=true

            Even posting about him gives me a dose of the ‘rt honorable s’ ( shits )

        • AmaKiwi 6.1.1.2

          “Whilst you are, of course, typically right on everything.”

          EXTREMELY right.

      • Lanthanide 6.1.2

        You know that Clinton and Trump also oppose the TPPA, right?

        • Wayne 6.1.2.1

          I agree that Trump is opposed to TPP. It is one of the reasons why I do not support him.

          I think Hillary is fundamentally more internationalist in a constructive way.

          For instance I think it is really unfair to blame her for Libya. The Libyans were crying out for support, as they were being brutally attacked by Qaddafi’s troops. Part of the problem of the last few years in Libya is that Qaddafi had so comprehensively destroyed civil society in his nearly 50 year rule, that when his govt collapsed there was very little institutional or civil structure to form the basis for a pluralistic government. But it finally looks like Libya is on a path to stability.

          Long running highly personal dictatorships seem to leave an enormous vacuum when they collapse, whether that be due to internal forces or external pressure. This potentially spells trouble in Cuba when the Castro’s both depart the scene, though perhaps there has been enough time so that both the current Cuban government and the people can prepare for a peaceful transition to a more democratic, market based government.

          As for TPP, I reckon she hopes that Obama deals with it on his watch.

          • Lanthanide 6.1.2.1.1

            Quite a lot of irrelevant waffle in your post.

            Clinton is on record as being opposed to TPPA.

            I agree that she wants Obama to pass it on his watch – put it does then force her to say if she would repeal it if he does.

            • Wayne 6.1.2.1.1.1

              You know perfectly well that she would not repeal TPP.

              So easy for her to say that Congress has approved the TPP, and that binds the United States as a formal treaty commitment. Not only easy for her to say, but it is also the proper legal position.

              Once Congress has ratified, the only way for the US to back out is to formally withdraw from TPP. There is, in my view, zero chance that the US would do that, irrespective of whether it is Hillary or Trump as President.

              Who knows what Sanders would do if he was President? Maybe he would like to tear up a large number of the treaties the US is party to, but maybe not. In any event, all Presidents are subject to Congress.

              One way that the US can guarantee that it will lose authority in the world is for its word (ie, its treaty commitments) to count for nothing. And the congressional leadership will be very much aware of that. So would Hillary, but I am much less sure that either Trump or Sanders really get that.

              • Lanthanide

                Much better reply, thank you.

              • Colonial Viper

                One way that the US can guarantee that it will lose authority in the world is for its word (ie, its treaty commitments) to count for nothing.

                Iran helped the US get its hostages back from Lebanon and expected a quid pro quo from the USA. No such luck.

                Iran also helped bring the Northern Alliance on side with the US in Afghanistan, and expected a quid pro quo from the USA. No such luck.

                Russia (the Soviet Union) brought down the Berlin Wall in expectation of a quid pro quo from NATO and the USA. No such luck.

                Russia also provided massive logistical support to the USA in Afghanistan and expected a quid pro quo from the USA. No such luck.

                Both Russia and Iran provided the USA with massive help during the war against terror, especially on the HUMINT front, and expected a quid pro quo from the USA. No such luck.

          • D'Esterre 6.1.2.1.2

            Wayne: “For instance I think it is really unfair to blame her for Libya. The Libyans were crying out for support, as they were being brutally attacked by Qaddafi’s troops.”

            Bunkum. That narrative is largely propaganda. Read this: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/08/covering-up-hillarys-libyan-fiasco/

            Clinton bears the responsibility for the godawful mess there, even if she and Obama were not alone in acting shabbily. Libya illustrates the dismal failure of US policies of “regime change” in that part of the world and elsewhere.

            ” But it finally looks like Libya is on a path to stability.”

            Is that so? Like this, you mean? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13754897
            “Late in 2015, the UN brokered an agreement to form a new “unity” government – the Presidency Council, headed by unity Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj – but both Tripoli and Tobruk administrations were reluctant to acknowledge its authority.

            Mr Sarraj and some of his deputies finally arrived in Tripoli in March 2016 and set up their headquarters in a heavily-guarded naval base.”

            This looks pretty much like those “unity” governments set up with such fanfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we’ve all seen how successful they’ve been.

            “This potentially spells trouble in Cuba when the Castro’s both depart the scene…”

            Do you know anything about Cuba, beyond US propaganda? Here’s a thing to remember: Cuba has survived a determined – though ultimately unsuccessful – campaign of destabilisation on the part of the US, ever since the Batista regime was ousted in 1959.

            And here’s another thing: had it not been for the relentless US hostility, including longstanding sanctions, it is very likely that Cuba’s political arrangements would long since have changed. It was never an existential threat to the US: the very idea is risible. If you want to know the story of the missiles having been stationed by the Soviet Union on Cuba – an episode that people of my age remember vividly, even if we knew only the US propaganda version at the time – I suggest that you read Noam Chomsky. It’s an illuminating account.

            Cuba will survive the departure of the Castro regime – just so long as US neocons like Clinton don’t meddle – and it is already a market economy. In that respect, it has been to a considerable extent the US sanctions regime which has hobbled its development.

    • weka 6.2

      “I am not sure who is the worst of two evils, the KKK vs Corporate America?”

      What I don’t understand is why some people perceive Trump as somehow not Corporate America. I get the need to shorthand here, but there is a danger in this false binary too.

      • Lanthanide 6.2.1

        Yip, CV seems to believe that Trump isn’t for corporate America, despite his vast personal wealth.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.2.1.1

          Donald Trump is for Donald Trump – pure and simple. He believes in and stands for nothing else.

          • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1

            Same could be said for Hilary Clinton, who put up with her man’s multiple and very public infidelities, so that she could make her own way within the upper circles of power.

            • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1.1

              careful, your moral conservatism is showing.

              • Colonial Viper

                If you have a point to make, make it.

                I’m all for women doing what it takes to get ahead in this world and showing men that they can do it just as well if not better.

                • McFlock

                  My point was that you have no idea whether she “put up with” a damned thing, let alone whether she did so to preserve a political career that in the 1990s was non-existent.

                  But then if she resolved whatever issues she had in her personal life without considering the ramifications on an election campaign twenty years later, it means that your “Same could be said for Hilary Clinton” is just one-eyed drivel.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    My point was that you have no idea whether she “put up with” a damned thing

                    You have got to be shitting me.

                    I suppose you might think that the Starr impeachment inquiry prying into every aspect of her husbands sexual life and the media circus around Monica and Bill was a nothing to Hillary.

                    But I wouldn’t know why.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    FYI McFlock

                    The Washington Post has constructed a list of Bill Clinton’s known affairs as they came to light during his Presidency, as well as accusations of coercing sex, or attempting to coerce sex from women.

                    Also his hanging out with a known paedophile on the paedophile’s private jet.

                    But as you say, maybe none of this meant anything negative to Hillary, she’s so forgiving of Bill.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/30/a-guide-to-the-allegations-of-bill-clintons-womanizing/

                    • McFlock

                      For all you know they had an open marriage and the only thing she put up with was the republican witch hunt that had also invented stories about investments and murder.

                      But yeah, obviously she only stayed with him with because her eye was on an election campaign twenty years down the line. That would make her totally worse than an oompah-loompah who might nuke a city just to double down on some of his tough talk.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      But yeah, obviously she only stayed with him with because her eye was on an election campaign twenty years down the line.

                      You mean a Presidential election campaign 10 years down the line.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008

                      For all you know they had an open marriage

                      That’s an outrageous suggestion dude. You suspect that Hillary Clinton has been having affairs as well?

                    • McFlock

                      fair call on ten years, but whatever. It still doesn’t mean that making “her own way within the upper circles of power” was a factor in her response to whatever problems she had during the 1990s.

                      As to her personal life, don’t know or care. Why do you? Do you think Trump has behaved more consistently with your conservative morals in his personal life, or is his behaviour different because he’s got a dick?

                      And why the fuck is the idea of an open relationship “outrageous”?

        • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.2

          Yip, CV seems to believe that Trump isn’t for corporate America, despite his vast personal wealth.

          Fortune 500 corporations haven’t been throwing money at Trump in quarter million dollar lots as they have been throwing at Hilary Clinton.

          • Lanthanide 6.2.1.2.1

            Because they know he’s already bought.

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.2.1.1

              Of course, that must be why the entire Republican establishment has been vehemently against him.

              • Phil

                They’re against him because he’s demonstrably not a Republican.

                • Colonial Viper

                  What? You say that Donald Trump is a RINO?

                  • Lanthanide

                    He’s in favour of medicare / health insurance for everyone and increasing social spending. So yes.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I always remember the famous old photo of Trump smiling alongside Bill and Hillary at some swish social event.

                      TBH I think that Trump is a guy who is more comfortable hanging out around Democratic Party operatives, than with the Republican Party establishment.

                    • Lanthanide

                      I agree. Which is just another sign of how much a liar he is and why he can’t be trusted.

          • Sabine 6.2.1.2.2

            on could argue that getting free tv coverage is a form of of corporations throwing money at Trump. but that might be pendantic?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

            http://www.thenation.com/article/the-discourse-suffers-when-trump-gets-23-times-as-much-coverage-as-sanders/

            I especially like this one…..Trump has earned “two billion in free TV coverage”

            http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/15/media/trump-free-media-coverage/
            (careful this link has a video that will go on autoplay)

            Quote: “Donald Trump has earned close to $2 billion worth of free media attention during the 2016 campaign, eclipsing the total value of media attention given to all of his Republican competitors combined, a new study finds.
            The findings show that Trump earned more than six times as much free coverage as his closest competitor, Ted Cruz, and more than two-and-a-half times as much free coverage as Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side.” Quote end.

            But then, maybe TV Corporations are more equal then other Corporations, or a trade is more equal that giving money, or quid pro quo, or I wash your hand and you wash mine…..but you are right, obviously Trump is beholden to no one. Yeah, right Tui.

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.2.2.1

              A business person like yourself can work out how this actually works if you bothered to think about it.

              Trump gets more eyes on screens for longer. More eyes, for more time, than Cruz, Kasich, and the rest of them put together. He says crazy shit, controversial shit, he has on screen charisma which grabs at audiences.

              That’s gold for broadcasters. They can sell more ads, for more $$$, because of the higher ratings he delivers.

              So yeah, Trump has had lots and lots of free coverage from the mass media. But that’s not been as a “favour” to Trump or because the media corporations think Trump is a good candidate. Far from it.

  6. Penny Bright 7

    In my view, the ‘ticking time bomb’ for Hillary Clinton is her possible email indictment ….

    How she is still a Presidential nominee with a FBI investigation underway – is simply unbelievable, in my view.

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • Chooky 7.1

      +100 Penny…Trump has already torpedoed Jeb Bush and got in a king hit against Ted Cruz…I wonder what he has in store for Hillary Clinton?..she has a lot of bad baggage

      ‘Realist vs. Hawk?’

      https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/341749-clinton-trump-foreign-policy/

      “On this edition of CrossTalk we ask some simple questions: What kind of foreign policy would Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump pursue as president – would that foreign policy be good for the world and the United States – or are they two sides of the same exceptionalist coin?

      CrossTalking with Stephen Schlesinger, Ray McGovern and Jeffrey Tayler.”

    • Roflcopter 7.2

      How she is still a Presidential nominee with a FBI investigation underway – is simply unbelievable, in my view.

      No different from, for example, someone still wanting to be Mayor while in possible legal wrangles for not paying rates and screwing with water infrastructure?

    • Detrie 7.3

      You’re being very naive. Big business wants Hillary as president. With no suitable republican available, Hillary is the next best choice since she has a proven track record of supporting the banks, pharma and the military machine. Obama will gladly squash or delay any FBI investigation since he too is another puppet of the establishment. He wants his presidential library for a start, which is always provided by big business interests as are speaking fees for his retirement. It’s not about the law or political rights, it’s simply about money and power.

      Thankfully NZ is not yet at this point politically and you’re simply thinking what would occur here. But the US is rife with political corruption which they’ve made ‘legal’ or if not legal, the ability to stop criminal proceedings, using executive powers.

  7. Rupert 8

    It’s just as well it isn’t a national election, then, isn’t it?
    There are 242 electoral votes in states that have voted for the Democrat in the last 6 elections – that’s Clinton twice, Obama twice, Gore and Kerry. Feel free to explain which of those Trump is going to win.
    There are 29 votes in Florida, where polling shows Clinton leading Trump by 13 points.
    National polls mean nothing, because it’s not a national election.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1

      Thanks for underlining the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system.

    • Lanthanide 8.2

      “National polls mean nothing, because it’s not a national election.”

      Yes and no. National polls act as the foundation upon which all other state results can be extrapolated from.

      If National polls show one candidate being ahead by 30%, then it would be insane to think that their opponent would win all of the electoral college votes, for example.

      538 have models that take the national polls into account and feed it into models of each individual state, and then they aggregate the state results to give a national election projection.

      I don’t think there’s been any recent article on it, but I read almost everything 538 reports on the US election, and IIRC if one candidate is leading by about 3-4% in the national polls, then they have a 90%+ chance of winning the general election, as they have a very high probability of winning enough of the ‘swing states’ to shut their opponent out.

      • AmaKiwi 8.2.1

        Al Gore will be very relieved to know that.

        Never underestimate the power of political corruption nor the effectiveness of a carefully placed ounce of hot lead.

        • Lanthanide 8.2.1.1

          That result was 47.9% for Bush vs 48.4% for Al Gore.

          So, when the popular vote is almost even, naturally the state-by-state results are hugely more important.

          But clearly when one candidate is winning by 5% of the popular vote, they are very highly likely to win sufficient swing states to block their opponent.

          Thank you for bringing up the very good example that illustrates the point.

  8. cyclonemike 9

    CV – I think you’re letting your loathing for Hillary Clinton cloud your eyes.
    Try this for a different perspective:
    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/donald_trump_will_not_be_president_history_polling_data_and_demographics_all_point_to_a_single_result_partner/

    • Colonial Viper 9.1

      Oh sure I know the electoral landscape is against Trump. What I do not get are the people who from early last year called Trump the buffoon joke candidate with zero chance of winning and no political credibility.

      And basically still are.

      It’s like they haven’t observed what has actually happened over the last 12 months.

  9. adam 10

    I think most Kiwis don’t understand the roll that independents play in these elections. And where they vote and if they vote, will probably be a deciding factor.

    If it becomes generally accepted that Hillary won the democratic nomination on the back of fraudulent electronic voting, which I think most independents are now starting to think about – then I think she is sunk.

    But, as it Friday. Here the wonderful Samantha Bee to remind us why Trump is so popular.

  10. Bill 11

    Well, blow me over! Katheryn Ryan fields a half decent, informative interview…doesn’t interrupt like a jabbering monkey (Well, not too much) 😉

    Chomsky on the US and Sanders, Trump etc.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201799712

  11. The Real Matthew 12

    Quoting a nationwide poll is completely pointless.

    That is not how the US electorate system works.

  12. Michael 13

    While I think this poll is an outlier, an the average of the recently polls show Clinton an average of 6-7 points ahead, it is worrying. However I think she can beat Trump regardless.

    Bernie Sanders is the stronger candidate to take on Trump, and it is essential that xenophobic, racist, misogynist, and extremist Trump never becomes President.

  13. Colonial Viper 14

    that’s a long list of sneering liberal names you have called Trump. However the bottom line to me is that Trump is the least likely to cause a serious military confrontation with China and Russia in the Pacific, and the least likely to try and regime change yet another ME country.

    I also think that Trump is one of the most honest candidates – coming second only to Sanders – in terms of wanting to fundamentally reshape America for the benefit of the ordinary working class family.

    • Michael 14.1

      Donald Trump has no principles and he’s not ‘honest’. And it’s not ‘sneering liberal names’. Banning a whole religion of people for no reason from entering the country (1.6 billion people!) is insane. He’s said extremely misogynistic things, including that women should be punished for having abortions. He’s mocked people with disabilities. He proposes forming a deportation force to forcibly remove 11 million people from their homes, communities, and families. (Last I checked, deporting 11 million working class immigrants who contribute immensely to the economy and society, simply because of xenophobic/racist reasons, is not ‘reshaping America in the interests of the ordinary working class family’. Unless you meant working class *white* family?) He says we should purposely kill the children of terrorists.

      He’s proposed the largest tax cuts for the wealthy of any candidate. His hotels are known for union busting.

      Now, Clinton is no saint. And I do not want to see her steering American foreign policy. She is extremely problematic, but she’d probably just keep the status quo going. Trump would make things worse for the whole world.

      And a note on ‘starting wars in the ME’: he proposes ‘bombing the shit out of them’ when asked about foreign policy. And it’s also a lie Trump publicly opposed the Iraq war: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/donald-trump-says-he-was-against-the-iraq-war-thats-not-how-i-remember-it/462804/

      I’ll say that Trump has a fairly decent trade policy in that he opposes things like TPP, NAFTA, etc. But that’s pretty much the only decent thing. He rejects climate change, wants to abolish the Department of Education, etc etc.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        *Shrug*

        Sec State Clinton helped run a drone assassination programme which routinely killed the children and family members of terrorists.

        It’s just normal procedure.

        As for barring Muslims from entering USA. Just listen to what Trump actually said: *Until* the USA had a plan to understand and deal with Islamic terrorism.

        Not a racist position, simply a national security position.

    • weka 14.2

      “I also think that Trump is one of the most honest candidates – coming second only to Sanders – in terms of wanting to fundamentally reshape America for the benefit of the ordinary working class family.”

      I don’t see how that makes him more honest, or even like Sanders except superficially. Trump picked his constituency in the same way as Clinton, so he can win. And let’s not forget that Trump’s desire to reshape America for that part of the working classes comes at the expense of other people via bigotry. One could also say that is true of Clinton as well (her vision of a new America costs other people), so they’re both as bad as each other. Being a bigot isn’t honesty, it’s just a different flavour of manipulation.

      • Colonial Viper 14.2.1

        Unlike Hillary, Trump aint pretending to be something he’s not.

        Thats what I define as honest.

    • miravox 14.3

      ” in terms of wanting to fundamentally reshape America for the benefit of the ordinary working class family.”

      in terms of wanting to fundamentally reshape the USA for his own benefit

      I can’t imagine what Trump’s definition of an ordinary working class family would be
      – certainly no union members
      -probably not headed by a female
      -not hispanic
      -not muslim
      – with his interests he won’t be doing much to help the ones living in Las Vegas tunnels

  14. whateva next? 15

    I have no doubt that the Saunders could win over Trump, I have alot of doubt about Clinton’s ability to win over Trump, given the turnout for him so far.

  15. joe90 16

    Donald Trump only hires the best people, people like his newly appointed national finance chairman and former partner at Goldman Sachs, Steven Mnuchin.
    /

    The money-man and fellow investors in a Dune Capital fund are said to have lost as much as $80 million — equity that is almost certain to be lost for good, said two sources familiar with the situation. And disgruntled Relativity investors privately are questioning how a bank Mnuchin once headed –OneWest Bank of Pasadena – was allowed by Relativity to drain $50 million from the studio just weeks prior to the July 30 insolvency filing.

    http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/relativity-steve-mnuchin-co-chairman-1201557256/

    • joe90 16.1

      Bully’s gonna bully.

      Donald J. Trump Verified account
      ‏@realDonaldTrump

      I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $’s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!

      Sarah Kendzior ‏@sarahkendzior 9 hours ago

      Trump threatened this anti-Trump ad maker earlier in the election. Now he’s switched and endorsing Trump.

      Sarah Kendzior
      ‏@sarahkendzior

      Trump has decades of inside info on media, business, entertainment, and political elite. Enough to blackmail, bribe, and buy who he needs.

      Sarah Kendzior ‏@sarahkendzior 9h9 hours ago

      His ability to threaten and bribe is one reason so many will capitulate in months to come. Social media lets him humiliate on grand scale.

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1

        I think this comment is overblown.

        The establishment’s National Security State has all info on a persons email, electronic transactions, smart phone and other computerised records.

        And the establishment is against Donald Trump.

        • joe90 16.1.1.1

          The establishment being against Trump doesn’t change the fact that a man with a reputation as a bully is still a bully whose first instinct is to threaten anyone who contradicts him.

          btw, although some Clinton 2008 supporters did run with the birther insanity, and despite claims by RWNJ’s, it seems likely it didn’t actually start with them

          http://birthofanotion.com/home/the-secret-origin-of-the-birthers

  16. NZJester 17

    TYT have put up videos in the past that say most polling has an election race between Clinton and Trump as close and could go either way. Polling results for Bernie Sanders against Trump however is a different story. Most polls showed him with a comfortable lead over Trump.

  17. Jenny 18

    It is an inescapable fact that the two Democratic Party candidates, Clinton, and Sanders, both need the majority support of the Super Delegates to secure the nomination to be the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency.

    If the presidential race is as close as you say it is CV, then the question for the Super Delegates is this, “Can we risk giving the candidacy nomination to Hilarly Clinton, who could conceivably lose the election by a narrow margin. Or to Bernie Sanders who all polls show would beat Trump by a huge margin?”

    The problem for the generally conservative (and unpopular), Super Delegates (who generally favour Clinton over Sanders), is that if they give the nomination to Hilary Clinton and the worst happens, then they will have to wear this for a long time.

    It could conceivably lead to the end of the Super Delegate system.

    • Detrie 18.1

      You’re quite wrong. Much though I like and support Bernie, you’re being very naive. The super delegates system was established to squash the likes of the Bernie. It is in place to support the establishment candidate the party wants. Big business plays a part too, since they have considerably more influence in the democratic party and the convention. The party desperately needs cash, which is available, with conditions.

      Corporates obviously messed up with republicans and Trump, so the backup option is Hillary who is essentially republican. She’s in the pocket of wall st, pharma and the military machine. Campaign cash is already migrating from the republicans into the bankrupt democrat coffers to help Hillary beat Sanders and then Trump. The media channels will play ball since they love Trump for his ratings, but know that Hillary is who they are literally sponsoring. The presidential debates will be tuned to minimise harm to Hillary and portray Trump as an idiot. It will be great TV, as politics is now.

    • Detrie 18.2

      Wrong, far from the end of the super-delegates system, it will be their finest hour, doing exactly what they were created for – Supporting the pre-defined establishment candidate. Bernie stands no chance, regardless how well he does in California. There’s too much money and business interests behind Hillary. Business wants Hillary, not Bernie or Donald Trump. Even the FBI will come to nothing, since Obama will squash it if necessary. Remember he took more cash from big business for his 2008 campaign than Hillary did. Money, not people will rule.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    2 days ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 week ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago