Talk Elections

35% Clinton
31% Trump
24% Johnson
  2% Stein

()

The poll was conducted from Sept. 27-29, beginning the day after the first presidential debate. The poll surveyed 501 likely New Mexico voters and contained a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent. All of the poll respondents were questioned by live interviewers, with 52 percent of respondents reached by cellphone and 48 percent on land lines.

https://www.abqjournal.com/857961/clinton-trump-in-tight-race-in-new-mexico.html

WOWza !

Looks like there's a huge disconnect between the hype of the Hillary fetishists this week and the real world and actual voters ... hopefully Hillary is not in for a rough surprise on election night when the actual votes are counted, not just those of her out-of-touch supporters and the media pundits.

;)

Here we go with the editorializing again. Are you literally unable to follow basic forum decorum?

New Poll: New Mexico President by Research & Polling Inc on 2016-09-29 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=3520160929075)

Summary: D: 35%, R: 31%, I: 26%, U: 8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (https://www.abqjournal.com/857961/clinton-trump-in-tight-race-in-new-mexico.html)

Bizarre.  I'd like to see PPP poll here again.

It's Clinton +10 in the head-to-head:
Clinton 44%
Trump 34%
Wouldn't Vote 11%
Other 3%
Undecided/Don't Know 8%

By the way, how hard is it to put at least the Clinton +4 number in the thread title instead of editorializing?

The ;) doesn't make it less insufferable.

Your HHB remains quite sad.

I also don't but for a SECOND that this is anywhere near the likely result.

I put it into the database entry, so you guys are not freaking out entirely again ...

If you click on the thread, you'll see the +4 number anyway.

Clinton+10 in the head-to-head, +4 even with Johnson in the mix (as he's progressively fading the closer we are to election day), and Tender says: "Muh swing state." Please.

here Red Avatars used to understimate Google Survey NM Polls & Reuters/Ipsos NM Polls
But it seems Google Survey & Reuters/Ipsos wasn't outlier.
;)

   #BattleGroundNewMexico

()

#TossUpWyoming

Not in NM -> Johnson's 24% are a record-high there.

So, he's not fading away. He's an established factor in the state.

Even in 2012, when the ABQ Journal poll came pretty close to the actual election result (O+10), by showing O+9, they got the eventual Johnson number right ...

Lol,

Hispanic support in this country is under 20% for Trump and New Mexico is like 48% Hispanic. So I seriously doubt that she doesn't win by at least 10% on election day.

The state should be more favorable then 2008 or 2012 for her.

New Mexico is very hard to poll for even good pollsters.

(Obligatory include the actual number in the title comment)

Johnson could conceivably win a county or two with numbers like that. Fascinating.

Edit: Thinking about it, this would be the best third party result in a state since 1992. I'll bet that he will win some precincts at the very least.

More than likely inflated. A PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NM_1216513.pdf) of New Mexico prior to the 2012 election has Johnson at 24 points. He ended up getting less than 4.

interesting. i'm rooting for johnson to actually win new mexico here

That poll was taken in December of 2011. It's not comparable to a poll taken a month and a half before the election. His numbers may go down, but they won't drop to 4%. Hell, I doubt his nationwide numbers will go down to 4%.

Bad! Third party candidates are a joke.

Ah, so Hillary supporters are the real problem, nevermind the substantial minority of this country right now that is enthusiastic for someone like Donald Trump. I've always respected a lot of what you've had to say on various topics, but this is not funny. You may not like Hillary Clinton, but she's actually tried to accommodate Bernie supporters (not to mention having his strong and unwavering support). Let me put this in simple terms: a Clinton landslide with downballot coattails means a strong progressive agenda actually gets signed into law, a narrow Clinton victory basically means Democratic domination in the federal judiciary for a generation and continued control of executive agencies, and a Trump victory is pretty self-explanatory I think.

With that said, in the end, I don't think Gary Johnson will get above 15% in any state when all is said and done.

as was explained this week once again, debates like the first one of 2016 or the first one of 2012 make supporters of the losing candidate less likely to participate in surveys for some days....which results into making a poll-winning-margin even bigger.

this is very much the "real" world - it's just not some kind of final truth at the moment and could still change.

And while I don't deny that a result showing Clinton up by more would be desirable, why exactly are we so concerned? She is winning after all.  I don't see Johnson gaining any more in NM.  In electoral college system it doesn't matter if you win by 1% or by 50% you get all the votes.  If he does get 25% of the vote and she still wins it will linger forever on some Wikipedia page, but that's about it.

Also, is there really that much support for Johnson among Hispanics as this poll is suggesting?

Oh FFS Tender.

That's from 11 months before the election. We're only a month out.

Johnson might deliver NM to Trump lol

I highly doubt Johnson will get anything like that, or that the margin will be anywhere near that close. The two-way number is somewhat more plausible.

If Johnson actually gets that much, Trump would probably end up in third place on election day. With that said, this poll is way too favorable to Johnson.

I seriously doubt Johnson is going to get more than 20% here.

If Johnson wins here and gets enough to prevent either Trump or Clinton from getting 270 electoral votes, I legitimately wonder what the congressional delegations will do.

There are more states with Republican majorities in the House. They'll pick Trump even if he loses the popular vote by 5%.

Junk poll is junk.

The house can pick Johnson, constitution says top 3 in EVs. Considering there won't be any risk of electing Hillary (an absolute majority of states is required, plurality doesn't cut it), I could see the house settling on Johnson.

"Ok, you only won your home state, which is worth 5 EVs. Here's your prize: The presidency."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Are you ok.  You seem to be going nuts.  Is the racist that your country s going to elect really affecting you this much. 

Stein is at 2% if anyone cares.

I doubt Johnson will get anywhere near 24% on election day but 10%+ should happen.

Wut

Not going to happen.
Sorry.

At most, come election day, New Mexico will be "Likely D" instead of "Safe D."

I could see the House, which has more net-Republican delegations, voting Donald Trump in.

With that said, Johnson still trails by double-digits and is in not position to win New Mexico, so this really is moot.

Looks like Nate Silver wrote an entire article on a deadlocked election all based around this poll

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

Nate Silver is literally a paid GOP operative so this is hardly surprising. NM is safe D and I invite Trump/Johnson to waste all the money they want there.

3-point shift in odds = GAME CHANGER.

lol

Ah, the Kasich strategy.

New Mexico is not nearly as solidly a Democratic state as some on the forum would believe.

However, I still envision Clinton winning by 8-10 points depending upon the final 3rd party numbers.

Wow, looks like Tender's disgusting and all-consuming hatred of women and immigrants has turned his brain to mush. Very sad.

Would be impossible to actually pull off but the smart play would for Trump supporters to vote for Johnson. An election thrown to the House would likely mean a President Trump. Of course your average Trump supporter would never grasp the concept.

I know things are a bit different in Hackland, but he's pretty clearly a liberal Democrat.

Uh no, in 2012 he said "I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose." Doesn't sound like a Democrat to me.

Regardless, his model is too volatile because he's committed to adding every single poll even if they are junk tracking polls with supposedly large sample sizes like USC/LA Times or Reuters. It exaggerates the amount of fluctuation in the race.

I have been following Silver since he was posting as Poblano on Daily Kos during the Dem primaries in 2008. He is definitely not a Republican.  

Just what.

He accepted a paid speaking event in front of a Republican group...which somehow makes him a "paid Republican operative," as if he was giving them any proprietary information, and not just stuff he's said in public a bunch (as if that matters anyway).  It's silly nonsense.

Uh, he's also been unskewing polls like crazy in favor of Trump this year. Actually behaving exactly like that Dean Chambers joke who attacked him so much in 2012 hilariously.

It's probably not even an issue of party. You have to remember that Silver works for a media outlet and the media needs a horse race when it comes to presidential elections. He's only doing what he needs to do for his employer to stay relevant.

()

I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I've never seen Silver advocate for weighting based on political variables; quite the opposite, in fact.  Explain?


Do you have any evidence he's "unskewing" unreasonably, or exaggerating uncertainty, or whatever?  I get that there's probably some pressure to focus on competitiveness and uncertainty -- not sure how much of that is coming from ESPN -- but it's not like this hasn't been a fairly high-uncertainty and reasonably competitive election year.  I don't know when he's been hyperbolic about that.

My take on Nate S and 538 is that he started as this political geek in '08, made a big name for himself, shifted and got a raise and hired onto the NYT in time for the '12 election, and then got his dream job working for ESPN in time for '16 and focusing on sport statistics, which is his first geek love, and now has a decent job with people working for him, and doesn't pay as much attention to politics as he used to, since its only one of his business service lines, and the new bosses are a bit more interested in his sports stats than election stats.

Umm, does he mean Gary Johnson or Barack Obama?  Or libertarian and conservative?  I think there must have been a misspeak or a typo there.

I forget the source (I think it was CNN) that said that Nate Silver is the Democrats' "re-assure" guy. He skews the polls as you probably know to fit the picture better. He does have a very cool map though.

Where is my royalty check, Tender?!  I will also accept a bag of schillings if that's what you can afford.

Interesting poll.  It does show that, on paper at least, any one of the three could win NM.  However, at this point, the most likely winner is Clinton.  The only other likely scenarios are:

1. Trump implodes while Clinton gets a lot of bad press (Assange?).  Clinton's share holds steady, while many Trump voters switch to Johnson (who itm does NOT have another Aleppo moment) and Johnson carries NM.

2. Trump cleans up his act and for once in his life manages to stay disciplined for a month (:)) while Clinton gets buried by new negative revelations.  Johnson figures out that Aleppo is the capital of Mexico and proceeds to tell journalists that.  Trump carries NM.

I would say that the probability of a Clinton win are 85%, of a Johnson upset perhaps 10% and of a Trump comeback less than 5%.

Did "CNN" (the network said it?) explain what any of that means?  The "house effect" correction skews toward neither party by definition.  For most of this year, the "polls-plus" model he does has benefited Trump, because it sees "the fundamentals" as favoring a tight election.  The FiveThirtyEight model has pretty consistently given Trump higher chances than any of the other models out there.  Besides Silver's clear personal animosity for Trump, how is he the "re-assure" guy, and how does he "skew" the polls?

silver isn't reassuring anyone.

i am pretty sure most people in the political data journalism scene are against trump on a personal basis but i haven't seen a single proof that silver is helping anyone...just testing his own assumptions about data.

and i am happier with a trump candidacy looking stronger than it really is than one being stronger than it seems.