The American people agree with Clinton: Trump is a bigot. This new poll confirms

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

The American people agree with Clinton: Trump is a bigot. This new poll confirms it.


By Greg Sargent


September 12 at 9:31 AM

(David Paul Morris/Bloomberg)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/12/the-american-people-agree-with-clinton-trump-is-a-bigot-this-new-poll-confirms-it/?postshare=2331473687380601&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.dfd4e50ea4eb

Confirmation that Hillary was right and will likely get a boost for it.

[heatcharger]

Polls like this make it harder to believe Trump can actually win. He either needs to convince a significant amount of people from now and the election that he isn't biased against women and minorities, or he needs people who think he's biased against them to vote for him. It's hard to conceive.

[Horus]

I don't think her comments will give her a boost, but they won't hurt her either. People who agreed were already voting for her, people who disagreed were not.

[ProudModerate2]

[Alcon]

I think the problem is that people don't necessarily make their decision based on the substance of the statements, but often on the tone of the media coverage.  If something is covered as a gaffe (as this was), it doesn't matter as much whether voters agree or disagree with what was said.  It makes the candidate look a little more inept and unreliable, and that's often sufficient to move the needle, especially with unconsciously bandwagon-prone swing voters.

That said, I've said since the beginning that this doesn't play into any preexisting anti-Clinton narrative the way Romney's 47% comment played into the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich jerk.  So it's quite possible this won't move the polls.  We'll probably never know because of the proximity of the pneumonia incident.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This poll is not about "Deplorables". It is from SEP. 5-8.
While it still looks bad for Trump, I don't think that voters would like the "Deplorables" remark.

[Alcon]

I think the problem is that people don't necessarily make their decision based on the substance of the statements, but often on the tone of the media coverage.  If something is covered as a gaffe (as this was), it doesn't matter as much whether voters agree or disagree with what was said.  It makes the candidate look a little more inept and unreliable, and that's often sufficient to move the needle, especially with unconsciously bandwagon-prone swing voters.

That said, I've said since the beginning that this doesn't play into any preexisting anti-Clinton narrative the way Romney's 47% comment played into the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich jerk.  So it's quite possible this won't move the polls.  We'll probably never know because of the proximity of the pneumonia incident.

This poll is not about "Deplorables". It is from SEP. 5-8.
While it still looks bad for Trump, I don't think that voters would like the "Deplorables" remark.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're responding to.  I know the poll is older than the "deplorables" comment, and I assume the OP did too.  The OP's argument is that people's preexisting views of Trump as prejudiced will make the "deplorables" comment play well.  I disagreed with this, but my counterargument wasn't based on the content of the poll.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I think the problem is that people don't necessarily make their decision based on the substance of the statements, but often on the tone of the media coverage.  If something is covered as a gaffe (as this was), it doesn't matter as much whether voters agree or disagree with what was said.  It makes the candidate look a little more inept and unreliable, and that's often sufficient to move the needle, especially with unconsciously bandwagon-prone swing voters.

That said, I've said since the beginning that this doesn't play into any preexisting anti-Clinton narrative the way Romney's 47% comment played into the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich jerk.  So it's quite possible this won't move the polls.  We'll probably never know because of the proximity of the pneumonia incident.

This poll is not about "Deplorables". It is from SEP. 5-8.
While it still looks bad for Trump, I don't think that voters would like the "Deplorables" remark.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're responding to.  I know the poll is older than the "deplorables" comment, and I assume the OP did too.  The OP's argument is that people's preexisting views of Trump as prejudiced will make the "deplorables" comment play well.  I disagreed with this, but my counterargument wasn't based on the content of the poll.

Oops! Missunderstanding

[Alcon]

I think the problem is that people don't necessarily make their decision based on the substance of the statements, but often on the tone of the media coverage.  If something is covered as a gaffe (as this was), it doesn't matter as much whether voters agree or disagree with what was said.  It makes the candidate look a little more inept and unreliable, and that's often sufficient to move the needle, especially with unconsciously bandwagon-prone swing voters.

That said, I've said since the beginning that this doesn't play into any preexisting anti-Clinton narrative the way Romney's 47% comment played into the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich jerk.  So it's quite possible this won't move the polls.  We'll probably never know because of the proximity of the pneumonia incident.

This poll is not about "Deplorables". It is from SEP. 5-8.
While it still looks bad for Trump, I don't think that voters would like the "Deplorables" remark.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're responding to.  I know the poll is older than the "deplorables" comment, and I assume the OP did too.  The OP's argument is that people's preexisting views of Trump as prejudiced will make the "deplorables" comment play well.  I disagreed with this, but my counterargument wasn't based on the content of the poll.

Oops! Missunderstanding

No worries!

[Maxwell]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Could you provide the crosstabs here? My WaPo quota ran out

[Maxwell]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Could you provide the crosstabs here? My WaPo quota ran out

the poll itself showed Clinton up 5.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Could you provide the crosstabs here? My WaPo quota ran out

the poll itself showed Clinton up 5.

Was he at more than 40? Otherwise, there wouldn't necessarily be any

[Maxwell]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Could you provide the crosstabs here? My WaPo quota ran out

the poll itself showed Clinton up 5.

Was he at more than 40? Otherwise, there wouldn't necessarily be any

46-41 in the four way.

[The Other Castro]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Could you provide the crosstabs here? My WaPo quota ran out

Tip: Open incognito tabs when you run out of free articles.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Tip: Open incognito tabs when you run out of free articles.

It is dishonest...

[Bismarck]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

Well obviously a small number of people are openly bigoted. There are also people who dislike Trump but believe he is less bad than Clinton.

[Person Man]

There is a very sizable "Trump is a bigot, and I'm voting for him" chunk of the population, which strikes me as odd.

To support someone you know us a hater makes you a deplorable.

[Bojack Horseman]

Then why are the polls tightening? This is what I want to now. The popular vote polls are meaningless, but Hillary's lead has gone from 175+ to right around 50. It seems like we're drowning here and it only gets worse with each day as the media won't stop crucifying Clinton.

[Alcon]

Then why are the polls tightening? This is what I want to now. The popular vote polls are meaningless, but Hillary's lead has gone from 175+ to right around 50. It seems like we're drowning here and it only gets worse with each day as the media won't stop crucifying Clinton.

What do you mean the popular vote polls are meaningless?  The popular vote is composed of states voting.  When the popular vote tightens, it's indicative of trends in the states -- and it's pretty much unheard-of for swing states to go against significant national trends.