USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 9/27) Trump +4.1%
Trump: 46.7% (+0.5%)
Clinton: 42.6% (-0.1%)

Slight advantage Trump after Day 1 of post-debate panel is surveyed.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 9/28) Trump +3.8%
Trump: 46.7% (--%)
Clinton: 42.9% (+0.3%)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 9/29) Trump +5.6%
Trump: 47.3% (+0.6%)
Clinton: 41.7% (-1.2%)

A Trump bounce appears to have emerged.

[Seriously?]

Why did Seriously? come back this year? Wasn't he embarrassed enough in 2012?

Obnoxious much? What are you doing here after 2014?

People are permitted to interpret data differently. I am growing tired of how a bunch of obnoxious brownshirts you red avatars are because I don't agree with you and your crooked candidate and your narratives, which are not based in reality.

70% of you red hacks had Hillary up 10 and the election over in August. And who was the one saying it would be close? Yes. This "embarrassed" blue avatar. Who was right?

I rest my case.

[Seriously?]

Why did Seriously? come back this year? Wasn't he embarrassed enough in 2012?

Obnoxious much? What are you doing here after 2014?

People are permitted to interpret data differently. I am growing tired of how a bunch of obnoxious brownshirts you red avatars are because I don't agree with you and your crooked candidate and your narratives, which are not based in reality.

70% of you red hacks had Hillary up 10 and the election over in August. And who was the one saying it would be close? Yes. This "embarrassed" blue avatar. Who was right?

I rest my case.

Then stop pretending you objectively understand polling.

Obama's internal polling data never had him behind on the national vote throughout the whole campaign. Neither did the Pollster polling average for that matter (in part because of how it vetted the polls going into the model) At this stage in 2012, Obama had a 2.8 lead. This was at the time of the first debate poll dive and his lead fell. Pollster also didn't show an Obama recovery after the debates; more of a flatline and then a recovery in the final few days. Obama's internal polling found the same thing, but at a higher baseline; dipping to 52% after the first debate and not really moving.

So far Clinton has also always been ahead with Pollster and currently has a 4.5 lead. It's a 3.3 lead on the multiple candidates tracker too. She is doing better than Obama in terms of her national lead at this stage of the campaign

It may well be close, if the end result is close. But 2012 was considered a close race until after the election it was accepted it was never a close race at all.

I understand polling just fine. I do not subscribe to the pollster theory though. Fivethirtyeight or RCP, not a mouthpiece of the left.

You hacks just have your panties in a wad because I sarcastically stated that there was a Trump bounce here, just like you do with every pro-Hillary poll that comes out. It's comical how vitriolic the response was.

[Seriously?]

My issue with this poll is that it gets included in the RCP everyday. A poll that has the same sample over and over shouldn't be repeatedly put in the RCP.

Of course it should, with the latest results only, as RCP does. It's not like it's given a disproportional weight.

[Seriously?]

Oh thanks. Keep them coming, you hack. I was ultimately correct in my assumption. Ohio finished at +3.

Why don't you post my 2014 posts where I was right and you weren't?

[Seriously?]

We should start a support group for Seriously. The next few months are going to be rough for him.

They are? Thanks Nostradamus.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 9/30) Trump +4.3%
Trump: 46.7% (-0.6%)
Clinton: 42.3% (+0.6%)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.

And is out of step with all other polling after this debate

Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.

And is out of step with all other polling after this debate

Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.

I think there is one reason to assume that Seriously? is right about the lack of a bounce following the debate based on the LATimes/USC poll, but a couple more reasons to push back.

I do think that the LAT Poll, as a panel, has the potential to smooth out the effects of differential non-response bias. That may explain a good deal of what we're seeing in the other polls. Panels, in theory, should be immune to that. However, knowing that this panel must lose participants through attrition, then new participants have to be added. This must be in part responsible for the wiggle in this poll compared to what you might expect with a more traditional panel. Opting in may be adding a layer of differential non response. New participants are more likely to be pro-Trump as pro-Hillary panelists drop out (rather, they were up to this point).

Additionally, the weights include 2012 vote. That would necessarily mute some swing based on enthusiasm as well. Finally, we know that this poll is showing much more minority support for Trump than nearly all the others. I don't want to unskew, but that is worth noting as well.

In short, I think that the daily internet panels aren't the most likely candidates to show a big bump, but then, that doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own issues.

I have to amend what I said after Morning Consult (and to a lesser extent Red Oak) came out this morning. There appears to be a bounce at least in internet polling. It's odd though that the trackers haven't picked up on it.

I think a lot of it has to do with enthusiasm right now for the self-identifieds. IIRC Morning Consult was as low as D+3 and is at D+9 right now.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/3) Trump +3.9%
Trump: 46.6% (-0.4)
Clinton: 42.7% (+0.3)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/4) Trump +3.6%
Trump: 46.5% (-0.1)
Clinton: 42.9% (+0.2)

[Seriously?]

10/4 Trump +2
Trump 46% (+1)
Clinton 44% (=)

Why do you keep posting fake numbers?

They're not fake numbers, they are the computed 1-day tracking average for the 7-day tracker.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/5) Trump +4.0%
Trump: 46.6% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.6% (-0.3)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/6) Trump +2.6%
Trump: 46.2% (-0.4)
Clinton: 43.6% (+1.0)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/7) Trump +3.1%
Trump: 46.1% (-0.1)
Clinton: 43.0% (-0.6)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/7) Trump +3.1%
Trump: 46.1% (-0.1)
Clinton: 43.0% (-0.6)

Mr Seriously hoping and grasping for anything positive about trump.
I almost feel sorry for him.

Yeah, because I haven't posted the results of this thread even when Trump was down in it or anything. You're the one who is grasping at straws here.

[Seriously?]

Apparently Americans are like the honey badger. They don't give a s**t about this lame "pussygate."

[Seriously?]

Haha, is Seriously? choosing this poll as the hill to die on?

That's even more embarrasing embarrassing than his cringeworthy cringe-worthy run in 2012

Yeah, because I've posted just about every tracker result on here without comment when Trump was up or down, whether it was NOLA, UPI, Rasmussen, Reuters or this one.

There, I fixed your poor attempt at spelling and grammar as well.

You red and red-off color orange and green avatars (and those colorblind blue ones that think blue=red) are unhinged at this point. Such obnoxious little trolls.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/11) Clinton +0.4%
Clinton: 44.4% (+1.1)
Trump: 44.0% (-1.3)

[Seriously?]

Has anyone else noticed that Seriously's mental state seems to track with his candidate's?

Seriously? I am the one getting personally attacked here with your glee. Why? Because I am one of the few people that stands up to you red avatars.

I posted the result, without comment and responded to a ridiculous accusation that somehow I only homer when Trump is ahead in a poll, which I don't.

[Seriously?]

Has anyone else noticed that Seriously's mental state seems to track with his candidate's?

Seriously? I am the one getting personally attacked here with your glee. Why? Because I am one of the few people that stands up to you red avatars.

I posted the result, without comment and responded to a ridiculous accusation that somehow I only homer when Trump is ahead in a poll, which I don't.

You don't stand up for anything. I'm sorry this isn't a safe space for mentally impaired racists like yourself but stop whining about it.

If you want to "stand up" to us then why don't you start by explaining how it's relevant that a non-native speaker makes a spelling error and show us some of those 2014 posts of yours that you bragged about?

I don't have to justify myself to you or any other of you nasty red avatars. Nor I do apologize for giving it back to someone who is NOT nice to me to begin with.

Don't expect me to not respond to a blatant personal attack. I obviously do not need a safe space if I am willing to engage people here.

Calling me "mentally impaired" and "racist" because I don't agree with your personal political views is taking it way too far, Moderator.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/12) Trump +0.1%
Trump: 44.3% (+0.3)
Clinton: 44.2% (-0.2)