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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

why are millenials so conservative in this sample? they made a huge mistake there and their concept doesn't allow for it to be corrected.

Yeah - it's been f***ed from day one.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/13) Clinton +4.7%
Clinton: 46.3% (+0.6%)
Trump: 41.6% (-0.6%)

Seems like they are adding voters to the sample. Sample size was ~2,200. It's now ~2,300.

[Monstro Believed in a Blue Georgia (and a Blue Texas)]

7th day in a row that Trump drops in voter intention (-4.5 since August 7). He sure is doing a great job motivating his base

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/14) Clinton +3.6%
Clinton: 45.6% (-0.7%)
Trump: 42.0% (+0.4%)

Sample size went up from 2,325 to 2,510 from Saturday to Sunday's sample.

Sample was in the 2,100 range earlier in the week. I think eventually, they want this poll to be ~400 to 500 voters a day. (7-day average)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/15) Clinton +3.4%
Clinton: 45.5% (-0.1%)
Trump: 42.1% (+0.1%)

Sample size increase seemed to slow on Monday. Up marginally from 2,510 to 2,539.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/16) Clinton +1.0%
Clinton: 44.2% (-1.3%)
Trump: 43.2% (+1.1%)

A good day for Trump.

Sample size increase up marginally from 2,539 to 2,551.

[OwlRhetoric]

Nice to see Trump gaining again.

[President Johnson]

Clinton +1 is laughable. I thought the LA Times is a liberal newspaper.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton +1 is laughable. I thought the LA Times is a liberal newspaper.

You mean that liberal newspapers use a liberal methodologies in their liberal polls?

It is not really a poll. They use the same members all over again. It means that such polls will have an inbuilt bias (it seems like it favors 5-6 pps towards Trump), but it will probably better on "catching trends" (but with 7 day lagging).

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/17) Clinton +0.6%
Clinton: 44.0% (-0.2%)
Trump: 43.4% (+0.2%)

Sample size fell from 2,551 to 2,500.

Voter intensity has closed to 82.3 Clinton vs. 82.1 Trump.  Trump's numbers have rebounded from 78.8 earlier in the week.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/18) Clinton +1.2%
Clinton: 44.6% (+0.6%)
Trump: 43.4% (--%)

[Wiz in Wis]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/18) Clinton +1.2%
Clinton: 44.6% (+0.6%)
Trump: 43.4% (--%)

HILLARY DOUBLES HER MARGIN OVERNIGHT! - If Hillary tweeted.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/18) Clinton +1.2%
Clinton: 44.6% (+0.6%)
Trump: 43.4% (--%)

HILLARY DOUBLES HER MARGIN OVERNIGHT! - If Hillary tweeted.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/19) Trump +0.6%
Trump: 44.2% (+0.8%)
Clinton: 43.6% (-1.0%)

The Donald's first lead since August 2nd.

[Buzz]

Fantastic!

[America Needs Jesus Christ]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

[Maxwell]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

[Fusionmunster]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

This poll has issues. The sub-sample does not change, meaning that they randomly poll from the same group of people everyday. The poll has a heavy R-bias due to the non changing sample, even LA times admits thats.

[Maxwell]

uh i could go to just about any other poll and see more reliable data in my favor.

you clowns literally only have this and a bunch of InfoWars-level kooks to give you stuff in your favor.

[JerryArkansas]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

Were're not the ones believing a poll that the makers have even said has a Republican bias.  But go on with your "dank memes".

[Seriously?]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

That's my take on this. The convention bounce seems to have faded and we are at pre-convention levels with most polls. That's not just from this poll, but reading the basket of polls that have been released over the past week or so.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

This poll has issues. The sub-sample does not change, meaning that they randomly poll from the same group of people everyday. The poll has a heavy R-bias due to the non changing sample, even LA times admits thats.

Yes. Everybody's agree that it have some constant bias (probably 5-7 pps). So the statement that margins are down to those in 2012 is pretty reasonable. And is consistent with pew.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

Were're not the ones believing a poll that the makers have even said has a Republican bias.  But go on with your "dank memes".

538 believes (with some adjustments). I rather believe Nate than anonymous red hacks

[JerryArkansas]

It's pretty clear that Hillary's bounce has come back down to 2012 margins at least.  There's still a long way to go!

It's pretty clear based on the garbage L.A. Times poll!

Were're not the ones believing a poll that the makers have even said has a Republican bias.  But go on with your "dank memes".

538 believes (with some adjustments). I rather believe Nate than anonymous red hacks

Nate Silver also believed that Trump would just fade away.  He's not the most trustworthy.