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

[afleitch]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

[afleitch]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

I'm not sure about now, but before Reuters had ridiculous Democratic registration advantages. Like D+15 at one point I think. They're dreadful.

That's why I said the internals are fine. Do the internals 'add up' to an accurate national Clinton v Trump share? No. That's in the weighting,

[afleitch]

Any move back to 'pre convention' polling would still give Clinton an Obama 2012 style victory.

[afleitch]

I still struggle to understand why they consistently find Bush '04 levels of support amongst Hispanics for Trump.

[afleitch]

Someone said Trumps bump today is mostly from a huge swing in black support, any truth to that?

Racially yes, alongside the polls heavily Trump Hispanic sample. The black support may just be a 'burp' as the same thing happened earlier in the track.

He also leads amongst 18-34 year olds by 4 points, which is also a fair jump.

The fundamentals of the tracking poll have always had these factors built into them.

[afleitch]

Someone said Trumps bump today is mostly from a huge swing in black support, any truth to that?

Racially yes, alongside the polls heavily Trump Hispanic sample. The black support may just be a 'burp' as the same thing happened earlier in the track.

He also leads amongst 18-34 year olds by 4 points, which is also a fair jump.

The fundamentals of the tracking poll have always had these factors built into them.

So this poll shows that there is a lot of crossover voting that probably won't happen or that there is a realignment?

It is tracking a sample of voters that isn't necessary an appropriate sample. No other tracker, even reuters is showing a Bush '04 level of support amongst Hispanics.

[afleitch]

Apparently Trump's widest margin amongst age groups is now the under 34's.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

The post-pussy surge has begun. BEAUTIFUL!

Please don't make me think of a pussy surge