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

[JerryArkansas]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/20):
Trump - 43 (+/-)
Clinton - 43 (+/-)
(#) denotes change from previous day

as a note, Clinton now leads in decimals for the first time, 43.4 to 42.8.

It's as if the RNC isn't happening.

No, it's just having the exact opposite effect that most conventions have on your numbers, as it appears in this poll.  We'll see if it translates into others as well.

[JerryArkansas]

I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.

RCP is conservative, by and large. Their aggregate, however, is not biased.

It picks and chooses polls, yeah it is just as biased.

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

The "detailed data" tab has sample sizes. 

Yeah I pretty much tuned out of the conversation when he said that...

At this point, you seem like an idiot who wants to believe this damn poll.  So, I'll leave you in your "poll".

Also, they didn't have that when I first looked at this poll and threw it in the garbage.  Havent looked since.  But think what you want to think.

[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".

[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. 

[JerryArkansas]

The most pro-Brexit polls ended up being the most accurate polls...

Ok, who cares.  This isn't Britan. 

[JerryArkansas]

Fantastic!

Seriously made a clone to pat himself on the back. Sad!

Yeah, because I've commented on the merits of this poll as opposed to actually just reporting the numbers in this thread.

How dare there be a few more Republicans on this forum! It must break your heart that there's an actual opposition in this land of the red, faux green and faux blue avatars. Your insults will do nothing but entrench my resolve.

I and many others would like to have opposition.  Not posters who just throw sh**t when presented with an argument.

[JerryArkansas]

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

They adjusted it to show support based on 2012.  Doing that was always going to produce crap results.