Just a heads-up:New polls show Trump expanding his general election lead

[NewsCenter28]

2 new polls.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Unfortunate, indeed, to say the least.


FOX News 5/14 - 5/17 42 45 Trump +3
Rasmussen 5/17 - 5/18 37 42 Trump +5

[onehandle]

1. 'General election polls before and during the primary are predictive of absolutely nothing.'

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls

[NewsCenter28]

3. Thanks for the hopeful tidbit from 538 n/t

[BlueNoMatterWho]

8. Trending

The trend is what's troubling.

[Egnever]

21. Not really

Trumps opposition has largely disappeared, if there was any to begin with. Hillary and Bernie are still fighting it out.

After the conventions when they start going head to head is when the polling will start to matter.

[moonbabygo]

44. agree

the first one to hit 50% after labor day is usually the winner. Trump is running high now because the repubs have a candidate and the democrats are still fighting. Once they get it together the numbers will change

[puffy socks]

81. Dontcha just love the cherry-picked polls anyway?

Polls aren't worth a hoot. But since everyone keeps posting particular polls. I thought we should include all the polls on real clear politics.


And look!
Clinton beats Trump in nearly every single poll and by double digits in many of them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html


But we aren't talking about all those polls. Hmmm, I wonder why?

[former9thward]

86. All those polls have been posted at the time they came out.

These are newer polls and people are commenting on them now.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. Oh yes indeed. Since POC, students and old people no longer have the right to vote

and BoB (Bernie or Bust) are threatening to not vote at all or vote 3rd party, he is likely to win.

The only way to stop him is for all adults to show up and vote , there are more of us than those assholes on the right.

[ViseGrip]

5. FACT: the azzholes on the right show up to vote, no matter who! Just like soldiers.

dems don't.

[ViseGrip]

6. PS. Perhaps it's because they stick to their principles?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

9. Drumpf will get every single vote Romney got and more.

Two minutes after Bernie drops out, if that is how it goes down, every non right wing asshole in America needs to understand they need to do two primary things between then and Nov

eat and vote for the democrat

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. ...

“If a voter has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, he’ll vote for the Republican every time."

Remember the Blue Dogs?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

18. Wrong...the only people who will throw this election, if they do, will be BoB

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. This is Hillary's election to win or lose, but aren't you jest so

rearing to go with the excuse machine?

[Egnever]

22. Wait so the blue dogs didn't get elected?

How are you aware of them?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. ...

Blue Dog coalition during 111th Congress.




Blue Dog coalition during 114th Congress.


Please proceed eggnever...

[Egnever]

38. So you discount the fact that all of those blue dogs were elected because they lost later elections

in a wave election against people who supported Obamacare?

That is some shallow thinking there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. No, eggnever it shows that what Truman said is true.

But please jump to any conclusion that you like to. It's funny to watch.

[Egnever]

41. Yes because votes have no consequences

Your little memes are cute though.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. They're not memes, my poor disgruntled DUer...

They're jewels of tested wisdom.

But please keep stomping your feet.

[Egnever]

46. Gems from the clown patrol?

Who can't think past black and white?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. Actually this Jewel of wisdom is attributed to Harry S. Truman.

I can understand how conservatives, possibly even down-and-out Blue Dogs, might hate Truman for his truisms: calling them clownish.

I wouldn't expect that from supposed Dems...unless they were truly disgruntled with reality.

[Egnever]

54. Love to see an attribution of that to Truman.

Can't seem to find one.

Not sure what makes you think I am disgruntled. I am quite happy with where the Dems stand at the moment. There is room for improvement as always but we are nearing the end of the best presidency of my lifetime. We strand poised to hold the White house for another term be it Hillary or Bernie and probably pick up seats in both the house and senate. Things look pretty good from my perspective.

I think you might have a little projection going on there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. You have taken quite a valiant hike up Blue Dog mountain by first defending them, but then

when it was pointed out that they have lost seats to republicans you started your tragically downward slide into the barbs and tangle of "memes"...only to come at an uncomfortable end professing profound ignorance of one of the more memorable quotes from Truman.

To borrow another quite from Truman, "I'm not giving you hell, eggnever, I'm just telling the truth and you think it's hell."

[Egnever]

63. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy land

where you decide what other people are thinking and then respond to them as if they said something resembling your though process.

Heres a little something to wrap your black and white mind around The only time the house has been controlled by the democrats in the last 20 years came thanks to blue dogs and Deans 50 state strategy.

That said, the patterns are suggestive. In the 20 states we looked at -- those that have voted solidly Republican in recent presidential races -- Democratic candidates chalked up modest successes, despite the difficult political terrain. Then, after the project stopped, Democratic success rates cratered.

If Truman said that well Dean did a pretty good job of showing what a bunch of crap it was.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

64. And yet Truman's quote, which you show complete ignorance of,

seemingly is as prescient today as when it was said.

Dean isn't the head of the DNC. That job now belongs to a corporate Dem that has lost election after election.

Food for thought...

[Egnever]

65. Interesting that you can't seem to find a link to it's atribution

Should be fairly simple.

Quite telling that you don't recognize the difference in Deans strategy that included getting Blue dogs elected in southern states and
Wasserman's that uses a targeted election approach that completely ignores wide swaths of the country.

Also somewhat odd that you somehow think Someone in office almost 100 years ago has any insight whatsoever to the elections of today.

Feel free to point out all the purity dems elected in red districts to prove the point you and supposedly Truman are so sure of.

Good luck with that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. Oh, but it is fairly simple...

Here's Truman at his best.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

Now that I have had to hand hold you on a simple idea let me help you with a few more...

The Blue Dogs lost.

Wasserman has lost time and time again.
Funny how you believe that's a great strategy.

What's even funnier is how you apparently lack the ability to see common sense from a wise president who served not 100 years ago but less than 70 years ago.

I cannot help you with common sense, but I can provide facts.

Truman, a president that you profess ignorance of, showed a profound knowledge which can be directly used in today's political environ: to the loss of those caught up in seeing loss as gain.

[Egnever]

70. And again you make up things in your mind and atribute it to other people.

"Wasserman has lost time and time again.
Funny how you believe that's a great strategy. "

This seems to be your point of view with your professed belief that Blue dogs just lose. Despite the fact that the only time we controlled the house in the last 20 years was when the blue dogs won during Deans 50 state strategy. They lost as soon as the support was withdrawn by Shultz and have been losing ever since.


in 2010
Florida's 8th congressional district, Alan Grayson (first elected in 2008) lost to Daniel Webster

Clear choice there and the purity dem lost...According to you and Truman that should have been a win. Yet somehow it wasn't. Did they choose the real republican? No they voted against Obamacare in that election and Dems all across the country that supported it lost their seats.

The idea that any part of the nation believes in all the same things as the rest of the nation is simplistic nonsense. As is the idea you can define what constitutes a true democratic candidate. The candidate that wins time and again is the one that best represents the wishes of their district and that varies from district to district and election to election.

Nice Truman quote but it is facile and is completely obliterated by the fact that during Deans 50 state strategy they beat their republican counterparts in many instances.

The politics game is not black and white and varies from district to district and can be affected by local issues and national issues. Being on the "Dem" side of an issue can help you in one election and destroy you in another. All simplistic slogans aside.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

75. It's laughable that you desperately cling to failure.

Whereas I promote reality.



But I do appreciate your defense of fake democrats. It's very revealing.

[Egnever]

87. Well if you want to talk reality

Lets talk about the reality of that quote and what it lead to shall we?

Stevenson [was] an elegant campaigner who raised the political discourse" and that in 1952 "Stevenson reinvigorated [the Democratic Party] and made it seem an open and exciting place for a generation of younger Americans who might otherwise never have thought of working for a political candidate."[4] During the campaign, a photograph revealed a hole in the sole of Stevenson's right shoe.[48] This became a symbol of Stevenson's frugality and earthiness. Photographer William M. Gallagher of the Flint Journal won the 1953 Pulitzer prize on the strength of the image.[49]


Stevenson did not use television as effectively as his Republican opponent, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower, and was unable to rally the New Deal voting coalition for one last hurrah. On election day, Eisenhower won the national popular vote by 55% to 45%. Stevenson lost heavily outside the Solid South; he carried only nine states and lost the Electoral College vote 442 to 89. "

One of the biggest landslides in american history lead by Truman's hand picked candidate.

Along with that came a loss of the house and senate majority.

And to make it even more laughable that loss came to a presidential candidate that was doing exactly what that quote you are so invested in advocated against but from the other side.

To circumvent the local Republican Party apparatus mostly controlled by Taft supporters, the Eisenhower forces created a nationwide network of grass-roots clubs, "Citizens for Eisenhower." Independents and Democrats were welcome, as the group specialized in canvassing neighborhoods and holding small group meetings. Citizens for Eisenhower hoped to revitalize the GOP by expanding its activist ranks and by supporting moderate and internationalist policies. It did not endorse candidates other than Eisenhower. However Eisenhower paid it little attention after he won, and it failed to maintain its impressive starting momentum. Instead it energized the conservative Republicans, leading finally to the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964. Long-time Republican activists viewed the newcomers with suspicion and hostility. More significantly, activism in support of Eisenhower did not translate into enthusiasm for the party cause.[15]

I understand why a wildly unpopular at the time president would say such a thing but the idea it is some sort of immutable truth is absurd and was shown to be false in the election immediately following it when Eisenhower decimated Truman's handpicked pure democrat by doing exactly what Truman had said doesn't work.

So cling to it if you must but reality it ain't.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

89. It's the reality of the present time, my dear.

And BTW...reading comprehension might help you.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratcandidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But let's get back to the failed Blue Dogs and your praise of DNC Debbie and her 50 state losing strategy.

[Egnever]

92. Again you project

At no point in this thread or ever have I praised Debbie. Quite the oposite time and again I have said how her failure to support the 50 state strategy of Deans lead to democratic loses yet you keep trying to twist that to support of Debbie.

My guess is that it is because you are so lost in your ideological defense of sanders you can't think of anything past your hate of anything not sanders.

I am quite content with either of our candidates, I have no dog in this race. I am certainly not a fan of Debbie. That doesn't mean i don't see right past the complete BS of that quote.

I find it quite amusing that when presented with the direct evidence of how that quote failed almost immediately you now try to cling to the idea that while it didn't work then it works now.

Except I can point to all sorts of cases of where it falls flat on it's face in recent elections the easiest to point out is the Tea party primary destruction they have wrought on their own party following that same twisted logic. Richard Lugar is a perfect example of the base choosing the pure republican over the republican light Dick Lugar using that same thought process only to see the candidate they chose over him fail miserably in the general.

This quote is priceless in the context of that truthy quote of yours.

Donnelly has said that he will continue the “common-sense Hoosier tradition of Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh.”[35] Matt Tully praised him for his willingness to reach across the aisle.



Apparently they will pick the democrat pretending to be a republican when it suits them. I am sure you would categorize Donnelly that way.

You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever, other than your steadfast belief that that quote means anything other than the wishes and hopes of a president trying to defend his record.

I will be happy to see something from you other than clever quips that leads me to think you might have a point, but so far all you have is veiled insults with no connection to reality whatsoever.

[Egnever]

71. Oddly that is a completly different quote than you attributed to him in the first place

Funny that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. You fail wonderfully at context.

[Egnever]

83. If by context you mean two completely different quotes

You are quite right.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. LOL. See, you don't understand.

You should just go back to where it's safe: excusing Blue Dog losses and spinning them as victories.

[leftofcool]

76. The adults will show up, promise!

AAs Latinos, Democrats and women will keep Trump away from the Oval Office.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

77. Many of them will be turned away from the polls.

Millions will be stopped from voting.

That is why I am worried about all these "principled" folks who will facilitate Drumpf election.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Fox and Ras...is that what they get excited about at NewsCenter28?

[11 Bravo]

72. Did you think you would ever see the day when Fox and Rasmussen ...

would be cited as reputable pollsters by "Democrats" on DU?
I did not.
I can not fucking wait until the General, when attacks on Democratic candidates will eat a well deserved pizza.

[BeyondGeography]

73. Oh yeah

Spring cleaning has been delayed for too long.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. Just wait unit a certain bit of news breaks - soon. Then we'll see the situation a certain...

... candidate's supporters have put us in vs. tRump.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

10. ?

Regarding?

[PADemD]

25. Depositions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511999872

[Egnever]

24. I doubt there will be any determination before the election.

There is little to nothing there by all accounts I have read so far. The minute they close the case they can no longer use innuendo to conjure up the fantasies people are buying into. They will not give that up easily.

[libdem4life]

30. Actuallly, there may not need to be. I believe the wondering and the

unfavorability rating and Bernie's momentum are all signals of the fact that no smoking gun may be needed. The FBI is not a RWNJ organization. They have depositions to take. And in case you've never had a deposition taken, believe me they are brutal. And lying just doesn't happen. At that point, it's perjury. (I think)

A closed case is what everyone wants. Immunity (Pagliani...top IT guy) usually means a Grand Jury has been or is in the process of being picked. That I learned here on DU. In my non-legal opinion, depositions could also be used as well.

There are few paths left away from learning the truth. Whatever that may be.

[Egnever]

31. Maybe

I don't think so though.

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.


The Justice Department has granted immunity to at least one former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s private email server. There is no indication a grand jury has been convened in the case.

U.S. officials also dismissed claims by a Romanian hacker now facing federal charges in Virginia that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server. The officials said investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion by Marcel Lehel Lazar to Fox News and others, and they believed if he had accessed Clinton’s emails, he would have released them — as he did when he got into accounts of other high-profile people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

[leftofcool]

79. You really do love judicial watch don't you?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

82. La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la ... bla la la... bluh bluh la la la ....

[brush]

11. FOX and Rasmussen? Seriously? They're well known right wing polls

They both had Romney winning back in 2012.

Much too early anyway. Clinton has not even started in on Trump as Sanders is still hanging on, and getting angrier and angrier with his harangues against her and the Democratic Party establishment — the very entity that allowed him to run under its brand and thus get the national name recognition he would hardly have been afforded as a little known independent and self-avowed socialist senator from Vermont.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

12. Tightening

The polls should tighten up once Hill gets the nomination. Her unfavorables should rebound as well. Much like Drumpfs are now.

[brush]

13. Yes. I can't wait for the 24/7 ads of Trump calling Latinos criminals and rapists.

And all the anti-women clips and on and on.

[Iliyah]

14. And Blacks are all thugs

[BlueNoMatterWho]

17. Wow

Wow! Did he say that?! Link?

[brush]

20. Yes. And I've seen the clips of Trump encouraging violence against AAs at his rallies.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

29. Incredible

I searched for the "All blacks are thugs" comment but had no luck. Can you post a link? Voters should know about this!

[brush]

43. Here's one.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&p=Trump+rally+where+black+man+beat+up&type=appfocus29_ma_ff&param1=20160412&param2=c4797c16-2e5e-4a58-90ec-a08e7abacdf6&param3=maps_3.1.2~US~appfocus29&param4=4621-ot3snu8mmwo-bb8~firefox

[BlueNoMatterWho]

47. Thanks

Thank you but I'm looking for a link to Trump calling all blacks thugs. Still searching.

[Kingofalldems]

48. Really, who do you think you are fooling?

[BlueNoMatterWho]

53. What?

Are you referring to me? Because I feel like I'm getting fooled. Can't find that quote anywhere.

[Kingofalldems]

58. It's implied in all of his rallies.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

59. Thanks

Oh, ok thanks for the clarification. Would be better if he just came out and said it. Cheers!

[BlueNoMatterWho]

16. They've already started

They've already started. The one I saw had women repeating the vulgar things he's said in the past and the ad ends with a woman repeating something along the lines of "they can go fu*k themselves". Even though he wasn't referring to women but to China. LOL!!!

[Vinca]

23. This is the year of the outsider.

Everyone seems to know it except Democrats.

[AgerolanAmerican]

27. correction

everybody but establishment Democrats.

[Vinca]

28. Exactly.

[beachbumbob]

26. Lol....ill take Hillary and whatever odds people give me...unless

Sanders is indeed a shill for trump...

[Egnever]

32. Well you wouldn't get good odds..

https://electionbettingodds.com/WIN_chart_maxim_lott_john_stossel.html

[yellowcanine]

55. Interesting that Hillary's chances of getting the Dem nomination are higher than Trump's

chances of getting the Rep nomination.

[NewsCenter28]

61. Quinnipiac

Q showed Trump up in OH and tied in FL/PA. Unless things change, Trump is 45.

I've been telling everyone that Trump can't win for months and not to worry. Now, it seems like I have egg on my face and he can't lose.

[yellowcanine]

67. Way too early to make that kind of assessment based on a couple of polls.

Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Untwist the knickers already.

[Egnever]

91. ??

Looks like they are both at 95.7 % to me.

[yellowcanine]

95. It changed since I posted. Trump's was lower before.

[Egnever]

96. Ahh

[msongs]

34. Fox and Rasmussen? ok nt

[COLGATE4]

35. Wow. Both Fox "News" and Rasmussen?

Now that's a pair that would beat a full house - of idiots.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Are you Trump humping by any chance?

[yellowcanine]

57. Stop with the "Trump Humping"! Terrible mind pic.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

60. Yeah really

[scscholar]

37. The media knows Trump will get ratings

so they lie.

[Kingofalldems]

39. Yeah and Sean Hannity predicts a Trump victory also!

[JustAnotherGen]

42. I'll wait until after the

Conventions to pay attention to these.

I can't look at Trump supporters as a litmus test. They've already shown me who they are. I believe them.

[Downtown Hound]

50. LOL. Faux News has had Trump winning pretty much since last year

And Rasmussen is a right wing rag that predicted a Romney win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

[LenaBaby61]

51. I believe that same Fox Poll...

It shows that Bernie Sanders lead over Trump is now down from 14 to 4 points (That's if it's the same Fox Poll I think it is), meaning that Bernie Sanders doing "much better" than Hillary Clinton vs Trump in the general election is turning into a myth--that's if you believe that Fox News poll.

For me it's TOO early for polls like this, because we have a primary still going on over on the Democratic side until June. And secondly, the polling methodology of both the polls you bought up (Especially the Rasmussen poll), continues to be questioned continually for their accuracy.

[pnwmom]

52. The Fox news poll used a sample composed of 41% GOP, 40% Dems, and 16% neither,

even though Independents are now more common than either GOP and Dems, and fewer identify as R's than D's.

And I couldn't find any information about what percent of minority voters were included in the poll.

So what this poll really tells us is that Rethugs are more likely to support Trump and Dems to support Hillary.

Big surprise.



I tried to check the internals on the Rasmussen poll -- but you have to PAY to be a "Platinum" member if you want to see the info on the poll's demographics. No, thanks.

No one should ever report Rasmussen's polls here as long as they have that policy.

[Ohio Joe]

56. 'don't blame me for trump humping right wing polls'

[denbot]

66. Fox News and Rasmussen

Bawh Haw ha ha ha ha!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. Good thing

that national polls mean nothing in terms of actually winning the WH (good reason not to take away the EC). The better question to ask is, which blue states from 2008/2012, if any, is he likely to take away from us? If we hold on to all of the states we won in 2012, then he's not going to win in the end. Taking a few red states away from Republicans would be icing on the cake and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility with Trump running.

[tirebiter]

78. Don't need to shoot the messenger

Those are two RW polls that Romney relied on. The messenger shot the wad.

[jamese777]

80. But when people actually GO to the polls...

Primaries' total popular vote as of May 18th
Hillary Clinton: 13,192,713 (55.5%)
Donald Trump: 11,266,041
Bernie Sanders: 10,158,889 (42.7%)

Clinton over Sanders: 3,033,824
Clinton over Trump: 1,926,672

[AgadorSparticus]

94. Thanks for posting the numbers. Nt

[craigmatic]

84. Nobody can unite republicans like Hillary can.

[Egnever]

97. Agreed

and we are damn lucky they picked Trump.

They might have gotten away with almost any of the others against her.

[stevenleser]

88. I need to see the strata/cohorts. It's likely they aren't accounting for Trumps vulnerabilities

with Latinos and women.

[Oneironaut]

90. Hillary is a weak candidate. She makes people throw up a little in their mouths.

Bernie isn't much better. The real question is, why would a logical person jump to a foam-spewing nutjob like Trump? That's a million times worse. It's like discovering you have a pimple and on your arm and then deciding to amputate at the shoulder.

[spanone]

93. nominee vs primary candidate....apples / oranges