New Poll Shows Hillary Clinton With a 13-Point Lead Over Donald Trump

[applegrove]

New Poll Shows Hillary Clinton With a 13-Point Lead Over Donald Trump

by Melissa Chan at Time

http://time.com/4403680/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-13-points/

"SNIP...........


Clinton leads Trump by 46% to 33%


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a 13-point lead over presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

The former Secretary of State is ahead of Trump by 46% to 33% among likely voters, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows. Another 21% did not support either candidate.

The poll, which surveyed 1,146 likely voters in the country between July 8 and July 12, also found that half of likely voters now say they have a favorable view of Clinton. That’s compared to the roughly 60% of people polled who say they have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to Reuters. The poll is notable because it comes after the FBI criticized Hillary Clinton’s email practices while secretary of state, but declined to recommend criminal charges against her.


..............SNIP"

[BlueNoMatterWho]

1. Great news! I wonder why the Reuters polls have such a big disparity

between them and most other polls? I believe it's an online poll but can anyone find the party ID samples? I couldn't in the link. Maybe that's the reason it always seems to be such an outlier. Sort of like any Rasmussen poll. lol

[Johnny2X2X]

2. Party ID samples are meaningless

That's a red herring argument. The sample for party simply reflects the % across the country, and there are a lot more Dems than Teps in this country. After all, how would you know how many Dems and reps there were? You'd poll a sample of people.

This poll is a phone poll sampling likely voters across the country. They sampled 1146 likely voters.

[Kingofalldems]

11. Why do you try to debunk any poll with Hillary ahead?

[BlueMTexpat]

21. I've been noticing that

too this morning ... and not just with this poster. Interesting ...

[BlueNoMatterWho]

3. It makes a difference. If you sample 20% more Democrats Clinton will have a double digit lead.

And vice versa. Likely voters means next to nothing without the party ID sampled.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. I think you're misunderstanding

First of all there are about 33% more Dems than Reps in the country(40 Miillion to 30 Million in some studies). But that doesn't even matter when you're picking a random sample. If you poll 1146 likely voters randomly, you're going to get an accurate representation of both parties as long as you picked them randomly. If you happened to ask party affiliation you could use those answers to accurately make a prediction about the %s of Dems and Reps in the country.

It's the same thing if you also asked eye color in the poll, if it was a random sample of likely voters you'd get a pretty good representation of the eye color of likely voters.

[woolldog]

5. Exactly.

[leftynyc]

15. Let's see - you already have two

comments (out of the first three posted) crapping all over this poll and pretending you don't know there are far more Democrats than cons in the country. Just who do you think you're fooling?

[Hekate]

6. That's more like it.

[tallahasseedem]

7. Still not enough for me...

I want this to be an embarrassment of epic proportions for that idiot. Plus, higher numbers help our down ballots!

[Laffy Kat]

8. The fact that it ISN'T more of a blow-out is concerning, IMHO. nt

[spinbaby]

10. This morning ABC is trumpeting a Trump lead

Face it, the race is closer than many here would admit and the MSM is not on our side.

[leftynyc]

16. He has a lead in some state polls

but only the discredited rass has him ahead in national polls so I'm not sure what ABC is talking about.

[AntiBank]

17. I see no polls where Trump leads except for Rasmussen, which overweights Rethugs, what poll is ABC

talking about?

[tallahasseedem]

18. I hear you...

I always torture myself by turning into Morning Joe for a few to gauge how corrupt the media is going to be that day. Joke was stating that Hillary's 14pt lead in Florida vanished and that she is behind in Iowa and a couple of other battleground states. I'm not sure what poll he was referencing though.

That entire lineup is a joke. His sudden turn back to Trump after his three week rant against him is a joke. Halperin is an ass and Wallace has absolutely no credibility after consistently propping up Palin KNOWING she was grossly unqualified.

[tallahasseedem]

19. I agree with you...

but I tend to keep myself (somewhat) sane by reminding myself that most of the electorate doesn't even start paying attention until September. As a political junkie and someone who actually gives a shit about what goes on in this country, that nugget of information irritates the hell out of me.

[CobaltBlue]

9. I want a 40-state landslide (400+ electoral votes)

I want to have fun guessing which state gives Donald Trump his best margin. (I’m thinking West Virginia.)

[tallahasseedem]

20. Those are the things dreams are made of...

I would LOVE to see a Reagan/Mondale electoral map this season!

[CobaltBlue]

22. tallahasseedem—They used to happen a lot

Winning 80 (or more) percent of participating states used to happen a lot.

During the 20th century, of 25 presidential election cycles, it happened 11 times: 1912, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Kick this for Trump's little internet buddies.

[OnDoutside]

13. It's July, before both Conventions, VP picks and the First Debate.....it's early.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

14. Exactly right.

[greymattermom]

23. I don't get this at all

How can polls be so opposite? The outcome of a poll is known, the accuracy isn't. Are they reporting different polls?

[applegrove]

24. Someone pointed out that in the Quinnipiac poll it was assumed

that whites would vote more than usual, and Latinos not. I very much believe Latinos will show up in huge numbers.

[AgadorSparticus]

25. K&R