Clinton bounce 10 points

[Anonymous]

No bounce http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-poll-shows-clintons-hoped-post-convention-bounce-falls-flat/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Reuters poll yesterday showed a 7 point bounce for Clinton. Also the latest poll from Missouri shows a tie where Romney won Missouri by ten points. So far, everything is pointing to a big bounce for Clinton.

The Reuters poll was after a change in methodology. It is explained by Reuters on their website. In a matchup with the nominees for the Libertarian and Green parties, Reuters shows Trump and Clinton to be in a tie.

They don't say what the actual impact was, but I am guessing the original wording benefited Clinton because two weeks ago she was doing about 6 points in Reuters than in any other poll.

See what Reuters did here:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/29/reuters-ipsos-poll-change-methodology/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Reuters poll yesterday showed a 7 point bounce for Clinton. Also the latest poll from Missouri shows a tie where Romney won Missouri by ten points. So far, everything is pointing to a big bounce for Clinton.

The Reuters poll was after a change in methodology. It is explained by Reuters on their website. In a matchup with the nominees for the Libertarian and Green parties, Reuters shows Trump and Clinton to be in a tie.

They don't say what the actual impact was, but I am guessing the original wording benefited Clinton because two weeks ago she was doing about 6 points in Reuters than in any other poll.

I recall reading that Reuters poll swung 17 points in his favor over two weeks and that was the trigger for changing the methodology.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:No bounce http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-poll-shows-clintons-hoped-post-convention-bounce-falls-flat/

Actually, that poll does show a bounce (albeit a small one). Moreover, it has been an outlier for weeks. Let's watch it over the next few days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the NPR politics podcast that whoever is in the lead in about three weeks is normally the person who will win. I don't believe any rules apply this year. But I hope it's her

That's the Labor Day Theory, which may be completely irrelevant this year. Remember the Brexit vote? It "never could have happened" back in the spring.

[Anonymous]

She was really damaged by the dnc emails she's lucky to stay where she was before

[Anonymous]

According to the USC Dornsife / LA Times tracking poll, Clinton did not get any bounce worth mentioning. Look at the graph. Place your cursor on the graph for the actual numbers. Trump leads by 5 points:

http://96.127.53.23/election/

[Anonymous]

Trump's bounce was nil immediately after the convention and showed up later on. Is Hillary's bounce supposed to be different?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:According to the USC Dornsife / LA Times tracking poll, Clinton did not get any bounce worth mentioning. Look at the graph. Place your cursor on the graph for the actual numbers. Trump leads by 5 points:

http://96.127.53.23/election/

Whether a bounce is worth mentioning is subjective, but she did get a bounce whether you want to mention it or not. Let's watch that poll over the next few days and see if the current trend continues. Even now that poll is an outlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump's bounce was nil immediately after the convention and showed up later on. Is Hillary's bounce supposed to be different?

The LA Times tracking poll was until the 29th ....... would we not expect some movement after four days of the convention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the NPR politics podcast that whoever is in the lead in about three weeks is normally the person who will win. I don't believe any rules apply this year. But I hope it's her

That's the Labor Day Theory, which may be completely irrelevant this year. Remember the Brexit vote? It "never could have happened" back in the spring.

The Brexit vote was entirely consistent with polls.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the USC Dornsife / LA Times tracking poll, Clinton did not get any bounce worth mentioning. Look at the graph. Place your cursor on the graph for the actual numbers. Trump leads by 5 points:

http://96.127.53.23/election/

Whether a bounce is worth mentioning is subjective, but she did get a bounce whether you want to mention it or not. Let's watch that poll over the next few days and see if the current trend continues. Even now that poll is an outlier.

Outlier in relation to which polls? Not in relation to CNN for example. But it - and other polls bear watching for sure.

[Anonymous]

Polls, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder:

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Kos:

"The USC “Daybreak” poll is the new Rasmussen, and something very fishy is going on which doesn’t seem to jibe with the rest of the polling world."

Of course, Rasmussen's latest poll showed Clinton up by 1, so maybe the author should change Rasmussen to CNN

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/28/1553533/-WTF-is-up-with-the-USC-Dornsife-LA-Times-tracking-poll

[Anonymous]

Reuters shamelessly changed its methodology to favor Hillary.

This poll needs to be discounted or at least can't be used as a comparison to their prior polls which used different models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the NPR politics podcast that whoever is in the lead in about three weeks is normally the person who will win. I don't believe any rules apply this year. But I hope it's her

That's the Labor Day Theory, which may be completely irrelevant this year. Remember the Brexit vote? It "never could have happened" back in the spring.

The Brexit vote was entirely consistent with polls.

Sure, the polls taken in the last week or so before the election