The Republicans called it “skewing” in the Romney campaign. 
The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton for President.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/dallas-morning-news-endorses-clinton-for-president-227815
I should call my contacts there and congratulate them!
Unfortunately a chunk of those that just hate the system will vote Trump, some because they stupidly believe Trump will reform the system, and some because they know Trump is dangerous and reckless and they just want to see the world burn 
That could be true, and I would agree that the CNN poll, in and of itself, doesn’t actually mean that Trump is leading in the polls. In fact his “lead” is plainly within the statistical margin of error. But the polls do show that the race is almost or perhaps a statistical dead heat nationally when taking other recent polls into consideration.
I think we’re seeing two things at play here: 1) Trump has managed to keep himself under control, and 2) Hillary Clinton has had some really bad press the last few weeks - some of it self-inflicted. It is still possible, perhaps likely, that Trump will stumble again. But I suspect that this is when the race truly begins. People are now going to start paying attention and the large number of undecided voters is going to get split in ways that are difficult to predict.
I suspect Trump’s supporters will consist of the following:
-
The angry legion of uneducated white voters (the most committed)
-
Those who hate Hillary Clinton
-
Those who hate liberal democrats like Barack Obama
-
Those who are somewhat neutral but don’t keep up with politics and are influenced by social media.
Most of these will be white, though not necessarily poor and not what would necessarily call ‘uneducated’. However, a lot of what passes for ‘education’ in this country is pretty sad.
People who confident about Hillary Clinton’s chances are using the previous elections of 2012 and 2008 as reference points. I suspect, however, that those elections are not reference points. They were warning signs. They served to warn us that a growing number of people in this country are completely incompetent voters. And my fear is that unlike the last two elections, minority voters are not going to be as enthusiastic to support Hillary Clinton as they were to vote for Obama.
You’d think so, but the diffence to me between 95% and 99% poll numbers between Obama versus Clinton is not that 4%, but that voting against Clinton is so unthinkable that that is bound to translate into extra enthusiasm amongst the other 95%. If the alternative is so bad that it convinced that extra 4%, some of the other 95% are bound to hate the other guy extra extra bad.
You mean unskewing.
ETA: Though in all seriousness, finding a demographic makeup in a poll that just doesn’t reflect reality is much more legit than what the Romney dreamers were doing. They were claiming those polls had “too many Democrats”–i.e., begging the question. But ethnic groups are measurable and pretty much unchanging throughout an individual’s life.
Please don’t apologize for anything as entertaining as…
Though I’d rather your butt was on Trump…
But… but… but… that’s not what I meant! 
It is in quantum mechanics, believe it or not: It’s a way to remove infinities from mathematical models of quantum phenomena. John Baez has a good non-mathematical account of it here; it’s good physics (usually), in that we often get good theories out of it, but the idea of “renormalizing” polls makes me imagine potential voters being surrounded by hazy fields of virtual potential voters, all interacting with each other and saying variably insane political opinions, based on how far their energies are from the median…
In short, renormalization is, despite the objections of early physicists, useful; unskewing polls is a deliberate denial of reality.
Thanks, and I love the imagery.
Blacks, I agree, but Latinos are 'way more motivated to vote against Trump than they ever were against Romney or McCain.
“Where did you go, Marco Rubio, the GOPpers turn their lonely eyes to you…”
I’ll believe that when I see it. Latinos are like young voters, supposedly more motivated than usual in many cycles but it almost never happens. Actually, in the case of young voters it happened once. In the case of Latinos, we’re still waiting.
Some people seem to think that I’ve jumped on the Trump bandwagon. No, no, hell no. But I do have a different problem: I still support my Senate Republicans and most of them should outperform Trump, but are going to need a close Presidential race to hold the Senate. So yes, I am rooting for Trump to keep it close, but a Trump victory would be disastrous for all of us. But a Trump loss by about how much Romney lost has two benefits:
- It probably helps the GOP keep the Senate
- It probably scares the hell out of voters in both parties to the point where hopefully we’ll see smarter voter behavior in the future.
I think it’s more important that Trump is defeated in a landslide. This may prevent a candidate like him from trying to run in the future.
I doubt that’s true.
But the results of Trump winning could well prevent a candidate like him from winning again any time in the near future.
So all your “analysis” is so much wishful thinking bullshit after all? Gee whiz, color me shocked.
[Moderating]
Tone it down a little, please. This isn’t the Pit. No warning, but from now on remember what forum you’re in.
RickJay
Moderator
So the solution is to encourage just barely not enough voters to pull for an objectively terrible choice in the hope that they’ll be smarter in the future?
That’s like a doctor telling a patient to gain 300 pounds in the hope that diabetes and a triple bypass will encourage him to lose weight afterwards.