Trump apparently would win with bigger margin:
(the poll was conducted Apr 17-20)
The new survey finds 46 percent saying they voted for Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, similar to her two-point national vote margin. Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton.
Well, but that’s not reflective of anything but the fact that Ms. Clinton is no longer in the public consciousness these days. Well, it also reflects the fact that the average Trump voter isn’t unhappy with the President, yet, at least not enough to change their vote. Since many of them thought Clinton was the devil incarnate, no shock there.
What about all those people who did not vote at all? Trump is unpopular with the public at large, more than he ever was. If the sample is restricted to people who did vote, it will not measure the people who stood by with their hands in their pockets, and now realize that is an excellent way to elect an ignorant lout.
Again, Trump is not that “unpopular with the public at large.” He’s not popular. But his popularity/efficacy numbers track pretty close to the percentage of people who voted for him. This meme that liberals have that somehow this guy is pissing off the nation at large is just more delusional nonsense, similar to the delusional nonsense they were imbibing during the general election. Unless/until he manages something in the Presidency that turns out to be supremely stupid, he’s not going to be “unpopular with the public at large”, most of whom don’t pay much attention to the news at all.
I can’t find this question in the “full results” of the poll. How did Stein or other liberals poll in this contest?
You get that our system doesn’t rely on a nationwide popular vote poll, right?!? Show me where in that polling data it breaks down the changing opinions, or likelihood to vote, on a state by state level.
Perhaps you’re young or don’t remember too many previous elections but America has always had very low voter turnouts compared to the rest of the industrialized World. The fact that 42% of all eligible voters stayed home in 2016 isn’t really that much of a shock.
In fact, despite Bernie Sanders rather foolishly claiming that voter turnout was at a 20 year low, the number of eligible voters who turned out in 2016 was higher than it was in 1996, 2000, and 2012. In fact, other than 2004 and 2008 you’d have to go all the way back to 1968 to find an election with lower turnout among eligible voters higher than 2016 and 1968 was before they allowed people under age 21 to vote.
Talk about cherry-picking what you want to hear! Let’s look at the other side of the ledger from the same story:
And, although I can’t seem to find where I read it now, I saw some analysis that noted that this lead over Clinton should be taken with a grain of salt. They noted that this effect of going with the winner after the vote has been decided always occurs…In fact, people won’t even be honest if you ask who they voted for after the election results are known, with the percentage saying they voted for the winning candidate usually considerably higher than what he actually got.
Yes, indeed! Thanks for noticing!
First voted against Nixon in 1968. Annus Horribilis. I’ve forgotten very little about '68, try as I might.
No, it isn’t. Did I say it was? They didn’t vote, and a poll of people who voted, so far as it directly concerns them, is moot. Whether that is surprising or not has nothing to do with it.
I am at a loss, here. Why did you quote me to frame points that have little or nothing to do with what I said? Why not just make your points and leave me out of it?