Pssst, Donald … it’s everyone. If not now, then soon.
-
Yes, it locks it in. The inaccuracies are unlikely to change much from sampling to sampling. Hence the accuracy may or may not be off one way or the other, but it is likely of good precision. (The old standard of all the shots at the target missing the bullseye but all clustered together closely.) Thus for trending purposes it is likely a reasonable tool to include as part of the mix.
-
FWIW 538, while withholding judgement on internet polls in general for now, rates Ipsos as an A-. (On preview, as noted.)
My current best guess as to how the election will turn out, in terms of the Electoral College.
I’m a little iffy on Florida, but pretty confident of the rest.
That’s a pretty good electoral map right now, but everything could change depending on who Trump picks for a running mate. If he picks Kasich, that could wrap up Ohio & if Florida goes Trump (it’s very close) he’s within 32 electoral votes of the Presidency.
A terror attack in the northeast could just tip the scales (or any number of world events). I find his popularity incredible.
Plus even if you don’t think third parties are going to matter that much, they can and do swing elections. All it takes is 2%(See Nader, Ralph).
I don’t think Trump will pick anyone who could possibly outshine or show more competence than him. Ben Carsons? Maybe. Kasich? Not in a million years.
I also don’t think the VP choice has much effect on the general election - Politico has a nice article on this, complete with statistical analysis.
As for your second point, while voters may generally turn to the right after an attack, this election is a little different. You’ll have an experienced person versus one with none. All Ms. Clinton will have to do is say “Where were you when we got bin Laden?” and then there’s not much Trump can say. Whether the voters see it that way…in any event, it’s a thin reed to hang on, or to worry about.
I have a half-memory that Nader actually had little to no effect, but we’ll pass on that. Right now, I don’t see much likelihood of any third party forming that would affect Clinton; some Republicans may slide over to the Libertarian candidate.
Sanders might bolt to a third-party bid, but I think it unlikely; he’d have to know that it would ensure a Trump win, and even I don’t think he’s that egotistical and stupid.
The polling doesn’t actually support a Clinton surge. Quite the opposite, actually:
Her lead is entirely dependent on registered voters, which gives Democrats a 2 point advantage compared to polls of likely voters.
And lest you think I’m doing my “skewed polls” thing again, Nate Silver backs me up on this one:
Not really, we had this conversation before, the bias mostly shows in non presidential elections, in presidential elections the bias seems to show more in favor of the Republicans, with results that were embarrassing to you, as you seem to forget.
RealClearPolitics is ignoring the Reuter’s poll.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
And lest you think Reuters is missing a lot, you should notice that Reuters also noted the bounce Trump got recently in May, it seems that it was not a lasting one.
I doubt Kasich wants to have the Trump albatross hung around his neck even if he were asked. He probably sees his best bet as waiting until 2020 and hoping Ryan doesn’t run.
Quinnipiac finds Trump down by only 5 in Connecticut. Sure, we’ve seen weird outlier polls like that before. Except they also polled the Senate race too and found the result you’d expect: Blumenthal up by more than 30:
Democrats better hope that the majority of all these undecided voters are Bernie bros just not ready to come home.
Opinions vary, but I have no doubt. Bush carried Florida by just 537 votes in 2000, and the vast majority of Nader voters were liberals who almost certainly would have otherwise voted for Gore: Ralph Nader - Wikipedia
Given that Trump has probably hit his ceiling already, I think we’re looking at something between Goldwater and McGovern.
We’ve heard that before.
And it happened.
We’ve heard how all the polls were skewed, too. Remember that? 
Um, no it didn’t. Trump shot right past his ceiling. There is no indication he’s hit it.
Not such an outlier. First it’s +7 in a two-way and +5 in with Johnson and Stein. Connecticut was at +7 over Romney in Quinnipiac’s August 2012. Long term trend polling there then mostly ran averaging Obama +10 with lots of scatter. No polling predicted the final Obama margin.
Then where is any added support going to come from? He’s already got the hateful blowhard vote wrapped up.
There are some Sanders supporters who like Trump. Heck, if Ralph Nader is saying nice things about him, there’s definitely a contingent of old white New Dealers who will vote for him. Robert Reich also reports some close friends with Sanders as their first choice, Trump their second. We also don’t know where Johnson’s voters will go if his viability collapses and he actually ends up at 1 or 2% in the end. Plus we still have a rather unusually huge group of pure undecideds, many of whom might be Bernie supporters, but not all.
I do agree that Clinton has more short term upside once Sanders concedes, but she’s also got more downside due to the constant drama and scandals and negative coverage over the long term. She’s also got the fundamentals against her and either an attack or a recession could damage her since she’s tied herself to the President.
It’s still too early to make any calls. At most we can say that the polls and betting markets seem to indicate that Hillary has an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
Anyone thinking that the constant stream of insinuation and investigation (when’s the latest Benghazi committee wrapping up?) will have any more effect now, against Trump, than it has for the last few decades is engaging entirely in desperate hope, nothing more.
The shit you keep slingin’ ain’t workin’, it ain’t never worked, and it ain’t ever gonna work. But do please keep trying.