Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Poll: Zogby Analytics Has Hillary Clinton Up 2-Points Over Donald Trump, 38 to 36 Percent

I have no idea about the reliability of Zogby's polling.

Paul Bedard's making a big deal out of it, though. At the Washington Examiner, "Pow: It's just a 2-point race, Clinton 38%, Trump 36%" (via Memeorandum).

It's an online survey, which the Trump campaign prefers, apparently believing that anonymous polls are more reliable because respondents feel free to state their true feelings. I'm not sure how you measure that, although it's an interesting hypothesis. I guess the ultimate test will be on November 8th, when everyone votes.

In any case, go straight to Zogby, "Clinton and Trump in Statistical Tie; Trump Has Closed the Gap Among Older Millennials:
Trump has kept the race close by winning Independents. He is winning Independents 32% to 26% and has also closed the gap among older Millennials. Trump is tied with Clinton at 30% among 25-34 year old voters. Another interesting development is over the years we have tracked voting habits among NASCAR fans and Weekly WalMart shoppers. Ten years ago these groups tended to slant conservative and Republican. That trend has been reversed during the Obama Presidency, and these consumers tend to be more liberal and supporters of Democrats today. Trump has reversed this trend. Both NASCAR fans and WalMart shoppers favor Trump over Clinton. Donald Trump is winning NASCAR fans (44% to 36%) and weekly WalMart shoppers 41% to 36%.
Heh.

The crucial "Weekly Walmart" demographic lol.

This election's the best ever, no matter what happens.

I don't see head-to-head match-up numbers excluding the third party candidates at Zogby.

The Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" election poll now has Hillary up by roughly three of points, just about within the margin of error, 45.5 to 42.1.

Still, Hillary's still up by 6.7 percent in RCP presidential polling average. When that average comes back down to a couple of points or so, I'll give Zogby and the "Daybreak" poll a little more credibility.

0 comments: