https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/575aqp/polling_megathread_1010_1012/

I don't read anything on /r/politics because it is a Clinton echo chamber. Also, immediately discredited because they don't have the new Rasmussen poll on there that shows Trump +2. Nice try.

Everything that doesn't have Trump winning is a part of the crooked Clinton wagon, right? Even Reddit. Rigged if you're losing, legitimate if you win... yup.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-post-debate-polls-show-trump-still-in-big-trouble/

It's long past over. Last night I was in a discussion with Political Science professors who both said outright Trump had no chance of winning with less than a month and Clinton consistently ahead like this.

Note: If you trust their judgement, one of them did at one point say "Clinton should be in prison."

If you DON'T trust*****

I'm still hoping that Utah gives Evan McMullin some electoral votes just so that people learn his name.

Political Science professors can be very wrong as much as very right, that's no point

Hillary's lead is going up and down, but it's still a lead.

McMuffin isn't going to win Utah. Be serious.

Well the data today reflects (what I hope to be) a new trend. We will see how the polls continue to go over the next week or so.

RCP and 538 are the most reliable resources for this. Trump lost.

McMullin is a Mormon. Trump is everything Mormons hate and because Mormons actually put their money where their mouth is unlike other religious groups that matters. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Utah has a huge Mormon population. Romney endorsed Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz won 69% in the caucus in Utah. McMullin already uses a Romney email list. McMullin already polls 20% while Trump and Clinton poll 26% apiece in Utah. Romney endorses McMullin, McMullin could easily snap past 26%.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

Rasmussen Polling was panned as the most inaccurate in 2012. Exaggerating Romneys numbers at times by as much as 12%. rasmussen is owned by the GOP

I mean, all I did was link to an aggregate of 20+ recent polls. The post didn't have any spin or anything. I'm sorry you were offended.

Their information gathering system is produced exclusively by robo calling. Among the least likely to yield actual reflections of conclusive data.

Its not over, how many battle ground states does Trump have to win? how many people will show up in those states (is voter turnout much higher in battleground states??) if people start saying Clinton has already won now, and keep saying it for the next month, then it seems likely her supporters are less likely to show up on election day... And she might do much worse.

Also the polls may be wrong, there are effects which mask polling results and make them systematically errored. Like if people don't want to admit they are voting Trump, because he's widely seen as a monsterous clown, his pollin figures may be much lower than reality.

Brexit and Conservative party votes in the last UK GE both look like they were affected by systematic errors.

Trump has an extremely niche audience. The only hope in hell for him to win is to deflate the turnout of Democrats and moderates to the extreme.

"Also the polls may be wrong"
:) no

@Valis: I apologize if I was snappy.

I do trust RCP and 538, but all I am saying is that there is polling data released today showing gains for trump. Discredit Rasmussin, fine, but what about NBC/WSJ that shows Trump up in Ohio?

Pollsters are privatized. The more inaccurate data, the less people who want to use them, the less money they get.

From the NBC link:
"Trump's best path to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House is by sweeping North Carolina and Ohio, as well as Florida and Pennsylvania.

But in the NBC/WSJ/Marist polls released of all four states this month, Trump leads or is tied in just one of them -- Ohio."

Also, 538 already has that poll reflected and still says in its polls plus model that Clinton has a little higher chance of winning Ohio.

538 also does an 'adjusted leader' score depending on the poll. if we start to see a wave of new Trump leading polls you will see 538 begin to reflect that.

Another way of looking at this is to take some of the most successful Presidential Campaigns of all time, and compare them to how states flipped.

Ohio : Toss up, some polls have Hillary leading, others Trump leads. (No Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio) (Obama carried Ohio in 2012) (Obama also carried Ohio in 2008).

-Ohio has not gone Red since 2004 Bush vs Kerry.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota - Of these three, Only Michigan has broken rank with Democrats since 1988. Michigan went for Bush Senior.

Currently Clinton holds a +10 advantage in Michigan, putting it outside the realm of polling data discrepency.

North Carolina - Went to Obama in 2008, and then went to Romney in 2012. Currently Hillary holds a +4 margin in North Carolina.

Virginia - Went to Obama in 2008, 2012, but before Obama, Virginia had not gone Blue in multiple decades. If Trump were to win, Virginia would in theory be a great place to put resources. Clinton holds a +3 point lead in Virginia however.

New Mexico- has only gone Red once since 1988. George W. Bush was able to win New Mexico in 2004. Most recent polling data has Clinton ahead in New Mexico by +13. This is no longer within the margin of polling data discrepancy.

Nevada - historically Nevada always votes for the winner. Nevada went for GW Bush both times in 2000-2004, went for Clinton both times in 1992-96, and went for Obama both times also. If Trump has a chance to win, it will be in Nevada. The next debate is in Nevada also. Clinton currently leads by +3 in Nevada.

Remember when Trump would "certainly win" Michigan? Remember when he and Sean Hannity were friends?

Pennsylvania - A democrat stronghold, has not gone Red since 1988. Currently Clinton holds +10 point lead. new reports suggest this week Trump has begun removing ads and resources from Pennsylvania, essentially conceding it as a lost cause.

Colorado - could be interesting. They went blue both times for Obama, and Red both times for GW Bush. But before that they were polarized, Originally voting Clinton in 1992, but then going for Dole in 1996.
Colorado is currently being called a statistical tie. Well within the margin of going either way.

Rasmussen and LA Times? Nuf said. RCP has the aggregate of Clinton ahead by nearly 6. If Clinton is ahead in North Carolina, this is done. Never mind the aggregate leads in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Oh, and there's the fact that Trump seems to have lied about being a sexual predator on national TV. That's going to leave a mark. At this rate, I won't be surprised to see Clinton win Arizona, Georgia and Utah (only because McMullin and Johnson split the vote)

Let's put it this way. No presidential candidate has trailed this badly in mid October and gone on to win. Ever.