It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ohio poll: Donald Trump has a 44%-39% lead over Clinton

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

In a four-way race with third party candidates, the survey found Trump topping Clinton, 44%-39%, among the state's likely voters. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein picked up the support of 10% and 3%, respectively.
Source


Ohio is a critical swing state. According to my research, Ohio has voted for the winner of every single U.S. presidential election since 1960.

I have a feeling it's going to be all Trump from here on out. I found a fascinating article that analyzes what's expected in the coming debates.


The rule is that the way candidates react, immediately and usually involuntarily, while caught by the camera, dominates impressions of who has “won” or “lost” an encounter. This is why the most accurate way to predict reaction to a debate is to watch it with the sound turned off.
Source


Just imagine a weak, sickly Clinton on stage with Donald Trump. All that I've read from Clinton supporters concerning the debates is that Clinton's superior knowledge will carry her to victory. But, consider the following quote from the article linked to directly above:

"The most accurate way to predict reaction to a debate is to watch it with the sound turned off."

Considering that, does Clinton have a chance against Trump (given her health)?
edit on 14-9-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Perfect time for the hidden hands to swing it the polls other way, keeping it as close to a 50/50 split as possible.

That way, they can continue the lie that is voting and wheel in their new puppet, same way it's been done for decades.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

In a four-way race with third party candidates, the survey found Trump topping Clinton, 44%-39%, among the state's likely voters. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein picked up the support of 10% and 3%, respectively.
Source


Ohio is a critical swing state. According to my research, Ohio has voted for the winner of every single U.S. presidential election since 1960.



It is easy to celebrate a Poll you like, but an Ohio poll at the same time right now by YouGov/CBS has Clinton +7 over Trump at the same time.

"Registered Voters" polls are more accurate than "Likely Voters"...and those go strongly Clinton in Ohio..

They are certainly a swing state, but cherry picking one favorable poll and declaring victory is silly..

OHIO POLLS
www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.270towin.com...




Just imagine a weak, sickly Clinton on stage with Donald Trump.


LOL..

Good luck to you in the coming months.
edit on 14-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
If Hillary can't even stay on stage for more than 10 minutes at a rally, she will absolutely crumble under 90 minutes of debate with the Donald. He has so much ammunition to hit her with... it's going to be a spectacle.

If she declines from the debates, which is the chatter people are hearing now... she will look incredibly weak as a candidate to the entire country.

Since her nomination in July, her campaign has been doing a complete nosedive. As another member put it in baseball terms, Hillary Clinton is like a team with a nice lead in their division late in the season, but now on a losing streak.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Most of the polls show the race as a dead heat with the margin of error figured in.

Considering that one candidate is a former FLOTUS, US Senator and US Secretary of State and the other is just a businessman from NYC..... one wouldn't think it would even be a contest...
Especially if one is to believe what the MSM says about the non-political candidate being a racist, homophobe, xenophobe bigot.

Right?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I went to college in Ohio. It really doesn't seem like a Democratic state.. at least not in the Columbus area. Cleveland does, due to so many minorities. Their neighborhoods are bad, but they don't know any better. Shame really.


BTW.. Did Ohio governor KASICH ever get around to endorsing his party's nominee.. Donald Trump?

edit on 9/14/2016 by carewemust because: kasich question.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Most of the polls show the race as a dead heat with the margin of error figured in.

Considering that one candidate is a former FLOTUS, US Senator and US Secretary of State and the other is just a businessman from NYC..... one wouldn't think it would even be a contest...
Especially if one is to believe what the MSM says about the non-political candidate being a racist, homophobe, xenophobe bigot.

Right?


Truth is that more people click and watch when the race is close...The media makes money off a close horse-race, not a blow out.

They will put their thumb on the scale of the polls through weighting and sampling and subtle bias in questions..

The closer it is, the more people pay attention.

LV or Likely Voters is something that is usually not employed until a few weeks before the election because it is less reliable. RV or Registered Voters is more reliable..The media started Polling "LV" heavily weeks ago. Including Johnson and Stein in a four-way poll also makes the race look closer...but come election day they wont be on all the state level ballots and many people who claim they will go Stein or Johnson in a telephone poll end up voting Dem or Rep.

So the media wants a horserace...it's real dollars for them.

Plus...Dems ALSO want it to look close, because they worry if it looks like a blow-out, people wont bother to show up and vote.

All that said, if HRC was a stronger candidate..it would be a historic blow-out..but she isn't.

The margin of loss will be greater than what you see in the polls .
edit on 14-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Gotta be fair.

Didn't believe the polls before, so I have no reason to believe them now.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Profusion

I went to college in Ohio. It really doesn't seem like a Democratic state.. at least not in the Columbus area.


It's about population density...

Linked is a map of the district by district vote results for the 2012 Presidential race...

And while Ohio looks red here..it actually Went to Obama in 2012...

www.politico.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are 180 degrees wrong regarding "registered" vs. "likely" voters. "Registered" polls included people who "can" vote, but we all know many of them will not actually vote. "Likely" voter polls were developed to overcome this, and in theory, should be more accurate.

Here is what Gallup says about it:

"Registered voters are those who in response to a standard poll question say they are "registered to vote in their precinct or election district." This is the group whose data Gallup reports most often because they represent an estimate of Americans who in theory are eligible to vote and could vote if they want to.

Of course, Gallup knows that in the final analysis, not all of these registered voters will actually vote. So Gallup has over the years created systems to isolate likely voters -- that group of individuals who the company can estimate are most likely to actually vote.

There are many ways to estimate likely voters. Other pollsters and polling groups have different approaches. Gallup has spent decades developing its system, which the company has found in election after election helps improve accuracy in terms of how the final poll before an election compares with the actual vote percentages on Election Day itself."

Source



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That's probably why that Fox News analyst (can't recall his name. Older dude with little hair.) embarrassed himself on election night 2008 by asking the station not to call Ohio for Obama, because all the "white" areas in SW Ohio hadn't been reported yet.

Edit to add - I just remembered his name: Karl Rove.


edit on 9/14/2016 by carewemust because: see above



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree 100%, especially in September and even more so in this election year. I really believe that a large percentage of the support for both candidates is weak. Yes, they have their core supporters that will follow them over the edge of a cliff, but I truly believe a large percentage in both camps would jump ship in a minute if given a reason.

These two candidates are both overwhelming capable of torpedoing their own support between now and November that I think the relevance of polling has completely evaporated.

I am pretty convinced that this election will play out unlike any election before it. I can't say I know what will happen, but I am not expecting things to run steady and predictably between now and November.

Therefore, placing any value on a poll right now is pretty meaninglessness.

The only thing I think that can be gleaned from polling right now is the trendlines, and it does seem that in the aggregate, Trump has been gaining support over the past few weeks and Clinton has been losing it. That said, this does not mean the pendulum will not change direction multiple times before November.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are 180 degrees wrong regarding "registered" vs. "likely" voters. "Registered" polls included people who "can" vote, but we all know many of them will not actually vote. "Likely" voter polls were developed to overcome this, and in theory, should be more accurate.



It's complex and just my opinion, but in the 2012 presidential election when Likely Voter and Registered Voter polls were examined for accuracy and actual outcome..

Likely Voter polls showed a +3.7 Republican bias compared to actual outcomes.
Registered Voter polls showed a +2 Republican bias compared to outcomes..

Nate Silver also shows that when weighting and averaging multiple presidential elections going back in history, that the bias disappears..

But I would argue that times are sufficiently politically different over the past decade, where the 2012 Pres. election is the best indicator.
fivethirtyeight.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Fair enough. I've done a little more reading on this and it is not exactly clear which way is better.

Perhaps my 180 degrees off should have been more like 90.

One thing I do believe is that polling in 2016 at this point may have no relevance to what will play out in November. And, I also believe that the dynamics of prior elections may have little to do with this election where the personalities have overshadowed the issues to such a large degree and the negatives of each candidate are so ridiculously high.

Honestly, I could care less what any poll says. The fact is, I have no clue what to expect in November and I am pretty skeptical of any person that says they know what will happen.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Honestly, I could care less what any poll says. The fact is, I have no clue what to expect in November and I am pretty skeptical of any person that says they know what will happen.


It's a challenging intellectual exercise for political scientists, statisticians and sociologists...but come election day even the geniuses in the field end up watching the television, biting their lip and wondering if they know their butt from a hole in the ground or if they are about to be proven an idiot with all their predictions for the past 12 months.

There are truths to be found in Polls..but not certainties..and cherry picking is just ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
If Hillary can't even stay on stage for more than 10 minutes at a rally, she will absolutely crumble under 90 minutes of debate with the Donald. He has so much ammunition to hit her with... it's going to be a spectacle.

If she declines from the debates, which is the chatter people are hearing now... she will look incredibly weak as a candidate to the entire country.

Since her nomination in July, her campaign has been doing a complete nosedive. As another member put it in baseball terms, Hillary Clinton is like a team with a nice lead in their division late in the season, but now on a losing streak.


I don't think she's show for the debates, as it stands right now. No sign of her since the collapse on Sunday, and they were worried before that happened. I'd love to see it, but not at all convinced we will!

As an aside, LOVE the avatar pic! Was thinking how cool something like that would be. Nicely done!




top topics



 
13

log in

join