New Polls: Clinton behind in VA and IA. Only up 3 in MI

[woolldog]

It's officially time to panic. The first is from Hampton (B in 538 pollster rankings). The last two are from CBS/YouGuv, respected pollsters (YouGuv = B, CBS News = A- in 538.com ratings) with large (1000+) sample sizes.

Virginia

Donald Trump (R) 39.2%
Hillary Clinton (D) 38.8%

http://news.hamptonu.edu/release/HU-Poll%3A-Presidential-Candidates-in-a-Statistical-Dead-Heat-among-Virginians

Iowa

Donald Trump (R) 40%
Hillary Clinton (D) 39%

https://www.scribd.com/document/318501452/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Iowa-July-2016#from_embed

Michigan

Donald Trump (R) 39%
Hillary Clinton (D) 42%

https://www.scribd.com/document/318501486/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Michigan-July-2016#from_embed

[rjsquirrel]

1. Sigh

No it is not "time to panic."

We know it's a close race. That's all we know.

[woolldog]

7. There is absolutely no good reason why it should be this close.

Clinton has outspent Trump by a large margin. He's a complete disaster as a candidate. Why is it this close?

[Loki Liesmith]

8. She's up 7 in VA

[rjsquirrel]

14. Because nearly half the electorate are republicans?

It's close. It has been close. It's wishful thinking to assume it's a cakewalk. She's had bad press lately. A lot of bad shit going on in the world. Other polls show different top lines.:. Etc etc etc

"Time to panic" is not helpful. What do you suggest "panicking" gets us? It's time to keep working steadily on fundamentals, registering voters, knocking on doors, etc. There is no magic red button we can hit. We aren't changing our candidate and that would be a disaster anyway.

All polling aggregates show she is leading by a small margin and doing better than that in electoral votes. Polls will be all over. And polls now are not at all predictive with the conventions and her VP choice still to come.

"Panic" is what you do when you can't keep playing the long game. It is a solution to nothing but anxiety.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. 2008 shouldn't have been close, either - and it was.

For a huge chunk of it.

Get a goddamn grip.

2008 should've been a 1988-like landslide for the Democrats. The Republicans were far, far more toxic then than they are today and Obama was a much more charismatic candidate than Hillary is currently. The only difference is that McCain was pretty established. Trump is a nut.

Still, it all equals out and 2008 was a fucking mess in the summer.

Also, you should know, after following elections all these years, to not take one poll and ignore the rest.

[elleng]

30. MUCH of the electorate seeks CHANGE,

that should not be difficult to recognize, considering the primary elections.

[RBInMaine]

43. But they aren't going vote to "change" to complete INSANITY. So just chill out.

[elleng]

48. I personally have no need to 'chill out,'

and don't need directions from others. I am, however, concerned.

In fact we do not know how many ARE going to vote for what we consider to be insanity.

[840high]

54. .+1

[NYC Liberal]

55. We heard that four years ago. Romney had leads in many polls

on and off throughout the campaign, including through October. And in the end it was Obama in a landslide.

[chillfactor]

2. I am so sick of polls...

they contradict each other.......and really are nothing more than a tool to hype that the election will be really, really, really close.

[Loki Liesmith]

9. Average them

You'll be less sick of them I promise

[Dem2]

3. Lol

cut the crap

[Peacetrain]

4. No thanks...not going to do anything till one week after the Democratic Convention

the polls are going to be all over the place with picking vp candidates, conventions etc.. so will wait and see when the dust settles

[pnwmom]

5. She's not behind in any. They're all within the margin of error. n/t

[Loki Liesmith]

6. Wrong

OP wasting bandwidth and server space

[Vinca]

12. ???? The OP provided links.

[pnwmom]

26. It's not at all "time to panic." And all of these polls were statistically tied.

And this is what 538 has to say.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[TeddyR]

32. I posted a story from 538 earlier

That had these same stats, and as someone else pointed out I'd much rather be the candidate with the 65% chance of winning. At the same time, Nate said that there is a "high" or "very high" degree of uncertainty associated with the outcome of this election.

What is interesting to me in most of the polls that I've seen lately is that both candidates are in the low 40s, which means there are a whole lot of undecided or third-party voters. The get out the vote effort is going to be hugely important in this election, and I do think Hillary has a massive advantage there.

[Still In Wisconsin]

10. You're right it's absolutely time to panic!!!!!!

Because panicking is ALWAYS an awesome strategy...

[SCantiGOP]

11. Panic? You notice Trump never has more than 40%

Where is he going to get the other votes to win?

[uponit7771]

60. +1, the GOP floor is 40% ... he should be getting 45% just for showing up !!!

[writes3000]

13. Why did you leave THE OHIO POLL out? Interesting choice.

[woolldog]

16. Let's give Clinton Ohio:

[apcalc]

18. You are giving Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia to Trump?

[Lord Magus]

20. Yes, anybody can make a comically nonsensical map.

[writes3000]

21. It's manipulative to hand select polls to create anxiety in my opinion.

People can handle having all of the information.

And Trump has led in a single PA poll. In fact, he hasn't led in most swing state polls but you know that.

[woolldog]

23. PA is based on the most recent poll.

The most recent PA poll has Trump ahead in PA (Trump +2).

[writes3000]

24. The most recent PA poll has Clinton up by NINE points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

[gabeana]

57. The OP

just trying to get a rise out of people

[pnwmom]

27. Your map doesn't look anything like 538's map. I wonder why.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[woolldog]

31. b/c it hasn't incorporated these latest polls?

It's worth noting that even on 538 Clinton's chances have plummeted from 73% on July 7 to 63% today. That's a huge move in so little time.

[Arkana]

29. Trump isn't winning Pennsylvania or Virginia.

[TeddyR]

33. What I like here is that Hillary could lose both PA and FL

And still win if she can carry OH and IA. I actually think that Hillary will take VA since it has been trending Dem. PA and OH worry me. FL is always a tossup.

[woolldog]

36. Yes. I think Trump will likely have to sweep FL, PA, and OH

in order to win. That scenario depends on Clinton winning VA and IA, but those are not sure things anymore. The polling in IA has been bad for Hillary.

[TeddyR]

37. This is a weird election

I can't imagine why any individual would think Trump would make a good president, but Hillary -- whatever her qualifications -- has very poor approval ratings and some folks simply will never vote for her. I think that whichever party loses this election will look back in regret and think it would have turned out differently if they had selected a better candidate.

That aside, how does a country like the US, with a history of presidents like Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, Obama, etc. end up with Donald Trump, a failed businessman/narcissist/idiot as a potential leader?

[woolldog]

44. I don't think Bernie was more electable, unfortunately.

Both Sanders and Clinton were poor choices. But it could have been worse. The Republicans nominated Trump after all.

[book_worm]

62. So on Friday NBC gave HRC a 9 point lead and CBS has Trump up by less than 1% and

you give Virginia to Trump? Why don't you look at all the polls or do you just select the close ones?

[Dworkin]

15. Hillary needs a message

Hi,

Hillary needs a message and she needs it quick! Saying that 'Trump is bad' just won't cut it in the general. If there is one thing I know about Americans is that they like a positive vibe.

Maybe its too late.

D.

[pnwmom]

34. The General election campaign hasn't even started yet and you say "maybe it's too late"?

Even though Hillary's ahead by several points.

Thanks for your concern.

By the way, she does have a simple, positive message. "Stronger together." She will be fleshing it out at the convention, but we already know what her theme will be.

[RBInMaine]

45. Please stop the insanity. There is a very strong message. It's SUBSTANCE. Trump is a fucking NUT.

[AgingAmerican]

58. She just needs to tout policy

Be the adult in the room and avoid being drawn into reacting to every stupid thing Trump does or says.

IMHO if she can do that she will win.

[CrowCityDem]

19. You must have missed every other poll, where she is comfortably winning this thing.

[writes3000]

22. Missed? No. Purposefully ignored? Seems so.

[TeddyR]

35. There have been several polls over the last few days

That have showed Hillary trailing nationally or in key states. At the same time, there have been several that showing her winning nationally or in key states. I think she probably has a slight lead nationally, but that doesn't really matter. OH, PA, FL, VA, NC, IA are going to decide this election.

[comradebillyboy]

25. Your concern is noted...

[Arkana]

28. I don't think I will, thanks.

When I see a trend, then perhaps, but one poll is statistical noise--and all of these polls have ~20% undecided.

[LenaBaby61]

49. I wished folks...

Would stop posting these weird or fringe polls.

FFS, look at the methodology and if possible look at the cross tabs of these polls (Who choose to include them) of HOW the polling of these polls is done. The very LAST Q-poll polled actually polled minorities LESS than they did for their May poll which ALSO had Hillary doing not so well vs tRump.

Lastly, if you remember there were 2 polls LATE which had Bernie actually tied with or winning the California primary, and the media went running with their pants on fire (I could have thrown a sock at my television when Lawrence O'Donnell kept ranting about those last 2 outlier polls from California and about how Hillary should be concerned that her once mighty lead had evaporated that she had over Bernie :eyes touting those last 2 OUTLIER polls, while MOST of the polling throughout the primary cycle had Hillary winning California by a nice margin (Not talking about the poll which had her winning by 18--that poll had a margin of victory that was too high) and we see what ended up happening. And of COURSE when you average outlier polls with better polls, Hillary's or anybody's numbers are going to go down.

Goodness, IS Nate is now averaging in those outlier Q-polls, Gravis and Rasmussen polls into more balanced poll that will of course take Hillary's chances of winning the presidency down from 80% to what now, 64%?

[woolldog]

50. scrutinizing the cross tabs is exactly what Silver says NOT to do...

If that’s the to-do list when evaluating new polls, there are also a few to-don’ts. Here’s what not to do when you see a potential “outlier.” <...SNIP...>

2. Don’t get lost in the crosstabs. Trust us — you don’t want to take the route of scrutinizing the poll’s crosstabs for demographic anomalies, hoping to “prove” that it can’t possibly be right. Before long, you’ll wind up in the Valley Of Unskewed Polls. Sample sizes are one issue. If a 600-person poll breaks out the results for men, women, Hispanics, blacks, Democrats, Republicans, older voters, younger voters and so forth, those subsamples will have extremely high margins of error, pretty much guaranteeing there will be some strange-looking results. Also, these comparisons are often circular. It might be asserted that a poll must be wrong because its demographics don’t match other polls. But no one poll is a gold standard — exit polls certainly aren’t. There are also legitimate disagreements over methodology — some polls weight by partisan identification and some don’t, for example. Although some of these debates may be important in the abstract, our experience has been that they involve a lot of motivated reasoning when raised in the middle of the horse race.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-when-to-freak-out-about-shocking-new-polls/

[LenaBaby61]

51. I usually trust in Nate...

And I'm NO genius like he IS, however when someone alerted me to the fact that this last Q-poll actually polled minorities LESS than they did in May, I said to myself even LESS than last time around in May . I truly understand what he and you are saying, but goodness. To see even Rachel of all people touting that last Q-poll and Rasmussen poll on HER show last week when talking to a Dem operative and stating that Hillary is spending way more than tRump but might not be getting back what she's putting into this GE thus far, and I'm sure she's more politically savvy than I am in knowing that all pollsters are not good pollsters.

[woolldog]

53. Well Rasmussen is just making up or massaging their numbers.

I suspect Maddow wants the Dems to not get comfortable and GOTV.

[stopbush]

38. Yawn...

[MohRokTah]

39. Chill the fuck out...

[DCBob]

40. Alot angry ignorant voters out there who have been brainwashed by Faux Newz.

I have faith though truth and common sense will win out in the end.

[cosmicone]

41. OMG OMG OMG !!!!!1!1!11!

We should have voted for someone else!

[ismnotwasm]

42. OH NOS!!11

[LenaBaby61]

46. Time to put...

Some of these poll watchers on IGNORE

[seabeyond]

47. Clinton has an incredible lead with Latinos, Blacks. A good lead with women and millennium.

The polls are all over the place.

I am not concerned. The race hasn't really even started, people won't even pay attention until Sept or Oct.

[catbyte]

52. Please get a grip. Trump has no ground game. He's relying on his FUCKING AWESOMENESS

to win. That's not going to get Aunt Tilly to the polls on election day.

[piechartking]

63. Agreed n/t

[lib87]

56. All is Lost!

The end is neigh!

[AgingAmerican]

59. No need to panic

No need to have our heads in the sand either.

[book_worm]

61. I get so sick of posts like this

do you ever post any of the good polls? If you're worried get out and work harder for Clinton but don't post stuff that is meant to depress others while ignoring good polls.

[Sheepshank]

64. I wondered when the real Woolldog would emerge. Nt