Saturday, September 10, 2016

Clinton Leads Trump 321-195 in Morning Consult's 50-State Poll

Morning Consult released a massive 50-state poll with some encouraging and interesting results this week:
Hillary Clinton would top Donald Trump 321-195 in electoral votes to clinch the White House if the election were held today, according to an extensive Morning Consult analysis of registered voters.

But the 2016 presidential race is far from over. The leading candidate is within the margin of error in nine states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. When those states are removed from the count, the former secretary of State garners 258 electoral votes to the New York businessman’s 164.

The analysis is the third time Morning Consult has provided a complete look at the electoral college map. Voter sentiment has shifted in a number of key states since our last survey, which was released just before the political conventions. Our analysis also provides a snapshot into how Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein would affect the Electoral College count for Clinton and Trump.

The Democratic nominee sports small gains over Trump in Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania. The Republican standard bearer leads narrowly in Arizona, New Mexico and North Carolina.

Georgia and Iowa remain pure toss-ups, with both candidates deadlocked at 40 percent.
Being up 321-195 is certainly great, but there are some weird results going on here:

  • Trump is winning New Mexico? The state went for Obama in a landslide twice and is not considered a swing state. I'm not buying it.
  • Clinton is doing better in Ohio than Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? Not sure about that either.
  • Georgia is totally tied while Trump leads in North Carolina? Hmm.

On a slightly positive note, they have Trump ahead in Texas by only 6...matching a recent PPP poll and again suggesting that it's within reach if Donald collapses a bit more.

Bottom line: the polls vary and sometimes don't make a lot of sense, but Hillary Clinton remains in a much stronger electoral position than Donald Trump in the homestretch.

Enjoy Hillary HQ? Support the site via PayPal or GoFundMe to keep us 100% ad-free.

1 comment:

  1. I read an apologia from the NYT public editor that rings so false. And it's by a girl, Liz Spayd.

    in response to the brand new reporting on overplaying the email/foundation story and moving on from all the Trump facts that don't need to be overplayed, only need to be followed up, Liz claims they are being accused of false equivalency, that's the problem.

    And then she defends the foundation false-reporting with non-facts, claiming that the foundation was forced to stop taking foreign donations in response to Hillary having been found to have given improper access to donors.

    And that isn't true, some donors were found to have been given proper access to Hillary, while other donors were found to have been given a polite and a proper 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' from Huma, who is worth her weight in gold, she sends them off so nice.

    As were non-donors found to have been given proper access and non-donors found to have been given a polite send-off.

    Liz's answer for the relentless email coverage, as if it were a major scandal, to the point of 'breaking' false news, is to question if the emails should have been covered at all.

    Not if the coverage was wrong on facts, and should have been covered from the 'outrage at wasting public dollars with the goal of driving up her negatives' fact-based point of view.

    Like, if you ate your sister's piece of cake too, and your mom says that was wrong of you, and you answer with, 'maybe I shouldn't eat at all?'

    And then Liz defends false equivalency, lumping the two of them together because they both have high negatives.

    Jill already admitted the NYT has sent reporters on assignment to find anything on Hillary and used the nothing they found to make it seem like something for 20+ years, from which Jill concluded Hillary is honest.

    All that scrutiny and finding nothing, why won't the NYT write that story rather than defending bad reporting with the 'negatives' they've had an internal policy of stoking?

    Why did Jill have to wait until she lost her job to her male assistant after she'd found out how much less she was paid than her male predecessors to write it?

    Was that something Arthur's lawyers missed including in her non-disclosure discrimination-against-a-woman settlement package?

    Liz claims the NYT is in the cross-hairs on this because they are most associated with false equivalency, not most associated with an anti-hillary slant from an assumed progressive leaning newspaper.

    It's a masterpiece of 'nothing to see here move along folks,' which shows they know how to do that to deflect blame when it's them, along side the opposite when it's Hillary.

    What's the frame for that? The dog ate my homework?

    Will there ever be a claim of false equivalency between Ezra Klein and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr?