42-37 Clinton 4 way

and that too

with the very unpopular Prez from Mexico which looks like a desperate move.

Hillary Clinton needs to get out into the headlines more. Not just the made up bullshit, but getting out and actually talking about issues. Time to lay it out on the line. There are ZERO actual facts in the Trump campaign, but the Clinton camp has actual issues and facts....we are now into September....time to kick it into higher gear.

As the polls show, voters have already made up their minds on who they will vote for and the the debates are coming.

We don't take those phone calls or surveys. I don't trust the source and their aims. It could be one of these polling outfits, but who knows, it's over the telephone!

Add 7 to HRC that weren't polled. All white. Most male. How's that for HRC stats?

We'll be voting early too, before Tuesday November 8th, the only poll that matters. Down ballot dems will be getting our full recognition.

There are about 220,000,000 eligible to vote, and 150,000,000 registered voters. A typical sample size per national poll poll is 1000. Approximately 250 national polls are taken in a general election season.

So even if we absurdly and naively assume nobody is ever polled twice, you have anywhere between a 1 in 600 and a 1 in 900 chance of being polled this cycle.

Poo-poohing an entre industry because a 750 or so sided die didn't come up with your number is...strange.

How many other people and other groups of people are choosing not to be polled like my family? I have conversations with others about this and they too say they always hang up or don't take anonymous telephone calls.

Polling by telephone requires primarily a sampling of people "willing" to be polled. I don't know of anyone like that.

And while you're at it, can you refrain from the ad-hominem language? It's unnecessary.

And we're back to the "how did Nixon win? Everybody I know voted for the other guy" territory. Do you have any reason to suspect that willingness to answer polls is politically derived or even correlated? That liberals are less willing than conservatives? If such were true and uncorrected we'd see an absolutely massive and consistent political bias in poll results, which we don't. Some polls historically go too R, some too D, by varying amounts - none are missing a huge swathe of nonrespondents biased in one direction only. We can already see demographic corrections for over or undersamples by age or race when we look at methodology, and occasionally we do see that by political inclination, but it's not consistent in one direction and simply means the pollster happened to hit on a few too many Rs or Ds that sample based on typical data. Never once have I heard of a correction for Clinton fans being less willing to answer, and if one (has) happened to be found it would be as simple to correct for mathematically as a national sample that had only 8% black respondents or was 54% male. It's just not there. There is no indication that a good random sample corrected for demographic balance is not a perfectly good proxy for the unwilling just like it is a perfectly good proxy for the unasked.

My dad always dismisses polls because he lies to them intentionally when he is called. Despite all the data showing they are on the aggregate quite accurate, he thinks his ratfucking makes them false. He just can't grasp the idea that a roughly equal number of people who have opinions opposite his own are doing the same thing, essentially canceling out each other's ratfuckery. The nonresponders are likewise a null effect.