2016 Presidential Debates

[JimL]

That's just batpoop crazy --- Trump LOVES big audiences, and loves "mixing it up".

Trump may love it, but Trump has no clue which is why he fired Lewandowski and hired Putin's buddy Mannifort to run his campaign.

It's what liberals do!

Its what they did, and D.W. schultz was fired for it.

Both parties have to agree - Trump can't just name a date and expect Hill to show up.

Yeah, thats what I said.

[Irate Canadian]

On a related note, the Democrats are apparently already trying to schedule debates against big primetime tickets like NFL games. This is the same strategy Hillary used during the primary to ensure low viewership. It seems the Democrats are desperate to keep Hillary out of the spotlight.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...g-rig-debates/

The people in charge of scheduling debates are these folk, not the DNC or the RNC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commis...ential_Debates

It's not a partisan issue, like you want it to be. This is just Trump whining about whatever in order to get more popularity, and it's a strategy that seems to be working, seeing as you swallowed it up without second thought.

[Cow Poke]

Trump may love it, but Trump has no clue which is why he fired Lewandowski and hired Putin's buddy Mannifort to run his campaign.

That's so dumb it doesn't deserve a response.

Its what they did, and D.W. schultz was fired for it.

They had no choice - she was caught red handed. So, what did your hero do? She hired her on her OWN campaign.

This is what your guys do --- somebody does something illegal or incredibly improper or immoral, and nobody gets fired -- they get a new job or even promoted. This is part of why 70% of likely voters think the country is on the WRONG track.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, but consider the source. I think its the Trump campaign that would love a small audience in this case. Its true that the DNC manipulated the debate schedule in the primaries to favor Hillary, that was so obvious it was pathetic. But the RNC has as much say as the DNC has when it comes to the general election debate schedule. MM doesn't think, he believes anything coming out of Brietbart.

There's reality... and then there's whatever world JimL lives in.

Trump thrives with a big audience and frequently made himself available to the press. Hillary is the one who spent the entire primary running from the limelight.

Of course Republicans have as much say over the debate schedule as the Democrats. Nobody ever said otherwise. This doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are already trying to "bury the lead" when it comes to the debate schedule. You can be sure Trump is going to do everything he can to keep DemocRATS in the spotlight.

On a different note, Trump saw a +17-point post-convention swing in a Reuters poll. Of course Reuters immediately started to question its own methodology, a methodology it has been using for years.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...e-methodology/

[Mountain Man]

It's not a partisan issue...

When it comes to politics, everything is a partisan issue.

[Faber]

On a related note, the Democrats are apparently already trying to schedule debates against big primetime tickets like NFL games. This is the same strategy Hillary used during the primary to ensure low viewership. It seems the Democrats are desperate to keep Hillary out of the spotlight.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...g-rig-debates/

Reminds me of Hillary's "Pretty in Pink" news conference that was scheduled for when Nixon was expected to die. Only problem was, Nixon lasted a few days longer than expected.

[Catholicity]

I am not watching the debates. If I want to pay for a 3 ring circus I'll make sure to buy Barnum and Bailey tickets when they come back through

[rogue06]

Interestingly some news services are reporting that there was no real bounce for Hillary coming out of her convention with some even citing a poll (the USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll) that shows she actually dropped a bit from before the start of the convention. Meanwhile a poll released by RABA Research indicates a 15 point jump for Hillary.

It should be interesting to see what other polling firms say as they release their results Sunday and Monday.

[Cow Poke]

Interestingly some news services are reporting that there was no real bounce for Hillary coming out of her convention with some even citing a poll (the USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll) that shows she actually dropped a bit from before the start of the convention. Meanwhile a poll released by RABA Research indicates a 15 point jump for Hillary.

It should be interesting to see what other polling firms say as they release their results Sunday and Monday.

Yeah, I saw that poll this morning that said she had a 15 point bounce.

[Jaecp]

Plus, right now over at 538 we gave 3 numbers (I won't link to each of them since its the same page and you just toggle a button.

The Current Forecast has Trump ahead of her by .2%
The Nowcast, as in, if ballots were submitted today, has her up 1.8%
The Polls+ though, hot damn, has her at like 60/40. Polls+ is the polls, plus the economy, plus other historical data. Polls+ data was basically the reason that Silver is such a name brand now after he basically predicted an entire election months in advance and the only state he got wrong was a statistical tie.

These numbers are only going to get better as Bernie people begin to realize that Jill Stein isn't even on half the ballots in the country.

[rogue06]

Plus, right now over at 538 we gave 3 numbers (I won't link to each of them since its the same page and you just toggle a button.

The Current Forecast has Trump ahead of her by .2%
The Nowcast, as in, if ballots were submitted today, has her up 1.8%
The Polls+ though, hot damn, has her at like 60/40. Polls+ is the polls, plus the economy, plus other historical data. Polls+ data was basically the reason that Silver is such a name brand now after he basically predicted an entire election months in advance and the only state he got wrong was a statistical tie.

These numbers are only going to get better as Bernie people begin to realize that Jill Stein isn't even on half the ballots in the country.

One of the problems with many of the polls being conducted today is that they don't factor in the support for third party candidates such as Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party) who by all accounts draw more support from Hillary than from Trump. When they're included any presumptive lead by Hillary evaporates.

[KingsGambit]

One of the problems with many of the polls being conducted today is that they don't factor in the support for third party candidates such as Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party) who by all accounts draw more support from Hillary than from Trump. When they're included any presumptive lead by Hillary evaporates.

I won't speak for Johnson's supporters (as his constituency seems more solid), but how many of those who claim today they're voting for Stein actually will in November?

[Jaecp]

Considering she isn't even in half the states? Not many

As for the polls, we have data we can go off of. You have a better idea rogue go replace Nate Silver as America's stats wizard I'm all ears. It's not any of us are pretending these are the same numbers that will be here tomorrow nor do any of us not know the essential basics of polling. And Rogue, err, Silver DOES have Johnson. He's kind of known for being insanely thorough, you know? And Jill stein doesn't matter for national polls as she aint a national candidate

Also in what world does Johnson pull more from Hillary than working as a perfectly adequate "never trump" vote?

[JimL]

One of the problems with many of the polls being conducted today is that they don't factor in the support for third party candidates such as Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party) who by all accounts draw more support from Hillary than from Trump. When they're included any presumptive lead by Hillary evaporates.

Actually, and you know how I hate having to burst your bubble, but the Raba poll that CP provided included Johnson and Stein. Hillary leads by 15%, a 10% gain after the conventions. Johnson and Stein combined only got 9%. More telling is the catagories. Hillary leads by 7 points with men, 22 points with women and even has 14% of republican support. Those, i assume, would be the thinking republicans. To top it off she leads by double digits among all age groups. Don't feel to bad though, really, its early and polls don't mean a whole lot.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, and you know how I hate having to burst your bubble, but the Raba poll that CP provided included Johnson and Stein. Hillary leads by 15%, a 10% gain after the conventions. Johnson and Stein combined only got 9%. More telling is the catagories. Hillary leads by 7 points with men, 22 points with women and even has 14% of republican support. Those, i assume, would be the thinking republicans. To top it off she leads by double digits among all age groups. Don't feel to bad though, really, its early and polls don't mean a whole lot.

Calm yourself, Mr L - that was one poll. Here's another.

election.jpg

And Real Clear Politics Average has her with a 1.1 lead.

rcp.jpg


It's simply too early to tell. AND, it comes down to election turnout in battleground states.