Electorate rapidly moving in opposite directions at once

Voters swinging for Trump or for Clinton? (Getty Images via NY Post)

The polls have spoken and now we clearly know which way the electorate is veering.

The story in the morning paper tells us a new McClatchy-Marist poll shows Democrat Hillary Clinton’s head-to-head lead over putative Republican Donald Trump has shrunk to a mere 3 percentage points in a poll with a margin of error of 3 points. She led Tump by 9 points in an April poll by the same group.

In a four-way race the poll shows Clinton 40 percent to Trump’s 35 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 10 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 5 percent.

At the same time, a Reuters/Ipsos shows Clinton has extended her lead over Trump to 13 points (46-33), up from a 10-point lead (45-35) earlier in the month.

Meanwhile, a week-old Rasmussen Reports poll shows Trump leading by 2 points — Trump 42 percent, Clinton 40 percent, another candidate 13 percent and 5 percent undecided.
According to Real Clear Politics, most recent polls show Clinton leading by a couple of points.
Now along comes a Quinnipiac University poll of swing states that shows Trump has overtaken Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania.
In Florida Trump is ahead of Clinton 42-39, an 11-point swing from June when Clinton led 47-39. In Pennsylvania Trump leads 43-14, a change from this past month’s Clinton lead of 42-41. They are tied in Ohio at 41 percent each, while the previous month’s poll had them tied at 40 percent each.
So, that settles that.

27 comments on “Electorate rapidly moving in opposite directions at once

  1. I regret that the media is playing this as a two-person race for the White House. There’s four candidates in this race, but you’d never know that following the media reports. Fortunately, there are some journalists, such as you, who present broader, fuller coverage of events and issues.

  2. Bill says:

    Couldn’t resist to add a bit of humor to all of the Clinton/Comey/Lynch mess to note that a friend has sent me an e-mail purporting to be a new rule change from that elitist capitalistic organization, the PGA. Don’t know how reliable an authority he is since he is a Democrat who drinks, but he says that according to the PGA there will no longer be a penalty stroke for hitting a ball into the water or out of bounds and the reason for the rule change is to modernize, following the recent FBI ruling re: clasified material and emails.

    The USGA, the R&A and the PGA, after a private meeting with Bill Clinton
    and Loretta Lynch on her plane, have stated that: “Your opponent must prove that you ‘intended’ to hit the ball into these hazards in order for there to be a penalty.”

    Carelessness, lack of talent or ignorance is therefore NOT intent!!! NO PENALTY.

    Thank goodness the rule has been modernized. I can now plan on shooting my age without the necessity of living to be 102.

  3. Steve says:

    Trump has had little to no advertising…..
    I bet her attack ads are backfiring, she should be going only positive and ignoring him until he starts airing his ads.

  4. Steve says:

    I read that came about as a direct result of the “chance” meeting at Sky Harbor!

  5. Rincon says:

    According to Bill’s logic, someone who causes a fatal accident should be tried for murder.

  6. “A driver with a history of mental illness who fell asleep behind the wheel of his SUV, which then stuck and killed a Caltrans worker, was sentenced Friday to six years in prison.

    “Reginald Grigsby Jr., 32, pleaded guilty in March to gross vehicular manslaughter in the death of Leonardo Sandoval Peña, who had been repairing sprinklers in a roadway median in Escondido last year when he was fatally injured.”


  7. Steve says:

    …..” someone who causes a fatal accident should be tried for murder.”

    and this is wrong because……?

  8. Rincon says:

    Gross vehicular manslaughter, even though usually resulting from some egregious negligence, still isn’t murder, but these examples aren’t really what I had in mind. Try these:

    Say a driver from Nevada passing through Illinois, gets caught in a snow storm, loses control of his car while cautiously driving 20 mph under the speed limit, hits an elderly pedestrian, killing him. Should he endure the same punishment as a serial killer?

    Or what if the guy who broke my 3rd grade classmate’s leg had killed him? The kid crossed a busy road, and, being a dumb kid, just assumed the driver would see him and slow down. Unfortunately, according to the student himself, the sun was directly behind him, making him difficult, if not impossible to see. And you say put him away for life? Boy, I’m sure glad you’re not a judge!

  9. Steve says:

    Let the punishment fit the crime, both of your examples are ones where the operators of the vehicles had no chance of preventing the outcomes.

    On the other hand, Hillary Clinton certainly did have full, clear and multiple opportunities to prevent the outcome of her “accident”.

    I guess you are really saying she should have been charged with the crimes she committed under the law, Rincon.

  10. Rincon says:

    Negligence is more often a civil rather than a criminal offense, especially when no one can demonstrate any harm done (nor intent to do harm, which you guys don’t seem to think is important). It should be an internal matter, because she violated procedure, but the public has the right to know about all of it.

  11. Steve says:

    Negligence is missing a speed limit change or failing to correctly judge the oncoming red light in time to stop for it. Both of these things will usually not attract a ticket but if you continue to do them then, over and over, you will (eventually) get a ticket.

    Since she was told about it several times, before people in the State Department were told to stop telling her about it, she, in spite of full knowledge, intended to keep doing what she was doing. Then, after being given plenty of “warnings” it was (and is) against the law, she intentionally continued to break the law.

  12. Rincon says:

    What was Hillary’s explanation for ignoring all of these warnings?

  13. Steve says:

    Good question….since the people warning her were told to stop, it follows her answer was a threat.

  14. Rincon says:

    I’m referring to her explanation during the investigation. It’s obvious that this would have been one of the most important questions and her answer the most damning if the dynamic is as the Conservative propaganda machine says. Was it?

  15. Steve says:

    “At this point what difference does it make?”

    If all you want to do is quote her lies.

  16. Rincon says:

    Get real, Steve. Your quote was from her testifying about Benghazi, not Emails.

  17. Steve says:

    Well, the response I quoted goes directly to her attitude about things she has done and been caught for after the fact.

    What makes you think she would have any different reaction for anything else?

  18. Bill says:

    Steve. You should know by now that neither facts nor reason will change a Clinton acolyte’s mind. Hillary knowingly and willfully set up an unauthorized server in her home upon which she conducted state business in violation of the law. The server was insecure and she transmitted classified material over it. She did not disclose this secret server until forced to do so by the investigation. She resisted a subpoena for her records and will fully destroyed some of those records and erased them from the server. Whether that server was hacked by a foreign government the FBI cannot say. Those are the undeniable facts. Read Comey’s report. However, to an acolyte who worships at the Hillary altar those “facts” are nothing more than the “right wing” haters bringing up slurs for after all, she wasn’t indicted or prosecuted was she. Ergo, she did nothing wrong.

  19. Steve says:

    Yes, history (specially Clinton history) repeats.

    Apologists are blinded by the bull.

  20. Rincon says:

    So apparently, no one asked her why she didn’t heed these alleged warnings of death and destruction? Very curious, indeed.

  21. Steve says:

    What warnings “of death and destruction” ?
    I said she was warned about using the private server being illegal, numerous times.

  22. Rincon says:

    By whom? When? What is the penalty for her offense prescribed by law? The press misses the most pertinent questions. Hillary may be arrogant, but was she really stupid enough to commit a most egregious offense (according to Republicans), hoping that no one will tell?

  23. Steve says:

    Read Comey’s rep[ort, Rincon. It’s all there.

  24. Rincon says:

    Thanks for the suggestion. I learned a few things. From Comer’s statement: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

    But you think she should be tried, an action which has not been applied to any individual in our history under similar circumstances – and you complain because she hasn’t been. My verdict: Double standard arising from irrational hate.

  25. Steve says:

    Judge, jury and executioner…this is what Lynch forced Comey to become.

    By keeping the courts out of it, they can sweep it all under the rug without ever having to vet it publicly.

    How convenient is that….?

  26. Rincon says:

    You prove my words.

  27. Steve says:

    If you are saying she should have been charged, then,,,,,, yes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s