Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls may be larger than it seems. Here’s why.

[BlueMTexpat]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/20/hillary-clintons-lead-in-the-polls-may-be-larger-than-it-seems-heres-why/

The news may be even better than we think. But it doesn't mean that we don't have a LOT of work to do between now and Election Day!

In 2012, national polls in October suggested the presidential race was a virtual tie. The Real Clear Politics polling average gave Barack Obama a slight 0.7 point lead over Mitt Romney, but he actually won by almost 4 points. Of the final 11 national polls released in 2012, as reported on Real Clear Politics, 7 were a tie or had Romney ahead, while only 4 had Obama ahead.

Why were so many of the polls wrong? In part, because they failed to capture how minorities would vote. Unfortunately, some pollsters may be making the same mistakes in 2016 — and thereby underestimating Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls.

In 2012, many polls underestimated how many minorities would vote and how many would vote for Obama. For example, a Politico poll released the morning of Election Day said the race was tied at 47 percent each for Obama and Romney. The poll said that 62 percent of Latinos supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 71 percent, and Latino Decisions reported 75 percent. Among the “another race” category, which is mostly comprised of Asian Americans, Politico reported that 47 percent supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 73 percent, and an Asian American Decisions exit poll reported 72 percent.

[Cha]

1. I would think so.. Not sure why they keep under reporting minorities?

But, it's going to get even more solid.. Hillary will see to that.
And, trump will continue to do himself in.

Mahalo, Blue~ But, we still work like we're 20 points behind.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. Mahali, Cha!

Yes, we must never take anything for granted.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Because the minority vote doesn't matter

and never does.



Pollsters always deliberately undercount minorities even with the growing Asian and Hispanic populations, which they should know biases their results.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Perhaps they will have learned

a lesson! Let's hope so in any event!

[LiberalFighter]

3. I would rather they under report than over report.

Otherwise, the voters we need might be complacent and not vote.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. Good point! eom

[GvilleDem]

4. There is a logical reason they undercounted minorities in 2012

In 2012 polling sites assumed that Barrack Obama wouldn't top the minority turnout he received in 2008, which was already a very high number. They assumed that the underwhelming performance of Obama's first term alongside the negative media and the multiple cases of voter suppression would cut into the minority vote a bit.

Instead what happened is that the republican party mobilized the minority vote by trying to suppress their vote. This was fuel to the fire for many civil rights groups, who pushed people to go out to vote in reaction, however, many of these voter suppression cases were overturned and those remaining were less significant then the number of voters who were pushed to the voting booths in reaction. Ultimately this brought more people out to vote for Obama, not less.

We could see similiar with Trump. His hate speeches increase the stakes and make voting more valuable for minorities. I just want to bring this up because there is a reason polling places miscounted the minority vote and, as wrong as it turned out to be, they were earnestly trying to make predictions, not trying to empower a republican candidate.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Thanks for your insight!