BY ARMAND EMANDJOMEH AND DAVID LAUTER
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll tracks about 3,000 eligible voters until election day, asking on a regular basis about their support for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or other candidates as well as their likelihood of actually casting a ballot.
We update the data each day based on the weighted average of poll responses over the previous week. That means results have less volatility than some other polls, but also means the poll lags somewhat in responding to major events in the campaign. More about the poll and why it differs from others.
Who would you vote for?
We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.
Voters 35-64 have so far shown the least volatility, splitting about evenly between Clinton and Trump. Trump holds the advantage among those 65 or older. The two candidates have exchanged leads among younger voters.
Trump holds an advantage among voters without a college degree. White voters who have not graduated from college are a core source of support for Trump. By contrast, Clinton has done better among voters with college degrees than previous Democrats.
Clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and Latinos. Trump has a lead among middle-income voters.
Disaffected white middle-class voters have been the backbone of Donald Trump’s presidential run, as the poll shows. Black and Latino voters lean heavily toward Clinton. Trump’s statements critical of Mexicans in the U.S. illegaly have harmed him politically among Latinos.
Trump saw a significant bounce in his support from women after the Republican convention, but Clinton rebounded quickly after her convention. Trump’s support among men has remained fairly steady.
Who do you think will win?
We ask voters who they expect to see win, regardless of which candidate they support. Over the years, asking voters their expectation about which candidate will win often has proved to predict elections more reliably than asking how they plan to vote. That’s particularly true when the election is still many weeks away.
Do you intend to vote?
Turnout is a key factor in any election, but may be particularly central in this one. If one candidate’s supporters are less committed to turning out than the other’s, that could point to an important weakness.
BY GRAHAM MOOMAW
Harrisonburg officials and the FBI are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud after officials say almost 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.
Harrisonburg Registrar Debbie Logan said Thursday that investigators have found from 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent registrations. The Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office confirmed Thursday that an investigation is underway, but offered no additional details on the case.
The applications were turned in by a voter registration group called HarrisonburgVOTES, officials said. The group’s representatives could not be reached for comment Thursday. No charges have been filed.
The Breeze, the student newspaper of James Madison University, reported that the applications were submitted by a student working for the group. The problem came to light when an employee in the registrar’s office noticed a new registration had come in from Richard Claybrook Sr., the late father of a well-known local judge.
“When they used a distinguished resident of Harrisonburg’s name and address, it came to the attention of an employee who has worked in the city for many years,” Logan said.
“We were pretty disgusted that they would use his name,” Richard Claybrook Jr. said of his father, who died in 2014. “He was a retired educator and had served in World War II. He was always a law-abiding citizen.”
Logan said applications using a deceased person’s real name and address but a false social security number would not be flagged in the voter system.
The fraudulent voters are still technically registered as the investigation continues, Logan said, but if her office receives an absentee ballot from one of the dead voters, it would react appropriately. Logan said she expects the State Board of Elections and her local electoral board will allow her to cancel the registrations before the Nov. 8 election.
Republican lawmakers held a news conference call Thursday to call attention to the investigation, which they said proves voter fraud is real and validates their push for strong voter ID laws.
“Often times we hear our Democrat colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia or is a myth,” said House Speaker William H. Howell, R-Stafford. “Well it does indisputably exist.”
“If it hadn’t been for the vigilance of a citizen, this fraud effort may never have been uncovered until it was too late,” said Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania, who chairs the House Privileges and Elections Committee.
Others weren’t convinced that the case represents a close brush with election fraud.
Del. Marcus B. Simon, D-Fairfax, said it’s “very disingenuous” to suggest the applications were part of a large-scale fraud, because votes would have to be cast either in person by elderly impostors or through absentee ballots sent to real home addresses.
“There’s no way any reasonable person could conclude that this was part of an effort to actually cast votes for people that aren’t able to cast votes,” Simon said.
USA TODAY’s Editorial Board: Trump is ‘unfit for the presidency’
The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We’re doing it now.
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
BY AMY MORENO
Back in the good ol 90’s, our dishonest liberal pals at CNN FAT SHAMMED Miss Universe, by suggesting she was “expanding like the universe.”
Gee CNN, I think what you said could be classified as “aggressive and really rude” by your own progressive standards.
Will you be apologizing?