How to find needed poll results?

[Moon]

This may seem like a silly question, but I've tried every search term I can think of and all I get is stuff from last month at the latest. Where can I find up-to-date (preferably updated daily) poll results for how Californians are planning to vote in the presidential election? I'd been planning to vote for Stein, to help give her halfway decent numbers, because I was sure there was no danger of California voting for Trump. Now, though, a neighbor says they're neck and neck in California, and I'd like to know where I can verify or be relieved of such a horror.

[Valley Oak]

I too have wanted to see some of the poll results, specifically on the Marijuana proposition here in California and it's been difficult finding anything.

(I did find something but it is an article that is about a month old on voter intentions regarding the marijuana initiative. It said that at the beginning of this election cycle the marijuana measure was slated to win by a landslide. However, it's originally huge has sunk to only 55% of voter approval in the polls. And that was a month ago. At that rate of decrease, if marijuana is legalized next month, it looks like it might do so by the slimmest of margins.)

You might try the Gallup Poll website:
www.gallup.com

This may seem like a silly question, but I've tried every search term I can think of and all I get is stuff from last month at the latest. Where can I find up-to-date (preferably updated daily) poll results for how Californians are planning to vote in the presidential election? I'd been planning to vote for Stein, to help give her halfway decent numbers, because I was sure there was no danger of California voting for Trump. Now, though, a neighbor says they're neck and neck in California, and I'd like to know where I can verify or be relieved of such a horror.

[DanJackson]

Moon ~ the best source for updated daily results for California would probably be the excellent forecasts from the folks at 538 .. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/california/.

I have absolutely no idea how your friend could have gotten such inaccurate information. California is not "neck and neck" between Clinton and Trump, it's actually going to be an HRC blowout. Voting for Stein is very safe. Practically all the ex-Sanders folks I know are voting for Stein, so you're in good company.

[Moon]

I checked that link, and--thank goodness--it looks as though it is safe to vote for Stein, who would be wonderful.

Moon ~ the best source for updated daily results for California would probably be the excellent forecasts from the folks at 538 .. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/california/.

[podfish]

I checked that link, and--thank goodness--it looks as though it is safe to vote for Stein, who would be wonderful.

really?? wonderful?

this post triggered me to expand on a thought I've had when looking at this election. At first, it grew from trying to explain why people vote for Trump. I'm far from unique in pointing out that most people seem to select a person they think represents their world-view and would in effect speak for them when decisions are being taken. Some call it tribal identification too.

but an election is really a job interview. If you hire someone who is like you, or who (to use the cliche) you'd like to have a beer with, not only are you limiting diversity of points of view (hi, there, silicon valley) but you're ignoring the fact that, uh, you need a bunch of work done by someone capable of doing it. So it even goes beyond the idea that you should weigh a person's position on the issues rather than just their personality, but you really need to look at whether they'd be effective at, in the case of the presidency, defining and implementing policies that improve the country.

The Trump fan's cop-out is that "he'll bring in smart people". I find that unlikely at best. But Stein? what does she know about the country's interactions with the rest of the world, or even of the way the massive system of government agencies operate? Would you hire her for any task in your life, or to run your (probably non-existent, but work with me...) family business? So why put her in government? This argument of course applies way more to Trump. Even if you accept that he's the great businessman he says he is, what has he done to show he's a fast enough learner to run the country? (Now that I think of it, this kind of applies to Hopkins as well)