You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I honestly don't think Reagan would make it through a Republican primary, tbh, the party has shifted that much.
Same thing with Bill Clinton and the Dems.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
In the 6 latest swing state polls Trump was trailing by 4. Hardly a decided election. Though it seems many like to say so based on those exact national polls. Turns out they might not be as crushing for Trump as everybody thinks either, going by the poll above.
Where are you reading this? As I said, with these numbers (below) Ohio and Florida are irrelevant. But I guarantee you she's bound to get one of those as well.
Wisconsin Clinton +5.6
Virginia Clinton +7
Pennsylvania Clinton +9.2
Colorado Clinton +9.5
Michigan Clinton +6.6
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I honestly don't think Reagan would make it through a Republican primary, tbh, the party has shifted that much.
The Reagan worship is weird. He'd never in a million years make the cut today, but they still talk about him as some sort of mythological conservative deity.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
This Clinton foundation shit is the gift that keeps giving. The shadiness is at epic levels. Then the father of Omar Mateen shows up and sits right behind Hilary as well. WEIRD AS FUCK. Trump is so fucking stupid. He should be kicking major ass. But instead he says stupid shit daily that takes the attention off of Hilary.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Then the father of Omar Mateen shows up and sits right behind Hilary as well. WEIRD AS FUCK.
That is weird on a few different levels. Just as a parent...if I found out my kid was a lunatic domestic terrorist who killed 50 people and then got snuffed out himself, I don't think you'd see me out and about anytime soon. Much less at a political rally. I'm sure it's great fodder for the conspiracy theorists though.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
While I do agree that the current republican party is not the party of Reagan, IMO he would be the perfect president in today's world. Even though he was an old man, he projected an intimidating image on the world stage. When he talked, you listened whether it was a grandma watching TV in Mayberry or another world leader.
He would have handled 911 and the war on terror much differently than we did and ISIS wouldn't be very fond of him right now I can assure you. I also have a feeling Putin would have thought twice on going into Ukraine and annexing Crimea.
Speaking of Secret Service incidents, I had forgot about this one in 1992.....
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Interesting and educational blog post from fivethirtyeight.com
We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.
If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.
Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are “using” more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans. They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.
But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.
The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.
A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.
And it’s not crazy to think Democrats will have an advantage in party identification in 2016. With a controversial nominee, many Republicans might not want to identify with the GOP, and may be calling themselves independents.
You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.
Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.
I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?
Of course, unskewing is simply one of many ways of pretending Clinton hasn’t jumped out to a large post-convention lead against Donald Trump. You could also ask us to imagine a world without polls. You could allege, without any evidence, that outright election fraud will take place. Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.
People, though, should stick to reality. Right now, Clinton is leading in almost every single national poll. She leads in both our polls-plus and polls-only forecasts. That doesn’t mean she will win. The polls have been off before, but no one knows by how much beforehand, or in which direction they’ll miss. For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:In the 6 latest swing state polls Trump was trailing by 4. Hardly a decided election. Though it seems many like to say so based on those exact national polls. Turns out they might not be as crushing for Trump as everybody thinks either, going by the poll above.
Where are you reading this? As I said, with these numbers (below) Ohio and Florida are irrelevant. But I guarantee you she's bound to get one of those as well.
Wisconsin Clinton +5.6
Virginia Clinton +7
Pennsylvania Clinton +9.2
Colorado Clinton +9.5
Michigan Clinton +6.6
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Screw the polls Trump says!
Trump shrugs off polls, vows he'll win Pennsylvania 'easily'
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump vowed Wednesday that his campaign would win Pennsylvania "easily", despite a recent poll showing him trailing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by double digits.
"I think we're going to do very well in Pennsylvania," Trump told Fox News' "On the Record with Greta van Susteren." The real estate mogul claimed his popularity with working class voters, including coal miners and steelworkers, would put him over the top in the Keystone State.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters showed Clinton getting 52 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania to 42 percent for Trump. When Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein were included in the poll, Clinton still had the edge over Trump 48 percent to 39 percent.
In addition, the Fox News electoral scorecard put Pennsylvania in the "Lean Democrat" column.
With 20 electoral votes at stake, Pennsylvania is considered vital to Trump's chances of taking the White House. However, he will have to overcome a strong historical trend: The state has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988.
Also Wednesday Trump again defended his remarks about Hillary Clinton and the Second Amendment, which some took as an incitement to violence against the former Secretary of State.
’s what I was referring to and everybody knows it."
Referring to Clinton, Trump said, "She's very much against guns and I'm a very pro-Second Amendment person. People want the Second Amendment protected and they have a lot of power in doing it."
