You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/
I only took 2 stats classes in college, so I'm not qualified to say if this is right or wrong. Is there a valid reason to change the weights? Do you know of a reason not to? Even if this one is invalid for the specified reasons, other recent polls show a similar margin of Clinton support. Are they all wrong too?
I do think it's fair to poll likely voters over registered or public, because only those who actually vote matter. And I know first hand that Trump rallies garner more supporters than Clinton ones. But how many people are content to watch the nightly news, listen to the media distort and twist what Trump has said (Coulter's latest article opened my eyes to the whole bleeding Megyn Kelly incident and how Trump really didn't mean her period, but how many people watched the actual video in context and not just that one sound bite) and a lot of the stupid shit he has said, and stopped listening.
You can't objectively bash Trump and then argue Clinton is any better. I know a lot of people struggle with that, but you can't yell about trump University and Casinos and remain mum when 50% of Clinton's visitors while she was in State ended up donating to the Clinton Foundation. She's been paid millions for speeches by Wall street, and her supporters still think she's the champion of the working class. Some people are so blinded by their bias, they refuse to objectively look at the other side.
So you can't continue to say Trump is in this great position when virtually every poll shows that Clinton is headed towards a major electoral landslide. If you can find polls that are only looking at probable voters that show differently, I'll be glad to listen. But if you're the only one in the room who says the lights are off and everyone else says they're on, at some point you have to consider maybe you have it wrong.
There are many valid reasons to change the weights. Predicted turnout, how many of each party affiliation in the state, historical likelihood of groups voting etc. What I'd like to know is why they are consistently under sampling and down weighting groups pulling for Trump when there should be no reason to assume so. Their own numbers in the polls show Republican pull for Trump even or surpassing that of democrats. Independents he leads too. The primaries can be a major indicator of turnout. Professor Norpoth remains steadfast on his 90% GOP victory prediction based on those numbers historically.
Now I'm no pollster, but I see a lot of reasons to expect this will be a strong election for the GOP. 30% more people came out to vote compared to 4 years ago, a huge increase, and Democrats are down since 08 by the same margin. Trump may be a highly polarizing character, but who's gonna go out on election day and vote Hillary with a smile on their face? Rallies might not mean much by itself, but when you compare it to those of Hillary the difference in enthusiasm is staggering. That doesn't have to transpire into Trump winning, but I'd like to see a good argument for why almost every pollsters are weighting their polls as if under the assumption that more democrats will turn out in this election. Just about every tangible measurement suggests otherwise; primaries, polls, rallies and social media numbers.
Another curiosity is the huge swings. RNC Trump was ahead, a week later Hillary is crushing. 10-15 point swings. That does not seem very statistically probable.
Of course, none of this is helped by the MSM running a literal Clinton campaign for the last 12 months. Some like CNN flat out admit it. That shouldn't be the case either, but it is. In the face of such obvious corruption I remain skeptical with confidence.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Another recent example. Trump by 15 (20 head to head) in Utah. Wasn't he losing there last week or something? Seems awfully fickle.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Bernie had more people at rallies than anyone and was behind Hillary by millions in actual votes.
Trump will get more people out to vote for Hillary than anyone.
There's a general unhappiness with the do nothing obstructionist house and senate. We'll see how those races go... Those races were going to be difficult without Trump. And listening to local GOP ads for the house where it's solely on who is more Christian, anyone who votes for these chumps deserve to lose everything and have no room to complain. Makes me so ashamed of my Southern people for how gullible, selfish, stubborn, spiteful and ignorant they can be. They fall for snake oil salesman and a New York carpet bagger who admits he will tell you anything you want to hear to get what he wants. Christ, it's embarrassing.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Another recent example. Trump by 15 (20 head to head) in Utah. Wasn't he losing there last week or something? Seems awfully fickle.
He was up by 6.
But you kind of prove a point here. PPP leans to the GOP, so this is inflated a bit. The real answer is in between. The best thing is to look at overall poll trends. Most are going toward Clinton.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
PHILADELPHIA — Advisers to Hillary Clinton are worried that Democratic white men are lying to pollsters and secretly plan to vote for Republican Donald Trump.
Dems fear secret white guy Trump vote
"I worry that there is a bit of a secret Trump vote," said influential pollster Celinda Lake.
She has proof revealed in polls that find more white male support when live people are doing the interviewing and less support for Clinton in anonymous online surveys.
"The pattern is in the online surveys, even if you control for demographics, Trump does three to nine points better than in telephone surveys. So it really does suggest that there is a secret vote for Donald Trump," said Lake.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/revea … le/2597653
From late July:
You can count on a manufactured corporate-media pretense to deliver a carefully scripted narrative giving Hillary Clinton a post convention bounce around 10 to 15 points (+/- 3).
What’s coming is so intensely predictable, that if they don’t do it – we’ll actually eat a plain rice cake.
Take today, as a litmus in a predictive sense. The Pennsylvania polling from Suffolk U is bizarrely disconnected from current reality. Also today, Rasmussen says Clinton leads by 5 points amid “unaffiliated” voters. Keep in mind just last week the same Rasmussen poll had Trump leading by 20 points (44/24), with those SAME unaffiliated voters. Did unaffiliated Rasmussen voters swing 25 points in a week?… of course not. That’s silly. But that’s what they presented today. The week prior to last week it was Trump +11 (43/32) with the same voters.
Conversely, Donald J Trump did not swing 16 or 17 points in his post GOP convention bounce. Attributing such pro-Trump polling outcomes to reality is just as flawed as accepting the upcoming pro-hillary polling paint job.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Bernie had more people at rallies than anyone and was behind Hillary by millions in actual votes.
Trump will get more people out to vote for Hillary than anyone.
There's a general unhappiness with the do nothing obstructionist house and senate. We'll see how those races go... Those races were going to be difficult without Trump. And listening to local GOP ads for the house where it's solely on who is more Christian, anyone who votes for these chumps deserve to lose everything and have no room to complain. Makes me so ashamed of my Southern people for how gullible, selfish, stubborn, spiteful and ignorant they can be. They fall for snake oil salesman and a New York carpet bagger who admits he will tell you anything you want to hear to get what he wants. Christ, it's embarrassing.
Millions or 5%, depends on how you look at it. Impressive campaign by Sanders you ask me.
But as I said, rallies are only one indicator. Trump is reaching voters Hillary never will. All he really needs to do is stump the anti vote by acting more Presidential in the coming months. Don't forget, Hillary is one of the worst candidates ever too.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Gary Johnson live on CNN right now.
_____________________________
He was on there for a good while, mostly responding to questions about Trump, Clinton. He had no kind words for Trump, for sure.
Talked about chance of getting into debates. He said their polling has them moving up, and other polls show that. Latest has him at 12% national. That's good. Close to what's needed for debates.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Gary Johnson live on CNN right now.
_____________________________He was on there for a good while, mostly responding to questions about Trump, Clinton. He had no kind words for Trump, for sure.
Talked about chance of getting into debates. He said their polling has them moving up, and other polls show that. Latest has him at 12% national. That's good. Close to what's needed for debates.
Not sure Gary is too keen to debate Trump. At least he shouldn't be. Not many have walked away from it unscathed.
Are you going for him in the general? I like his weed policies...
