2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal · 29-09-2016 09:49PM

Amerika wrote: »

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

That would be up to you to prove I suppose ? I just know that they've been very accurate models the last couple cycles.

Inquitus · 29-09-2016 09:50PM

Amerika wrote: »

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

There's a good article on the site which details how Trump could mobilise the non voting White Poor / Poorly Educated, and romp home in the election, but voter registration details that exist don't seem to indicate that he has yet been able to do so.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

Amerika · 29-09-2016 09:52PM

Overheal wrote: »

That would be up to you to prove I suppose ? I just know that they've been very accurate models the last couple cycles.

Next you'll be jumping all over my back for asking and answering my own questions. :rolleyes:

"The Democrats’ complaints may have been more sophisticated-seeming than the ”skewed polls” arguments made by Republicans in 2012. But in the end, they were just as wrong. The polls did have a strong bias this year — but it was toward Democrats and not against them."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Billy86 · 29-09-2016 10:07PM

Just to address the latest pile of nonsense re "slanted polls" http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Black Swan · 29-09-2016 10:15PM

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Interestingly, the election during each presidential cycle has been normally called by the media before California has finished voting (time zones, etc.). California has the most EC votes 55/270 = 20.37% of the vote needed to win in just one state. Donald Trump will NOT win California, and I have only seen one recent ad by his campaign a couple days ago, and very few by Clinton, the latter greatly preferred in California state only polling. The most recent RCP listed 17 state polls ALL were in the double-digits favouring Hillary Clinton ranging from 10 to 34 points. FiveThirtyEight shows CA odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.7%.

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

Count Dooku · 29-09-2016 10:18PM

TheDoctor wrote: »

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Trumps disaster of a first debate is beginning to take effect.
Florida has tilted back to Hillary

I see
Clinton campaign in panic mode over Florida black voters

"Hillary Clinton's campaign is in panic mode. Full panic mode," said Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus.

Inquitus · 29-09-2016 10:44PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

No they are just all lifelong democrats who will never vote for the GOP, nothing surprising there imo.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 10:45PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Interestingly, the election during each presidential cycle has been normally called by the media before California has finished voting (time zones, etc.). California has the most EC votes 55/270 = 20.37% of the vote needed to win in just one state. Donald Trump will NOT win California, and I have only seen one recent ad by his campaign a couple days ago, and very few by Clinton, the latter greatly preferred in California state only polling. The most recent RCP listed 17 state polls ALL were in the double-digits favouring Hillary Clinton ranging from 10 to 34 points. FiveThirtyEight shows CA odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.7%.

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

I think New York invented carpetbagging. Time-honored tradition, baby. Clinton and Trump’s home state is New York. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that at state with a political representation of 49.4 Democrat to 23.9 Republican would vote for the Democratic candidate? Heck they even went with Michael Dukakis in 1988. One of only eleven states (including DC) to do that, or 32.4% of the total votes Dukakis received. Even highly liberal California went with George Bush.

Christy42 · 29-09-2016 11:05PM

Amerika wrote: »

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

You really think 538's predictions are as biased as Rasmussen?

Rasmussen has a massive bias towards Republican candidates while 538 generally does well for both sides. If there is a liberal bias it is tiny compared to Rasmussen.'s conservative bias.

Black Swan · 29-09-2016 11:54PM

Amerika wrote: »

I think New York invented carpetbagging.

What bearing does this have on presidential election 2016, and what does it say about New York born, raised, and resident Donald Trump, who has often claimed pride in being a New Yorker? Are you suggesting that Donald Trump was somehow an ancestral carpetbagger? I thought his ancestry came from Scotland, where Donald Trump's honourary doctorate was revoked 9 December 2015 by Robert Gordon University, and also where Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon stripped Donald Trump from his role as a Business Ambassador last December 2015?

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton and Trump’s home state is New York.

They may both claim New York as their current place of residence today, and this certainly speaks for NY born poor little rich kid Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton was not a NY native, rather she has lived in several states and DC. Born 26 October 1947 Chicago, grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, worked in Massachusetts for the Children’s Defense Fund, taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, joined the prominent Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, where she later became a partner before marrying governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton (1979–81, 1983–92), later moving to DC with president Bill, and only became a New York resident after Bill's presidency ended. What you are completely ignoring was the extraordinary bi-partisan Congressional support and successes US Senator Hillary Clinton achieved helping post-9/11 New Yorkers, which made her popular with them, regardless of party.

Amerika wrote: »

Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that at state with a political representation of 49.4 Democrat to 23.9 Republican would vote for the Democratic candidate?

You don't find it ironic that there were several former New York mayors including (then) Republican Michael Bloomberg (12 years mayor), Republican Rudy Giuliani (8 years mayor), then Republican John Lindsay (8 years mayor), Republican Fiorello H. La Guardia (12 years mayor), and going back in reverse order probably finding several Republican mayors sprinkled about the other party mayors back to carpetbagger days? Of course the "then" given here shows a bit of party flip-flopping just like former DEMOCRAT Donald Trump.

Trent Houseboat · 30-09-2016 12:25AM

Amerika wrote: »

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

Your refutation of 538 was an Microsoft Word 98 clip art picture of an arrow.

TheDoctor · 30-09-2016 09:30AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

I see
Clinton campaign in panic mode over Florida black voters

Not too much of a concern. The model had her losing Florida and still winning up to yesterday.

TheDoctor · 30-09-2016 09:38AM

Amerika wrote: »

And you're welcome to think this is a normal election.

Fair point. With minorities being a larger % of the electorate this cycle its more Democrat than ever.

Billy86 · 30-09-2016 09:43AM

TheDoctor wrote: »

Fair point. With minorities being a larger % of the electorate this cycle its more Democrat than ever.

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

Christy42 · 30-09-2016 09:49AM

Billy86 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

Latino's especially. Black voters have a pretty high turnout anyway (the 538 election tools are fun to play around with).

Akrasia · 30-09-2016 10:00AM

Billy86 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Trump's campaign of hopelessness and negativity speaks to the voters who are down on their luck and economically disadvantaged, and these people don't have the resources to mobilize an effective ground game in the same way that the establishment democrats can.

Theres a reason the establishment tends to win, and a lot of it is down to being organised

Quin_Dub · 30-09-2016 10:04AM

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a good article on the site which details how Trump could mobilise the non voting White Poor / Poorly Educated, and romp home in the election, but voter registration details that exist don't seem to indicate that he has yet been able to do so.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

Really interesting read..

Key piece for me is this paragraph..Discussing the possible reasons that Trump is not getting a spike in registrations..In fact , registrations for Non College Educated Whites are either the same or lower as registrations for other categories..

So what’s going on? It could be that Trump is motivating slightly more new voters against him than for him. Or, perhaps more likely, it could be that white working class voters are out there to be activated, but Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have waited until too late to build the analytics and ground infrastructure necessary to identify and register them. That’s where Clinton and the Democrats have excelled.

So - Trumps lack of physical infrastructure on the ground compared to the Clinton machine looks like it's going to cost him..

Social media and Trump TV appearances aren't going to be enough..

Clearly you need boots on the ground - holding information sessions , knocking on doors etc. etc.

And Trump has virtually none of this..

Billy86 · 30-09-2016 10:42AM

Akrasia wrote: »

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Trump's campaign of hopelessness and negativity speaks to the voters who are down on their luck and economically disadvantaged, and these people don't have the resources to mobilize an effective ground game in the same way that the establishment democrats can.

Theres a reason the establishment tends to win, and a lot of it is down to being organised

And that, the 'rust belters', are his one legitimate bloc that I don't question having nefarious reasons for doing so. No coincidence that if you look around at Trump fans giving articulate reasons for voting for him, they almost always make sure to give the mic to these guys rather than what you see on 4chan/reddit for instance.

Thing is, they're being sold snake oil unfortunately in my opinion. If Trump were to win the election I would fully expect to see egregious competitive advantage (take the 'manufacturing in America' stuff for example - I don't for one second think he would apply that to his own companies, and I reckon his older sons would be placed in very prominent and influential positions without justification). This should be clear as day to see on one hand, but on the other they feel they've been lied to repeatedly by establishment Dems and Republicans alike.

But you are also right about them not being in a position to cause large scale mobilisation, hence why we've seen most of that done online with Trump's campaign. The big problem with that is it's harder to pick who you want to 'represent' you online and so the mask keeps slipping over and over and over again with the reddit/4chan type racists, bigots and generally clueless trolls. It is definitely effective to a point, but it is also very much a V-shaped stick that keeps boomeranging on them.

Igotadose · 30-09-2016 12:59PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really interesting read..

So - Trumps lack of physical infrastructure on the ground compared to the Clinton machine looks like it's going to cost him..

Social media and Trump TV appearances aren't going to be enough..

Clearly you need boots on the ground - holding information sessions , knocking on doors etc. etc.

And Trump has virtually none of this..

Media's covered this for awhile. Mr. super-successful businessman seems to lack basic business organizational skills. Remember the story of the Colorado campaign being run by a 12 year old? That turned out to be him and his mom running it? Now, I expect that's improved, but one of the lessons from how Obama did things the last 2 presidentials was the importance of a strong infrastructure, setting down roots, pounding the pavement as it were.

Trump's team really is unimpressive. The buck stops with him, of course, but the chaos that seems to be daily with him is going to help ensure HRC wins substantially.

PopePalpatine · 30-09-2016 01:11PM

Akrasia wrote: »

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Evangelicals have an excuse to vote for Trump - the Supreme Court. There's one vacancy already, and three of the remaining judges are 78 or older - Ginsburg (appointed by Bill Clinton), Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) and Breyer (another Clinton appointee). IIRC Ginsburg's planning to retire after this election, and if the other two oldest judges follow suit, that leaves the remaining justices 3-2 in the Republicans' favour. A Trump victory could result in a 7-2 majority for the Republicans.

Amerika · 30-09-2016 02:04PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Latino's especially. Black voters have a pretty high turnout anyway (the 538 election tools are fun to play around with).

Please, for your own safety… step away from the Clinton controlled media talking heads. Trumps message about the situation African Americans go through seems to be resonating. I guess they live it. I believe Trump is receiving more support from Blacks that any Republicans running for POTUS in modern history.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trumps-black-support-explodes-in-biggest-battleground-state/
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-gets-unexpected-announcement-about-blacks-hillary-clinton-is-scared/
http://articles.philly.com/2016-08-23/news/75113703_1_trump-tower-donald-trump-mar-a-lago
http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

And even though Trump’s support from Latino’s is only reported at about 20% (approximately the same as with Romney) there are some indications support might be on the rise.

Overheal · 30-09-2016 02:26PM

Amerika wrote: »

Please, for your own safety… step away from the Clinton controlled media talking heads. Trumps message about the situation African Americans go through seems to be resonating. I guess they live it. I believe Trump is receiving more support from Blacks that any Republicans running for POTUS in modern history.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trumps-black-support-explodes-in-biggest-battleground-state/
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-gets-unexpected-announcement-about-blacks-hillary-clinton-is-scared/
http://articles.philly.com/2016-08-23/news/75113703_1_trump-tower-donald-trump-mar-a-lago
http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

And even though Trump’s support from Latino’s is only reported at about 20% (approximately the same as with Romney) there are some indications support might be on the rise.

Please for your own safety stop crying conspiracy every time someone disagrees with you.

I don't really figure that 538 is a media outlet, for one...

Billy86 · 30-09-2016 02:33PM

Since when is 1% approval among black voters 'resonance'?

TheDoctor · 30-09-2016 02:36PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Since when is 1% approval among black voters 'resonance'?

Its gone up :pac:

30-09-2016 02:38PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Since when is 1% approval among black voters 'resonance'?

Hey, nobody said it was critical mass billy. But that 1% are literally buzzing.

Literally.

Overheal · 30-09-2016 03:33PM

With a margin of error of 4%.

Christy42 · 30-09-2016 04:11PM

Amerika wrote: »

Please, for your own safety… step away from the Clinton controlled media talking heads. Trumps message about the situation African Americans go through seems to be resonating. I guess they live it. I believe Trump is receiving more support from Blacks that any Republicans running for POTUS in modern history.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trumps-black-support-explodes-in-biggest-battleground-state/
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-gets-unexpected-announcement-about-blacks-hillary-clinton-is-scared/
http://articles.philly.com/2016-08-23/news/75113703_1_trump-tower-donald-trump-mar-a-lago
http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

And even though Trump’s support from Latino’s is only reported at about 20% (approximately the same as with Romney) there are some indications support might be on the rise.

Says the poster who had a list of "experts" that thought Holt was biased that included Donald Trump. I mean it wasn't even a Trump controlled outlet. It was legitimately a quote from Trump himself you attempted to use to back up that opinion.

You are getting desperate if you are arguing the maths on 538. They have am impressive record. Far better than anyone who has attempted the same thing. They actively try and avoid bias in their work removing bias from polls both ways. Sure I reckon the team has a bit more Democrats that Republicans but if you are trying to recruit a team of good mathematicians then you are going to end up with more democrats.

Overheal · 30-09-2016 04:21PM

It wouldn't surprise me that Trump supporters, especially dyed in the wool conservatives, would be taxing themselves very hard to justify to themselves choosing him for president: from blaming media bias, to claiming Hillary used secret microphones, to thinking she gave secret hand signals to Republican Lester Holt to set her up for zingers at the debate, to thinking bankruptcy is a noteworthy form of experience, that 3500 lawsuits were all frivolous, to even reconciling the litany of lies that he has told, literally talking out of both sides of his mouth throughout any given day, 'I never said that thing, that I just said', etc.

Anything to stop Hillary or the Democrats getting into office, even if it means self-brainwashing.

Billy86 · 30-09-2016 04:38PM

Overheal wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me that Trump supporters, especially dyed in the wool conservatives, would be taxing themselves very hard to justify to themselves choosing him for president: from blaming media bias, to claiming Hillary used secret microphones, to thinking she gave secret hand signals to Republican Lester Holt to set her up for zingers at the debate, to thinking bankruptcy is a noteworthy form of experience, that 3500 lawsuits were all frivolous, to even reconciling the litany of lies that he has told, literally talking out of both sides of his mouth throughout any given day, 'I never said that thing, that I just said', etc.

Anything to stop Hillary or the Democrats getting into office, even if it means self-brainwashing.

Which makes you wonder if she wins, just how big the Republican meltdown will be. I mean, if you thought 2008 or 2012 were bad...

TheDoctor · 30-09-2016 04:42PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Which makes you wonder if she wins, just how big the Republican meltdown will be. I mean, if you thought 2008 or 2012 were bad...

2012 was hilarious.

Shocked when the election went how the polls (and 538!) had predicted.

Stats and reality - the enemy of the right!

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments