Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Polls

ruby24

By ruby24
in Current Events & Politics

Recommended Posts

ruby24

ruby24

I guess this can be a place for poll junkies to post and talk new numbers from now until Election Day, both national and swing state ones.

I SO want Trump to go down in a landslide, so my fingers are crossed. A popular vote mandate matters, and for Congress as well. I wish it was possible for her to win by double digits. He needs to be repudiated on an epic level, which will send the world a message that this is not what our country is.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
springtime

springtime

Who still has a landline?
Who doesn't have caller ID?
Who answers calls from numbers they don't recognize? 
Who stays on the line through the long auto dialed pause?
Who doesn't assume the call is from the wealth of "Do Not Call" abusers and stays on the line?
Who has the patience to complete a telephone poll?

The days of telephone polling are long gone (as well as robo calls on behalf of politicians)

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)
On 10/13/2016 at 1:42 PM, toolazy said:

FiveThirtyEight has kept me sane these last couple of months.  

FiveThirtyEight can scare you too. For example, they're able to let us know that as of today, after ALL of the revelations, that Oklahoma has a 99.2% chance of going for Trump, Idaho has a 98.4% chance, West Virginia a 98.8% chance, and Alabama... wait for it... a 99.6% chance.

About 6 other red states are also 90% or more as well, although there are some places like Alaska, at 68.9% Missouri at 78.9% and Utah, at 85.5% which are far lower than I expect they'd normally be. 

Love their prediction for California... Trump having LESS than 0.1% chance of "winning" it. 

Not that Trump is going to win an election on any of those numbers. It just shows that in some places the classic Republican agenda Trumps (pun intended) all else.

Also, as we all know, even at this stage it could all fall apart if the usual voting complacency comes back into play and people just don't roust themselves. For those who don't believe it's possible, both Brexit and the Maine gubernatorial race show what kind of pure insanity can result when people either just don't vote, or throw away votes on useless choices.  

Also, the total popular vote estimates should scare people too. 42.9% is the estimate for Trump (and note it's not like Hillary has the rest... she has 49.2%). This is after all the bullshit. Before it, I'm sure those numbers were even scarier. but it being THAT high at this point clearly shows what a lot of people ultimately care about (banning abortion, banning gay marriage, keeping their guns, and tossing out the "foreigners"). 

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 3
Link to comment
atomationage

atomationage

On 538, what seems to be happening is more polarizing.  They still have Arizona and Iowa going for Hillary, but Missouri and Georgia, which were starting to slip away from Drumpf, are now trending back towards him.  It doesn't matter much, since he's only campaigning in four states, one of which is Pennsylvania, because he's delusional.  He's probably exhausted, which only shows mentally, and not physically yet.  I saw a clip of Ben Stein saying that he's nuts.  Drumpf has a ceiling of 40% of the vote, which is probably what he will get.  The scary part is that HRC45 has a ceiling of 50%, which is enough to win, especially with the electoral college, but what about that other 10%.  Gary Johnson is probably going to get over 5% as The Weed Candidate.  Maybe Jill Stein will get over 1% but I doubt that.  IF HRC is elected and the Senate and House stay with the GOP, then it's going to be a disaster.  Not just for what they will do, but for what the Bernie people will do if she keeps trying to compromise with the right wingers.  My theory all along is that HRC45 will only be a one term POTUS.  She's as old as Reagan was, and isn't going to get younger.  They're going to have to keep Bill from saying and doing anything troublesome.  Apparently Chelsea is going to be there to make sure they all just get along.  The best thing is that HRC is breaking that ceiling, and will inspire others by her example, just like President Obama.  The wild card is whether Drumpf's foreign allies will create some kind of international incident before the election.  I honestly think that he's hoping that the Russians will save him somehow.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Darian

Darian

On 10/13/2016 at 0:56 PM, springtime said:

Who still has a landline?
Who doesn't have caller ID?
Who answers calls from numbers they don't recognize? 
Who stays on the line through the long auto dialed pause?
Who doesn't assume the call is from the wealth of "Do Not Call" abusers and stays on the line?
Who has the patience to complete a telephone poll?

The days of telephone polling are long gone (as well as robo calls on behalf of politicians)

I have to have a landline as I live in the exact wrong spot of right outside Boston where there is almost no cell service (if I want two bars, I can try leaning over one part of my kitchen counter so my feet don't touch the ground, pressing against the east wall of my front porch, or walking to the end of my street (the first one isn't conducive to conversations that require breathing and the last two can be difficult in February  or if I'm in my PJs). Also, I get a lot of phone calls dealing with medical stuff and often, my doctors call from their personal cells and show up as blocked. I have to answer everything and there isn't always any long pause when it's a poll.  I assume that this happens to other people and perhaps not for medical things only. Because young, savvy, no-landline friends of mine have said they've been polled. Not sure when it changed, but you can read about how candidates do on landline vs. cell phones in polling. I'm sure most polling is still skewed, and I guess it's somehow uncool to spend a minute or two on a poll, but polling has changed some with the times. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

1 hour ago, atomationage said:

My theory all along is that HRC45 will only be a one term POTUS.  She's as old as Reagan was, and isn't going to get younger.  They're going to have to keep Bill from saying and doing anything troublesome.  Apparently Chelsea is going to be there to make sure they all just get along.  The best thing is that HRC is breaking that ceiling, and will inspire others by her example, just like President Obama.  The wild card is whether Drumpf's foreign allies will create some kind of international incident before the election.  I honestly think that he's hoping that the Russians will save him somehow.

Around 4 months younger than Reagan, I believe, although remember that people banged on about that in denial that Trump would be almost exactly the reverse... 4 months older than Reagan. And for all the "sta-min-ahhh!" talk, statistically Hillary's on the better side of the life-expectancy curve (women vs. men), so he was totally relying on sexist assumption of who's "stronger" which is countered by actual medical science. And of course notice how silent the Trump campaign went on that angle once he demonstrated constantly sniffing and wheezing in two different debates. 

Her health would have to be pretty fragile in 4 years to settle for 1 term, because the "ruling" party changing candidates is a sure recipe for a total crash of voter confidence. It would almost be like ceding the Presidency to the other side.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

  • Author

I know that historically it's hard for one party to keep the White House for four elections in a row, but you know what? In politics, things don't happen until they do. It's certainly not impossible, and there was a time when it was actually a lot more common for one party to hold the White House for several terms- before the second half of the 20th century. Under FDR/Truman, Democrats held the WH for five terms. And the Republicans did it three or more times in the 19th century.

Everything depends on circumstances and re-election is always a referendum on the president's record more than anything else. So we have to see how Hillary DOES between now and four years from now. It's kind of pointless to try to predict that.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Guest

Guest

On October 13, 2016 at 0:56 PM, springtime said:

Who still has a landline?
Who doesn't have caller ID?
Who answers calls from numbers they don't recognize? 
Who stays on the line through the long auto dialed pause?
Who doesn't assume the call is from the wealth of "Do Not Call" abusers and stays on the line?
Who has the patience to complete a telephone poll?

I have a landline because Comcast was offering a great deal on three-play: phone, Internet and cable. I have Caller ID. I have been polled twice this election season and I picked up that phone because the caller ID confirmed one was Quinnipiac and the other was some research outfit that turned out to be polling for the senate race in my state. Pollsters are the only callers I pick up the landline for. I have plenty of patience for pollsters. I wish they'd call every night! 

Link to comment
Jordan Baker

Jordan Baker

Nate Silver kept me sane during the 2012 election. My problem now is that I check 538 about 10 times a day and tend to panic a bit when HRC's numbers start to slip, even a little. Is there a 12-step program for Compulsive 538 Checking??

  • Love 9
Link to comment
b2H

b2H

2 minutes ago, Jordan Baker said:

Nate Silver kept me sane during the 2012 election. My problem now is that I check 538 about 10 times a day and tend to panic a bit when HRC's numbers start to slip, even a little. Is there a 12-step program for Compulsive 538 Checking??

Yep, it is a medicine called 11/9.  Final poll check...,

  • Love 6
Link to comment
atomationage

atomationage

17 minutes ago, millennium said:

Can't read it though

It might be a problem with your ad blocking software.   It's a tracking poll:

Quote

the current gap between the tracking poll and the other measures of the election likely will shrink over the next couple of weeks...Typically, polls ask people which candidate they favor or lean toward. Those who say they don’t know or are undecided don’t get factored into calculations of candidate support...The Daybreak poll, by contrast, asks voters, using a 0-to-100 scale, to rate their chances of voting for Clinton, for Trump or for some other candidate. As a result, everyone who responds to the survey has some impact on the results.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
sum

sum

(edited)

Some discussions regarding U.S.C./LAT poll
- Oct. 12th: How One 19-Year-Old Illinois Man Is Distorting National Polling Averages
- Oct. 13th: LA Times' response to that question. No, one 19-year-old Trump supporter probably isn't distorting the polling averages all by himself
- Oct. 19th: How an expert tweaked the USC/ L.A. Times poll and put Clinton ahead of Trump
- Ernie Tedeschi, the said expert on the reweighting procedure: 'The LA Times/USC Poll, Reweighted' https://sites.google.com/site/latuscrw/

Quote

Given the unique features of the poll, any one is a potential factor in its frequent outlier results, but the three most discussed possibilities are as follows:

1. The poll weights respondents partially based on self-described 2012 vote; due to well-known ex post recollection bias towards the winner, this has the effect of overweighting Romney voters who now are less likely to support Clinton;

2. Separate from the weighting, the longitudinal nature of the poll means that the survey is "stuck" with a skewed sample that would have been corrected had the poll repeatedly redrawn its sample over time; or

3. The poll is picking up signal being missed by most other electoral polls this cycle.

Since hypotheses 2 and 3 are nearly impossible to assess pre-Election Day, the goal of this exercise is to test the first hypothesis by excluding 2012 vote as a target for weighting. 

It seems like LAT poll has been excluded from the Real Clear Politics average calculation in the last few days. Was there any explanation for it?

Edited by sum
  • Love 1
Link to comment
BW Manilowe

BW Manilowe

The last 2 mornings (yesterday & today) on GMA they've said that, to get where Trump & Clinton probably actually are, poll-wise, you have to take all their poll numbers & average them. Supposedly the average of all their poll numbers is the true figure of who is/isn't ahead.

I may not have said the above quite right, but I hope someone understands what I mean. I seem to be having a communication gap in some threads right now.

Link to comment
roughing it

roughing it

Actually I think Trump has always been leading in Florida, or else it's been real close.  Lots of retirees with nothing much to do other than watch Faux News 24/7, where they've long been brainwashed against Crooked Hillary, way before Trump even came along.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Jordan Baker

Jordan Baker

I live in FL. I too believe the Trump +2 poll, although I sincerely hope it's wrong.

There is one thing I want to caution about when November 8th finally gets here. When the polls close, beware of getting too excited when the South FL numbers start to come in. South FL is a completely different place from North FL, and isn't even in the same time zone (literally and figuratively) as the Panhandle. South Florida will go for Hillary. The I-4 corridor (Tampa through Orlando to Daytona) will be close but might also go for Hillary. The college towns (Gainesville/Tallahassee) will, too. And probably Jacksonville.

But that's it. The rest of FL, particularly the Panhandle, will go solidly for Trump. And the polls in the Panhandle close an hour later than those in the rest of FL. So hold your breath until 7:00 CT/8:00 ET if you're hoping for a Hillary win in FL.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...