The Trump Campaign #2: The Best Thread On The GB, Believe Me

zipman said:

One would think the VP debate would be even more important considering the ages of the two candidates

Click to expand...

It makes sense, except there's not a big track record of that being the case. McCain was older than Trump or Clinton, he was a survivor of melanoma, and his VP nominee was a certifiable idiot. But he still received 60 million votes. I'm sure there were people who voted for Obama because they couldn't stomach Palin, but that may have been canceled out by people who voted for McCain/Palin for history-making reasons and also because they're pro-idiot.

I think one of them would have to be truly horrible on Tuesday for it to make a big difference, and both are experienced enough that falling apart is really unlikely.

BoyNextDoor said:

Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

The Daybreak poll goes a step further and weights the sample to account for how people say they voted in 2012: It’s set so that 25% of the sample are voters who say they cast a ballot for Mitt Romney and 27% for President Obama. The rest are either too young to have voted four years ago or say they didn’t vote.

The potential problem is that people tend to fib about how they voted. Polls have often found that the percentage of people who say after an election that they voted for the winner exceeds the winner’s actual vote.

If that’s the case this year, then weighting for the vote history would result in slightly too many Republican voters in the sample, which would probably boost Trump’s standing by a point or two.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure until we can compare the final vote to the poll’s final forecast. Given how long it takes to count all the votes, that answer won’t be available until at least a week after election day.

Click to expand...

That's what Nate Silver believes, basically (I would also surmise that Romney voters are more likely to have died in the last 4 years than Obama voters). He's also on record as saying that the poll isn't totally useless, though, because it has tended to parallel the other national polls pretty closely, as long as you account for a Trump lean of around 5 percent.

I see some people on Twitter who regard this poll as something worth being furious about, but it really isn't.


Hey, I'm post #5000! NEW THREAD NAMING RIGHTS!

Wrong Element said:

It makes sense, except there's not a big track record of that being the case. McCain was older than Trump or Clinton, he was a survivor of melanoma, and his VP nominee was a certifiable idiot. But he still received 60 million votes. I'm sure there were people who voted for Obama because they couldn't stomach Palin, but that may have been canceled out by people who voted for McCain/Palin for history-making reasons and also because they're pro-idiot.

I think one of them would have to be truly horrible on Tuesday for it to make a big difference, and both are experienced enough that falling apart is really unlikely.





That's what Nate Silver believes, basically (I would also surmise that Romney voters are more likely to have died in the last 4 years than Obama voters). He's also on record as saying that the poll isn't totally useless, though, because it has tended to parallel the other national polls pretty closely, as long as you account for a Trump lean of around 5 percent.

I see some people on Twitter who regard this poll as something worth being furious about, but it really isn't.


Hey, I'm post #5000! NEW THREAD NAMING RIGHTS!

Click to expand...

I really doubt the USC/LA Times poll is off by five points. I think that's extremely unlikely since it was so accurate in 2012 under a different name, RAND, same methodology. But we shall see.

Yep, you got the rights to the new thread title.

In Defense of the LA Times Poll

Just came across this. Some may find it interesting:

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/10/02/defense-la-times-poll/

"After nearly a week of interviews conducted after the first presidential debate, Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by roughly 5 points in the LA Times Poll, 46.9% to 42.2%. TV pundits have stuck to conventional political wisdom, despite the fact it has failed them at every turn this election cycle.

As a result, the LA Times Poll has been taking even more heat than it has in the previous several weeks, which is really saying something.

Last week, during an appearance on Fox News, Larry Sabato, whom we respect (so save your emails), insinuated “random sample polls” have shown an impact from the debate that favors Mrs. Clinton. It was an indirect dig at the LA Times Poll–and, the People’s Pundit Daily U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll for that matter–a dig that has been repeated on Twitter by others like Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics.

But there’s something pretty damn significant missing from the conventional wisdom-based argument, something I think readers and election-watchers should know. In 2012, the model and methodology they are using, which was designed by the team behind the RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, or the “Daybreak Poll,” was was right when most other traditional random sample polls were wrong.

But that’s not it. It’s the reason why the model was right that is of particular significance to this election cycle. Let’s take a look at how they polled the 2012 presidential election between President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney, and their results."

The article is fairly long, and I won't copy more of it here, but it makes good sense to me.

In the last few presidential elections, it was assumed by "conservatives," that after Labor Day that the polls were skewed and that they were wrong. As things stand now, we will have a continuation of the Clinton Dynasty and the insiders will have won the day. The polls are probably right. Hillary wins in the electoral college.

The smart thing to do is to invest. Invest heavily in those things that will be on the no-no list. I am buying AR uppers and ammo...



At the right price, I might even be a buyer of gold.

They will be crying in their conventional wisdom on election night. It hasn't sunk in yet that this is not your normal election cycle. It's an outsider cycle, establishment candidates will get their X % but the folks in the middle are going to swing the election like a gate.

4est_4est_Gump said:

In the last few presidential elections, it was assumed by "conservatives," that after Labor Day that the polls were skewed and that they were wrong. As things stand now, we will have a continuation of the Clinton Dynasty and the insiders will have won the day. The polls are probably right. Hillary wins in the electoral college.

The smart thing to do is to invest. Invest heavily in those things that will be on the no-no list. I am buying AR uppers and ammo...



At the right price, I might even be a buyer of gold.

Click to expand...

Conservatives didn't think the polls were wrong when they had Romney ahead.

toubab said:

Conservatives didn't think the polls were wrong when they had Romney ahead.

Click to expand...

Ahead in aggregate or ahead in swing states?

4est_4est_Gump said:

In the last few presidential elections, it was assumed by "conservatives," that after Labor Day that the polls were skewed and that they were wrong. As things stand now, we will have a continuation of the Clinton Dynasty and the insiders will have won the day. The polls are probably right. Hillary wins in the electoral college.

The smart thing to do is to invest. Invest heavily in those things that will be on the no-no list. I am buying AR uppers and ammo...



At the right price, I might even be a buyer of gold.

Click to expand...

And what's the right price?

4est_4est_Gump said:

Ahead in aggregate or ahead in swing states?

Click to expand...

Both. You should read the PPD article, if you haven't. Romney was widely assumed, at times, to have the lead during the 2012 campaign, even at the end by a few pollsters, including Gallup and Rasmussen, to name a couple.

Adre said:

And what's the right price?

Click to expand...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/swiss-vaults

Ask these guys...

toubab said:

Both. You should read the PPD article, if you haven't. Romney was widely assumed, at times, to have the lead during the 2012 campaign, even at the end by a few pollsters, including Gallup and Rasmussen, to name a couple.

Click to expand...

I know. I lived through the horror of it. He did not win. Trump does not stand a chance.

Those impartial people of the national media who (*chuckle* absent of the restraints of "The Fairness Doctrine [ironically being just today championed by those appalled by Trump]) are doing everything they can to destroy Trump and ignore any issues with Clinton will probably carry the day, because most of them are consumed with things other than politics on more than a superficial level.

They are voting for a woman over a clown.

toubab said:

Yep, you got the rights to the new thread title.

Click to expand...

I was (mostly) kidding. You might as well start the new thread (once Laurel locks this one) with the same title, Part 2.

snugglestruggle said:

They will be crying in their conventional wisdom on election night. It hasn't sunk in yet that this is not your normal election cycle. It's an outsider cycle, establishment candidates will get their X % but the folks in the middle are going to swing the election like a gate.

Click to expand...

The strong third party candidates add an element of uncertainty that wasn't there in 2012. The assumption all along has been that Johnson and Stein will tail off, and there's a slight bit of evidence that may be happening with Stein, but if Johnson gets even 5 percent, that could swing a few states all by itself.

Let's say Five Thirty Eight has Clinton with a 75% chance to win on the morning of Election Day (Obama on Election Day 2012 was around 90 percent). Things that have only a 25 chance of happening happen all the time, as Patriots fans found out today.

My belief all along has been that Trump is a crazy fraud and people like that don't win national elections, but I'm obviously less certain of that than I was when this thread started.

4est_4est_Gump said:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/swiss-vaults

Ask these guys...

Click to expand...

I asked you. Give me a number.

Adre said:

I asked you. Give me a number.

Click to expand...

12


:shrug:

Ahm huntin’ Wabbit

SSSSSSSshhhhh... be vewy vewy qwiet. Ahm huntin' wascaws...

Wrong Element said:

I was (mostly) kidding. You might as well start the new thread (once Laurel locks this one) with the same title, Part 2.





The strong third party candidates add an element of uncertainty that wasn't there in 2012. The assumption all along has been that Johnson and Stein will tail off, and there's a slight bit of evidence that may be happening with Stein, but if Johnson gets even 5 percent, that could swing a few states all by itself.

Let's say Five Thirty Eight has Clinton with a 75% chance to win on the morning of Election Day (Obama on Election Day 2012 was around 90 percent). Things that have only a 25 chance of happening happen all the time, as Patriots fans found out today.

My belief all along has been that Trump is a crazy fraud and people like that don't win national elections, but I'm obviously less certain of that than I was when this thread started.

Click to expand...

While there is truth in this, such a high % of people are not happy with status quo. There is an underlying feeling and rightly so, that the country is seriously in trouble in many ways and the status quo is not going to fix it.

Trump has many flaws but he is not the status quo. He is blunt, has no filter between his mouth and brain and he is definitely an outsider compared to Hillary and that is one of the things that is appealing to people. We shall see.

Wrong Element said:

I was (mostly) kidding. You might as well start the new thread (once Laurel locks this one) with the same title, Part 2.





The strong third party candidates add an element of uncertainty that wasn't there in 2012. The assumption all along has been that Johnson and Stein will tail off, and there's a slight bit of evidence that may be happening with Stein, but if Johnson gets even 5 percent, that could swing a few states all by itself.

Let's say Five Thirty Eight has Clinton with a 75% chance to win on the morning of Election Day (Obama on Election Day 2012 was around 90 percent). Things that have only a 25 chance of happening happen all the time, as Patriots fans found out today.

My belief all along has been that Trump is a crazy fraud and people like that don't win national elections, but I'm obviously less certain of that than I was when this thread started.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'll just ask Laurel, if she will, to go with your suggestion for the new thread title. Same title, Part 2.

People don't seem to remember Obama only beat Romney in the popular vote by 3.9%. Hillary is no Obama.

SgtSpiderMan said:

Again, lots of people asked and Obama said no. The only one who got Obama to release his certificate was Trump. Whether you say ask or force, the point still stands.

Click to expand...

So you are voting Trump because he's best at persuading world leaders?

Good stuff:

"I'm A Bernie Sanders Voter.. Here's Why I'll Vote Trump"

Libsam said:

Good stuff:

"I'm A Bernie Sanders Voter.. Here's Why I'll Vote Trump"

Click to expand...

502 Bad Gateway

awselb/2.0

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump 47.0

Clinton 42.4

Libsam said:

Good stuff:

"I'm A Bernie Sanders Voter.. Here's Why I'll Vote Trump"

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff:



"Here are the ten key issues:

1: Sanders favors “breaking up the big banks.” Hillary Clinton opposes that.



2: Sanders has fought consistently against Obama’s mega-‘trade’ deals. Hillary consistently favored them.



3: Sanders favors working with Russia against jihadists in Syria. Hillary opposes that.



4: Sanders says jihadists are America’s top foe. Hillary says both jihadists and Russia are equally anti-American, equally dangerous to America. Hillary is simply a neoconservative; Sanders isn’t. Her having voted to invade Iraq was no mistake on her part; it was consistent with her entire international outlook, all of which is neoconservative, like invading Libya, Syria, etcetera. Bernie’s vote against invading Iraq was likewise consistent with his international outlook.



5: Sanders has been consistently opposed to fossil fuels. Hillary has aggressively supported them.



6: Sanders says that the system is rigged. Hillary says that it’s not.



7: Sanders says the system is rigged specifically against the poor. Hillary says the problem that keeps people poor is instead individual bigots — against Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, etc. Not the system itself. She is proud to represent the system. She’s not against it. She’s for it.



8: Sanders’s political career has been financed by small-dollar donations. Hillary’s has been financed by mega-donations.



9: Sanders favors every possible means of reducing the influence big-money donations to politicians has over politics. Hillary opposes that idea.

10: Sanders favors socialized health insurance, like exists in the European nations that spend per-capita half what America does but have higher life-expectancy than America does. Hillary opposes that — she favors the existing profit-based system of health-care, and opposes the European system where basic healthcare is a right, no privilege (that’s based only on ability-to-pay)."



My kids are Sanders voters, and they say they won't vote for Hillary, but I haven't asked them who they will vote for, or even if they will vote. Perhaps I should.

Que said:

So you are voting Trump because he's best at persuading world leaders?

Click to expand...

*chuckle*

I might write-in my dog's name and take a selfie of it...



Then I can tell the haters with a straight face, "But I did vote for the bitch!"

For the record, you can’t incoherently rant about having the best temperament. That is a claim that disproves itself. It’s like getting a forehead tatto that says 'I have excellent judgment.'

John Oliver

Did Hillary cancel her joint appearance with Bernie because of what she said about his voters or because of her health?