Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[Pookie]

If you go back and read my earlier comments on the poll, I've made it clear the relativity of it is its main asset, in my opinion.

I'm not sure it's relativity is even an asset at this point. Again, the noted and clear weighting issue of the methodology is a serious one, especially at this point in time in the election. The minimal lack of movement of the results in comparison to other polls over the past month likely is related to the issue pointed out in my link. The lack of any post-election analysis from 2012 of the poll's reliability doesn't help matters.

 

[Pookie]

I'm not particularly interested in other polls. There are a lot of them for you to analyze and criticize, if you wish to present them here and do so.

Your lack of intellectual curiosity was not really in question, but thanks for noting it.

 

[toubab]

I'm not sure it's relativity is even an asset at this point. Again, the noted and clear weighting issue of the methodology is a serious one, especially at this point in time in the election. The minimal lack of movement of the results in comparison to other polls over the past month likely is related to the issue pointed out in my link. The lack of any post-election analysis from 2012 of the poll's reliability doesn't help matters.

I'm more concerned about polls that have a lot of movement. Obama won by 3.9% in 2012. Anybody who thinks Clinton is ahead by ten or fifteen percent this year, as some polls say she is, is dreaming. Obama is ten times the politician Clinton is.

The RAND poll has been analyzed. That's why USC and the LA Times are going with basically the same thing now.

 

[Adre]

Your lack of intellectual curiosity was not really in question, but thanks for noting it.

His main pursuit is providing Trump translations for those of us who believe words have actual meanings.

 

[toubab]

Your lack of intellectual curiosity was not really in question, but thanks for noting it.

I've been following polls closely for decades. I'm way beyond being intellectually curious about most of them, at this point. This poll is different. That's why it's of particular interest to me.
.

 

[Pookie]

I'm more concerned about polls that have a lot of movement. Obama won by 3.9% in 2012. Anybody who thinks Clinton is ahead by ten or fifteen percent this year, as some polls say she is, is dreaming. Obama is ten times the politician Clinton is.

The RAND poll has been analyzed. That's why USC and the LA Times are going with basically the same thing now.

Appealing to incredulity isn't going to help your defense of the poll you're clinging too. It's a long way to Election day. We have two very "interesting" candidates. I suspect the results will be just as ... "interesting".

Do you have a link to the analysis of the scientific validity of the "RAND poll" you say was analyzed? And does it address the reliability of the results of the poll related to the weighting issues before election day?

 

[toubab]

His main pursuit is providing Trump translations for those of us who believe words have actual meanings.

Trump needs to hire me, because he definitely needs a translator. On second thought, it would be a tough job, so forget that idea.

 

[Adre]

I'm more concerned about polls that have a lot of movement. Obama won by 3.9% in 2012. Anybody who thinks Clinton is ahead by ten or fifteen percent this year, as some polls say she is, is dreaming. Obama is ten times the politician Clinton is.

The RAND poll has been analyzed. That's why USC and the LA Times are going with basically the same thing now.

What do Obama's superior political skills have to do with a Clinton/Trump poll? This should be interesting...

 

[Pookie]

Here is one thing I've found from the NY Times article I posted earlier ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/u...or-donald-trump-has-a-major-problem.html?_r=0

Now, the U.S.C./LAT survey is so different from other polls that it’s possible that its lean toward the G.O.P. isn’t because of its use of self-reported past voting. It’s an online panel, not a live-interview survey, so perhaps the bias toward the winner in a past election is less acute in that setting. In 2012, the RAND panel took a similar approach and didn’t seem to have the same type of bias. Indeed, the U.S.C./LAT poll’s methodology report defends the decision by citing a RAND study of 2008 panelists:

In our preparation of the RAND 2012 Continuous Presidential Election Poll, we found that members of RAND’s American Life Panel were very accurate in their reporting of their voting four years earlier: More than 90% of the reports in 2012 about voting in 2008 coincided with their reports immediately after the 2008 election, for those panel members that participated in both surveys (Gutsche et al., 2014; Kapteyn et al., 2012).​

The 90 percent accuracy doesn’t necessarily indicate that the measure is unbiased (if the 10 percent of switches were all people going from John McCain to “can’t remember,” then weighting to the 2008 result would be very problematic). Nor would it prove that new panelists would be as accurate at recalling their vote as longtime panelists. It’s even possible that the past-vote bias may be more acute this year, with enthusiasm for Mr. Obama at fairly high levels compared with 2012. But it does at least raise the possibility that the measure might be more useful in this format than in a typical telephone poll.

So the validity question is still out there. Maybe someone will do a good study of the USC/LA Times poll that will be more in depth.

 

[BettyPoop]

www.fivethirtyeight.com

Vote!

 

[toubab]

Appealing to incredulity isn't going to help your defense of the poll you're clinging too. It's a long way to Election day. We have two very "interesting" candidates. I suspect the results will be just as ... "interesting".

Do you have a link to the analysis of the scientific validity of the "RAND poll" you say was analyzed? And does it address the reliability of the results of the poll related to the weighting issues before election day?

I'm not "clinging too" this poll. I merely find it interesting, and different from other polls.

I don't have a link to any particular analysis of the RAND poll from 2012.

Here's a link you might find interesting. Or maybe not.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/01/rand-kicks-off-2016-presidential-election-panel-survey.html

 

[NeverEndingMe]

American, not only needs a leader but we need a real American to be POTUS this time. Clearly, anyone with intelligence can see the obama failures and realizes the amount of work it will take to fix the obama destruction.

 

[toubab]

What do Obama's superior political skills have to do with a Clinton/Trump poll? This should be interesting...

That can't be a serious question.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Vote!

Well, you and your kind are morally bankrupt that has made many bad decisions. Clearly, your kind isn't qualified to vote and should be made ineligible for this election

 

[Adre]

That can't be a serious question.

Yes it can be. Prove the direct correlation.

 

[Pookie]

I'm not "clinging too" this poll. I merely find it interesting, and different from other polls.

I don't have a link to any particular analysis of the RAND poll from 2012.

Here's a link you might find interesting. Or maybe not.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/01/rand-kicks-off-2016-presidential-election-panel-survey.html

Your interest and defense of it is "clingy", but if you say so.

The link is not particularity interesting. It's appears to be non-responsive to the validity issue in question, unless you spot something.

 

[toubab]

Yes it can be. Prove the direct correlation.

LMAO. That was really funny. Let me put it this way, Adre, if Clinton beats Trump in the popular vote by more than Obama beat Romney, I will not only be surprised, I will be shocked. So shocked, and so embarrassed at my foolishness at predicting a close race I will be forced to admit on this board that I was wrong, which isn't an easy thing for me to do, as I'm sure you've already surmised.

 

[toubab]

Your interest and defense of it is "clingy", but if you say so.

The link is not particularity interesting. It's appears to be non-responsive to the validity issue in question, unless you spot something.

I found this interesting:

https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2012

 

[Liar]

Vote!

What, like, now?

 

[Pookie]

I found this interesting:

https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2012

Just a description of the poll. Nothing regarding the validity of the poll's past results at all.

 

[toubab]

Just a description of the poll. Nothing regarding the validity of the poll's past results at all.

Well, the poll is one for one so far. I'm not sure how it's possible to determine the validity of the poll, other than that. Everyone knows, or should know, there's no track record to investigate, at this point.

 

[Pookie]

Well, the poll is one for one so far. I'm not sure how it's possible to determine the validity of the poll, other than that. Everyone knows, or should know, there's no track record to investigate, at this point.

Appealing to ignorance is not a winning approach to this. And you don't need a track record beyond the 2012 election given that it was a daily poll. And the point of a daily poll is to tell you where things stand today, not on election day. How valid is "today's" poll? Tomorrow's? Election Day's? So there is plenty to investigate.

 

[sr71plt]

Obama is ten times the politician Clinton is.

But Trump is one-thirtieth the politician that almost anyone else on earth, including Clinton and Obama, is. (Your comparison is more than a bit nonsensical.)

Trump is a doofus running a dopey campaign.

 

[toubab]

Appealing to ignorance is not a winning approach to this. And you don't need a track record beyond the 2012 election given that it was a daily poll. And the point of a daily poll is to tell you where things stand today, not on election day. How valid is "today's" poll? Tomorrow's? Election Day's? So there is plenty to investigate.

How would you investigate? What would you investigate? We only know the results of the first poll, at this point. There's nothing to compare, unless you compare daily results.

Here's why this poll caught my interest. I noticed it has very different results on a daily basis from most being conducted presently. I wondered why, so I looked into it and discovered it's being done by the same people, using the same methodology, as the RAND poll from 2012, which I remembered as being very accurate.

I'll ask you, why would the same people, using the same methodology, conduct a fraudulent poll this year when they conducted a very legitimate and accurate one in 2012?

 

[toubab]

But Trump is one-thirtieth the politician that almost anyone else on earth, including Clinton and Obama, is. (Your comparison is more than a bit nonsensical.)

Trump is a doofus running a dopey campaign.

I think you're very, very wrong in your analysis. Trump may be a better politician than Clinton. Certainly not much worse.