Polls and/or propagnda?

[JackLuis]

For the last month or so every so often I see a news story that Clinton is killing Trump in the polls. Yet, when I look into this with Real Clear Politics web site I see that she is barely able to hold on to less than 45% of the polled. Her percentage is not changing at all realistically.

I suspect that these "News Stories" are being generated by the Liberal Media Machine. The press should start refering to her as the Lesser Evil and maybe she'd gain some traction. God Knows we don't need her to loose to the Greater Evil!

 

[sr71plt]

For the last month or so every so often I see a news story that Clinton is killing Trump in the polls. Yet, when I look into this with Real Clear Politics web site I see that she is barely able to hold on to less than 45% of the polled. Her percentage is not changing at all realistically.

I suspect that these "News Stories" are being generated by the Liberal Media Machine. The press should start refering to her as the Lesser Evil and maybe she'd gain some traction. God Knows we don't need her to loose to the Greater Evil!

There for a while, she was being shown up to 14 percent ahead in "must have" swing states, so, yes, there for a while she was killing Trump in the polls. It's August, though, Not November. This is a wildly fluctuating situation and doesn't mean all that much (unless it stops fluctuating and one candidate is way ahead of the other over most of the states) until we're much closer to the elections. It has limits even then, though, because an aggregated national poll doesn't represent what matters in the election--the separate State numbers are what matters--and then by the strength of their electoral votes. It also can't be too precise, because the polls are based on small proportional numbers and those tallied don't necessary tell the truth about who they are voting for. And some, like me, won't answer polling questions.

The bottom line is that if you're hyperventilating about polls now, you've sucked into being part of the problem you are complaining about and are just contributing to the meaningless background noise.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The comical indignation, finger pointing and all around bullshitting is so high this year I'm going for propaganda.

 

[sr71plt]

The comical indignation, finger pointing and all around bullshitting is so high this year I'm going for propaganda.

And that's just your posts alone.

 

[phrodeau]

For the last month or so every so often I see a news story that Clinton is killing Trump in the polls. Yet, when I look into this with Real Clear Politics web site I see that she is barely able to hold on to less than 45% of the polled. Her percentage is not changing at all realistically.

I suspect that these "News Stories" are being generated by the Liberal Media Machine. The press should start refering to her as the Lesser Evil and maybe she'd gain some traction. God Knows we don't need her to loose to the Greater Evil!

If you look at the electoral map at RCP (which is based on state polls), you will see where the stories of Hillary's substantial lead come from. She has been given over 270 electoral votes for some time now, with Trump in the 150's.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[1sickbastard]

I suspect that these "News Stories" are being generated by the Liberal Media Machine. The press should start refering to her as the Lesser Evil and maybe she'd gain some traction. God Knows we don't need her to loose to the Greater Evil!

Trump isn't the lessor or greater evil, he's worse, a fucking ignorant, stupid, loudmouth cockwad of douchery.
After all, evil takes focus and conscious malevolence, with the long view of doing as much harm as possible. This is actually a fairly rare phenomena.
Stupid is everywhere and everyday. It takes no effort at all.

That's why stupid is always far more dangerous and destructive than actual evil.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Trump really does have a one-in-four chance of victory.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/election-markets-1.3732359

You could make a profit from buying actual presidential futures contracts on the Iowa Electronic Market.

"Traders can buy and sell real-money contracts based on their belief about the outcome of an election or other event," says the IEM website. "Using the wisdom of crowds, the price of a contract at any given time is a forecast of the outcome."

"You can buy it and then sell it to another trader at a higher price sometime between now and the election," says Tom Rietz, professor of finance at the University of Iowa, who helps run the market.

There's a winner-takes-all market where investing in the ultimate winner earns a dollar per contract on election day and the loser gets nothing. There's also a market based on the share of the vote garnered by each candidate.

"One of the things that's been noticed going way back in political science is that people who have a party affiliation have a biased belief about the probability that their candidate will win," says Rietz.

Despite such biases, even large purchases in favour of one candidate or the other don't distort the market for long and the market has repeatedly been shown to be more accurate than the polls. Although the maximum permitted stake is $500, the market is big enough to be highly liquid, which means when you want to sell, there is always a buyer.

One of the reasons for the superiority of the market versus a poll is that rather than answering who you will vote for, traders in the market use their money to "vote" on what they think everyone else will do.

The University of Iowa's Rietz says a sure bet on a Clinton win would mean the winner-takes-all chart would be showing something more like a 95 per cent advantage for the Democrats.

He says the market shows that right now, Trump really does have a one-in-four chance of victory.

"It's not a done deal at this point," says Rietz. "Even though the market is efficiently predicting a 75 per cent probability, the likelihood that Trump will win is the same as if you flipped two coins in a row and both came up heads."

 

[underguy1]

Trump isn't the lessor or greater evil, he's worse, a fucking ignorant, stupid, loudmouth cockwad of douchery.
After all, evil takes focus and conscious malevolence, with the long view of doing as much harm as possible. This is actually a fairly rare phenomena.
Stupid is everywhere and everyday. It takes no effort at all.

That's why stupid is always far more dangerous and destructive than actual evil.

It's not uncommon at all in western politics. It's pretty much a prerequisite to get to the levers of power.

These people are all war criminals or war criminals in waiting.

Clinton is possibly the worst war monger of them all.

 

[Rachel_X]

Trump isn't the lessor or greater evil, he's worse, a fucking ignorant, stupid, loudmouth cockwad of douchery.
After all, evil takes focus and conscious malevolence, with the long view of doing as much harm as possible. This is actually a fairly rare phenomena.
Stupid is everywhere and everyday. It takes no effort at all.

That's why stupid is always far more dangerous and destructive than actual evil.

I wonder how Trump will be taken on the international stage if he does win.
I mean right now everyone treats him as a joke and laughs at all the crazy things he says, but will they still be laughing when this high brand of douchebag has access to the US military and all the missiles it possesses?
He strikes me as the sort of man that would happily start a nuclear war because someone called his hair stupid.

 

[oggbashan]

The art of getting accurate predictions of voting intentions has become more complex in the 21st Century.

Those who are part of the poll's sample are more sophisticated than they used to be - and they lie!

In the UK electoral pollsters have had a bad time in recent years. They got the last General Election badly wrong. The Scottish referendum on independence had widely varying predictions in the weeks/days before the actual result.

The referendum for In/Out of the European Union was difficult for the pollsters because those for Leave and Remain crossed political and social boundaries. They didn't forecast that the overall UK vote would be to Leave, although they were fairly certain Scotland and Northern Ireland would vote to stay.

Modern polls seem more about wishful thinking than the imprecise science they used to be. Predicting the result on the basis of tossing a coin is almost as accurate (as is asking the Groundhog).

 

[NOIRTRASH]

There's not enough money to poll viable samples. People work, people use cell phones, and few polls walk neighborhoods collecting opinions. So the polls are made of wild ass guesses or history. Its safe to assume every nigger who matters is committed to Hillary. Its safe to assume every college fag and whore is committed to Hillary. Its safe to assume every Jew wants Hillary. Its safe to assume every government employee wants Hillary. Its safe to assume the self employed want Trump. Its safe to assume the military want Trump.

And who they cant assume they flip coins for.

 

[RUlookingup]

Hillary will lose. How many of you have been polled? The polls are bullshit....think Truman - Dewey. Write your headlines in September for November.

 

[Que]

If you look at the electoral map at RCP (which is based on state polls), you will see where the stories of Hillary's substantial lead come from. She has been given over 270 electoral votes for some time now, with Trump in the 150's.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Real Clear Politics gives "electoral votes?"

I thought the electoral college does that. In November.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Real Clear Politics gives "electoral votes?"

I thought the electoral college does that. In November.

No, they do that on Dec. 20.

 

[JackLuis]

Race tightens in projected US Electoral College vote: Reuters/Ipsos

An election analysis conducted in the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project shows that the race has tightened considerably over the past few weeks, with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump projected to win Florida, an essential battleground state, if the election were held today.

The project, which is based on a weekly tracking poll of more than 15,000 Americans, shows that the 2016 presidential race could end in a photo finish on Nov. 8, with the major-party candidates running nearly even in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president.

The States of the Nation project, which delivers a weekly tally of support for the candidates in every state, shows that the race has tightened in several traditional battlegrounds. Pennsylvania has been moved from a likely win for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to a tossup; Ohio has been moved from a tossup to a likely win for Clinton. And Florida is now considered a likely win for the Republican nominee, with 50 percent support for Trump to 46 percent support for Clinton.

RCP Electorial Map

Clinton/Kaine 200
Toss Ups 174
Trump/Pence 164

 

[patient1]

Nate Silver's Polls Plus forecast predicts Hillary's chances of winning 60.3% to Trump's 37.9%/




Electoral votes

Hillary Clinton 285.6

Donald Trump 252.2

Gary Johnson 0.2


Popular vote

Hillary Clinton 46.9%

Donald Trump 45.0%

Gary Johnson 6.8%

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do you think the Bradley Effect might come into play here?

 

[JackLuis]

Nate Silver Warns Media Against ‘Dangerous’ Assumption Trump Isn’t Really Closing in on Hillary

Hillary's "progressive"(?) speel isn't working! Will she flip or flop to regain her edge?

The newest polling analysis from celebrity statistics whiz Nate Silver shows Donald Trump in a tight race against Hillary Clinton as the 2016 race grows ever closer.

Previous analyses from FiveThirtyEight showed the former Secretary of State with a reasonable edge over the bombastic real estate mogul, even as recent troubles started taking their toll on Clinton’s numbers. With recent shake-ups in the electoral map, current projections give Clinton a 57 percent probability of victory, while Trump’s chances are pegged at 43 percent.

These results represent a 10 point swing from earlier this month, where data suggested that Clinton had maintained a larger gap between herself and Trump. Moreover, the electoral map shows the electoral vote narrowing, as Clinton takes approximately 281 of the count, while Trump gets 257.

It's time for the DNC to panic!

 

[dan_c00000]

Modern polls seem more about wishful thinking than the imprecise science they used to be. Predicting the result on the basis of tossing a coin is almost as accurate (as is asking the Groundhog).

This idea, along with Megyn Kelly's legs, was on display in the past election. If you ask Romney's pollsters they're still shocked he lost.

 

[KUJACK]

England's betting site, Predictit

Most accurate predictor of past elections. Betting favors Clinton 67% to Trump 33%