HA/KS's Link
Similar results for me; even using search engines with "IBD/TIPP state polls only takes you back to the national poll; RCP can give you state-by-state results though. Today's IBD/TIPP poll showed the lead for Trump up to 2 (still within the MOE) but there are some ominous clouds for Mrs. Clinton; she only gets 70% of blacks (Trump gets 14%), she only gets 45% of the Hispanic vote (he gets 22%), she only leads him 50-34% among single women and they're tied at 42% with married women.
None of those numbers bode well for her and speak to the lack of credibility many voters place on her "promises".
It's still relatively early (post 3rd debate) but the next 5-7 days could be very interesting.
It's rather odd, looking for information that supports the case that you are wrong. It's about what I'm reduced to.
Some folks pt out "IBD/TIPP has an A- on @fivethirtyeight!" Avg of pollsters w/ A (better than A-) or better since 1st debate: Clinton +7
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) October 22, 2016
senior GOP Senate strategist: "Trump now tied in Indiana. down 11 in PA and 14 in NH. going down hard"
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 22, 2016
I agree, UNLESS there's a 'Bradley effect,' which means voters don't want to admit to the polling person on the phone that they aren't going to vote for the opponent of the politically correct candidate, but then do when they get in the voting booth.
The term came from a CA Gubernatorial election back in the '80's when LA Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American, was projected to win comfortably. Yet he lost to GOP candidate George Deukmejian when the votes were cast.
That the majority of polls show Trump is losing certainly is not news to me, I've been saying since last Summer that if he was the nominee, Hillary would be our next President. Looks very much like that is right on track. There are any number of historical/comparative statistics available that I've seen that show, based on where Trump is right now, there's no way he will win. But it wouldn't matter if I posted the result from a crystal ball, most people will believe what they want - even against all evidence - until the race is called early in the evening of November 8th.
PSE suffers from Dunning-Kruger disease. There is no cure. Pity him.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.
What ?????......obama won in five swing states by a combined total of 275k votes. Even the polls favoring Hillary have Trump gaining on here.
With a BIG thanks to people like you.
Amoebus's Link
Link is to the fivethirtyeight rating page. This rates them on overall performance, accuracy, bias, etc. There are hundreds of surveys in there. The IBD/TIPP is about 1/2 way down with 17 polls (more polls on top).
The interesting field to me is Races Called Correctly with IBD @ 76%. I suspect that is why they keep emphasizing that they have been accurate on the last 3 presidential races. The 76% means to me that they were wrong on 4 of the remaining 14 polls. Maybe those were early? Maybe they have corrected what went wrong? I suspect their rating will go way up in Nov if they are right because most others have Hillary leading by a bit.
If I find any more, I will post it - as I read the cases that go wrong, it is incredible precise as to how many people in each demographic is included in the survey. If you pick 5-10 more independent voters than the other surveys, you will get quite different results. Same with young voters. Same with women voters, etc. My guess is that 10-20% of the surveys have people with the statistical skills necessary to do this well (probably the A ratings). The middle 60-80% could go higher/lower - maybe they are trying hard and just need more practice to get good at it? The bottom 10-20% are probably both incompetent and partisan hacks.
The Rock
The latest ABC News poll has Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 12 points.
What the media will not tell you is that 9% more Democrats than Republicans were sampled in the poll.
“Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.”
GOP primary turnout was up 62% this year while Democrat primary turnout was down 21% this year.
Playing with polls is a common Democrat-media propaganda tactic.
PROOF polling is rigged #PodestaEmails16 #PodestaEmails pic.twitter.com/SdtIzwQI2P
— ALWAYS TRUMP! (@Always_Trump) October 23, 2016
Here are the 3 Daily Tracking Polls that have been almost perfectly in sync almost every day. IBD was most accurate in 2012:
IBD/TIPP Daily Tracking Poll Sunday Trump 43% Clinton 41%
LA Times Daily Tracking Poll… Sunday Trump 44.4% Clinton 44.1%
Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll Friday Trump 42% Clinton 40%
Average– Trump +1.43
This was the first ABC News tracking poll of 2016.
"We are behind … She has tremendous advantages" - Kellyanne Conway, saying it is uphill fight now for Trump to win
— Politics1.com (@Politics1com) October 23, 2016
orionsbrother made a great point about the figures you are stating, and either you didn't catch it, or are ignoring it.
The numbers of primary voters for each party could very well be the proof of democrat voters picking the republican nominee, as several have stated.
Either the handful of pollsters showing Trump winning are very wrong, or they are doing a more accurate job of predicting what the demographic make-up of voters in this election will end up being. My guess is "yes" on the first point, and "no" on the second. But we'll know for sure in a little over 2 weeks.
There was an ABC News/ Washington Post poll released one week ago. I was referring not to ABC alone, but all the liberal News sources when I opined they skew the average on RCP.
Um...Republican Primary votes were at the highest percentage since 1980... Dem voters were lower than 2008.
I don't suppose you're drawing any....conclusions....from this, are you? Like, say, a lot of Democrats crossing over and voting in Republican primaries? Like I and others said many months ago.
Trump also got the lowest percentage of primary votes overall of any GOP nominee in a very long time. Hence....the large enthusiasm gap now among actual Republican voters who did not vote for him in the primaries.
New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"
Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.
"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."
Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll.
Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters. Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points. Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics - Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets) - Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters." Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state. - On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions - Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed - Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed (continued)
I think the number of candidates had little to nothing to do with how small a percentage of the vote he ended up with at the end. It had everything to do with the fact that he is a NYC Liberal Democrat.
A lot of Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump. That's partly why he won the nomination all while receiving the lowest total vote percentage of any nominee in a very long time, because so many actual Republicans did not vote for him.
Trump is going to lose because he has energized some big base Democrat voter groups to come out and vote against him. He is going to lose because a lot of Republican voters have come to the conclusion that it is Hillary, not him, that is the lesser of two evils. And he is going to lose because there will be a huge number of GOP voters who won't go out to vote for him. Way, way more than did not vote for Romney. And I have said many times during the course of this campaign that that would end up being the case.
We all knew the corrupt media polls were BS. Now thanks to Wikileaks we know our assumptions were correct. The media are working with Hillary Clinton to release bogus weighted polls that show Hillary ahead of Trump.
Since this election cycle started over a year ago, Joshuaf has been 100% wrong with every prediction. 100% maintained for over a year! Perfection like that just can't be ignored.
Not all Republicans are strong Conservatives, as you know. As we have seen in this election campaign, many are more Nationalist Populists than they are Conservatives. And then there are many Republicans in suburban areas that are more Liberal in their views than you or I. I'm talking about the kind of people who were happy to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, not just in the General Election, but in the Primaries. Go look at state by state maps of the 2012 GOP primaries results, and note the highly populated suburban counties that largely went for Romney, particularly in the midwest and northeast states. If you think that some of the Romney voters in those areas haven't concluded that Hillary is a better option than Trump, you're fooling yourself. My 50+ year old cousin is a perfect example. She's a white, college educated, well-off, suburban Republican white woman who has never voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in her life, does not like Hillary, and does not agree with her on most issues. Yet she's voting for Hillary because she thinks Donald Trump is a certifiable nut case. I think you may be underselling just how much of a visceral reaction many college educated Republicans have to what an awful person Trump is. Hillary Clinton is as corrupt and dishonest as the day is long, but so is Trump, and at least Hillary doesn't act like a 5 year old child in public on a regular basis when interviewing for the most important job in the Nation. If you think that doesn't factor in to whether some of these suburban, more liberal R's are likely to vote for her, you're fooling yourself.
Poll after poll has shown Trump is getting killed among college educated white women. They ain't all Democrats.
The bigger thing that will sink Trump is all the Republican voters who vote for a 3rd party or just don't vote at all, but those voting for Hillary will definitely be a factor.
That's not remotely true, I've been right on a lot of predictions. But if it will help you sleep better for the next 15 nights, go ahead and believe the myth. The morning of November 9th you will have to face reality.
bad karma's Link
Again, reading three Sunday papers, there was scant mention of any of the emails released with more revelations of conspiracy and corruption...and the one article that I read that even mentioned Wikileaks was on the editorial page and basically said that the emails were "pretty much ado about nothing".
My friend's wife (whom I referenced in 2012--has a PhD in statistical mathematics whose thesis dealt with scientific polling) recently told me that the polling done in this election was the worst she has ever seen...that all the media has been citing polls that had more political taint than value. Her opinion is that there has been too much polling and that the multitude of pollsters have put together their polls to provide desired results for the client paying for them. To quote her, "Who would want to spend the money to provide unfavorable results that have little value to be used for advertising/promotion purposes?"
There is vast evidence that the entire news media has openly declared war on Trump and protects Clinton rather than acting as journalists. Easily seen with the debates, the coverage of both candidates and ignoring the contents of the leaked emails from Clinton and associates.
Wikileaks is only known because of the alternate media and Internet...and we have seen where sources such as Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites have blocked those who would report on the unreported. Example: James O'Keefe's Twitter account has been blocked post two released videos from Project Veritas last week and a promise of another video that links Hillary this week.
I posted elsewhere these videos from another group called Anonymous:
I don't know what Chris would say concerning the second Anonymous video/poll. If I talk to her, will post her comment on this poll.
Rocky's Link
Now believe whatever poll that will make you feel like a winner. I did not believe them when Trump was up down or otherwise and will continue until I see the numbers. Much like the primary where there was no road to 1237 for ANYONE.
The Rock
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
It seems the Trump supporters last glimmer of hope may be fading. Most interesting to me is the Zeitgeist (most likely to win) numbers - 54% Clinton 19% Trump. That's telling.
Just reporting the facts, so spare me the partisan diatribes. Thanks.
Matt
Chris commented on the Anonymous poll video saying that methodology was sound, but details on its implementation needed to be available to judge it's results. The numbers surveyed was a plus, but same numbers without respect to state population need adjustment. Still valid for quantitative, but not so much for qualitative interpretation.
Stony Brook University Professor of Political Science Helmut Norpoth, author of the forthcoming book Commander in Chief: Franklin Roosevelt and the American People, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his critique of polling methodology. Although most mainstream media polls give Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the 2016 election, Norpoth has forecast an 87 percent probability that Donald Trump will win. “The polls rely on reaching people by phone. Most of them do that. It’s very difficult these days, as everybody knows, because people don’t answer their phones any more – landlines, cell phones, et cetera,” Norpoth explained. “You reach a very small fraction of the people that you try to reach. The numbers aren’t quite so well-known, but I think it’s pretty low. It’s probably below ten percent. So that’s one issue.”
“The other one is, I mean, in the end, it doesn’t matter what people tell you in a poll. They have to go out and vote,” he continued. “We know that just about over half of the people who are eligible to vote actually do vote, so the problem is, how do you figure out exactly who’s going to turn out and who is not?”
“These are pretty big issues that have bedeviled some of the polls in the past. Gallup, for example, in the last election, 2012, had Mitt Romney winning with a final poll, and, of course, that wasn’t the case – and Gallup is no longer in the horse race business. The gold standard had to quit the business. I think that should tell you something,” he said.
Marlow asked about the Investor’s Business Daily poll, regarded as one of the most accurate surveys in the 2012 election, which currently shows the 2016 race as a statistical tie nationwide.
Norpoth said he had no details about this poll’s methodology, surmising that “they would have the same problems as all the others.”
“It’s interesting that you have quite a spread right now. I mean, you have that poll, and then you have I think the ABC poll had Clinton up by 12,” he observed. “You can see that there’s quite a range, and I’m not enough of an expert on the details of these things, because I don’t know them, to make a judgment about maybe who is right or wrong. I’m just saying it’s very uncertain.”
Norpoth noted that polling companies “do a lot of weighting after the fact” to compensate for the low response rate for phone surveys.
“They get what they get, and then they check against the Census distribution,” he said, citing the example of the L.A. Times tracking poll, which does not use the same weighting assumptions as the other surveys.
“The L.A. Times poll has usually been a poll that’s showing Trump doing quite well, being ahead or at least tied, when the other polls are showing him way behind. Somebody did a re-weighting of the polls based on some of the others and found that if they used the same weights as the others, the polls would come out very similarly. So a lot of it depends on how the weighting works, and that’s a big problem,” he contended.
Norpoth and Marlow also discussed the famed example of 1948, in which polling was halted a few weeks before the election, causing news organizations to miss how “the race tipped” in the final days, as Norpoth put it. The resulting “Dewey Defeats Truman!” headline has become the iconic example of polling malpractice.
“I would never rule that out, that you have some changes, and especially with a candidate like Trump, who is trying to establish himself, and often sort of shoots himself in the foot, and then he suffers at the polls. The question is, can he recover from that, and I think that’s sort of the big problem for him right now,” Norpoth said of the 2016 race.
“I think we learned a long time ago, when Richard Nixon put out this notion of the ‘silent majority,’ that it’s very risky to sort of judge things by signs of overt protests in those days, and maybe enthusiasm this time,” he said of the “enthusiasm gap” in 2016, which appears to strongly favor Trump.
Norpoth recalled seeing an article about Google searches, which have become “another predictor of the election that people have used,” and based on the number of people searching for Trump or Clinton, “Trump is doing very well.”
“But of course, some of those searches may be because people are scared about him and trying to find out what he’s all about, so I’m a little skeptical of that too,” he added.
“I think we’re really in a new world with some of these tools and techniques that we have to fathom how voters are behaving, so we may be in for a surprise,” he proposed.
Norpoth said he takes the “long historical view that this election is poised to tip the scales toward the Republicans because of the swing of the pendulum, with or without Trump.”
“My feeling always has been, what I saw in the primaries, was that Donald Trump did very well. He beat a large field. According to my metric, about how primaries are shaping up, he did better than Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race, so that gave him a leg up,” he said, leading to his prediction seven months ago that Trump would win the election.
“I still feel that there are these factors at play that may be obscured right now, or trumped – to use a pun – by things that the candidate does himself. If he can find a way to help himself a little bit more, I think he would be able to capitalize on those advantages,” he said.
Norpoth explained that his model does not rely on opinion polling: “It’s real polls. It’s what happens in elections, past elections, general elections, and primary elections. This time, I simply based my prediction on what happened in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Trump, as we know, won both. Hillary won just one of them. Relative to the strongest opposition, Trump came out ahead in that kind of a metric. That’s what I’ve used in past elections, since 1996, to make predictions, and it has worked in all of those five elections to predict the popular vote winner. That’s my sense and my confidence, that the prediction might be right.”
“If you go back to 1912, when we had presidential elections with a good number of primaries – that’s about a hundred years, quite a few elections – if you compare the candidates based on their performance in primaries, you’ll find that the candidate who was stronger in the primaries wins the general election,” Norpoth elaborated. “That was the case in 1912, with Taft against Wilson, and you find it in many elections since then. It’s that kind of historical irregularity, that I think is in play, that puts Trump ahead.”
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
A couple things possibly at work here....
1) This is your first Presidential election
2) You can't remember anything that happened more than 3 years ago
3) You're being intentionally dishonest
Those who forget or ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It is hilarious - HILARIOUS - to see you acting like you've just now found out, in this campaign, that the mainstream media are almost all Democrats and will do what they can to help push the Democrat candidate. Every. 4. Years. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention or isn't telling the truth.
"some of our poll dependant participants such as josh."
I am not remotely poll dependent. You apparently don't remember the multiple times during the primaries that I made predictions against what all the polls were saying, and I was right, but there were legit reasons I predicted against the polls, not just "because" I thought they were wrong because I wanted them to be. I do see reality, though, whereas many here are in willful ignorance, thinking that just because a Trump rally they went to had a lot of people, or some Trumpist web site they visit has a lot of enthusiastic participants, or all of the people they hang out with are Trump supporters, or Trump halloween masks are more popular than Hillary masks, or that Hillary polls better on Sundays, all meaning that Trump can't possibly lose. I fully understand, whereas some here clearly do not, that the people we associate with in our every day lives aren't necessarily an accurate, representative cross-section of the voter demographics that will show up at the polls in this year's Presidential General Election.
Remember the story about the Liberal journalist who was absolutely bewildered that Nixon won the White House? She said she couldn't understand it, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. That is the Trumpists in absolute spades. They can't see outside of their Trumpist bubble.
And one of the biggest ironies of this General Election campaign is the Trumpists being spitting mad and bewildered at how all these Wikileaks revelations aren't just taking Clinton completely out of the race. Maybe you hadn't heard, but nearly a dozen women have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault in the last 10 days, and yet....the Trumpists don't care a wit, their minds are already made up. So, how does a dose of your own medicine taste? Voters have decided that both candidates are horrible, but Trump is the more horrible one.
I will spare you the ribs if prefer but you are NOT stating FACTS. These numbers as in all others in every poll ARE not a certainty or indisputable. How then could it be a fact? Are you a liberal shill from ABC. ;-)
The Rock
Last week we described the results of a recent analysis of a sample of polls promoted by the mainstream media where Hillary Clinton was reported ahead of Donald Trump in the US Presidential race. (See ACTUARIAL REVIEW: Analysis of Recent Polls Shows Trump Win and Possible Landslide) We provided the following analysis –
Expert Analysis
With all the liberal distortions and dishonesty we decided to have a small team of actuarial and statistics professionals take a look at a couple of the recent polls to get their take on the reliability of these polls. They selected the recent FOX poll from October 14 showing Hillary up by 7 and the WSJ/NBC poll from October 16 showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.
The first observation is that both polls are heavily skewed towards Democrats. At a high level, the FOX poll consists of 43 Dems to 36 Reps to 21 Other while the NBC poll shows 44 Dems to 37 Reps to 19 Other. By selecting more Dems the polls are designed to provide a Dem result.
Our experts next analyzed the data and calculated results using the same data from the two surveys on a split of 40 Dems, 40 Reps and 20 Other. The results show that using either sets of data Trump comes out ahead with a larger margin of victory using the FOX data.
New Information Supports Our Analysis –
A couple of questions as a result of this analysis were ‘Why are the main stream media polls so different than our estimates and other traditionally reliable polls?’ and ‘Why would the main stream media distort their polls so drastically?’
A piece of information that answers these questions came in three emails released by WikiLeaks from the Clinton campaign over the weekend –
The first email is from the Clinton campaign where they “recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can manximize we get out of our media polling.”
#PodestaEmails16 If you think the polls are as crooked as the media, you’re right. pic.twitter.com/nQVWCB8IU4
— Philip Schuyler (@FiveRights) October 23, 2016
The second email to Clinton Staff shows “Proscribed disruption vectors” where the “Technique – Poll-flagging” has “Emotional Violence – Rage” with a “Message” of “Barrage with high-frequency recent polls. If countered with pro-Trump polls counter with friendly (538) averages. Avoid “Brexit” arguments. If target is hooked, move to swing-states (FL/PA) and declare election over. See Poll-Elasticity folder for further statistics.”
@HillaryClinton‘s plan to discourage Trump support: “Barrage with high frequency polls and declare the election over”. Sound familiar? ? pic.twitter.com/6Mhi7HZ52R
— Sheila Cooper (@S_Cooper0404) October 23, 2016
The third email shows the Clinton camp knowing that the Michigan polls were bogus in their race with Bernie Sanders:
clinton-camp-fake-polls These three emails support the calculations we presented last week that the polling data promoted by mass media is not accurate. Oversampling of Clinton supporters is used to obtain a Clinton desired result.
To be clear, the analysis presented last week of polling data supports a Trump win.
Donald Trump can't win in the polls but can't lose this election because the people will not allow it.
The Rock
Gray Ghost's Link
1. The IBD poll was actually the 4th most accurate poll in 2012, not the 1st as stated several times on this thread.
2. The Democracy Corps poll was the most accurate in 2012, followed by the ABC and the Pew Research Center polls.
3. The IBD poll tied for 1st with Pew on AVERAGE error over the last 3 POTUS elections.
Matt
Trump is likely the only one of the primary candidates who could possibly lose to the Witch From Hell.
Does anyone here remember the part in "Blazing Saddles' where Hedley Lamar (Harvey Korman) picked who the new sheriff for Rock Ridge would be, and what his criteria were? He wanted a sheriff who would be the most appalling, disgusting and offensive person possible to the people of Rock Ridge.
Intentionally or not, the Trumpets are the Hedley Lamar of 2016, only the price we'll pay will be far, far higher.
Our only hope at this point is we get a Brexit-like result on November 8, producing an outcome that shocks and appalls the pollsters and the establishment.
Donald Trump still has a slight edge in Rasmussen Reports’ latest White House Watch.
The new national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gets five percent (5%) of the vote, while Green Party nominee picks up three percent (3%). Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, while five percent (5%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Today’s survey is unchanged from Friday but includes the second full night of surveying following the final presidential debate last week in Las Vegas. Rasmussen Reports is one of three national polls that still shows the race as competitive with two weeks to go; most others portray Clinton with a wide – and, in some cases, growing – lead.
In the latest survey, 88% of voters say they are now certain how they will vote, and among these voters, Trump holds a statistically insignificant 48% to 47% lead. Johnson has three percent (3%) support, Stein two percent (2%).
Gray Ghost's Link
Notice the 5.8 average spread, in favor of Clinton, is greater than any of the actual margins of error in ANY poll in the 2012 election. That doesn't bode well for Trump.
Matt
Welcome back! Great to see you here again!
Kyle
I think about and miss you, Genejockey, Jim Johnson, Mike in CT, and several others, often. Then, I think about all the hours I used to waste here, in what amounted to dick-wagging contests, and I'm happy I left.
Are you still running down elk by foot, my spry little friend? ;) I hope so.
My return visit to CF will likely be fleeting. I guess I had a case of "car crash" syndrome, and I had to take a peek at the carnage. I've almost had my fill.
Matt
No elk that I've run down lately, but I did whack a really nice ram in WY early last month.
Congrats! I'm jealous. A nice ram is still on my bucket list.
I've added tarpon fishing with a fly to my quiver of hobbies. The adrenaline rush of landing a tarpon on a fly is only equalled by arrowing a large bull elk, in my book.
Anyway, we probably shouldn't derail this thread any more. Shoot me a email, or phone call, sometime, I'd love to catch up.
Matt
It's an entirely different thing to understand Trump is an ego-maniacal bloviating blowhard who you'll vote for in spite of his faults because a 2nd President Clinton will mean the end of America.
Please don't confuse the two and please stop lumping us all in the same category.
You gave him to us. It's all on YOU!
That's a great point. Blame the 12th Amendment.
As usual, the founding fathers had it right. Their "electoral" system gave the Presidency to the candidate who won the majority of the electoral votes. The Vice Presidency was given to the runner up.
The 12th Amendment changed this system to a combined POTUS/VPOTUS ticket for each electoral vote. Thereby, eliminating the built-in system of checks and balances the Founding Father's had envisioned. All because of partisan political pressure.
What a shame.
Matt
And he was made by the media in the primaries, all according to plan. Now, they are helping to Un-make him. Live by the media, die by the media.
Clinton pulling 17% of conservatives in CNN poll, Trump 7% of liberals
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) October 24, 2016
And Trump is behind in most of those as well. Not only that, but his poor performance has created NEW "swing" states that are normally an absolute given for the GOP nominee.
joshuaf's Link
Actually, that is not entirely true. Reagan and Carter see-sawed back and forth for the lead in the polls some but Reagan led in far more polls than Carter did, including at this stage of the campaign. See the link.
George H.W. Bush had a lead - and frequently a big one - over Dukakis in the polls pretty much from September until election day.
Hillary has consistently held a commanding lead in the majority of poll averages.
By the way, the Romney campaign in 2012 trotted out this myth about Reagan/Carter when Romney was consistently down in the polls by Obama late in the campaign, as "proof" that he could still win. They were wrong. And Obama wasn't leading Romney with nearly as big of polling avg. leads as Hillary is leading Trump.
The lib tactic has been uncovered and like the reprehensible Republican Party the people are not buying it nor will they ever again believe the media or government. Excepting some experts here on the CF which btw is a contradiction in terms. I will not gloat when Trump wins this election which IMO is a given. People are running from the polls not the truth which makes them no better than the party that represented them who sold them out to zero.
The Rock
Jim Hoft Oct 24th, 2016 10:59 pm 77 Comments
THIS IS JUST EFFING INCREDIBLEG! Hillary’s VP pick Tim Kaine Held a Rally today AND NOBODY CAME! There were literally like 30 people there — in West Palm Beach, Florida.
I was polled this morning. The pollster and call came from an overseas call center as far as I could tell from our conversation.
Oh, and I lied ;0)
Rasmussen now has Clinton +1
Matt
Not likely on the national polls. Here is the IBD/TIPP stats:
"Results based on survey of 873 likely voters conducted from 10/19 - 10/24. Margin of error: +/- 3.6 percentage points. "
873 out of 218,959,000 aren't good odds of getting called by any one poll (not that much better if you include all of the major polls).
Great to see you again; sorry to hear it's a limited engagement play! I can certainly understand the sentiment, just miss your insights and most especially your ability to respectfully disagree and to get the other party to reconsider their position(s).
One time I clearly recall is when you and I were going back-and-forth on something to do with Iraq; I think we swapped viewpoints on about a 10-item list and I felt we both came away from the exchange feeling like we'd engaged in a worthwhile exchange and both came away better for it. We could have used a lot more of those types of exchanges.
I hope all is well with you and yours and wish you a great 2016 hunting season.
Shoot me a PM with an email and I'll definitely keep you updated on how my season goes!
Holy Crap! Check out the thousands of people that came to this rally for George McGovern in '72. He must have destroyed Nixon that year! pic.twitter.com/xx7Rzcfesz
— Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78) October 25, 2016
WOW! Look at the size of this Walter Mondale Rally in 1984! He must have won in a landslide!!! pic.twitter.com/pAA483zc9f
— Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78) October 25, 2016
The polls didn't get it wrong, in either of those elections. The person who won led in more polls than the person who lost.
The polls didn't get it wrong in 2012, either. Obama won, and at a higher number even than the polls were predicting.
"a big turn out bodes well for Trump and early voting being mixed does too."
In-person early voting started yesterday in Texas. Travis (Austin) and Dallas (Dallas) counties - the 2 most reliably Democrat high-population counties in the state - both reported crazy high increases in early voting numbers compared to the first day in 2012. You want to see if you can spin that positively for Trump?
Great to hear from you, my friend.
I remember our discussions well, and truly miss them. And I agree, the level of discourse, now, has fallen off noticeably. Remember the Jim Johnson/Genejockey debates on global warming? Ahh the good old days.....;)
Back on topic. With Clinton's current polling spread being larger than the ACTUAL margin of error for those polls in the previous 3 elections, it's almost a mathematical impossibility Trump will win. I know that's not what the hand-wringers want to hear, but it's reality.
Matt
You said it yourself Josh...Dems are turning out and/or crossing over for Trump.
By the way, a poll of South Dakota came out today with Trump up by 7. Romney won SD over Obama by....18. Is that poll rigged also, to make Trump look like he has a smaller lead than he should?
In the Primaries.
And the kind of Dems in Dallas and Travis Counties, Texas, aren't the same kind of blue-collar, low-income white Dems like in the rural areas of the Deep South and Appalachia. Not at all.
For those who missed it earlier, I'll re-post how the pollsters performed over the last 3 presidential elections. The most accurate poles have missed by less than 1 pt. The least accurate have missed by 3-4 pts. The aggregate average miss is 2.3 pts for all 11 polls over 3 elections.
So, with Clinton's lead of around 6 in the current poles, all the poles would have to miss by over DOUBLE their historical averages for Trump to win. Virtually impossible.
I know hope springs eternal, but you have to accept reality at some point.
Matt
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
Do they say "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message"? Thought I'd read that the campaign itself was pulling out of multiple states where they were solidly in the lead, but that there may still be some Pro-Hillary Super-PAC's doing some advertising there. If it was a Super-PAC, don't think it would have the "I'm Hillary...." message on it.
The possibility of the polls being wrong are due to the Trump factor. I despise the guy, even though I'll vote for him.
Yet to his credit, he's turned everything we thought we knew about elections on it's ear.
We've never seen anyone like Trump before in our history, nor have we never seen such distrust and outright hatred of the establishment.
If Trump wins, that will be our Bradley Factor/Brexit moment.
You are certainly free to hope for a rare anomaly to happen. I'm a bit more pragmatic than that.
I couldn't imagine voting for someone I despise. Sorry you are in that position.
Matt
I don't think that many appreciate the vast changes that have come to our society via technology even in the short span of a couple of years. So much has become such a usual part of our lives that we don't consider how much they change our views and approaches to daily life. Two quick examples that have exploded in just the past year. Cell phone cameras and Internet social media...stories and photos of events are reported/slanted/embellished before the traditional media can report on it. By the time a news event is reported on the local/national news, social media has already set the meme of the story. Drones...once expensive toys, sophisticated models are being released at everyday prices. They are everywhere.
From the article: "...Things have only gotten worse for pollsters since 2012. With the misses in the 2014 U.S. midterms, in Israel, in the U.K., and in the 2015 Kentucky governor's race, it's getting hard to escape the conclusion that traditional ways of measuring public opinion no longer seem capable of accurately predicting outcomes the way they more or less once did.
One reason for this is that prospective voters are much harder to reach than they used to be. For decades, the principal way to poll people has been by calling them at home. Even Gallup, long a holdout, switched to phone interviews in 1988. But landlines, as you may have noticed, have become far less prevalent. In the United States, fixed telephone subscriptions peaked in 2000 at 68 per 100 people, according to the World Bank. Today, we're down to 40 per 100 people, as more and more Americans—especially young ones—choose to live in cell-only households. Meanwhile, Federal Communications Commission regulations make it far more expensive to survey people via mobile phones. On top of that, more people are screening their calls, refusing to answer attempts from unknown numbers.
In addition to being more picky about whom they'll speak to, cellphone users are less likely to qualify for a survey being conducted. In August, I got a call from an interviewer looking for opinions from voters in Florida. That's understandable, since I grew up in Tampa and still have an 813 area code. Since I no longer live in the state, I'm not eligible to vote there, yet some poor polling company had to waste time and money dialing me—probably repeatedly, until I finally picked up—before it found that out.
All these developments have caused response rates to plummet. When I got my first job at a polling firm after grad school, I heard tales of a halcyon era when researchers could expect to complete interviews with 50 percent or more of the people they set out to reach. By 1997, that number had fallen to 36 percent, according to Pew Research Center. Today it's in the single digits.
This overturns the philosophy behind probability polling, which holds that a relatively small number of people can stand in for the full population as long as they are chosen randomly from the larger group. If, on the other hand, the people who actually take the survey are systematically different from those who don't—if they're older, or have a different education level, or for some other reason are more likely to vote a certain way—the methodology breaks down..."
"...A series of Pew Research studies suggests, counterintuitively, that falling response rates may not actually matter. "Telephone surveys that include landlines and cell phones and are weighted to match the demographic composition of the population continue to provide accurate data on most political, social and economic measures," concludes the most recent study, conducted in the first quarter of 2012. "This comports with the consistent record of accuracy achieved by major polls when it comes to estimating election outcomes, among other things." But that was before the streak of missed calls in the four years since. A savvy observer would be right to wonder if people's growing unwillingness to participate in surveys has finally rendered the form inadequate to the task of predicting election outcomes..."
"...There's another open question regarding the 2016 race: How will Silver and other election modelers fare without the Gallup numbers to incorporate into their forecasts? There's no shortage of raw data to work with, but not all of it comes from pollsters that abide by gold-star standards and practices. "There's been this explosion of data, because everyone wants to feed the beast and it's very clickable," says Kristen Soltis Anderson, a pollster at Echelon Insights (and my former boss at The Winston Group). "But quantity has come at the expense of quality. And as good research has become more expensive, that's happening at the same time media organizations have less money to spend on polls and want to get more polls out of the limited polling budget that they have..."
Article is very worthwhile reading, especially if one touts any polls to support/refute an issue or policy.
Another thought: there has been no report or comment from the media on the Anonymous survey (previously cited) which has a far larger survey population, unweighted and provides a result far far different that that of those cited by the media. On the surface (recognizing that Anonymous' survey data and methods have not been published for analysis), the Anonymous survey seems to be a more realistic view of the voting population than media polling. Time will tell, I guess.
I've come to a personal decision: I no longer watch any of the news stories on TV or listen to on the radiofor a number of years. And now I will ignore the touted polls that it seems that too many have developed a dependence upon.
If that's the case then they weren't paying attention to all the polls that had "Leave" winning.
"What happened with Brexit is people did not divulge their feelings on the issue in the polls"
Yes, actually, they did. That's why there were more polls showing "Leave" winning the day than "Remain" winning the day. You're free to have your own opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts.
"I've talked about the demographics"
So it's just those darned demographics, huh? Nothing about Trump's position has anything to do with what an awful person and candidate he is, or the fact that he is a NYC Liberal Democrat pretending to be a Republican? Weird.
"More info from Wiki and the Trump campaign's Russian Overlords is on the way."
Fixed.
You pretty certain that Hillary's campaign has fired it's last shot of Oppo at Trump? I wouldn't bet any money on that that you can't afford to lose.
"Early voting bodes well for Trump in many states."
Do share. Everything I've read in the last few days is that early voting is trending stronger for the Democrats in more important "swing" states than for the Republicans.
By the way, can I just say how precious I find it that all the Trumpers who were getting high off of Trump's poll numbers in the primaries, are now either nowhere to be found or are actively trying to persuade us that polls actually don't matter now that Hillary is leading in the vast majority of them. Hypocrites.
Well, you've already shown us that you're totally fine with cherry-picking poll results, so no surprise at your response. Fact is, there are more, important states where the early voting turnout on the whole has been reported as looking more favorable to Democrats than to Republicans. Unless you believe everything Trump and his camp says, which you probably do.
Trax, I am so, so going to enjoy rubbing your nose in all the things you said in defense of the GOP nominee this go-round when you attack the Dem nominee for all the same things next time. Count on it.
I may despise Trump, but I despise Hillary by many multiples of that.
300,000,000+ people in the USA and THIS is the best we can do?
Pretty sad!
slade's Link
HAMILTON, Ohio -- If you're trying to read the tea leaves, this could be very good news for Donald Trump: Absentee voting in Republican stronghold Butler County is up 9 percent this year compared to 2012, and 21 percent over 2008.
Two weeks before the election, the Butler County Board of Elections has seen 40 percent more requests from Republicans compared to 2012, and 51 percent more requests from Republicans compared to 2008.
Gray Ghost's Link
And its not looking good for Trump.
Matt
Actual votes from the mail-in-process and early voting won’t be counted until Election Day.
In recent Rasmussen polling, 4% more Democrats are voting for Trump than Republicans are voting for HRC (16% D for Trump while 12% R for HRC). Also No Party Affiliation (Independents) has also been breaking for Trump. In Fox’s most recent poll last Monday, Trump was winning I by 8%. If we take both Rasmussen and Fox polls data, the likelihood of the tallies above would translate as the following in the votes mailed or early voted in so far:
R – 732,382 (R voting for Trump) + 132,854 (D voting for Trump) + 173,106 (I voting for Trump) +27,382 (Other voting for Trump) = 1,065,724 Total Votes
D – 697,486 (D voting for HRC) + 100,230 (R voting for HRC) + 147,460 (I voting for HRC) + 23,325 (Other voting for HRC) = 968,501
Trump = 52.4% HRC = 47.6%
Obama won early voting in FL by 5 points in 2012 and after election night he won the state by less than 1 point.
Based on what we have data-wise so far and the fact that the 17 counties didn’t start early voting until the 29th of October (which favors Trump based on data above), Trump will win FL by 9 to 10 points (55 – 45)
YUGE RECORD BREAKING VOTES in TEXAS!!! & Its Not Bernie Fans or Obama Voters for Hillary Clinton!! ALLL Donald Trump Folks?? #wednesdaywisdom pic.twitter.com/Sn79fMhwXG
— DEPLORABLE TRUMPCAT (@Darren32895836) October 26, 2016
joshuaf's Link
4. Trump campaign’s own internal election models show results “similar to” Nate Silvers — i.e. they know they’re losing badly. Single digits
— Joshua Green (@JoshuaGreen) October 27, 2016
"Nate Silver" = 538 poll aggregation site. You know, all those polls you Trumpers swear can't possibly be right. See link. Lots of other interesting tidbits of info there, including plenty that will do nothing to tamp down long-time speculation that Trump's campaign was always just one big Grift-Con intended to put money in his coffers and increase his brand awareness.
One thing contained there is admission from the campaign that they are working on three different major "voter-suppression" efforts targeted at various Hillary voter demographics, including black voters. That little nugget will do WONDERS to further the FALSE narrative that the GOP actively tries to suppress black voter turnout in elections.
Great job, Trump supporters. Trump and his campaign have done everything they can this whole campaign to confirm all the worst FALSE stereotypes about the GOP, and you've helped him all along the way. Give yourself a pat on the back. Hillary and the Democratic National Committee would also like to give you a pat on the back.
HA/KS's Link
The Rock
A 16 percent chance of a Trump presidency isn’t nothing — as we’ve pointed out before, it’s about the same as the chances of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.
Henry, there is a better than zero chance that Trump will still win. There is also a better than zero chance that I'll see a black bear from my tree stand this deer season in southern Ohio (they wander through from time to time). But the odds of either happening aren't anything on which you'd want to wager something of value.
You know as well as I that the people would never allow a person who has committed crimes against her own nation, crimes so severe and of the highest magnitude imaginable of danger as to place the people in harms way, to become POTUS. A person who sold her position as the one of highest ranking officials in United States for personal financial gain and profit. A person who has lied under the oath of God with hand on the Bible that she was telling the truth about her involvement in these matters. A person who would sell the rights of women in the middle east if the dollar figure matched her hunger for power. I do not know of one, not one TRUE American who would agree with that notion and allow her to hold their future in her hands when the question and facts of truth is placed in that context before them? Do you?
The Rock
That will tell us something about the American people. Correct?
The Rock
Why will it be more accurate a week from now?
"Indiscriminately take your own poll"
So, I can take your answer as a "no", despite your bluster, you're not confident enough in what you've said to make any kind of actual numerical prediction?
What do you want me to say? That Donald Trump will win by X ? How can anyone predict that save Jesus Christ. I will say this with confidence: Donald Trump will win this election and those who may doubt that outcome are obviously gun shy of former results that they placed so much faith into.
Now..to my question which you have eluded and not so deftly may I add. Do you know of ANY American as I posed the question? You know the answer josh but your hatred of Trump has blinded your sensibilities to the real threat to this nation.
The Rock
The Rock
Yep, you got it.
"How can anyone predict that save Jesus Christ."
People make election predictions all the time. You're so confident of the outcome, I thought you'd be eager to show us just how confident you are with an actual prediction beyond just "he's going to win". What states is he going to win that Romney and McCain didn't?
And the most important question: How do we all know which polls to trust? You're the all-knowing one, apparently, who knows, against all evidence, that the polls showing Clinton winning are wrong. Please let us in on your secret.
This is where you compass is pointing to magnetic north not true north on the charts.
I do not place much stock in polls as I have said on many occasions. The varying numbers are reason enough. They may be a gauge but a loosely fitting gauge especially when controlled by the media. How could anyone believe without question their accuracy when the pollsters themselves do not know who they are polling? Polling was more accurate years ago than today because a 215 area code that was dedicated to a Phila. area could now be in Sacramento, California. Land lines once the barometer have been replaced by cell phones. Accuracy suffers across the board today for many reasons. Who would have believed that Donald Trump is pulling 3x the black vote that Romney did? Fox news reported that this night. Do you believe that poll?
Look. Donald trump is going to win this race for the reasons I stated on numerous threads. My question that I posed to you that you refused to answer is the very reason this will come to pass. The American people will not allow a Hillary Clinton into the WH knowing without question what they know now. Not allegations, but the full truth and breadth of her devious dangerous nature.
The Rock
The Rock
Are you confident enough in Trumps win to put your money where your mouth is? I've got a $100 bill that says you are wrong.
Is it a bet?
Matt
Machias's Link
If I'm correct you guys better clarify so there are no misunderstandings.Make sure your wager is what you think it is.
I think Trump takes Florida and Ohio. But doubtful in PA and no idea about North Carolina. Crazy year! Anything can happen, and latest momentum is with Trump. The pendulum swings yet again!!
No line, this isn't Vegas, son. My bet is straight up winner takes all. I've got Clinton, you've got Trump, for $100.
Is it a bet?
Matt
Try that on some sucker not me. I like making money and admit it. This is not about Trump or Clinton. This is about dollars. A man like you would never take such advantage of a sure win. Right? What would that prove? This is Vegas and if you think otherwise when gambling you are a loser from the start.
Are we on? Will you put your now not so guaranteed money that you thought you had spent as you had believed on the line? To show you that its not all about money 2/7 considering the latest revelations.
Donald Trump will be the next POTUS. You fell for it once. You will fall for it again and fall like all the others doubters. Lets do business. What fun is gambling if you are not the least bit nervous?
The Rock
Top Gravis Pollster: Gary Johnson Supporters Breaking Towards Trump
You are the one boldly predicting a Trump win, but apparently you aren't that confident.
I didn't think so. In my neck of the woods they call that "all hat and no cattle".
Matt
He has consistently guarantee an unequivical Trump victory but he really meant that he was 2/9ths sure that Trump would win.
A tip of my *real* cowboy hat to you, sir. ;)
Matt
Money IS business. Ok, I will not take advantage of one less gifted. 2/5. You will not do better in Vegas.
Are we on? Yes or no?
The Rock
Matt
The Rock
The rock
Don't be so serious and believe you must perform like a dancing bear for your "friends". Be your own man. You will like yourself that much more.
I'm looking forward to your post-election performance.
Matt
Matt,
See what you've missed since you've been on sabbatical?
LOL!! I have to say, ol' Rocky does have some moves. I wish I was still that limber. ;)
Matt
Now lets stop acting like children and help them. I will take your bet at even odds for $200.00 .This is about bragging rights. Correct? No matter who wins the bet the "feel good" comes when we meet again on this site Nov.9th. and crows. The money is secondary.
I send you a bank check for 200.00. When the election is over and Trump wins you send me a bank check for 400.00 but made out to Children' Hospital of Philadelphia. If, and this will be a surprise, if Clinton wins, on your honor, you do the same with the 400.00 for a Children's Hospital of your choice. Kyle may deny it and I imagine he will but he knows all about this arrangement. No matter who loses you win. It will come back to you ten times over.
The Rock
Everybody wins.
I don't even understand your bet, let alone want to take it. But thanks for the offer.
I'll be good with watching you dance around your plate of crow after the election.
Matt
For all you who allowed Trump and Alex Jones to convince you the polls are all rigged....do you think all the small, independent pollsters (who are not affiliated with the big, national media outlets) doing state polls are in on the rigging also? Sure is an awful lot of coordination to play some mind games on American voters. Funny thing is, if it were true, it would certainly be working, because some of ya'll are going crazy with fear and paranoia about the polls. Ya'll know this was the rallying cry of the Romney campaign in 2012 also, right? And they were completely wrong about it. What makes 2016 different? If some of ya'll weren't in such a protective Trump bubble, you'd be able to realize that not everyone feels and thinks just exactly how you do about things.
elkmtngear's Link
You were saying, Josh?
http://nbcvote.org/2016/10/nbc-live-poll-next-american-president-2/
Kyle's link: The Visual Guide to Disputing Media Polling
From the link: "...This election will either be tight in favor of either candidate or will be a blowout in favor of Trump. For the reasons stated above and backed up with maps, I do not anticipate Trump being steamrolled..." And: "...Do not allow the media to steal this election without a fight."
Related, earlier link from Rocky:
After decades of gradual improvement, the science of predicting election outcomes has hit an accuracy crisis.
(Good article delving into the problems that pollsters face today with changing parameters that separate past results from what is touted by the media today)
And another related link of mine...which I think that the CF may well have been part of the data set ;o)
Trump will win the election and is more popular than Obama in 2008, AI system finds
An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House.
MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.
The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries.
Data such as engagement with tweets or Facebook Live videos have been taken into account. The result is that Trump has overtaken the engagement numbers of Barack Obama’s peak in 2008 — the year he was elected president — by 25 percent.
Rai said that his AI system shows that the candidate in each election who had leading engagement data ended up winning the election.
“If Trump loses, it will defy the data trend for the first time in the last 12 years since Internet engagement began in full earnest,” Rai wrote in a report sent to CNBC.
Currently most national polls put Clinton and the Democrats ahead by a strong margin. Rai said his data shows that Clinton should not get complacent.
But the entrepreneur admitted that there were limitations to the data in that sentiment around social media posts is difficult for the system to analyze. Just because somebody engages with a Trump tweet, it doesn’t mean that they support him. Also there are currently more people on social media than there were in the three previous presidential elections.
“If you look at the primaries, in the primaries, there were immense amounts of negative conversations that happen with regards to Trump. However, when these conversations started picking up pace, in the final days, it meant a huge game opening for Trump and he won the primaries with a good margin,” Rai told CNBC in a phone interview.
NEW YORK (AP) — The polls are no longer rigged. https://t.co/ttUtBftibX
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) November 1, 2016
Wow, now leading in @ABC /@washingtonpost Poll 46 to 45. Gone up 12 points in two weeks, mostly before the Crooked Hillary blow-up!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2016
YAY, the Polls matter again!
(or at least when they show Trump in the lead)
The bad news is his chances of winning have only climbed to 26.7%.
Matt
joshuaf's Link
When you say "tighten", you mean Trump re-gaining the lead that he held for a long time in that poll but recently lost?
"because biased pollsters don't want to be terribly wrong"
And do these "biased pollsters", pray tell, include anyone who is showing Trump with a lead? Asking for a friend.....
"I was under assumption you were in the Clinton war room working on damage control."
Hunting season is on, been living in the woods much of the last week. But speaking of damage control....this story about Russia possibly blackmailing Trump sure is a doozy. Definitely worth a read.
Is Donald the Trumpchurian candidate? Definitely seems like a very good possibility. It would certainly explain A LOT about his comments about Putin, Ukraine, NATO, Paul Manafort being his campaign manager, and all the very suspicious and strange on-line social media support for Trump originating in Russia.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation for this... pic.twitter.com/INzBPioKQK
— Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) November 1, 2016
The changing story and goalpost moving here are....impressive. Especially considering Trump has said - RECENTLY - he doesn't know Putin and hasn't met him. Pathological liar.
"I don't know what it means by having a relationship... I didn't go hiking with him." pic.twitter.com/kEvZHzZOvv
— Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) November 1, 2016
Just brutal pic.twitter.com/h3p8dX49lT
— Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) November 1, 2016
Yes, either Pence or Kaine would be preferable to Hillary or Trump.
Not Kaine.
That is what we will get regardless of who wins. If you can't see that, it's because you're blinded by partisanship.
I'm not claiming polls are rigged unless they show results I prefer.
All I'm saying is that there is a clear and substantial improvement in the polls for Trump over the past week.
Almost all polls are showing that trend, and it's not just national polls. RCP shows polls for fourteen battleground states. At the moment, they show four of those states as being static due to no polls being reported in the last day or two, ONE in which Clinton's lead has increased (PA, which includes the Franklin and Marshall poll referenced earlier on the "BS" thread and which is clearly a ridiculous outlier), and NINE in which Trump's lead has either increased or Clinton's lead has shrunk.
That's clearly a trend.
..................don't mean dick.
Local insurance agent told us at lunch that he was polled, he said he was voting straight Republican ticket, and then told them he was a registered Democrat (which isn't true)
I wonder how many people screw with the pollsters like he did?
Jim Hoft Nov 10th, 2016 9:59 am 90 Comments
The pollsters were not just wrong this year they COMPLETELY MISSED the wave of support for DONALD TRUMP.
Arnon Mishkin, head of FOX News Decision Desk, went on America’s Newsroom on Wednesday to defend the inaccurate FOX News poll that showed Hillary Clinton up by 4 points. The final results have Hillary winning the popular vote by less than 1%.
Donald Trump won the battleground states in a landslide.
Former Cruz campaign pollster Chris Wilson added this.
Where the polls were wrong were in state level versions. You look at specifically Pennsylvania, Ohio, really Midwestern states. They had a high turnout of whites without a college degree and they weren’t just off… They weren’t just off for Trump. They were off 7.4 points on average on states that Trump won and they were still off 3.7 points in states that Clinton won.
The take-away is that their leftist readers will never realize or soon forget how wrong they were and be willing to listen to them again next election.
Those “Fictional” Stealth Trump Voters – They Do Exist!
Turnout models – the bane of the polling industry! Sort of like climate models, lots of supposition and wish-casting, but when placed against reality they fall apart.
The reason the pollsters got it wrong this election cycle is they cannot see outside the frame of the Political Industrial Complex (PIC)*.
Heaven help us if they could every figure that out!
My guess is the true impact of yesterday will take a year or so to sink into the denizens of the PIC. Here is one example why:
Pollsters and election modelers suffered an industry-shattering embarrassment at the hands of Donald Trump on Tuesday night.
Trump had long said the polls were biased against him. His claims – dismissed and mocked by the experts – turned out to be true.
…
White working class voters — the silent majority that Trump said was being underestimated by pollsters — swarmed for him on Election Day, particularly in the Rust Belt states, and helped him beat the polls.
Clinton could not turn out women, or the Obama coalition of minorities and young voters, in the same numbers to keep pace.
Pollster John Zogby believes that many in the industry weighted their polls too heavily in favor of Democrats, pointing to polls that had an 8 to 9 point advantage for the party, when it should have been in the 4 to 5 point range, he said.
It’s a claim that Trump made throughout the process.
But pollsters largely dismissed that notion, saying that Democrats turn out in larger numbers in a presidential election year and that Republicans were losing registered voters, who were increasingly identifying as independents.
That assumption will have to be reexamined.
Captain Obvious on that last sentence. Let’s see how long they need to ponder this one!
The data on what was happening was there for anyone to see. I tracked Florida for weeks and saw the massive uptick in energy across the board – which was not the Clinton Get-Out-The-Vote machine. The wave was clearly visible, the pundits just ignored it.
The problem is the elites refuse to understand the damage their idiotic policies created on Main Street, mainly because they refuse to live on Main Street. The denizens of the PIC live in isolation, only interacting with themselves, unwilling to look beyond their gated communities, their parties, their media events and all their other side shows. They just pat each other on the back and do stints on TV with their pals in the news media.
I feel no sorrow for them. The are wealthy and will remain wealthy. They just need to go find a hobby or something, since running the government for We The People is just not in their wheel house.
* The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.
The Rock
Gray Ghost's Link
That's me dancing. Mostly because you didn't have the kahunas to take my foolish bet. ;-)
I'm wondering if Trump and all his supporters still think the election was "rigged". LOL!
As for the polls, nationwide they were 1.7% off of the margin of error at a state level (see link). Not great, but not that far off, either. Some states obviously missed by more, some less. I think the increase in early voting this go around had a lot to do with the discrepancies in exit poling. New methods will have to be establish to account for this in the future.
Anyway, I fully admit I was fooled. I underestimated the breadth of dissatisfaction in our country, and how effective questionable last ditch campaign ploys can be (read the re-opening of the "email scandal" by the FBI).
Matt
With your own safety in mind: Stop thinking. ;-)
The Rock
Thanks for not disappointing.
Matt
It turns out the two worst national polls of the cycle were IBD/TIPP and USC/LATimes, in four way race they had Trump winning by 2 and 5.
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) November 23, 2016
What is true is that if trump is successful in doing what he said was his goals, he will win people over. If he doesn't try to do what he said he would do, or if he is unsuccessful at it, only a very small percent of support swinging against him will doom his presidency to failure.
32 Times Establishment Media and Pollsters Assured the People of Donald Trump’s Defeat
I really believe that our #neverTrumpist has a great future in polling.
