POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And China is taking whats left of America. GO TPP. Make it easier.

What are you saying here? Go TPP to make China takeover quicker? If that's it, you have no idea what your gut is talking about. China is not part of TPP.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think one thing we can all agree on.. the "Game Change" book about this election will be interesting reading

So true! Just did audiobook of both back to back. Thinking how different this one will be with trumps twitter and clintons Wikileaks's

[tarcone]

Whew. I was hoping they wouldnt be part of it.

Interesting group of countries. Lots of 10 cent a day work places in there.

[SirFozzie]

And in news that Tarcone doesn't believe in, but I give better credit to (sorry, Tarcone, just had to make a quick joke)


Jennifer Jacobs ✔ @JenniferJJacobs
National poll by @Reuters

Clinton leads by 7 points.

Clinton 44
Trump 37
Johnson 6
Stein 2

Oct. 7-13http://reut.rs/2dTI0bM
Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls

Florida
Clinton 48 (+6)
Trump 42

NC
Clinton 46 (+4)
Trump 42

Pennsylvania
Clinton 46 (+4)
Trump 42@JenniferJJacobs
11:18 PM - 15 Oct 2016
166 166 Retweets 178 178 likes

1h
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls

Florida
Clinton 48 (+6)
Trump 42

NC
Clinton 46 (+4)
Trump 42

Pennsylvania
Clinton 46 (+4)
Trump 42@JenniferJJacobs
Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls:
#Iowa:
Clinton 45% (+1)
Trump 44%
#Nevada:
Clinton 41% (+2)
Trump 39%

New Hampshire
Clinton 46% (+4)
Trump 42%
11:21 PM - 15 Oct 2016
103 103 Retweets 91 91 likes

1h
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls:#Iowa:
Clinton 45% (+1)
Trump 44%#Nevada:
Clinton 41% (+2)
Trump 39%

New Hampshire
Clinton 46% (+4)
Trump 42%
Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls:

Wisconsin
Clinton 42 (+5)
Trump 37

Colorado
Clinton 47 (+6)
Trump 41

Michigan
Clinton 44 (+7)
Trump 37
11:25 PM - 15 Oct 2016
74 74 Retweets 71 71 likes

Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Reuters/Ipsos Polls:#Ohio:
Trump 43% (+1)
Clinton 42%#Arizona
Trump 45 (+6)
Clinton 39
#Georgia
Trump 50 (+8)
Clinton 42
11:39 PM - 15 Oct 2016
310 310 Retweets 348 348 likes

Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
Colorado @GravisMarketing/ Breitbart (R) Poll:

Clinton 44 (+5)
Trump 39

A 5 point shift toward Clinton in a weekhttp://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/15/exclusive-breitbartgravis-poll-clinton-opens-lead-over-trump-44-39-in-colorado-gains-5-points-in-a-week/ …
11:44 PM - 15 Oct 2016
Photo published for Exclusive-Breitbart/Gravis Poll: Clinton Opens Lead Over Trump 44-39 in Colorado, Gains 5 Points in...
Exclusive-Breitbart/Gravis Poll: Clinton Opens Lead Over Trump 44-39 in Colorado, Gains 5 Points in...
Exclusive--Breitbart/Gravis Poll: Clinton Opens Lead Over Trump 44-39 in Colorado, Gains 5 Points in a Week
breitbart.com
67 67 Retweets 79 79 likes

Follow
Political Polls @PpollingNumbers
#NEW National ABC/Washington Post Poll:

Clinton 47 (+4)
Trump 43
Johnson 5
Stein 2

[mckerney]

If polling is ignoring "real American's" voices, how about we look at registration and actual voting that's already happened? Surely data there wouldn't be able to ignore the silenced voices of Trump voters.

Early ballots and voter-registration numbers show Democrats surging in Florida

Approximately 311,000 Floridians cast absentee ballots by Friday morning in the nation’s biggest battleground state, and the numbers are increasingly moving in favor of Democrats and their White House nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Compared to the day before and this point four years ago, Democrats are catching up to Republicans in the number of voted absentee ballots — a part of the election that the Florida GOP used to own. But now, Republicans are ahead of Democrats by just 1.9 percentage points (about 42-40 percent), compared with a 3 percent advantage held Thursday by the GOP and a 3.9-point Republican advantage at this point relative to Election Day in 2012, state elections data shows.

At the same time, since the 2012 presidential election, the Florida Democratic Party has blown away the Republican Party of Florida in submitting new voter-registration forms. Democrats have submitted 177,000 and Republicans fewer than 13,000 registration forms collected, according to an analysis of Florida Division of Elections data made by University of Florida political science professor Daniel A. Smith. Smith also determined that the Florida Democratic Party has added about 42,000 more newly registered voters to its rolls than the GOP for the 2016 cycle as of Sept. 1, the most-recent date for which the data are available.

The numbers underscore how much stronger Clinton’s ground game is in Florida and how weak the Republican National Committee’s is on behalf of Donald Trump, longtime Florida political consultants say. If Trump loses Florida, he can’t win the White House. And polls already show that Clinton is starting to move farther ahead of the Republican in Florida.

2016 by the numbers: One month out, is Hillary Clinton headed for a win?

According to returns analyzed by CNN, before the tape of Trump’s lewd remarks about women surfaced last week, more than 450,000 ballots had already been cast in the 2016 presidential race. In nine battleground states - Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Nevada - approximately 190,000 early votes have been cast.

Early voting patterns in some states seem to favor Clinton, according to a New York Times report this week. “Democrats are requesting more absentee ballots in Florida than they were at this point in 2012, with increases of 50 percent in the heavily Hispanic areas around Miami and Orlando,” the report found. “In North Carolina, where Mitt Romney built enough of a lead in early voting four years ago to eke out a victory over President Obama, Democrats are requesting mail-in ballots in larger numbers than in 2012, while Republicans’ participation is declining.”

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, told the New York Times that vote-by-mail requests among Hispanic voters, who have heavily favored Clinton, are up 77 percent compared to last cycle. And according to University of Florida political science professor Daniel Smith, only 16 percent of Latinos who have registered to vote since January 1 have registered as Republicans. In 2012, 28 percent of new Latino registrants identified with the GOP.

Democratic strongholds in Northern Virginia see big increases in early voting

Virginia’s Fairfax and Loudoun counties are seeing some of the largest spikes in early voting in the 2016 presidential election, another positive sign for Democrats who feel Hillary Clinton has a strong advantage over Republican Donald J. Trump in the former swing state.

Statewide, early voting was up more than 22 percent over 2012 with 25 days to go before the presidential election, according to an analysis by the Virginia Public Access Project. The increase was strongest by far in populous Northern Virginia, where Democrats typically run up large margins that Republicans struggle to match in the more conservative, rural parts of Virginia.

In Fairfax, which delivered the most Democratic votes for President Barack Obama in 2012, early voting was up more than 73 percent. In Loudoun, which had the second-most Obama votes in 2012, early voting was up almost 53 percent.

In the two biggest localities that went Republican in 2012 — Chesterfield County and Virginia Beach — early voting increased by about 11 percent and 4 percent, respectively. In Hanover County, another GOP stronghold, early voting increased by about 20 percent.

“The early voting gap between Democratic- and Republican-leaning areas of the state suggests that Republicans might be wise to increase their voter contacts in the next several weeks,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington.

[tarcone]

Here is Nate Silver about Trump:

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump | The Daily Caller

Here is your 538. Showing how they screwed up on Trump in the primaries:

How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump | FiveThirtyEight

And this NY Times article that discusses 3 points Ive been making, well a couple:

Log In - The New York Times

I'll summarize:

■ an unrepresentative sample that doesn’t accurately reflect the population it’s trying to measure.

■ a flawed likely-voter model that misjudges the composition of the electorate.

■ late events or changes in the race after the poll was conducted that moves voters.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by mckerney

If polling is ignoring "real American's" voices, how about we look at registration and actual voting that's already happened? Surely data there wouldn't be able to ignore the silenced voices of Trump voters.

Early ballots and voter-registration numbers show Democrats surging in Florida



2016 by the numbers: One month out, is Hillary Clinton headed for a win?

So likely Clinton voters are voting for Clinton? Earth shattering info. Thanks.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So likely Clinton voters are voting for Clinton? Earth shattering info. Thanks.

Yep, you nailed it.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Here is Nate Silver about Trump:

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump | The Daily Caller

Here is your 538. Showing how they screwed up on Trump in the primaries:

How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump | FiveThirtyEight

And this NY Times article that discusses 3 points Ive been making, well a couple:

Log In - The New York Times

I'll summarize:

■ an unrepresentative sample that doesn’t accurately reflect the population it’s trying to measure.

■ a flawed likely-voter model that misjudges the composition of the electorate.

■ late events or changes in the race after the poll was conducted that moves voters.

Not to restart the war but yes, Nate was wrong.. when he didn't trust the data. As it says, he did what he was going against in previous elections, the "Pundit". He didn't believe that someone with the History of Trump would won so he didn't trust data that told him otherwise.

Believe it or not, his poll is the most OPTIMISTIC of the aggregators about Trump's chances:

The Princeton Election Consortium has Trump's chances of winning 2-5%

Princeton Election Consortium — A first draft of electoral history. Since 2004


The New York Times's Upshot (which replaced 538 when Silver signed with ESPN): Has Trump with an 11% chance

Log In - The New York Times

Nate Silver's Polls-Plus method (which uses polling, economic statistics and past voting patterns) gives Trump an 18.3% chance

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/#plus

[jbergey22]

Where do you feel Trump will get these extra votes from Tarcone?

Any type of minority he has insulted at some point during his campaign. Women right now are completely against him.

I am sorry but the White/Male American vote is not going to win the election for Trump.

[tarcone]

I posted an article showing women are going to vote for Trump.

I think there is an misrepresentation of women who were really insulted by his lockerroom talk. As seen in the article posted. These women will vote for Trump. Quit talking to your liberal female friends. Go into real america and talk to some of those women. You may be shocked.

There is a huge us vs. them mentality out there. And not just in fly over states. I could see a record shattering voter turn out. And if that happens, they wont be voting fro HRC. And they probably were not polled.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I posted an article showing women are going to vote for Trump.

I think there is an misrepresentation of women who were really insulted by his lockerroom talk. As seen in the article posted. These women will vote for Trump. Quit talking to your liberal female friends. Go into real america and talk to some of those women. You may be shocked.

There is a huge us vs. them mentality out there. And not just in fly over states. I could see a record shattering voter turn out. And if that happens, they wont be voting fro HRC. And they probably were not polled.

Im far from liberal. I think Trump is a complete moron that acts like an infant and wouldnt trust him making any decisions when it comes to nuclear weapons. As for "Real America" I am sure I live more in that "Real America" area(whatever that even means) than even you do. I am from a very rural area in Southern Minnesota/Northern Iowa. These so called "liberal" women you talk about basically thought Trump was a complete moron far before the "locker room" comments.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I posted an article showing women are going to vote for Trump.

I think there is an misrepresentation of women who were really insulted by his lockerroom talk. As seen in the article posted. These women will vote for Trump. Quit talking to your liberal female friends. Go into real america and talk to some of those women. You may be shocked.

There is a huge us vs. them mentality out there. And not just in fly over states. I could see a record shattering voter turn out. And if that happens, they wont be voting fro HRC. And they probably were not polled.

Actually, 538 had an item on this, that does say 75% of GOP women say they will still vote for Trump. However, IN general, more women identify as D or I then GOP, so even 1 out of every four women hurts him in an area where he's already down (according to the polls you're disagreeing with)

For Many GOP Women, Party Loyalty Trumps Personal Affront | FiveThirtyEight

I'd post the maps that Silver posted that showed the electoral maps if just women voted or just men voted, but that's been overdone too much..

So I will instead post a different electoral map:

https://twitter.com/alplicable/statu...03706665017345

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Im far from liberal. I think Trump is a complete moron that acts like an infant and wouldnt trust him making any decisions when it comes to nuclear weapons. As for "Real America" I am sure I live more in that "Real America" area than even you do. I am from a very rural area in Southern Minnesota/Northern Iowa. These so called "liberal" women you talk about basically thought Trump was a complete moron far before the "locker room" comments.

I dont know. Im in rural Missouri. And from what I see, there is a lot voting Trump.

And Missouri is much more conservative than Iowa.Lived there. Know that.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Actually, 538 had an item on this, that does say 75% of GOP women say they will still vote for Trump. However, IN general, more women identify as D or I then GOP, so even 1 out of every four women hurts him in an area where he's already down (according to the polls you're disagreeing with)

For Many GOP Women, Party Loyalty Trumps Personal Affront | FiveThirtyEight

I'd post the maps that Silver posted that showed the electoral maps if just women voted or just men voted, but that's been overdone too much..

So I will instead post a different electoral map:

Alp Ozcelik on Twitter: "here's what the electoral map would look like if it were made of cast iron skillets https://t.co/hwZDC2U0JF"

Your posting from sources that have already admitted they missed on Trump. Why are they right now?

[SirFozzie]

just to buttress my point, here's something about the exit polls from 2012:

http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/defaul...ggpresvote.pdf

Barack Obama won the 2012 election, mostly because of women.

He lost men (all ages) 52-44%
He won women (all ages) 55-45.

So if one fourth of GOP women stay home (if the comments have had that much effect, let's even say 1 in 10), he's close to losing 59-41, which is just about impossible for him to make up on the male side.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Your posting from sources that have already admitted they missed on Trump. Why are they right now?

You're not reading what I posted earlier.

He missed on Trump. The data did not! He just didn't trust the data, because it didn't fit his notion. You notice he's a lot more conservative now, and just letting the data speak?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont know. Im in rural Missouri. And from what I see, there is a lot voting Trump.

And Missouri is much more conservative than Iowa.Lived there. Know that.

I don't know what county you lived in, so here's some numbers:

United States presidential election in Missouri, 2012 - Wikipedia

Considering there's some areas around there that went 77% for Romney, I don't doubt that there's a lot of energy for Trump.

I just don't think it's useful to extrapolate that to the nation. That's all.

[tarcone]

And what I posted earlier about polls still stands. I dont trust them in this election.
As you know, this is a different sort of election. And one that will defy the polls.

Maybe Clinton wins by 20 points or maybe loses by 5 points. But having a 6 or 7 point lead, to me, is an even split at this point.

[SirFozzie]

BTW, in food news, the full set of state skillet pans would set you back about 10 large:

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I don't know what county you lived in, so here's some numbers:

United States presidential election in Missouri, 2012 - Wikipedia

Considering there's some areas around there that went 77% for Romney, I don't doubt that there's a lot of energy for Trump.

I just don't think it's useful to extrapolate that to the nation. That's all.

And I dont think your polls should be used to extrapolate that to the nation either.

Im guessing very few polls have hit those counties that were 77% Romney.

I bet they hit those counties that were +50% for Obama. Those are the urban areas. That is what I have been saying all night.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And I dont think your polls should be used to extrapolate that to the nation either.

Im guessing very few polls have hit those counties that were 77% Romney.

I bet they hit those counties that were +50% for Obama. Those are the urban areas. That is what I have been saying all night.

Well. if that's the case, let's look at the numbers

(2012: Romney 53.76%, Obama 44.38 %)

There's not as many polls of Missouri as there is other states, because for Clinton to win Missouri would require such a wave that the election would be a landslide)...

But the polls are pretty much the same as before:

2016 Missouri President: Trump vs. Clinton - Polls - HuffPost Pollster


Poll
Trump
Clinton
Other
Undecided
Spread
Monmouth University
Oct 9 – Oct 11
406 Likely Voters
46 41 8 5 Trump +5
UPI/CVOTER
Oct 2 – Oct 9
378 Likely Voters
51 45 5 Trump +6
Ipsos/Reuters
Sep 16 – Oct 6
871 Likely Voters
49 37 14 Trump +12
UPI/CVOTER
Sep 19 – Oct 2
570 Likely Voters
53 44 4 Trump +9
Ipsos/Reuters
Sep 9 – Sep 29
708 Likely Voters
48 36 16 Trump +12
UPI/CVOTER
Sep 12 – Sep 25
571 Likely Voters
52 44 5 Trump +8
CBS/YouGov
Sep 21 – Sep 23
1,087 Likely Voters
46 37 9 7 Trump +9
Ipsos/Reuters
Sep 2 – Sep 22
660 Likely Voters
51 35 14 Trump +16


So, the story it's saying is that Trump is STILL very likely to win, despite multiple horrific weeks.. which is pretty much what is happening!

One of the things that I think gets lost here is that national polls, it's a lot harder to get right because you're not trying for a representative of Missouri (6 million), it's 318.9 million

[SirFozzie]

anyway, it's 2:10 am here, and I think you and I have butted heads against each other long enough tonight.

At least when we discuss and not throw insults around (And I will say both sides, not just blaming you or me), it can be rather civil

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And I dont think your polls should be used to extrapolate that to the nation either.

Im guessing very few polls have hit those counties that were 77% Romney.

I bet they hit those counties that were +50% for Obama. Those are the urban areas. That is what I have been saying all night.

tarcone, here's the problem. I'm going to try to nutshell this:

you're basing your "Trump is going to surprise people" on your notion of "Real Americans" turning out for him.

You're dismissing the urban centers, saying that the polls are oversampling the population centers and undersampling rural voters.

But here's why that does not matter:



This is what the map looks like if Clinton carries all the Obama states and Trump carries all of the Romney states.

That's a 332-206 EV margin based on current population, okay? That means Trump needs to somehow flip 64 EVs from the Obama column into his own to win the election.

Now, looking at that map, tell me where "Real Americans" are going to change the math. Upstate New York is pretty conservative, and yet the state goes for Democrats essentially every election because New York City alone accounts for ~8.5 million out of New York's total population of 19.75 million. That's nearly half of the state's entire population in a dense urban area which votes overwhelmingly Democratic. So those 29 EVs are off the table despite upstate New York being rural and conservative.

Pennsylvania's got two major urban areas - Pittsburgh and Philly - and a lot of rural land in between. It's also traditionally thought of as a swing state. Okay, let's look there: state population is about 12.2 million. Pittsburgh and its suburbs are about 2.5 million, and metro Philly is about 6 million. So in those two urban centers, 8.5 of the state's 12.2 million, leaving about 3.7 million in the rest of the state. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, cast about 60% of its ballots for Barack Obama, while Philadelphia County, home of Philadelphia, saw an 85/15 split. We know that Republicans CAN carry Pennsylvania in national elections, and do, but they're fighting an uphill battle in the state every 4 years just based on those raw numbers.

Ohio's got 11.35 million people. Greater Cleveland is about 2 million of that, and greater Cincy is another 2 million...but spills over into Kentucky and Indiana, both states which Republicans run away with (and so each additional "Real American" vote in those states is wasted, as far as Trump is concerned). Still, 40% of the population of Ohio is in its two biggest metro areas. It's another state that Republicans can, and do, carry, but the urban/rural split means Democrats have an advantage there.

But let's say Trump wins both of those states. That's +38 EVs to his column, of the 64 he needs. Where else is he going to get a push from "real Americans" to put him over the top? It isn't going to be in most of the Midwest, because Romney already carried those states. If there's a change in most of them, it will be a change that hurts Trump.

Minnesota's not going for Trump. Scratch them off the list.

Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all possible, but Trump has been lagging badly in Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which are states with Republican governors and Legislatures.

Wisconsin, in particular, has the bulk of its population along its southern border, in Dane County (Madison) and Milwaukee County (Milwaukee). The Milwaukee suburbs skew Republican, but the city itself skews Democratic, and Dane County is the liberal bastion of the state. The only other population center of any size is the Fox Valley (Appleton and Green Bay). The rest of the state is incredibly rural, and incredibly depopulated (I believe the entire state is equal to roughly the population of Greater Los Angeles). You can run up the margins in northwest Wisconsin, and it's still not going to amount to a fraction of what Dane County is going to deliver to Hillary Clinton.

I could continue, but I'm not going to. The point is that "real Americans" already demonstrate their strength in the traditionally "red" states of the Midwest and the Mountain West, so it doesn't *matter* if there's a surge in those states. Trump doesn't benefit.

The states where he could see a benefit, the urban voters you dismiss as being "oversampling" can still dwarf any rural turnout Trump sees if the Democratic GOTV effort is doing its shit.

Trump isn't going to win this with a surge of "real American" votes. Rural Americans tend to be older and whiter and there just aren't enough of them to matter.

Where Trump wins this is if there's a suppression of Clinton voters - that could be the "strict voter ID" laws that were supposed to deliver 2012 to Romney tipping the balance this year, instead; that could be some mega bombshell landing on Clinton in the final three weeks while Trump looks super-presidential in the final debate; that could be BOTH campaigns imploding and the urban/minority demographics just stay home in disgust while "real" (white) Americans show up because that's what they do; that could be Marco Rubio's Senate campaign getting enough turnout in Florida coupled with a lack of ticket-splitting to deliver Florida to Trump, and he manages to flip OH and PA also. The reason he's got about a 1-in-6 shot to win this thing, per 538, is because he DOES have a path.

It's just the same path Romney needed - run the table on all the competitive states while holding onto the Republican "firewall" in the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West. Trump can't afford to lose Arizona. He can't afford to lose North Carolina, and he can't afford to lose Georgia. He has to hold onto all three of those from 2012, and he has to flip the Big Three of OH/PA/FL. But you'll notice the three states he needs to flip are all populated states. There are rural areas in each of them, but the rural vote in those states only affect the race if the urban vote is close.

And if these polls that show high single-digit and low double-digit leads for Clinton are "oversampling" urban voters, as you suggest, the implication is that the race isn't all that close in the cities.

Which means "real America" isn't going to carry the day for Trump, say sorry.

[RainMaker]

Each election cycle we get the same people coming out claiming the polls are all wrong. And each election cycle they end up looking like morons. We're a few weeks away from being able to point and laugh at them once again.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Yes, I use liberal as a "weapon". I do so because of the fantasy the liberals live in. What a waste of intelligence. It could be used for actual good. Yet it is used for fantasy. What a waste.

Half the people you are going after aren't even liberals. Although it seems at this point your definition of liberal is someone with a basic understanding of statistics and the ability to pass an 8th grade Civics test.

[AlexB]

Although I think tarcone's reasoning/understanding is flawed, I would say in his defence is that in our two most recent election (Brexit & the GE) the polls WERE wrong.

There were procedural errors in the GE, and because of the pre-election polls no-one believed the exit polls which turned out to be very accurate.

Apparently the procedural errors were corrected for Brexit, but what they didn't take into account was that because of the media narrative about Leave voters and an assumption that Remain would win handy, some respondents didn't admit to their true vote through a sense of slight embarrassment more than anything.

I can see this as an effect if the US narrative is the same as the world narrative (i.e Trump is an unhinged incompetent), and maybe Trump's numbers are slightly under if some people don't want to publicly admit their support.

So it may well be tighter than the polls suggest - whether it's enough to make it close is another thing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Although I think tarcone's reasoning/understanding is flawed, I would say in his defence is that in our two most recent election (Brexit & the GE) the polls WERE wrong.

That happens, but typically if the polls are wrong, either the methodology was fucked, or there was something else going on.

In the case of Brexit, it may have been a combination of the two. The methodology didn't capture what it ought to have, but there were also apparently a fair number of Brits who voted for Brexit figuring it was never going to pass, until, whoops, it did.

So the question is, was there actual support for Brexit not captured in the polls, or were people conveying their support/lack thereof accurately and then fucking themselves over with what they saw as a meaningless protest vote that turned out not to be so meaningless?

There were procedural errors in the GE, and because of the pre-election

Apparently the procedural errors were corrected for Brexit, but what they didn't take into account was that because of the media narrative about Leave voters and an assumption that Remain would win handy, some respondents didn't admit to their true vote through a sense of slight embarrassment more than anything.

And that can happen, but it's a phenomenon that gets cited in every election as a reason why the polls are somehow wrong, and it actually manifests far less frequently than it gets invoked.

I can see this as an effect if the US narrative is the same as the world narrative (i.e Trump is an unhinged incompetent), and maybe Trump's numbers are slightly under if some people don't want to publicly admit their support.

So it may well be tighter than the polls suggest - whether it's enough to make it close is another thing.

And this is the key, yeah. Clinton might not actually be up 14 points. Maybe it's more like 8. But 8 is still enough that Trump gets waxed.

The key here is that the extent to which Clinton's support is accurately conveyed in the polls is the extent to which Democrats have a reasonable shot at flipping the Congress. If Trump's support is understated, that might be why some ostensibly-vulnerable GOP incumbent Senators aren't getting dragged down for their association with him as heavily as one might expect.

If Trump's support is understated, then Clinton's coattails aren't strong enough to put the House in play. It almost certainly isn't in play anyway, but if she wins by 15 points, it's not an outlandish possibility.

[Ben E Lou]

General observation: if you are so thin-skinned that you can't handle being lampooned by SNL without lashing out in a Tweet, you probably don't have the temperament to be President.

But surely no candidate is that thin-skinned, right?????????

Watched Saturday Night Live hit job on me.Time to retire the boring and unfunny show. Alec Baldwin portrayal stinks. Media rigging election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

"There you go again."--Ronald Reagan
"Media rigging election."--Donald Trump

Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Media rigging election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think there is an misrepresentation of women who were really insulted by his lockerroom talk. As seen in the article posted. These women will vote for Trump. Quit talking to your liberal female friends. Go into real america and talk to some of those women. You may be shocked.

I am getting more and more discouraged by what I see on Facebook this election. Sexual assault is not partisan, so the reaction to it shouldn't be either. Either we give the benefit of the doubt to alleged victims, or we embolden sexual predators who know their victims are unlikely to speak up and risk public criticism. That is not a society I want to be part of.

Trump's comments on video are not offensive because they are lewd, and they are not like trashy romance novels (yup, saw that on FB). They are offensive because he bragged of grabbing women without their consent and repeatedly getting away with it because he was rich and famous. I would be sickened by that regardless of his party affiliation. Even if he didn't actually do what he said he did in that video, as he claims, the fact that he chose to brag about assaulting women is totally unacceptable.

Post taken from FB. The opinion of a woman who was a proud elector in 2004 for President Bush. A woman who is now voting for Hillary Clinton.

Will every R woman share this opinion? No. But they exist.

edit: she's from PA though, so I guess she doesn't count as "real."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Interesting group of countries. Lots of 10 cent a day work places in there.

Really? The list is actually pretty impressive.

Can you explain why you think it helps China?
Trump says China gets an advantage from the Trans-Pacific Partnership | PolitiFact

Here’s a quick summary, and you can check out a more detailed guide on Vox:

The TPP involves 12 countries: the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei Darussalam.

The deal is meant to reduce trade barriers between these countries by lowering tariffs on goods, coordinating regulations and more.

The deal could also "provide stronger legal protections to drug companies, lengthen the term of copyright protection, give foreign investors a new way to challenge countries' laws and regulations, and much more," according to Vox.

In June, Congress authorized "fast-track" authority for President Obama, meaning Congress will promptly approve or disapprove the agreement Obama has negotiated -- there will be no amendments or filibusters. A vote is expected in 2016.

The deal was negotiated in secret before being released to the public.

Again, we should make it clear: China was in no way involved in TPP negotiations.

Can China somehow benefit?

We asked experts if there was any way China could possibly take advantage of the TPP. The experts all agreed: The trade deal will most likely negatively impact China.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Im far from liberal. I think Trump is a complete moron that acts like an infant and wouldnt trust him making any decisions when it comes to nuclear weapons. As for "Real America" I am sure I live more in that "Real America" area(whatever that even means) than even you do. I am from a very rural area in Southern Minnesota/Northern Iowa. These so called "liberal" women you talk about basically thought Trump was a complete moron far before the "locker room" comments.

To be fair ... I've spoken to several women and been surprised they lean Trump. There is a fair no. of women willing to accept Trump with all his "quirks", the strong driver is they have been historically GOP supporters and strong anti-HRC.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Although I think tarcone's reasoning/understanding is flawed, I would say in his defence is that in our two most recent election (Brexit & the GE) the polls WERE wrong.

The Brexit polls actually shifted in favor of leaving in the weeks heading up to the vote and only shifted (slightly) back to staying in the days before.

Here's the money quote from the Bloomberg article above:

Where they all agree: It's too close to call, with the still-undecided voters likely to determine whether Britain will leave or remain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I just don't think it's useful to extrapolate that to the nation. That's all.

Until the McCain election, Missouri was one of the best bellweather states in the nation. McCain only won by 4,000 votes, so even that nearly went to the eventual winner. 2012 was a definite miss, but to say that Missouri isn't a good predictor of the national result ignores the results from the last century of presidential elections. Your above statement is the definition of a bellweather state.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

General observation: if you are so thin-skinned that you can't handle being lampooned by SNL without lashing out in a Tweet, you probably don't have the temperament to be President.

But surely no candidate is that thin-skinned, right?????????

I think SNL does a great job with HRC and Trump. Last night lapooning the debate e.g. Trump looming over HRC was funny and I'll be watching the first 10-15 min of SNL for the next several weeks.

I do think that they should leave some kids out of it. I get Donald Jr. and Eric have been vocal in the press etc. so they are fair game but don't think Ivanka and Tiffany fall in that same pool.

(Not sure if its my imagination but it seems that Ivanka has taken a less visible role nowadays)

[bronconick]

She wants to have a business left, since Donald has trashed his current one for the likely shot at a Fox News competitor.

[Noop]

I kind of want Trump to win just to see if liberals will really move to another country. But then again I'm the kind of guy who doesn't mind a little chaos and mayhem.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Until the McCain election, Missouri was one of the best bellweather states in the nation. McCain only won by 4,000 votes, so even that nearly went to the eventual winner. 2012 was a definite miss, but to say that Missouri isn't a good predictor of the national result ignores the results from the last century of presidential elections. Your above statement is the definition of a bellweather state.

In your own example. McCain won Missouri in an election he lost by 7 pts. So Missouri skewed 7 pts to the right in 2008 and 14 pts to the right in 2012. Right now, Nate Silver has Hillary with 86% chance to win the election, but only 21% to win Missouri.

Missouri maybe used to be a bellwether, but certainly not anymore.

[QuikSand]

When did this turn into the #ConsoleWars thread?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

When did this turn into the #ConsoleWars thread?

Originally Posted by tarcone

These women will buy PS4. Quit talking to your Xbox female friends. Go into real america and talk to some of those women. You may be shocked.

There is a huge us vs. them mentality out there.

[mckerney]

The hideous, diabolical truth about Hillary Clinton - The Washington Post

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

The hideous, diabolical truth about Hillary Clinton - The Washington Post

Out of article views there, so what's the truth?

And Matt Drudge hinting big story against Hillary, maybe sex related.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Out of article views there, so what's the truth?

And Matt Drudge hinting big story against Hillary, maybe sex related.

Spring 1969: Hillary Clinton graduates from Wellesley, although first she gets in touch with Alinsky and his mentor, Satan. She fails to mention at the first meeting that she, too, is Satan, and then once they know each other it seems too awkward to bring it up. As a consequence, the Devil mentors Herself for many decades, wasting everyone’s time and effort. She also founds the Islamic State. She will toil for many years in secret on this passion project, keeping it even from Bill, whom she is about to meet. Once, during his presidency, he will ask, “Is there anything I should know about, Hills?” and she will shrug and say, “Nah.” A bit confusingly, she also begins to fight the Islamic State, which she will spend her entire adult life doing.

Fall 1969: At Yale Law School, Hillary meets Bill Clinton, who courts her by staring at her from across the room while their eyes speak the Old, Dead Language of the Darkness Beyond Worlds. She is also a lesbian, who, interestingly, does not let this dissuade her from pursuing numerous heterosexual affairs, for which, although frigid, she has an inexhaustible appetite. It is at this time that she acquires her witch powers (she is also a witch), although her familiar, the cat Socks, will not manifest until the Clinton administration, when she will use him to contact Eleanor Roosevelt.

If you're every out of free articles on a news site you can open the link in an incognito tab or wherever your browser equivalent is

[JPhillips]

What new pedophile pimp is Trump going haul out to say he saw Abedin go down on Hillary?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What new pedophile pimp is Trump going haul out to say he saw Abedin go down on Hillary?

#HillaryGropedMe

#1 or #2 trending topic for like 8 straight hours today.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

If you're every out of free articles on a news site you can open the link in an incognito tab or wherever your browser equivalent is

Thanks, some one told me that, but I forgot already

[cuervo72]

So what, people are basically going to flood social media with made-up allegations to counter any allegations made against Trump? Sigh.

[AlexB]

And completely trivialise sexual assault.

[JPhillips]

This story on McMullin is great, but likely to create a lot of enemies.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ev...NVDtTc.twitter

McMullin explained that he, like other Republicans, has heard for years from Democrats that the GOP is racist. He always rejected that kind of thinking. He rejected it, that is, until the last few years, when he worked in a senior staff position for the GOP in the House of Representatives.

"I spent a lot of time in the Republican Party believing that that was something Democrats and liberals would say, [people] who weren't interested in really understanding who we were," McMullin said. "But I have to say in the time that I spent in the House of Representatives and leadership and in senior roles there, I realized that no, they're actually right. And Donald Trump made it ever more clear that there is a serious problem of racism in the Republican Party. That is the problem. Not conservative ideals. Racism is not conservatism. And that's what I'm talking about. That's the problem."