Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2016, 10:42:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1083
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Morning Consult (end-August): Trump gaining on: Today at 01:30:33 pm
Too bad we probably won't be getting any network pols for two more weeks (alter Labor Day). MC on average has always leaned a bit more Trump.
No, it has not. It has C+0.2 house effect accroding to 538.


This is their first cycle, 538 is just guessing.
Just guessing? Sigh...

I guess they compared it to weighted average. Simplified: for example, ABC pollster has some house effect X. If Morning Consults' Polls are showing similar results, it means that it have approximately the same house effect as ABC.

I know how house effects works.

That's not "guessing," though.  You're acting like that adjustment is less reliable than an adjustment based on lean in past cycle, which I don't believe is the case at all.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump tweets about the death of Dwyane Wade's cousin on: August 27, 2016, 08:44:50 pm
As far as temperament thing goes, you don't build a business to the breadth that he did by being an erratic loon.

Paging Mr. Howard Hughes.
Trump's no recluse.

sigh

You: "I don't think you could build a business if you're erratic and crazy."

Him: "Howard Hughes was erratic and crazy."

You: "But Howard Hughes was a specific kind of erratic and crazy.  Donald Trump isn't that specific kind of erratic and crazy!"

Isn't there some distant, suppressed part of your brain that flickers on a big neon "YOU'RE RATIONALIZING" sign when you do stuff like this?
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth Poll: Clinton +4 in Ohio on: August 26, 2016, 07:54:50 am
Seriously?, I think your post raises good questions, although I tend to defer to competent pollsters on matters like this.  I just have one thing to add:

One would think "voter reg history," would be taken into account in the LV screen.

Not necessarily.  Most likely voter screens entail asking questions about self-reported voting history, self-reported intention to vote, self-reported interest in the election, and sometimes, screening questions that determine if the voter has a plan to vote, e.g., knows when and where to do it.

The thing is, these self-reports are more likely to be accurate if they correspond to past behavior than if they don't.  At the end of the day, a 0/4 voter could express high intention to vote, high interest, and even high voting history ('cause people are big ol' liars).  A 4/4 voter could give the same information.  Which voter would really be likelier to vote?  Obviously the 4/4 voter, not the 0/4 voter.  So it makes sense to weigh down the 0/4 voter's response, just because we know that 0/4 voters who give the same answers as 4/4 voters are still less likely to vote.

Also keep in mind that meeting the LV screen does not mean all respondents score equally highly on it.  If the screen determines one voter has a 99% chance to vote, and another 75%, it makes sense to allow both through the LV screen.  But it also makes sense to weigh down the 75% person's response to reflect the fact that their "predicted vote" for their preferred candidate is 0.75 votes, as opposed to 0.99.

Make sense?
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth Poll: Clinton +4 in Ohio on: August 26, 2016, 07:45:12 am
The thing is Seriously?, 2012 exit polls and actual polls of likely/registered voters showed there to be more Democrats than Republican in Ohio. Why would Monmouth find there to be more Republicans?
They got a crap underlying sample here. That's my point. There was a lot of massaging to make this thing even workable. I am well aware that the exit poll numbers were in the D+7 or so range. They massaged this poll to D+4. The raw sample was R+4.

Did they massage this poll so that it ended up D+4, or did they do other demographic weights that happened to bring the sample to D+4?  There is a huge, huge methodological difference between those two things.  Obviously, neither is desirable, but with polling response rates what they are these days, demographic weighting is probably becoming more and more pronounced in polls.  That may make it more desirable than declining to re-weigh.

Demographic weighting is industry-standard, not undesirable. Even in the days of 25% response rates, (good) pollsters weighted because of differential turnout among RV subsamples, and unequal selection probabilities within households.

To be clear, I didn't mean to indicate weighting is a bad practice -- it's a necessary one.  I just meant polls would be even better if the phenomena that necessitate weighting didn't exist.  It's undesirable that poll respondents are so unrepresentative (and it's getting worse!). While weighting is the best solution to fixing that problem, it would be better if the problem didn't exist.

For instance, we can weigh up the sample of 18-to-24 year old white females, but that assumes that we're getting a representative sample of 18-to-24 year old white females, and whatever causes a low proportion of those to respond isn't also causing an unrepresentative sample of those to respond.  Weighting is the right thing to do in that case, but it can't fix every underlying problem.

edit: A more obvious example - weighting up the Hispanic respondent % will get you a misleading result if you don't give a poll in Spanish, because English-only interviews will result in an unrepresentative sample of Hispanics, and re-weighting on race alone won't fix that.
5  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Which do you prefer, subway or streetcar? on: August 24, 2016, 04:39:25 am

My favorite part of the SLUT is that people actually call it that unironically!  I've been in formal neighborhood meetings where it's used in serious discussion like it was the official name.  I love it.

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

Really?!? Shocked That's absolutely pathetic for a city this size.

Chicago has elevated heavy rail, same purpose really.  Streetcars are cool but have some serious disadvantages that something like the "L" doesn't, namely that they aren't grid-separated, so their reliability is affected by traffic patterns (and occasionally they maim bicyclists and stuff).  Seattle currently has a fairly terrible streetcar line with low ridership and that can sometimes be outpaced with a brisk walk.  I have a soft spot for them but they're usually not the best people-movers.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is it just me, or FiveThirtyEight changing? on: August 24, 2016, 12:13:28 am
I follow it pretty closely, because I do appreciate the basic methodological things they're doing, and they're still worth doing.  They do spend quite a lot of time and work on things like adjusting polls for age, house effect, trends, etc., which I appreciate, because it's a lot better than eyeballing the latest batch of polls. 

I do take their more editorial analysis with a grain of salt, and unfortunately it seems like they often write to their hopes and/or audience.  Their analysis of social issues is often especially guilty of this.  It's sometimes basically advocacy journalism with a lot of numbers, which has a place, but it's not why I've liked the site in the past.  I do actually think that their analysis of the General Election gets to much crap -- they overestimated the application of history to this year's primary, but the General Election probably is a lot more predictable.  Still, more of a grain of salt there than in the past, too.

I do think it's funny that Harry Enten once said he doesn't vote, because he's worried it will cause him to get too emotionally attached to given outcomes, and yet he's clearly very, very emotionally attached to an outcome anyway.  Smart guy, funny, still often enjoy his stuff, but that's pretty damn absurd.

I think that has more to do with getting sick/burnt out  of politics, which, given his profession, isn't an option

Maybe, but his explicit explanation was the one I gave (superfluous comma was confusing).  He says that he's voted in some local elections, but plans to avoid the presidential for this reason.  It's a little odd, since he's very open about being extremely disturbed by the idea of Trump winning.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is it just me, or FiveThirtyEight changing? on: August 23, 2016, 05:04:23 am
I follow it pretty closely, because I do appreciate the basic methodological things they're doing, and they're still worth doing.  They do spend quite a lot of time and work on things like adjusting polls for age, house effect, trends, etc., which I appreciate, because it's a lot better than eyeballing the latest batch of polls.  

I do take their more editorial analysis with a grain of salt, and unfortunately it seems like they often write to their hopes and/or audience.  Their analysis of social issues is often especially guilty of this.  It's sometimes basically advocacy journalism with a lot of numbers, which has a place, but it's not why I've liked the site in the past.  I do actually think that their analysis of the General Election gets too much crap -- they overestimated the application of history to this year's primary, but the General Election probably is a lot more predictable.  Still, more of a grain of salt there than in the past, too.

I do think it's funny that Harry Enten once said he doesn't vote, because he's worried it will cause him to get too emotionally attached to given outcomes, and yet he's clearly very, very emotionally attached to an outcome anyway.  Smart guy, funny, still often enjoy his stuff, but that's pretty damn absurd.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: Joe and Mika have been dating for years on: August 23, 2016, 03:04:08 am
Trump understands that Democrats and Mika's boyfriend answer with Alinsky-style ridicule.

is this some kind of refrigerator magnet set you recently bought
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 01:25:48 am
Even if he beats seals as a hobby, I think it's more productive to address his argument on merit than to derail threads into personal attack exchanges.  Hell, even if you personally attack him, there's nothing stopping you from also addressing his argument.

I can care less if he wants to beat seals.
Beating seals wont affect how this nation and our world will run for the next four years.
If only people in Germany "spoke up" with more disgust and anger, maybe just maybe, there would not have been 60 million people who were suddenly vaporized of life in WWII.
This orange-haired clown is a dangerous possibility .... don't discount it.


I don't think that 1940s Germany was lacking for people accusing others of being "inhuman" and "disgusting filth" but k
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth Poll: Clinton +4 in Ohio on: August 23, 2016, 01:21:44 am
The thing is Seriously?, 2012 exit polls and actual polls of likely/registered voters showed there to be more Democrats than Republican in Ohio. Why would Monmouth find there to be more Republicans?
They got a crap underlying sample here. That's my point. There was a lot of massaging to make this thing even workable. I am well aware that the exit poll numbers were in the D+7 or so range. They massaged this poll to D+4. The raw sample was R+4.

Did they massage this poll so that it ended up D+4, or did they do other demographic weights that happened to bring the sample to D+4?  There is a huge, huge methodological difference between those two things.  Obviously, neither is desirable, but with polling response rates what they are these days, demographic weighting is probably becoming more and more pronounced in polls.  That may make it more desirable than declining to re-weigh.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 01:02:42 am
he last two posts were directed towards that the I-CA avatar who spews white noise, not you, so please don't take those attacks personally, they were not intended to be directed at you.

OK, fair enough, thanks.

As to your arguments, you are making a false image of the average Trump supporter to fit this narrative that Trump's talk is dangerous. The average Trump supporter isn't the neo-Nazi biker. The average Trump supporter is a middle class white American who has no desire to turn their anger on anyone in any way other than at the ballot box.

If Trump supporters show up at the polls to watch, you'll see nothing more than a crowd of 48 year old white housewives with Make America Great Again signs and tacky red white and blue clothing apparel. These aren't Golden Dawn activists were talking about here.

Whoa, what?  When did I say otherwise?  When did I say I was concerned about the "average Trump" voter doing this vigilante poll-watcher thing, let alone say that even the paranoid types would be "neo-Nazi bikers" (?!).  That wasn't part of any point I'm making...

edit: Maybe you're taking my description of the poll watchers as being disproportionately "some of [the Trump base's] most paranoid, inappropriate people" to an extreme?  No, by "inappropriate and paranoid," I didn't mean Nazi bikers...I just meant inappropriate and paranoid, and possible impediments to the poll workers doing their jobs.  If I was talking about "Nazi bikers," why would I have said it's "almost certainly not" going to be a "serious source of systematic intimidation"?

***

I'm not sure calling someone stupid and making a "mommy" joke really makes them feel "put in their place" in any meaningful way.

Maybe this is me, but stuff like calling him "inhuman" and "disgusting filth" seems pretty ineffective to me too...it mostly makes me think of people taking up pitchforks to ritually murder people for moral impurity, or whatever.

If you are think "that" (taking up pitchforks, etc) ... then you are thinking "strangely."
I think "its just you."
No one is saying this .... at least I'm not.

Sigh.  I didn't say you were saying that.  I said that I think that tone is ineffective because it invokes the idea of visceral anger/disgust, which I think makes someone seem like they're not operating totally rationally.  I said your tone invokes that idea, not that you are operating out of uncontrolled anger/disgust, let alone that you literally want to ritually murder people.

PS: You don't know this elitist R-avatar from Florida very well. He has come on here drunk, and said some very strange things. A number of people commented and witnessed this. He sent me various personal internal Atlas messages on that night, and acted like an idiot.
He even manipulated and created quotes of things I supposedly said, and posted them on this forum. So he created comments out of thin air, put my name on them, and posted them.
This is an obvious abuse of our forum, and someone who can not be trusted.
I have a right to be pissed at him, and to treat him like the dirt he is.
Don't defend him.

Even if he beats seals as a hobby, I think it's more productive to address his argument on merit than to derail threads into personal attack exchanges.  Hell, even if you personally attack him, there's nothing stopping you from also addressing his argument.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 12:38:36 am
OK.
But anyone supporting this type of activity proposed by trump, needs to be put in their place.
This is an obvious call to discourage, intimidate and scare people from voting .... yes voting ! Can you believe that !
A right every citizen has. The poll workers and the people who supervise the ballots, will handle any "issues" that might be "questionable". We don't need mobs forming at polling places .... especially "ordinary" trump folk, who will have near zero idea what to even say or do in such a situation. They probably don't even know what the square root of 9 is.
I have no .... none ..... zero tolerance for this "dog whistle" call by the orange-haired clown.

Everyday I think that trump cant possibly be less human, but yet to my surprise, it keep happening !
Disgusting filth.

I'm not sure calling someone stupid and making a "mommy" joke really makes them feel "put in their place" in any meaningful way.

Maybe this is me, but stuff like calling him "inhuman" and "disgusting filth" seems pretty ineffective to me too...it mostly makes me think of people taking up pitchforks to ritually murder people for moral impurity, or whatever.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 12:31:55 am
You guys are aware that precincts require people to stand like a couple hundred feet away, right? Even if a hundred Trump supporters show up with signs, they'll be so far away from the doors that no reasonable person would be intimidated. And if they went over the line (usually marked with traffic cones), a police officer will be on hand to keep them back.

I'm not sure why you are assuming these will be people with signs.  Every state I know of has prohibitions on electioneering activity within a given range of a polling place, but I don't know of any prohibitions that extend to "observing," which is what Trump is asking for.  If people show up in polling places and claim they have the right to stay and watch, I'm not sure most states even have statutes to deal with that.

And, yes, I've worked the polls too.  I've even had someone show up and claim they can observe.  Fortunately it was a low-turnout primary because dealing with him, looking up the state statute, and figuring out how to get rid of him when he demanded to check voter signatures was a serious distraction.  This is what I think Trump is basically explicitly encouraging people to do.

Do I think this will be a serious source of systematic intimidation?  Almost certainly not, and I doubt many people will do it.  Do I think this is a mind-numbingly stupid thing for a Presidential candidate to say?  Yes.  And, more to the point, I don't think Trump cares, and it's another manifestation of personality traits that make it baffling to me that you are remotely satisfied that he's your nominee.

Of course, the hysterical Clinton-klan and their conspiracy theories cannot be met with any form of logical or civil debate, but whatever, keep on making up stories if it makes you guys feel safe.

Are you addressing me with this?  I hope not.  Look at my recent history.  I just spent several posts arguing against people downplaying the email issue for Clinton.

Again, I am far more worried that the BLM movement might pull their usual tactics of blocking critical places. They shut down a bridge in San Francisco on rush hour, they blocked Department Stores on black Friday and shoved shoppers who tried to enter anyway, and they frequently enter crowded cafes and stores to make their points. While I am on the whole supportive of the movement, lets be real here about who is more likely (if at all) to go out and cause trouble on election day.

...

Of course, Atlas Democrats, 90% of whom are one year newbie trolls, will keep making these stupid threads and I think it is correct to note that if anyone is inclined to act violently at the polls, it is the BLM movement. As I mentioned, I am supportive of Black Lives Matter and I think their voice should be taken more seriously by Trump, and I don't think that BLM will cause any disruption on election day. But given their history, or worse, the history of the young white male Bernie supporters (remember Nevada?), I think if anyone is going to be facing intimidation at the polls, it will be Trump supporters.

I think your observation that the left has been more likely than the right to engage in this behavior recently is true.  But, dude, you literally just responded to a post entirely written to complain you weren't addressing my argument (after your "have you not followed this election at all?" condescension) by ignoring my argument again.

I think the tendency to inhibit democratic participation is often a function of which group is most convinced that democracy is illegitimate.  The Sanders supporters and BLM people definitely fit that bill.  However, it's not like Trump supporters don't have those tendencies too, and we now see Trump actively trying to plant the seeds of distrust in the legitimacy of democracy.  If there's anything that's going to make his supporters higher-risk than the Sanders and BLM people, it's Trump saying stuff like this.

And, regardless of the ultimate effect, let me reiterate my main point again: this is a stupid, irresponsible thing for Trump to be saying and he does not care.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 12:14:17 am
Poll watching is a thing. It happens with every campaign. I spent five hours at the polls in 2012 before heading to the election night party.

I would never send untrained vigilante "poll watchers" to a polling place like Trump is suggested.  Any campaign that does that is going to end up with some of their most paranoid, inappropriate people showing up.  There are official programs for poll watchers for a reason.

It is far, far more likely that BLM protesters start showing up on election day and forming a human chain around polling stations in suburban white precincts. Have you not followed this election at all? Have you seen who is committing most of the political violence?
Hint, hint: young rich white kids backing Bernie.

Now, you are just being stupid and trollish. Typical for you.

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think it's a bad idea to respond with ad hominems instead of simple counterarguments, no matter how unreasonable you think he's being. 

It's part of why Presidential years here suck.  Person A thinks Person B is being unreasonable, so they just attack Person B instead of responding.  Person B (or an ally) gets mad and feels unjustly treated, so he feels justified in attacking Person A.  Then it becomes a downward spiral of people feeling entitled to be hostile instead of engaging on substance.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 23, 2016, 12:05:02 am
Poll watching is a thing. It happens with every campaign. I spent five hours at the polls in 2012 before heading to the election night party.

I would never send untrained vigilante "poll watchers" to a polling place like Trump is suggested.  Any campaign that does that is going to end up with some of their most paranoid, inappropriate people showing up.  There are official programs for poll watchers for a reason.
It is far, far more likely that BLM protesters start showing up on election day and forming a human chain around polling stations in suburban white precincts. Have you not followed this election at all? Have you seen who is committing most of the political violence?

Hint, hint: young rich white kids backing Bernie.

In a vacuum, I probably agree -- although your example might be a little hyperbolic, since I think BLM's tolerance for negative attention probably stops before interfering with people voting.  But you seem to be presuming I'm arguing that the right is more politically violent than the left.  I didn't say anything like that.  In fact, I agree that the left seems to feel more moral license to do stuff like that right now.  What I am arguing is that Trump is saying stuff that is irresponsible, self-centered, and stupid.  

If you're counter-arguing that I'm wrong to focus on what Trump is saying and not what BLM might do...Trump is the Republican nominee and you are voting for him for President of the United States, so frankly I care about his terrible judgment a lot more than I do BLM activists'.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to supporters: 'go out and watch' on election day on: August 22, 2016, 11:52:22 pm
Poll watching is a thing. It happens with every campaign. I spent five hours at the polls in 2012 before heading to the election night party.

I would never send untrained vigilante "poll watchers" to a polling place like Trump is suggested.  Any campaign that does that is going to end up with some of their most paranoid, inappropriate people showing up.  There are official programs for poll watchers for a reason.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose on: August 22, 2016, 06:07:28 pm
So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

LOL, trust me, nobody needed to be "reminded" of the emails. The media has ensured you can't escape hearing about them daily in some form or fashion, unless you live under a rock.

Actually, yes, most people don't consume politics so regularly that something like Clinton's emails are always on the top of their mind, even when thinking about the election.  There's research that shows invoking known, negative traits about someone -- even in a vague or unsubstantiated way -- reframes how people think about them and tends to result in more negative perceptions.  Why do you think political advertising works the way it does?

Well, if we're referring to people who inconsistently consume media, then there's no guarantee they'll be paying any attention to this story either. So my point stands.

No, it doesn't.  I disputed your apparent claim that this won't influence any votes because people are nearly universally aware of Clinton's email scandal.  I disputed it by pointing out that negative coverage can still influence sentiments and feelings even if it doesn't really move substantive views.  Your response is basically "well, if people watch news infrequently, they might miss this."  True, but so what?  I didn't argue that every single swing voter was going to see and be influenced by this coverage.  I disputed your claim that none would be.

Either your point was something besides what you plainly wrote, or it does not stand.
18  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: August 22, 2016, 05:18:55 pm
That McCarthy/Sprung division in King County is kind of awesome.  I haven't seen something quite like that before.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose on: August 22, 2016, 05:14:30 pm
So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

LOL, trust me, nobody needed to be "reminded" of the emails. The media has ensured you can't escape hearing about them daily in some form or fashion, unless you live under a rock.

Actually, yes, most people don't consume politics so regularly that something like Clinton's emails are always on the top of their mind, even when thinking about the election.  There's research that shows invoking known, negative traits about someone -- even in a vague or unsubstantiated way -- reframes how people think about them and tends to result in more negative perceptions.  Why do you think political advertising works the way it does?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose on: August 22, 2016, 05:07:58 pm
So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Colin Powell not taking hillary's statements lightly- ups his attack on: August 22, 2016, 10:26:05 am
why is Colin Powell's previous wrongness relevant here, unless you're accusing him of lying in this case, or unless anyone who has lied and/or been wrong is permanently disqualified from saying that others are lying or being wrong?
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA: CEPEX: Junk poll has Trump +5 on: August 21, 2016, 08:03:41 pm
Soooo...it's fake?
Fake? Probably not. Poorly implemented to be useless? Yes. This is a Canadian company for starters. Poling the U.S. election.

Of all the reasons to reject this poll, why this one?
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: UPDATED: County maps w/ Margins on: August 21, 2016, 05:13:00 pm
The edited Washington map is definitely better, but I agree that Clark is off.  It's not particularly upscale or educated as suburbs go, but there's been a lot of signs this year that the Republicans are having a tough time there anyway.  Clinton would almost certainly when Clark before Skamania.  I'd even argue that Trump might have a better shot at Cowlitz, a GOP-trending county with an economy on life support, than Clark.

I mostly agree with evergreenarbor's map, although I wouldn't be shocked if Skamania and Wahkiakum stay narrowly Republican but Spokane flips.  Although both of those counties are weird cases -- they're somewhat working-class and populist, but not particularly uneducated or downtrodden.  They were good for Trump in the primary, though, and seem like areas where Trump's persona might play even if his issues aren't huge.

Whitman County is incredibly polarized, and weak turnout in Pullman (Washington State University) could push it Trump.  Clinton and especially Trump are both obviously weak candidates for Pullman, but I actually think they're also fairly weak candidates for the rest of Whitman County.  A high third-party vote here would make a lot of sense.  But based on Trump's fairly humiliating primary performance in Pullman (even with almost no students voting), I do give the edge to Clinton.

I can't imagine Trump winning Pierce in a landslide.  Pierce is working-class and less-educated by Puget Sound standards, but not really by national standards.  Growth trends do lean R in Pierce, but there's not been dramatic growth since 2012.  And Tacoma's economy is a bit laggy, but more diversified then the areas (like Kelso-Longview, Shelton, and Grays Harbor) where I'd buy a double-digit R swing.

For fun -- and I don't think this is the likeliest map -- I ran a model based on the May Presidential primary, with some adjustments based on historical differences between primaries and generals, and got this (with Clinton 54-38 overall):



Not a huge county change, but part of that is because the model expects a lot of Trump's bleeding to be in King County.

I don't think that Trump would win Pierce in a landslide, but it's possible that a different Republican could in a 1984-style landslide (whereas there's no way that King is voting Republican even in that sort of landslide).

That model makes a pretty plausible map, actually (although I don't think Clinton will fall below 50% in Mason).

Oh, duh, sorry for misunderstanding you.  I thought you were saying there's some chance Trump would win Pierce by a landslide...my bad reading comprehension there.  I also think I agree on Mason...it's been weirdly Republican in both primaries this year (Inslee's numbers were awful there) but I'm not convinced that'll hold to the General.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: UPDATED: County maps w/ Margins on: August 21, 2016, 07:41:08 am
The edited Washington map is definitely better, but I agree that Clark is off.  It's not particularly upscale or educated as suburbs go, but there's been a lot of signs this year that the Republicans are having a tough time there anyway.  Clinton would almost certainly when Clark before Skamania.  I'd even argue that Trump might have a better shot at Cowlitz, a GOP-trending county with an economy on life support, than Clark.

I mostly agree with evergreenarbor's map, although I wouldn't be shocked if Skamania and Wahkiakum stay narrowly Republican but Spokane flips.  Although both of those counties are weird cases -- they're somewhat working-class and populist, but not particularly uneducated or downtrodden.  They were good for Trump in the primary, though, and seem like areas where Trump's persona might play even if his issues aren't huge.

Whitman County is incredibly polarized, and weak turnout in Pullman (Washington State University) could push it Trump.  Clinton and especially Trump are both obviously weak candidates for Pullman, but I actually think they're also fairly weak candidates for the rest of Whitman County.  A high third-party vote here would make a lot of sense.  But based on Trump's fairly humiliating primary performance in Pullman (even with almost no students voting), I do give the edge to Clinton.

I can't imagine Trump winning Pierce in a landslide.  Pierce is working-class and less-educated by Puget Sound standards, but not really by national standards.  Growth trends do lean R in Pierce, but there's not been dramatic growth since 2012.  And Tacoma's economy is a bit laggy, but more diversified then the areas (like Kelso-Longview, Shelton, and Grays Harbor) where I'd buy a double-digit R swing.

For fun -- and I don't think this is the likeliest map -- I ran a model based on the May Presidential primary, with some adjustments based on historical differences between primaries and generals, and got this (with Clinton 54-38 overall):



Not a huge county change, but part of that is because the model expects a lot of Trump's bleeding to be in King County.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Pinal, AZ - 2004: 65K ballots, 2008: 106K ballots... why and how? on: August 21, 2016, 04:23:49 am
Maricopa, Arizona went from a tiny town to a major suburb of over 40,000 in that decade alone.  Pinal's growth comes from commuter suburbs where you can buy an enormous 3,000sqft "starter" home for well under $250k (at least nowadays -- the market there is still weak) and then have a 30-40 minute commute each way (if there's no traffic) to a job in Maricopa County.  There is apparently a lot of demand for that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1083


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines