Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 27, 2016, 08:53:46 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1152
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 04:56:28 pm
From skimming that Vox article:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/27/13074594/trump-clinton-debate-ratings-historic-disappointing

it sounds like they also forgot that some of the debate viewers were kids.  81 million people might have watched, but you have to subtract away those who are under 18 if you want to then divide by the number of adults to get the percentage of adults who watched.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 04:53:43 pm
Just wanted to post this - Vox made a graphic showing the percentage of the voting-age population that tuned in, going back to 1976:




My takeaway from this graph is that the internet taking off in 1995 killed debate ratings, since people suddenly had alternative entertainment options beyond just watching TV.  Tongue
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #NeverTrump GOP endorsements LATEST: down to 9 GOP Senators who haven't endorsed on: Today at 04:33:12 pm
Both Cruz and Fiorina have said in recent days that they'll vote for Trump.  Of course, neither of them ever ruled it out in the past, they were simply noncommittal.  So they weren't listed in the list in the OP, which remains unchanged.  I think with regard to Trump's primary opponents who have not yet said they'll support him, we're down to:

Bush
Graham
Kasich
Pataki

And for US Senators, the ones who are left who have not said that they'll support Trump are:

Collins
Flake
Graham
Heller
Kirk
Lee
Murkowski
Sasse
Toomey

Some of those folks are #NeverTrump, as they've ruled out supporting him.  Others have left open the possibility of backing him, but haven't indicated their support as of yet.  Will any more decide to endorse him between now and November?
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 02:45:42 pm
Are you accounting for the fact that it's not just the US population that includes people under 18, but some of the debate watchers are also under 18?

Oh, that's a good point. Wouldn't that be more of the youtube views and such? Each one of those 80 million from TV/etc would be a household, right? So that would be fair to assume there is at least 1 adult watching. Well I'm sure there were lots of households with just under-age people watching, but how many I do wonder.

No, the 80 million is supposed to be people, not households.  I've never been in a Nielsen household (though I know people who have), but my understanding is that you're supposed to record how many people in your family are watching each program.  So if it's a family of four, and they're all watching, then that's four people.  Whether people are diligent about recording such things, I don't know.  (And if they're not, do they systematically underreport or overreport the people watching?)

In any case, while a debate audience would certainly skew old, I'm sure there were plenty of households where parents + kids would watch together.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 02:32:00 pm
Of course, the US's population is a lot higher today than it was in 1980, so 80 million might not be as impressive as it once was.

Right - The US adult population as of 2013 is 242,470,820, so 35% of that is something like 84.8 million, and I think it would be fair to say that when all viewers are taken into account, even the ones we do not have statistics for yet, the total viewers might be even higher than that.

So at least 35% of the adult population seems to me like a reasonable estimate right now. That's not really a record in terms of share of adult population. It seems, at first glance, maybe slightly above average, give or take. In terms of raw number of viewers, the final numbers are likely to be historic.

In 1980, I added up the number of people ages 15+ (I couldn't find an easy 18+ statistic for 1980), which was 175,255,466, and 80.6 million of that is roughly 46%, so, % of adult population:

2016: 35% (my rough est.)
1980: 44 - 46%*

* 1980 viewer % includes ages 15, 16 and 17 due to statistic groups available

Are you accounting for the fact that it's not just the US population that includes people under 18, but some of the debate watchers are also under 18?
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 12:35:54 pm

So, sounds like they're saying total TV viewership was ~81 million, the same as the 1980 Reagan-Carter debate.  But since there were also some people who watched it online, total viewership would be higher than the 1980 debate.

Of course, the US's population is a lot higher today than it was in 1980, so 80 million might not be as impressive as it once was.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 11:03:40 am
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/president_debate_ratings_how_m.html

Quote
Early Nielsen numbers show the debate is on track to be one of the biggest TV events of the year. According to Hollywood Reporter, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox brought in a total 31.2 rating among households. In comparison, the 2016 Super Bowl had a 49 rating for CBS, attracting more than 100 million viewers.

Based on those early numbers, the first in a series of three presidential debates brought in about 70-80 million viewers. With cable and online streaming factored in – and those numbers will be coming in throughout the day – the Clinton/Trump showdown will have attracted the largest viewing audience of any political debate in history.

Monday's event's closest challenger was the first debate in the 1980 presidential election which pitted Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan, which pulled in 80 million viewers at a time when cable offerings were more limited and internet viewing wasn't possible.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / 1st debate TV ratings on: Today at 11:02:07 am
Early #s show the viewership on the broadcast networks (ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox) up 23% from the first Obama-Romney debate in '12:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-clinton-trump-debate-932785
9  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas forum leaderboard on: Today at 10:10:23 am
Yesterday was the most active day on the forum since July 25th (the first day of the DNC).  Still nowhere near the highs of primary season, when people were talking about actual election results.  I guess we won't match those until election day (assuming the server doesn't crash).
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac Clinton+1 (4 way and 2 way) on: September 26, 2016, 05:28:58 pm
Dems
Clinton 90%
Trump 6%
Johnson 2%
Stein 1%

GOP
Trump 86%
Clinton 5%
Johnson 5%
Stein 0%

Indies
Trump 42%
Clinton 35%
Johnson 15%
Stein 5%

These cross-tabs are just making no sense. It really does seem that a turnout crash (not drop but crash) is being anticipated.

The gender gap is ridiculously small, but what other aspect of the crosstabs make no sesnse?

The conclusions. Non-college whites would have to make up a much larger part of the electorate than 2012 to make any sense

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but I don't see education levels listed in the crosstabs.  How do you figure college vs. non-college from this poll?
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 04:10:49 pm
Of course, census data shows different results (see e.g. this US Census report on the 2000 election), though I'm more inclined to believe exit polling (where you know you got voters) rather than retrospective polling where people may say they voted when they did not.  That isn't to say exit polling doesn't have its own issues, however.

With exit polls, you know you've got voters, but do you know that people are telling the truth about their education levels?  Isn't it pretty widely assumed that there's some lying going on when people are asked about their educational attainment in polls, inflating the number of those with college degrees above what we realistically think it must be?  I don't suppose there's any reason why people might be lying about their educational level less now than they were a few years ago?  Maybe Trump's made it cool to be "uneducated"?  Tongue
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 03:18:02 pm
This last point seems, to me, to go against pretty much everything we know about elections.  Of course, 2016 is a weird year with weird candidates.  It's possible that this is indeed the case, and presumably that is what Likely Voter screens are showing.  But I've got a pretty large Bayesian prior against that, and personally I'm more willing to believe that the Likely Voter screens are wrong than that the bolded point above is true.

OK, but that goes back to my earlier question: Why are they wrong?  What are the LV screens selecting on that makes them pick up more uneducateds this time?

And also, going back to my last post, aren't there some poll releases that actually tell you what % of the electorate they have for college-educated whites, non-college-educated whites, etc.?  Can we look at them to see what they're showing, and if the fraction of the electorate for each group is indeed ridiculous?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 03:13:05 pm
I think the original question being asked was where Trump is making up ground in the polls relative to what we'd expect from demographics. Is white turnout being driven up like crazy relative to non-white turnout? Is college white turnout depressed? Is male turnout up relative to female turnout? Demographics may not be destiny, but some explanation is in order when the demographics from last time, combined with what the polling tells us of the demographics now, give us such a starkly different result from the polls.

Well, there are two different sets of parameters, right?  1) What %age of the vote does each demographic make up?  and 2) Within that demographic group, what %age of them are voting for Clinton, Trump, or someone else?

If a pollster tells you in their poll release what %age they have for whites, blacks, etc., and they tell you how each of those demos is voting, then you can use that info to figure out what demos are most out of whack with your a priori expectations, no?  Or am I missing something?
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 02:14:31 pm
Well for example if we take the Bloomberg poll, they don't even provide demographic breakdowns at all. Monmouth gives me that, but not raw numbers to calculate turnout and so on. A few polls give what they assume the makeup of the electorate is, but not differential turnout. Indeed some of them appear to be doing exactly what they did in 2012 with respect to weighting.

If they give you what % of the electorate is white, black, young, old etc. in their poll release, then can't you work out the *relative* turnout of those groups from that?  Not an absolute number, but just relative turnout of the groups compared to each other, using the 2012 exit poll to compare to.

Or is the whole idea that we want absolute turnout more than relative turnout?  I've lost the thread as to what the original question being asked was.  Tongue
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 02:05:00 pm
Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?


I don't think it's about LV screens being a problem this time. It's about LV screens being a problem. The polling in 2012 was off, especially for the Romney campaign. Gallup and others looked at the problem and concluded that LV screens were overreliant on behavior from 2008 that didn't apply to 2012.

HuffPo has all the LV national polls leading up to election day in 2012, and it has an Obama lead of 1.5%:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama

Obama won by, what?  3.9%?  So that's a 2.4% "error" in the margin between the two candidates.  Nothing too unusual, if memory serves.  I thought the whole premise of this thread is that people are questioning whether the LV screens might be off by a lot more than 2.4% this time?  In the first page of the discussion, there's talk about how Clinton's lead "should be" in the double digits if the demographics are what they're expecting, when it's actually about 1 or 2% at the moment.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 01:03:21 pm
Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.

Even without turnout rates don't a lot of pollsters publish crosstabs with nr of respondents included? I'm guessing that would allow backing out what they think the shares of the electorate are.

Are you after the raw number of respondents in each demographic group or the %age of the electorate that they are assumed to make up (after weighting)?  I would think the latter would be the more relevant number, and I'm pretty sure that PPP for example always includes those percentages, for example.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 26, 2016, 12:44:41 pm
Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Hofstra University POTUS debate at 9pm ET **live commentary thread** on: September 26, 2016, 10:45:50 am
First presidential debate is tonight at 9pm ET.  Venue is Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY, with Lester Holt moderating.  More details here:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/297490-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-first-presidential-debate

Post your live commentary in this thread.


19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac Clinton+1 (4 way and 2 way) on: September 26, 2016, 08:52:30 am
Dems
Clinton 90%
Trump 6%
Johnson 2%
Stein 1%

GOP
Trump 86%
Clinton 5%
Johnson 5%
Stein 0%

Indies
Trump 42%
Clinton 35%
Johnson 15%
Stein 5%

These cross-tabs are just making no sense. It really does seem that a turnout crash (not drop but crash) is being anticipated.

The gender gap is ridiculously small, but what other aspect of the crosstabs make no sesnse?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac Clinton+1 (4 way and 2 way) on: September 26, 2016, 08:28:16 am
Dems
Clinton 90%
Trump 6%
Johnson 2%
Stein 1%

GOP
Trump 86%
Clinton 5%
Johnson 5%
Stein 0%

Indies
Trump 42%
Clinton 35%
Johnson 15%
Stein 5%
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Trump meets with Netanyahu "for nearly 90 minutes" on: September 25, 2016, 04:32:02 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/netanyahu-trump-clinton-meetings/

Quote
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a close adviser to his presidential campaign, and Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to the United States, were also on hand for the meeting, which comes the day before the first presidential debate, according to Israeli news outlet Haaretz.

Per a readout provided by Trump's campaign, the two discussed "military assistance, security and regional stability."

And -- in a nod to Trump's calls to build a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico -- Trump's campaign said the two "discussed at length Israel's successful experience with a security fence that helped secure its borders."

Netanyahu is expected to meet Hillary Clinton later Sunday.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: September 25, 2016, 04:26:14 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/jeb-bush-donors-rematch-2020-article-1.2803848

Quote
Sources close to Jeb Bush’s failed run at the 2016 presidency say the “low-energy” candidate has been back in touch with supporters. They believe he’s popping up to “feel them out” for another run and, according to at least one big contributor, they're in!

“Bush has been quietly making telephone calls to his supporters, bundlers and donors, to talk about the state of the county and the economy, and the energy business, why would he do that?” asks one insider, who concludes “he's running in four years.”
.
.
.
But according to our insiders — who told us Bush would run more than six months before he announced his candidacy in June 2015 — Jeb is poised to make one more grab for the gold ring.

“These are not volunteers, these are not robo-calls, this is Jeb personally making these calls,” we're told.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: National: Morning Consult - Trump +1 (4-way), Clinton +2 (2-way) on: September 25, 2016, 12:52:57 pm
Some crosstabs:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/morning-consult-25644

Dems
Clinton 80%
Trump 7%
Johnson 3%
Stein 2%

GOP
Trump 79%
Johnson 7%
Clinton 6%
Stein 1%

Independents
Trump 35%
Clinton 23%
Johnson 18%
Stein 9%

fav/unfav %:
Johnson 20/27% for -7%
Clinton 40/57% for -17%
Trump 39/57% for -18%

So Johnson is still sufficiently unknown that less than half the electorate has an opinion of him.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ABC News/Washington Post National: Clinton +2 on: September 25, 2016, 12:32:47 pm
Gender gap in this poll is 38 points(!):

men
Trump 54%
Clinton 35%
Johnson 7%
Stein 1%

women
Clinton 55%
Trump 36%
Johnson 4%
Stein 2%

breakdown by party:

Dems
Clinton 88%
Trump 8%
Johnson 1%
Stein 1%

GOP
Trump 90%
Clinton 5%
Johnson 2%
Stein 0%

Independent
Trump 43%
Clinton 38%
Johnson 10%
Stein 2%

by region:

Midwest
Trump 48%
Clinton 41%
Johnson 6%
Stein 2%

Northeast
Clinton 60%
Trump 30%
Johnson 6%
Stein 1%

South
Trump 50%
Clinton 40%
Johnson 4%
Stein 1%

West
Clinton 48%
Trump 42%
Johnson 6%
Stein 2%
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How would have Sanders fared in the G.E.? on: September 25, 2016, 11:10:22 am
I'm with Jonathan Chait in being bullish on Bloomberg in a Bloomberg-Sanders-Trump scenario:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-bloomberg-could-run-for-president-and-win.html

Quote
One reason Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions have always been so comically detached from reality is that he fills a space on the political spectrum that is overserved (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) whereas the actual unmet political demand is just the opposite (socially conservative, fiscally liberal). Democrats keep nominating social liberals whose secret heresy is a willingness to cut deals that trim spending on Social Security and Medicare. Republicans nominate fanatic tax-cutters for the one percent who want to deregulate Wall Street. Both parties’ elites agree on free trade and more liberal immigration. Bloomberg has always wanted to enter what is an oversaturated market for views congenial to the elite.

But if Trump and Sanders win their nominations, then the opposite would suddenly hold true. Instead of the socially liberal–fiscally conservative set having too much representation, it would suddenly have too little. A candidate who is neither a socialist nor a racist would have a large niche. Bloomberg faces a logistical challenge that is perhaps insurmountable: He would need to start getting his name on the ballot in early March, and he’s probably not going to know the major-party nominees by then. He would certainly need Sanders as the Democratic nominee, and probably Trump as the Republican nominee as well, to have a viable constituency. But if he did somehow find that combination awaiting him, the long-clogged lane he occupies in the center might suddenly break open for him.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1152


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines