Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2016, 05:59:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 546
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth National: Clinton +7 on: August 29, 2016, 03:28:10 pm
Inconsistent with the Emerson polls of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Ohio - Emerson Polling: TIE on: August 29, 2016, 02:17:29 pm
Landline only? Throw it in the trash!
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump has a huge problem with Catholics on: August 28, 2016, 03:31:24 pm
Polls are showing him down between 23-27 points

Obama only won Catholics by 2% in 2012.

Louisiana polling will be interesting. I notice that heavily-Catholic New Hampshire looks to not even be close in 2016.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What's up with the polling dry spell? on: August 28, 2016, 03:29:50 pm
It was the busy week of polling before last week that was the anomaly.

Labor Day is the real kick-off of campaigning. We will hear the most fiery speeches. Who will remain credible?

We get to see where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump start as the campaign season really begins. 
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Being Compared To Hitler on: August 27, 2016, 09:06:47 pm
Certain people compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. I've seen people doctor up photos that give Trump a Hitler mustache and Swastikas. This is what I have to say about Trump being compared to Hitler. IT IS RIDICULOUS! Hitler was an evil maniac. Because of him, thousands and thousands of people ended up dead. Trenches had to be dug and dead bodies were tossed into the trenches because of the huge amount of casualties.

Hitler was unique. There are analogues to his horror from Genghiz Khan to Saddam Hussein by way of Leopold II of Belgium, Josef Stalin, and Pol pot -- but nobody else is Hitler. Nobody else will be. Donald Trump is a bigot, but he does not blame any one religion for all the evils of the world. Sure, he is a vile bigot with respect to Islam... but his solution is for Muslims to remain in or go to Muslim-majority countries. (Paradoxically, the least troublesome Muslims are in India... go figure).

Paradoxically one possible comparison to him would be Neville Chamberlain for all but promising to appease Vladimir Putin... Hitler was never an appeaser. American Presidents from  at least Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama are Prussian-style militarists in contrast to Donald Trump.

Quote
Where are the trenches of dead bodies that Trump is responsible for? THERE ARE NONE AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT! I will admit that Trump is not perfect. He has flaws. If I were to say that Trump is the greatest politician who has ever lived, I would be a liar. Trump is not perfect but he is not another Adolf Hitler and people know it.

True. We need remember that Hitler wasn't much of a killer until November 1938 (Kristallnacht) -- until then he couldn't murder at will. Foreign media didn't let him get away with much. Someone overstepping his authority was culpable for the Night of the Long Knoves, the "euthanasia" programs,  and even Kristallnacht. Hitler didn't become a genocidal monster until he invaded Poland and started butchering the potential and actual leadership classes of the Polish nation.

Quote
Before anymore Trump haters compare Trump to Hitler, they should examine Hillary Clinton. She has flaws just like Trump. It is unfair of people to condemn Trump and praise Hillary. People call Trump corrupt. Hillary is corrupt. Many people are aware that she is corrupt but I wish that everybody was aware of it. Trump is no angel but neither is Hillary.

We live under a corrupt political and economic order. We have the economics of fascism already in place in America. The cornerstone of political life is representation of financiers, industrialists, and the bureaucratic elites who enforce economic inequality characteristic of a feudal or fascist plutocracy. We do not yet have the torture chambers and labor camps, but I would not trust President Donald Trump with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress and a pliant US Supreme Court.

Government representing economic power instead of the People -- that is the real menace. Donald Trump, even if defeated this time, will not be the end of the menace of the demagogic Right that plays up cultural divides that distinguish 'real Americans' from 'hyphenated' Americans like...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=don%27t+be+a+sucker+1947&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004

(1947 black-and-white video, and it holds up well after nearly 70 years).

It's not about Donald Trump. There will be more suckers, and more demagogues, perhaps finding better opportunities when the economy tanks and people start casting blame instead of seeking solutions. Donald Trump will not be the last demagogue who needs be defeated. After him there will be others, perhaps more polished in their approach, with more political savvy than he.  Give a demagogue an angry populace more willing to blame minorities either in worse shape or utterly blameless than to try to pick up the pieces. and we could have some very bad times because we fell for a leader better at polarizing people than at offering solutions for us all. 

Quote
Certain people also used Swastikas when George W. Bush became President Elect in 2000. They tried to make Bush look like Hitler also. Bush wasn't a fantastic President but he was no Adolf Hitler and neither is Trump.

I went so far as use derisive nicknames -- I remember "Spurious George" and "Dubious Maximus" on my part. But that was only when he showed his limited competence as a leader. Dubya wasn't much of a demagogue -- just a bumbler, the sort of leader who sets the stage for a demagogue.

Thank God that we got Barack Obama instead! 
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Post-Convention polling on: August 27, 2016, 12:07:33 pm
My weekend projection (early morning, 8/27/2016)



New Mexico has been polled for the first time in a long time, and the state is effectively out of range for Donald Trump. I consider at least 272 electoral votes out of range a meaningful contest at this stage in a Presidential race.

8% is not close.

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

8% is effectively out of range for peeling off a state from the Other Side with normal campaigning  even at its most intense.  Donald Trump now  needs miracles to have a chance now.


7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: KY-Reuters: Trump +2 on: August 26, 2016, 10:26:40 pm
Not with

(1) Trump up 11 in Indiana

(2) Trump winning southwestern Virginia, which is culturally similar to Kentucky, by a landslide margin. (West of a line from about Winchester to the western suburbs of Richmond, Trump is doing quite well in Virginia. Of course most Virginians live to the east of that line and are going heavily for Clinton).

(3) no event that should bring Kentucky into line with a state nearly even -- like Missouri or North Carolina.

Corroboration necessary.   
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL-Mason Dixon: Clinton +2 on: August 26, 2016, 10:43:27 am
Clinton is taking 10% Republicans against Trump's 78%. He needs to win back his own party to get the lead.

Also, it's looking likely that the Monmouth D+9 poll is an outlier. Everyone else is showing a 2% - 5% lead.

For Donald Trump to get elected, several things must go right for him.

1. He must get the majority of votes among new voters. Not happening.

2. He must make net gains among existing voters. Not happening; in fact I am tempted to believe that there will be far more Romney-to-Clinton voters than Obama-to-Trump voters.

3. People not voting this time must have in the majority voted for the nominee on the other side.  Trump might be on that, if only because Obama had an edge among 'all voters' in 2012. But that is slight.

4. Third-Party and independent voters must be going to Trump in huge numbers. Third Party nominees did not figure much in 2012. Contrast 2000, when a majority of Perot voters of 1996 went to George W. Bush.

5. Third Party nominees must be getting their votes largely from the opposite side of the spectrum from Trump. Not happening.

6. A scandal must break, the economy needs to go into a recession lasting at least six months, or some diplomatic calamity must have happened long enough before the election to not give the Incumbent and his Party the "Rally around the Flag" effect. President Obama isn't scandal prone, and time has run out for the other possibilities. It took several months after the Stock Market Crash of 1929 for American economy was in trouble.

Hillary Clinton will win Florida, and she will win the Presidency. 
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: In retrospect, which were realigning elections? on: August 25, 2016, 07:54:36 pm
1992, in the sense of the election showing that a realignment had been made. Overlay 1976 with 1992, and you will see that Clinton won a raft of states that Carter had lost in 1976, states that Democrats win in all subsequent winning elections (WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, IA, IL, MI, NJ, CT, VT, NH, ME). Note also that Carter is the last Democratic nominee for President to win TX. MS, AL, and SC unless something strange happens this year. Donald Trump is strange enough to make that happen.   

Realignments happen under the cover of landslides as the coalitions that allowed landslide elections rift. 1992 shows evidence that the old "Rockefeller Republicans" had begun to break from the GOP. Maybe they just could not get along with the constituencies that the Southern Strategy brought in. 
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Is Colorado en route to becoming the next New Mexico? on: August 25, 2016, 07:41:53 pm
Colorado demographics  aside from ethnicity (especially economics) are becoming more like those of California than like those of much-poorer Nevada or New Mexico.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Is SC a swing state? on: August 25, 2016, 07:37:06 pm
This year, it's probably still Safe or Likely R. Trump probably isn't losing SC unless he gets less than 100 EV.

Trump would have to lose Texas to get fewer than 100 electoral votes, and he loses South Carolina before he loses Texas.

...but this said, South Carolina is a firm R state with a merely poor Republican nominee for President. If Donald Trump loses South Carolina, then such will reflect his ineptitude as a campaigner and nothing about South Carolina.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac National: Clinton +7/+10 on: August 25, 2016, 03:58:44 pm
In most years a likely-voter screen 'favors' whiter, older, more educated people, and that means Republicans almost as a rule. Not this year!

   
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MI-Suffolk: Clinton +7 on: August 25, 2016, 11:34:48 am
It is also consistent with Iowa being a tossup. Outside of Greater Detroit and Flint-Saginaw, Michigan is a fair analogue for Iowa.

Perhaps the Presidential race is tightening some. Maybe Donald Trump isn't making as many egregious statements.  Yes, Michigan has lots of pollsters who poll only Michigan -- but Suffolk has been polling other states and I see few complaints about its polls elsewhere.

This seems to be an adequate pollster and I have no cause to doubt its fairness. Accepted.

What recently looked like a runaway for Hillary Clinton is no longer so, as nationwide tracking polls now show.    

14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Minnesota a Swing State? on: August 25, 2016, 03:50:15 am
Minnesota is about D+10 with a really-weak Democratic nominee (McGovern, Mondale) and about D+3 with a strong Democratic nominee (Obama in 2008). It was more Republican than the US average in 1952... go figure that one out. Stevenson just could not win outside the South.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - Mississippi on: August 25, 2016, 03:44:41 am
Safe Trump because the margin will be very close to the racial divide.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Be honest: If this election were between... on: August 25, 2016, 03:43:04 am
As one who savaged Sarah Palin mercilessly...
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Post-Convention polling on: August 25, 2016, 03:21:12 am
From CNN's house pollster:

Arizona:
Trump 43
Clinton 38
Johnson 12
Stein 4

North Carolina:
Clinton 44
Trump 43
Johnson 11

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/arizona-north-carolina-polls-trump-clinton/index.html


North Carolina, Monmouth:

Clinton 44%
Trump 42%
Johnson 7%

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NC_082416/1% or 2% lead -- your choice.

Florida, for the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Donald Trump/Mike Pence 44%
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine 41%
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 9%
Someone Else 2%
Undecided 4%

Donald Trump 44%
Hillary Clinton 43%
Someone Else 7%
Undecided 5%

http://www.flchamber.com/politicians-parties-and-plaintiff-trial-lawyers-are-unknown-or-unliked-in-new-florida-chamber-of-commerce-statewide-poll/

If I exclude polls by unions I exclude those for industry groups and chambers of commerce. For a state polled as often as Florida I don't need any trash polls.

I must accept this one for Michigan.  It suggests that the natiowide race is tightening. It does not include a binary matchup between Trump and Clinton in Michigan. But the margin has gone from double-digit to high-single digits.

https://twitter.com/davidpaleologos/status/768839154163646465

Clinton: 44%
Trump: 37%
Johnson: 5%
Stein: 3%





Binary race, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R)  



Leader up with

60% or more -- saturation 80%
55-59% --     saturation 70%
50-54% --     saturation 60%
46-49%, margin 4% or greater saturation 40%
46-49%, margin 3% or less saturation 20%

(the usual color applies for the partisan leader, but yellow blue to green and red to orange below:)  

40-45%, margin 4% or greater, saturation 40%
43-45%, margin 3% or less, saturation 20%  





Johnson support:

16%+: 80
13-15: 70
10-12: 60
7-9: 50
4-6: 40
2-3: 30
0-1: 20
Poll w/ no Libertarian number: clear








Small states and districts in area or with shapes that allow confusion:

FL D4/4;4
ME D 10/10; 4
NH D15/8,4

Clinton (D)
Trump (R)
Johnson (L)

The nature of this election cycle must change dramatically for Donald Trump to have any chance of victory.












18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Reuters: Trump even with Clinton in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina on: August 24, 2016, 06:41:29 pm
Quote
The project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios, shows Clinton currently beating Trump in the popular vote by six percentage points and ahead in 19 states, including most of the larger-population ones that heavily influence the outcome of the election.
How many models do they have? Huh

Almost as many as FoX News on its broadcast!
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC - Monmouth: Clinton +2 on: August 24, 2016, 06:40:20 pm
Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Rexas as swing states? Who'd a thunk it?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NM-PPP: Clinton +9, Johnson at 16% on: August 24, 2016, 11:13:06 am
NM is not a state that would have many "missing" Hispanics in polls. It's Hispanic community is old and established, unlike places like Nevada.

Therefore, results today should be basically what they will be in November -- barring a change in the dynamics of this election.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: SC-The Feldman Group (D): Tied in 4-way, Trump +2 in Head to Head on: August 24, 2016, 08:33:56 am
Practically a tie.

At this point the Clinton campaign is more for the Senate majority and perhaps some House seats. Donald Trump is doing plenty to lose this Presidential campaign. The Clinton campaign doesn't need to push him.

There is no indication that South Carolina has a Senate seat under meaningful contest. Tim Scott is going to win South Carolina handily in what could be a wave year for Democrats.  
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NM-PPP: Clinton +9, Johnson at 16% on: August 24, 2016, 08:14:06 am
The biggest race other than for the Presidency in New Mexico will be for Secretary of State.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: SC-The Feldman Group (D): Tied in 4-way, Trump +2 in Head to Head on: August 23, 2016, 10:18:12 pm
Then this pollster may be worthy of attention. The best polls are often internal polls. 
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - Minnesota on: August 23, 2016, 07:15:58 pm
In the absence of polls, I cautiously suggest "likely D", Clinton of course winning.

Minnesota swings rather little; it goes about 50% for a weak Democratic nominee and about 58% for a very strong one. Look at how it did with Reagan and with Obama.  A Democratic nominee would have to be just incredibly bad (McGovern in 1972, Mondale without the Favorite Son effect) to lose the state.

It hasn't gone R+ for any Republican since the 1950s... the Democrat would have to win about 60% of the popular vote while winning 58% of the popular vote in Minnesota.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Roanoke College: Clinton +16 in Virginia on: August 23, 2016, 06:33:00 pm
Like the St. Leo poll, I don't have to use it... and I won't. There are and will be plenty of polls of Virginia. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 546


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines