Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 28, 2016, 12:10:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 552
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Pennsylvania had passed the Maine/Nebraska plan on: September 27, 2016, 08:15:49 pm
If a state is to divide its electoral votes and have more than 5, then:

1. Let each other electoral vote represent a share of the vote. Assign two to the winner of the plurality. Such reflects the Senate seats, and we can call those electoral votes the 'Senatorial' votes.  There must be an incentive for winning the plurality.

2. Votes for independent or third-party candidates can be divided into the total vote to determine whether any independent or third-party nominee gets enough votes to win a full share. If none, then all independent and third-party votes within that state shall be ignored for the second round of apportioning.

3. The second-place candidate shall get enough electoral votes in accordance with the shares of the popular vote. For example, a nominee who gets 46.28% of the two-main-party vote in a state with twelve electoral votes shall get four full electoral votes representing 40% of the popular vote. No partial vote shall be assigned.

4. The winner of the popular vote gets the rest.

5. Whoever gets an absolute majority of votes in the state gets the rest. Thus a winner in a state with twelve electoral votes who gets 53.72% of the popular vote will get six votes from the apportionment of non-Senatorial votes and of course the two Senatorial votes.  

Advantages:

1. It recognizes third-party nominees who get significant votes in any state.

2. It makes relevant the significant minorities (Hispanics and blacks in Texas; agrarian interests in Illinois) whose votes for President are usually ignored because they are inaccessible in the national contest in statewide winner-take-all contests. Southern blacks usually get stepped on in Presidential politics,  and such distorts the political process.

3. In a true two-way race one gets less chance of a landslide.

4. Gerrymandering to set up Congressional districts to distort the popular vote has no relevance in the Presidential election. Gerrymandered districts that would distort the Presidential vote would not pass Constitutional muster. the situation in which D-leaning cities like Lansing, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids are diluted with R-leaning rural areas (I know Michigan much better than I know Pennsylvania, and the GOP in state legislatures did much the same in Michigan as in Pennsylvania) so that the Democrats have a few 70D-30R districts and lots of 53R-47D districts. Distortion of the vote in any state to fit some artifice violates the Constitutional emand for one man-one vote.  

5. Presidential elections would be closer to majority rule. There would be less likelihood of one state's total being decided by a handful of votes ultimately deciding the election. Thus Florida 2000 becomes much less likely

Disadvantages:

1. In a close election, a significant third-party nominee can mess things up.  For this, the existing apportionment (largely winner-take-all) can be used.

2. It is not as clear as the largely winner-take-all system that most states have. The last votes of some states might take months to decide.

  

2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - Oklahoma on: September 27, 2016, 07:44:27 pm
Electoral votes #2 through #9 for practically any Republican, after only NE-03.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Grade Lester Holt's performance as moderator. on: September 27, 2016, 02:36:40 pm
A,,, because fact-checking is part of the game.

I think that Lester Holt let Donald Trump be what he is...and once Demagogue Don started interrupting Hillary Clinton such showed what sort of person the Republican nominee is.

Donald Trump could have waited his turn, but he didn't.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What do you think if the polls don't move after this debate? on: September 27, 2016, 02:32:55 pm
That the debates don't matter?

5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Did Clinton Lose by Winning Last Night? on: September 27, 2016, 01:23:42 pm
Donald Trump lost this debate. Hillary Clinton did far less to win this debate than Donald Trump did to lose it. Hillary Clinton did not beat Donald Trump up; she let Donald Trump stumble to what looks like one of the worst debating performances in a Presidential election.

More appropriate would be "Did Donald Trump win by losing this debate"?

Not by being shown as a lying blowhard. 
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Grade Lester Holt's performance as moderator. on: September 27, 2016, 06:03:14 am
A-

His questions were somewhat favorable to Clinton and he let Trump get away with some b.s. but he was respectful and understood that the debate was about the two candidates and not himself unlike candy Crowley

Hillary was much more ready for this debate. Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully to take over the debate, a high-risk, but potentially high-reward practice. Holt gave Trump a chance, but Trump made a failure of that chance.

For the first time we see Donald Trump attempting to appeal to people outside demographics of core support. At that he failed miserably. He showed himself arrogant, dismissive, and out of touch.   
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Pennsylvania had passed the Maine/Nebraska plan on: September 27, 2016, 12:12:04 am
More states should adopt electoral vote allocation by CD. Makes things interesting.

Nebraska and Maine have some justification because the two districts are different.

Gerrymandered districts intended to alter the partisan basis of representation in Congress could be construed to distort the popular vote. Congressional districts are usually seen as arbitrary entities with no other legal significance.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA - Loras College - Tie (2-way and 4-way) on: September 26, 2016, 11:56:55 pm
Not until I see another poll corroborate this result will I accept that Donald Trump isn't winning Iowa. The debate performance might do that, though.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: September 26, 2016, 11:02:07 pm
At this point I suggest that we look at electoral-vote.com.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who won the first debate? on: September 26, 2016, 11:00:21 pm
Clinton -- she gave an unremarkable performance, but Donald Trump showed himself arrogant, ideologically rigid (the key to the American economy is simply tax cuts and regulatory relief), and off-the-wall. Clinton did not win; Trump lost this debate.

Making his closing remarks largely "Make America Great Again" showed that he did not recognize how to appeal to a neutral audience.   
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL Chamber of Commerce Clinton +2 on: September 26, 2016, 11:14:27 am
By the Chamber of Commerce.... industry group, and I would expect it to have a strong R lean even if Hillary Clinton is ahead.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Bloomberg: Trump +2 (4 way) tied (2 way) on: September 26, 2016, 11:12:59 am
Trump may be winning by huge margins in the sure-thing states for Republicans while clinton margins are generally small.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CNN/ORC: CO: Trump +1 PA: Clinton +1 on: September 26, 2016, 09:38:19 am
Just watch the debate, preferably among people who share your beliefs.

14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Breitbart/Gravis National: Clinton +4 on: September 23, 2016, 03:20:06 pm
From about as prop-Republican a news entity as there is. This is close to Obama 2012.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac CO Clinton +2 GA Trump +7 IA Trump +6 VA Clinton +6 on: September 23, 2016, 06:56:19 am
Many polls show Iowa very poor for Hillary Clinton. I now see Iowa as a nearly-sure loss for her, perhaps now more sure a loss than Arizona or Georgia. .
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: September 22, 2016, 11:57:56 pm
California,PPIC


50% Clinton (D)
33% Trump (R)
6% Stein (G)
5% Johnson (L)

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/presidential-election/article102803037.html

Stein is ahead of Johnson in California! Otherwise, nothing unexpected.

Maryland, Goucher

58% Clinton (D)
25% Trump (R)
6% Johnson (L)
2% Stein (G)

http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/goucher-poll-tracks-races-for-president-senate/41779158

No surprise here.

Colorado:
Clinton: 44%
Trump: 42%
Johnson: 10%
Stein: 2%

Georgia:
Trump: 47%
Clinton: 40%
Johnson: 9%

Iowa:
Trump: 44%
Clinton: 37%
Johnson: 10%
Stein: 2%

Virginia:
Clinton: 45%
Trump: 39%
Johnson: 8%
Stein: 1%

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2381

No binaries. Colorado becomes an average between Q and the college poll.

Louisiana:

500 LV, Sept. 15-17:

49% Trump
33% Clinton
  8% Johnson
11% Undecided

(Jill Stein wasn't asked)

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/09/2016_louisiana_senate_race_wan.html

Blowout here.

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R):





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.  




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R) vs. Gary Johnson (L):




I'm going with saturation for the raw vote for the leader. The percentage (3 for 30-39, 4 for ro-49, 5 for 50-59, 6 for 60-69...) will be the number for the saturation.

No internal number will be shown for any nominee who has at least 50% of the raw vote or has a lead of at least 8%. and at least 40% of the raw vote.  Otherwise I will show

the leader by color (white for a tie), the margin for the leader, and the amount for Johnson (maybe McMullen added should he become relevant).  


I will be away for the weekend, so I may not be posting.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: September 22, 2016, 09:23:22 am
Colorado:

540 LV, 9/14-9/18:

Clinton: 44
Trump: 35

Bennett: 45
Glenn: 32

gjsentinel.com/news/articles/university-jumps-into-politics


Who are these guys?

Monmouth, New Hampshire:

The Monmouth University Poll  was conducted by telephone from September 17 to 20, 2016 with 400 New Hampshire residents likely to vote in the November election.  This sample has a margin of error of + 4.9 percent.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

Clinton 47
Trump 38
Johnson 10
Stein 1


http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NH_092116/

New Hampshire must be close in a Republican win in recent years. It isn't this time.

Three by Fox News, usually a good pollster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/21/fox-news-poll-trump-tops-clinton-in-battlegrounds-nevada-n-carolina-ohio.html

Nevada:

Trump - 43%
Clinton 40%
Johnson - 8%

Ohio:

Trump - 42%
Clinton - 37%
Johnson - 6%
Stein - 2%

North Carolina:

Trump - 45%
Clinton - 40%
Johnson - 6%

North Carolina goes to an average. of about 3%. I cannot use the ones for Nevada and Ohio  for binaries.

Virginia, Roanoke University:

http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_politics_sept2016

Clinton - 44%
Trump - 37%
Johnson - 8%

Clinton - 51%
Trump - 40%

...Corroborates other polls. No Republican has won the Presidency without Virginia since 1924.

Wisconsin, Marquette University

Clinton:44
Trump:42
2 Way LV

Clinton: 43%
Trump: 38%
2 Way RV

Clinton: 41%
Trump: 38%
Johnson: 11%
Stein: 2%
4 Way LV

Clinton:39%
Trump:35
Johnson:12%
Stein:3%
4 Way RV

Not usable, lead with less than 45% in a binary election. Wisconsin is looking close now...

Wyoming:


New Poll: Wyoming President by DFM Research on 2016-09-11

Summary: D: 19%, R: 54%, I: 12%, U: 15%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

WY would anyone expect differently?

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R):





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.  




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R) vs. Gary Johnson (L):




I'm going with saturation for the raw vote for the leader. The percentage (3 for 30-39, 4 for ro-49, 5 for 50-59, 6 for 60-69...) will be the number for the saturation.

No internal number will be shown for any nominee who has at least 50% of the raw vote or has a lead of at least 8%. and at least 40% of the raw vote.  Otherwise I will show

the leader by color (white for a tie), the margin for the leader, and the amount for Johnson (maybe McMullen added should he become relevant).  

18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - North Carolina on: September 21, 2016, 11:12:58 am
Toss-up. Barring unforeseen events it may be decided by less than 1%.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump implies Slavery/Segregation were better for blacks than the Obama Years on: September 21, 2016, 10:41:40 am
I hate comparing Donald Trump to fascists because such reflects badly upon  America -- but Donald Trump has learned the art of the Big Lie.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which swing state will be the first to be called? on: September 21, 2016, 08:48:19 am
Republican votes come out later in Pennsylvania; Democratic votes come out later in Virginia. That's all that you need to know.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump implies Slavery/Segregation were better for blacks than the Obama Years on: September 21, 2016, 08:42:15 am
When one makes absolute, blanket statements one opens oneself to criticism if one seems to ignore a reality more extreme and complete.

There can be no question that slavery was atrocious, with only two modern realities (being on death row or being sexual traffic) even worse. Begin with the Atlantic slave trade, a horror in some ways comparable to the Holocaust. Then recognize that people who could never choose how to live under control by people who want to exploit them most completely can only impose suffering.

Let us all remember: we have no excuse for evil.

22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary on: September 21, 2016, 12:06:53 am
Elect Hillary Clinton and you get the Bush I foreign policy. Elect Donald Trump and you have no idea of what you are getting.

Donald Trump is appeasing Vladimir Putin before the Russian dictator has demanded anything. One thing is certain: President Hillary Clinton will be able to deal with Vladimir Putin from a position of strength  
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump implies Slavery/Segregation were better for blacks than the Obama Years on: September 21, 2016, 12:02:53 am
Let's start with this obvious fact: the black middle class is growing rapidly (in part die to miscegenation, with many of its youngest members having one non-black parent...) and in part due to economic progress.  Working class? Blacks in manufacturing industries may be doing less well than their counterparts did in the 1950s, which reflects the economic regress that industrial workers of all races have done in America (cheap imports, weakening of unions, predatory lending).

For the poor, the argument is often made that poor blacks now do less well than blacks during slavery due to less cohesion of families. Saying that blacks were better off under slavery is otherwise obscene.

Where does Donald Trump get these crazy ideas? Does he simply make them up? If he were not the Republican nominee, then he would be ignored.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: September 20, 2016, 11:29:33 pm
Why are you still showing Ohio as a strong Democratic lead? There's been six polls of the state since the start of the month, and only one found a Clinton lead with the rest showing Ohio leaning Trump. For reference:

9/1 - Washington Post, R+3
9/7 - Quinnipiac, R+4
9/9 - YouGov, D+7
9/12 - Selzer, R+5
9/12 - CNN, R+5
9/14 - Suffolk, R+3

At the very least, it should be noted as tossup if not lean Trump.

I missed them in the "recovery" process.

Ohio, three polls:

CNN
Trump 46
Clinton 41
Johnson 8
Stein 2

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/14/ohiopoll.pdf

Suffolk:
https://twitter.com/davidpaleologos/status/776449329217220608

Trump - 42
Clinton - 39
Johnson - 4
Stein - 1

Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-14/ohio-poll

Trump 48 Clinton 43

Trump 43 Clinton 38 Johnston 10 Stein 3

...The three polls  average to Trump up 4.67.

I will backtrack.  Thank you.

By the way -- with recent national tracking polls with Hillary Clinton with leads around 5^, the next poll of Ohio is likely to show a Clinton lead. 
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: September 20, 2016, 02:08:26 pm
Florida, Monmouth:

Among 400 Likely Voters, conducted Sept. 16th-19th:

Clinton 46 (-2)
Trump 41 (+2)
Johnson 6 (nc)
Stein 1 (nc)

Official report: http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_FL_092016/

Out of the margin of error, and Donald Trump cannot win without Florida. This pollster showed Trump up 8 in Iowa last week, so such suggests a real comeback.

Elon, North Carolina. PPP will give us a poll in a couple of days, and I trust PPP more than anyone else on North Carolina. The PPP poll will supplant this one. Trump cannot be anywhere close to losing North Carolina to have a real chance of winning.  

https://www.elon.edu/e/elon-poll/poll-archive/092016.html

Trump 44
Clinton 43
Johnson 6

North Dakota, DFM Research:

43% Donald Trump (R)
32% Hillary Clinton (D)
8% Gary Johnson (L)
1% Jill Stein (G)

https://de.scribd.com/document/324685567/ND-Pres-DFM-Research-Sept-2016
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/poll-trump-leads-clinton-north-dakota-neither-50-percent/

Oklahoma, Sooner Poll.

51% Trump
36% Clinton
  6% Johnson

The poll of 515 Oklahoma likely voters was conducted between September 13-15. It carries a margin of error of 4.32 percent. The poll's results were stratified to represent the state's likely voter population.

http://newsok.com/clinton-gains-some-ground-on-trump-in-oklahoma-poll-shows/article/5518562

Oklahoma hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1964, and that streak will hold this year. Anyone who believes  otherwise is a fool. This is still rather weak for a Republican in Oklahoma.

Pennsylvania, Muhlenberg College.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-trump-clinton-poll-20160917-story.html

Clinton - 47%
Trump - 38%

Clinton - 40%
Trump - 32%
Johnson - 14%
Stein - 5%

Poll was conducted from Sept. 12-16.

Well out of the margin of error. Pennsylvania has to be close for Donald Trump to have a reasonable chance of winning. An 8% lead is solid.


Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R):





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.  




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump (R) vs. Gary Johnson (L):




I'm going with saturation for the raw vote for the leader. The percentage (3 for 30-39, 4 for ro-49, 5 for 50-59, 6 for 60-69...) will be the number for the saturation.

No internal number will be shown for any nominee who has at least 50% of the raw vote or has a lead of at least 8%. and at least 40% of the raw vote.  Otherwise I will show

the leader by color (white for a tie), the margin for the leader, and the amount for Johnson (maybe McMullen added should he become relevant).  

Note: Gary Johnson is in second place, above Donald Trump, in New Mexico. Jill Stein is at 10 (just under Johnson) in New Hampshire.





Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 552


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines