Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2016, 04:53:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 527
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: VA-Gravis Marketing Clinton Leads 45-41 on: May 27, 2016, 10:16:44 am
Trump's weaknesses in VA are exaggerated on this forum.

That's probably true as of now.  Sketchy polling company, but this looks just like 2012 in the head to head and a lot like 2008 with Johnson (who will surely drop, and takes 2:1 from Trump here).  So it's probably enough to trend D again but Clinton's not winning it by 10 when she's +1-2 nationally.

Virginia has been drifting D, and demographics (people moving in from mostly D states and taking their political values with them) cause the trend. Virginia could now vote more strongly Democratic than the US as a whole.

Virginia going 55-45 for Hillary Clinton indicates a landslide characteristic of Bill Clinton in the 1990s or Obama in 2008 (365 to 380 electoral votes), if not bigger. Bigger? I don;t see that yet.   
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would you laugh if the map ended up the exact same as 2012? on: May 27, 2016, 09:48:54 am
Since 1930 we have seen two states and one Congressional district changing (2008 to 2012), three states (2000 to 2004) , four states (1932 to 1936, 1952 to 1956) and five states (1980 to 1984 and 1992 to 1996)... but all of these involved an incumbent. Usually for an open-seat election, personalities between the two main candidates differ from one electoral year to another. Is Hillary Clinton the same sort of cultural match for the states as Barack Obama was, or is Donald Trump really much like Mitt Romney? I doubt it.

Favorite Son status is unlikely to decide any state in 2012.

Electoral polarization among the states might do it this time. States within the margin of error in 2012 were

0.88% Florida
2.04% North Carolina
2.97% Ohio
3.87% Virginia

Four states were between 5% and 6% from being even (CO. PA, NH, IA); four were between 6.5% and 8.0% (NV, WI, MN, GA); only three more were under 10% (AZ, MO, MI). This year not many states  are even on the fringe of contention.  Big swings are possible in some states that went 10% or more one way or the other -- and that would at most make them close.



3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 26, 2016, 07:51:32 am
People tend to vote more Republican as they get older (and wiser).


Not so fast. People can become more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older. Unions. Minority advocacy groups.

It's telling that in 2008, income was practically of no value as a proxy for Republican voting. Completion of formal education had a negative correlation to Republican voting. In 1950 the best-educated states voted for Dwight Eisenhower and the least-educated states voted for Adlai Stevenson. That is almost the opposite of 2008 and 2012.

"Older and wiser" implies having more ability to detect the contradictory statements and promises of a demagogue, and when the Republican proves to be a demagogue... just think of how that will work in the general election.

"Older and wiser" also implies having more ability to detect a crook. And I'll take a demagogue before I take a crook any day of the week and twice on Tuesday.

You´ve consistently taken the King of Crooks over anything else so far. Which suggests, in your own terms, certain lack of wisdom - whether it is accompanies by youth, I shall not hazard my opinion about.

Do you even know what a crook is? I guess, you are one of those "more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older" types pbrower is talking about. Blind for transgressions of your chosen candidate.

I am not sure whether by "crook" you mean the more liberal nominee. I don't see liberals more likely to take bribes, commit embezzlement, or make sweetheart deals with special interests. If by 'crookedness' you imply deviation from some right-libertarian orthodoxy, then you have an ideological definition of political criminality.

It's hard to predict who will take bribes, embezzle, or cut sweetheart deals with cronies. Damage does not require overt criminality; thus the real estate bubble involving the Bush II administration that depended upon predatory sub-prime lending and a gutting of investment outside of the housing/lending racket.

It is not fair to call someone a crook for being where he is on the political spectrum unless someone shows signs of support for violation of human rights or for starting wars of aggression, or being associated with groups (Nazis, fascists, commies) infamous for violations of human rights and for aggressive warfare.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Trump +2/ +4 without Johnson and Stein on: May 26, 2016, 07:35:35 am
The last two really-close binary elections:


2004, NC   --  Dubya 56,  Kerry 43
2000, NC   --  Dubya 56,  Gore 43


To win the Presidency, Trump needs to win all the potentially-critical states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia... or make big strides in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania that have not gone for a Republican nominee for President more than once since at least 1988.

The 1990s:

1996, NC -- Clinton 44, Gore 48, Perot 7
1992, NC -- Clinton 42.7, Bush 43.4, Perot 14
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 26, 2016, 07:28:42 am
California, PPIC:

Conducted May 13-22, MoE +/- 4.3%
Clinton 49%
Trump 39%

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/other/Crosstabs_LikelyVoters0516.pdf

Not so overwhelming.


New Jersey, Fairleigh-Dickinson University.

Clinton 48%
Trump 37%

http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160525/

Likewise.

Virginia, Gravis Marketing:

Clinton 45
Trump 41

Clinton 44
Trump 38
Johnson 6

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/virginia-election-poll052016/

I doubt that there will  be many states in which Johnson makes a difference.


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more


6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 25, 2016, 06:18:27 pm
2004, NC   -- 56  Dubya, 43 Kerry.
2000, NC   -- 56  Dubya, 43 Gore


To win the Presidency, Trump needs to win all the potentially-critical states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia... or make big strides in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania that have not gone for a Republican nominee for President more than once since at least 1988.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: OH- Zogby Analytics: Clinton +5 on: May 25, 2016, 06:10:20 pm
More corroboration than insight. 
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 25, 2016, 03:40:38 pm
North Carolina, PPP:

Donald Trump (R): 43%
Hillary Clinton (D): 41%
Gary Johnson (L): 3%
Jill Stein (G): 2%

Donald Trump (R): 47%
Hillary Clinton (D): 43%

Bernie Sanders (D): 43%
Donald Trump (R): 40%
Gary Johnson (L): 3%
Jill Stein (G): 2%

Bernie Sanders (D): 48%
Donald Trump (R): 44%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/trump-burr-have-small-leads-in-north-carolina.html


I'm going with the three-way choice. Trump will need to win NC by about 7% to have a real chance nationwide.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 25, 2016, 03:36:28 pm
Iowa and Wisconsin go almost in tandem, the one time in which they went differently in recent years (2004) showing them both very close to 50-50 ties that year.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 25, 2016, 03:33:08 pm
People tend to vote more Republican as they get older (and wiser).


Not so fast. People can become more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older. Unions. Minority advocacy groups.

It's telling that in 2008, income was practically of no value as a proxy for Republican voting. Completion of formal education had a negative correlation to Republican voting. In 1950 the best-educated states voted for Dwight Eisenhower and the least-educated states voted for Adlai Stevenson. That is almost the opposite of 2008 and 2012.

"Older and wiser" implies having more ability to detect the contradictory statements and promises of a demagogue, and when the Republican proves to be a demagogue... just think of how that will work in the general election.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 25, 2016, 03:19:09 pm
Someone is above 40, so it has value. A poll in which nobody is above 40 is useless even if valid.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: If Trump wins in a landslide, what happens in 2020? on: May 24, 2016, 08:05:55 pm
-snip-

Holy hell are you a hack. Just because you can't imagine a thing happening does not preclude it from happening. As a white person you may not be aware of this, but white people are extremely jumpy, easily scared by the smallest of things. Think of all the white people who roll their windows up when they have to get off the interstate in a less-white part of town. Those people, collectively, are Trump's ceiling. 70ish% of the white vote breaking to Trump produces a map like mine.

1. Donald Trump has made some contradictory promises that ensure that many who vote for him will be terribly disappointed with him when he fails to deliver. That is good for losing about 10% of the vote share from 2020 to 2024.

2. Donald Trump has no experience in public office and no history of military leadership. If something goes wrong he will have no clue on how to deal with an economic meltdown, a military disaster, or a diplomatic debacle. He holds in contempt the one ex-President that he could reliably turn to for advice in the event of some disaster who might solve some problems if asked. (Due to extreme age I do not trust either Jimmy Carter or George H W Bush to be around for long, and Bill Clinton has a bum ticker. If I have some respect for Carter, the elder Bush, and Clinton in the role of President emeritus, I have none for Dubya, which is a commonplace assessment).   Obama is the only likely ex-President that I would trust to be around and be competent much beyond early 2021. Trump will more likely turn to ideological purists who will neglect nearly a majority of Americans.

3. He will have a stormy relationship with Congress, especially if things go sour by November 2018.

4. Race? Do you really think that black middle-class people aren't scared of really-bad black neighborhoods, too? Do you really think that black crooks don't prey on black people? Black people are generally better at identifying black thugs than white people are. I know parts of Detroit that I would take people to. The rest? No.

But -- middle-class blacks do not trust the current GOP.

5. In any event I don't see Donald Trump winning by a landslide. But if he gets elected, just barely, then he will either be Hoover redux on the economy or Carter redux on foreign affairs. Roosevelt 1932 and Reagan 1980 got similar results.

How unpopular could Trump be? Americans would be ready for a Third Term -- of Barack Obama -- were it not for the pesky 22nd Amendment.

... if I can't imagine a July blizzard in Phoenix, do I lack imagination? Or am I a realist?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Morning Consult: Clinton 38%, Trump 35%, Johnson 10% on: May 24, 2016, 11:42:46 am
We could have a three-way Presidential race this time. Welcome back to the 1990s.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NBC/SurveyMonkey national poll: Clinton 47% Trump 43% on: May 24, 2016, 11:05:22 am
It is far easier to get from 47 to 50 than from 43 to 50.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: VA - Roanoke College: Clinton - 38 Trump - 38 on: May 24, 2016, 08:32:27 am
Virginia's margin will be as large or larger than Wisconsin's in this election. It is the fastest trending state in the country in terms of a) actual vote share and b) the demographics  moving into it actually translating into present/future votes (white D-leaners, upscale Asian D-leaners, blacks, etc). Trump ain't winning it unless he's ahead by 3 or more nationally.

So you think PA will be the tipping point state, right?

If interpolation (estimating between values) is risky, extrapolation of a trend is just incredibly risky. In accounting, CPA firms do not endorse forecasts of earnings or securities prices. There's just too much that can go wrong.

So let us look at these two states:

State A gave the Republican nominee for President  45.16% of its vote in 1948, and 58.93% of its vote in 1952, and 64.56% of its vote in 1956.

State B gave the Republican nominee for President  39.19% of its vote in 1948, and 56.33% of its vote in 1952, and 53.68% of its vote in 1956.

One could have reasonably expected both states to be trending Republican over time, right?

Wrong. State A is Utah, and State B is Minnesota. Utah went for a Democratic nominee for President only once since then, and Minnesota has gone only once for a Republican nominee for President since then. Nixon got 54.81% of the vote in Utah, and 49.16% in Minnesota, in 1960.

The Republicans took over in Utah politics around 1950 and stayed in charge. Ike was simply the best match that the Republicans ever had for Minnesota and Stevenson was a very poor match for Minnesota. Such an observation is possible in hindsight when one sees statistical trends beyond three events.

So is Virginia "State A or "State B" this time?

- 2004 - 2008 - 2012
A 49.1 -  56.9 - 53.0
B 45.5 -  52.6 - 51.1

(the percentages are of the Democratic share of the vote in the Presidential elections in those years).

You tell me this time which state has the overpowering, irreversible D trend. It could simply be that Barack Obama is the best cultural match for Virginia since Harry Truman.

A hint: one is New Mexico, and the other is Virginia. Both states are very different in their demographics and political heritage. The states are even more dissimilar than Minnesota and Utah in demographics. Until November we do not know whether the 2008 and 2012 elections mean anything more in 2016 than how the states went in 2008 and 2012?  

...So which state do I think will be the tipping-point state? From 1988 to the present they are:

MI 1988
TN 1992
OR 1996
FL 2000
OH 2004
IA 2008
CO 2012

Try to find a pattern in those states.

I see a range of possible scenarios from a bare Trump win to an overwhelming Clinton landslide. In a bare Trump win (just over 270 electoral votes) , the closest of his wins is likely the tipping-point state. In a bare Clinton win (just over 270 electoral votes), then the closest of her wins could easily be the tipping-point state. If she gets about 300 electoral votes (analogous to Truman in 1948 or Kennedy in 1960), then her tipping-point state is close to her margin of victory. A median win (for which there is only one analogue since 1900, and that was 2012; I see that as one of the most unlikely results), it is one of several states that wise people thought she had to win one of among three or four to have a chance to win and Obama won three or four such states) -- which would likely be one of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, or Virginia. A near-landslide analogous to one of the two BILL Clinton wins or Obama 2008 -- and it is a state deep in the pack, probably close to her margin of victory. That could be an unusual and unlikely win for her (South Dakota?) or a state that does not swing much (Minnesota?)

Democrats have the edge in the Electoral College because they have advantages in the states with the largest numbers of electoral votes. The biggest states in electoral votes that Mitt Romney won were Texas (38), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), Arizona and Indiana (11 each). Florida and Ohio are about neutral, and Obama won both of them... but the biggest five other states that Obama won in the Electoral College in 2012 were California (55), New York (29), Illinois and Pennsylvania (20 each), and Michigan (16).  


  

 




  
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton & Trump VP search news LATEST: Trump to meet with Corker on: May 23, 2016, 03:53:57 pm
Kasich could deliver Ohio for Trump.
Gingrich could help uniting the party and bring in the conservative base.

Corker: is he considered a good pick by the conservatives? I doubt it.

The VP choice can do little good but much harm to a Presidential nominee. Think of how badly the choice of Senator Thomas Eagleton went for George McGovern.

People pay much more attention to the Presidential nominee than to the VP nominee. Just think of the huge blunder that Mike Dukakis made when he picked Senator Lloyd Bentsen, a well-respected US Senator. The Presidential nominee was very much a Texan. Bentsen might have been enough to flip Texas if the state were close to the national average, but not as much as a Presidential nominee.

Strengthening support from the Party base? That is far from enough. 
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: VA - Roanoke College: Clinton - 38 Trump - 38 on: May 23, 2016, 09:03:32 am
Under 40 for both -- throw it out. Worthless.

I saw a poll of Tennessee in 2008 that showed Obama leading 38-36.  That's why I throw this one out.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 22, 2016, 11:20:34 pm
I got polled on Friday night in Michigan...so look for some polling of Michigan.

PPP offers a poll of North Carolina from this weekend.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Florida-Gravis Marketing Clinton 46 Trump 42 on: May 22, 2016, 11:17:36 pm
There is practically no way for Donald Trump to win the Presidency without Florida. 242 electoral votes  involve States and districts that have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since at least 1988.  Florida makes it 271.

That is before I account for New Mexico, which is probably gone as being a prospect for a Republican nominee, New Hampshire, or Iowa, all of which went for Republican nominees only once.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 22, 2016, 03:46:10 pm
Florida, Ohio, CBS/YouGov

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/battleground-poll-ohio-and-florida-show-tight-races-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/


Florida:

Clinton - 43%
Trump - 42%

Ohio
Clinton - 44%
Trump - 39%

Wisconsin:

Clinton 43
Trump 31

http://www.federationforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/16296-WI-School-Choice-Memo-Slides.pdf

A state that was extremely close in 2000 and 2004 isn't close this time.


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

How  much of a killer is Florida to the chance of Donald Trump for President? Based upon electoral votes that have not changed hands since the 2000 election, Democrats have an edge of 242-179. Florida has the 29 electoral votes that put Hillary Clinton over the top -- even without New Mexico, which is likely about as gone for the Republicans as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, or West Virginia.
 

If Donald Trump loses Florida, then he must pick up some state that has not voted for any Republican after 1988.  So which state will it be? Iowa and New Mexico have gone for a Democratic nominee for President except in 2004, and New Hampshire has missed only once. New Mexico looks "gone" for the Republicans, and I don't have to put its electoral votes into the "iffy" category.  

So which state or combination of states would it be?

Addendum (4/25/2016): Not Wisconsin.


21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 20, 2016, 07:09:10 pm
Quote
“Trump's largest groups of unfavorable ratings come from South Florida Hispanics and women of both parties. Only 21 percent of Hispanics view Trump favorably, while 57 percent have an unfavorable opinion,” Johnson wrote. “Also, only 31 percent of women view Trump favorably while 61% have an unfavorable opinion. However, we are seeing a slight improvement from Republican women.”

Only 21% favorables for Trump among Florida Hispanics, who are the most Republican of Hispanics in any state.......

The Cuban-Americans (and they are now largely born in America, as Castro took over nearly 60 years ago) who fled Castro in the '50s and '60s may be among the most politically-conservative Hispanics. The later waves of Hispanics (the Mariel Boat Lift) are much less conservative politically. They lost nothing in Cuba. Florida has many other Hispanics, too, and those on the whole would be like non-Cuban Hispanics elsewhere in America in political orientation.

Even the descendants of first-wave refugees from Castro are much more assimilated, and they have concerns other than hatred for Fidel Castro.

 
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 20, 2016, 11:57:36 am
And this comes from the sort of entity from which I would expect a poll to favor the GOP.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 19, 2016, 05:52:46 pm
Indiana: Bellwether Research, Trump 40, Clinton 31. 

Tennessee, Vanderbilt University:

Trump 44
Clinton 35
 



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump

(NO LONGER SHOWN)

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.





[/quote]
[/quote]
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IN-Bellwether Research: Trump +9 on: May 19, 2016, 05:48:53 pm
Donald Trump will need to win Indiana by more than 9% to be in a winning pattern nationwide. Obama lost the state by about 10.5% in 2012 and won nationwide.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Colorado: TRUMP will beat Hillary (Party affiliation/Turnouts factors) on: May 19, 2016, 03:09:25 pm
So what has really changed in Colorado?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 527


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines