Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2016, 09:57:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 537
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: OH-Raba Research: Clinton +3 on: July 02, 2016, 11:22:16 am
Hope Kasich endorses soon!

Who? Gary Johnson?
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR-Hendrix College: Trump +11 on: July 02, 2016, 11:20:28 am
It'll almost certainly be more lopsided than that. AR is less likely to go Democratic than AL.

Get real, Hilldog won't win any state of the deep south. Florida is the only southern state in play.

Let me introduce you to Georgia, North Carolina, and especially Virginia.
FTFY

NC isn't deep south?

Virginia has become a Northern state in its politics. It has often been the odd-man-out among Southern states, generally voting very differently from other former Secessionist states. It was the only former Confederate state to vote against Jimmy Carter, and despite seeming to be a good cultural fit for Bill Clinton, it never went for him.

Florida politics has been describe this way: to go South politically in Florida, go north. Central and southern Florida (Tampa-St. Pete, Orlando, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, etc.) is very liberal. The more rural northern Florida votes like Alabama and Georgia. Pensacola and Jacksonville are rather conservative for their size.  

North Carolina has been attracting lots of Northern migrants, and the politics shows.  Georgia does, but only in Greater Atlanta. Alabama? Maybe Huntsville, but that's about it. Mississippi? No. Louisiana? Maybe around New Orleans, but that is about it. 
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: TX-University of Texas/Texas Politics Project: Trump +8 on: July 02, 2016, 07:28:06 am
Texas is a tough state in which to poll. No other state is like it in its regional diversity, so getting valid samples is tough.

Texas could go D in the Presidential election if two things happen:

1. the Hispanic vote becomes more partisan and larger, and

2. the suburban vote becomes less rigid in its pattern of voting R. The suburban vote around Dallas and Houston has demographics much the same as those of suburbanites around Chicago and San Francisco, but votes like ranch owners. 

Yes, Trump has insulted Hispanics badly and has offended just about everyone with an IQ above the dull-normal range. But if he loses Texas he gives Hillary Clinton a share of the electoral vote much those that Eisenhower got in the 1950s.     
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Gravis National: Clinton and Trump tied/ Clinton +4 with "Other" on: July 02, 2016, 07:19:34 am
Polls that do not include Gary Johnson are now shady.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - Alabama on: July 01, 2016, 06:35:47 pm
I pressed "Safe D"  by accident. "Safe R" is more like it.

You can always change your vote.

I just did.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - Alabama on: July 01, 2016, 03:10:33 pm
I pressed "Safe D"  by accident. "Safe R" is more like it.

Alabama should be one of the surest states for Trump, as the partisan divide will closely follow partisan lines. In view of Trump struggling to get out of the 30s in Utah, I can imagine only Oklahoma and West Virginia being safer for Trump.   
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: When will Trump start leading in the polls? on: July 01, 2016, 03:07:15 pm
Trump will lead in a few polls here or there, especially around the RNC.  His rolling average from the number crunchers like RCP and 538 will never get closer than 2 points.

Clinton's lead will grow to double digits at times, but stabilize to around 6-8 points by October, barring terrible economic events or ugly surprises.

That's what I see.

108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is all the stress going to Trump's head? on: July 01, 2016, 09:17:34 am
I see Donald Trump as a real-life J. R. Ewing, someone who can get away with despotic management as the boss of a business empire -- hollow and unfeeling. He may care about others' image of him if such serves his ends, but he cares more about his image than about the people who hold the image.

As the most powerful man in the world, his hollowness and shallowness would make him a disaster. He would try to govern like a dictatorial CEO, which is incompatible with the Constitutional reality. He can fire the entire staff of a resort with impunity, but he can't fire a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of California, a Senator from Michigan, or the anchorman of ABC, CBS, or NBC nightly newscasts. He might love to stifle Rachel Maddow, but he won't get away with it. She'd go on Canadian TV, and cable companies would pick up the channel carrying her show.

What he says about foreigners and people that he considers questionable about their American-ness he dares not say of people whose American identity is unquestioned. But he will question how American anyone is once that person disputes his claim to truth.   

Donald Trump will make George W. Bush look benign by contrast. Dubya may have been a buffoon, but he simply ignored his opponents, trying to make them irrelevant. Donald Trump will vilify his enemies and opponents, and what his staffers have shown to hecklers may be what some secret police new to America does to people who get in the way. Some of us might want to look into other countries  as places to live in the event of a Trump Presidency, especially if our jobs have no geographic requirement. Maybe you will prefer Coimbra to Columbus, Tucuman to Tulsa, Munich to Miami, Warsaw to Washington, Bangalore to Baltimore, or even Shanghai to Chicago for the duration.

By "Warsaw" I do not mean Warsaw, Indiana. 

     
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Zogby: Clinton+2 on: June 30, 2016, 02:29:23 pm
They had Clinton up in Kansas, and now this?
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL/OH/PA- Gravis Marketing Gives Mixed Results on: June 30, 2016, 02:28:23 pm
Trash. Not using.
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver predicts Clinton will win on: June 30, 2016, 12:36:08 pm
Making any definitive prediction before the conventions and debates is foolish

An 80% chance is not exactly definitive.

Of course. In a best-of-seven playoff series, a team up 3-0 can still lose (assuming that the teams are really equal) the series. The chance of such is 1 in 16, or 6.25% of the time.

Four months remain, and as much can go wrong for Hillary Clinton as it can for Donald Trump. At this stage, if nothing happens except the passing of days, then Hillary Clinton wins. If the same margins existed a month from now, then Hillary Clinton's chances for winning rise while nothing big happens.

Silver's model cannot predict a collapse. It can only show it as it happens.  
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton on: June 30, 2016, 10:15:47 am
Chris Stevens did something heroic and risky and died for that. Hillary Clinton could not micromanage his movements, and few people saw post-Qaddafi Libya as a hotbed for terrorists. About everyone thought that that Libya had suddenly become the most pro-American country in the Middle East with the possible exception of Israel.

Few saw the political vacuum forming so quickly as it did, and few saw ISIS and al-Qaeda getting in so fast. Yes, I could understand the mass dissent about a low-quality movie insulting the prophet Muhammad. I saw the trailer, and I saw close to an equivalent of Jew-bashing cinema in the Devil's Reich.  I'd guess that the late Chris Stevens saw The Innocence of the Muslims much as I did and may have had some sympathy with the legitimate protest of the vile flick.

Terrorists exploited a legitimate protest to kill some Americans. That is the crime.  
  
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What is Pennsylvania's electoral status? on: June 30, 2016, 12:06:25 am
Lean Democrat in a 50-50 election. See 2000 and 2004 elections  to show what Pennsylvania really is.

Lowest-hanging fruit, except perhaps Wisconsin,  behind the Blue Wall of states that have not gone for a Republican since at least 1988. 
114  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Battleground: Wisconsin or Georgia? on: June 30, 2016, 12:01:54 am
This year the answer is Georgia. Half the Wisconsin GOP isn't going to vote for President in 2016.

Under normal circumstances it would be Wisconsin.

It's hard to say what is a normal election. This one is strange in the extreme. We have a politician making insults in the manner of Don Rickles at all sorts of people (with Don Rickles, the insult is personal and it is directed at someone full of himself) and a female nominee for President in a three-way race in which the Third Party nominee team is two people fully qualified to be President.

2016 is clearly not 'normal circumstances'.   
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: College educated white voters could doom Trump in OH/PA on: June 29, 2016, 06:19:23 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/college-educated-white-voters-could-spell-trouble-trump-n601156

Trump has a 23 point edge among non college whites, 2 points better than Romney.
He trails Clinton by 1 among college educated whites, a major reversal from Romney winning CEW by 12.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won all the counties below, some by very large margins. But Trump's troubles with college-educated whites suggest he could be in danger of losing some of them - Chester was very close - and seeing much closer margins in the others.



If this tendency also appears among college-educated whites in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Texas -- then we could see a Clinton landslide that resembles those that Eisenhower got in the 1950s. Ike did very well among the college-educated; there just weren't as many of them.   

Anti-intellectualism directed against a wayward college professor, screen actor, artist, or writer can be popular. Against some kid who wants to attend college and join one of the largest professions (K-12 teaching) trashes millions of votes. 
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Battleground: Wisconsin or Georgia? on: June 29, 2016, 06:11:29 pm
Georgia based upon Nate Silver's projection -- and that Donald Trump is a singularly awful candidate for President.  The fellow makes Barry Goldwater running in 1964 look cautious and tolerant.

Map showing likelihood of wins for Clinton and Trump, Johnson considered



chance of
win          sat

>99%       9
95-98.9    8
90-94.9    7
80-89.9    6
70-79.9    5
60-69.9    4
55-59.9    3
52-54.9    2
<52%       1  (white)
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver predicts Clinton will win on: June 29, 2016, 06:02:18 pm
Map showing likelihood of wins for Clinton and Trump, Johnson considered

Note: this is likelihood and not margin. Margin may be related to likelihood at this stage.



chance of
win          sat

99%+       9
95-98.9    8
90-94.9    7
80-89.9    6
70-79.9    5
60-69.9    4
55-59.9    3
52-54.9    2
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver predicts Clinton will win on: June 29, 2016, 05:58:50 pm
Making any definitive prediction before the conventions and debates is foolish

Things will change.  So what does it mean that at this point Minnesota has an 85.7% of winning Minnesota and Donald Trump has a 14.0% of winning Minnesota? For now, Nate Silver has made computer estimates of probability of Clinton, Johnson (practically nil), and Trump winning Minnesota.  Trump shows about 2800 results in which he wins, and Clinton shows about 17200 chances of winning Minnesota. Everything can go right for Donald Trump and he could get lucky and win Minnesota. But most likely the calendar runs out before Trump and the GOP has a chance to win the state. Maybe Donald Trump has a rally or two and they prove flops. He has then lost time better used elsewhere. Hillary Clinton plays a nickel defense that allows Donald Trump to lose slowly as a 9% lead shrinks to 5% on Election Day. That's a losing proposition for Donald Trump. Or Donald Trump quits buying ads and making appearances in Minnesota. An 85.7% chance for Clinton becomes a 90% chance, then a 94% chance, then a 96.7% chance, then a 97.2% chance, then effectively no chance in late October or early November. People have no surprise when the networks call Minnesota quickly on Election Night. After all, it is Minnesota, which hadn't gone for a Republican nominee since it was the 49th-best state for Richard Nixon in 1972. Minnesota has a high floor for Republicans in one of their better years (about 49%) and a low ceiling (about 58%) for Democrats.

Can things go so right that Republicans have a chance in Minnesota? Sure. The economy can go into a sudden and severe tailspin, ISIS can suddenly take over Iraq, Hillary Clinton can be caught in a sex scandal, a terrorist act might discredit an inattentive Obama administration... that all takes some imagination. In such a case, many other states swing toward Donald Trump. But the longer that time passes, the less likely such things can happen. Again, time runs out if none of those things happen, and the current estimate that Nate Silver has has gone from an 85.7% chance to a 99.9+% chance of Hillary Clinton winning Minnesota. An 8% lead in late June? That can disintegrate. It can also solidify, and it is practically impossible for an 8% lead to disintegrate in late October and early November.

Now let's try a state that is closer to an even chance of going one way or the other.  Hillary Clinton has about a 41% chance of winning Georgia and Donald Trump has about a 59% chance. That's nearly a coin toss. An 8% lead can disintegrate in 4 months. Obviously, Hillary Clinton does not win Georgia without winning North Carolina (similar demographics) and winning Florida decisively (which a recent poll suggests). Some things are possible. No, not a return to the political realities of the time when Jimmy Carter was Governor!

Georgia suburbs have been unusually strong, for American suburbs, in voting Republican in recent years. If those suburbs start voting like the suburbs of St. Louis, then the Republicans' chance of winning Georgia get wiped out. The white vote in Georgia went heavily R in the last two Presidential elections, perhaps out of distrust of you-know-who. You-know-who isn't on the ballot this time. Let the rural white vote become more like the rural white vote of Kentucky, and Democrats win Georgia. Georgia has a huge presence of active military personnel, and they pay attention to foreign policy. Bad foreign policy can get soldiers killed. Let Hillary Clinton seem too dovish on foreign policy, and she loses Georgia decisively. But let Donald Trump seem too reckless, and many soldiers and their spouses decide to vote for Hillary Clinton.

So guess what happens if Donald Trump tries to force a win in Michigan, which he now has about one chance in 11 of winning and maybe one chance in 33 in early October. He ends up neglecting states like Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, and maybe Indiana that really are in play. He loses a couple of those.  

I'm not saying that any of these scenarios play out. They can, and if they do they can change the reality of the Presidential race more decisively than the winner running out the clock in a political equivalent of the nickel defense.  The one ahead yields ground for time, but not enough to allow a victory to the other side. The team up 24-3 at the half can afford to let the team behind make some ground gains -- but any attempt at a long pass results in an interception that makes things even worse for the team behind. The nickel defense gives a team decidedly behind the choice of how to lose the game.

Hillary Clinton is in the position in which she can play a cautious game and win. Donald Trump may have to make desperate gambles that have a slight chance of winning or can make him lose the Electoral college 450-88 or so.          

119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: FiveThirtyEight launches full blown 2016 election forecast on: June 29, 2016, 04:58:37 pm
Map showing likelihood of wins for Clinton and Trump, Johnson considered



chance of
win          sat

99%+       9
95-98.9    8
90-94.9    7
80-89.9    6
70-79.9    5
60-69.9    4
55-59.9    3
52-54.9    2
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: TRUMP surrogate: Voting for Hillary should be a federal crime on: June 29, 2016, 03:11:55 pm
Great baseball player -- but a horrible person. Went bankrupt in a business and flushed a bunch of state subsidies down the toilet.

He should have done something more modest after his MLB career was over, like being a pitching coach for a college team.

Let's see -- failed business venture... sounds familiar, doesn't it? 
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: FiveThirtyEight launches full blown 2016 election forecast on: June 29, 2016, 03:08:34 pm
Other than AZ, it looks ok ...

I'd give AZ to Trump in a close race, because the state's laws that will block Latinos from voting.

Not with the Obama Administration doing everything possible to protect the voting rights of blacks, Latinos, and First Peoples in Arizona. Nobody is going to get a chance to do anything squirrely with the vote in Arizona.

More troubling to Donald Trump could be that many white Anglo Arizonans have a Mexican-American in the family... and there could be many non-Latinos deciding that Trump's ugly statements about Mexican-Americans badly fit the reality of an in-law, co-worker, etc.    
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The electoral vote maps today in 2008 and 2012 on: June 29, 2016, 02:44:24 pm
The maps were largely accurate if you remove the shading. 08's map missed Nevada (which swung heavily toward the Democrats after the financial crisis) and North Carolina (which was decided by 14,000 votes), and Florida's tie swinging to Obama. 2012 was even better at this point, only missing Iowa (whose polling remained close until Election Day). Perhaps these early polls are worth more than the experts give them credit for.

Early polls can show trends that people from outside the state might not know. In 2008 Obama was often ahead in Indiana, a state which just doesn't ever go for a Democratic nominee for President. But I live near the Indiana line, and I then got some Indiana television... and I got the impression that Republicans were running scared. Virginia? We all knew that Virginia was solidly Republican. If it was the only former Confederate state that Jimmy Carter could not win and if Bill Clinton never won it despite seeming to be an unusually-good fit as a Democratic nominee for the state, then it was never going to go Democratic.

Polls tell us something -- like where some politicians have vulnerabilities. The common wisdom is not enough. Politicians can make more appearances in places that they think might be good for some visits. So if Indiana is within 2% of flipping Democratic, then maybe Hillary Clinton might stop by Indianapolis on the way from Albuquerque to Pittsburgh. Parties can spend resources against vulnerable opponents on the other side or shore up their own in trouble. They can also tell a politician "You're not winning there, so forget it". 

Polls can tell us if campaign pitches work.
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nevada continues to drift away from Republicans on: June 29, 2016, 12:40:50 pm
There have been no recent Nevada polls. Indeed the last poll I have of the Presidential race  (from last year) has Trump winning Nevada. But this makes sense.

In any event, many of the casino workers and people in related businesses (like restaurants and hotels) are Hispanic. This may hurt Donald Trump badly.

Nevada was more conservative when ranching interests dominated. That is over. Outside of Clark (Las Vegas), Washoe (Reno), and Carson City, Nevada is about as Republican as Idaho. Of course the population is heavily in Reno-Sparks, Carson City, and Greater Las Vegas. Few states have so much of their populated concentrated in so little of the state as does Nevada. Alaska, maybe. Even Utah has its population spread out along the I-15 corridor. Nevada has no highly-populated corridor.

Ranch areas of Nevada are still very conservative. They no longer dominate statewide politics.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NH-ARG Clinton +5 on: June 29, 2016, 12:02:41 pm
Congrats Trump.

For facing the prospect of getting less than 45% of the raw vote in New Hampshire? That happens rarely for a Republican nominee in a binary election.
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Ballotpedia: Clinton way ahead in battlegrounds (FL, IA, MI, NC, OH, PA, VA) on: June 29, 2016, 12:00:43 pm
With these levels of Democratic support for these states, I can imagine Georgia and Indiana going for Clinton. Maybe South Carolina.

The level of support for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson is high enough to allow a genuine three-way Presidential race. Hillary Clinton loses a little to Johnson, but far from as much as Donald Trump. This may be even more important to deciding what states Hillary Clinton can win.

Even if one discounts some of the anomalous results, one must recognize that the threshold for a Clinton win become a plurality in a three-way race. Maps forthcoming. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 537


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines