Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 09, 2016, 08:51:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 506
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Donald Trump finished? on: February 02, 2016, 08:01:14 am
He needs another decisive defeat, most likely in New Hampshire, to convince him that there are other ways to get publicity of his choosing.

On the other hand, I think people are onto him. 
27  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Put a Rating on the US Senate for 2016 - Winter 2016 on: February 01, 2016, 05:31:07 pm
Republicans simply have too many ways to lose. They will of course raise money fiendishly and spend heavily upon attack ads as in 2014... but this won't be 2014 all over. Republicans have too many weak spots.

A hint: a Democrat won the Governorship in Louisiana. This bodes many close races, and when a Party has so many seats to lose and so few that they can gain, then everything will have to go right for them in a Presidential year. They need to be blowing out the opposition in almost every seat taht they now have to have a chance to hold the election.   
.
Lean D.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How would Trump do if he ran as Democrat? on: February 01, 2016, 05:22:09 pm
With all due respect, the Republican Party sabotaged themselves decades ago.
The 1980s decade disagrees with you.

That's exactly the decade when Republicans decided for short term gains over long term stability. When they decided to be the party of church over state, the party of the John Birch Society and whatever fear mongering far right groups came after it, the party of hating immigrants, peddling abortion, and being "antigovernment". That's when the seeds of TRUMPism were planted.

I must have missed the time when Republicans weren't fairly anti-immigrant...

They were pro-immigrant when the refugees were fleeing Communism (Eastern Europe, China, Cuba). 
29  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Put a Rating on the US Senate for 2016 - Winter 2016 on: January 31, 2016, 08:43:26 pm
My take (and rationale):



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       7     0
40-44    2     0
45-49    0      2
50-54    4      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    3      3 
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah


Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana


Tossups
Georgia (from Edge R)
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.
30  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 31, 2016, 07:52:02 pm
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Johnny Isaacson, R-Georgia:

Approve 38%
Disapprove 30%.

http://www.myajc.com/news/jan-2016-poll/

The good news for him is that the disapproval is low. The bad news is that he needs approval well over 38% to win re-election.  One more potential Republican vulnerability.








What? No he doesn't. This is Georgia, not Massachusetts. Besides, it means not enough people know him, not that he's unpopular.

The low name recognition is not going to help him. If he has been a US Senator for five years plus, he needs to have created some cause for recognition. There are Democrats who have recognition from losing campaigns in 2014, and they can build upon promises made in losing campaigns.

I'm not calling it now, by any means. He is not in as poor a position as Senators Kirk (IL) or Johnson (WI), to be sure. It's not hard to see either one of them as nearly-sure losses for the GOP in November. But he can lose even if the state that he represents is Georgia. But 38% approval still bodes ill for his chance of getting re-elected, especially if the money spend on Republican Senatorial campaigns is spread thin.   A strong opponent defeats him in a Presidential year.

31  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 31, 2016, 05:11:19 pm
The other polling thread on this topic, with a similar name, is now locked. We don't need both threads active; such can only create confusion.
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: One year ago today, who did you predict would be the Dem and GOP nominees? on: January 31, 2016, 05:03:31 pm
Clinton seemed unstoppable, and Walker looked as if he would have the Koch-aine behind him. 
33  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval, Incumbent Senators seeking re-election on: January 31, 2016, 04:19:35 pm
Update: Vitter is not running for re-election.

One for Georgia:

poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Johnny Isaacson, R-GA

Approve 38%
Disapprove 30%

http://www.myajc.com/news/jan-2016-poll/



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown    


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       7     0
40-44    2     0
45-49    0      2
50-54    4      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    3      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah


Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana


Tossups
Georgia (from Edge R)
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.
34  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 31, 2016, 03:42:04 pm
The good news is that the disapproval is low. The bad news is that he needs approval well over 38% to win re-election.  One more potential Republican vulnerability.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you want to question the poll, then such is your choice. It is from a well-respected newspaper, a regional powerhouse.

An incumbent Democratic Senator in Michigan (which has no incumbent Senator up for re-election would be vulnerable by the criteria that I use if he had an approval rate of 38%.

At this point, 50% or greater approval -- super-safe, as for Grassley and Scott.

45-49% -- better than 50% chance of re-election. The typical campaign of an incumbent running for re-election gets about a 6% gain in the vote share in a binary election.

44% -- break-even.

42-43% -- slightly-less than a 50% chance of re-election. (This suggests that Toomey will barely win or lose in Pennsylvania).  

40-41% -- everything must go right (weak opponent, good national climate)

below 40% -- big trouble.  
35  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 31, 2016, 03:30:05 pm
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Johnny Isaacson, R-Georgia:

Approve 38%
Disapprove 30%.

http://www.myajc.com/news/jan-2016-poll/

The good news for him is that the disapproval is low. The bad news is that he needs approval well over 38% to win re-election.  One more potential Republican vulnerability.







(Note the restoration of polls in Arizona and Missouri and an estimate for Utah).

36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Reuters/Ispos National: Bloomberg as 3rd Party Candidate on: January 30, 2016, 12:39:45 am
Can't post the link, because I'm a newbie.  But here are the numbers:

Bloomberg 9%
Clinton 37%
Trump 31%

Bloomberg 8%
Sanders 37%
Trump 30%



Pick up the URL address, which in this case looks like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSMTZSAPEC1SOOMWHP

Use the small button that has a globe on it (reference to the world wide web) and put it on top of the URL address. You then get this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSMTZSAPEC1SOOMWHP

....

Image:



Other material:

In a matchup between Trump and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, adding Bloomberg's name to the ballot would trim Clinton's lead over Trump to six percentage points from 10, according to the poll conducted from Jan. 23 to Jan. 27.

37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: January 29, 2016, 12:55:51 am
Are you going to include the new MN polls?

Of course not, since it shows Republicans ahead.

Mason-Dixon polling was terribly unreliable in both 2008 and 2012.

Before you discuss the new poll of Michigan -- Mitchell is another junk-car poll. 
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MI: Mitchell Research: Trump slightly ahead of Clinton on: January 29, 2016, 12:53:44 am
I'll take one reputable poll of Michigan (typically PPP) over five junk polls.

As I said of another set of polls, five junk cars are not worth one road-worthy car.
39  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Burr leads quite easily on: January 28, 2016, 09:46:32 pm
42% is weak for an incumbent at this stage even if it is a lead.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MN-Mason Dixon/Star Tribune: With Hillary MN = swing state, Bernie landslides on: January 28, 2016, 04:15:31 pm
Shes good in Iowa, NV, PA & CO

Wait until we see polls of those states. It's been a while since any credible polls have come from any of those three states. Any time, now.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI: Marquette Law: Clinton narrowly up (bigger against Trump), Sanders up big on: January 28, 2016, 04:14:06 pm
I'm starting to fear Bernie's strong numbers, but I think we can beat Hillary no problem.

This poll suggests that Hillary Clinton could be collapsing. I saw a story (if in an unreliable source, the National Enquirer) that she has problems of health. If the story is true, then her health could tear her campaign apart. Marquette University Law School has one of the more reliable single-state polls.


Republicans can win the Presidency without Wisconsin (as they did in 2000 and 2004), but in both cases they barely lost the state. Republicans losing Wisconsin by 5% or more will lose the overall popular vote by at least enough that they cannot win the Electoral College contest.   Sanders may be an unusually-good match for Wisconsin Democrats... but I have said that of New Hampshire, which also has been seen as a swing state.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: January 28, 2016, 04:07:03 pm
Wisconsin: Marquette University Law School.

Sanders 49 percent, Rubio 38 percent.
(November: Sanders 46 percent, Rubio 42 percent.)
Sanders 50 percent, Cruz 38 percent.
(Not asked in November.)
Sanders 52 percent, Trump 34 percent.
(November: Sanders 52 percent, Trump 35 percent.)

http://law.marquette.edu/poll/

Bernie Sanders vs. Jeb Bush



Bernie Sanders vs. Ben Carson



Bernie Sanders(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



(I no longer take Carly Fiorina seriously).


Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio


Bernie Sanders 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

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






43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: January 28, 2016, 04:01:39 pm


Wisconsin, Marquette University Law School.


    Clinton 45 percent, Rubio 44 percent.
    (November: Clinton 44 percent, Rubio 45 percent.)
    Clinton 45 percent, Cruz 44 percent.
    (Not asked in November. August 2015: Clinton 50 percent, Cruz 38 percent.)
    Clinton 47 percent, Trump 38 percent.
    (November: Clinton 48 percent, Trump 38 percent.)

http://law.marquette.edu/poll/



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush



Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson



Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



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

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How Nate Silver Missed Donald Trump on: January 27, 2016, 02:29:21 am
Silver made two fundamental errors with regards to Trump.

1) He basically chose to ignore polls and go with his gut feeling, thereby repeating the mistake that he has often himself accused other political analysts of making and neglecting the qualities which made him a good number cruncher in the first place. Silvers fortť was always in crunching numbers. As a political analyst he is no better than all the others who go by their gut and then interpret the facts to allign with their gut. This is the stuff that Dick Morris is made of.

2) He NEVER understood the appeal of Trump. The appeal of Trump is not that he is a celebrity. It is not that he is anti-establishment. It is not that he is a novelty. It is not that he gets 90% of the media attention. All of those facts contribute to his popularity, but the heart of his appeal is his alpha male persona. True alpha male politicians can be incredibly popular with the general public, as shown by the likes of Berlusconi in Italy, Putin in Russia or indeed, Hitler in Germany.

I agree with all of this.  Silver's Trump downplaying has always been weird to me because there are so many variables involved, and Silver has always been a guy who emphasizes the statistical value of uncertainty.  The guy's model still gives Carson and Rubio a 9% chance of winning in Iowa.

I don't object to the existence of Silver's polls-plus model, although it seems to me -- as someone who barely understands it -- that he's weighting the "plus" part too heavily, especially this close to the election.  It's totally fine to find a hypothesis supported by past data, and try to implement it in a model.  It certainly has a good shot of having more predictive power than polls do, especially months out.  However, you have to incorporate the uncertainty of such a multi-variable approach, plus the added risk of overfitting.

For a guy who's so conscious of uncertainty, I'm surprised he's fallen for such conventional traps of the statistically illiterate.  That said, I still appreciate him because, even when I think his methodology is messed up, at least I know he has a methodology.  I still appreciate the poll-based prediction he publishes and the modeling he does.  Even if I think he's fallen for the traps pundits do, he still contributes way more of value to the discourse than most pundits.  He's too much maligned here.

Someone contributing more valuable discourse than the pundits isn't saying very much though.

To each their own, but I think conversations like this are much more useful than 99% of punditing.  I'd rather be in a room of five Nate Silver types of varying methodologies and arguments than someone whose entire methodology and argument is gut instinct.  Silver is at least someone who cares about having a methodology, and is willing to explore the contingencies if his approach is wrong.  Politics has plenty of people whose every word comes straight from the spleen, and these people are the worst.

Basically, the criticisms I've seen of him lately seem to based on the idea that Silver is failing to sufficiently emphasize the positives that made him valuable (focus on methodology, empiricism, contingency-based thinking).  Basically, Silver has turned into diluted Silver.  I might agree -- but I'll still take diluted Silver over the gut-rotting punditry that prevails out there (which is often presented much more arrogantly).  He's getting way too much crap.

One strange thing after another has happened in this Presidential election, and no political model could ever predict any of them. we have had three Republican candidates with practically no experience in elective politics. We have heard some of the harshest rhetoric by a political front-runner since George Wallace in 1968.

Heck, 2012 was downright boring. There was no contest on one side, and in view of the polarization of the states, there were few real swing states. I'm not saying that this Presidential year won't end up with the model that I had in 2008 and 2012 with the election hinging upon four or five states scattered around the country with the rest obvious...

The right approach depends upon probability and historical precedent. Much of the political discourse now comes from the basest parts of the psyche, and it is horrible. So is any discussion of the prospects of any pol that begins "He is so horrible I can't imagine how anyone could vote for him". I heard that of Ronald Reagan many times -- and of Barack Obama.

So what really matters this time?

1. Is one Party successfully poaching voters from constituencies long  taken-for-granted by the other side? this could be ethnic, religious, or occupational groups.

2. Are core constituencies of one Party dying off? Are the newest voters heavily going one way? Democrats were excited about participation of Generation X voters whom they expected to rescue Jimmy Carter and Democrats in general in 1980.  Oh, were they wrong! Those new voters went heavily toward conservatives of any kind.

3. Will the economy melt down  before November? Will there be some military or diplomatic catastrophe? Will there be a major scandal to wreck someone?

4. Will someone make a discreditable gaffe after being nominated?

5. Is statewide polarization likely to remain as severe as it has been in the last two Presidential elections?

6. How competent will the campaign strategies be?

7. Will huge infusions of cash from well-heeled donors buy effective ad time? Will the ads work? Will the money be spent effectively?

8. Will someone's health fail?  

Anyone who thinks that he has an answer to any of these questions is a fool.    
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernard Sanders calling himself a "Democratic socialist"? on: January 26, 2016, 10:47:18 pm
Democratic Socialism to me at least is still an oxymoron.  It is an erosion of economic liberty of the individual by the majority.   So it is incompatible with true liberal democracy in my opinion.  But at the same time most of the members of Socialist International have moderated in other liberal democracies where they are basically the catch all/largest Center Left party.  But Bernie's past embrace of Cuba and other autocracies makes it more likely he is a "democratic" socialist more for political expedience. 

If people truly want social democracy, then they want both socialism and democracy. So long as government does not confiscate private property without compensation it does not violate the prohibition of seizure of private property without one of either just compensation or adjudication of criminal use of property.

Government ownership and operation of business is unpopular -- so unpopular that the allegedly-left-wing President Obama privatized just about everything taken over in 'receivership socialism'.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What specifically did Jeb Bush do wrong? - Serious Answers Only on: January 26, 2016, 10:40:52 pm
Having the same advisers as his brother.
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: January 26, 2016, 08:45:53 am
If I were you, I wouldn't change the maps until after he officially announces, could just be trying to get some more attention.

Such is my intention. All I have so far is a national race which I can at most use as a control for making sense of state polls. We will see binary polls for a short time should Michael Bloomberg choose to run.   
48  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Cooper (D) leads McCrory (R) by 3 on: January 26, 2016, 12:37:45 am
An incumbent with 40% at this stage is in a very bad position even with a lead. McCrory can win, but he has his work cut out for him.  This is old analysis relevant to 2006-2009 for incumbent Governors and Senators who have been elected before.

Hardly anyone expects a repeat of a 2010 or 2014 electorate. This is a Presidential year, and it will more resemble 2004 (least favorable to Democrats), 2008 (most favorable to Democrats) or 2012 (in between). Still, just about  any incumbent previously elected has shown that he can campaign competently for re-election, and whether he wins or loses will depend upon

(1) the competence of his opponent, which is usually in doubt, and
(2) the satisfaction that voters have with the incumbent at the start of the campaign.

If an incumbent politician pol shows evidence of starting with 35% or so of the vote, then he is unlikely to run. He might be grossly incompetent, extreme, or corrupt and likely to lose.  

I have this qualification this year: there will be plenty of Koch-aine supplied to Republican campaigns that have any chance of winning in 2016. Maybe that changes everything; maybe it doesn't.

From hereon it is Nate Silver, and not I:

  



 Incumbents almost always get a larger share of the actual vote than they do in early polls (as do challengers). They do not ďget what they get in the trackingĒ; they almost always get more.

 However, the incumbentís vote share in early polls may in fact be a better predictor of the final margin in the race than the opponentís vote share. That is, it may be proper to focus more on the incumbentís number than the opponentís when evaluating such a poll ó even though it is extremely improper to assume that the incumbent will not pick up any additional percentage of the vote.

....

This analysis focuses only on early polls: those conducted between January and June of an incumbentís election year. I do not attempt to evaluate such claims with respect to late polls, such as those conducted in the weeks immediately preceding an election. It is late polls which are traditionally the subject of the so-called ďincumbent ruleď, which is the idea that voters who remain undecided late in the race tend to break toward the challenger at the ballot booth. (Note, however, the evidence for the late version of the incumbent rule is also mixed.)

5 of the 15 incumbents to have under 45 percent of the vote in early polls also won their elections. These were Bob Menendez (38.9 percent), Tim Palwenty (42.0 percent), Don Carcieri (42.3 percent), Jennifer Granholm (43.4 percent) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (44.3 percent), all in 2006.

.....

On average, the incumbent added 6.4 percent to his voting total between the early polling average and the election, whereas the challenger added 4.5 percent. Looked at differently, the incumbent actually picked up the majority ó 59 percent ó of the undecided vote vis-a-vis early polls.

....

Finally, although this is not apparent from the graph itself, it does appear to be the case that the incumbentís share of the vote is a better predictor of the final voting margin than the challengerís share. The correlation between the incumbentís vote share in early polls and the final voting margin is .85; the correlation between the challengerís vote share and the final margin has a smaller magnitude, at (negative) .80. Interestingly, the correlation between the margin in early polls and the final margin is also just .85 ó no better than that obtained from looking at the incumbentís vote share alone. This may suggest that the opponentís vote share provides little additional informational value once the incumbentís vote share is known. As I hope Iíve made clear, however, this does not mean that incumbents ďget what they get in the trackingĒ; they almost always add to their number. It is probably OK to focus on an incumbentís vote share in early polls while downplaying the challengerís number, but if you do, you need to add 6-7 percent to it to have the most accurate prediction of his likely performance in November. ...

A table of all races included in the analysis follows below.


49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: January 26, 2016, 12:06:40 am
Should Michael Bloomberg formally enter the Presidential race, I may need to start a new map and close this thread after the week's binary match-ups which could be interesting... but quickly irrelevant. 

With Michael Bloomberg in the race I would expect Ross Perot redux at this stage. He apparently helps Trump against both Clinton and Sanders but hurts Cruz and Rubio.

http://morningconsult.com/2016/01/ne...bloomberg-win/

Clinton 36%
Trump 37%
Bloomberg 12%

Clinton 38%
Cruz 34%
Bloomberg 11%

Clinton 38%
Rubio 33%
Bloomberg 10%


http://morningconsult.com/2016/01/po...ders-vs-trump/

Sanders 35%
Trump 34%
Bloomberg 12%

Sanders 36%
Cruz 28%
Bloomberg 11%

Sanders 36%
Rubio 29%
Bloomberg 10%

The maps are going to get messy!   
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump vs Sanders: Who wins PA? on: January 24, 2016, 02:54:01 pm
We have yet to see any polls of binary match-ups. There will be polls of Pennsylvania again. Every poll of Pennsylvania is at least two months old now and obsolete. (Likewise Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 506


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines