Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 27, 2016, 05:29:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 174
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary inevitable again? on: Today at 01:52:54 am
This is a very terrible troll because it's not a parody of anything that exists in the real world! Seek professional help!



There's literally another thread like four threads down that says "we can all stop panicking now."  Liberals all over the internet are getting smug about Hillary "obviously" winning when they were all wringing their hands not two hours earlier about how she was gonna blow the election.

I like how you wrote this and then felt the urge to come back and edit in "Seek professional help!" after the fact.

Have you ever followed a national election before? We're smug because we won. This is what always happens after a major victory of some kind in a general election debate or after a gaffe; opponents of the candidate who triumphed wring their hands and supporters of the candidate who triumphed get very boastful. The reason why I don't think that your thread parodies anything that's real is that anyone who is reacting in this manner is a Hillary hack; no one moved from Hillary to Stein due to this debate. You're parodying a figment if your imagination son.

Dude, if you feel the need to make threads to troll people, you need to seek professional help. It's really pathetic, not constructive and so on. It's..not good! Don't do this! I troll people the way that normals troll people: I make snide remarks to them inside of threads. This reduces the amount of clutter on the forum. I don't make disingenuous trash threads that bump good threads to the 2nd page. This is bad form. Don't do this.

Please don't become the new Senator Smith and start following me around and attacking me on every thread just because you lost a debate with me once.

If you can't stand the heat of criticism, maybe you shouldn't systematically mock liberals by posting a disingenuous thread, ya delicate flower!
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary inevitable again? on: Today at 01:42:56 am
This is a very terrible troll because it's not a parody of anything that exists in the real world! Seek professional help!



There's literally another thread like four threads down that says "we can all stop panicking now."  Liberals all over the internet are getting smug about Hillary "obviously" winning when they were all wringing their hands not two hours earlier about how she was gonna blow the election.

I like how you wrote this and then felt the urge to come back and edit in "Seek professional help!" after the fact.

Have you ever followed a national election before? We're smug because we won. This is what always happens after a major victory of some kind in a general election debate or after a gaffe; opponents of the candidate who triumphed wring their hands and supporters of the candidate who triumphed get very boastful. The reason why I don't think that your thread parodies anything that's real is that anyone who is reacting in this manner is a Hillary hack; no one moved from Hillary to Stein due to this debate. You're parodying a figment if your imagination son.

Dude, if you feel the need to make threads to troll people, you need to seek professional help. It's really pathetic, not constructive and so on. It's..not good! Don't do this! I troll people the way that normals troll people: I make snide remarks to them inside of threads. This reduces the amount of clutter on the forum. I don't make disingenuous trash threads that bump good threads to the 2nd page. This is bad form. Don't do this.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary inevitable again? on: Today at 01:19:16 am
This is a very terrible troll because it's not a parody of anything that exists in the real world! Seek professional help!

4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who won the first debate? on: September 26, 2016, 11:26:18 pm
Donald choked like a dog!
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Post-Debate Media Spin/Focus Group/Poll Megathread on: September 26, 2016, 11:25:15 pm
PPP says Hillary won 51-40.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_PostDebatePoll_92616.pdf

D+9 debate watching sample.

6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Post first debate: What will the final PV margin and electoral map be? on: September 26, 2016, 11:10:58 pm


Hillary Clinton 52.3%, 384 EVs
Donald Trump 42.5%, 154 EVs

I might as well go "balls out" and make a bold prediction so I can accept my accolades if I'm right.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Well, I think we can stop panicking now on: September 26, 2016, 11:04:19 pm
Who is this "we" you are referring to?  Why do you and many red avatars assume everyone on this website is backing Hillary Clinton, instead of Trump, Johnson, Stein or someone else, or is undecided or doesn't care, or wasn't panicking in the first place?   This isn't supposed to be an exclusively pro-Clinton website.

you triggered bro?

Look, if you're backing the conartist and fraud, so be it but Dave Leip's Election Atlas has always been a Titanium D forum and it'd be a lie to act as if we weren't. This is largely a site for Democratic hacks, particularly in this election. Deal with it!
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump really going to make the next two debates? on: September 26, 2016, 11:02:11 pm
Here's a hot take straight out of the oven boys: there's a strong possibility that he won't because he's Donald Trump. When Donald Trump crashes, he crashes hard. He's going to make a fool out of himself over the next week. There isn't going to be any "damage control". He's going to foam at the mouth all over the place; at CNN, at ABC, at MSNBC etc. He's going to look very unhinged when he does this. The most salient takeaway of the debate is that "Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons" and he's going to solidify this takeaway and dig a hole for himself. If he gets unhinged enough, he might bail out of the debates.

Stop treating Donald Trump like he's a normal candidate. He's not. He's mentally ill and needs to be put in a straightjacket for his own safety and well-being.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Post-Debate Media Spin/Focus Group/Poll Megathread on: September 26, 2016, 10:59:09 pm
I also got the feeling that Hillary did much better in the debate, but Trump performed well enough on an emotional basis so that the overall dynamics of the race won't change at all I guess. This will remain really close until election day.

Obama also sucked badly in the first debate and still won re-election by 4.

Charismatic wunderkind Barack Obama, that the country is currently having a love affair with, is very similar to noted conartist and fraud Donald Trump imo.

Shouldn't you be busy pumping the racist running in your own country?
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has the Clinton Outreach to Millennials been a Success or Failure? on: September 26, 2016, 09:59:48 pm
It's too early to say but I'd argue that it has been an abject failure thus far. She can still turn things around though!

She turned it around in one night. Amazing!
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has the Clinton Outreach to Millennials been a Success or Failure? on: September 26, 2016, 06:55:43 pm
It's too early to say but I'd argue that it has been an abject failure thus far. She can still turn things around though!
12  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, 01:36:20 pm
Cook's 2016 PVI projections for these states is: PA D+2, CO D+1.  (For comparison, 2012 he had it: PA D+2, CO Even.)

One point difference.  I'll repeat that...one point.

To say that it's impossible for them to flip is assigning a precision to demographic-based voting tendencies that doesn't exist in the real world.  Humans are complex.  Elections have all sorts of cross-currents.  PVI is an estimate of a trend.  It's a 2nd derivative.

CA to the right of UT is impossible.  CO 20 points to the right of PA is impossible.

CO 1-3 points to the right of PA is certainly possible.

"WV 1-3 points to the left of North Carolina is certainly possible." - some guy in 2008

You can't rely on historical benchmarks this year in the way that you could in 2012, which is why I discount Cook's predicted PVIs. Why bother utilizing them if we have ample national polling data that can be used to build models that can predict forecasts/trends?

I'd note that I haven't done this (yet) but it doesn't take a statistician to notice that, huh, if there's a massive swing to Hillary among college-educated whites and a massive swing to Trump among less-educated whites that Colorado would vote to the left of PA.
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, 01:34:02 pm

Drilling down further, let's suppose such a PVI shift (CO D PVI < PA D PVI) were to happen, what could explain it?


One way is the college whites that will swing away from Trump to Clinton mostly goes to Johnson in CO but goes mostly Clinton in PA overcoming the fact that there are more college whites in CO than PA to swing.   So what seems like a plus for Clinton in CO relative to PA ends up being neutral or even negative. 

That's somewhat similar to my explanation, which is based on the fact that the age distribution in CO skews relatively young. If millennial turnout both plummets and, of those who turnout, more vote for Johnson/Stein than usual, that could shift CO to the right of PA. How plausible is this scenario? I'm not sure but it strikes me as being very implausible.
14  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, 12:47:19 pm
It's getting to the point we can summarize many poll reactions this way:

"My preconceived notions of how people who disagree with me think must be superior to this undesirable polling result."

At this point, I see a lot of people basically saying, "PVI is permanent and perfect."

There is an argument that Trump is the closest thing to a map-scrambling candidate we've seen in our lifetimes.  Add that to the fact these are the most two disliked candidates in recent memory, and that's a recipe for some significant PVI-busting oddities this year.

And we have quite a few polls that are confirming that.  It's not impossible.

This is a pretty straightforward question: do you think it's plausible to argue that CO's PVI is going to shift to the right of PA's PVI? If so, why do you believe that this is plausible?

CO's PVI was to the right of PA's in 2010. They are currently both D+1 states.  Why wouldn't one state shift more to the right of the other?  PVI doesn't necessarily move in lock step.

Oh, I buy that it's plausible for one state's PVI to the shift to the right of another state's. That's the nature of PVI, no? My argument is that it isn't plausible for CO's PVI to shift to the right of PA's PVI. That's entirely implausible based on every piece of data we've seen thus far, where there's been a tremendous shift of college-educated whites to Clinton and a tremendous shift of non-college whites to Trump. Every indication is that this is the defining characteristic of this election. As such, it strikes me as preposterous to think that Colorado, a one of the most educated states in the country, could vote to the right of PA. If we were to construct a model based on crosstabs of national polls that predicted the margin of victory in each state based on demographics, if such Colorado was to vote to the right of Pennsylvania, the results of both states would have insane residual values. They'd be outliers!

Drilling down further, let's suppose such a PVI shift (CO D PVI < PA D PVI) were to happen, what could explain it?

Note: I don't think that piece of evidence you've supplied is useful. Yes, Colorado's PVI was to the right of Pennsylvania's in 2010. Colorado was also a different state in 2010 than it is in 2016. The nature of partisan coalitions has shifted. If anything, the voting histories of both states are more misleading than they are useful.
15  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, 12:35:44 pm
It's getting to the point we can summarize many poll reactions this way:

"My preconceived notions of how people who disagree with me think must be superior to this undesirable polling result."

At this point, I see a lot of people basically saying, "PVI is permanent and perfect."

There is an argument that Trump is the closest thing to a map-scrambling candidate we've seen in our lifetimes.  Add that to the fact these are the most two disliked candidates in recent memory, and that's a recipe for some significant PVI-busting oddities this year.

And we have quite a few polls that are confirming that.  It's not impossible.

This is a pretty straightforward question: do you think it's plausible to argue that CO's PVI is going to shift to the right of PA's PVI? If so, why do you believe that this is plausible?
16  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, 11:39:33 am
Colorado 2012: O + 5.36
Pennsylvania 2012: O + 5.38

Colorado % of Non-Hispanic Whites with Bachelor's or Higher: ~43%
Pennsylvania % of Non-Hispanic Whites with Bachelor's or Higher: ~29%

To re-state my case: there is every reason to be skeptical about this set of polls because the idea that Colorado is going to vote two points to the right of Pennsylvania this year is inane. I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to expect Colorado to be close in the event that this election is a tossup but it's certainly unreasonable to expect it to be more favorable to Trump than Pennsylvania.

Look, I get it, this election is very stressful and the polling volatility is panic-inducing but these polls don't pass any kind of smell test. If I had the ability to make a candidate in a lab who was bound to lose Colorado, he'd be very similar to Donald Trump, who has managed to alienate every prominent constituency in the state. This doesn't even take demographic changes into account or changes in voter registration statistics; I'd expect Trump to lose Colorado by a large margin under conditions of a 2012 voter universe. 4 years have passed and Colorado's likely universe is quite different now than it was then. It's younger, it's a bit more Hispanic and it's more liberal then than it is now. There are tremendous age disparities in Colorado that are quite similar to shocking age disparities seen in, say, North Carolina or Arizona.

I'm very sleep deprived so I apologize if this post isn't all that coherent but I can't see how I'm wrong about Colorado. If anyone wants to pose a serious critique to my argument, I wouldn't mind engaging in a back in forth. It's entirely possible that my blinders are on right now...
17  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, 09:23:30 am
In all likelihood, Clinton doesn't have anything scheduled in Colorado because her analytics team doesn't think it's all that competitive. I sound like a broken record right now but these results aren't compelling to me; ~43% of Colorado Whites have a Bachelor's degree or higher, there's been a massive influx of kush-smoking millennials to Denver, there's a very substantial Mexican-American community in Colorado etc. Pollsters also have a perennial problem estimating Colorado's voting behavior. They're always off in the Republican direction. There's every reason to believe that this problem has only gotten worse recently.

This ignores the fact that the 2014 senate result was IDENTICAL to the RCP average.

Huh

I don't think you understand how this works son. Polling elsewhere was systematically biased in the Democratic direction. In this case, the fact that Colorado's 2014 senate result was identity to the RCP average is actually an indication that Colorado pollsters have a hard time obtaining representative samples. As a counter-example, Hickenlooper outperformed his polling figures by a bit over 2 percentage points.

IIRC, most people on Atlas commented on this in 2014. In retrospect, it's astonishing that Colorado was so close because the bottom fell out of the Democratic Party fell out everywhere else.
18  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, 09:12:00 am
In all likelihood, Clinton doesn't have anything scheduled in Colorado because her analytics team doesn't think it's all that competitive. I sound like a broken record right now but these results aren't compelling to me; ~43% of Colorado Whites have a Bachelor's degree or higher, there's been a massive influx of kush-smoking millennials to Denver, there's a very substantial Mexican-American community in Colorado etc. Pollsters also have a perennial problem estimating Colorado's voting behavior. They're always off in the Republican direction. There's every reason to believe that this problem has only gotten worse recently.

I can buy PA to a degree but there's no way that CO is going to be closer than PA unless Clinton wins in a blowout imo.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ME-UNH/Portland Press Herald: Clinton+4, but Trump wins CD2 by 14% on: September 25, 2016, 10:42:57 pm
Lots of denial in this thread.

It's a UNH poll...
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ME-UNH/Portland Press Herald: Clinton+4, but Trump wins CD2 by 14% on: September 25, 2016, 07:42:49 pm
haha why are people freaking out about this? this is a crosstab from a specious uni-polling firm lmao.

That's my point Dead Flags.... but Trump looks like he will win ME-02.

This is the evidence we have that points in that direction:
-a SUSA crosstab
-a wonky internal
-a UNH crosstab
-an Emerson crosstab
-a crosstab from some unknown firm with a bizarre name

SUSA is a solid polling firm but their crosstabs are notoriously terrible. I shouldn't have to explain why I don't trust the rest of these polls. Until we have more polling from reputable firms, rather than this assortment of trash, I don't buy that Trump is going to win ME-2 by more than 1-2 points. It's a tossup at worst.

Again: Clinton would compete here if her analytics team thought it was close. The alternative explanation (that it's a Trump blowout) would suggest a WV-sized trend to Trump. So I'm thinking that it's not close and that we've been mislead by junk polls. I might be wrong; we'll see.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 25, 2016, 07:33:31 pm
I live in flyover country, so if there's a regional difference in turnout models, I'll stand corrected. What I see around me are voters turned off, or if they are regular voters they are voting as soon as they reasonably can. They have learned that by voting early the calls and mail pieces largely stop and that part of the negative campaign stops with them.

Moving more predictably reliable voters to take early ballots is not a sign of higher turnout, but it is good for campaigns to lock down their base so they concentrate on that aspect. The question is what the fair-weather voters are doing, and can they be motivated to vote this year?

This is not going to be a low turnout election...

People are "turned off" because it has lasted so long. There's been an endless stream of news coverage for a year now. This doesn't mean that they aren't going to vote; they almost certainly will. The Brexit campaign was nasty, depressing and disappointed everyone who was involved; turnout was very high though. Elections that have consequences motivate people, even if they're irritated by the shape of those consequences.



No offense but I think that this is wishful thinking on your part. Black voters have been very engaged this year, as demonstrated by their turnout in the Democratic primary, and Latinos are more motivated than they've ever been for obvious reasons. I could see White turnout dropping among some demographics and in certain states but I doubt that there will much, if any dropout, among racial minorities.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ME-UNH/Portland Press Herald: Clinton+4, but Trump wins CD2 by 14% on: September 25, 2016, 07:28:28 pm
haha why are people freaking out about this? this is a crosstab from a specious uni-polling firm lmao.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Demographics and the Electorate on: September 25, 2016, 05:12:28 pm
The idea that turnout will be depressed in 2016 is pretty laughable imo. While it is true that negative campaigns tend to depress turnout, all else held constant, this explanatory variable has little effect when voters are engaged and have the sense that an election is important. Voters might be disgusted by this election cycle but there is a widespread sense that this election is incredibly important and worth paying attention to. The fact that tomorrow's debate will likely be watched by hundreds of millions is telling. So no, I do not think there is any indication that turnout will be depressed. Black or millennial turnout might be depressed relative to other groups but it will be historically high in absolute terms. Interestingly, early turnout figures suggest that it is "flyover" country that hates this election. Absentee voting figures in Iowa are miserable. Absentee voting figures in North Carolina are pretty remarkable. If I think about this election intellectually, I am convinced that polling aggregates are a mirage in many states and for the country as a whole.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump appoints Santorum as a policy advisor on: September 25, 2016, 01:51:37 am
I'm happy about this, but it's too bad he couldn't be on the top of the ticket instead.

Santorum winning a national race? The same guy who had the biggest electoral blowout of 2006?

I'm just saying I think he'd make a great President, though I definitely like Huckabee and Cruz better.  Those three would all bring real hope to America again.

Jesus Christ not this again man. I thought you left the cult! Not that what came after that was any better but you go to Stanford. You have options. I imagine that it would be rather easy to be a student at Stanford who attends a normal Protestant church and who embraces normal, mainstream Republican politics. These students exist at most elite universities and, yet, you have decided to be a certifiably insane weirdo, time and time again. Seek help!
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump appoints Santorum as a policy advisor on: September 25, 2016, 01:46:20 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9dl6E2AjI

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 174


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines