Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 24, 2019, 08:51:17 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  Election Archive
| | |-+  All Archived Boards
| | | |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
| | | | |-+  Pew: Clinton +9
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: Pew: Clinton +9  (Read 3243 times)
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,842
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2016, 01:28:59 am »

Quote
Yeah, the whole world was excited about this fresh, young, female governor who took on her own state party establishment, yada yada.  She electrified the convention.  Then she started doing interviews, and... we all know the rest.

McCain never lead prior to this and them promptly 'suspended' his campaign.

McCain was a terrible campaigner.

 
 
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,842
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2016, 01:30:56 am »

Quote
'Figuring that Hillary Clinton will do as well among every obvious religious, racial, and ethnic minority as Barack Obama... Donald Trump could fare as badly as Barry Goldwater in 1964. He probably wins the sorts of people who would vote for Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968, which will prevent him from losing in a 49-state landslide.   

I can get my map with 53 percent support from college educated white people from the democrats.

12 point lead among college educated whites means that Trump might not win a state.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,842
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2016, 01:37:14 am »

Touching nothing else, 56-44 will give us, my prediction, but with AK, MT, TX, LA still with the Republican.

To match my map, we need a 56-44 Clinton win, 84 percent Hispanic, 79 percent Asian, and a drop in the whites without a degree turnout to 51 percent.

That's it.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,565
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2016, 01:43:29 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.


No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

Huh?  When they say that men are Trump 49% Clinton 43% from a 917 person sample and women are Clinton 59% Trump 35% from a 738 person sample, that doesn't mean that every single one of those men is weighted the same or every single one of those women is weighted the same, or that the men as a group are weighted the same as the women.  It just means that 917 of the people they polled were men and 738 were women.  There's still weighting done after the fact.


Those are the final weighted subsamples. Seriously, do the arithmetic, or maybe have a grownup do it for you.

Img
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,842
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2016, 01:50:07 am »

Quote
To match my map, we need a 56-44 Clinton win, 84 percent Hispanic, 79 percent Asian, and a drop in the whites without a degree turnout to 51 percent.

Actually with the 58-42 map, you would need 83 percent Hispanic, 74 percent Asian and a drop in White turnout without a degree to 52 percent. That is a 13 point Hispanic shift away from the Republican party, and a 4 percent shift in the Asians away from Trump.

Trump is in *deep* trouble.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,526
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2016, 01:38:52 am »

Yeah, unfortunately I don't see turnout of whites w/o a college degree *dropping* under Trump.
Logged
HillOfANight
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,474
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: July 16, 2016, 09:12:15 pm »

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/
http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-to-resume-oil-exports-but-analysts-skeptical-2016-7

Just read this Business Insider article and the Pew poll came to mind.

It noted Romney led whites 18-49 by 7. Trump is only leading this group in Pew (white nonhispanic) by 1.

Specifically white women 18-49 have gone from R+2 in 2012 to D+17. White men 18-49 have moved insignificantly from R+14 to R+17.

White men 50+ have swung 8 points to Trump while white women 50+ have swung 15 to Clinton.
Logged
Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,377
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: July 16, 2016, 09:38:49 pm »

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/
http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-to-resume-oil-exports-but-analysts-skeptical-2016-7

Just read this Business Insider article and the Pew poll came to mind.

It noted Romney led whites 18-49 by 7. Trump is only leading this group in Pew (white nonhispanic) by 1.

Specifically white women 18-49 have gone from R+2 in 2012 to D+17. White men 18-49 have moved insignificantly from R+14 to R+17.

White men 50+ have swung 8 points to Trump while white women 50+ have swung 15 to Clinton.
All signs point to a large Clinton win, but the headline numbers. Weird.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,842
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: July 16, 2016, 10:04:33 pm »

Quote
Yeah, unfortunately I don't see turnout of whites w/o a college degree *dropping* under Trump.

The only state that affects is Louisiana.
Logged
Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,377
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: July 16, 2016, 11:29:24 pm »

Pew poll for June 2004 indicates a 48-46 advantage for Bush, once again nailing the margin of victory. Obviously, past success is no gurantee of future success, but this is a solid trend over the past three cycles.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,968
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2016, 05:03:11 pm »

Even shifts might be rough approximations for elections differing in the national margin by 4% or less. Obama 2008 is the max-out for Democratic performance in a binary election in many states. so should Hillary Clinton win in 2012 by something like a 10% in a binary election, then she wins about everything that Obama won in 2008 (Indiana is a possible exception because 2008 was the Perfect Storm to wreck Republican chances of winning the state that year. Replicating that would require a credit crunch, exorbitant petroleum prices, and an economic meltdown with a Republican incumbent. With a Democratic incumbent? The Democrat would lose Indiana about 65-35 and the US as a whole about 55-45).

A number as Pew has suggests the possibility of a Trump collapse. If he is getting 68-20 with the votes of under-educated white people, practically breaking even with white people, and losing badly with Asians, Hispanics, an blacks, then he stands to lose about like Stevenson did to Eisenhower... twice. Under-educated white people are not going to convince any other people  to go their way.  It is more likely that such people will meet someone who disabuses them of their hollow reasons for voting for Donald Trump.

I look at the overlay between the electoral maps of Eisenhower and Obama and I see Obama winning practically nothing (North Carolina, once, and barely in 2008) that Eisenhower didn't win. Ike won the ranching states that Obama did not win...  

Could it be that Barack Obama and Dwight Eisenhower have similar temperaments (cautious, trusting legal precedent over fickle opinion, scandal-avoiding)? Maybe that is reflected in the states. Where educational standards were highest in the 1950s, Eisenhower did well.  Those are roughly the same states today. At least one historical pattern suggests that Barack Obama acts like a 60-something member of the Lost Generation, like Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower.      

What happens if the pattern of "solid education, vote against Trump" holds?  I can see Hillary Clinton winning some states that Eisenhower won but Obama didn't.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines