OH-Bloomberg: Trump +5/+5
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:29:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  OH-Bloomberg: Trump +5/+5
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: OH-Bloomberg: Trump +5/+5  (Read 4917 times)
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2016, 11:04:31 AM »

Interesting.

Trump might get a few days of good polling now, but Hillary should recover when the debates start or when Obama campaigns the full month of October with her ...
Why? And the LV/RV divergence didn't started today, not even yesterday. It started for 2-3 weeks ago, i.e. it more or less started when all "A" pollsters switched to LV and Trump's biggest gaffes faded away.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2016, 11:06:01 AM »
« Edited: September 14, 2016, 11:08:06 AM by Wiz in Wis »


the concept of differential response rates based on enthusiasm is not generalizable? Based on what, your gut?

No, their conclusions that "vote swings in 2012 were mostly sample artifacts" and from selection bias and that "a pivotal set of voters, attentively listening to the presidential debates and switching sides" doesn't exist are as much artifacts of their own selection bias in choosing the 2012 election as anything.

Differential response rates to opt-in polls are obviously a real thing.

Your suggesting that survey methodology examined in 2012 cannot be used in 2016 because 2016 is not 2012? That's not how generalization works. If a survey design issue is uncovered in 2012, if those same approaches exist in 2016, you can make assumptions that the same phenomena are still occurring. I mean, that's why convention bounces are a thing... enthusiasm for candidates goes up, as does the likelihood of participating in a poll.

I'm saying that differential participation in polls is at least partly responsible for this result, as are shifts in enthusiasm affecting the LV screen. However, these may not be all that strongly correlated to final vote. In other words, fewer people switch their minds day to day than these polls would suggest.

I mean, which of these two scenarios are more likely:

Between August 7 and August 28, 10% of Wisconsin voters switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Trump, or, differential rates of enthusiasm, based on the Dem convention and then subsequent bad news for Clinton, affected both participant self-report on probability to vote and probability to participate in the poll in the first place, while actual voter preference changed by a much smaller amount.

Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2016, 11:06:30 AM »

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Well, you are just as entitled to your opinion just as I am. We will just have to see. I'm rather excited for this election in the sense that it means that one way or another, the Republican wet dream of forever-2004 electorates, with minorities once again retreating from the polls on election day, will finally be put to the test.
The difference is that I'm not trying to misscredit polls because of my beliefs (and I also believe in Shy Trumpers Cheesy)
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2016, 11:16:17 AM »

Hillary is a disaster her baggage was always going to be an issue, she is a terrible candidate I wish people would understand this. This race should not be competitive neither should the primary. She is outspending him 3-1, superior GOTV, strong Obama JA any candidate should be crushing their opponent with these fundamentals.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2016, 11:20:09 AM »

Let me say it one more time. That poll is probably a tiny outlier, but it is unskewing to look at self-reported party identification. Why? Because if Trump really gained by any reason it would be reflected in party identification numbers as well. Those who vote Trump will likely identify them as Republicans and vice versa.

So it is a cyclic argument. Kind of.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2016, 11:21:53 AM »

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Well, you are just as entitled to your opinion just as I am. We will just have to see. I'm rather excited for this election in the sense that it means that one way or another, the Republican wet dream of forever-2004 electorates, with minorities once again retreating from the polls on election day, will finally be put to the test.
The difference is that I'm not trying to misscredit polls because of my beliefs (and I also believe in Shy Trumpers Cheesy)

Is that the jab I was waiting for? You just can't help yourself.

Anyway, there is nothing sacrosanct about polls. If I see a projected electorate that differs widely from recent elections and also from well-studied voting and demographic trends, of course I am going to be skeptical. You can think what you want in regards to that. I suppose it would help if you yourself knew more about how and why the electorate has been changing (hint: it's not nearly all Obama's doing). Maybe you do, I dunno, but I don't care.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2016, 11:22:43 AM »


the concept of differential response rates based on enthusiasm is not generalizable? Based on what, your gut?

No, their conclusions that "vote swings in 2012 were mostly sample artifacts" and from selection bias and that "a pivotal set of voters, attentively listening to the presidential debates and switching sides" doesn't exist are as much artifacts of their own selection bias in choosing the 2012 election as anything.

Differential response rates to opt-in polls are obviously a real thing.

Your suggesting that survey methodology examined in 2012 cannot be used in 2016 because 2016 is not 2012? That's not how generalization works. If a survey design issue is uncovered in 2012, if those same approaches exist in 2016, you can make assumptions that the same phenomena are still occurring. I mean, that's why convention bounces are a thing... enthusiasm for candidates goes up, as does the likelihood of participating in a poll.

I'm saying that differential participation in polls is at least partly responsible for this result, as are shifts in enthusiasm affecting the LV screen. However, these may not be all that strongly correlated to final vote. In other words, fewer people switch their minds day to day than these polls would suggest.

I mean, which of these two scenarios are more likely:

Between August 7 and August 28, 10% of Wisconsin voters switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Trump, or, differential rates of enthusiasm, based on the Dem convention and then subsequent bad news for Clinton, affected both participant self-report on probability to vote and probability to participate in the poll in the first place, while actual voter preference changed by a much smaller amount.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not really talking about polls at all. We're talking about two different aspects of this paper.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,931
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2016, 11:26:41 AM »

Again, people here seemed to have not learned any lessons from 2012. Romney was overestimated and on election day, everyone acted like they predicted Obama would win all along. A lot of these posts need to be bookmarked, because I'm guessing a lot of people will pretend like they never doubted Clinton will win.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2016, 11:30:55 AM »

Again, people here seemed to have not learned any lessons from 2012. Romney was overestimated and on election day, everyone acted like they predicted Obama would win all along. A lot of these posts need to be bookmarked, because I'm guessing a lot of people will pretend like they never doubted Clinton will win.

Of course Clinton is the favorite, but pretending that she can just sleep through the rest of the campaign is ridiculous. Trump has a chance.

Everything rests on the debates.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2016, 11:34:25 AM »


the concept of differential response rates based on enthusiasm is not generalizable? Based on what, your gut?

No, their conclusions that "vote swings in 2012 were mostly sample artifacts" and from selection bias and that "a pivotal set of voters, attentively listening to the presidential debates and switching sides" doesn't exist are as much artifacts of their own selection bias in choosing the 2012 election as anything.

Differential response rates to opt-in polls are obviously a real thing.

Your suggesting that survey methodology examined in 2012 cannot be used in 2016 because 2016 is not 2012? That's not how generalization works. If a survey design issue is uncovered in 2012, if those same approaches exist in 2016, you can make assumptions that the same phenomena are still occurring. I mean, that's why convention bounces are a thing... enthusiasm for candidates goes up, as does the likelihood of participating in a poll.

I'm saying that differential participation in polls is at least partly responsible for this result, as are shifts in enthusiasm affecting the LV screen. However, these may not be all that strongly correlated to final vote. In other words, fewer people switch their minds day to day than these polls would suggest.

I mean, which of these two scenarios are more likely:

Between August 7 and August 28, 10% of Wisconsin voters switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Trump, or, differential rates of enthusiasm, based on the Dem convention and then subsequent bad news for Clinton, affected both participant self-report on probability to vote and probability to participate in the poll in the first place, while actual voter preference changed by a much smaller amount.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not really talking about polls at all. We're talking about two different aspects of this paper.

Oh... ok. Well, what in the 2012 approach do you think doesn't apply to 2016. Also, interestingly, it appears that the YouGov/Economist poll uses the same approach that Gelman/et al. did with the X-boxes, in that it also uses ideology as a weighting factor. YouGov has always had the race between +1 and +6 Clinton... they really don't show outliers. Today, they show Clinton +2, same as last week.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,931
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2016, 11:37:11 AM »

Again, people here seemed to have not learned any lessons from 2012. Romney was overestimated and on election day, everyone acted like they predicted Obama would win all along. A lot of these posts need to be bookmarked, because I'm guessing a lot of people will pretend like they never doubted Clinton will win.

Of course Clinton is the favorite, but pretending that she can just sleep through the rest of the campaign is ridiculous. Trump has a chance.

Everything rests on the debates.

I didn't say she could sleep through the campaign, my point was that this board is often very wrong at making predictions.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2016, 01:30:52 PM »

Always great when one poll causes a massive overreaction. Has Selzer even polled Ohio before this cycle?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2016, 01:33:03 PM »

Selzer has been a very good pollster.  There was one poll suggesting that Clinton would be up 7. Do 12-point swings happen that fast?

One or the other poll is an outlier, if not both. The average between the two polls still has Hillary Clinton up on3.

Donald Trump does resonate with blue-collar white people, and those people have not been doing well in Ohio.  In theory, Democrats can pay a high price for that in Ohio and elsewhere.  
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2016, 02:01:14 PM »

Hillary does not need OH, as already pointed out. If the Trumpster can't win PA, he has no chance to take over the White House. But I still think that Hillary will carry OH by two or more points.
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2016, 02:09:56 PM »

Ok, love the 43R to 36D breakdown in party id numbers in the poll.  Really makes it seem valid.

Sure, why not? Tongue

Ohio Primary Results 2008
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/OH.html
Democratic Party: Total 2.22 Million votes
Republican Party: Total 1.06 Million votes

Ohio Primary Results 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio
Democratic Party: Total 1.20 Million votes
Republican Party: Total 2.04 Million votes

Red Avatars even complain at 'Bloomberg' Poll (pro-hillary media) lol




Umm, in 2008 the Republican primary was already a foregone conclusion by Ohio, while the Dem primary was still up in the air. In 2016 it was the opposite; the Dem primary was technically still contested, but anyone who doubted that Clinton would win was in denial, while the Republican side was still scrambling to keep Trump from 1237, and had a yuuugely popular Governor on the ticket. Point is, it's nowhere near apples-to-apples
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,136
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: September 14, 2016, 05:32:05 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2016, 05:38:56 PM by Comrade Funk »

Clinton doesn't need Ohio, Iowa and Florida.
She has to win the Kerry states 2004 + Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia,
then she ends with 273 EV.

Stop pretending like Ohio is in vacuum. If Trump's gained here 3-4%, he's probably gained 2-3% in many other states as well, in Wisconsin for instance.

Wisconsin is out of reach for him as is Pennsylvania. And if doesn't win Florida, he's done.
Well the Democrats shouldn't have nominated someone so hated and thought of as corrupt
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: September 14, 2016, 08:59:27 PM »

Game over for Hillary
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: September 14, 2016, 09:20:55 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2016, 09:23:52 PM by ApatheticAustrian »

general question:

how would a good democratic candidate (definition of "good" could be important), have changed this race?

more millenial support? maybe, but i guess this is a tough task anyway.

reaching our to persuadable republicans and "independents" in a more convinving way? (could again be a problem with convincing millenials at the same time)

holding blue-collar voiters inside his own coalition? this would be the toughtest job of all, in my opinion, regardless who the dems nominated. you need trump's bizarre choice of using borderline racism for attention and after that a "everyone has sold you out"-attitude, which a member of obama's party can clearly not reproduce after 8 years of democratic leadership.

i agree, the motivation of the democratic coalition could be higher on all levels but during the last weeks i came to the conclusion that mister trump, in fact, is not a shellshock candidate at all...more like a transformative figure, who puts all chips on one colour. (white ofc Tongue)

it's kind of super-mega-hyper double-down, the greatest gamble of all and its goal is to crush the democratic alliance from within instead of trying to defeat it with the same shrinking part of the reagan-adoring electorate.

trump may not have done it himself or even invented the plan but he is riding the zeitgeist in a perfect way ......as was, on a much smaller level, mister sanders.

in fact, call me crazy but i believe, mister trump and miss clinton are each canceling out the negatives of the other one and the only thing remaining is the visible fight between a man seen as kind of a european nationalist with a social-democratic view of the economy and a socially liberal technocrat with a seemingly similar economic plan.

in my opinion....clinton is, with all her faults, not THAT bad....the philosophy behing mister trump is just SO GOOD right now that even a natural politician would struggle.


 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2016, 08:45:35 AM »

I fail to see what Donald Trump has to offer. Were I thirty years younger I would be preparing to emigrate. A Trump Presidency will be the worst four years of American history since the Civil War. Heck, at least the Depression began with peace and honest government under Hoover, and people saw steady improvements in their lives before Pearl Harbor. The Gilded Age was at the least a time of unbridled opportunity.

Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2016, 08:49:01 AM »

I fail to see what Donald Trump has to offer. Were I thirty years younger I would be preparing to emigrate. A Trump Presidency will be the worst four years of American history since the Civil War. Heck, at least the Depression began with peace and honest government under Hoover, and people saw steady improvements in their lives before Pearl Harbor. The Gilded Age was at the least a time of unbridled opportunity.


OK!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.