• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Polls all over the place - the key will be turnout

S

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
5,305
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Latest poll out of Colorado from RCP shows the race tied there. But other polls show her maintaining her lead, and Nate Silver has her at about 75% winning there. Other Polls show Trump suddenly jumping ahead in New Hampshire. The RCP average shows him ahead there by almost 2 points, but Nate Silver still shows it fairly well in Clinton's camp because he doesn't seem to trust the latest polls there. NC shows a slight lead for him. RCP average has him up less than a percent there, and Nate Silver barely has him up there too, but some polls show her ahead as well. Nevada is another important case with RCP showing a huge Trump surge in the past few days so that he's now ahead by overall 2%. Nate Silver though says it's exactly tied at 46.7 to 46.7% and then he gives a very slight edge to Trump for that (momentum?). Very odd. Pennsylvania is another odd duck. Some RCP polls show a tie, but others show Clinton doing OK there and her average, although diminished is at 2.5% win. Nate Silver thinks she's got that one in the bag.

The one pseudo bright spot seems to be a strange resurgence by Clinton in Florida - at least according to RCP. The RCP average for her suddenly has jumped over the last two days and she's barely ahead, by a bit more than 1% (Obama won it by 0.9% in 2012). However Nate Silver says it will barely go for Trump, by 1%. It's just impossible to say. He seems to weight Republican polls a bit higher.

Overall Nate Silver would have her barely over 270 Ev's, actually by my count, 271 because of the Washington faithless elector and I suspect that Maine will split one to Trump. Silver has a good track record, only missing one state in 08, and none in 12. But using RCP's averages, and assuming she loses Florida (big if, obviously) but that's what Nate Silver says, then she can still win Colorado and still lose the entire race. If that were to happen it would be 269 - 269, which would mean a tie (and Trump wins), except that the Washington faithless elector or the split Maine elector shifts it for Trump regardless. That would be a really, really bad scenario. I'd rather Trump win outright than tie or have the faithless elector decide the race.

The data also seems to show that it is due to undecideds breaking Trump's way as opposed to a shift. Why is that? Well one poll showed that among undecideds the email headline made them more unlikely to vote for her than not by a significant margin. Comey really is to blame. Trump better reward him with the AG's spot! However this article argues that the rest of the undecideds will break towards Clinton and thus put her ahead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...lling_shift_what_the_yougov_survey_shows.html But I wonder if it really depends on where those undecideds are. Not sure if that was in his models.

Obviously it is impossible to call it - still. I've been waiting to call it for a long time, but have been hesitant. I thought for sure now she'd be in a comfortable lead, and I suspect were it not for Comey's pulling his bullshit announcement, I suspect she would be (although the polls would still have tightened). The public though is focusing on the latest news and ignoring what the candidates are saying for the most part. So when Faux news pulls its bullshit stunt and says she's going to be indicted and then it turns out to be utter bullshit, it makes a difference. We've been waiting too long for a bad statement from Trump. We need something new asap.

But the real key is turnout. Clinton can win North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire if the democratic ground game gets moving and works. It's better than Trump's for sure, so there is that hope. Tight races often fall for the Dems because of higher turnout. Sufficiently motivated people go to the polls. The recent court ruling in North Carolina is very good news with about 6,000 African Americans restored to the rolls. That could tip the margin of victory there. Plus voter suppression efforts there seem to have backfired. So I have high hopes that North Carolina is winnable. (In fact, I will be there on election day helping out.) But, I also wonder to what extent those issues have already been taken into account in polling models and thus the negative polls are still accurate. Plus both NC and Florida have Republican governors and they can fuck with voters in strange ways. Jeb Bush made sure that AA voters were fucked with in 2000.

I think this all means that turnout will be key but an accurate prediction is impossible until about 8 p.m. EST on the 8th. I'm tempted to go back to bed until then. But i did volunteer to help out in NC so I will be there. Sheesh. Scary!!!

SLD
 
SLD said:
Latest poll out of Colorado from RCP shows the race tied there. But other polls show her maintaining her lead, and Nate Silver has her at about 75% winning there. Other Polls show Trump suddenly jumping ahead in New Hampshire. The RCP average shows him ahead there by almost 2 points, but Nate Silver still shows it fairly well in Clinton's camp because he doesn't seem to trust the latest polls there. NC shows a slight lead for him. RCP average has him up less than a percent there, and Nate Silver barely has him up there too, but some polls show her ahead as well. Nevada is another important case with RCP showing a huge Trump surge in the past few days so that he's now ahead by overall 2%. Nate Silver though says it's exactly tied at 46.7 to 46.7% and then he gives a very slight edge to Trump for that (momentum?). Very odd. Pennsylvania is another odd duck. Some RCP polls show a tie, but others show Clinton doing OK there and her average, although diminished is at 2.5% win. Nate Silver thinks she's got that one in the bag.

The one pseudo bright spot seems to be a strange resurgence by Clinton in Florida - at least according to RCP. The RCP average for her suddenly has jumped over the last two days and she's barely ahead, by a bit more than 1% (Obama won it by 0.9% in 2012). However Nate Silver says it will barely go for Trump, by 1%. It's just impossible to say. He seems to weight Republican polls a bit higher.

Overall Nate Silver would have her barely over 270 Ev's, actually by my count, 271 because of the Washington faithless elector and I suspect that Maine will split one to Trump. Silver has a good track record, only missing one state in 08, and none in 12. But using RCP's averages, and assuming she loses Florida (big if, obviously) but that's what Nate Silver says, then she can still win Colorado and still lose the entire race. If that were to happen it would be 269 - 269, which would mean a tie (and Trump wins), except that the Washington faithless elector or the split Maine elector shifts it for Trump regardless. That would be a really, really bad scenario. I'd rather Trump win outright than tie or have the faithless elector decide the race.

The data also seems to show that it is due to undecideds breaking Trump's way as opposed to a shift. Why is that? Well one poll showed that among undecideds the email headline made them more unlikely to vote for her than not by a significant margin. Comey really is to blame. Trump better reward him with the AG's spot! However this article argues that the rest of the undecideds will break towards Clinton and thus put her ahead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...lling_shift_what_the_yougov_survey_shows.html But I wonder if it really depends on where those undecideds are. Not sure if that was in his models.

Obviously it is impossible to call it - still. I've been waiting to call it for a long time, but have been hesitant. I thought for sure now she'd be in a comfortable lead, and I suspect were it not for Comey's pulling his bullshit announcement, I suspect she would be (although the polls would still have tightened). The public though is focusing on the latest news and ignoring what the candidates are saying for the most part. So when Faux news pulls its bullshit stunt and says she's going to be indicted and then it turns out to be utter bullshit, it makes a difference. We've been waiting too long for a bad statement from Trump. We need something new asap.

But the real key is turnout. Clinton can win North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire if the democratic ground game gets moving and works. It's better than Trump's for sure, so there is that hope. Tight races often fall for the Dems because of higher turnout. Sufficiently motivated people go to the polls. The recent court ruling in North Carolina is very good news with about 6,000 African Americans restored to the rolls. That could tip the margin of victory there. Plus voter suppression efforts there seem to have backfired. So I have high hopes that North Carolina is winnable. (In fact, I will be there on election day helping out.) But, I also wonder to what extent those issues have already been taken into account in polling models and thus the negative polls are still accurate. Plus both NC and Florida have Republican governors and they can fuck with voters in strange ways. Jeb Bush made sure that AA voters were fucked with in 2000.

I think this all means that turnout will be key but an accurate prediction is impossible until about 8 p.m. EST on the 8th. I'm tempted to go back to bed until then. But i did volunteer to help out in NC so I will be there. Sheesh. Scary!!!

SLD
Click to expand...

Turnout is one issue but it still means it depends on who those turn up will vote for.
 
MSNBC did a good report on Pennsylvania. There the Democrats have a well oiled machine that always does very well at turning out the voters. Same thing this election cycle. Confidence there is high. We shall see.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
MSNBC did a good report on Pennsylvania. There the Democrats have a well oiled machine that always does very well at turning out the voters. Same thing this election cycle. Confidence there is high. We shall see.
Click to expand...
Confidence level in Pa. for either party is not high. It is fairly easy to determine which state a party thinks it has in the bag by how much time they spend campaigning in the state. Both parties are having a lot of rallies in Pa. (meaning they are both worried) and are attempting to boost their chances. Check how many major rallies each party has held in Pa. and they will both end their campaigns there.

Meanwhile, even though Ca. has over twice the electoral votes of Pa., there is little campaigning there because Clinton knows she has it in the bag and Trump knows it would be a waste of time.
 
I just finished another interesting read with comments by Nate Silver criticizing his own statistical data. He cautioned that in reality, Clinton's lead is about the same as it always has been, and that the ups and downs are due to enthusiasm depending on the news cycle. Thus when Clinton was way up in the polls it was a reflection of a lack of enthusiasm by Trump supporters because of the negative backlash over his groping women. Clinton appears down now because now they are fired up over the email scandal, and Clinton supporters are upset. This can impact polling in a variety of ways. But he thought she was likely ahead and would be so on November was refreshing to read and gave me hope.

SLD
 
I admit, I watch MSNBC in the evenings, so my bias runs their way. But the hosts (especially Hayes, Maddow, O'Donnell) do a fairly good job of backing their arguments -- so -- as jittery as most of my progressive friends are -- I think the math is on HRC's side. And the long term math, too, which makes this all of a piece. The GOP (and Trumpo, in spades) has one key demographic, and that's COCK. Crazy Old Caucasian Knuckledraggers. And they're melting away. In 25 years, we'll be a minority-majority society. So ride that COCK, Republicans. Stroke it for all it's worth. It's probably already made its last stand.
 
Early voter polls in Florida have Clinton 48% Trump 40%.Florida was Trumps only path to 270.28% of registered Repubs went Clinton!
 
I cannot rest easy yet, I need to see this called.
 
Terrell said:
I cannot rest easy yet, I need to see this called.
Click to expand...
Nevada tells us plenty. Hispanics are voting in large numbers this year. Nevada is Clinton's which means Colorado is Clinton's. Take Virginia and that is it, assuming Clinton wins PA. Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio will be close and Clinton should take 2 of 3. I think 341 is still attainable.
 
If Clinton has all the states Gore carried minus Iowa and she gets CO, VA and either NV or NH, then Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina don't matter. I expect 538 to be right, but I can't rest at ease at this point. Probably something specific to me.

One thing that will be great about Wednesday is no more political ads for a while.
 
Terrell said:
If Clinton has all the states Gore carried minus Iowa and she gets CO, VA and either NV or NH, then Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina don't matter. I expect 538 to be right, but I can't rest at ease at this point. Probably something specific to me.

One thing that will be great about Wednesday is no more political ads for a while.
Click to expand...
But be ready for "Does Clinton have a mandate" bullshit. Clinton has the White House. The question is where is the Senate (+1 R to +4 D possible) and the House. It really comes down to suburbs where seats are gerrymandered. Are enough suburb college education white women angry enough at Trump? While the Dems taking the House seems impossible, I don't rule a surprise out. Regardless, how many seats the Dems win back is completely unknown. I can pretty much call Ohio as a net gain of 0 House seats, regardless how well Clinton does in the State. And Portman successfully blamed the '08 crash consequences on Strickland, so that seat is significantly lost.
 
It won't be in the form of a question from the Repugs...

Jimmy Higgins said:
Terrell said:
If Clinton has all the states Gore carried minus Iowa and she gets CO, VA and either NV or NH, then Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina don't matter. I expect 538 to be right, but I can't rest at ease at this point. Probably something specific to me.

One thing that will be great about Wednesday is no more political ads for a while.
Click to expand...
But be ready for "Does Clinton DOESN'T have a mandate" bullshit. Clinton has the White House.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
I just read an article that said that 36% of early Hispanic voters in Florida had never voted before. If their turnout is up that much generally, it will absolutely be decisive.
 
Sarpedon said:
I just read an article that said that 36% of early Hispanic voters in Florida had never voted before. If their turnout is up that much generally, it will absolutely be decisive.
Click to expand...

Mandate schmandate - if the Pugs retain the senate, then a 403 to 135 victory won't mean shit. If the Dems get the senate, a 271 to 267 victory will be as good as a landslide, but not much will be done since the house will still be filled with the products of Pug gerrymandering. But at least we won't be getting into a nuclear holocaust because of a tweet.
 
Please, please Americans, for the world's sake vote down this spoilt, bloated Nazi.
 
Sarpedon said:
I just read an article that said that 36% of early Hispanic voters in Florida had never voted before. If their turnout is up that much generally, it will absolutely be decisive.
Click to expand...
There are a couple things that I give me a little bit of hope for the House.
1) The Canadian election. The polls were right overall, but had a small opening for a landslide, which is what we saw.
2) This opening exists in the US. Some polls indicate an odd number of undecided. Will the FBI acquitting Clinton again, I have to wonder how many will switch to the first woman President vote.
3) Hispanics. The Republican Party doesn't do well with them. Trump pretty much took a crap on them. What we didn't know was how they'd react turnout wise. This turnout is not calibrated in the polls (nor is the increase in Hispanic population either). The Hispanics may help win House seats in Texas.
4) College educated white women in the suburbs. Depends on the polling how women go for Clinton. The suburbs often hold control over some House seats. Trump has done enough to make women vote for Clinton both on principals that Trump is a misognist and the whole Clinton would be the first female President. I think this may carry down the ballot as well.

A lot of things need to tilt certain ways, but a House majority win, may not be impossible. Not likely, but still possible. Texas would need to be very close, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom