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

Trump Tops Clinton in New Poll

Trausti said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
If it all turns out to be the ground game that matters, Trump is coming up short. Only 62 days to go.
Click to expand...

I think this idea of ground game being critical is outdated. Years ago, when I was politically active, I was part of the "ground game," e.g., phone calls, neighborhood canvasing, etc. But in the age of twitter, emails, and other social media, the "ground game" looks expensive and irrelevant. Trump is now ahead in some polls but he has spent, what, a third of what Clinton has? With his shoestring campaign Trump is nonetheless able to attract much larger crowds than Clinton. This election will probably upend the traditional convention on what is necessary for a successful campaign.
Click to expand...
But Trump isn't ahead of Clinton in the Electoral College, which indicates his spending hasn't been effective.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
A Survey Monkey poll shows Clinton even with Trump in Texas. Survey Monkey is not considered a premium poll source, but still, polling 5000 people in Texas, it shows that Red Texas may very well flip. Gary Johnson may well pull a lot of Never Trump voters away from Trump. It could well be that Johnson becomes the far right's villain this election cycle. Sort of Like Perot's electing Clinton. Makes me laugh.
Click to expand...

No, such a poll shows nothing of the sort. GIGO. Nate Silver gives Hilary less than 5% chance of winning Texas. I'll take that analysis over a friggen Survey Monkey poll. Monkeys don't know a damn thing about polling techniques anyway...
 
Trausti said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
If it all turns out to be the ground game that matters, Trump is coming up short. Only 62 days to go.
Click to expand...

I think this idea of ground game being critical is outdated. Years ago, when I was politically active, I was part of the "ground game," e.g., phone calls, neighborhood canvasing, etc. But in the age of twitter, emails, and other social media, the "ground game" looks expensive and irrelevant. Trump is now ahead in some polls but he has spent, what, a third of what Clinton has? With his shoestring campaign Trump is nonetheless able to attract much larger crowds than Clinton. This election will probably upend the traditional convention on what is necessary for a successful campaign.
Click to expand...

The ground game suddenly became outdated since when, the last election of 2012? Aside from the fact that Twitter, emails and social media has existed through more than one election (remember Deans internet funded campaign?) after 2012 every campaign manager in America was touting Obama's ground game as the difference maker, and the model of the future. Among the reasons:

- The Obama-Democratic campaign made twice as many voter contacts as the Romney-GOP team.

- Democratic field offices outnumber Republican offices 2-1 or 3-1 in key swing states.

- Democrats used more than a call center, they used direct contact with neighborhood team leaders, members, and volunteers in community outreach.

- The Obama campaign's effort banked huge leads weeks ahead of election day (early voting)...early voting which consisted of half the number of voters in some states.

- Having banked the votes, they focused on getting less/least likely voters to the polls as election grew near.

- Used state of the art data analytics to identify key counties and voting blocks.

- Employed timely and devastating early advertising.

And during the 2012 election, Republicans made the same excuses..."office and staff" were meaningless because polls showed that Republicans were more enthused about the election than Democrats. In 2012 Republicans were equally mislead by their campaign of big rallies and conventional polls (except Nate Silvers analytics and ground game adjustments).

That Trump now has improved to a 1/3rd chance of winning (Nate Silver) only suggests that in spite of his absent ground game and non-existent advertising, other factors (some unique) are contributing to his efforts; i.e. his personality that has gotten a few billion in free coverage from the media AND his running against the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history.

But let's face it, any candidate that can only hit a ceiling of 42 percent of the vote can't dismiss a ground game and advertising as a vote maximizing necessity (and if he had been running against far more popular Joe Biden, no doubt all this "no need for a ground game" chatter would be the subject of well earned derision.).

If Trump had actually organized a ground game to organize white working class true believers, (as Obama focused his true believers in two elections) he would be in better position.
 
Trump having a chance to win only says one thing.

Americans are the dumbest and most gullible population on the planet.

Hillary having a chance to win merely shows apathy.
 
I think Trump's strategy might be to refrain from overt tv advertising until the last moment, then go all in.
 
Jayjay said:
I think Trump's strategy might be to refrain from overt tv advertising until the last moment, then go all in.
Click to expand...

I hope so. With all the early voting, Clinton will have already won by that point.
 
I suspect CNN wanted a poll that showed a close race because that's better for ratings, so they twisted the data until they got what they wanted.

First and foremost, the CNN survey included a +4 Republican sample, when the electorate in the most recent presidential election was +7 Democratic. According to Huffington Post’s Pollster, the Democrats continue to have an edge of seven points when it comes to party identification.

Add the fact that no election since 1980 has had an electorate with more Republicans than Democrats, and the CNN poll quickly seems like an outlier.

NBC News noticed these flaws and adjusted the CNN survey using 2012’s electorate – which is likely to resemble 2016 – and it gave Clinton a four-point edge over Trump, which is much more in line with other polling.
Click to expand...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09...n-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html
 
Blackclaw said:
I suspect CNN wanted a poll that showed a close race because that's better for ratings, so they twisted the data until they got what they wanted.

First and foremost, the CNN survey included a +4 Republican sample, when the electorate in the most recent presidential election was +7 Democratic. According to Huffington Post’s Pollster, the Democrats continue to have an edge of seven points when it comes to party identification.

Add the fact that no election since 1980 has had an electorate with more Republicans than Democrats, and the CNN poll quickly seems like an outlier.

NBC News noticed these flaws and adjusted the CNN survey using 2012’s electorate – which is likely to resemble 2016 – and it gave Clinton a four-point edge over Trump, which is much more in line with other polling.
Click to expand...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09...n-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html
Click to expand...
Ahh yes... the 2012 election, where Michigan was allegedly a "battleground" state. But the exit polls were released and showed a healthy win for Obama, but CNN kept it undecided because a Michigan victory meant people could change the channel and watch more SVU on USA.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Blackclaw said:
I suspect CNN wanted a poll that showed a close race because that's better for ratings, so they twisted the data until they got what they wanted.



http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09...n-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html
Click to expand...
Ahh yes... the 2012 election, where Michigan was allegedly a "battleground" state. But the exit polls were released and showed a healthy win for Obama, but CNN kept it undecided because a Michigan victory meant people could change the channel and watch more SVU on USA.
Click to expand...

Grrr. Same reason they give Rump millions of dollars of free airtime. So transparent...
 
Blackclaw said:
I suspect CNN wanted a poll that showed a close race because that's better for ratings, so they twisted the data until they got what they wanted.

First and foremost, the CNN survey included a +4 Republican sample, when the electorate in the most recent presidential election was +7 Democratic. According to Huffington Post’s Pollster, the Democrats continue to have an edge of seven points when it comes to party identification.

Add the fact that no election since 1980 has had an electorate with more Republicans than Democrats, and the CNN poll quickly seems like an outlier.

NBC News noticed these flaws and adjusted the CNN survey using 2012’s electorate – which is likely to resemble 2016 – and it gave Clinton a four-point edge over Trump, which is much more in line with other polling.
Click to expand...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09...n-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html
Click to expand...

Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Ahh yes... the 2012 election, where Michigan was allegedly a "battleground" state. But the exit polls were released and showed a healthy win for Obama, but CNN kept it undecided because a Michigan victory meant people could change the channel and watch more SVU on USA.
Click to expand...

Grrr. Same reason they give Rump millions of dollars of free airtime. So transparent...
Click to expand...

Whatever gets apathetic dems and independents out to the polls, let CNN play. Airtime doesn't necessarily have to be good airtime. Quinnipiac has Trump ahead in Ohio now.
I wonder about the "likely voters" that are polled, if expected voter turnout is a part of the calculation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom