Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 8, 2016 11:14:26 GMT
Well it's almost double the lead which I consider pretty different. 538 aren't GOP leaning, I just disagree with including dodgy pollsters (and that works both ways). 538 have a policy of including nearly all pollsters but weighting for reliability and quality and taking into account republican or democratic leaning "house effects". That is probably the correct approach so long as you assume all pollsters are at least trying to predict the election correctly and so their relative movement will be reliable and biases will remain correlated to other pollsters. I suspect jamie 's fear is that there may be some pollsters who are deliberately delivering incorrect results. If they are "just making it up" then we have no way of knowing if they change their relative bias as the election approaches and so even the house effects adjustment may not be any use. Some of the polls included in 538's model don't just have "house effects", they are blatantly biased in favour of one party. They are engaged in narrative polling not in measuring public opinion. Their numbers do not have any credibility at all and should not be included in polling averages or models. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122 
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 8, 2016 11:19:08 GMT
538 have a policy of including nearly all pollsters but weighting for reliability and quality and taking into account republican or democratic leaning "house effects". That is probably the correct approach so long as you assume all pollsters are at least trying to predict the election correctly and so their relative movement will be reliable and biases will remain correlated to other pollsters. I suspect jamie 's fear is that there may be some pollsters who are deliberately delivering incorrect results. If they are "just making it up" then we have no way of knowing if they change their relative bias as the election approaches and so even the house effects adjustment may not be any use. Some of the polls included in 538's model don't just have "house effects", they are blatantly biased in favour of one party. They are engaged in narrative polling not in measuring public opinion. Their numbers do not have any credibility at all and should not be included in polling averages or models. Interestingly, as predicted, Rasmussen have herded from showing Trump +1 or a tie to a Clinton +3 on their final national tracker poll. This is consistent with their previous behaviour of offering strong house effects all election season but then herding with a final poll to enable them to claim accuracy in the next cycle. There does reach a point where you have to question whether some of these sort of pollsters are deliberately altering results in the final polls to ensure herd safety. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 8, 2016 12:43:42 GMT
Although I'm putting on a brave face, I'm quite nervous about today. Despite all his un-PC-ness, Trump is a popular figure, and HRC is not. Definite overtones of Brexit.
The polling averages for CO, PA, MI, NH all have Clinton 4 points ahead, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about, but still...
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Nov 8, 2016 13:10:25 GMT
I just don't see a pathway for Trump.
He may well gain ground in the rustbelt but I don't see many gains apart from consolidating Indiana and possibly taking Ohio. Even if he did take Pennsylvania and less plausibly Michigan there is little chance of him picking up the likes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.
That pathway would still require Florida, North Carolina, and possibly one from Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada. Iowa looks a good bet but the others are dubious.
The reported Latino turnout in Florida early voting looks likely to torpedo that pathway and could put Arizona into play.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 8, 2016 13:21:52 GMT
I just don't see a pathway for Trump. He may well gain ground in the rustbelt but I don't see many gains apart from consolidating Indiana and possibly taking Ohio. Even if he did take Pennsylvania and less plausibly Michigan there is little chance of him picking up the likes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. That pathway would still require Florida, North Carolina, and possibly one from Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada. Iowa looks a good bet but the others are dubious. The reported Latino turnout in Florida early voting looks likely to torpedo that pathway and could put Arizona into play. Agreed. The path to Republican victory in 2016 was setout on this forum in 2012 and has been thoroughly ignored by the Republican party: The exit poll for Kansas on CNN shows a 69/29 break in favour of Romney among men while for women the figures is 49/49. seems a bit unlikely but the gender gap is pretty striking, On white voters only, Romney would have won the electoral college something like 470/68 Yes but that is not the demographic of America at the moment. It is a matter of time before white voters will be a minority. There is a demographic time bomb for the Republicans. This could push states like Georgia, Arizona and even Texas into the Democratic camp in two or three elections unless the Republicans can change the game. They also need to address the gender gap. The staring point will be to persuade candidates who have views on rape, abortion, and contraception to keep them to themselves. They also need to avoid to much identification with the religious right. They need to relate to Latino voters in the way that George W managed to some extent. It is significant that even those of Cuban origin in Miami-Dade were breaking even between Obama and Romney. They need to reconnect with traditional progressive New England Republicans and the sort of moderate Republicans who prospered in states like Pennsylvania. Finally they will be punished if they continue to obstruct everything in the House and filibuster in the Senate. The current Republican coalition of dixiecrats, hard hats, social conservatives and god botherers is not going to cut it in the future. I think you can take a decent credit for that prediction four years on. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Nov 8, 2016 13:31:11 GMT
Remember, you saw it here first.
In 2012!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 13:35:00 GMT
Remember, you saw it here first. In 2012! I'll C&P this for tomorrow morning, so I'm first with the 2020 analysis.....  as (seriously) all of that analysis still holds. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 8, 2016 13:47:12 GMT
I agree with the analysis except for the bit about obstructionism. Politicians don't seem to be downvoted much at all for their antics.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 8, 2016 16:35:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 8, 2016 20:16:54 GMT
Although I'm putting on a brave face, I'm quite nervous about today. Despite all his un-PC-ness, Trump is a popular figure, and HRC is not. Definite overtones of Brexit. The polling averages for CO, PA, MI, NH all have Clinton 4 points ahead, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about, but still... This really isn't true. Trump's supporters are very supportive of him, but his negatives are terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 9, 2016 6:17:41 GMT
We thought the general election would result in a hung parliament. We thought Remain would win the EU referendum. I think you know where I'm going with this. I've made my prediction of Clinton 323, Trump 215 - but could we all be in for a huge shock? Well...  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 9, 2016 6:31:31 GMT
Looks like there has been systemic error in the polls.
Taking a glance at state and county-level results, it looks like Trump overperformed with non-college whites (though the gender gap seems to have been a thing, just with the baseline shifted a few points to the right). It also looks like Clinton met and in some cases exceeded expectations with Hispanics, hence the decent performances in the south-west. It'll take a bit longer to work out how much it was a question of margins and how much it was differential turnout. I suspect it's probably a good idea to ignore any analytical pieces in the next fortnight, because it's only then people will have the data to actually assess where they were and weren't right. Everything up until then will be essentially comment pieces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 6:36:23 GMT
Lets look on the positive side - Ellen de Generes and the raft of "celebs" are going to be crying their eyes out.
Dems should have picked a more likeable candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 6:39:20 GMT
Looks like there has been systemic error in the polls. Taking a glance at state and county-level results, it looks like Trump overperformed with non-college whites (though the gender gap seems to have been a thing, just with the baseline shifted a few points to the right). It also looks like Clinton met and in some cases exceeded expectations with Hispanics, hence the decent performances in the south-west. It'll take a bit longer to work out how much it was a question of margins and how much it was differential turnout. I suspect it's probably a good idea to ignore any analytical pieces in the next fortnight, because it's only then people will have the data to actually assess where they were and weren't right. Everything up until then will be essentially comment pieces. The error was primarily in identifying "likely voters". |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 9, 2016 6:43:03 GMT
I just don't see a pathway for Trump. He may well gain ground in the rustbelt but I don't see many gains apart from consolidating Indiana and possibly taking Ohio. Even if he did take Pennsylvania and less plausibly Michigan there is little chance of him picking up the likes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. That pathway would still require Florida, North Carolina, and possibly one from Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada. Iowa looks a good bet but the others are dubious. The reported Latino turnout in Florida early voting looks likely to torpedo that pathway and could put Arizona into play. Agreed. The path to Republican victory in 2016 was setout on this forum in 2012 and has been thoroughly ignored by the Republican party: Yes but that is not the demographic of America at the moment. It is a matter of time before white voters will be a minority. There is a demographic time bomb for the Republicans. This could push states like Georgia, Arizona and even Texas into the Democratic camp in two or three elections unless the Republicans can change the game. They also need to address the gender gap. The staring point will be to persuade candidates who have views on rape, abortion, and contraception to keep them to themselves. They also need to avoid to much identification with the religious right. They need to relate to Latino voters in the way that George W managed to some extent. It is significant that even those of Cuban origin in Miami-Dade were breaking even between Obama and Romney. They need to reconnect with traditional progressive New England Republicans and the sort of moderate Republicans who prospered in states like Pennsylvania. Finally they will be punished if they continue to obstruct everything in the House and filibuster in the Senate. The current Republican coalition of dixiecrats, hard hats, social conservatives and god botherers is not going to cut it in the future. I think you can take a decent credit for that prediction four years on. Perhaps a little less credit due with the benefit of hindsight, which is not to say that there isn't much to be said for the analysis - obviously this is the case and it's hardly an original observation. But it is still the dominant demographic and if they're ignored or taken for granted while centre-left parties assemble coalitions of various minority client groups who define themselves in opposition to this dominant group and while they gleefully rub their hands at the prospect of the demise of this demographic while proactively trying to speed up the process via immigration, then it's hardly a surprise if this demographic starts to behave as a bloc vote in much the same way as the minority groups do and are mobilised to punish the left. I'm sure there may be some lesson for the Labour party there, but it suits me fine that they won't bother to take it |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 9, 2016 6:45:12 GMT
Lets look on the positive side - Ellen de Generes and the raft of "celebs" are going to be crying their eyes out. Dems should have picked a more likeable candidate. For a number of reasons I find this result pretty horrifying, not least because it is an utter disaster for the US conservative movement in the medium and long term. There are however a number of positives mainly relating to foreign policy and the reaction of a great many people. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 9, 2016 7:12:24 GMT
The error was primarily in identifying "likely voters". Tat seems plausible, and perhaps reveals a fundamental shift in politics; both the Brexit and Trump results appear to be based on large turnouts from previous non-voters. In both cases anti-politics voters have been persuaded they have a cause to vote for |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 9, 2016 7:20:26 GMT
Lets look on the positive side - Ellen de Generes and the raft of "celebs" are going to be crying their eyes out. Dems should have picked a more likeable candidate. For a number of reasons I find this result pretty horrifying, not least because it is an utter disaster for the US conservative movement in the medium and long term. There are however a number of positives mainly relating to foreign policy and the reaction of a great many people. The idea that liberals feeling unhappy cancels out generally disastrous policy consequences is possibly the most vapid one in the entire conservative mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 9, 2016 7:33:27 GMT
For a number of reasons I find this result pretty horrifying, not least because it is an utter disaster for the US conservative movement in the medium and long term. There are however a number of positives mainly relating to foreign policy and the reaction of a great many people. The idea that liberals feeling unhappy cancels out generally disastrous policy consequences is possibly the most vapid one in the entire conservative mindset. Vapid perhaps..................But it feels so very good. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 9, 2016 7:48:39 GMT
For a number of reasons I find this result pretty horrifying, not least because it is an utter disaster for the US conservative movement in the medium and long term. There are however a number of positives mainly relating to foreign policy and the reaction of a great many people. The idea that liberals feeling unhappy cancels out generally disastrous policy consequences is possibly the most vapid one in the entire conservative mindset. Firstly I don't think it cancels it out and secondly I am largely talking about vacuous celebrities being outraged. |
|
