|
I can't believe our republic is at risk of chaos because the Clinton campaign couldn't find enough dirt on Donald loving Trump.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Kawabata posted:maybe I'm brain farting, but at cost of sounding like Homer I'll ask: is it reputable or not then? Yes, an "A rating" means good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:3 most recent NC Polls are: Don't forget NY Times Upshot had Clinton up 6 or 7. And up 5.5 or so taking early voting into account. Trump up would also go against both dem and GOP internals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:like does this even line up with other recent NC polls????? Take a breath and count to ten friend. Go for a walk outside, pet a dog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:People hate her. If that was true they probably would change their mind so close to the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I can't believe our republic is at risk of chaos because the Clinton campaign couldn't find enough dirt on Donald loving Trump. Well, that, and the FBI chose a side. Publicly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
A +7 is outlier-y as all hell. Also, as long as Nate keeps aggregating complete poo poo like those Google Consumer Surveys, which this time around have New York closer than Wisconsin, and Clinton +8 in Kansas, poo poo's gonna be a little weird. Also this from his article about how much Dems should be worrying today: quote:natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): A 5 or 6 sounds about right. And Republicans should be at a 7 or 8. Everyone arzy! Buy my book! Buy my book! Real sick of Shook Nate this cycle. weekly font fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:3 most recent NC Polls are: You're neglecting two Clinton +3 polls from the same timeframe as the tie and that the Trump +2 is from Remington, that out-of-nowhere firm run by Cruz's former campaign manager and unrated on 538.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes, an "A rating" means good. but what is the 538
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Why are we arzying again? Doesn't she like not need NC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Is there somewhere to look at the cross tabs for that poll yet? I can't find it on SurveyUSA's site?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I can't believe our republic is at risk of chaos because the Clinton campaign couldn't find enough dirt on Donald loving Trump. They found more than enough dirt. They just can't convince enough people to vote for her affirmatively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Well if you read Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss... Why would your tarnish this thread with awful literature when it's already too much Trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
It's weird how "Clinton emails" dominating a news cycle or two causes her poll numbers to drop so quickly. Are there really people out there who were like "eh... I guess I'll vote for Clinton... wait what was that? Emails?! Guess I'll stay home/vote for Trump. This is surely news I havent heard before"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Ragnar Homsar posted:You're neglecting two Clinton +3 polls from the same timeframe as the tie and that the Trump +2 is from Remington, that out-of-nowhere firm run by Cruz's former campaign manager and unrated on 538. In the post you quoted I noted that the +2 is from Remington Research though...?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I can't believe our republic is at risk of chaos because the Clinton campaign couldn't find enough dirt on Donald loving Trump. The Clinton campaign (and plenty of other people) found plenty of dirty on Donald Trump. It just didn't stick. Also, you know, the FBI intentionally attempting to influence the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why are we arzying again? Like this thread needs an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why are we arzying again? She doesn't - but when it's coming amidst a swarm of other polls showing the race getting closer, people are sweating it. We've seen Ohio drift from other swing state polling but nothing indicates why NC should, suddenly. It's just an outlier though. At least complacency brought by a big lead won't be an issue next week! ImpAtom posted:The Clinton campaign (and plenty of other people) found plenty of dirty on Donald Trump. It just didn't stick. At this point Trump has been buried in dirt. There's just a stubborn 40-45% of the electorate that doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:but what is the 538 Nate Silver's election model. Recently acquired by the New York Times. Google 538 forecast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They found more than enough dirt. They just can't convince enough people to vote for her affirmatively. Clinton's voters have a higher proportion of voting for her vs voting against Trump than Trump's voters have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Antti posted:She doesn't - but when it's coming amidst a swarm of other polls showing the race getting closer, people are sweating it. We've seen Ohio drift from other swing state polling but nothing indicates why NC should, suddenly. It absolutely has to be an outlier. Nothing else has suggested such a huge collapse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why are we arzying again? It's not one of her firewall states, but it's knocking on the firewall's door, and a Trump lead that large would be a seriously ominous bellwether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In the post you quoted I noted that the +2 is from Remington Research though...? My bad, in my don't-panic reflex I somehow became temporarily blind. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nate Silver's election model. 538 hasn't been part of the NYT for ages. The Upshot is the NYT's current election forecast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Clinton's voters have a higher proportion of voting for her vs voting against Trump than Trump's voters have. You're making my point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Padams posted:It's weird how "Clinton emails" dominating a news cycle or two causes her poll numbers to drop so quickly. Are there really people out there who were like "eh... I guess I'll vote for Clinton... wait what was that? Emails?! Guess I'll stay home/vote for Trump. This is surely news I havent heard before" Apparently, yes. I generally disagree with people in USPol who insist that most voters don't care about the emails. I think most voters don't care about the details of the emails, but the perception of illegal activity is definitely enough to scare away some potential voters. Those potential voters are probably just staying home, in this case, not running to Trump or a third-party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:538 hasn't been part of the NYT for ages. The Upshot is the NYT's current election forecast. Indeed, ESPN owns 538 now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:+7 from a reputable pollster is a bit more than a weird outlier though. Like even if their MoE is entirely towards Trump that's still huge. Your right, I looked up the math on this. If Clinton is actually up in NC, say by +1 or +2, then the chances that a random representative sample from a well-designed poll with a MoE of like 3 or 4% (which is supposed to be 2 standard deviations), would come up with Trump +7 (about 4 sd) is extremely low, like a tenth of a percent. Unlikely events happen though when you get hundreds of polls every week. So, this is either an extremely unlikely outlier, or Trump is winning in North Carolina, or there are serious structural problems with how that poll (which was A-rated in 2012) attempts to get a representative sample.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:538 hasn't been part of the NYT for ages. The Upshot is the NYT's current election forecast. That's right. It was recently sold to ESPN, not the NYT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I can't believe our republic is at risk of chaos because the Clinton campaign couldn't find enough dirt on Donald loving Trump. Actually it's because a huge part of the country doesn't care about the immense amount of dirt on Donald Trump that's out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Let me fix that for you:Night10194 posted:It absolutely has to be an outlier. Nothing else has YET suggested such a huge collapse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Your right, I looked up the math on this. If Clinton is actually up in NC, say by +1 or +2, then the chances that a random representative sample from a well-designed poll with a MoE of like 3 or 4% (which is supposed to be 2 standard deviations), would come up with Trump +7 (about 4 sd) is extremely low, like a tenth of a percent. What about all the good early voting news in NC? We've been on track or winning there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I'm talking about the idiots who attempt to make the argument, with a straight face, that if we elect Hillary Clinton she'll start WW3 against Russia. Well, sure, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has started lots more wars than private citizen Donald Trump. That'll hold true when he takes office, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
If I'm still alive Wednesday morning it's going to be an absolute miracle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:+7 from a reputable pollster is a bit more than a weird outlier though. Like even if their MoE is entirely towards Trump that's still huge. Does anyone have a link to the questions and cross tabs? I'm curious if traditional likely voter screens may fail to catch voters who are likely to vote but not "enthusiastic" about voting. 538 discussed this possibility on their podcast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Obama won NC by 0.3% in 2008 and otherwise it has been solidly republican since 1980. NC is one of the battleground states that are must-win for Trump to even have a chance at the election and Clinton has many victory paths without it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Don't weekend only polls, especially ones right near a holiday, tend to skew Republican, since younger voters will more likely be out or busy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Another thing that's not worth Arzying over: Clinton spending money in firewall states like CO. It's the last week of the campaign and they have a mountain of cash to burn through, why not spend some in the firewall states? It doesn't mean their internals show CO suddenly collapsing.Northjayhawk posted:Your right, I looked up the math on this. If Clinton is actually up in NC, say by +1 or +2, then the chances that a random representative sample from a well-designed poll with a MoE of like 3 or 4% (which is supposed to be 2 standard deviations), would come up with Trump +7 (about 4 sd) is extremely low, like a tenth of a percent. LV screens are probably really messy in this election. We'll find out next week. blue squares posted:Actually it's because a huge part of the country doesn't care about the immense amount of dirt on Donald Trump that's out there. If anything seeing Trump on the debate stage the first time had a much more devastating impact, ditto getting direct unfiltered coverage of Clinton during the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why are we arzying again? If NC is tied, then we're fine. If Trump opens up a solid lead in NC, then that probably means that states which Clinton DOES need get uncomfortably close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
If this election has shown nothing else it has shown that Republicans no longer need to fear controversy, they have a reliable enough demographic that a friendly FBI head dropping a completely meaningless letter can influence things entirely in their favor.Trabisnikof posted:Does anyone have a link to the questions and cross tabs? I'm curious if traditional likely voter screens may fail to catch voters who are likely to vote but not "enthusiastic" about voting. 538 discussed this possibility on their podcast. Someone posted a twitter earlier that showed the big thing. Clinton's support among black voters tanked like a rock in that specific poll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:26
|
|