Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by dutchfire, Jul 14, 2016.
Nate Silver did a lengthy article on how Obama was better situated in 2012 than Clinton is now.
That said, Clinton seems to be getting a bounce. It was never quite even and the difference has widened slightly. 538 odds are 2-1 for Clinton. Any way you look at it, it is very close.
I'm seeing that Wake county is crucial in the NC contest. Which surprises me, since that area is full of relocated northerners. I'd be positive Hillary would win Wake county. I guess the question is by how much. You probably have to win Wake county by more than Trump wins Fayetteville.
North Carolina is all over the place. Polls range from Clinton +4 to Trump +7, all in the last week. 538 puts it dead even. Some sources will tell you the early voting has locked in a big Clinton edge. Whatever.
After thinking about it, I think it would be unethical for early voting to reflect in the polls. So even if 538 baked it into their numbers, they would be unethical to do so. So unless I hear pollsters say they baked in early voting numbers, I don't think they did.
That said, ethics in this election got lost some time back in 2015.
It's baked into 538's prediction to the extent that the polls have baked in early voting. Pollster asks if you have or intend to vote for one of the candidates. Pollee responds.Early voting is incorporated.
However I don't think that this is necessarily unethical, but pollsters releasing the early voting "exit polls" might be considered unethical.
I don't think what you describe is baking in early voting. That's just another poll taken after voting has already started. Which is perfectly fine.
From 538's latest chat : "Our model doesn’t take that [early voting] into account."
The problem is that there is normally a high degree of uncertainty in what Independents are doing in a particular state, and while you can typically count on a candidate getting 90% of their party's voters, that isn't the case for Trump, depending on the state or even the locality you're looking at. Pollsters do usually include early voters in their topline numbers when they do polls after early voting starts, so polls that come in over the weekend should give some data on that.
Some states, like North Carolina, make enough data available that astute observers can get some useful data from the early vote - as The Upshot has done. Similarly, a smaller state like Nevada with a really good reporter like Jon Ralston, can often times clue you in on what the early vote means. Jon Ralston thinks it means that Hillary is all but assured to win the state. However, in Florida the data appears more mixed. Data in Ohio and Iowa show Republicans doing comparatively better than in 2012, though it's not that pronounced.
Overall, there appears to be little evidence of a hidden Trump vote of never-before-seen white people surging to the polls early. Latino turnout is up bigly, black turnout down modestly. All in all, Nevada and North Carolina both are looking really good so far, but there isn't much to say beyond that from early voting.
No one is claiming a surge in Trump support. Where did you get that? His recent push has been pulled from the ranks of undecided, Johnson, and to a lesser extent Clinton. If there is a Trump surge it will come from Clinton's numbers, often by not voting at all. It's a long shot but not one to rule out.
I think there is data showing more defection among republicans than usual from exit polls.
That is to be expected. Many early voters did so when Trump was lowest. It changed.
The RCP averages and 538's models are going opposite directions. RCP shows Clinton getting a couple of days up slightly after a week of steady down. The 538 models favor Clinton at well under 2-1, down over 20% in the same period.
Could it be an issue of deliberately falsified polls, or is the seemingly huge difference (a few days ago it was supposedly a done win for Hillary, now it may be yugely close?) accounted for? (eg news stories, etc).
Cause polls have been known to fail deliberately sometimes, as in predicting something is nearly impossible to happen, and then it does with great comfort.
I didn't say anyone claimed it was happening, I wish you would respond to things I actually post. The fact that it isn't happenig spells doom for Trump.
Trump's whole theory of the case is that he would get marginally engaged, low propensity white voters to show up for him in huge numbes, overcoming the margins Clinton is pulling from independent college whites and people of color.
The registration and early voting indicate that there are new and low propensity voters showing up in big numbers - but they are Latino and not white. So the Trump coalition has no chance of being big enough to win.
I'm gonna go on the record and say that the "Shy Trumper" phenomenon is a myth that won't materialize in the slightest. The myth persists because of two different (flawed) ideologies working in tandem. For Republican voters and TrumpSADs it is delusional/optimistic, self-serving normalization... very similar to claiming that one is part of the "silent majority". For the Liberals, it is contempt, and delusional/arrogant self-importance, also ironically related to the "silent majority" concept.
The Trumper/TrumpSAD wants and in some cases needs to believe that the way they feel is normal, that everyone agrees with them... but the polls aren't confirming this need. So as a self defense mechanism, they reason "Well everyone agrees with me, they just won't say so because the liberal PC media etc., makes them afraid to speak up." They just can't accept that they're going to lose because the majority doesn't agree with them.
Now, on the other side, you have liberals who think Trumpers are awful people, stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, etc... and because they think Trump's voters are awful, they feel Trump voters should be ashamed of themselves... and then the mistake comes. They assume that since they think Trumpers should be ashamed, that the Trump voters, in-fact are ashamed. So that's why they think Trumpers are "shy"... because Trumpers are worried about what liberals think of them. But of course you can see why this doesn't make sense and how arrogant it is, frankly. Why would someone vote for a candidate if they are ashamed about it? They wouldn't.
Why would they be shy or ashamed? Ashamed of what? Being racist? They don't feel that they are racist, and they are quite offended when it is suggested. So for those folks, supporting Trump is a point of pride... "standing up to the liberals and the media's false accusations of racism." They belive that the accusations of bigotry etc are just a tactic to "silence them", and they are quite proud to stand up to that because they see themselves as romantic underdogs being oppressed. And as for the racists who know they are racist... yeah they aren't ashamed in the slightest. They are proud to be racist, because they feel justified in being so. You think David Duke is ashamed? Please.
Finally, an anecdote. I live in an affluent New England suburb, directly adjacent to a small city, and where statistically the vast majority of adults have college degrees. It's in a county that is obviously going to vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. However, if you drive around this area, amd just count yard signs... there aren't many... but they are almost all for Trump. My little part of the country is literally the epitome of where you would expect to find "shy Trumpers"... Northeast, New England for crissakes, suburban, next to a city, with all the incidental workplace racial diversity that goes along with that, highly educated population, etc, etc... but nope, there go the Trump signs.
See, the bottom line is Trump voters aren't shy, why would they be? It doesn't make any sense... in fact they're proud. Look at it another way... were Bernie voters "shy" (because Hillary voters thought they were naieve etc)? No they didn't care, in fact it just made them more unified, proud, and outspoken.
Republican voters feel embattled, condescended, besieged and demonized... particularly by more educated/urban-suburban whites. They don't want to think of themselves as this-ist or that-ist and they feel that people who define them that way are just dismissing them... don't understand them or care about them. They feel their concerns are being glossed over and dismissed as manifestations of their ...at best, quaint hillbilly-ignorance or at worst... them being X-ist.
See my point above about the so-called shy Trumpers... They feel attacked and they are circling the wagons in solidarity. This is one of the things that has kept Republicans relevant... unity. They feel the walls closing in on their ideology, their power, their voice, their "rightness" in a way that liberals don't. Liberals sense that the country is moving in their direction, and their response is to push and complain for more, faster changes, causing more disunity, nit-picking and infighting... Whereas conservatives feel things slipping away, and they feel a lot more pressure to stay unified, and forgive flaws, no matter how large or glaring. In other words, liberals bemoan Hillary's warmongering and corruption etc, because they feel comfortable that better candidates and opportunities are on the way, just around the corner, bound to happen eventually... Republican voters have no such luxury, they sense that they need to just take what they can get, to hold on to what they have, for as long as they can.
I don't mean that most Trump voters are shy at all - as you've said, many if not the majority are very much the opposite of shy, and obviously none of the people who are openly supporting him are the slightest bit ashamed. But not all people who are voting for him (or Clinton) are the sorts of people who have signs in their yards.
I'm worried specifically about Trumpists in environments where support for Trump is socially unacceptable. If there is a "shy Trumpist" phenomenon, it will appear mostly or entirely among college-educated white people. In the Political Prediction thread, I predicted that there will such an effect to the tune of 4% among college-educated whites and no effect in any other demographic, for a net effect of something like 1.2-1.6%.
On the other hand, there could be "shy Clintonists" too, which would also be a disproportionately college-educated white demographic. These would be Republicans who are holding their nose as hard as they can and voting for Clinton because they see that Trump is a total disaster. They might overwhelm any shy Trumpists and cause the overall shy voter effect to be in Clinton's favor. We really don't even know the sign of the overall shy voter effect, let alone the magnitude. I've made a guess, but it could easily be way off.
Either way, it is actually kind of alarming just how few signs or bumper stickers there are for Clinton. Back in 2008 and even 2012, Obama signs and stickers were everywhere, but now, there's almost nothing. Enthusiasm doesn't necessarily mean much, and I'm counting on it not really mattering because a lot more people dislike him than like him. It's still not a great omen though.
What I'm really saying is that the error bars are huge and pollsters could be off by a lot in either direction. This is a uniquely unpredictable election, nothing like the 2008 and 2012 ones. I don't think there's any room for metalhead-style optimism. It could happen that Clinton wins by a landslide, but even if this is what happens in the end, the pre-election data are very mixed and I think we should be cautious based on what we have so far. My best guess as to the odds are about 25% for a Trump win, about 25% for a narrow Clinton win (narrower than Obama 2012), about 25% for a reasonably solid Clinton win (between Obama 2008 and 2012), and about 25% for a Clinton blowout reaching or exceeding Obama's 365 EV mark in 2008.
I'm holding to my prediction that there will be far more republican deserters than democrat ones.
You make a very good argument that Democrats are far more intolerant than Republicans.
I saw the start of a video where Keith Olberman made a long comparison between Trump and Hitler. It brought to mind that old saying the first person to bring up Nazis is losing the argument. The new version would be the first person to label the other X-ist is losing.
Only because the first person has agreed to such ridiculous terms.
Haters will tend to label others as haters. We see it every day in this forum.
Separate names with a comma.