Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

[TheComebackKid]

She is the worst campaigner I've seen in recent elections and the GOP went full temper tantrum with making sure Hillary won this. The tea party all right has easily been the most responsible for the past century of liberal progress

What I think you are not understanding is that millions of people rejected both parties by voting for Trump. For those who see the larger problem here...it offers no solace to wind up with a GOP puppet over a DNC one.

This election is not left vs right, liberalism vs conservatism, rnc vs dnc...it is 100% about nationalism vs globalism and the various issues that stem from it. And for those that choose globalism they must own it. 10 years from now when we are even more divided and splintered, when wages still have not gone up but prices continue to, when basic liberties have been continuously scaled back, when jobs are still scarce, when terrorism is still raging and growing, and when we realize we're now stuck...well the history books will show that we had a chance to divert from this and you guys chose not to. And you need to own it.

 

[TheComebackKid]

In this case, it was the GOP that presented the electorate with an alternative so monumentally bad that they have left it no choice but to elect Hillary by a landslide.

A couple of things here. The DNC, and about half the voters(i'll give you that), chose Hillary. They should at least shared patial blame right. How come they didn't pick a better candidate to reject Trump with? And they do have a choice...and they need to own their decision.

Why do you keep trying to pin an individual's decision on someone else?

Let me give you an example. A king has a commoner brought before him and gives him two options: Drink the cup of poison on your right or drink the bottle of vodka on you left. Whose fault is them that the commoner gets drunk? The commoner's or the king's?

Well this analogy doesn't work because I don't agree with your descriptions of what's in the two cups. If the commoner insists on seeing a nice tall glass of vitamin water as "poison" and the glass of actual poison as simply "vodka"...well then I'd blame the commoner for his misperceptions and malfunctioning brain.

 

[Lead]

What I think you are not understanding is that millions of people rejected both parties by voting for Trump. For those who see the larger problem here...it offers no solace to wind up with a GOP puppet over a DNC one.

This election is not left vs right, liberalism vs conservatism, rnc vs dnc...it is 100% about nationalism vs globalism and the various issues that stem from it. And for those that choose globalism they must own it. 10 years from now when we are even more divided and splintered, when wages still have not gone up but prices continue to, when basic liberties have been continuously scaled back, when jobs are still scarce, when terrorism is still raging and growing, and when we realize we're now stuck...well the history books will show that we had a chance to divert from this and you guys chose not to. And you need to own it.

Well if you're saying it that way, it's much more easier to vote against Trump. Regressive trade policies died out around Hoovers time because it was so clear what was better that both parties didn't differ.

Also, if you are saying people should owe up to their vote, then don't complain when I talk about when I mention the voting for Trump in the primary. They should owe up to picking an unqualified candidate out of a group of 16 damn people. I felt bad for the Dems having to pick either Clinton, Bernie or O'Malley while others declined to toss their hats in. Trump voters don't even have the excuse of scarcity in candidates.

 

[TheComebackKid]

This Trump speech in Milwaukee is absolutely phenomenal

 

[JadeOwl]

A couple of things here. The DNC, and about half the voters(i'll give you that), chose Hillary. They should at least shared patial blame right. How come they didn't pick a better candidate to reject Trump with? And they do have a choice...and they need to own their decision.

As far as I can tell, most Democrats think they did exactly that. This may come as a surprise, but most Democrats are perfectly comfortable with their candidate. Remember that Hillary was winning the Democratic primary before anyone started taking Trump seriously as a candidate.

No matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise, Hillary Clinton will make a perfectly serviceable, if not very inspiring or exiting president of the USA.

They chose Hillary because they wanted Hillary and they think she will do a good job. And I don’t disagree with them.

Why do you keep trying to pin an individual's decision on someone else?

Nobody is doing that. What I’m saying is that you can’t recriminate a person for making a choice you don’t like when the alternative you presented them with was so much worse.

Well this analogy doesn't work because I don't agree with your descriptions of what's in the two cups. If the commoner insists on seeing a nice tall glass of vitamin water as "poison" and the glass of actual poison as simply "vodka"...well then I'd blame the commoner for his misperceptions and malfunctioning brain.

Just because you convince yourself that the tacky gold-plated cup on the right is vitamin water and the vodka in the boring-looking plain blue glass bottle is poison doesn’t make it so. And the majority of your countrymen and damn near the totality of the rest of the world beyond your borders can see that the tacky cup is the poison.

 

[Joe]

Well your party didn't give a lot of people much choice when they nominated a terrible pro wrestling gimmick with no experience.

 

[Irenaeus]

I'm saying polling results are being fudged. For example, selective polling, including polling more registered Democrats. It's already been established that this is being done by certain polling groups (not all). Then there's the "monster vote" phenomenon:

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/08/08/the-monster-vote/

Thanks for explaining your view, even if I can't really agree with any of your arguments. I haven't seen any evidence of polls being fudged, and they have clearly not been in the past, as they largely match the election results very well. Polling more democrats than republicans is exclusively an argument that can appeal to people with no technical understanding of polling, as there are more democrats than republicans in the US, plus that to a large extent, polling fifty-fifty would be like saying that we need to find an equal amount of Clinton and Trump supporters to do an accurate poll for each candidate's support. It's even the same argument that was used in 2012, and the polls turned out to be accurate then. Anyone presenting this as an argument to why the polls are skewed in some way, needs to explain why the same method was predictive in 2012, as well as before that.

Lastly on the monster vote, sure, that's a possibility. But I don't see much evidence that would lead us to belive it likely. The 2008 primaries is an outlier for the democratic party directly tied to it being both very competitive, as well as rather nasty. The 2016 republican primaries large participation numbers is another case of this, with the democratic primaries being more subdued as it never really got that competitive. People turn out to vote when they feel something significant on the line. Historically, primary turnout doesn't predict general election turnout nor results.

I've presented the relevant argument above, so the links below are just for source transparency:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-touts-gop-turnout/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

The statistic that really stands out to me for deflating that theory is that 88% of both Clinton and Trump voters during the primaries voted in the 2012 election. Trump might have gotten more people to vote in the primaries, with record-breaking numbers both for and against him, but these people aren't new voters to the general election.

(Source for the 88%)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-a-tough-time-flipping-the-sanders-holdouts/

 

[Space]

Thanks for explaining your view, even if I can't really agree with any of your arguments. I haven't seen any evidence of polls being fudged, and they have clearly not been in the past, as they largely match the election results very well. Polling more democrats than republicans is exclusively an argument that can appeal to people with no technical understanding of polling, as there are more democrats than republicans in the US, plus that to a large extent, polling fifty-fifty would be like saying that we need to find an equal amount of Clinton and Trump supporters to do an accurate poll for each candidate's support. It's even the same argument that was used in 2012, and the polls turned out to be accurate then. Anyone presenting this as an argument to why the polls are skewed in some way, needs to explain why the same method was predictive in 2012, as well as before that.

Lastly on the monster vote, sure, that's a possibility. But I don't see much evidence that would lead us to belive it likely. The 2008 primaries is an outlier for the democratic party directly tied to it being both very competitive, as well as rather nasty. The 2016 republican primaries large participation numbers is another case of this, with the democratic primaries being more subdued as it never really got that competitive. People turn out to vote when they feel something significant on the line. Historically, primary turnout doesn't predict general election turnout nor results.

I've presented the relevant argument above, so the links below are just for source transparency:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-touts-gop-turnout/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

The statistic that really stands out to me for deflating that theory is that 88% of both Clinton and Trump voters during the primaries voted in the 2012 election. Trump might have gotten more people to vote in the primaries, with record-breaking numbers both for and against him, but these people aren't new voters to the general election.

(Source for the 88%)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-a-tough-time-flipping-the-sanders-holdouts/

Thanks for the reply and figures; I think where I'm going now is more towards hunch category; Scott Adams mirrored my thoughts and articulated them better than I did here:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148949796271/polls-and-the-bs-detector

He argues Trump likely is behind in the polls, though perhaps not as much as they indicate due to voter shyness and selective polling. He's also banking on another major disruptive event between now and Nov. (not even mentioning the debates, which could swing some voters ala Dukakis-Bush) to push Trump's numbers up again.

I think this race is far from over, and that there's definitely an inherent media bias towards Hillary (entrenched interests from media ownership would lead to this).

 

[Irenaeus]

Thanks for the reply and figures; I think where I'm going now is more towards hunch category; Scott Adams mirrored my thoughts and articulated them better than I did here:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148949796271/polls-and-the-bs-detector

He argues Trump likely is behind in the polls, though perhaps not as much as they indicate due to voter shyness and selective polling. He's also banking on another major disruptive event between now and Nov. (not even mentioning the debates, which could swing some voters ala Dukakis-Bush) to push Trump's numbers up again.

I think this race is far from over, and that there's definitely an inherent media bias towards Hillary (entrenched interests from media ownership would lead to this).

Thanks for explaining your position to me, as well as the Scott Adams link. It's a much more understandable line of reasoning to me than the one I've been trying to piece together from your other posts in this thread.

Generally speaking, though, I'm not onboard with it, but your last few lines I fully agree with, and it's a biggie. 1) There are too many days left in the election to feel certain this won't change. At the same time, though, it should be recognized that it's an unusually bad position this early in the race, which is why you're completely correct in that 2) Trump needs a major disruptive event to push the numbers his way. I liked Nate Silver's football analogy of having a ten point lead at halftime.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

What I think you are not understanding is that millions of people rejected both parties by voting for Trump. For those who see the larger problem here...it offers no solace to wind up with a GOP puppet over a DNC one.

90% of Democrats support Hillary according to polls.

 

[TheComebackKid]

90% of Democrats support Hillary according to polls.

The people who voted for Trump rejected both parties

 

[m52nickerson]

The people who voted for Trump rejected both parties

Last time I checked Trump was on top of the GOP ticket. You don't vote for a parties candidate and reject the party.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

The people who voted for Trump rejected both parties

GOPers are rejecting the democratic candidate? I might agree with you, except this is the only election I've ever seen where top Republicans are promising to vote for the Democrat.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Last time I checked Trump was on top of the GOP ticket. You don't vote for a parties candidate and reject the party.

 

[TheComebackKid]

GOPers are rejecting the democratic candidate? I might agree with you, except this is the only election I've ever seen where top Republicans are promising to vote for the Democrat.

You must have missed all those democrats who crossed over and first time/unlikely voters who turned out for Trump.

And yes the actual party officials, having been rejected by both the voters and nominee, are working to get Hillary elected in order to save the game.

 

[m52nickerson]

Yup, that sums up your argument well.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The straw grasping from Trump supporters is amusing.

 

[ncordless]

You must have missed all those democrats who crossed over and first time/unlikely voters who turned out for Trump.

And yes the actual party officials, having been rejected by both the voters and nominee, are working to get Hillary elected in order to save the game.

The dems who crossed over in the primaries were mostly just trying to submarine the GOP. Mission Accomplished.

 

[Madmick]

CNN: Why landslide elections don't happen much anymore -- but could this year
Politico: Trump's shrinking electoral map

 

[Irenaeus]

You must have missed all those democrats who crossed over and first time unlikely voters who turned out for Trump.

88% of Trump voters from the primaries voted in 2012, same as for Hillary, according to SurveyMonkey's poll comissioned by Fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-a-tough-time-flipping-the-sanders-holdouts/

If you know of sources that say differently, I'd actually be interested in reading them.