2016 Electoral College polling thread

[Ericpwp]

Illinois Election Results 2014: Governor Map by County, Live Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO

 

[T.Lex]

Dude - like any long shot, if you hit, you look like a genius.

And if HRC doesn't take IL, then she could be in a world of hurt. (Kinda like the obverse of Trump and IN.)

 

[BugI02]

Can we get some sort of INGO consensus on what the MSM "narrative" is? I mean, in one thread, it is HRC +bazillion to suppress turnout. In another, it is they-have-to-keep-it-close. Or is it both? Or is it in the eye of the beholder?




See, to me that's not a big deal. CA was never going to go any direction other than blue in this cycle. If you're looking for a barometer of GOP strength, I can think of other counties.

Turns out switching PA to toss-up status isn't even a judgement call. It's automatic at 5% and under on RCP

Nothing to see there

 

[Ericpwp]

Dude - like any long shot, if you hit, you look like a genius.

And if HRC doesn't take IL, then she could be in a world of hurt. (Kinda like the obverse of Trump and IN.)

Like my neighborhood, I don't see many, if any HRC signs on the south side (Chicago burbs). I don't see a lot of Trump signs, but there are more of those than HRC signs. Besides the ones who flat out don't hide the voter fraud, I am hearing Trump. Unlike our group here, IL is much more inline with the view that it is a binary choice. After living under the D regime, you play the numbers to win, whatever it takes. It's a long shot, but I'll take it.

 

[T.Lex]

Turns out switching PA to toss-up status isn't even a judgement call. It's automatic at 5% and under on RCP

Nothing to see there

I'm not following.

RCP has its average right at +5 for HRC. The underlying polling has her outside the MOE all month, sometimes considerably. Other aggregators have her average as more than 5.

Are you saying you think Trump will take PA?

 

[BugI02]

I'm saying I thought RCP put some thought into the raw input before switching a state to toss-up, rather than just using a numerical threshold

I was thinking RCP thought PA was in play

 

[T.Lex]

I'm saying I thought RCP put some thought into the raw input before switching a state to toss-up, rather than just using a numerical threshold

I was thinking RCP thought PA was in play

Do you think it is?

 

[foszoe]

Do you think it is?

More than it was 5 hours ago.

 

[printcraft]

More than it was 5 hours ago.

Weird how they are changing so quickly......

 

[foszoe]

Weird how they are changing so quickly......

Every time I see you waving, I feel like its just to me personally and I feel so happy.

 

[BugI02]

Do you think it is?

Despite reading FiveThirtyEight pretty regularly, I do think the polls are cooked

I'm not sure how much or how significantly; so yeah I think PA could be in play. Especially since as the numbers tighten I see more stories (like this from the WaPoo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...drifts-out-of-reach/58129aace9b69b640f54c6be/) pop up in the MSM

Call and response?

 

[T.Lex]

More than it was 5 hours ago.

Weird how they are changing so quickly......

I haven't seen a PA poll since Wednesday, I think. Has a new one been released?

Unless there's cherry-picking involved, "they" aren't changing quickly.

Remember 1980 something something....

Despite reading FiveThirtyEight pretty regularly, I do think the polls are cooked

I'm not sure how much or how significantly; so yeah I think PA could be in play. Especially since as the numbers tighten I see more stories (like this from the WaPoo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...drifts-out-of-reach/58129aace9b69b640f54c6be/) pop up in the MSM

Cooked to what end? That's my question.

And how many cooks?

 

[BugI02]

I haven't seen a PA poll since Wednesday, I think. Has a new one been released?

Unless there's cherry-picking involved, "they" aren't changing quickly.

Remember 1980 something something....


Cooked to what end? That's my question.

And how many cooks?

To prevent the development of momentum. To make it seem like no matter what or how much encouraging news, it's too little too late. To discourage potential Trump voters and depress turnout

In any other year I'd be right there with you that the sources of polling are too many and too varied to get a grip on. But then I saw behind the curtain this year, at just how horrifyingly in lockstep and in the DNC/Clinton machine pocket almost every 'news' outlet really is. I can only hope they overplayed their hand

 

[T.Lex]

To prevent the development of momentum. To make it seem like no matter what or how much encouraging news, it's too little too late. To discourage potential Trump voters and depress turnout

In any other year I'd be right there with you that the sources of polling are too many and too varied to get a grip on. But then I saw behind the curtain this year, at just how horrifyingly in lockstep and in the DNC/Clinton machine pocket almost every 'news' outlet really is. I can only hope they overplayed their hand

This whole Podesta thing is a reach IMHO. I mean, it wasn't a plan so much as a wet dream.

But let's say it is real. NPR, old school networks (and their cable affiliates) (but not Fox), and half the universities. Ok. That's WAY over-broad of a conspiracy, but that's as far as I'll go. You've still got half the other universities and independent pollsters that net out to the same place: HRC winning. And that's even setting aside the fact that Trump can release his own polls if they're really better.

Even so, "prevent momentum"? The best momentum Trump got was coming out of the convention. If they were going to depress momentum, that would've been the time.

Regardless, how can that be the narrative now, when the polls are actually tightening before the election?

The more plausible narrative IMHO is that, if there is a conspiracy to deflate Trump's polling, it is to make him appear the underdog. Americans love underdogs.

 

[BugI02]

This whole Podesta thing is a reach IMHO. I mean, it wasn't a plan so much as a wet dream.

But let's say it is real. NPR, old school networks (and their cable affiliates) (but not Fox), and half the universities. Ok. That's WAY over-broad of a conspiracy, but that's as far as I'll go. You've still got half the other universities and independent pollsters that net out to the same place: HRC winning. And that's even setting aside the fact that Trump can release his own polls if they're really better.

Even so, "prevent momentum"? The best momentum Trump got was coming out of the convention. If they were going to depress momentum, that would've been the time.

Regardless, how can that be the narrative now, when the polls are actually tightening before the election?

The more plausible narrative IMHO is that, if there is a conspiracy to deflate Trump's polling, it is to make him appear the underdog. Americans love underdogs.

You don't think turnout will be key. Nate Silver thinks that the tightening is due to Republicans coming home to their party, that The Hag isn't losing support so much as Trump is gaining it. These are the faint of heart, might it not be feasible to sway them to believe all is already lost (forgetting for a moment that that might align with your own viewpoint) and seek to dampen that effect?

In whatever post I brought it up originally, or just subsequently, I referred to how immediately after there was a story touting RCP switching PA to toss-up, there was the WaPoo story saying Trump is getting crushed in the suburbs and PA is slipping out of reach. I think if you have virtually all the media on board to spin the news about polling - to highlight the bad and spin the good as suspect and outliers - that you can cook at least the interpretation of the polls

 

[T.Lex]

You don't think turnout will be key.

Where in the world do you get that idea? I've said that it WILL be - and that's part of Trump's problem. No ground game.

Nate Silver thinks that the tightening is due to Republicans coming home to their party, that The Hag isn't losing support so much as Trump is gaining it. These are the faint of heart, might it not be feasible to sway them to believe all is already lost (forgetting for a moment that that might align with your own viewpoint) and seek to dampen that effect?

Honestly, no. If Nate is right - they are coming "home" - then why would they concede defeat if victory is still possible? That doesn't make any sense. A tightening race is more likely to whip up support because every vote counts.

That's what I'm having trouble comprehending about this "false narrative" angle. The tendered narrative doesn't serve the purpose attributed to it.

In whatever post I brought it up originally, or just subsequently, I referred to how immediately after there was a story touting RCP switching PA to toss-up, there was the WaPoo story saying Trump is getting crushed in the suburbs and PA is slipping out of reach. I think if you have virtually all the media on board to spin the news about polling - to highlight the bad and spin the good as suspect and outliers - that you can cook at least the interpretation of the polls

There are too many analysts - paid and internet - for that to be feasible.

Or are you saying Nate Silver is part of the conspiracy, too?

 

[BugI02]

I think it unlikely. But then I thought 97% of the media being in the bag was unlikely, too

 

[printcraft]

So, there's actually some data behind these kinds of swings. The coursework is called "Political Science" but even I (who majored in it) wondered how much "science" was in it.

The thing is, for the national stuff, there are still double or near-double digit polls out there. The exact number isn't important. If it is outside the MOE, chances are good that the person leading is "winning." If it is inside the MOE, then it is statistically a tie.

That's why I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. If the goal is to suppress the vote, then the polls would be big in favor of HRC. And, the outliers would be the ones showing within the MOE or a Trump lead. They would all be scrutinized until the differences were understood.

There are people that make their living doing this stuff the right way. Even more people make their living analyzing it.

There's another issue: if Trump really had internal polling showing he was leading, he should release it. There's no reason to keep it private at this point.

(As an aside, it was unrealistic to think his campaign wasn't paying for polling for the last year. At least once a month, then 2x during the primaries, then at least weekly since the convention. IMHO.)

HRC is winning. She may not yet win, but she is winning where it counts.

Selective over sampling........
Not just Demoncrat or Republican...... how about selecting specifically women in addition to general demoncrat heavy oversampling?
Things that make you go hummmm......

Number 25 on this list.....

Most Damaging WikiLeaks

25. Rigging media polls through oversampling

[FONT=avenir-lt-w01_35-light1475496]​​[/FONT]

• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551
• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/26551/7326
• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15442
• “I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February.”
• “so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
• [For Arizona] “Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics… - Over-sample the Native American population”
• [For Florida] “On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
• [For National] “General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions - Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed - Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed”
• “The plan includes a possible focus on women, might be something we want to do is over sample if we are worried about a certain group later in the summer."

[FONT=avenir-lt-w01_35-light1475496]​[/FONT]

• Democrats have been doing this for years, and this is why you see the skewed polls show Clinton +12 when other more accurate ones show Trump +2. The high Clinton ones oversample democrats by a HUGE margin to get desired results (sometimes 20-40% more), many are created by organizations that donate to Hillary, and some are even conducted by her own SuperPACs!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Doesn't change HRC's number. She's at 273 if all of those states I listed go to McMullin/Trump/Bundy.

BTW, Nate Silver thinks the narrative is that its a horse-race, so the networks can drive eyeballs and build excitement.

Election Update: The Polls Disagree, And That?s OK | FiveThirtyEight

Duh...yeah, I misread...

 

[foszoe]

Shift in the Electorate's Makeup Tightens the Presidential Contest (POLL) - ABC News


And this doesn't have much, if any, post email news influence.