The 2016 General Election Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

If Trump stole ALL of Johnson's voters in VA and NC, he'd only just barely tie with Clinton

New NBC/Marist polls

VA
Clinton 43%
Trump 31
Johnson 12
Stein 5

NC
Clinton 45%
Trump 36
Johnson 9
Stein 2

FL
Clinton 41%
Trump 36
Johnson 9
Stein 4

CO
Clinton 41
Trump 29
Johnson 15
Stein 6

Downballot (NBC/Marist)

NC Sen
Ross 46%
Burr 44

NC Gov
Cooper 51%
McCrory 44%

FL Sen
Rubio 49%
Murphy 43

CO Sen
Bennet 53%
Glenn 38

 

[T.Lex]

Ouch. If CO leans HRC now, that offsets (and exceeds) IA. Trump could still have a path if he lost 1/3 of FL, VA, NC, but not 2/3. And that assumes winning OH, at least.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump is losing all 10 of the states with the closest results in 2012

Meghan McCain Slams Trump and Clinton: 'This Is a Garbage Election'

 

[BugI02]

How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen - WSJ

"Last summer when Europe was engulfed with increasing waves of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries, Ms. Merkel, moving unilaterally, announced that Germany would take in an astounding 800,000. Naturally this was taken as an invitation, and more than a million came. The result has been widespread public furor over crime, cultural dissimilation and fears of terrorism."

"As the daughter of a Lutheran minister, someone who grew up in East Germany, Ms. Merkel would have natural sympathy for those who feel marginalized and displaced. Moreover she is attempting to provide a kind of counter-statement, in the 21st century, to Germany’s great sin of the 20th."

"It was as good an explanation as I’d heard. But there was a fundamental problem with the decision that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be."


Hmmm. Let's see. Who among our choices for POTUS (and their associated political party) will behave most like Merkel in this respect. I wonder

But Trump says mean things!

Squirrel!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Breitbart commissions national poll from Gravis to get around media "manipulating polls"—and finds Clinton up 42-37.

https://t.co/vn094HDTCZ

Also, latest Siena College NY poll: Clinton 57 Trump 27. Trump claimed he could put his home state in play in the general election.

 

[jamil]

Breitbart commissions national poll from Gravis to get around media "manipulating polls"—and finds Clinton up 42-37.

https://t.co/vn094HDTCZ

Also, latest Siena College NY poll: Clinton 57 Trump 27. Trump claimed he could put his home state in play in the general election.

Might help Trump's numbers if he'd start campaigning like he wants to win.

 

[T.Lex]

Latest polling updates (EC-centric):
- GA - Trump ahead but right at the MOE. Averaging the recent polls has it as a tie. This is really quite bad.
- FL, VA, NC - Clinton appears to have a steady lead just above the MOE.
- Expecting OH and PA polls today or early this week.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Might help Trump's numbers if he'd start campaigning like he wants to win.

Don't you worry. His campaign definitely isn't a mirror-image of Trump U. Definitely.

The best is yet to come, I promise. Just send $49.95 to....

 

[IndyDave1776]

Might help Trump's numbers if he'd start campaigning like he wants to win.

My take on it is that, given the attention span of the average voter, he may be on to a very good strategy being relatively passive right now, letting Hillary & Co spew, and their narrative will be old news come October while he will be able to give her a good pummeling that will be fresh in voters' minds at the booth while her criticisms and those issued by her proxies will be old and forgotten.

 

[spencer rifle]

Polls are notoriously unreliable, both as long-term and short-term predictors. If they called me I would have no trouble lying to them. And it just seems more possible that a Trump supporter would lie to a pollster than an HRC supporter.

 

[T.Lex]

Polls are notoriously unreliable, both as long-term and short-term predictors. If they called me I would have no trouble lying to them. And it just seems more possible that a Trump supporter would lie to a pollster than an HRC supporter.

First, why? Any particular reason you'd trust Democrats more than Trump supporters?

Second, this cycle, I would tend to agree on the national polling. But, at a state level, it becomes a numbers issue. Over time, the polls can show which way the state is leaning. The pollsters might get a couple "cheaters" or people just making stuff up, but after awhile, all the numbers set a trend. Calling more people doesn't really change the proportions.

So, for your assertion to have an impact, a statistically meaningful number of Trump supporters would have to be lying - in my book, that'd be 10% or more. If a poll talks to 500 voters, and 300 answer HRC, and 200 say Trump, then 50 would have to be lying to even make them tied. (That's 10% of the total, but 20% of the actual Trump supporters.) That's a lot of people.

When roughly the same support is seen in polls of 500 and 1,500 voters, it lends credibility to the results.

Another thing to note: polling companies know that not everyone is honest. They build in certain mathematical and practical ways to account for it.

Polls are not guarantees, obviously. But if they weren't important, politicians wouldn't use them.

 

[spencer rifle]

Leftists tend to stick together tighter - just look at how Congress operates. I don't really care much about Trump, and I guess people who put too much faith in polls over what their own eyes and ears tell them will deserve what they get.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

... over what their own eyes and ears tell them will deserve what they get.

Now this line interests me.

What information, exactly, are your eyes/ears receiving? Facebook likes, follower counts, page clicks, and volume at rallies don't necessarily translate into votes.

I understand 100% that Trump's candidacy, be it genuine or fraudulent, has "tapped in" to an anger or distaste that apparently a large number of people hold... but I'm not seeing a large enough following to result in a win against Clinton at the moment.

 

[Twangbanger]

My take on it is that, given the attention span of the average voter, he may be on to a very good strategy being relatively passive right now, letting Hillary & Co spew, and their narrative will be old news come October while he will be able to give her a good pummeling that will be fresh in voters' minds at the booth while her criticisms and those issued by her proxies will be old and forgotten.

This observation is actually not without merit. However, a key element is missing from this "keep your head down" strategy: keeping his effing head down!

If Rope a Dope is his "master plan" (as opposed to merely making virtue out of necessity), he'd need to be building up the war chest for that final onslaught *now*, and placing the ad buys. Instead, he's driving that money away into down-ballot races. The donors don't seem to be interested in fighting the fire, they're just hosing down the neighbors' houses.

I want to think you're right. But the candidate appears to be headed to the Goldwater shed.

 

[JTScribe]

Polls are notoriously unreliable, both as long-term and short-term predictors. If they called me I would have no trouble lying to them. And it just seems more possible that a Trump supporter would lie to a pollster than an HRC supporter.

Absolutely. I had a 20-minute conversation with a pollster on 2008 about how awesome Hillary was. Voted for her, too.

No longer have a landline so thankfully don't get those calls any longer.

 

[MCgrease08]

So, for your assertion to have an impact, a statistically meaningful number of Trump supporters would have to be lying - in my book, that'd be 10% or more. If a poll talks to 500 voters, and 300 answer HRC, and 200 say Trump, then 50 would have to be lying to even make them tied. (That's 10% of the total, but 20% of the actual Trump supporters.) That's a lot of people.

I will second this sentiment. Why would a Trump supporter lie to a pollster? What advantage is there for skewing the poll numbers?

Lying to co-workers, family members about supporting Trump? That I could see as feasible, at least to avoid conflict at work or home, but there is zero benefit about lying to a pollster. Add in the fact that I've yet to meet a die hard Trumper that wasn't very vocal about it.

 

[spencer rifle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Are Brexit Voters Lying To Pollsters? | The Daily Caller

 

[mrjarrell]

From the America Deserves Better PAC.

[video=youtube_share;cLd0tu5x6co]http://youtu.be/cLd0tu5x6co[/video]

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's OK. Trump seems less likely to infringe on my rights and well-being than Johnson does.