US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Neo Bavaria]

Basically this:
--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

More like most Americans are repulsed by Trump, but ok.

Not an argument

[Eol Sha]

More like most Americans are repulsed by Trump, but ok.

Not an argument

How?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Gentrifying provided slight decreases in the poverty rate of those living in gentrifying neighborhoods, while those that didn't gentrify saw 7% increases in the poverty rate.

... of the people still living there.

You actually snipped out part of such a short post? Why ...?

Because it didn't bear impact on the point. Since non-gentrifying neighborhoods lost population whilst gentrifying ones gained it.

[Neo Bavaria]

Not an argument

How?

You didn't make any distinct argument as to why the Shy Tory Effect wouldn't be applicable, you just said "No, but okay". That's not an argument, it's a dismissal. Make an argument as to why it doesn't apply, agree that it applies, or don't respond.

[Eol Sha]

How?

You didn't make any distinct argument as to why the Shy Tory Effect wouldn't be applicable, you just said "No, but okay". That's not an argument, it's a dismissal. Make an argument as to why it doesn't apply, agree that it applies, or don't respond.

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

[The Liberated Territories]

You didn't make any distinct argument as to why the Shy Tory Effect wouldn't be applicable, you just said "No, but okay". That's not an argument, it's a dismissal. Make an argument as to why it doesn't apply, agree that it applies, or don't respond.

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

That's the point of the shy tory factor, that people are more likely to say that they hate a certain candidate - even principally in the polls, and then go out to vote for them regardless, maybe of some secret desire.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

... of the people still living there.

You actually snipped out part of such a short post? Why ...?

Because it didn't bear impact on the point. Since non-gentrifying neighborhoods lost population whilst gentrifying ones gained it.

Problem being, of course, that even if there's a net gain, you still have numerous people being forced out due to an inability to afford rent increases: not only residents, but also small businesses whose landlords are willing to drastically increase the rent to a level that a corporation can afford, but a mom-and-pop operation can't. Yes, there's a net gain, but it's a gain of affluent types attracted to the area, not a gain of people of the same income level, who are now forced to search for affordable rental housing in a market that already doesn't support the construction of new low-income housing to replace that which has been lost.

[Ebliania]

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

That's the point of the shy tory factor, that people are more likely to say that they hate a certain candidate - even principally in the polls, and then go out to vote for them regardless, maybe of some secret desire.

I thought that those voters came from the "Undecided" category.

The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions;

[Neo Bavaria]

You didn't make any distinct argument as to why the Shy Tory Effect wouldn't be applicable, you just said "No, but okay". That's not an argument, it's a dismissal. Make an argument as to why it doesn't apply, agree that it applies, or don't respond.

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

He's been consistently over 30% for 2 months now, and even passed Clinton during the RNC, at which point he dropped again because suddenly all the major polls except LA Times/USC decided that it was time to "recalculate" how they tallied votes for each candidate.

Even then he's only been in the 30's for, collectively, a month and a half since RCP started collecting polls, and even surpassed Clinton twice. Two weeks ago he switched over to formal speeches instead of rallies and since then he's risen 2 points, and is still rising. If you only use studies that include Johnson and Stein, Trump is 4.5 points behind, and likely will rise.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted or repulsed by Donald Trump, and the more Clinton continues to do things like adamantly deny that the black community is facing any problems whatsoever, or call all Trump supporters (including the black and Latino ones) racists, the more voters will move to Trump.

[Neo Bavaria]

That's the point of the shy tory factor, that people are more likely to say that they hate a certain candidate - even principally in the polls, and then go out to vote for them regardless, maybe of some secret desire.

I thought that those voters came from the "Undecided" category.

The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions;

It's two percentage points of 8.5, do you think the other 6.5 were magicked out of thin air?

[Eol Sha]

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

That's the point of the shy tory factor, that people are more likely to say that they hate a certain candidate - even principally in the polls, and then go out to vote for them regardless, maybe of some secret desire.

Yeah, I know. The argument means you can't really disprove the idea of the "shy Tory", or "shy Trump" in this case, until after the election is held. You can hold up the pre-election polling and talk about how exceedingly unlikely it is that there are "shy Trumps", but your basically yelling at a closed door since the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Not that I'm saying that's necessarily what Neo-Bavaria is thinking, but still...

[Geilinor]

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

He's been consistently over 30% for 2 months now, and even passed Clinton during the RNC, at which point he dropped again because suddenly all the major polls except LA Times/USC decided that it was time to "recalculate" how they tallied votes for each candidate.

What you're saying makes no sense and is not rooted in reality. The pollsters did not "recalculate" how they tallied votes, but many of then switched from surveying registered voters to likely voters, as they do every election. Likely voters should benefit a Republican because Republicans are more likely to vote. That is not the case this election.

[Neo Bavaria]

That's the point of the shy tory factor, that people are more likely to say that they hate a certain candidate - even principally in the polls, and then go out to vote for them regardless, maybe of some secret desire.

Yeah, I know. The argument means you can't really disprove the idea of the "shy Tory", or "shy Trump" in this case, until after the election is held. You can hold up the pre-election polling and talk about how exceedingly unlikely it is that there are "shy Trumps", but your basically yelling at a closed door since the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Not that I'm saying that's necessarily what Neo-Bavaria is thinking, but still...

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

[Neo Bavaria]

He's been consistently over 30% for 2 months now, and even passed Clinton during the RNC, at which point he dropped again because suddenly all the major polls except LA Times/USC decided that it was time to "recalculate" how they tallied votes for each candidate.

What you're saying makes no sense and is not rooted in reality. The pollsters did not "recalculate" how they tallied votes, but many of then switched from surveying registered voters to likely voters, as they do every election. Likely voters should benefit a Republican because Republicans are more likely to vote. That is not the case this election.

Firstly, the unique aspects of this election mean that "likely" (see: traditional) voters are not necessarily the only ones who are likely to go out and vote. Secondly, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that they strongly screwed with their method of calculating who was voting for who. E.G., some polls decided that all "Never-Trump" voters were Clinton supporters, even though that is not necessarily true. I think it was Reuters that polled for all candidates up until the Conventions at which point they switched over to just Clinton and Trump.

[Geilinor]

Yeah, I know. The argument means you can't really disprove the idea of the "shy Tory", or "shy Trump" in this case, until after the election is held. You can hold up the pre-election polling and talk about how exceedingly unlikely it is that there are "shy Trumps", but your basically yelling at a closed door since the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Not that I'm saying that's necessarily what Neo-Bavaria is thinking, but still...

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

Trump's policy statements are not popular among the public. Most people are opposed to the wall and Muslim ban.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/pew-immigration-wall-227367
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/americans_dont_like_trumps_muslim_ban_orlando_resp.html

[Communist Xomaniax]

[ the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Oh hey, it's 2012 all over again.

[Neo Bavaria]

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

Trump's policy statements are not popular among the public. Most people are opposed to the wall and Muslim ban.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/pew-immigration-wall-227367
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/americans_dont_like_trumps_muslim_ban_orlando_resp.html

1. Most DO however support stronger laws on immigration, even if they don't outright support a wall.

2. In response, Trump is no longer proposing a Muslim ban.

[Neo Bavaria]

[ the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Oh hey, it's 2012 all over again.

It's not the same. Romney was a standard cookie-cutter republican. Trump is not, Trump is controversial. It was the same deal with Brexit, all the supporters said "The polls are wrong the polls are wrong", and lo and behold the polls were wrong.

[Ism]

Yeah, I know. The argument means you can't really disprove the idea of the "shy Tory", or "shy Trump" in this case, until after the election is held. You can hold up the pre-election polling and talk about how exceedingly unlikely it is that there are "shy Trumps", but your basically yelling at a closed door since the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Not that I'm saying that's necessarily what Neo-Bavaria is thinking, but still...

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

What exactly is a "large" percentage?

[Neo Bavaria]

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

What exactly is a "large" percentage?

Not huge, but enough that it could be interesting. In the British election it was 8.5%. All Trump would need to win the popular vote would be about 3% composed exclusively of Hillary supporters, but if he achieved 8.5% variation it would be a landslide victory.

[Eol Sha]

Well, I guess I'll bring up the fact that all of the polling states that Trump is viewed terribly by the American electorate. And not just on questions asking who Americans will vote for, but also on questions asking whether they view Trump favorably or not. He's been in the mid 30s for well over a year now and it hasn't really changed much since he launched his campaign.

If your asking whether I can prove via data that most celebrities aren't "Shy Trumps", though, I can't. All I can do is extrapolate the available polling data to America's celebrities. Although, if the old adage that celebrities are more liberal than most of America is true then it's inconceivable that the majority of them could support Trump.

He's been consistently over 30% for 2 months now, and even passed Clinton during the RNC, at which point he dropped again because suddenly all the major polls except LA Times/USC decided that it was time to "recalculate" how they tallied votes for each candidate.

Even then he's only been in the 30's for, collectively, a month and a half since RCP started collecting polls, and even surpassed Clinton twice. Two weeks ago he switched over to formal speeches instead of rallies and since then he's risen 2 points, and is still rising. If you only use studies that include Johnson and Stein, Trump is 4.5 points behind, and likely will rise.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted or repulsed by Donald Trump, and the more Clinton continues to do things like adamantly deny that the black community is facing any problems whatsoever, or call all Trump supporters (including the black and Latino ones) racists, the more voters will move to Trump.

Trump's favorability rating has hovered around 35% since September and October of 2015. I looked up RCP's polling average trends specifically so I wouldn't be talking out of my ass. Now, you can question the accuracy of those early polls, but even being down in the mid 30s, which is what I stated in the post (not 30%), for two months isn't a good sign. You can check the data here.

Right. It couldn't be that he's remained incredibly unpopular. No. The polls! They're all rigged! Sarcasm aside, every poll taken after the DNC has had Trump down by at least four points. Some polls have him behind by 10. Those ones are hard to believe, but not inconceivable given the sudden, if low, popularity of the Libertarians. I mean, shit, RCP's average is Clinton up by 6+.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted or repulsed by Donald Trump, and the more Clinton continues to do things like adamantly deny that the black community is facing any problems whatsoever, or call all Trump supporters (including the black and Latino ones) racists, the more voters will move to Trump.

There is evidence. The polling says so. Now am I saying Hillary Clinton is viewed favorably by a majority of Americans? No, I'm not. Not by a mile. She's almost as far down as Trump. However, "almost" isn't "the same". She has a decidedly better 42% average favorability. In fact, her favorability levels are well above the nadir she had near the end of the primary and during the RNC. Trump's favorability, on the other hand, has revolved around 35% since October of last year with a brief dip down to the high 20s in April.

Clinton continues to do things like adamantly deny that the black community is facing any problems whatsoever,

I've heard her say no such thing. How 'bout a source?

call all Trump supporters (including the black and Latino ones) racists, the more voters will move to Trump.

It's always a touchy subject when racists get called out on their bullshit views. I can't speak for Clinton, but personally, when I look at Trump's crowds, listen to what his supporters have to say, and hear what the big man is pontificating on, yeah, I think most of them are racists. Not in the "hang the niggers by the neck!" way, mind you, although there are certainly some who are like that, but in the "blacks are lazy and Mexicans are job stealing bastards" way. Kind of a partially washed style of racism, y'know? Not as sanitized as that spouted by most Republican politicians, but it ain't all KKK.

Anyway, if that's going to happen it hasn't happened yet. All the signs point towards a Clinton victory in November.

[Ebliania]

What exactly is a "large" percentage?

Not huge, but enough that it could be interesting. In the British election it was 8.5%. All Trump would need to win the popular vote would be about 3% composed exclusively of Hillary supporters, but if he achieved 8.5% variation it would be a landslide victory.

Yeah, a Trump unfavorability rating of 60%, how much of them would most likely be lying?

Obviously, enough for your favorite candidate to win in November.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What you're saying makes no sense and is not rooted in reality. The pollsters did not "recalculate" how they tallied votes, but many of then switched from surveying registered voters to likely voters, as they do every election. Likely voters should benefit a Republican because Republicans are more likely to vote. That is not the case this election.

Firstly, the unique aspects of this election mean that "likely" (see: traditional) voters are not necessarily the only ones who are likely to go out and vote. Secondly, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that they strongly screwed with their method of calculating who was voting for who. E.G., some polls decided that all "Never-Trump" voters were Clinton supporters, even though that is not necessarily true. I think it was Reuters that polled for all candidates up until the Conventions at which point they switched over to just Clinton and Trump.

Yea, Never Trumpers are not going to vote for Clinton necessarily.

They very well may, however, vote independent, spoil their vote, or not vote at all.

Here in Texas, which is a strong Never Trumper state, it's going to be rather interesting this year to see how it all plays out.

[Eol Sha]

Yeah, I know. The argument means you can't really disprove the idea of the "shy Tory", or "shy Trump" in this case, until after the election is held. You can hold up the pre-election polling and talk about how exceedingly unlikely it is that there are "shy Trumps", but your basically yelling at a closed door since the argument is predicated on the polls being wrong.

Not that I'm saying that's necessarily what Neo-Bavaria is thinking, but still...

My point is mainly that this strongly fits a potential Shy Tory scenario. There is a candidate who in the media and socially is being utterly lambasted, but whose actual policy statements are in truth are popular in and of themselves and would strongly benefit a large percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fairly large number of voters who said they were voting for Clinton because it was "popular" while fully intending to vote for Trump because he would benefit them more than Clinton.

Well, 1) Trump's policies aren't popular. The polling states as much. And, 2) they really wouldn't benefit the majority of the population. Experts in economics have certainly said as much.

I would be. It'd be a fucking coup against the entire polling industry. Not to mention an upending of American presidential politicking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted or repulsed by Donald Trump, and the more Clinton continues to do things like adamantly deny that the black community is facing any problems whatsoever, or call all Trump supporters (including the black and Latino ones) racists, the more voters will move to Trump.

I don't think you can gamble on this too accurately.

While it is true that minorities -- especially Latinos -- do not like Hillary, they equally do not like Trump. In fact, they're more opposed to Trump than to Hillary.

If all that Hillary does is denial, that's a matter of ignorance. Trump's statements are not only ignorant, they are idiotic.