US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[Saiwania]

To be fair, you can only skew a poll so far to your desired outcome, unless you're simply making up numbers. You could sample slightly more Republicans or Democrats with some independents, but my guess is that enough Republicans aren't thrilled about Trump and even for a Rasmussen Reports poll, his imminent defeat is really showing because he has lost so much ground and is far behind.

[Valrifell]

Rasmussen has Clinton +1.

FREAKING RASMUSSEN.

Can anyone find a poll that has Trump up nationally? Not those "unskewed" ones, either, raw data.

If you can't even cherry pick data that makes your candidate look good, then it's time to face reality.

[San Lumen]

To be fair, you can only skew a poll so far to your desired outcome, unless you're simply making up numbers. You could sample slightly more Republicans or Democrats with some independents, but my guess is that enough Republicans aren't thrilled about Trump and even for a Rasmussen Reports poll, his imminent defeat is really showing because he has lost so much ground and is far behind.

Exactly and its really ridiculous for Trump to be saying the polls are all off. Some might point to the LA times tracking poll but that is not a scientific poll. Polling the same people over and over again is not a accurate nor scientific poll.

Its extremely unlikely we'd have another 1948 or Dewey Defeats Truman. Polling was not an exact science back then and has since become much more accurate.

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

Slowly acknowledging reality, are they?

THE END TIMES ARE UPON US ALL!

REPENT!

REPENT, YE SINNERS!

HE COMES! IN THE GREAT BOILING, HE SHALL WIPE US OUT WITH HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

[Gauthier]

THE END TIMES ARE UPON US ALL!

REPENT!

REPENT, YE SINNERS!

HE COMES! IN THE GREAT BOILING, HE SHALL WIPE US OUT WITH HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

Cthulhu Fthagn, Ïa! Ïa!

... what? He has tentacle face, how was I supposed to know it was the wrong one?

[Camicon]

HE COMES! IN THE GREAT BOILING, HE SHALL WIPE US OUT WITH HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

Cthulhu Fthahn, Ïa! Ïa!

... what? He has tentacle face, how was I supposed to know it was the wrong one?

I didn't realize that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was an Old God.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be fair, you can only skew a poll so far to your desired outcome, unless you're simply making up numbers. You could sample slightly more Republicans or Democrats with some independents, but my guess is that enough Republicans aren't thrilled about Trump and even for a Rasmussen Reports poll, his imminent defeat is really showing because he has lost so much ground and is far behind.

Exactly and its really ridiculous for Trump to be saying the polls are all off. Some might point to the LA times tracking poll but that is not a scientific poll. Polling the same people over and over again is not a accurate nor scientific poll.

Its extremely unlikely we'd have another 1948 or Dewey Defeats Truman. Polling was not an exact science back then and has since become much more accurate.

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

What the LA poll tells us is that, at this point, unless Jesus descends from the heavens and declares Clinton or Trump a righteous person, people aren't probably going to change their minds this late in the election.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Cthulhu Fthahn, Ïa! Ïa!

... what? He has tentacle face, how was I supposed to know it was the wrong one?

I didn't realize the the Flying Spaghetti Monster was an Old God.

FSM is the less well known Elder God.

Nyarlathotep doesn't like speaking of them.

[Camicon]

I didn't realize the the Flying Spaghetti Monster was an Old God.

FSM is the less well known Elder God.

Nyarlathotep doesn't like speaking of them.

Now I want to go make some custom game cards for Eldritch Horror.

[Gauthier]

FSM is the less well known Elder God.

Nyarlathotep doesn't like speaking of them.

Now I want to go make some custom game cards for Eldritch Horror.

Gotta stop a ceremony in Italy!

[Cymrea]

THE END TIMES ARE UPON US ALL!

REPENT!

REPENT, YE SINNERS!

HE COMES! IN THE GREAT BOILING, HE SHALL WIPE US OUT WITH HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

This explains why the seas are salted.

*intones* Forever and ever, Ramen.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly and its really ridiculous for Trump to be saying the polls are all off. Some might point to the LA times tracking poll but that is not a scientific poll. Polling the same people over and over again is not a accurate nor scientific poll.

Its extremely unlikely we'd have another 1948 or Dewey Defeats Truman. Polling was not an exact science back then and has since become much more accurate.

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

Its possible for polls to be off, but for the overall average of all the polls to be that far off strains credulity.

Their was that embarrassing polling cock-up with Bernie winning Michigan in the Democratic Primary, but that was just one state, and a pretty much unique anomaly, or nearly so, in terms of how far off it was.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Exactly and its really ridiculous for Trump to be saying the polls are all off. Some might point to the LA times tracking poll but that is not a scientific poll. Polling the same people over and over again is not a accurate nor scientific poll.

Its extremely unlikely we'd have another 1948 or Dewey Defeats Truman. Polling was not an exact science back then and has since become much more accurate.

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

LA/USC has them in a tie, as of 19OCT.

That'd mean there isn't a national poll today that shows Trump winning.

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

FSM is the less well known Elder God.

Nyarlathotep doesn't like speaking of them.

Now I want to go make some custom game cards for Eldritch Horror.

Please do. And then send me pictures of them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

LA/USC has them in a tie, as of 19OCT.

That'd mean there isn't a national poll today that shows Trump winning.

Apparently so. I mean, the downtick started after the lewd remarks were added, and then you have the post-second debate reactions which dropped Trump's supporters dramatically down.

I think most of them are starting to rethink their choices. Further, on the "winning confidence" question, Clinton has always been the likely one to win among the LA Times pollsters for months, regardless of party affiliation and personal politics.

That's quite telling for the trends, actually.

[San Lumen]

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

Its possible for polls to be off, but for the overall average of all the polls to be that far off strains credulity.

Their was that embarrassing polling cock-up with Bernie winning Michigan in the Democratic Primary, but that was just one state, and a pretty much unique anomaly, or nearly so, in terms of how far off it was.

Well the thing with Michigan was they were using a 2004 voting model as the they didn't have anything else to go on. The Primary in 2008 wasnt really contested. Michigan is also a notoriously hard state to poll. It likes to tease Republicans in the general as well and then the Democrat winds up outperforming polls.

[The Emerald Dawn]

LA/USC has them in a tie, as of 19OCT.

That'd mean there isn't a national poll today that shows Trump winning.

Apparently so. I mean, the downtick started after the lewd remarks were added, and then you have the post-second debate reactions which dropped Trump's supporters dramatically down.

I think most of them are starting to rethink their choices. Further, on the "winning confidence" question, Clinton has always been the likely one to win among the LA Times pollsters for months, regardless of party affiliation and personal politics.

That's quite telling for the trends, actually.

And yet, there is no evidence of defeatism in the national conversation.

There's no "doomsday" analysis, nothing. Every article I'm seeing shows Trump is still competitive, regardless of the fact that there aren't any polls showing him with a winning path.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

Its possible for polls to be off, but for the overall average of all the polls to be that far off strains credulity.

Their was that embarrassing polling cock-up with Bernie winning Michigan in the Democratic Primary, but that was just one state, and a pretty much unique anomaly, or nearly so, in terms of how far off it was.

Well like I said, it measures the trend among an established group of people, it doesn't measure the trends with random LV populations like the other polls.

You could look at the LA Times/USC poll as a confidence poll, and not as a voting poll.

[San Lumen]

Apparently so. I mean, the downtick started after the lewd remarks were added, and then you have the post-second debate reactions which dropped Trump's supporters dramatically down.

I think most of them are starting to rethink their choices. Further, on the "winning confidence" question, Clinton has always been the likely one to win among the LA Times pollsters for months, regardless of party affiliation and personal politics.

That's quite telling for the trends, actually.

And yet, there is no evidence of defeatism in the national conversation.

There's no "doomsday" analysis, nothing. Every article I'm seeing shows Trump is still competitive, regardless of the fact that there aren't any polls showing him with a winning path.

Well he technically is but the path to 270 is rapidly closing. With several swing states now likely out of contention and other states now seemingly becoming competitive like Georgia, Arizona, Texas and even Alaska (which has only voted for a Democrat once)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Apparently so. I mean, the downtick started after the lewd remarks were added, and then you have the post-second debate reactions which dropped Trump's supporters dramatically down.

I think most of them are starting to rethink their choices. Further, on the "winning confidence" question, Clinton has always been the likely one to win among the LA Times pollsters for months, regardless of party affiliation and personal politics.

That's quite telling for the trends, actually.

And yet, there is no evidence of defeatism in the national conversation.

There's no "doomsday" analysis, nothing. Every article I'm seeing shows Trump is still competitive, regardless of the fact that there aren't any polls showing him with a winning path.

That may have to do with the fact that journalists don't feel like skewing the election in one way or another is a good idea.

If they begin declaring Clinton the winner, they probably feel like an American version of the Brexit vote could happen, where people will vote for Trump out of protest because their side can't possibly win anyways. Unknowingly, British journalists took one for the team to find out what would happen if you begin declaring someone/something the winner before hand.

In so far as the right-wing journalist channels. When have you ever seen some of them like Breitbart and FOX News dwell in something that resembles reality anyways when it comes to OP pieces?

[New Chalcedon]

Exactly and its really ridiculous for Trump to be saying the polls are all off. Some might point to the LA times tracking poll but that is not a scientific poll. Polling the same people over and over again is not a accurate nor scientific poll.

Its extremely unlikely we'd have another 1948 or Dewey Defeats Truman. Polling was not an exact science back then and has since become much more accurate.

Well, the LA Times tracking poll has an argument in its favor: it shows where decided voters stand.

Absolutely nothing has moved the trends or flipped the numbers, so what this tells us is that Trump supporters, as in, those who decided very early on Trump was their guy, aren't likely to change their minds, nor Clinton supporters who decided very early on Trump was their guy.

It shows a trend on the electorate, but it doesn't show the effect of Hillary and Donald's actions in attracting supporters. It just shows the opinion of established voters in both camps.

If you look at it from that angle, the perspective changes. However, to argue with the LA Times tracking poll that Trump is going to win is disingenuous given that the poll doesn't track LVs, it tracks Sure Voters.

What the LA poll tells us is that, at this point, unless Jesus descends from the heavens and declares Clinton or Trump a righteous person, people aren't probably going to change their minds this late in the election.

One problem with the LAT poll is the weighting method they used; such that one African-American panelist (who they keep returning to, as per their method of keeping the same sample throughout) who supports Trump equates to Trump looking to get around 10-15% of the African-American vote.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And yet, there is no evidence of defeatism in the national conversation.

There's no "doomsday" analysis, nothing. Every article I'm seeing shows Trump is still competitive, regardless of the fact that there aren't any polls showing him with a winning path.

That may have to do with the fact that journalists don't feel like skewing the election in one way or another is a good idea.

If they begin declaring Clinton the winner, they probably feel like an American version of the Brexit vote could happen, where people will vote for Trump out of protest because their side can't possibly win anyways. Unknowingly, British journalists took one for the team to find out what would happen if you begin declaring someone/something the winner before hand.

In so far as the right-wing journalist channels. When have you ever seen some of them like Breitbart and FOX News dwell in something that resembles reality anyways when it comes to OP pieces?

What an odd feeling to have.

Applauding journalists for ignoring reality.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I like this analysis of the LAT/USC poll:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html

In particular, I am intrigued by this bit:

Trump’s support continued to drop for the next week. But the Daybreak poll, as well as surveys by the Washington Post and ABC News and SurveyMonkey for NBC News have not shown a big new decline since the “Access Hollywood” video became public and women began publicly accusing Trump of having assaulted them.

One reason for that could be that a large share of voters who support Trump — a majority in many surveys — say their vote is more a ballot against Clinton than one for Trump. Voters motivated by dislike of the opposition may be less likely to shift their positions when confronted with negative information about their own candidate.

Another reason could be Trump’s already low level of support among the groups most likely to be alienated by the charges against him.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I like this analysis of the LAT/USC poll:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html

In particular, I am intrigued by this bit:

Trump’s support continued to drop for the next week. But the Daybreak poll, as well as surveys by the Washington Post and ABC News and SurveyMonkey for NBC News have not shown a big new decline since the “Access Hollywood” video became public and women began publicly accusing Trump of having assaulted them.

One reason for that could be that a large share of voters who support Trump — a majority in many surveys — say their vote is more a ballot against Clinton than one for Trump. Voters motivated by dislike of the opposition may be less likely to shift their positions when confronted with negative information about their own candidate.

Another reason could be Trump’s already low level of support among the groups most likely to be alienated by the charges against him.

So who is the main body of support for Trump, then?

What demographic truly consists of the Regulars?

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

I like this analysis of the LAT/USC poll:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html

In particular, I am intrigued by this bit:

So who is the main body of support for Trump, then?

What demographic truly consists of the Regulars?

Uneducated, old white men. Usually racist and totally xenophobic, but nobody wants to admit that.