Some polls in favor of Hillary some in favor of Trump

[JayJayH 546]

The accuracy of polling is all related to how well a pollster is able to predict voter turnout and the methodology used to determine lean among various demographic groups. That's why averages usually win.

In essence - Trump's only hope of relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania is that the USC - LA Times methodology, which is new (and quite interesting) isn't statistical noise at all, but the only one accurately portraying this election cycle. My guess is, Trump lost this election the day he decided to go on the debate stage an reinforce every single stereotype against him.

Hillary wins assuming this election isn't a complete historical outlier.

Trump wins assuming:

1. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, and they will vote in big numbers. (I personally know more than a handful, but that's a scientifically accurate prediction of nothing).

2. These closet Trump voters make up for Hillary's superior ground game (and then some).

3. Traditional methods of polling don't apply to this election due to Trump's unusual candidacy.

4. Democrats vote in much lower numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

5. All of the above apply to at least a majority of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Applying Occam's Razor, I'd say Trump has better odds of becoming a sporadic post-election contributor on Hannity.

Edited October 25, 2016 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

The accuracy of polling is all related to how well a pollster is able to predict voter turnout and the methodology used to determine lean among various demographic groups. That's why averages usually win.

In essence - Trump's only hope of relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania is that the USC - LA Times methodology, which is new (and quite interesting) isn't statistical noise at all, but the only one accurately portraying this election cycle. My guess is, Trump lost this election the day he decided to go on the debate stage an reinforce every single stereotype against him.

Hillary wins assuming this election isn't a complete historical outlier.

Trump wins assuming:

1. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, and they will vote in big numbers. (I personally know more than a handful, but that's a scientifically accurate prediction of nothing).

2. These closet Trump voters make up for Hillary's superior ground game (and then some).

3. Traditional methods of polling don't apply to this election due to Trump's unusual candidacy.

4. Democrats vote in much lower numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

5. All of the above apply to at least a majority of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Applying Occam's Razor, I'd say Trump has better odds of becoming a sporadic post-election contributor on Hannity.

Oooh Ockham's Razor. I approve

Edited October 25, 2016 by OriZ

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The accuracy of polling is all related to how well a pollster is able to predict voter turnout and the methodology used to determine lean among various demographic groups. That's why averages usually win.

In essence - Trump's only hope of relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania is that the USC - LA Times methodology, which is new (and quite interesting) isn't statistical noise at all, but the only one accurately portraying this election cycle. My guess is, Trump lost this election the day he decided to go on the debate stage an reinforce every single stereotype against him.

Hillary wins assuming this election isn't a complete historical outlier.

Trump wins assuming:

1. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, and they will vote in big numbers. (I personally know more than a handful, but that's a scientifically accurate prediction of nothing).

2. These closet Trump voters make up for Hillary's superior ground game (and then some).

3. Traditional methods of polling don't apply to this election due to Trump's unusual candidacy.

4. Democrats vote in much lower numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

5. All of the above apply to at least a majority of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Applying Occam's Razor, I'd say Trump has better odds of becoming a sporadic post-election contributor on Hannity.

As always insightful great post without dogma.

I expect you to be banned any second now?

[Dashinka 24,492]

The accuracy of polling is all related to how well a pollster is able to predict voter turnout and the methodology used to determine lean among various demographic groups. That's why averages usually win.

In essence - Trump's only hope of relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania is that the USC - LA Times methodology, which is new (and quite interesting) isn't statistical noise at all, but the only one accurately portraying this election cycle. My guess is, Trump lost this election the day he decided to go on the debate stage an reinforce every single stereotype against him.

Hillary wins assuming this election isn't a complete historical outlier.

Trump wins assuming:

1. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, and they will vote in big numbers. (I personally know more than a handful, but that's a scientifically accurate prediction of nothing).

2. These closet Trump voters make up for Hillary's superior ground game (and then some).

3. Traditional methods of polling don't apply to this election due to Trump's unusual candidacy.

4. Democrats vote in much lower numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

5. All of the above apply to at least a majority of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Applying Occam's Razor, I'd say Trump has better odds of becoming a sporadic post-election contributor on Hannity.

Very good post. I was reading an analysis of the 1980 election, and there seems to be some similarities. Carter was leading by 4-7% in the polls up until a few weeks prior to the election. Reagan was branded a joke candidate by the media at the time even though he did have some political experience, but we were constantly reminded of his Bonzo movies and his time as a sportscaster. Then at 8:15pm EST NBC called it a landslide for Reagan with Carter conceding about an hour later.

I don't think it is an exact match as there were other things going on in the world, and social media, talk radio and the internet was non-existent, but there are some matches.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Very good post. I was reading an analysis of the 1980 election, and there seems to be some similarities. Carter was leading by 4-7% in the polls up until a few weeks prior to the election. Reagan was branded a joke candidate by the media at the time even though he did have some political experience, but we were constantly reminded of his Bonzo movies and his time as a sportscaster. Then at 8:15pm EST NBC called it a landslide for Reagan with Carter conceding about an hour later.

I don't think it is an exact match as there were other things going on in the world, and social media, talk radio and the internet was non-existent, but there are some matches.

Regan won that election by just under a 10% margin of the popular vote over Carter. Gotta wonder how much wider the percentage gap would have been had former republican John Anderson not run as an independent taking over 6% of the popular vote.

I don't think there is any true comparison between Regan vs Carter and Clinton Vs Trump. Especially seeing we do not have a sitting president running for re-election this time.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Teddy B

[JayJayH 546]

Very good post. I was reading an analysis of the 1980 election, and there seems to be some similarities. Carter was leading by 4-7% in the polls up until a few weeks prior to the election. Reagan was branded a joke candidate by the media at the time even though he did have some political experience, but we were constantly reminded of his Bonzo movies and his time as a sportscaster. Then at 8:15pm EST NBC called it a landslide for Reagan with Carter conceding about an hour later.

I don't think it is an exact match as there were other things going on in the world, and social media, talk radio and the internet was non-existent, but there are some matches.

Regan won that election by just under a 10% margin of the popular vote over Carter. Gotta wonder how much wider the percentage gap would have been had former republican John Anderson not run as an independent taking over 6% of the popular vote.

I don't think there is any true comparison between Regan vs Carter and Clinton Vs Trump. Especially seeing we do not have a sitting president running for re-election this time.

Yea, I'm not sure the Carter-Reagan comparison applies in this one. Reagan did a much better job of unifying the GOP, and on-the-fence voters didn't have the same "could be needed change, or it could be the apocalypse" conundrum. And the economy today, despite what Republicans say, isn't in a recession like it was going into 1980.

Trump is also really, really, really well-known.. And really, really, really unpopular. The voters who remain undecided today aren't sitting there thinking "Hmm, I don't know enough about Trump, let me do some more research." His strategy has been to double down and energize those who already support him. Since the first debate, he has done very little to widen his support.

Edited October 25, 2016 by JayJayH

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Yea, I'm not sure the Carter-Reagan comparison applies in this one. Reagan did a much better job of unifying the GOP, and on-the-fence voters didn't have the same "could be needed change, or it could be the apocalypse" conundrum. And the economy today, despite what Republicans say, isn't in a recession like it was going into 1980.

Trump is also really, really, really well-known.. And really, really, really unpopular. The voters who remain undecided today aren't sitting there thinking "Hmm, I don't know enough about Trump, let me do some more research." His strategy has been to double down and energize those who already support him. Since the first debate, he has done very little to widen his support.

I have seen a couple of Reporters say he is running a primary campaign in a general election.

[OriZ 3,157]

Yea, I'm not sure the Carter-Reagan comparison applies in this one. Reagan did a much better job of unifying the GOP, and on-the-fence voters didn't have the same "could be needed change, or it could be the apocalypse" conundrum. And the economy today, despite what Republicans say, isn't in a recession like it was going into 1980.

Trump is also really, really, really well-known.. And really, really, really unpopular. The voters who remain undecided today aren't sitting there thinking "Hmm, I don't know enough about Trump, let me do some more research." His strategy has been to double down and energize those who already support him. Since the first debate, he has done very little to widen his support.

We're usually in agreement on most things, but I have to stop ya right there. I have not seen republicans saying we are IN a recession right now. Rather, that the economy is a whole lot more fragile than Clinton or Obama would have you believe, and I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I'm about 99% confident that Clinton will have a recession on her hands probably for about half of her term, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've routinely shared exactly what leads me(as well as my pal John Hussman) to this conclusion in my own thread.

No, Obama did not save the economy.

No, Clinton will not create jobs (no president really does so neither will Trump if by some miracle he gets in).

Yes, we are in fact on the very verge of recession

Just my two cents.

[TBoneTX 45,273]

I have seen a couple of Reporters say he is running a primary campaign in a general election.

Exactly. When he was nominated, he needed to "pivot" and begin peacemaking with the supporters of the candidates whom he'd vanquished. There was zero need to keep hammering anyone. The influence of his personality aside, this is probably understandable for anyone in his first consequential political campaign who reached a stage of success beyond expectation or preparation.

[Rob L 3,811]

They go hand in hand, no need for the devil here.

Three thumbsup!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/577938-one-year-to-nowhere/?p=8262915

[Rob L 3,811]

Exactly. When he was nominated, he needed to "pivot" and begin peacemaking with the supporters of the candidates whom he'd vanquished. There was zero need to keep hammering anyone. The influence of his personality aside, this is probably understandable for anyone in his first consequential political campaign who reached a stage of success beyond expectation or preparation.

Trump is a loser, we like winners