General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

mchammer said:
So says the guy who had his panties in a wad over last year's recruiting class.
Click to expand...

Not sure which post you're referring to (probably the December one where I said A&M was in better shape than we were... because they were in December). But HS kids changing minds or picking a college late in the game isn't quite the same as polling data, right? I think you're overestimating the amount of silent support Trump is getting.

mb227 said:
Except that since that list shows polls by week, it also reflects that Trump was continually chipping away and was tied in the prior poll before edging ahead in the most recent one.
Click to expand...

The trend line for Dornsife isn't the problem, it was the type of respondents who started the poll to begin with. The oft-mentioned Nate Silver even confirmed in the same article that mchammer keeps talking about:
And the poll surveys the same panel of roughly 3,000 people over and over instead of recruiting new respondents. That creates a more stable baseline and can therefore be a good way to detect trends in voter preferences, although it also means that if the panel happened to be more Trump-leaning or Clinton-leaning than the population as a whole, you’d be stuck with it for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Trump's numbers in the first LA Times polls that came out were way off the "baseline" of every other poll in early 2016. The bottom line is that there are more Trump supporters who keep clicking the same "Trump, 100 percent confident" buttons every day on their accounts. The trends are also weighted poorly, as I showed earlier in the thread. Trump's post-convention bump knocked Hillary's out of the water, which doesn't gel with any other data from any other major polling organization. It's not because everything else is liberal-biased... it's because Dornsife's methodology started with a group of voters that doesn't represent the same group as everything else.

mchammer said:
Even Nate Silver says that the outlier is sometimes the most accurate.
Click to expand...

Where? In the article I mentioned, he showed that a local poll for Senate in Iowa turned out to be right, even though it was way off the mainstream ones. It was the only one he gave evidence of. Do you have a U.S. Presidential election poll that even came close? Dewey v. Truman maybe?

mchammer said:
Actually I'm betting on the confirmation bias of the media and pollsters that leads them to understate Trump's support.
Click to expand...

So there's confirmation bias in every poll except the trend in the LA Times one? If anything, it was Obama's support that was understated in 2008 and 2012, as even his own internal polling had him with fewer popular and electoral votes going into November. That's going to trend towards the blue again in the swing states. So when polling data says Clinton +1 on election night, she's going to end up with the +1 instead of the +3 like Obama got in similar states. The silent support that you speak of is not going to swing that way.
 
mchammer- I'm trying to understand why you think that if Trump is within -3 of Clinton, he'll win. Do you think there is a hidden white nationalism that poll respondents are scared to expose? Yet you also claim a bias in all non-LA Times polls. Help me understand, again.
 
Seattle Husker said:
mchammer- I'm trying to understand why you think that if Trump is within -3 of Clinton, he'll win. Do you think there is a hidden white nationalism that poll respondents are scared to expose? Yet you also claim a bias in all non-LA Times polls. Help me understand, again.
Click to expand...

Two reasons:
1. In the traditional polls, if you didn't vote in last election, you are not counted. Good number of Trump supporters who hasn't voted recently are not being counted.
2. Survey polls show much higher support for Trump. Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll now show it is tied. So, not just an LA Times issue. Why the difference? Life long Dems who plan to vote for Trump tells a pollster a lie, but votes honestly in a survey. Note this is a double whammy. Only takes 1% to make a 2% difference in polling.

Both issues (turnout and lying) probably add up to 3-4%.
 
Trump should make hay of Obama handing over US control of the internet to the UN. The UN? That should go well
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165

He is giving US citizens quite a few other going away presents -- tons pardons already (more to come), dumping the worst of the remaining Gitmo killers on the street (that should go well II), allowing his healthcare "exchanges" to go belly-up, letting Louisiana drown ...

What other tricks does he have in his golf bag?
 
Joe Fan said:
Crouching Pervert, Hidden Jihadi
Click to expand...

Hidden Jihadi is right. Why isn't Trump making more or her possible ties to terrorism? She is the closest person to Hillary and fair game, especially given Hill's inability to keep anything secret. Hell, Huma even wrote in one of the revealed emails that she had classified documents in her car.

Look at the noise the Dems have made about the Trump's ties to the alt right and Breitbart.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263183/huma-abedin-daughter-jihad-matthew-vadum
 
Reuter's poll
looks like a tie
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T.../20160710-20160830/collapsed/true/spotlight/1
upload_2016-8-31_11-23-2.png




going to be crazy. And with DHS hinting they might take control of the election it gets crazier
 
mchammer said:
Trump going to Mexico?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-weighs-mexico-visit-to-meet-countrys-president-227571
Click to expand...

There's a campaign started by a Mexican actress to stop Trump at the border. :)

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in this meeting. Trump's stated that Mexico is sending their criminals to the US and that he'll force them to pay billions for a wall that really is not in their best interest. Pena Nieto has likened Trump to Hitler and Mussolini referencing the demagogue tactics Trump has employed. With that background, where does the conversation start?
 
For the Trump doubters regarding his chances:



Basically, once it gets within 3 pts, it becomes almost a toss-up. Yes, Clinton would still be favored, but there would be no safety margin to account for errors in turnout assumptions, etc. My perfect scenario is Clinton +2 cause that would mean less Clinton voters who erroneously think the election is safe.
 
That went much better than I expected. Much better. This will create a big change in the poll numbers provided he does as well tonight.

Interested to see what the haters thought post news conference?
 
Trump haters were hoping/predicting a disaster. Now, they are shitting in their pants.
 
I was so totally against Trump getting the nomination. But damn he did not embarrass himself today. I also noticed Nieto said NAFTA could be changed.
Trump or his campaign has good instinct. First going to LA with a truckload of supplies . And now being the first to accept Nieto's invitation.
Clinton looks like the fool she is by calling Trump's meeting with Nieto nothing but a photo op.
So Trump gets good press today and Hillary gets trampled by the NYT just
as we learn she was STILL send8ng classifies info on her basement server after she left State. Who is left to defend her.Cher and Barbra?
 
Last edited:
Clean said:
Hidden Jihadi is right. Why isn't Trump making more or her possible ties to terrorism? She is the closest person to Hillary and fair game, especially given Hill's inability to keep anything secret. Hell, Huma even wrote in one of the revealed emails that she had classified documents in her car......
Click to expand...


I believe that she was also a troofer, thought the US bombed itself on 9-11.
 
Basically, once it gets within 3 pts, it becomes almost a toss-up. Yes, Clinton would still be favored, but there would be no safety margin to account for errors in turnout assumptions, etc. My perfect scenario is Clinton +2 cause that would mean less Clinton voters who erroneously think the election is safe.
Click to expand...

I think that the closer it gets, the greater the chance she will panic and go off the rails at some point in the debates.

I remember during Ford v. Carter, Ford went off the rails with a dumb remark during their debates about Eastern Europeans living under the Soviet boot. The entire country went, "Wait, ..... what did he say?" at the same moment. It hurt him, and tended to confirm the stereotype perpetrated by comedians that he was just a dumb ex-jock (turns out he was actually a fairly bright guy). I cant say this alone was what made the difference, but it definitely did not help his chances.
 
Stat
Indeed it does. And it says even more when the other Potus candidate gets through a day without another lie being given exposed. Or it might if it happened.
 
Phil Elliott said:
I have long felt there must be some other level of sexual gratification that I am completely unaware of because I cannot figure out why married people risk home and family for even a "traditional" fling, much less this Weiner stuff.
Click to expand...

Obviously, marital infidelity is always wrong, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it. However, I do understand why some are tempted by it and why some give into the temptation. However, I don't understand why someone would even be tempted to "go Carlos Danger." I really don't see what he's getting out of it.
 
This one is the DCNF suit.

I speculated above in the context of the JW suit what State might do in this type of instance. I think they will give serious consideration to simply absorbing any civil contempt penalty. It's not their money, so they dont really care (no actual skin in the game). And it's not like they are a neutral party in the election.

It is a somewhat unusual remedy but it has happened before. Judges usually have a sense when there is intentional delay, they get it, many or most were trail lawyers at some point. And it looks like this one is getting tired of the snow job.

 
Last edited:
Pena Nieto is disputing Trump's assertion that who was paying for the wall was not discussed. He apparently tweeted out that he opened the discussion by saying "Mexico is not paying for a wall" before they moved onto other topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top