Hillary Clinton is Done

[Loss Leader]

Actually, I suspect that Nate is more interested in sports statistics than political statistics, but this doesn't mean that he can't or doesn't choose preferred favorites be it the Patriots or HRC.

Second time: Do you have any evidence that Nate Silver is giving some preference to Clinton that the numbers don't support? Do you have any evidence that Silver is doing anything other than aggregating polling data weighted for the past performance of each poll (and size of sample, whether they called cell phones, etc.)?

The reason Silver does so well in politics (and did well as a professional poker player and sports bettor) is specifically because he doesn't let emotions pull him away from the data. The reason Republican pollsters did so poorly in 2012 (to the point where Romney honestly was surprised he didn't win) is because they changed polling numbers specifically to reflect their prejudices.

Is there any properly conducted poll anywhere that shows Clinton still losing ground to Sanders?

 

[varwoche]

Actually, I suspect that Nate is more interested in sports statistics than political statistics, but this doesn't mean that he can't or doesn't choose preferred favorites be it the Patriots or HRC. By the nature of the beast, since I consider Hillary's public policy preferences to be conservative lite, anyone supporting her is supporting a conservative-lite perspective.

What a load of self-serving gibberish. You are way too quick to assign labels to people. It's highly presumptuous, shallow, narrow-minded, and fallacious.

 

[varwoche]

If you don't wish to be described as a person who supports Hillary Clinton, don't defend and support Hillary Clinton. It is curious that you seem to want to make such defenses and offer such support, yet you get offended at the idea that you are defending and supporting Hillary Clinton?

The thread isn't about me. That said, I can point to threads where I "supported" Bush 2 (using your shallow definition), despite that I vigorously opposed him in both elections, and I consider him the worst POTUS of modern times.

Rabid partisans have a hard time understanding this, elementary though it should be.

 

[The Big Dog]

What a load of self-serving gibberish. You are way too quick to assign labels to people. It's highly presumptuous, shallow, narrow-minded, and fallacious.

irony meter explodes

 

[varwoche]

Enjoy the surprise you have coming.

I would (nervously) enjoy this exceedingly unlikely surprise! My main concern about Sanders is electability. If he won the nomination, that would help allay my concern.

But back in the real world I'm looking forward to a damn fine cup of coffee.

 

[BenBurch]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/2...m-supporters-may-undermine-clintons-lead.html

There’s cause for concern in Hillaryland, the constellation of Democratic advisers, supporters and politicians counting on the former secretary of state to lead the party to a sweeping victory next November.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nomination is almost a foregone conclusion, barring any unlikely legal or health issues. Democrats will offer a more coherent and unified front for the general election than the fractious Republicans.

Still, this optimism is based on the presumed weakness of the opposition, and ignores what polling suggests could be the candidate’s own vulnerabilities.

The worries of some Clinton insiders are focused on the general election. There is an “enthusiasm gap.” Surveys of voters at this early stage of the campaign show that young people, independents, possibly even blacks and Hispanics are not excited about her candidacy.

<SNIP>

They still think an unenthusiastic base is going to get her nominated?

 

[mgidm86]

Is that what's happening here? Apparently the American public disagrees with you because her polling numbers still have her sitting on the top of the heap. I don't think you're mission is going very well.

Yeah and Trump is the lead Republican candidate, so being on top in the polls is not an indicator of how good the candidate is.

ETA:
It is very sad that our two leading candidates are completely pathetic. We can't do any better than this?

 

[plague311]

Yeah and Trump is the lead Republican candidate, so being on top in the polls is not an indicator of how good the candidate is.

Good thing I never implied she was a good candidate. I was speaking to if she was electable, which was what 16.5 said. Apparently Trump is electable as well, but that doesn't make him good. So I guess, thank you for helping me make my point?

 

[mgidm86]

Good thing I never implied she was a good candidate. I was speaking to if she was electable, which was what 16.5 said. Apparently Trump is electable as well, but that doesn't make him good. So I guess, thank you for helping me make my point?

You are correct, my mistake. I'm rushing things a bit today.

ETA: She should be un-electable...sad sad.

 

[Loss Leader]

They still think an unenthusiastic base is going to get her nominated?

The problem with riling up your party's base is that, though they definitely vote, they're too small to win an election with.

A candidate can be certain of 40% of the vote from his/her own party and equally certain that 40% are going to vote for the other person. The trick is pulling in the majority of the votes that are left - moderate, uncommitted votes.

A poll watcher must ask: Can Donald Trump capture anything but the Republican base? Can Clinton, who already started as a moderate, capture the unaffiliated?

So, am I at all worried that the Democratic base isn't hysterically excited for Clinton? Not at all. With the primaries a foregone conclusion, the base probably won't even start to get interested until the convention next summer. Also, Clinton's base isn't her problem. It's convincing erstwhile Republicans to either vote for her or just stay home out of disgust for their own candidate.

 

[Trakar]

Second time: Do you have any evidence that Nate Silver is giving some preference to Clinton that the numbers don't support? Do you have any evidence that Silver is doing anything other than aggregating polling data weighted for the past performance of each poll (and size of sample, whether they called cell phones, etc.)?

I do not believe that Nate Silver is deliberately skewing his data analysis to favor anyone. What I do believe is that Nate's process applied to politics inherently favors establishment candidates and campaigns that employ establishment practices in traditional election settings. My argument isn't focused on whether or not Nate Silver is a closet Clintonista sabotaging his own livelihood to make HRC look better than she is.

My argument is based on the proposal that Silver's establishment political metrics are fine at producing establishment consistent data and analyses. Ultimately, however, the question is whether or not there is enough non-traditional, non-establishment political activity occurring to have a significant impact upon the Democratic primary and possibly the general election as well. We will know for certain once the only polls that actually matter begin actually occurring. If I'm mistaken, then it should be fairly clear by the end of the first week in March, if not the last week in Feb.

Is there any properly conducted poll anywhere that shows Clinton still losing ground to Sanders?

Generally, I'm more focused on longer term trends than a single poll is usually capable of capturing, and until the last month, I'm really not too concerned about the daily, or even weekly, wiggles.

That said...

Over the last month, I see the following which I would consider, lacking evidence to the contrary, to be properly conducted polls:

Over the first two weeks I see what look to be:

an Ipsos/Reuters Poll indicating Clinton 57 Sanders 28
Oct. 31 - Nov. 4

another IPSOS/Reuters Clinton 52 Sanders 35
November 7–11

A Public Policy Polling survey indicting Clinton 67 Sanders 25
November 12–14, 2015

an average difference of (29 + 17 + 42)/3 =~29 points difference

Over last 2 weeks:
Public Policy Polling Clinton 59% Sanders 31%
November 16–17, 2015

Ipos/Reuters Clinton 52% Sanders 31%
November 14–18, 2015

ABC News/Washington Post Clinton 60% Sanders 34%
November 16–19, 2015

An average difference of (28 + 21 + 26)/3 = 25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries
Hillary had a (fully and admittedly, within MoE) ~4 percentage point larger lead in the earlier part of this month than she does currently.

But the only polls that matter don't start for another couple months or so.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nate Silver observed in a column on Trump's likely vanishing margins that the exit polling data for the primaries and caucuses over the past three or four national elections show that as many as 40 to 50% of voters make their decision in the last week before the vote.

The polls until then tend to fluctuate with who's in the news and how the polled public takes to that news, including certain calculations for name recognition. As such, they're a snapshot of the date the poll was taken. What's more interesting is that when you extrapolate the exit polls findings, all those 92 to 97% who are responding are kidding themselves. It's soft support at its best.

The real negative of bad poll numbers is in fund raising. The marginal candidates will be dropped if they can't convince the money bags that they can deliver something.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I do not believe that Nate Silver is deliberately skewing his data analysis to favor anyone. What I do believe is that Nate's process applied to politics inherently favors establishment candidates and campaigns that employ establishment practices in traditional election settings. My argument isn't focused on whether or not Nate Silver is a closet Clintonista sabotaging his own livelihood to make HRC look better than she is.

My argument is based on the proposal that Silver's establishment political metrics are fine at producing establishment consistent data and analyses. Ultimately, however, the question is whether or not there is enough non-traditional, non-establishment political activity occurring to have a significant impact upon the Democratic primary and possibly the general election as well. We will know for certain once the only polls that actually matter begin actually occurring. If I'm mistaken, then it should be fairly clear by the end of the first week in March, if not the last week in Feb.

But do you have something besides special pleading ?

 

[varwoche]

But do you have something besides special pleading ?

As best as I can tell, Trakar's claims are based solely on the fact that Silver predicts Clinton victory. And Trakar is so confident that Silver is establishment, pro Clinton, that posters who cite Silver are similarly pegged, ignoring the fantastically obvious possibility that one might cite Silver based on track record. Highly unimpressive showing.

 

[Trakar]

Nate Silver observed in a column on Trump's likely vanishing margins that the exit polling data for the primaries and caucuses over the past three or four national elections show that as many as 40 to 50% of voters make their decision in the last week before the vote.

The polls until then tend to fluctuate with who's in the news and how the polled public takes to that news, including certain calculations for name recognition. As such, they're a snapshot of the date the poll was taken. What's more interesting is that when you extrapolate the exit polls findings, all those 92 to 97% who are responding are kidding themselves. It's soft support at its best.

The real negative of bad poll numbers is in fund raising. The marginal candidates will be dropped if they can't convince the money bags that they can deliver something.

Fully agreed, especially as many of the large political donors tend to look at their donations as investments.

 

[Trakar]

But do you have something besides special pleading ?

What exemptions (without adequate explanation) do you see constructed in my statements with regard to myself or Senator Sanders? It is quite possible that I have not fully explained or discussed the elements that I feel make Sanders' campaign non-traditional and non-establishment, and I'd be more than happy to discuss that in more detail if that is what is leading to some people thinking that I am employing special pleading. Though that discussion is probably best held in a thread devoted to discussing Sanders instead of continuing in a thread that is more devoted to exposing the flaws and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton.

If that isn't what you are talking about then I'm afraid I don't understand what you are meaning when you are using the term special pleading (which to my understanding is - The application of standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while holding one's self or one's interests to be exempt from those without providing adequate justification for the exemption).

 

[BenBurch]

Fully agreed, especially as many of the large political donors tend to look at their donations as investments.

However, every poll that comes in showing Bernie behind Hillary results in a flurry of donations to Bernie... Funny how that works. We don't see it as in investment, but as a refuge.

 

[Trakar]

However, every poll that comes in showing Bernie behind Hillary results in a flurry of donations to Bernie... Funny how that works. We don't see it as in investment, but as a refuge.

I didn't mean investment as in tit-for-tat, but rather as in this person believes in a world as I believe the world should be, so investing in their future is an investment in the future I wish to see. In that since I do see my investment in Sanders as an investment in getting someone elected who wants to see the same world that I want to see.

The interesting aspect I see with regard to Hillary's donors and Sanders' donors, is that more women have donated to Sanders campaign than have donated to Hillary's campaign.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I didn't mean investment as in tit-for-tat, but rather as in this person believes in a world as I believe the world should be, so investing in their future is an investment in the future I wish to see. In that since I do see my investment in Sanders as an investment in getting someone elected who wants to see the same world that I want to see.

The interesting aspect I see with regard to Hillary's donors and Sanders' donors, is that more women have donated to Sanders campaign than have donated to Hillary's campaign.

Individual donors to the individual official campaigns. No one has the figures for the PACs.

As a famous football coach once remarked, "Statistics are the damnedest thing. Reminds me of the fella who drowned in river with an average depth of two feet."

Bernie Spin: Sanders has 60,000 more women supporters than Hillary.
Hillary Spin: Hillary gets 60% of her support from women. Sanders only 44%

See how that works?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ETA:
It is very sad that our two leading candidates are completely pathetic. We can't do any better than this?

Oh god... I know... The way things are shaping Rubio is about the only sane one with a decent chance to take the lead on then "R" side. But Cruz isn't far behind him either. Trumps' lead is astounding given all the crap he says, but now I'm starting to become convinced myself that a portion of the electorate doesn't care whether what he says has any substance... That's disturbing.