Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Darat]

Or it will mean that the pessimists and cynics are right and that the voter is not as stupid as we are all suspecting, but actually understands that things like jobs and the economy run in cycles and that the war/anti-war tendencies of both the major parties are the same,.....


.... AND....

That they vote with their emotions and race/xenophobia are ultimately far more important to them than any other topic. That was the everlasting truth to come out of the Southern Strategy. The candidate can be in favor of a four hundred per cent tax rate, want to legalize aardvark sex and thinks that you should wear sandals with socks..... As Long As He Hates The Same People You Hate.

Aardvark sex is illegal..... Cripes...

 

[applecorped]

If the populace decided to not vote for either Trump or Hillary how would that be handled? I know it won't happen but is there a mechanism in place to address a no vote scenario? Is it considered a tie? (assuming no other third party candidates receive votes as well).

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the populace decided to not vote for either Trump or Hillary how would that be handled? I know it won't happen but is there a mechanism in place to address a no vote scenario? Is it considered a tie? (assuming no other third party candidates receive votes as well).

I don't think there is any provision for that, since we can assume that at the least the candidates would vote for themselves.

 

[The Don]

Aardvark sex is illegal..... Cripes...

Won't someone think of the baby aardvarks

Unless we're talking about sex between humans and aardvarks in which case better bring along some of those chocolate-covered ants on your "date"

 

[aleCcowaN]

Did you just admitted to fake poll results to be more to your liking before you present them here?

The figures I post here are exactly those published by the pollsters. Were you suggesting otherwise? My comprehension of the overall state of the public opinion is processed the way I explained. My forecast about the outcome of the election doesn't come from neither of the previous and it isn't any hunch nor bet. I suggest you to read other people's posts with attention and restrain yourself of making blurry mixes of post chunks to present the worst image of your liking.

 

[phiwum]

The figures I post here are exactly those published by the pollsters. Were you suggesting otherwise? My comprehension of the overall state of the public opinion is processed the way I explained. My forecast about the outcome of the election doesn't come from neither of the previous and it isn't any hunch nor bet. I suggest you to read other people's posts with attention and restrain yourself of making blurry mixes of post chunks to present the worst image of your liking.

Are you suggesting that the adjustments you make regarding poll numbers[1] are based on clear, well-accepted scientific or statistical laws, and not your own notions regarding how polls skew findings?

[1] I realize the numbers you post here are unadjusted. I mean the adjustments you make in your own personal forecasts.

 

[Ladewig]

If the populace decided to not vote for either Trump or Hillary how would that be handled? I know it won't happen but is there a mechanism in place to address a no vote scenario? Is it considered a tie? (assuming no other third party candidates receive votes as well).

If no candidate receives more that 271 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House with each state getting one vote.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Are you suggesting that the adjustments you make regarding poll numbers[1] are based on clear, well-accepted scientific or statistical laws, and not your own notions regarding how polls skew findings?

[1] I realize the numbers you post here are unadjusted. I mean the adjustments you make in your own personal forecasts.

The highlighted bit tells me you are alien to the field of Statistics in the real world (its wording too). You seem not having anything to ask about why two pollsters using similar types and sizes of samples on the same population make field work the same days and get 5 points of difference between them. That doesn't bother you, but what I do, which has anything to do neither with the unadjusted polls I post nor with my forecast, that did.

My forecast was made back in May or June, polls were just a fraction of it (corrected by me, of course, because I can't help doing what I know and should the same way I can't help seeing when I open my eyes to the daylight). My forecast is systemic, based in the knowledge I have acquired about the Usaian society. And I have to say that members of this forum have been very helpful in that, as well as the media, the candidates and their rallies, and the published polls.

Now, to address your specific question as you asked it, correction of biases and design of questionnaires is a permanent task in this polling business which has to be cost-effective sacrificing quality the least possible. There's also a cultural aspect of the trade. Well funded and, hence, well made polls are not available to the public. They are for the people who need to know and pay for that knowledge. In those polls published, there's some media who throws some coins to have the exclusive and a pollster who has something to advertise. They make cost-effective polls -generally regular to somewhat bad- to promote their institutions (universities, agencies) or to show the tip of the iceberg and try to sell the deeper and more real results to those willing to pay for them.

 

[Senex]

I consider myself an American patriot because I believe in our constitution. I am ashamed to be American right now because Trump has gotten this far.

He's a disgrace.

 

[The Atheist]

That they vote with their emotions and race/xenophobia are ultimately far more important to them than any other topic.

Yes, and I've said it myself a few times, however I firmly consider xenophobes and racists to be barking mad.

Trouble is, that gets very close to Sean Penn being vilified for not clenching his fist over his left tit. Nationalism is the little brother of xenophobia.

Racists are just pathetic losers.

The depth of the problem is here:

I consider myself an American patriot because I believe in our constitution. I am ashamed to be American right now because Trump has gotten this far.

He's a disgrace.

A sad, but fair admission.

If ever you wondered what might have happened if Rev'd Jim Hones became POTUS, you could be about to find out.

Does the White House have room for all Don's family?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Does the White House have room for all Don's family?

Not necessary: he'll just rent the entire Trump International Washington Hotel at tax-payer's expense to house his 'advisers', i.e. clan.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Aren't some of you being a bit extreme? Trump hasn't won and it's unlikely he will.

But the mechanics of hate in all this is really terrifying to watch, honestly! That hate rated high in the system analysis that guided my forecast for the election.

Now we are seeing some lability in the public opinion and everybody got nervous. I was laughing at the poll from Fox this morning. They got Clinton 41% and Trump 40% in a 4-way scenario, and Trump 46%, Clinton 45% in a 2-way scenario. They were tooting Clinton + 9 or Clinton + 7 weeks ago when nobody went that far; now they're in a tied scenario.

But wait a minute! Most polls show Clinton favoured when you erase Johnson from the ballot. Why Fox does the contrary?

I was checking Fox's for details, and it's very "interesting". They have 1006 registered voters interviewed and from them a subsample of 876 likely voters. Pay always attention when a poll is on one or other group.

They got for registered voters Clinton + 4 in a 4-way, and Clinton + 3 in a 2-way. But with likely voters they got Clinton + 1 and Trump + 1 respectively. What happened here? This not only contradicts other polls regarding Johnson's voters. This also depict a very strange panorama regarding not interested registered voters that should deserve "yuge" headlines. I took the time to reverse the percentages, and from 130 registered voters who are not likely voters, 57 would vote for Clinton, 25 for Trump, 22 for Johnson and 14 for Stein -does it sound logical to you?-. In the 2-way question, the figures are 73 would vote for Clinton, 35 for Trump.

Mystère et boule de gomme!

 

[NoahFence]

It's not hate. It's horror.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Another horrendous thing that polls are revealing comes from Dornsife USC.

Go there, select "characteristics of candidate support" and scroll down until the last pair of figures.

Not only it confirms what most polls are saying: the vote intention in the USA is sexist in a way almost impossible to imagine in other countries. It also tells that the fading Clinton support comes from men. Compare the figures for September 10th and 15th

|Date|Sept 10th|Sept 15th
Clinton|women|49.6%|48.1%
|men|40.0%|38.4%
Trump|women|38.4%|33.7%
|men|48.9%|55.5%

Sick! What happens? Rodham Clinton is not macho enough?

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's not hate. It's horror.

I'm open to other interpretations but I'm not convinced. I see a feeling most everybody is feeding day by day and post by post. Fear doesn't work that way. Hate does.

 

[Tero]

How does the LA Times keep coming with +6 for Trump
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
when other polls, even Fox, give a tie or +1 or +2 Hillary?
List of polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

they try to explain

Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-polling-differences-20160809-snap-story.html

 

[Ladewig]

I'm open to other interpretations but I'm not convinced. I see a feeling most everybody is feeding day by day and post by post. Fear doesn't work that way. Hate does.

I'll have a quick go at it.

While many of us in the politics subforum fall far, far short of our ideal, the one thing virtually all posters on this board claim is a respect for critical thinking. Trump views critical thinking with a disdain never before seen in a candidate. He held on to birtherism longer than any public figure in the United States. He claimed to know more about how to defeat ISIS than the generals. He refuses to admit that there were not thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey on 9/11. He has frequently claimed that Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. He is an inveterate bull****er with complete disregard for the truth; therefore he is the very antithesis of a critical thinker. He is proud to admit that he is not a data kind of guy. His contempt of facts is so great, that he frequently asserts that he never made claims that were recorded on video.


As news of the shooting in Orlando was breaking, he sent out a tweet bragging about his foresight.
On the afternoons of 9/11, he bragged that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.
He mocked a handicapped reporter.
He attacked a fire marshal who was enforcing building capacity codes.¹He advocated killing the families of terrorists.
He cries about being treated unfairly by the press when he has been given hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity.
He answered a question about his views of God, in part, by describing his real estate successes.
He has not a whit of empathy for the people who lost money on Trump U.

He is a self-centered, childish, braggart with no moral compass who will say anything to please the people in front of him. Not only will he claim to support opposite positions in a single day, he occasionally champions opposite positions in a single interview. He is a smug, intolerant blowhard who demands special treatment while claiming to be a tough as nails hard hitter. When he doesn't get his way he accuses others of being biased against him even though no bias was displayed.

That's why I hate him.




1) I will confess to that reason being idiosyncratic the me.

ETA
And yes, I appreciate the irony of my sometimes using emotions instead of critical reasoning in this post.

 

[aleCcowaN]

How does the LA Times keep coming with +6 for Trump
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
when other polls, even Fox, give a tie or +1 or +2 Hillary?
List of polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

they try to explain

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-polling-differences-20160809-snap-story.html

Remember that there's a major no-no in that study: the same people is polled week after week so they have become too much aware of the political process when compared with the common public who should be being polled.

The sampling based on 2012 results makes it a little more Republican prone, let's say 2 points. But that's not fixed.

 

[Ladewig]

I am going to add two more (lifted from a Dallas newspaper editorial)

His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness.
And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

.................

And I suppose part of my hate stems from his providing evidence that a well-known but politically ignorant person with loyalty to no one but himself can rise through the ranks and have a shot at the presidency.

 

[GlennB]

Given that his candidacy was only intended to boost his TV appearance fees then I imagine that he's pooping his pants at the prospect that he might actually win, therefore he'll deliberately scupper his own chances in the next month or so.