mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
new poll today has tD beating hilly in ohio
new poll today has tD beating hilly in ohio
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Rolling average still has Hillary ahead, but we need poll results like this to keep the Dems from getting overconfident.
Rolling average still has Hillary ahead, but we need poll results like this to keep the Dems from getting overconfident.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
so.....rolling shows she WAS ahead, and now she's not.
(don't let rover in on this!! he'll tell us bellicheat has 10 super bowls then)
so.....rolling shows she WAS ahead, and now she's not.
(don't let rover in on this!! he'll tell us bellicheat has 10 super bowls then)
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
FreeRepublic has done purges before. Most notably the devotees of Giuliani back when he had his 15 minutes as a serious candidate.
FreeRepublic has done purges before. Most notably the devotees of Giuliani back when he had his 15 minutes as a serious candidate.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
mookie's losing his fastball! Rover was already lying in wait for somebody to post this.
"Meanwhile, a trio of swing state Quinnipiac polls show tight races in Florida (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%), Ohio (Trump 43%, Clinton 39%), and Pennsylvania (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%). But the polling samples in those three states are whiter than what they were in 2012, according to the exit polls.
•Quinnipiac's Florida sample is 69% white -- was 67% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Ohio sample is 83% white -- was 79% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Pennsylvania sample is 81% white -- was 78% in 2012."
So, much like the Romney campaign's expectations in 2012, we're going to reverse a 36 year trend of minorities making up a greater % of the voters and the electorate is going to be MORE WHITE! Woo hoo!
Expect to see a lot of lets say "interesting" polling samples this election season. Happens every time.
mookie's losing his fastball! Rover was already lying in wait for somebody to post this.
"Meanwhile, a trio of swing state Quinnipiac polls show tight races in Florida (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%), Ohio (Trump 43%, Clinton 39%), and Pennsylvania (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%). But the polling samples in those three states are whiter than what they were in 2012, according to the exit polls.
•Quinnipiac's Florida sample is 69% white -- was 67% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Ohio sample is 83% white -- was 79% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Pennsylvania sample is 81% white -- was 78% in 2012."
So, much like the Romney campaign's expectations in 2012, we're going to reverse a 36 year trend of minorities making up a greater % of the voters and the electorate is going to be MORE WHITE! Woo hoo!
Expect to see a lot of lets say "interesting" polling samples this election season. Happens every time.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Black turnout may go down without Obama on the ticket, though I suspect it would be made up for by increased Hispanic turnout.
One other thing, though. Raw sample percentages are typically corrected to match expected turnout. Polling methodology is built around representative sampling -- you take the results by cross-tab but then you weight the cross-tabs by expected participation. To take a simplified example, let's say a state typically has 50% male and 50% female voters, and your sample is 60% men who vote {50% D, 50% R} and 40% women who vote {60% D, 40% R}. The reported polling result for Dems will not be .6*.5 + .4*.6 = .54; it will be .5*.5 + .5*.6 = .55. The fact that you contacted more men than women in your sample is an accident that has no predictive value for the general population.
mookie's losing his fastball! Rover was already lying in wait for somebody to post this.
"Meanwhile, a trio of swing state Quinnipiac polls show tight races in Florida (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%), Ohio (Trump 43%, Clinton 39%), and Pennsylvania (Clinton 43%, Trump 42%). But the polling samples in those three states are whiter than what they were in 2012, according to the exit polls.
•Quinnipiac's Florida sample is 69% white -- was 67% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Ohio sample is 83% white -- was 79% in 2012;
•Quinnipiac's Pennsylvania sample is 81% white -- was 78% in 2012."
So, much like the Romney campaign's expectations in 2012, we're going to reverse a 36 year trend of minorities making up a greater % of the voters and the electorate is going to be MORE WHITE! Woo hoo!
Expect to see a lot of lets say "interesting" polling samples this election season. Happens every time.
Black turnout may go down without Obama on the ticket, though I suspect it would be made up for by increased Hispanic turnout.
One other thing, though. Raw sample percentages are typically corrected to match expected turnout. Polling methodology is built around representative sampling -- you take the results by cross-tab but then you weight the cross-tabs by expected participation. To take a simplified example, let's say a state typically has 50% male and 50% female voters, and your sample is 60% men who vote {50% D, 50% R} and 40% women who vote {60% D, 40% R}. The reported polling result for Dems will not be .6*.5 + .4*.6 = .54; it will be .5*.5 + .5*.6 = .55. The fact that you contacted more men than women in your sample is an accident that has no predictive value for the general population.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
That's not how rolling averages work.
By rolling she is still ahead. If there are more polls with her losing eventually it will "catch up." But the idea of rolling averages is not just to capture trending -- it's to correct for outliers by washing them out with additional results.
That's not how rolling averages work.
By rolling she is still ahead. If there are more polls with her losing eventually it will "catch up." But the idea of rolling averages is not just to capture trending -- it's to correct for outliers by washing them out with additional results.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
while bubba may have been the first black president, hilly surely wasn't the first black first lady!!! a true sister whoulda cut bubba's banana hooked pecker off at the stump
(people hate her! roll that
)
while bubba may have been the first black president, hilly surely wasn't the first black first lady!!! a true sister whoulda cut bubba's banana hooked pecker off at the stump
(people hate her! roll that
)mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
well the top line of your linky did exactly that (simple math)
That's not how rolling averages work.
By rolling she is still ahead. If there are more polls with her losing eventually it will "catch up." But the idea of rolling averages is not just to capture trending -- it's to correct for outliers by washing them out with additional results.
well the top line of your linky did exactly that (simple math)
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
They hate Drumpf more.
The other thing is, people hate Hillary when she's running for things, but they actually kinda like her when she's running things. She seems to run around -20 favorable on the campaign trail and +20 favorable when on the job. She's kinda Opposite Day Dubya.
(people hate her! roll that
They hate Drumpf more.
The other thing is, people hate Hillary when she's running for things, but they actually kinda like her when she's running things. She seems to run around -20 favorable on the campaign trail and +20 favorable when on the job. She's kinda Opposite Day Dubya.
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Time is absolutely right...the best way Clinton can win is not to fall for the trap. Let the child have his tantrum you just stay calm and answer the questions.
Time is absolutely right...the best way Clinton can win is not to fall for the trap. Let the child have his tantrum you just stay calm and answer the questions.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
And it was that methodology that showed Romney had a chance 4 years ago despite the fact that people like Nate Silver had it nailed 2 months before the election. Pollsters pretending they know what participation is going to be may have worked 40 years ago when it was easier to predict but with the demographic changes along with socio-economic shifts they might as well be throwing darts at a wall. They have no clue who is going to vote or what the make up of the voters is going to be.
And it was that methodology that showed Romney had a chance 4 years ago despite the fact that people like Nate Silver had it nailed 2 months before the election. Pollsters pretending they know what participation is going to be may have worked 40 years ago when it was easier to predict but with the demographic changes along with socio-economic shifts they might as well be throwing darts at a wall. They have no clue who is going to vote or what the make up of the voters is going to be.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
I don't necessarily think black turnout will go down for two reasons. 1) Obama himself will be campaigning hard to turn them out, and 2) for blacks following Obama with a Dem pretty much cements his legacy. No promises after this year of course but the connection still seems to be there with blacks and Dems especially with an incumbent Dem black guy in the WH.
Regarding polls, any poll that shows an electorate makeup far out of the norm regardless of whether you like the result needs to be greeted with a healthy skepticism. Since 1980 minorities have gained 2% of the total voting pie from whities every election cycle. Could that reverse itself this year? Sure. Could it be greater than 2%? Sure. Is it likely? No. A poll should reflect another 2% gain in minority participation out of the total, because that's what's happened for the last 36 years.
I've noticed something else too and I'm curious as to why this happens. Whenever somebody puts out a poll showing an unexpected tie race (the Q polls or the one recently showing Hillary inexplicably tied with Trump in Georgia) they always have each candidate polling in the low 40's. 43-42 or 41-40 with a whopping 15-20% undecided. Is there ANY state right now where 20% of the electorate doesn't know which candidate it plans on backing at this time (subject to a game changing revelation or crappy debate performance later on)?
I don't necessarily think black turnout will go down for two reasons. 1) Obama himself will be campaigning hard to turn them out, and 2) for blacks following Obama with a Dem pretty much cements his legacy. No promises after this year of course but the connection still seems to be there with blacks and Dems especially with an incumbent Dem black guy in the WH.
Regarding polls, any poll that shows an electorate makeup far out of the norm regardless of whether you like the result needs to be greeted with a healthy skepticism. Since 1980 minorities have gained 2% of the total voting pie from whities every election cycle. Could that reverse itself this year? Sure. Could it be greater than 2%? Sure. Is it likely? No. A poll should reflect another 2% gain in minority participation out of the total, because that's what's happened for the last 36 years.
I've noticed something else too and I'm curious as to why this happens. Whenever somebody puts out a poll showing an unexpected tie race (the Q polls or the one recently showing Hillary inexplicably tied with Trump in Georgia) they always have each candidate polling in the low 40's. 43-42 or 41-40 with a whopping 15-20% undecided. Is there ANY state right now where 20% of the electorate doesn't know which candidate it plans on backing at this time (subject to a game changing revelation or crappy debate performance later on)?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
A term used for people associated with The Free Republic. It's likely a derogatory term, because Kep likes to use it, but I'm not certain about that.
A term used for people associated with The Free Republic. It's likely a derogatory term, because Kep likes to use it, but I'm not certain about that.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
exactly.
it is rolling the average of those last 4 polls. a few of course had their time back in march.
now i'm worried about YOU kep
The top line shows Clinton +3.0, mook. I'm worried about you.
exactly.
it is rolling the average of those last 4 polls. a few of course had their time back in march.
now i'm worried about YOU kep
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
They use it themselves. I mean, yeah, it's derogatory, but only because of what they are. Like "Men's Rights Activist" or "Bostonian."
They use it themselves. I mean, yeah, it's derogatory, but only because of what they are. Like "Men's Rights Activist" or "Bostonian."
- Status