• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

2016 General Election - Opinions, thoughts, polls, EC, odds

Started by Zetaspeak, August 03, 2016, 10:25:29 AM

Zetaspeak

I know we have a Trump and Hillary thread that getting a lot of traffic, but with a 100 days left, we don't have a general election thread as we can talk about the election as a whole. I think this is a good place to talk about it. My first thoughts is to write up about polls, polls analysis is one of the most frustrating thing for me by media and supporters. When there's a positive poll, the supports take it as a huge sign and be-all and end-all. If there's a negative poll it's automatic accusations of bias. Media is not much better as running with whatever poll comes out last and taking every individual poll as "a sign". I have always been a numbers cruncher, and I do find numbers fascinating and follow election polling for a while. First off I don't care about bias, or who runs it all my opinion is how strong a polling firm is, is their track record.

Lets look at who predict the best in 2012.... Obama won 51% to 47% Romney. Let's look at the top 10 polling firms that came closest all with Obama winning
1) public policy polling. 51-47 - Not the most famous name but give them credit they hit it totally on the money
2) Democracy Corp 49-45 - Hasn't polled this election. Not a huge name but got the margin of victory right in 2012
3) Ipsos Reid/Reuters 48-44.5 - Best of main stream media polling
4) Angus Reid 51-48 - They haven't polled yet this election season, but did very well last time
5 Pew Research 48.5-43.5 - The only polling company in top 10 that gave Obama a larger margin of victory than the actual outcome
6) AssociatedPress/GFK  - 46-43.5
7) YouGov/Economist    49-47 - Another one of those none big names that did very well
8 )CNN/Opinion Research 49.5-48.5 - CNN was the best of the TV  outlets in predictions of the numbers.
9) Gallup  49-48 -
10) ABC/WashPost 49-48

Few interesting things about 2012 polling. First it removes the myth of liberal bias, most of them underestimated Obama winning margin of 4% and only Pew overestimated Obama win by a single point. Most polling companies even out of the 10 ten had Obama by a single point. Now lets look where we are at 2016 looking at the top 5 polling companies from the previous year that polled in the last month and see where we stand currently

Public Policy Polling  Clinton 48% - 43% Trump (7/30) [average 2 way and 4 way]
Ipsos Reid /Reuters  Clinton 43% - 35% Trump (8/1)  [2 way race]
AP/GFK                   Clinton 40% - 36% Trump (7/11) [4 way race)
YouGov/Economist  Clinton 43.5% - 39.5 Trump (8/1) [2 way and 4 way]
CNN/ORC               Clinton  48.5% - 40% Trump   (8/1) [2 way and 4 way]
MY AVERAGE      CLINTON 44.5%  - 39%  TRUMP (butting extra weight on PPP and Ipsos)

By my numbers Hillary is up by 5.5%. I had a difficult decision with the third party candidates as there's mostly polling for 2 way races and 4 way races and I was split on which I should focus as there's a good argument for both. The argument for it is that both Hillary and Trump are unlikable and there's a good chance people will vote for another option. The argument against 4-way polling is that recently history has shown that third party candidates always poll higher than actual results (for example in 2012 there's a poll that 7% of people will vote for an alternative, it ended up being less than 2% voted for an alternative) I decided for now to split the difference and average the 2-way and 4-way numbers out. 


Jackstar

It's gonna be President Trump, and you're all gonna be soppin' it up with a biscuit. Mark my words.

One of the criticisms of most polling done today is that they take their polling results only from registered voters.  They should be taking their results from likely voters.  The polls that use registered voters show Clinton with a substantial lead but the polls that use likely voters show a tighter race.  The LA Times poll is such a poll.

As for the 3rd party voters, I don't see many conservatives or disgruntled Republicans supporting Johnson. He simply does not reflect the views of the GOP.  He and Jill Stein will draw much support from disgruntled Democrats which may draw rather large voting blocs away from Hillary.  Republicans who will not vote for Trump will write in their vote or vote for a minor 3rd party candidate.  Trump benefits much more from 3rd party intrusion.

Zetaspeak

Thanks for the reply 21stCM. Your comment on registered vs likely voters peaked my interest, so I went to check the 2012 results. I looked at a bunch of pollsters who had separate totals for registered voters (RV) and likely voters (LV) . As we all know Obama won by 4
-CNN-RV Obama +2, CNN-LV  TIED                 (Advange RV)
-Gallup-RV Obama +3, Gallup-LV Romney +1; (Advantage RV)
-Ispsos-RV Obama +6; Ispsos-LV Obama +1 (Advantage RV)
-Pew -RV   Obama +7, Pew=LV   Obama +3 (Advantage LV)
-Fox-RV     Obama+3; Fox-LV TIED               (Advantage RV)
-YouGov-RV Obama +2, YouGov-LV Obama +1 (Advantage RV)
-AssosPress-RV Obama +1; AssosPress- Romney +2 (Advantage RV)
-NBC -RV     Obama +5, NBC-LV TIED                 (Advantage RV)
-
Out of all polling company that tallied both RV & LV, 7 out of 8 had registered voters come closer to the final numbers. Thanks for bringing it up I thought it was interesting too see. As for the LA times poll, I didn't include it in this years polls because for some reason they stopped polling in 2012 in Mid-August (2 and a half before the election) same reason I didn't include McClatchy/Marist (Who recently had Clinton up 15) because in 2012 they stopped polling in Mid-July so it would be hard for me to look at either track record if they weren't in the game at least 30 days before the election.

As much as I like polls I have been very impressed with the  electoral college predictions sites. I have been following 6. In 2012 TWO (Nate Silver 538 & ElectionGraph) had perfect 50/50 states correctly predicted. The other FOUR had 49/50, with all getting Florida wrong by giving it to Romney instead of Obama. So far in 2016 it's Hillary by a lot

This years current predictions sites
Silvers' 538:         CLINTON 347 - TRUMP 191 (polls only)
Electiongraphs:     CLINTON 341 - TRUMP 197
270towin:             CLINTON 347 - TRUMP  191
Electionprojection: CLINTON 341 - TRUMP 197
ElectionAtlas:        CLINTON 332 - TURMP  206
RealClearPolitics:   CLINTON 357 - TRUMP 181
Electrol-vote:         CLINTON 306 - TRUMP 214 (Ohio-18 tied)
MY AVERAGE:         CLINTON 344 - TRUMP 194
-Nevada-6 seems to be the state most in debate, where it will go and might be a Romney pick up, but if Hillary picks up N.Carolina-15 that's a +9 for the Dems compared to 2012. Trump has to make up 63 points from 2012 As Obama won 332-206




Robert

The modeling of who is likely to vote has been especially shaky lately.

Zetaspeak

Quote from: Robert on August 05, 2016, 03:27:49 PM
The modeling of who is likely to vote has been especially shaky lately.

I always thought "Likely voters" worked better for mid-terms because people aren't as motivated so you get more "passion demographic" out there. But general election voting pool is so large and a lot of people who take politics more lightly will still go out to vote for a general election. I always thought if somebody is interested enough to not hang up on a pollsters face and actually give an opinion/answer, you are probably motivated enough to go vote.

I am personally not a huge fan of betting odds but in case anybody is interested how they are right now I looked at a handful to see how it compares
-paddy power  Clinton 1/4    (76%)   Trump  11/4  (24%)
-William Hill      Clinton -333  (74%)   Trump  +250 (26%)
-Pinnacle         Clinton 1.284 (76%)   Trump  3.990 (24%)
-Sportsbet      Clinton 1.25   (76%)   Trump   3.75   (24%)
-TheGreek      Clinton  -450   (79%)   Trump  +325  (21%)

-So the average is about Clinton 76% - 24% Trump.  Comparing the betting to the some political prediction sites the odds seem to be very similar. RCP have it the same 76-24 Hillary. 538 in their polls-plus graph also has it 76-24, even though I always been a personal fan of polls only option that has Hillary up 83-17.

PS Jackstar, I definitely appreciate the Zogby reference  ;D Which is always a good example to use when somebody says polls are giving false results on purpose. I don't think any credible pollster wants to do that no matter who you are because a few bad election predictions and anybody can become the next zogby (Rasmussen, I am looking at you)


Jackstar

Quote from: Zetaspeak on August 07, 2016, 09:25:49 AM
the Zogby reference  ;D Which is always a good example to use when somebody says polls are giving false results on purpose.

You just made my hero list. /swoon

In truth, I think there are a lot of people who are fronting that they will vote for Clinton, but have no intention of doing anything of the sort. I have the luxury of telling people exactly what I think--people with spouses or children or co-workers or bosses, simply don't in that same way.

I find polling to be a fascinating science, but in today's carnival environment, scientific rules don't apply. I have mixed feelings about this. Sad about the impending collapse of civilization; happy that I've invested heavily in marshmallow.

Designx

Hillary will win this easily as much as I hate to say it. In fact my prediction is that the media will be calling it the day before the election. There's even been some rumors of Trump dropping out if things get too bad and he has been recently making corruption excuses for his low polling numbers. I think the wave of progressivism going across the country is unstoppable. The average American values more the right to smoke weed and gay rights than Syrian immigrants or corrupted politicians.




Zetaspeak

Quote from: Designx on August 07, 2016, 11:53:55 AM
Hillary will win this easily as much as I hate to say it. In fact my prediction is that the media will be calling it the day before the election. There's even been some rumors of Trump dropping out if things get too bad and he has been recently making corruption excuses for his low polling numbers. I think the wave of progressivism going across the country is unstoppable. The average American values more the right to smoke weed and gay rights than Syrian immigrants or corrupted politicians.


If you go through the map, Trump road is very difficult. The problem is he's not really moving the map, when he ran he said he would turn even solid blue states for him, that doesn't look like it's happening, medium blue states (Minn, Wisc, Mich, Penn) numbers seem to be staying even or even growing more blue. Yes there still the normal swing states of Fla, Ohio and Nevada, but here's a big problem for Trump (and republicans in general) is that normally strong Red states are now sliding into the swing category, NCar (has been moving in that direction before Trump and even went blue in 08) but places like Georgia, Arizona and S.Carolina are now inching towards "swing states" while Michigan, Wisconsin and Colorado is moving into comfortable blue.

I been playing with a map, the Grey states are "toss ups" where the leader is only up by 4 or less. The dark colors is comfortable leads or 8 or more. The medium color is the medium lead of 4-8. Removing the Grey, Clinton is already won it 272-154, without even having to win Florida, Ohio or Nevada. Trump has to sweep all those 8 swing states and then also turn a light one of the light blue state (NH, Min, Virg, or Penn) over to him, even though they recently been polling very close to the 8 point comfort distance.


I have little faith in polls at this point, and possibly at all this election.

We're still 3 months out, and lots can change by then.  Plus the Dems are pulling their November surprise on themselves on 11/1.

Jackstar

Are you fucking shitting me?

QuoteA newcomer to elective politics is jumping into the White House race.

Evan McMullin, chief Republican policy director of the House Republican conference and an alumnus of the CIA, announced Monday that he is launching a third-party presidential campaign. He also brought a campaign website online.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/third-party-candidate-morning-joe-scarborough/2016/08/08/id/742558/


Iit's like I don't know any of you guys any more. I just can't even.

Jackstar

Quote from: Zetaspeak on August 08, 2016, 10:04:43 AM
that doesn't look like it's happening

Really? To whom? Ostriches??


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/evidence-trump-landslide/

QuoteFacebook

Drumpf: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes

Drumpf has nearly double the amount of ‘Likes’ that Clinton has!

When comparing recent ‘live streams’ on Facebook:

Drumpf Live Stream Post â€" 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post â€"11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Drumpf is crushing Clinton.

Twitter

Drumpf: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

Drumpf has 30% more Twitter followers â€" and they translate into real votes. A recent study confirmed that 70% of his followers are real supporters, and 90% of those real followers have a voting history.

Who knows if Hillary followers are even real?

Youtube Live Stream

Drumpf: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Drumpf has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton. That’s plain devastation!

Instagram

Drumpf: 2.2 million followers
Clinton: 1.8 million followers

Drumpf has 22% more Instagram followers.

Reddit

Drumpf: 197,696 subscribers
Hillary: 24,429 subscribers
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 subscribers

Hillary for Prison’s Reddit feed has more than double subscribers of Hillary’s Reddit page, equating to Drumpf having 700% more Reddit subscribers.


The bitch couldn't get elected to dogcatcher in a legit throw. Everyone sees this... but you. How curious.

Designx

Quote from: Jackstar on August 08, 2016, 02:12:33 PM
Really? To whom? Ostriches??


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/evidence-trump-landslide/


The bitch couldn't get elected to dogcatcher in a legit throw. Everyone sees this... but you. How curious.

Fake account mania.


Robert

Quote from: Jackstar on August 08, 2016, 02:09:05 PMAre you fucking shitting me?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/third-party-candidate-morning-joe-scarborough/2016/08/08/id/742558/


Iit's like I don't know any of you guys any more. I just can't even.
Friend of mine tells me w no real justif'n that I can see that Russia is our (USA) enemy.  I ask how, he says Putin was in the KGB.  I say, so, Bush was CIA.  My friend says, but Putin killed people!  I stopped trying to follow up.

Jackstar

Quote from: Robert on August 08, 2016, 03:06:49 PM
I stopped trying to follow up.

I have taken the road less traveled;
and that has made all the difference.

Zetaspeak

Quote from: Designx on August 08, 2016, 02:24:06 PM
Fake account mania.

Wait are you telling me usernames like "Sexychick4trump" and "totallyrealblackdude4turmp" with a 100% of twitter posts praising Trump and bashing Hillary without any real personality or outside interests might be a little less than credible  ;D

Quote from: HedgehogNorman on August 08, 2016, 11:53:04 AM
I have little faith in polls at this point, and possibly at all this election.

We're still 3 months out, and lots can change by then.  Plus the Dems are pulling their November surprise on themselves on 11/1.

The first part I do agree with, I wouldn't be spiking the football yet. I know a lot of polls have Hillary up by 10, I would average it out with maybe 5 or 6, a strong lead, but it can be turned around.

I know Trump supporters are either lying to themselves or maybe they have gone full "positive thinking no matter the reality" what's more important is that if Trump believes in the numbers and pivot and modify his style, if he doesn't I don't see the numbers changing.

Jackstar

... so Trump is simply spending 150% more on shill media accounts than the Hildebeast, is that it? None of those numbers signify a legitimate trend, is that so?

That begs the question--how much is being spent on forum posting algorithims, does it not?



Hold on. Regardless of who the politician, or celebrity is for that matter, there are always a load of bots. I would suspect that most of them are 'not' created by the owners or whomever it is that stands to gain by the said original account. I remember several years ago that Facebook and other social media sites had to remove tons of Obama, Hillary and other fake DNC accounts. In this case, they too were claiming that they were created by their handlers but I don't know that to be true.

You have to remember that most of these bots are created to seduce the unwitting surfer to click on those links for any number of reasons they can come up with to suck up your personal info or infect your machine. MV has to have controls in place and maybe sometimes has to manually remove such fakes on occassion who try to infiltrate Bellgab.

Years ago, I use to manage an international band's MySpace site. They were always getting bots trying to 'friend' them in order to take advantage of this band's fans. Believe me, the band, or anyone legitimately connected with this band, were 'not' creating these fake bot accounts. In fact, I would delete them. Not everyone who runs social media sites is that aware of what bots are and why they are really there.

It's the internet and that's what happens all the time, especially with very high profile accounts. That's why you always have to be very careful about what you click online. Nothing new.

Jackstar

Quote from: Astrid Galactic on August 09, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
Nothing new.

Yeah, totally--the Greeks had this problem. Empedocles wrote that treatise about it.

::)

Quote from: Jackstar on August 09, 2016, 11:56:14 AM
Yeah, totally--the Greeks had this problem. Empedocles wrote that treatise about it.

::)

Right. I remember that book - 'The Art of Greek Botting'. Complete with a side of tzatziki.

Jackstar

Quote from: http://whale.to/m/disin.html
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.

4. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public  can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.



HAL are you doing, Jackstar?

Good posts; from the Classics to Futurism.

Goes to show, sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Zetaspeak

Quote from: Jackstar on August 09, 2016, 11:37:02 AM
... so Trump is simply spending 150% more on shill media accounts than the Hildebeast, is that it? None of those numbers signify a legitimate trend, is that so?

That begs the question--how much is being spent on forum posting algorithims, does it not?


I am in more of a mindset of Astrid, even though all campaigns have some paid internet shills pushing their agenda including Trump, I am not even accusing him having a factory of Russians tweeting away lol.

I am talking more of individual supporters who have multiple accounts (again like Astrid said) and yes every famous person has "those sorts of fans" but Trump seems to have a huge number of suspicious looking twitter followers (I mention the signs in the Trump thread, 100% political talk, no seemingly personal hobbies or interest outside of that, no other photos or  link to other social media accounts, no local interest etc etc)

Which of course brings me back to my original point, things like social media followers or retweets doesn't really have the much credibility because even if your fan base is so passionate about you that will make 5 other accounts supporting you, when election day comes, they still only get one vote.


Jackstar

Quote from: Zetaspeak on August 09, 2016, 02:14:02 PM
when election day comes, they still only get one vote.

I find your faith in the integrity of the present election to be an anomaly, at best. I think it's obvious that the election results are fraudulently tabulated, and have been for decades, to say nothing of the polls.


I have not had much faith in the honesty/integrity of our elections since the 2000 edition, but I still vote and encourage others to do so on the off chance it makes a difference. 


Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod