|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels.
I just tried that and you have to decrease turnout all the way down to 20% for Trump to be ahead. Black turnout in 2000 and 2004 was 54-57% from what I've found.
|
On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations.
I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y).
So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome.
Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win.
|
Looking at the numbers, the fact that Clinton's running against Trump, and the endorsement from Obama as the current president, I don't see black turnout being the gamechanger, myself. Not that I have any kind of reliable feel for US demographics. I think it's more likely that that would be a story in 2020, if Clinton wins and then runs for re-election and the Republicans manage to nominate somebody plausible.
A shift of a few percent in terms of who uneducated white people are voting for turns the entire race on its head. If you consider educated white people as well, it only takes a small handful of percentage points.
|
Too bad 538's interactive map is missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which is age categories to fiddle with. With that you could set a relatively realistic path for what Trump needs to win.
|
On October 17 2016 12:21 Dan HH wrote:
Too bad 538's interactive map is missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which is age categories to fiddle with. With that you could set a relatively realistic path for what Trump needs to win.
Out of curiosity, what changes do you figure would be significant? I assume older folks are more pro-Trump, and younger ones more pro-Clinton, but I'd think the turnout projections are already pretty biased in favor of the older folks, since young people usually don't vote so much. So how much ground is left to gain for Trump there?
|
On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win.
Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab.
Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences).
The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely.
|
On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely.
538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable?
Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well.
|
On October 17 2016 10:47 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:45 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president. Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no? Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls.
Which is how Bernie landslided the Democratic primaries.
+ Show Spoiler +
Alaska is starting to come into play, which is silly because there isn't any Clinton campaign HQ or ground game in the state to speak of.
On October 17 2016 12:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely. 538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable? Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well.
There's also the issue of how Electoral votes are apportioned (favors sparsely populated states due to Senators), and the key Dem states tend to be more populated and hence have a lower ratio of electoral votes per vote.
|
On October 17 2016 12:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely. 538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable? Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well.
Don't find them unreasonable, just presenting a counter opinion. It's all probability and the ones that favor Trump are low, but his hope isn't in the polls it's in the turnout.
I guess I'd say I think 45% for a majority is a little high and likely based off of historical trends and possibly not properly weighting just how unfavorable the nominees are, but with this election, just about anything could happen right up to election night that changes things wildly.
|
On October 17 2016 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:46 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely. 538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable? Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well. Don't find them unreasonable, just presenting a counter opinion. It's all probability and the ones that favor Trump are low, but his hope isn't in the polls it's in the turnout.
Fair enough. I would interpret phrases like "confident that neither gets a majority" as indications that you think Clinton doesn't actually have a 45% chance of getting a majority. (I would hesitate to say I'm "confident" in a 55% chance)
Edit: ninja'd again! I mean, I think things will likely move a little back in Trump's direction if we get at least one news cycle that's not so bad for him in the next few weeks too, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing. Disturbing as it is that being a literal rapist isn't completely crushing to a campaign, it seems like Trump has probably bottomed out and could only rebound a bit if anything.
|
On October 17 2016 13:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:46 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely. 538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable? Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well. Don't find them unreasonable, just presenting a counter opinion. It's all probability and the ones that favor Trump are low, but his hope isn't in the polls it's in the turnout. Fair enough. I would interpret phrases like "confident that neither gets a majority" as indications that you think Clinton doesn't actually have a 45% chance of getting a majority. (I would hesitate to say I'm "confident" in a 55% chance) Edit: ninja'd again! I mean, I think things will likely move a little back in Trump's direction if we get at least one news cycle that's not so bad for him in the next few weeks too, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing. Disturbing as it is that being a literal rapist isn't completely crushing to a campaign, it seems like Trump has probably bottomed out and could only rebound a bit if anything.
I would think it not being a blowout would make Democrats think twice about running Clinton in 2020 (particularly if she doesn't get to 50.1%), but I doubt it would.
|
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine?
|
On October 17 2016 12:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:21 Dan HH wrote:
Too bad 538's interactive map is missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which is age categories to fiddle with. With that you could set a relatively realistic path for what Trump needs to win. Out of curiosity, what changes do you figure would be significant? I assume older folks are more pro-Trump, and younger ones more pro-Clinton, but I'd think the turnout projections are already pretty biased in favor of the older folks, since young people usually don't vote so much. So how much ground is left to gain for Trump there?
That's not really bias though, there's a certain expectation based on past elections. Any small deviation from what is expected towards a lower youth turnout would help Trump. If for example the 18-44 bracket is expected to be 46% of the total electorate and it would end up being 44% of the total, that would be a boon for him, and there are reasons for the youth to be sicker of this election and more unhappy with any choice than in previous elections. I wouldn't bet on it happening, but it's one of the less crazy ways in which a demographic turnout change more favorable to Trump than the average poll sample could happen.
|
On October 17 2016 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:46 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 12:07 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels. Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters. Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color). From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context. Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama. Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations. I just loaded up the Swing-O-Matic, which currently has blacks at 93% democrat, 63% turnout, and adjusted turnout downward until states started switching to red. Turnout can drop to 50% before any states switch (Florida), and Clinton doesn't lose her victory until black turnout is knocked down to 19% (all other factors left equal). I'm prepared to accept that black turnout might not be so high this time around; but there's also still plenty of big factors driving black turnout specifically. The Clintons are historically pretty popular with blacks (remember when people called Bill our "first black president"?), and there's been plenty of stories this year that are particularly relevant to blacks specifically. Trump being an obvious racist, for instance. Or advocating for stop and frisk. Not to mention Barack Obama himself going out and literally telling them he will take is as a personal insult if they let turnout drop this year (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0KNku34G2Y). So yeah, it's conceivable that black turnout will drop, but it would take a big drop to change the outcome. Edit: ninja'd. Also, even if you move uneducated white turnout around quite a lot too, it takes a lot. Like, bump uneducated whites up by 20-25%, and blacks down 20-25% to flip Pennsylvania and turn out a Trump win. Think the defaults changed since I last did it. You have to give him 3 points with non-college whites 63% and turnout up to 64% to make up the difference. The adjustments are smaller if you go to the gender tab. Black turnout to 57% and Clinton with 90%. Like I said, A longshot, but the electorate will be whiter than Obama's electorates (particularly when accounting for the demographic differences). The one thing I'm confident in though is that neither gets a majority. Lesser degree's of the scenario I describe have Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, which I think is far more likely. 538 has projections for exactly the questions you're addressing, and they have Clinton with a greater chance of winning the popular vote than the presidency, mostly because Trump's appeal is relatively high compared to the average Republican in purple states, but relatively low in red states. This is not to say you're wrong, but any particular reason you find 538's predictions unreasonable? Edit: And they give her a 45% chance of winning a majority, as well. Don't find them unreasonable, just presenting a counter opinion. It's all probability and the ones that favor Trump are low, but his hope isn't in the polls it's in the turnout. Fair enough. I would interpret phrases like "confident that neither gets a majority" as indications that you think Clinton doesn't actually have a 45% chance of getting a majority. (I would hesitate to say I'm "confident" in a 55% chance) Edit: ninja'd again! I mean, I think things will likely move a little back in Trump's direction if we get at least one news cycle that's not so bad for him in the next few weeks too, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing. Disturbing as it is that being a literal rapist isn't completely crushing to a campaign, it seems like Trump has probably bottomed out and could only rebound a bit if anything. I would think it not being a blowout would make Democrats think twice about running Clinton in 2020 (particularly if she doesn't get to 50.1%), but I doubt it would.
There's no way they would contest her presidential candidacy in 2020 as a sitting president
They wouldn't even contest it in 2016
|
On October 17 2016 13:12 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:34 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 12:21 Dan HH wrote:
Too bad 538's interactive map is missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which is age categories to fiddle with. With that you could set a relatively realistic path for what Trump needs to win. Out of curiosity, what changes do you figure would be significant? I assume older folks are more pro-Trump, and younger ones more pro-Clinton, but I'd think the turnout projections are already pretty biased in favor of the older folks, since young people usually don't vote so much. So how much ground is left to gain for Trump there? That's not really bias though, there's a certain expectation based on past elections. Any small deviation from what is expected towards a lower youth turnout would help Trump. If for example the 18-44 bracket is expected to be 46% of the total electorate and it would end up being 44% of the total, that would be a boon for him, and there are reasons for the youth to be sicker of this election and more unhappy with any choice than in previous elections. I wouldn't bet on it happening, but it's one of the less crazy ways in which a demographic turnout change more favorable to Trump than the average poll sample could happen.
Maybe not that crazy, but on the other hand there's some reason to think that a lot of the uglier Trump scandals are more significant to millennials than to the general population, which might drive turnout somewhat. I think everyone can be guilty of expecting everyone else to be like themselves, and I'm no exception, but for instance, I was 19 in 2012 and didn't bother to vote. I kinda wanted Obama to win, but didn't care that much, didn't live in a swing state, had a midterm that day, etc. This year, on the other hand, there's a lot more there for me to care about.
|
On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine?
Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing.
Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race.
I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included).
|
I can't remember which podcast, but I heard someone float Feingold's name as a 2020 alternative for the progressive wing.
|
On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included).
I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump).
This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do.
|
On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020
|
On October 17 2016 12:34 ChristianS wrote:
Out of curiosity, what changes do you figure would be significant? I assume older folks are more pro-Trump, and younger ones more pro-Clinton, but I'd think the turnout projections are already pretty biased in favor of the older folks, since young people usually don't vote so much. So how much ground is left to gain for Trump there?
Last I saw, Gary Johnson was ahead of both Trump and Clinton with the under 25 crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
