The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Winning at the federal level doesn't help them ungerrymander the House. Electoral redistricting is controlled by state governments.

Also the democrats are just as guilty of gerrymandering. They just control less states.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also the democrats are just as guilty of gerrymandering. They just control less states.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...es-do-it-myth/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...es-do-it-myth/

That's a neat article. One thing to note is that the top 10 gerrymandered states are all swing states except Texas. So one interpretation of the Data would be that the states where gerrymandering makes a difference are gerrymandered.

Illinois though was the state I was thinking of when I said Dems do it to.

[driveway]

The Democrats are currently being sued in Maryland over redistricting too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...9a6_story.html

A lawsuit challenging Maryland’s contorted congressional district map on First Amendment grounds has merit and should go forward, a three-judge federal panel ruled Wednesday.

The map, drawn by Maryland’s Democratic lawmakers following the 2010 Census, essentially ensured that seven of the state’s eight congressional seats would be under their party’s control.
...
The suit, brought by Steve Shapiro, an American University law student, presents a novel argument: that the gerrymandered map violated the rights of 6th District Republican voters to political association and expression.
...
Michael Kimberly, Shapiro’s attorney, said that if his client prevails at trial, and the case ends up back in the Supreme Court, it could eventually bring sweeping changes to redistricting across the country.

“This could be the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation,” Kimberly said. “It could have enormous impact.”
...
While the Supreme Court has been active in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial gerrymandering, it has not definitively addressed partisan gerrymandering. The reason, Justice Antonin Scalia said in writing for the majority in the 2004 case Vieth v. Jubelirer, is that it is difficult to devise a test to determine when lawmakers have gone too far in adjusting district boundaries for partisan advantage.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy left the door ajar for a challenge to redistricting based on the First Amendment, if plaintiffs can prove that redistricting created “disfavored treatment” of groups because of their voting preferences.

Should this case make its way to the Supreme Court - particularly if it does so after a Democratic Presidential win, nomination, and acceptance by the Senate of a new, Liberal justice, it's a case where a loss by the Democratic Party of Maryland could have long-reaching positive benefit to the Democratic party as a whole.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that it is a 1st Amendment violation to consider political affiliation and voting history when drawing up districts, then any number of States would likely be facing lawsuits.

[troutman]

My friend Colleen Mathis was part of the AZ redistricting case heard by the Supreme Court. Here is a picture of her on the steps of the Supreme Court:

http://www.pjstar.com/article/20150709/NEWS/150709286

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizon...ing_Commission

[troutman]

Newspaper Endorsements are flooding in since the weekend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspa...election,_2016

Clinton 91
No Endorsement 9
Johnson 6
Not Trump 8
Trump 0

This is quite stunning. Very conservative papers are backing Clinton after decades of almost exclusively endorsing Republican candidates.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

New WSJ poll has Trump down 46-35 in the four way, with it taking place entirely Saturday/Sunday, but before the debate. Congressional preference also 49-42 for the Dems, highest since the government shutdown. I think we now see why everyone is bailing.

Now they have a poll out that does include debate, Hillary up 46-37 in a four way. So the debate will seemingly have no impact at all, leaving Trump very few options for the next debate. Can't go back to full ####### again, clearly doesn't work very much.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is quite stunning. Very conservative papers are backing Clinton after decades of almost exclusively endorsing Republican candidates.

Over/under on Trump's son in law's paper Observer not endorsing Trump and just staying quiet out of embarrassment?

[photon]

Latest Reuters/Ipsos poll after the debate has Clinton up by 8 points after the debate from 5 last week.

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Election_2016/404110574

[driveway]

Women crushing Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mentioned the New Mexico poll showing Johnson in range was the most interesting poll of the election....until now. From Utah

Trump 26, Clinton 26, McMullin 22, Johnson 14

Never seen this, with everyone under 30%.You have to think if McMullin can get some kind of organization together there he will win the state, which is devastating for Trump. He can't afford to lose a single electoral vote, nevermind one of the safest GOP states there is.

Also have another poll showing him down 9 in Ohio, totally post debate.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ah-voters.html

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index....ml#incart_2box

[ernie]

What is completely clear at this time is that the Trump version of the GOP can win those over the age of 65 and non-college educated white folk and that's it. Not the best way to have any sort of long lasting success getting into office...

[GGG]

He still wins Men by 5 points and college educated white men so the GOP brand isn't as terrible as it might seem.

It would hardly win elections if it could moderate on social without losing the base. A California model of combined primaries where the top 2 candidates regardless of party go on the ballot in southern states could fix the tea party problem

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GGG

He still wins Men by 5 points and college educated white men so the GOP brand isn't as terrible as it might seem.

It would hardly win elections if it could moderate on social without losing the base. A California model of combined primaries where the top 2 candidates regardless of party go on the ballot in southern states could fix the tea party problem

He's losing massive ground compared to Romney on that score as well (white college educated). In some states he is indeed losing that vote. I think the Ohio poll linked above shows exactly that. Clinton is crushing Trump in the 4 year and advanced degree crowd. That wouldn't likely be because of only minority degree holders given the respondents were over 90% white.

And winning men isn't enough (let alone only white men). Women are better voters. They make up a slight majority of the eligible voters and have better turn out rates (typically 4% more turnout than men...that means if you are losing women voters in a big way you can give yourself another percentage point hole to work yourself out of). To put your stock into the white male population is not a winning strategy. But the GOP knows this and yet they are going down the same road.

[GGG]

I misread your first post I was reading it that the GOP brand is dead rather than the Trump version of the GOP brand is dead. I agree with that, I just think some fixes to their primary system to keep the extremists out and they become a very potent party as the republican brand of small government and your hard work determines your outcome of your life are very strong and fit the American Dream. The we hate others part of the brand just needs to be squished.

[troutman]

AZ has flipped on 538, along with IA, NC and OH.

Clinton is close to her peak after the DNC.

[octothorp]

That contentious LA Times poll swinging hard to Clinton is big news. We still don't have great post tape / post debate polls, but the early indication is certainly of Clinton padding her already solid lead. I think her setting an ambitious goal like 375 EVs isn't unrealistic. All the places she's currently leading in the 538 forecast plus Georgia and Missouri would get her there.

A poll conducted since the debate finds Utah with Clinton and Trump tied at 26, and McMullin at 22. With nobody else super-interested in Utah, there's definitely a window for him to gain some momentum and maybe take the state.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by octothorp

That contentious LA Times poll swinging hard to Clinton is big news. We still don't have great post tape / post debate polls, but the early indication is certainly of Clinton padding her already solid lead. I think her setting an ambitious goal like 375 EVs isn't unrealistic. All the places she's currently leading in the 538 forecast plus Georgia and Missouri would get her there.

Meh, 270 Electoral College votes get's her the win and there's no bonus for getting extra.

If I were her I'd devote the time and $$ to North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hamphire, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, and Indiana... she's almost certain to win the white house but control of the Senate is far from sure and those are all the states with competitive senate races.

I'd probably see if I could split up my premium surrogates (Sanders, Bill, B. Obama, M. Obama, Kaine) and have them circuit through different parts of those states). Her Presidency would be a lot easier if she could have friendly faces in control of at least one house of the legislature.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GGG

I misread your first post I was reading it that the GOP brand is dead rather than the Trump version of the GOP brand is dead. I agree with that, I just think some fixes to their primary system to keep the extremists out and they become a very potent party as the republican brand of small government and your hard work determines your outcome of your life are very strong and fit the American Dream. The we hate others part of the brand just needs to be squished.

No problem on the misunderstanding. The GOP needs to move to the center by getting rid of the fringe. Really they need to be where the democrats under Obama and Clinton are and force the democrats back to the left.

BUt they let this happen when they didn't shut down the Tea Party when they were the minority (and still are). They let the Tea PArty dictate everything even to the point of who should be speaker and to obstruct obstruct obstruct. They've made their bed and are being forced to lie in it. Hopefully the res tof us don't have to lie in that same bed a month from now.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Meh, 270 Electoral College votes get's her the win and there's no bonus for getting extra.

There is a bonus. If you win in more than convincing fashion you have some leverage that you were given a mandate by a wide swath of people when the GOP tries to obstruct. Now this was the case with Obama as well but perhaps it happening again change things.

Honestly here campaign has so much money she can likely concentrate on every toss up state and every state they could conceivably turn into a toss up. And still have a bunch left over.