The US Election Polling / Data Thread - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GGG · 08-09-2016, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not from what I'm seeing here... says she has a 43% chance to win SC.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...outh-carolina/

If you look at the now cast which is if the election was held today who would win she's favoured in SC.

The polls only expects some regression from peaks as Election Day approaches.

troutman · 08-09-2016, 08:54 AM

I don't understand Texas. 12% are black and 32% are hispanic. Females are 50.4%. Austin is a very liberal city.

http://www.texas.com/demographics.html

Kavvy · 08-09-2016, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't understand Texas. 12% are black and 32% are hispanic. Females are 50.4%. Austin is a very liberal city.

http://www.texas.com/demographics.html

Isn't Austin one of the worst/best examples of Gerrymandering?

troutman · 08-09-2016, 09:06 AM

This is how efficiently Republicans have gerrymandered Texas congressional districts

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/t...ed-6246509.php

Senator Clay Davis · 08-09-2016, 01:11 PM

New Quinnipiac polls out, and not good news for Trump. While on the surface being down 1 in FL and 4 in OH isn't that bad, Q has been very favorable to the GOP this campaign, generally being about +4 for the GOP. And Quinnipiac also has him down 10 in PA, and if that's true PA is moving into lock territory for Hillary.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 08-09-2016, 02:46 PM

What is sort of worse about that is that if my math is right, Clinton can win without Ohio or Florida, but Trump likely can't win without sweeping all three of those.

Senator Clay Davis · 08-09-2016, 02:49 PM

Well he can, but then it becomes about winning a combination of other states, states he's likely put out of play with his insanity. Obviously we'll need probably a week to see what impact today's comments will have. I'm genuinely wondering if he can fall into the 20s which would be pretty close to historically bad for a major party candidate.

CorsiHockeyLeague · 08-09-2016, 02:53 PM

If he gets Ohio and Florida it's not beyond the realm of possibility. It just looks very unlikely at this point. He'd basically have to win all of AZ, NC, GA, NH, IA, and flip something else that looks Clinton-ish like Wisconsin or Virginia or Nevada or Colorado.

From the other side, assume that Clinton is willing Penn, Colorado and Wisconsin, all of which 538 has sitting at around 87% Clinton. In that case, either of Florida or Ohio wins her the thing and that's with like 8 arguably-contested states outstanding.

Senator Clay Davis · 08-09-2016, 03:46 PM

Marist with some polls now, similar stories to the PPP polls with Hillary up 10 in PA, 5 in OH and 4 in IA. The Hillary campaign decision to not ad buy in PA is looking rather smart at this point, it would appear Trump is going to have to heavily invest in ads there (side note: So far, his campaign has been outspent in adbuys by both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein so...)

GGG · 08-09-2016, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well he can, but then it becomes about winning a combination of other states, states he's likely put out of play with his insanity. Obviously we'll need probably a week to see what impact today's comments will have. I'm genuinely wondering if he can fall into the 20s which would be pretty close to historically bad for a major party candidate.

I don't think that's possible. In the 15 way republican race he was in the 20s. Hillary is effectively capped at 50. Johnson would need to get to 20 for that to happen.

I wonder if Johnson could make a statement he would put in judges that would not legislate from the bench and start running as a republican if he could steel Trumps vote and become a legitimate threat.

The Fonz · 08-10-2016, 12:00 AM

https://twitter.com/secretservice/st...42627202048000

Thor · 08-10-2016, 03:13 AM

You have to think this is at this point he is intentionally trying to lose, or is just quite stupid.

I found Paul Ryan's comments VERY telling, while other republicans are making excuses and taking the "thats not what he meant" route, Ryan said it was as joke, which I believe is his way of hurting trump and trying to get him out of the race. He can't be seen as actively condemning him, so by calling it a joke he is saying that he did say that and even if its a joke that is going to hurt him badly.

There really must be some serious freaking out going on within the ranks of the RNC and leaders of the party.

CorsiHockeyLeague · 08-10-2016, 07:36 AM

Here are Paul Ryan's comments.

Quote:

"I’ve been a little busy today. I heard about this Second Amendment quote. It sounds like just a joke gone bad. I hope he clears it up very quickly. You should never joke about something like that," Ryan said at a press conference after winning his Republican primary. "I didn’t actually hear the comments, I only heard about those comments."

Not to single out Thor but I've noticed this happening a lot in both this and the regular politics thread - when you refer to "someone said something today", or a poll or a tweet or whatever, it'd be really helpful if someone just posted what the actual statement being talked about was. People were talking about Trump's "2nd amendment" comment for hours yesterday and no one had actually posted it in the thread. Just my two cents.

Senator Clay Davis · 08-10-2016, 07:39 AM

Trump's combined leads in Republican strongholds of Kansas (4), Missouri (2) and Utah (4) are about the same as Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania, just to sort of underscore what a disaster Trump is for the GOP. I actually think Kansas is going to be a real problem for Trump, Brownback is incredibly unpopular and if they can tie Brownback policies to Trump (and it won't be hard, they're very similar), that could be enough to somehow swing the state blue.

Street Pharmacist · 08-10-2016, 08:05 AM

Two newest national polls this morning have the race narrowing significantly

PostandIn · 08-10-2016, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Two newest national polls this morning have the race narrowing significantly

What's this, a troll job on Corsi? Are there links or quotes to go with this? What two national polls.

Street Pharmacist · 08-10-2016, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PostandIn

What's this, a troll job on Corsi? Are there links or quotes to go with this? What two national polls.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ecast/updates/

afc wimbledon · 08-10-2016, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

You have to think this is at this point he is intentionally trying to lose, or is just quite stupid.

I found Paul Ryan's comments VERY telling, while other republicans are making excuses and taking the "thats not what he meant" route, Ryan said it was as joke, which I believe is his way of hurting trump and trying to get him out of the race. He can't be seen as actively condemning him, so by calling it a joke he is saying that he did say that and even if its a joke that is going to hurt him badly.

There really must be some serious freaking out going on within the ranks of the RNC and leaders of the party.

Paul Ryan's acceptance speech was basically an extended shot at Trump without naming him.

peter12 · 08-10-2016, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ecast/updates/

Outliers. Meaningless. Sad and irrelevant!

Senator Clay Davis · 08-10-2016, 11:43 AM

Well the USC poll is absolutely irrelevant. Their methodology is extremely flawed.

Quote:

The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll asks more than 400 people each day about their voting intentions. The poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.

Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?

Results are weighted to match demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and are aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using self-reported votes in that election.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/

It's certainly one of the least useful polls out there. It's a closed poll, limited to selected voters, and for whatever reason considers what happened in 2012. Just look at the difference between who wins the "vote" (usually Trump) and who people "expect to win" (always Hillary and by huge margins at times).