Veritigo_X
Member
You can't use statistics and analysis to predict Trump. 538 is going about this the wrong way, they need to start using their gut.
CNN poll : Donald Trump now competitive in general election
- Thread starter maquiladora
- Start date
- Status
You can't use statistics and analysis to predict Trump. 538 is going about this the wrong way, they need to start using their gut.
Bingo......depending on the analysis.
He's a senator from a state that has like 3 black people in it. Sure, he was involved in the civil rights movement back in the 60s, but there's a perception (right or wrong) that he's out of touch due to a state constituency that doesn't really reflect the party (or the issues of voters in the party) as a whole.
I wouldn't say that minorities have a problem with Bernie - they just feel that Hillary (again, right or wrong) better represents the interests of minority groups. It will be an uphill battle for Bernie, but not something that's insurmountable.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
How about this tidbit.
Basically, he's convinced the 45% of the country that always votes for a Republican....to vote for a Republican. Did anyone really think either candidate would get 38% in the general election? That doesn't happen anymore, you could put up an inflatable doll with a R or D in their name and get 45%.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
I wouldn't necessarily say Trump is not talking about what's important. He has made statements on the current issues. However, the statements are fucking stupid.
As a GAF'er so well recently put it: Trump's comments are akin to the boyhood "If I become president" fantasy and he really is talking like a little boy ("take back the oil (fields in Iraq), we're going to have so much money"; "ISIS. ISIS is going to be in such trouble when I'm president, believe me.")
I have to say, anyone who honestly thinks Trump is a serious and quality candidate is an idiot, because what you are saying is that you agree that bombing Iraq's oil fields will defeat ISIS, and that taking their oil afterwards to profit from it is a good idea; you agree that billing Mexico for each of its illegal immigrants or building a wall and charging them for it is a rational idea; you agree that the Iran deal is terrible because it should have been completed in a day and we should have gotten everything we got, plus more, PLUS we should have kept the sanctions; you agree that the way to reduce our trade deficit with China is just to...uh...well, I don't know; Trump never explained how he was going to make China cater to every our economic demand, he just said it was going to happen.
cpp_is_king
Member
Nobody is going to believe me, which is fine, but I've voted Democrat my entire adult life, which is close to 20 years, and I'm voting for Trump.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
~45% of the country would vote for a Carbon Rod if they were told the Rod hated liberals.
The polls trail the sentiment and the analysis trails the polls...
Give it another week I think Nate is going to be updating a lot of articles.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Nobody cares about anecdotal evidence. We care about the cold hard facts. Until the numbers show him making strides with hispanics, women, or black voters then he's done nothing but do what any Republican candidate would do.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
That article does explain a few things, yeah. I can see why he would come across as tone-deaf or indifferent/missing the point there.
But his problem doesn't seem to be corporate money in politics, just corporate money that's not his.
Between the State Secrets Act and militarization, lately Abe's got me feeling like Japan is a democracy in name only.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Goddammit USA. God fucking dammit.
cpp_is_king
Member
Just a second ago you claimed that the only people who will vote for him are established Republicans. I'm just telling you, for a fact, that you're wrong. You're welcome to ignore whatever you want, but don't change the rules of the game after someone refutes your statement.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about polling here.
My aunt is a lifelong Republican and she said if Trump is the nominee, she would vote for Clinton or even Sanders if she had to. There, feel better?
Even his entrance theme music ("You're the Best" from Karate Kid) elicits that adolescent boy "badass" theme. I halfway expect Mac from Always Sunny to join him on stage for some sweet karate chop moves.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I wouldn't say that illegal immigration and the size of the military are what most people would consider the most important issues to them. Terrorism, maybe. We're more concerned about what's going on with the irrational economy that nothing is being done about. We're not going to vote in a billionaire who boasts about his wealth. It's silly to entertain it. I still think he gets the nomination, that's how bad the Republican party is.
Are you being serious with the Al Gore thing or is that a joke? Please be a joke....I can't tell.....
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
From my view, 538 is the one cherry-picking data. I posted this in Poligaf, but it's probably worthwhile to post here too.
In June, 538 predicted trump would never go anywhere because his approval ratings were negative within his own party. Then something odd happened and his approval rating rose drastically alongside is rise in the polls. But they don't mention this change at all despite it once being their primary reason for writing him off. Instead they made another post mid July, just this time saying his approval was below average instead of saying it was negative. But Trump's improving favorability didn't stop either, and now that Trump has mostly caught up to the other republicans, they don't even mention it anymore, never once admiting they were wrong about focusing on his favorables and assuming those favorables can't change. If that's not cherry-picking data, I don't know what is.
538 is right that he doesn't have enough of a lead where you can call the election right now, like you can for Hillary, but their evidence for saying he has a 0% is completely without statistical fact. They assume that people will learn to dislike him as time goes on, but there isn't statistical evidence to make that case, so they only make the case that there is still a chance he can lose, and say therefore he will lose.
Henchmen21
Banned
Here's the problem with that line of thinking. It assumes that those votes inherently belonged to the Republican party hence the term "steals". It's the reason that we've been stuck with the Republicans and Democrats for over a century. The fact of the matter is that no vote belongs to either party and if their is a better party out there than they deserve to exist and let the other parties die off. While FPTP does favor a two party system, it doesn't stand to reason that either two parties have to be the ones we have now.
Make sure it's a Mexican wall building company since Trump is somehow going to make them pay for it
cascardian
Member
Furthermore, it's not like this is America's first barbecue. Where have we heard this before: A rich, white non-politician who is unexpectedly gaining large support and who has been spouting uneducated nonsense that will much later turn out to slowly bring the American middle class to ruin?
Oh, I'm sure that he'll bring some good to America, even if it's just a result of being reined in by Congress or his advisors (actually leading is, after all, far different from just campaigning); but, to borrow from StarCraft II commentator clichés, at what cost?
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Does everyone remember how the UK polling went? How well did that Work out for Labour?
The reason the two parties exist and persist is because they adapt. When the country moves left or right, the parties shift with it (or risk losing elections). The problem the Republicans face, and the reason why the Tea Party and, now, Trump are having such success, is that the country hasat least sociallymoved left, while the party is unable to decide whether to try and recapture the middle or simply further entrench themselves on the right. Make no mistake, the majority of those Trump votes would come directly at the expense of the Republican nominee.
The Bluth Company is all about putting up walls. Invest in them.
It's frightening how many Bernie Sanders supporters actually think this way.
cpp_is_king
Member
Make sure you read his actual plan so you can see how he plans to do it and stop repeating this line over and over.
titiklabingapat
Member
ITT, you can tell how many people don't know how to read polls and political trends.
This tightening was expected (if confirmed by other polls), no matter who the GOP candidate is. Hell, Hillary's favorability rating is also 'crashing' but this was expected as well. Hell, whoever gets the GOP nomination will probably be ahead at some point in time, I guarantee it!
This tightening was expected (if confirmed by other polls), no matter who the GOP candidate is. Hell, Hillary's favorability rating is also 'crashing' but this was expected as well. Hell, whoever gets the GOP nomination will probably be ahead at some point in time, I guarantee it!
Nate isn't calling it 0%, though. He has a low single-digit chance. There's too many pitfalls for Trump to overcome, and no sign at all that people are converging on him as the candidate.
Any notion of a Trump surge after the debates is dependent on cherry-picking polls. Trump's % has stayed roughly the same but second place is more divided, which gives him more of a numerical lead if you use the completely senseless 1st-vs-2nd place comparison.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
In Summary, Trump isn't gaining ground, but there's been motion in the rankings beneath him, which makes it appear as if his lead is growing, but it isn't.
EDIT: On a broader note, I agree with Nate Silver with his disregard for viewing polling as a horse race. Don't use the most recent polls as if they are an accurate reflection of the current state of the field. View things with a Bayesian mindset, and all the shifts and pivots along the campaign come off as a lot smoother, which I think has a long history of being a better portrayal of reality.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I don't think Trump has the momentum to keep it up. Granted I've said things of this nature about him before, so maybe I'm just wrong again, but there is a lot to consider in the long run. Will the Republicans accept him as the nomination? If they don't, will he run as an independent? If that happens, I do not see a victory for Trump. It's simply asking too much for Trump to win despite there likely being a fissure of Republican voters. I don't doubt that if it happened that Republicans would lose to an independent, but let's face it - Romney was a competitor in 2012, and McCain was a competitor in 2008. In both cases, the competitor lost by a pretty wide margin relative to past elections.
Interfectum
Member
The guy is trolling and people are eating it up.
Ugh... No it's not. That is an Insane viewpoint that I don't see people sharing very often. I'd be more concerned with all the liberals pimping Trump and cavorting about with Trump avatars with, I hope, ironic intent.
Worst black mirror episode by a fucking mile.
HighResTomato
Member
So what don't Hilary supporters like about Bernie? What's all this beef between their followers.
Interfectum
Member
Yeah, uh, I dunno what "Bernie Supporters" you are talking to but I've not seen that going around. Most people know Trump is a troll and a joke. I doubt he even wants to become president.
At times, same here.. right down to the incredible "there's no difference" crowd.
Thankfully, this time the would-be Nader character is running within the Democratic Party's process. And if he should lose the nomination, at least he'll do the logical thing and not torpedo his own causes for a few decades.
I have no beef with Bernie at all. The man is fantastic, and I'd weep openly if he were to win a general election.
My main issue is with self-proclaimed progressives (particularly in swing states) who are willing to stick a shiv into progressivism's back if they don't get the nominee of their choice.
I think you have it backwards
They feel like he's fracturing the party. They think, in the end, we'd be better off if we all rallied around the "more electable" candidate.
Skellig Gra
Member
We crossed that threshold about 15 years ago.
I suggest you all get on board or he might come after you after he is elected our King.
Coming from someone who lives in a state where we elected a Wrestler as Governor and a Comedian as Senator.... for some reason that type of fame just works at the political level.
Even if it does not make sense... it just for some reason has a pull.
Coming from someone who lives in a state where we elected a Wrestler as Governor and a Comedian as Senator.... for some reason that type of fame just works at the political level.
Even if it does not make sense... it just for some reason has a pull.
20%?
Interfectum
Member
No, it goes both ways for sure. Though Hillary fans seem to attack Bernie Supporters™ more than the actual candidate.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
He's solidly in the lead, not just with one poll but with every single poll since July. His goal with the debates isn't to surge ahead but to maintain a lead, and that's exactly what he's doing. He's even leading in basically every statewide poll there is. Granted, a lot of the surge was pre debate, and these polls that update every month are including the pre debate rise when saying he's surging when they compare his position to one month ago, but I don't see how that matters when Trump's goal post-debate doesn't have to be a continued rise.
538 was originally calling him the flavor of the month just like 2012, so for them the goal was for him to drop in polling after the debates. But his lead is starting to stabilize, and now Nate is saying Trump will be in the lead for months. Even now, Trump is about to pass all the flavor of the months of 2012 for time spent in the lead. To change to asking him to surge after the debates is moving the goalposts.
Romney never topped 25% in the RCP average until January, and he was facing a much smaller field of candidates. As far as simple polling strength goes, Trump is doing as well as Romney is. Shouldn't that alone be enough to say that Trump's chance is at least a little better than everyone else, even if that chance is still only 30% or less? There's a lot of emphasis on saying his lead isn't that great, but what is the stat to say that Trump is more likely to lose and another is more likely to win?
Sure, his trend is down in that RCP average, because it's only averaging 3 polls and one of those polls appears to be an outlier showing trump as doing worse than he really is. The Huffington Post average which includes more polls does not show that sort of movement.
Sickboy007
Member
Yeah, I doubt Shy Tories are a factor here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked