• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.

jiggle

Member
This is too stressful
Glad I'll be away for 2 weeks
Back in time to diablos over the debate
Gonna resist really hard at keeping up with these news
 
Share with the class!

Assuming way too many white non-college voters, in a scale never seen before (50%, in 2012 around 1/3).

Shouldn't have done it during Labor Day, rich folks out of town.

If adjusted to 2012 demographics, Clinton up +4 (46-42).

Trump in big trouble with white college voters, both female and male. Romney won that group bigly and still lost.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Assuming way too many white non-college voters, in a scale never seen before (50%, in 2012 around 1/3).

Shouldn't have done it during Labor Day.

If adjusted to 2012 demographics, Clinton up +4 (46-42).
The white electorate has also been shrinking little by little with each presidential election. Very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Gretchen Carlson got fucking paid. I'm taking a vacation of epic proportions if that was me.

Yes...I'd call it retirement.
Part I caught

Terrible to poll over a holiday weekend because higher educated are more likely to be on vacation.

This...is actually a really good point. Demographics were all over the place, though.
 

Bowdz

Member
I feel gross about our media, and I feel like I'm part of the problem.

I just hate the media's general self righteousness. Jake Tapper started his Zika segment with a snarky bit about how while Congress was on vacation, x number of women were infected by Zika and emphasized how lazy Congress is. Meanwhile, Jake Tapper was on a three week vacation just like the rest of Congress, because that's what a lot of people do in August.

I'm no fan of Congress, but the media likes to pretend that their shit does stink when in reality, it's some of the most foul smelling of the bunch.
 
Chuck Todd/NBC now unskewing polls?

Don't like it.

The CNN poll is most certainly wrong, but it's not worth unskewing. If Hillary is up 5, then you're going to get a random Trump +2 in there.

The media's treatment of polling is so fucking bad.
 

Revolver

Member
Hillary just can't win. Lady on Chuck Todd saying that she handled bringing up Pam Bondi horribly and she had to be careful about what she said because she has no moral authority on the subject and the stories of her own scandals are so bad. Then Chuck chimes in with even though there's no evidence of wrongdoing on her part she has to be careful because... optics. Ugh.
 
As someone who chronically coughs for no real medical reason, just as a personal tic, this whole coughing saga is pretty awful.

Actually, it should be awful for anyone, whether they cough a lot or not.
 

pigeon

Banned
Assuming way too many white non-college voters, in a scale never seen before (50%, in 2012 around 1/3).

Shouldn't have done it during Labor Day, rich folks out of town.

If adjusted to 2012 demographics, Clinton up +4 (46-42).

Trump in big trouble with white college voters, both female and male. Romney won that group bigly and still lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/u...n-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html

nyt said:
The exit polls have a series of subtle biases that depict a younger, better-educated and more diverse electorate. Mr. McDonald tentatively reached this conclusion in 2005, and the pattern has been seen in a broader set of data.

The evidence for a whiter, less-educated and older electorate comes from two main sources.

The first — and longest-standing — source of alternative data is the Current Population Survey, known as the C.P.S. Conducted by the Census Bureau, it is the same monthly survey that yields the unemployment report. After elections, it includes a question about whether people voted.

A second source is the so-called voter file: a compilation of local records on every American who has registered to vote, including address, age and whether the person voted in a given election. The voter file data used for analysis here comes from Catalist, a Democratic data firm that offers an academic subscription. Researchers have found that the data is unbiased and more accurate than public voting records.

Overall, the exit polls suggest that 23 percent of voters in 2012 were white, over age 45 and without a college degree. Catalist puts this group at 29 percent, and the census at 30 percent — implying 10 million more voters than the 23 percent figure.

Note that the article goes on to say that Trump can't lose nonwhites and college-educated whites as badly as he seems to be and win the election. But exit polls simply aren't comparable to pre-election polls, and they are not that reliable. For obvious reasons! Their methodology is extremely messy!
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/u...n-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html



Note that the article goes on to say that Trump can't lose nonwhites and college-educated whites as badly as he seems to be and win the election. But exit polls simply aren't comparable to pre-election polls, and they are not that reliable. For obvious reasons! Their methodology is extremely messy!

Yeah. I think you're seeing a combination of: tightening, which would lead to some polls with Trump up, a Labor Day sample, or just random outlierness. Or a combination of all 3! But let's not, you know, reset a poll with 2012 exit poll demos.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/u...n-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html



Note that the article goes on to say that Trump can't lose nonwhites and college-educated whites as badly as he seems to be and win the election. But exit polls simply aren't comparable to pre-election polls, and they are not that reliable. For obvious reasons! Their methodology is extremely messy!

But while I find Cohn's argument about there being more white voters being true, I don't believe it's in Trump's favor. I think there's more white voters that vote Democrat that are being missed in exit polling (Cohn even hints at this with Obama's numbers).

When Cohn wrote this article, I think his evidence was good but conclusion was bad. I don't think this makes Trump more likely to become President. To the contrary, I think less likely. His argument relies on Trump making reliable Democrat voters switch and I don't see it.

Remember, the Trump/GOP argument is that there are more white non-voters out there, not that they can switch current voters.
 
Chuck Todd/NBC now unskewing polls?

Don't like it.

The CNN poll is most certainly wrong, but it's not worth unskewing. If Hillary is up 5, then you're going to get a random Trump +2 in there.

The media's treatment of polling is so fucking bad.

No, unskewing is using feels to change the poll result into something that confirms one's preconceptions.
 

pigeon

Banned
Also:

8036f804b.png


Ultimately, this is what the taco truck election is about. Notice how much better America is than all European countries.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/taco-trucks-and-the-soul-of-america/498845/
 
Yeah. I think you're seeing a combination of: tightening, which would lead to some polls with Trump up, a Labor Day sample, or just random outlierness. Or a combination of all 3! But let's not, you know, reset a poll with 2012 exit poll demos.

The whole adjusting for past electorates is dumb.

I don't need a poll to know who will win if the electorate is the same as 2012. Spoiler: It's Hillary.

Pollsters have to guess the electorate and we have to live with that because we don't know what the electorate will be (though, we can laugh at really bad ones or disagree with their model).

At the end of the day, the election comes down to this. Will enough of the Obama coalition show up to vote? if yes, Hillary wins. End of story. People who voted Obama twice are not voting Trump.

There are no missing white voters. If the Obama coalition turns out, she wins. If it doesn't, she can lose. If it turns out AND she gets a bigger bump from minorities in turnout alongside a lack of enthusiasm for Trump, it will be a slaughter.
 

pigeon

Banned
No, unskewing is using feels to change the poll result into something that confirms one's preconceptions.

The original Unskewed Polls website was literally what Chuck Todd did -- they rebalanced a poll by changing the demographic weights according to an opinion about what the electorate would really look like.

As Mamba notes, it's the same thing!
 
The whole adjusting for past electorates is dumb.

I don't need a poll to know who will win if the electorate is the same as 2012. Spoiler: It's Hillary.

Pollsters have to guess the electorate and we have to live with that because we don't know what the electorate will be (though, we can laugh at really bad ones or disagree with their model).

At the end of the day, the election comes down to this. Will enough of the Obama coalition show up to vote? if yes, Hillary wins. End of story. People who voted Obama twice are not voting Trump.

There are no missing white voters. If the Obama coalition turns out, she wins. If it doesn't, she can lose. If it turns out AND she gets a bigger bump from minorities in turnout alongside a lack of enthusiasm for Trump, it will be a slaughter.

Exactly.
 
So here's something that's been tickling me but I've been unable to find any good resources on the subject so I was wondering if you guys had an answer.

People talk about the urban/suburban-rural divide between the parties but are there any examples of rural areas that will elect like, non-conservative Democrats? This got brought up when I was meeting with one of the people at the campaign I'm interning for now that even in Idaho Boise elects almost entirely Democrats and has almost all of the Democratic representation in the state legislature, but the state party still almost entirely is incapable of appealing to any of the rural voters.

I know someone like John Bel Edwards is really popular right now in Louisiana even though mostly got elected because of how badly Jindal's tenure hurt the state. Are there any examples of Democrats selling their policies well to a rural district and winning a seat there?

Edit: Aside from obligatory pictures of the candidate on a horse, which is apparently a necessary component of winning an Idaho election.

There are a few examples of rural areas that vote liberal. Vermont is mostly rural yet one of the most liberal states in the nation. Likewise, Western Massachusetts is largely rural yet arguably the most progressive part of the state. Some parts of the Upper Midwest also fit the rural/progressive pattern.
 

Boke1879

Member
Hillary just can't win. Lady on Chuck Todd saying that she handled bringing up Pam Bondi horribly and she had to be careful about what she said because she has no moral authority on the subject and the stories of her own scandals are so bad. Then Chuck chimes in with even though there's no evidence of wrongdoing on her part she has to be careful because... optics. Ugh.

I said this earlier. Clinton has every right to bring up the Bondi thing because the media pretty much refuses to. But I figured the media will try to turn this back on her and the emails just because.
 
The original Unskewed Polls website was literally what Chuck Todd did -- they rebalanced a poll by changing the demographic weights according to an opinion about what the electorate would really look like.

As Mamba notes, it's the same thing!

IIRC, the unskewer did it by party ID. Which is even worse because Party ID has no merit in adjusting a poll.

All pollsters weight their responses on what they assume the electorate will look like in terms or age, sex, race/ethnicity, and geography. But not on party ID.

What NBC did is basically say "If I was a pollster and I got this data set, here are my weights," which is unskewing but it's at least within reason. The party ID thing was stupid.

I still think it is bad to unskew the numbers like how NBC did. You can do that with every poll. Just take their data sets and put in your own weights. I guess you could be a pollster without doing work that way. But to pick out 1 or 2 polls and do this is bad.


The reason pollsters use weights is because

A. their samples are not very strong or something even statistically significant among sub-groups

B. some groups are really hard to poll

But if a pollster would do say a 50k person poll, they wouldn't have to weight things at all. Just post the results.

Which is why I just prefer to allow the pollsters to weight it themselves, then you aggregate it all. Don't change the numbers, ever.
 
Hillary just can't win. Lady on Chuck Todd saying that she handled bringing up Pam Bondi horribly and she had to be careful about what she said because she has no moral authority on the subject and the stories of her own scandals are so bad. Then Chuck chimes in with even though there's no evidence of wrongdoing on her part she has to be careful because... optics. Ugh.

I truly don't know what to do about this. And his unskewing seems awful, too. Ugh. Whatever, Chuck.
 
The original Unskewed Polls website was literally what Chuck Todd did -- they rebalanced a poll by changing the demographic weights according to an opinion about what the electorate would really look like.

As Mamba notes, it's the same thing!

I don't have CNN (or cable), but the posts here made it sound like he was discussing the demographics of the poll, not actually unskewing.
 

royalan

Member
These anti-Trump ads need to be balanced by pro-Hillary ads. She's not selling herself.

This I will agree with.

Here in Philly over the weekend I saw the "Hillary: this is my jobs plan" ad exactly once. But the "*Night shot of White House* Trump is dangerous!" ad runs pretty much nonstop.

Hillary needs to be more forceful in selling herself, because the media has made it clear they aren't going to do it for her.
 

Joeytj

Banned

What the... Come on, nobody is a fan of that CNN poll, but to begin unskewing a rival's poll because your poll isn't grabbing the same amount of headlines, is kind of... unprofessional.

And pathetic.

Although, come on, we know he's right :p
 

Grexeno

Member
So basically CNN is assuming a much whiter, less-educated electorate than in 2012.

Well I guess if Trump were to win that would be the reason.
 

pigeon

Banned
I don't know anything. Someone explain what is wrong with this.

It's unskewing! He literally reweighted the poll according to a different demographic breakdown because he didn't agree with their voter model! And he did so based on exit polls, when as discussed, exit polls simply aren't comparable with pre-election polls!
 

Nafai1123

Banned
So white voters are going to become a larger part of the voting electorate this year despite historical trends showing the latino vote growing every year?
 
I can't tell if this is serious or not.
I'm serious, while you can debate putting up that graphic, if the CNN poll has demographic issues (you had a REPUBLICAN pollster on MTP Daily questioning the demographics) why shouldn't it pointed even if it's a rival network?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom