Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
8/18 but they just appeared in my TPM Polltracker feed so I figured they were the latest. Or Polltracker is useless even for updates.
-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
8/18 but they just appeared in my TPM Polltracker feed so I figured they were the latest. Or Polltracker is useless even for updates.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
I actually believe the new storyline being pushed. That the Trump campaign are going to do everything in their power to get either Johnson or Stein or both up there on the debate stage. The contrast between Trump and Clinton going back and forth for 90 minutes will be HUUUUUUUGE. Throw in two more bodies up there and all of a sudden that contrast appears less and less in those 90 minutes.
Maybe that kid should be running Trump's campaign
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
"America is my office and I show up to work every day."
User 463088
Banned
There's no reason to try and make sense of their numbers. They make no sense at all.
They have Hillary winning Nebraska by 5, while losing Wisconsin by 3.
Trump is winning New Hampshire by 15, after being behind by 4 three days prior.
Trump's also winning Maine and Michigan.
There is, literally, no rhyme or reason to this shit. Some of the samples are in the 100s. It's just a model they're using, but Nate has decided it's close enough to be a poll!
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Did I miss something about Wisconsin that it would warrant so many offices from both parties? Not even the Republicans there wanted Trump, why would either side invest so much in it? Is Clinton trying to set up more infrastructure for 2018 there to make state gains or something?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I mostly agree, but I think Florida could be a Clinton blowout this year. Trump isn't bridging that gap with Hispanic voters, and we may see record turnouts this election.
RustyNails
Member
No way possible for Johnson/Stein to get up there. They need to start consistently polling 15% very soon. Both Hillary and Trump need to suddenly drop 10 points each in order for them to start polling 15%.
No amount of tantrums from Trump will change that.
User 463088
Banned
Polls close at 7pm est.
Tranqueris
Banned
Is there any real chance McCain is going to lose today? I sorta don't know which outcome I want for this primary.
No chance at all.
whyamihere
Banned
Richard Burr must be furious.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Like I said earlier, wouldn't be surprised if Ross took a lead there.
Every chance at all.
User 463088
Banned
idk that Gravis poll yesterday only had McCain ahead by 2 and 25% of people undecided!!
You never know!
You never know!
We know.
Fragamemnon
Member
McRory and the General Assembly aren't helping here. I'm actually surprised Burr is still up in most of the polls (he seems to be running abour 4-5 points ahead of Trump here).
Aaron Strife
Banned
McCrory losing would be amazing. It'd be even better if Dems somehow flipped the legislature but I doubt it unfortunately.
Democrats seem to really be taking efforts seriously in Michigan to flip the House which is interesting.
User 463088
Banned
I buy your first, but I think the 2nd is too far fetched. I think she wins by 15 or 20 at most. PROVE ME WRONG FLORIDA!
So much dirt has come out about Bannon but no one is paying attention. It's like he doesn't exist. Granted, there is no real indication of what he is even doing. No public appearances.
Curious if the Trump model story will go anywhere. Some stories seem awful but they just don't get picked up.
Curious if the Trump model story will go anywhere. Some stories seem awful but they just don't get picked up.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Even if it doesn't get play in the media. A story about mistreating a bunch of teenage girls seems like something you could work into a debate. Like anywhere.
User 463088
Banned
You know how we've been bitching about those IPSOS state polls? I see good Nate finally picked up on how bullshit they are.
They estimate that 70% of white, males will vote. The issue with that is, it's not going to happen, not least of which is because only 69% of males are actually registered to vote. It also assumes that only 60% of African American women will vote. That would be down from 70% in 2012. It also assumes an 18-29 rate will be 13%.
They estimate that 70% of white, males will vote. The issue with that is, it's not going to happen, not least of which is because only 69% of males are actually registered to vote. It also assumes that only 60% of African American women will vote. That would be down from 70% in 2012. It also assumes an 18-29 rate will be 13%.
It's crazy. I Think if this were anyone else these stories would dominate the news and imo would sink a candidate.
User 463088
Banned
I think people have become numb to it, in a way. It's been such a cluster fuck, the media has already drilled it into people's heads so hard no one really cares.
Black Mamba
Member
This would explain why Ipsos looks so nuts:
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
LMAO, hispanic turnout will drop in this election of all elections?
Ipsos is fucking drunk.
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
LMAO, hispanic turnout will drop in this election of all elections?
Ipsos is fucking drunk.
This would explain why Ipsos looks so nuts:
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
Yes, drunk and high.
RustyNails
Member
Its cuz of choice between SHILLARY and an Orange DemonThis would explain why Ipsos looks so nuts:
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
Yea i should have added to my post. Nothing about any of this is normal. There has been so many conspiracies etc by Trump that something like this doesn't even seem interesting. For lack of a better word.
User 463088
Banned
This would explain why Ipsos looks so nuts:
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
Hahaha, I beat you.
Black women will hit close to 70% again, just like 2012. 60% would be the lowest turnout among Black women since 2000 and would be on par with 1992.
The turnout among white men in 2012 was 62%. In the last 32 years, only one group has ever reached 70% turnout....and that was Black women in 2012. And, that is Hillary's base of voters. Always has been.
Black Mamba
Member
How does a polling firm like Ipsos get to be so wrong?
I mean, they're not peddling bullshit like some right leaning polling firm (or for that matter left leaning). Their reputation is based on being accurate.
So how are they betting on something that seems to be so unlikely? How does this happen in 2016? Like, I'm actually confused how a firm like this can be so bad at what it does. And they weren't bad 4 years ago! I just can't make any sense of this.
I mean, they're not peddling bullshit like some right leaning polling firm (or for that matter left leaning). Their reputation is based on being accurate.
So how are they betting on something that seems to be so unlikely? How does this happen in 2016? Like, I'm actually confused how a firm like this can be so bad at what it does. And they weren't bad 4 years ago! I just can't make any sense of this.
someone wants to fill the Gallup hole
To be fair, it is better to believe your opponent is a mastermind and be pleasantly surprised when he's not, then to assume he is an idiot and too late discover he isn't.
User 463088
Banned
The only thing I'll say is this is a model not actual polling. They take their tracker, from what I can tell, divide it by state and then weigh it based on their turnout model. They give Hillary a greater than 95% chance of winning, but the makeup is insanely weird.
Where I have issue is with Nate putting this shit in his model. These are "polls" with minuscule sample sizes. They're already pre-adjusted based on Ipsos weird ass model. Then, Nate treats those numbers as a non-adjusted Ipsos poll, and adds his weight to it.
This would explain why Ipsos looks so nuts:
Courtesy of Nate Cohn.
70% for white men is insane. It won't even hit 65%.
Black women at 60% is probably too low.
And young voters at 13% is insanely low. I mean, 20% turnout rate for youth vote was in the 2014 mid-terms. How is the Presidential election lower than a mid-term for young people?
Is Ipsos drunk?
LMAO, hispanic turnout will drop in this election of all elections?
Ipsos is fucking drunk.
Yeah, I somehow doubt Trump will energize enough white males to get off their butts and vote. Call it a hunch....
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
hot
User 463088
Banned
I mean, if he had an actual ground game, maybe? Like, white, heterosexual, non-college educated men seem to love him. If he was competent, and thank fuck he's not, he could increase turnout. Now, I don't think he could increase it ot 70%, nor do I think he could do it enough to win, mainly because of the Electoral College....but he should be trying!
I'm fucking happy as hell he isn't, though.
whyamihere
Banned
User 463088
Banned
I mean, for me it's the principle of the thing more so than anything else. I agree it doesn't matter at the end of the day, but it's still infuriating when he pretends to be this no bullshit, data only guy. He's not that anymore.
That's why I like good Nate.
He was never really a data only guy though, as could be seen from the two 538 screenshots I posted from 5 days apart where he went from "I have serious qualms with how Obama is running his race" to "McCain is fucked" when his model flipped between the two.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Grayson finally loses today!
User 463088
Banned
That's true. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt though. When he was on Kos I think he was a bit better? Been a while though. I've always preferred Princeton, though.
It just seems like this is the first election cycle where he's forcing his numbers to fit his punditry.
metalslimer
Member
I don't think he is forcing his numbers. I think he is just engaging in a lot punditry to drive clicks to his website. The fundamentals haven't changed even if you get a 5%-10% swing in the model one way or the other.
Black Mamba
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What a shill
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked