• 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 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zukkoyaki

Member
7% is really becoming common.

Yup. I believe the race is and will finish around 7-8%

If you average out the national polls from the past 8ish days and leave out the +15 outlier and the daily trackers... (4-way):

+4 ABC
+4 YouGov
+6 Morning Consult
+6 Survey Monkey
+6 Fox
+7 Qpac
+8 GWU
+9 CBS
+9 Selzer
+10 SurveyUSA
+11 NBC/WSJ
+12 Monmouth

... You get: 7.67
 

Salvadora

Member
I'd be happy with Sri as the Scalia replacement. He's more centrist than other choices but has bipartisan support and would shift the court heavily to the left compared to Scalia. The fact that he'd be the first Asian-American on the court and is 45 is just a bonus.
Bipartisan support is not something that should be factored into the decision.

Republicans are going to be opposed to President Clinton from day one regardless of circumstances and that extends to Supreme Court Justice nominees.

She shouldn't nominate a centralist for the sole purpose of appeasing those who cannot be appeased.
 
Obama for SCOTUS. Do you think Hill could get away with that? Would he want the job? He wants to fight against gerrymandering.

Obama is actually better used in charitable efforts and GOTV campaigns in the future, where he'll be unrestricted by any kind of public office.

You don't actually need him in the supreme court- there are any number of decent legal minds that could rule on cases perfectly well.

There's only one (ok ok...two) Obamas though.
 
Obama for SCOTUS. Do you think Hill could get away with that? Would he want the job? He wants to fight against gerrymandering.
She could do it, but Obama does not want to be on the court, nor does the party want/need him there. He's going to be doing a lot of great things, most of which won't be political in nature. And I'd imagine he'll be speaking at DNCs in prime time every four years.
 
Yup. I believe the race is and will finish around 7-8%

If you average out the national polls from the past 8ish days and leave out the +15 outlier and the daily trackers... (4-way):

+4 ABC
+4 YouGov
+6 Morning Consult
+6 Survey Monkey
+6 Fox
+7 Qpac
+8 GWU
+9 CBS
+9 Selzer
+10 SurveyUSA
+11 NBC/WSJ
+12 Monmouth

... You get: 7.67

This assumes that pollster estimates of democratic turnout this year have been accurate. Everything we've seen so far says this isn't the case. we can't simply "average in" the +4 results, since they generally assume higher turnout from a whiter and older electorate that we know is not going to appear. They're invalid assumptions.

Pollsters also have no way to figure out the impact of the robust ground game on the clinton end, and complete absence of any kind of GOTV effort by the trump campaign.

it's that last bit of business that had the poll average for Obama off from the final result by 3%- but the gap between clinton and trump is WAY larger than the one that existed between Romney and Obama.. I would be VERY surprised if hillary's final margin was below 10%.
 
Obama is actually better used in charitable efforts and GOTV campaigns in the future, where he'll be unrestricted by any kind of public office.

You don't actually need him in the supreme court- there are any number of decent legal minds that could rule on cases perfectly well.

There's only one (ok ok...two) Obamas though.

Plus, what happens if down the road something he initiated goes to SCOTUS, does he recuse himself from the case and have the court go 4-4?
 
Obama for SCOTUS. Do you think Hill could get away with that? Would he want the job? He wants to fight against gerrymandering.

Obama should start a charity, let his daughters finish school in DC, and then retire to Hawaii, only to come back to the mainland every 4 years to campaign for the Democrat nominee for president.

He needs to grow a goatee and hang out at beaches and enjoy a nice long rest. He's earned it.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
This assumes that pollster estimates of democratic turnout this year have been accurate. Everything we've seen so far says this isn't the case. we can't simply "average in" the +4 results, since they generally assume higher turnout from a whiter and older electorate that we know is not going to appear. They're invalid assumptions.

Pollsters also have no way to figure out the impact of the robust ground game on the clinton end, and complete absence of any kind of GOTV effort by the trump campaign.

it's that last bit of business that had the poll average for Obama off from the final result by 3%. I would be VERY surprised if hillary's final margin was below 10%.
GOTV game absolutely should have a noticeable impact! I just prefer to play it safe and conservative with my expectations for this kind of thing. I would welcome a double-digit final margin with open arms!
 

Ecotic

Member
This assumes that pollster estimates of democratic turnout this year have been accurate. Everything we've seen so far says this isn't the case. we can't simply "average in" the +4 results, since they generally assume higher turnout from a whiter and older electorate that we know is not going to appear. They're invalid assumptions.

Pollsters also have no way to figure out the impact of the robust ground game on the clinton end, and complete absence of any kind of GOTV effort by the trump campaign.

it's that last bit of business that had the poll average for Obama off from the final result by 3%- but the gap between clinton and trump is WAY larger than the one that existed between Romney and Obama.. I would be VERY surprised if hillary's final margin was below 10%.

This is what has me optimistic about the House. What if by election day Hillary increases another 3 points in the polls and then her GOTV operation outperforms and the electorate is less white than predicted. It's Speaker Pelosi time.
 
Pollsters also have no way to figure out the impact of the robust ground game on the clinton end, and complete absence of any kind of GOTV effort by the trump campaign.

it's that last bit of business that had the poll average for Obama off from the final result by 3%- but the gap between clinton and trump is WAY larger than the one that existed between Romney and Obama.. I would be VERY surprised if hillary's final margin was below 10%.

This. We assume pollsters have magical actuary charts that can tell us the demographic makeup of the 2016 electorate. They don't.

Let's not forget that 2012 RCP polling average had Obama at 0.7% over Romney. It turned out to be 4%. Steady movement to cell-phone only households, the gremlins involved with self-selecting online/phone hybrid polls, and massive influx of highly-mobile Latinx voters, especially Boricua voters, is causing pollsters heartburn, even the "good" pollsters
 

Salvadora

Member
In the most likely scenario, what does President Clinton's first 100 days look like without the House?

It's almost maddening the me that the Republicans could obstruct any and all proposed legislation.
 

jtb

Banned
I know betting on a polling miss is a fool's game.

But.

I do think that the margin will be on the upper range of the MOE, not the low end. Hillary has a competent GOTV operation, Trump does not. 10 point victory?

also, the "shy" voter argument would seem to favor Hillary far more than Trump, tbh, especially when you consider gender, modern polarization (making it harder to defect publicly), etc. Extreme candidates underperform polls, not overperform... Angle/Reid comes to mind, among others.
 

CoolOff

Member
Whoa, Hillary's dropped 1.5% in the polls-only in the last 4 days. Shit.

giphy.gif
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Lets also not forget that Trump underperformed his polls in the primaries. A different beast for sure but a potential sign of what we're going to see in November.
 
Lets also not forget that Trump underperformed his polls in the primaries. A different beast for sure but a potential sign of what we're going to see in November.

He didn't really underperform his polls in the primaries. The polls were in line with the results for the most part.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
He didn't really underperform his polls in the primaries. The polls were in line with the results for the most part.
I have been hearing conflicting reports then haha

But we're in a situation where Trump could outperform his polls and land on the side of MOE that benefits him and Clinton would still have a decent lead.
 
Who is in charge of this account needs to be rewarded

Her people have been tossing bombs all throught the general election. Compare and contrast to Trump's team, which struggles to bring normalcy to their candidate's derangement.

also whenever there is a -H tweet it always comes across as sincere and genuine. For all the 'grandma needs help with her email' jokes she has tweeting down pretty well.
 

jtb

Banned
Her people have been tossing bombs all throught the general election. Compare and contrast to Trump's team, which struggles to bring normalcy to their candidate's derangement.

also whenever there is a -H tweet it always comes across as sincere and genuine. For all the 'grandma needs help with her email' jokes she has tweeting down pretty well.

To be fair, I don't think she writes the -H tweets either lol
 
I think if there's any surprise on the margin on election day, it'll be in Hillary's favor. The biggest unknown is turnout. Polls estimate this using Likely Voter screens, which take a look at things like 'did you vote in 2012,' etc.

The thing is, there hasn't been a major campaign running such a terrible get out the vote effort. Nobody's ever measured how much GOTV efforts influence the race, but in this case, we'll have one campaign with nothing, and another that's the spiritual successor to Obama's amazing campaigns.

David Axelrod has already said GOTV adds maybe 1 or 2% to the final result. A 1 - 2% difference when Trump's already losing by 5 - 7 points could be huge in terms of making the House more balanced or winning the Senate.

To be fair, I don't think she writes the -H tweets either lol

It takes a village.
 

thebloo

Member
Speaking of Obama, I'm probably being optimistic, but...
For 2018 maybe it's better that the President is not the catalyst for voter turnout. Hillary can get down to the nitty-gritty of government and still have very popular and "pure" surrogates. Obama was kinda on his own and a lot of people were disappointed that he didn't magically fix everything.
 
This is what has me optimistic about the House. What if by election day Hillary increases another 3 points in the polls and then her GOTV operation outperforms and the electorate is less white than predicted. It's Speaker Pelosi time.

My thinking is the same. fivethirtyeight had an interesting discussion about pollster assumptions about unlikely voters a few months ago.

Hypothesis #1: The polls are underestimating Clinton because they don’t factor in her superior ground game.

Most reports (and we’ll have an article with some extensive data on this soon) suggest that Clinton is far better organized than Trump, with more field offices, for example, and a better get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation. Isn’t that reason to think the polls are underestimating Clinton by a bit?

natesilver: That’s one of the better arguments, yeah.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): Well, the question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the field game is being picked up by the polls. In a wonderful, perfect universe, it would be. In reality, I have my doubts. That’s why I’m not entirely sold on polls showing a large gap (in Trump’s favor) between registered voter results and likely voter results.

natesilver: The empirical literature on the ground game is messy because there are so many conflating variables. But what would worry me if I were Trump is that the race isn’t that close if everyone turns out — and I have the worse turnout operation.

micah: How would the polls pick up on a better ground game?

harry: A ground game is supposed to get people to vote. So, if Clinton’s campaign is getting more people engaged, then polls that are aimed at identifying likely voters should pick up on that. More of those voters should make it through the likely voter screen.

natesilver: Well, maybe they’ll make it through the likely voter screen, but a lot of likely voter screens rely on past voting history, and may or may not have adequate provisions in place to capture new voters.

harry: Right.

natesilver: Also, a lot of likely voter screens do something that’s probably dumb, which is to set a hard cut-off for voting propensity instead of doing it probabilistically. Clinton has a “long tail” of semi-likely voters that she could potentially draw from.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-could-the-polls-be-missing/

So...the deal here is that polls are not doing a good job of picking up unlikely voters. Many of them rely on past voting history- so if you're a new voter, or a voter that voted in 08 but not since then, you may not make it past the LV screen.

in addition, most of them even the ones not relying entirely on past voting history set a hard cutoff and count someone who is say...50 or 60% likely to vote as "zero percent likely to vote".

Ground game is designed to pick up all of those people that are not showing up in the LV screen and get them to polls. Clinton has a massive organization to accomplish this, Trump doesn't.

ON TOP OF THAT, there's this to consider.

Fivethirtyeight estimated that this effect was probably worth "a couple of points" when they had this discussion. Since then, we've had the Access Hollywood video and the sexual assault claims both hit.

Both of these things ABSOLUTELY caught the attention of less likely voters that might otherwise tune out of the election out of the feeling that "both sides are bad." Trump has been successfully painted as demonstrably worse than clinton in a way that women are taking VERY serious notice of. He's turned from "just some jackass" into the orange Bill Cosby, and this is going to hurt him.

That effect won't show up in polls though, since unlikely and marginal voters who it usually takes catastrophic events to move to the voting booth weren't showing up in LV screens in the first place.
 

Blader

Member
I know betting on a polling miss is a fool's game.

But.

I do think that the margin will be on the upper range of the MOE, not the low end. Hillary has a competent GOTV operation, Trump does not. 10 point victory?

also, the "shy" voter argument would seem to favor Hillary far more than Trump, tbh, especially when you consider gender, modern polarization (making it harder to defect publicly), etc. Extreme candidates underperform polls, not overperform... Angle/Reid comes to mind, among others.

Or Trump himself. How often did he outperform his polling in the primary?
 
Hilarious article on front page of CNN: "The gospel of Trump - His pastor says he is more devout than you'd think."

How gullible can people be? Donald Trump a devout Christian, LMAO.
 

thebloo

Member
I'm watching the dinner now. Trump has no idea how to deliver anything that's not straight from his brain. The jokes are really not bad, but he's really awful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom