Polling numbers and predictions

[Guinevere]

I thought I'd start a thread just for this topic.

The latest 538 predictions (polls only) has HRC 64.8% chance of winning the election, Trumpanzee, 35.1%%

Polls+ HRC's chances rise to 68% to 32% for Trumpanzee.

Voting now - 83.8% HRC, 16.2% Trumpanzee.


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... forecast/ ETA: -- not sure why this won't link, but go to the URL to review the data for yourself...

So, a big election bounce for HRC, and going in the right direction.

[Guinevere]

Predictions by the Upshot: Clinton 73% Trumpanzee 27%

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

[Burning Petard]

Please note the technical meaning of these statistics. When 538 gives a percentage, 60% Clinton, 40% Trump, it means according to the model used to produce these numbers, 40% of the time, Trump wins. It does NOT mean, we predict Trump gets 40% of the vote.

I can't say just what other poll aggregator sources mean.

snailgate

[Guinevere]

As I said in my opening post - HRC has a 63.8% chance of winning the election. I never said she would get 63.8% of the vote.

And of course, what matters (and why the national "all voter polls" are only useful for trends) is the electoral college. The 538 polls are based on state by state analysis of who is likely to win the electoral college votes in that state.

[Burning Petard]

Please Guin, I did not say you did. I love to talk politics. I am a member of the American Legion and it has been lots of fun watching and listening to old guys at the bar who have been mumbling about the commie-loving peaceniks, which includes all Democrats,for years twist themselves up in a knot with Hillary and the Donald. I still see anti-Jane Fonda stickers in the parking lot.

But there and lots of other places where I talk with ordinary people who mostly ignore politics, are very confused about the numbers that are tossed around by pundits about polls. Sometimes in a weekly report on NPR about polls in general, they will discuss what the numbers actually represent. Otherwise, the numbers are just tossed out there by the talking head with no information about the polling source, the sample, or what the number measures. It is a general assumption among those that I talk with that 'polls today show Hillary leading Trump by 15 points" means Hillary now has the support of 15% more people throughout the entire nation. Maybe so, but the talking head did not give enough information about 'the polls' to say that is what they mean, with any confidence.

I hope the posters here are better informed. 538 on their web site with these numbers explain clearly they are doing probabilities and predictions. Other places are not so direct. I looked at 538 once last week and they had Trump winning by about 55%, but their map had him winning by only 3 electoral votes.

snailgate

[oldr_n_wsr]

Never underestimate the disgruntled blue collar worker nor the people who "say" they won't vote for Trump but in the "semi private" voting box (do they have lever machines with the curtain anymore?) they cast it for Trump.

[Lord Jim]

After both conventions she's up about where she was nationally in the polls; up 5-7 percent...

Though the polls in the swing states are some what closer, and that should be worrisome...

The bottom line is this:

She needs to make the election about Donald Trump. If she makes the election about Donald Trump, and his fundamental unfitness for the Presidency she wins (fortunately for her, hardly a day goes by where he doesn't assist her in that task)...

But if the election becomes about her, and whether or not voters find her honest and trustworthy, she could very well lose...

That ship has sailed...

Obviously this can't be the dominate theme of her campaign, but it needs to be the underlying message:

"Yeah, I know you don't trust me, I know you don't like me, I know you think I'm just out for myself...

But I'm not batshit crazy and I wont destroy the country and blow up all of our alliances like Donald Trump will..."


That's really the winning argument...

[liberty]

If I was Trump I would hire good analysts and pollsters make an objective determination whether or not I could win. If the chances were not in my favor I would pull out of the election so that the best person with the best chances of winning could take my place. But I am a military man and consider the mission more important than myself, civilians don’t think like that.

[rubato]

Polls, election polls at least, are an attempt to measure what people are likely to do in the future and often flawed. They can never be taken at face value without some consideration of the underlying facts. The day before the California primary they had Hillary and the Bern at evenses; Hillary buried him 24 hours later. Nate Silver has been saying that polling about the general election is not to be taken very seriously as yet.

Another factor is that public opinion is like a supertanker at sea, it takes some time to change direction or stop due to collective psychic inertia. Finally, the Trumpians, that 60% of the GOP who made him the candidate are ignorant, angry, and loud while the intelligent parts are still in a shocked silence.

So what we are seeing now is the polls are gradually reflecting more accurately the underlying facts which are that Trump has close to zero chance of election. When a deep and wide swathe of the GOP "leadership*" have refused to endorse trump that is a sign. When many of them have publicly repudiated him it is another sign. The GOP candidate has lost the support of a large part of his own party and these are people who supported the wholly useless Mitt Romney (talk about reversion to the mean, both senses, from his father's dignity and character), a crippling blow by itself. A widely respected sitting president has for the first time (AFAIK) referred to the candidate of the other party as "unfit to be president", ( speaking of Obama he has utterly buried the GOP hate-squad ). When the candidate has made remarks that shock the conscience about women, two evil dictators, Moslems, dead soldiers, Mexicans, Immigrants in general it is another sign. And most tellingly Republican senators and congressmen in which they expect will be close races have all refused to endorse him because they made an accurate calculation about his effect on voters, and did so weeks ago. I could go on but that is enough.

Inflating some minor misstatements of Hillary is nothing in comparison. Won't even move the dial.


yrs,
rubato

*If they had ever exhibited qualities of leadership they would not be in this mess but after 45 years of pandering to mouth-breathing racists they have lost that skill.

[rubato]

If I was Trump I would hire good analysts and pollsters make an objective determination whether or not I could win. If the chances were not in my favor I would pull out of the election so that the best person with the best chances of winning could take my place. But I am a military man and consider the mission more important than myself, civilians don’t think like that.

But he hired Paul Manafort instead who worked for a corrupt lackey of Putins in Ukraine. (he warmed up for that job advising Reagan and other Republicans. )


yrs,
rubato

[RayThom]

Guin's failed link:
Who will win the presidency?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

[Lord Jim]

I'm beginning to think that rube must be a mole for Donald Trump...

On top of all the obvious things he has in common with him in terms of character, personality, intellect, and basic knowledge, he seems hell bent to try and define the issues in a way that would assure his election...

[rubato]

Pointing out Manaforts scummy amoral past might endear him to you but not to an intelligent person.


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

I thought I'd start a thread just for this topic.

The latest 538 predictions (polls only) has HRC 64.8% chance of winning the election, Trumpanzee, 35.1%%

Polls+ HRC's chances rise to 68% to 32% for Trumpanzee.

Voting now - 83.8% HRC, 16.2% Trumpanzee.

Today's numbers from 538:

Polls only - HRC - 73.2; T - 26.7
Polls+ - HRC - 69.4; T - 30.6
Voting now: HRC - 88.6; T - 11.3

Also, NH polls released this morning (WBUR/UNH) have HRC up by 15 points (47/32/8/3 -- NH is a state where Johnson and Stein will get some play). That's up from 2 points pre-convention.

Also D Gov Maggie Hassan has a double digit lead (50-40) in the Senate race over R Kelly Ayotte.....

[Sue U]

Also reported this a.m. is that HRC holds an 11-point lead in PA, supposedly a "battleground" state that Trump had predicted winning. LOLOLOLOLOLOLZ!

[Lord Jim]

And a nine point lead in Michigan...

[RayThom]

Polls are for those who are in the lead.

I'm waiting for a more definitive poll... the one on the night of November 8th.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Polls are for those who are in the lead.

I'm waiting for a more definitive poll... the one on the night of November 8th.

Me too

ETA
I keep saying, watch out. There are a slew of people who are for trump who won't say so. Add those to the ones already in trumps hip pocket and you have the makings of an upset.
Brexit was supposed to go down in defeat. Hillary may suffer the same. Would not surprise me.

[rubato]

"I have only ever prayed one prayer; "Lord if you get me out of this I'll never do it again." And for four times it's worked." Ray Wylie Hubbard

For myself I am praying "Lord keep Trump healthy until November. Keep his ego from deflation and remove from him all sense of impending doom and humiliation. Make his advisors sycophants, toadys, and sceptical of science."

Glad to see how rapidly the polls are catching up with the underlying reality.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

I keep saying, watch out. There are a slew of people who are for trump who won't say so.

There are also another slew of people who are for Hillary who won't say so--many of them wives of staunch Trump supporters.