Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL LANDSCAPE no. 2

[Statistikhengst]

HERE.

All the numbers through 31 October, 2016, t-minus 8 days.

Facit: Clinton is still verifiably ahead, considerably so in the electoral vote.

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV

With tossups:
Clinton 288 / Trump 198 / Tossups 52 / Margin: Clinton +90 EV

 

[Thunderbird]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses key states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

Consider:

• At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.
• As we get close to the wire Never-Trump Republicans will realize what a drunken crazy arrogant lying clueless clown Hillary is and they'll back Trump.
  
• There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.
  
• Trump voters are much more enthusiastic.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

 

[Pop23]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.

There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

These polls are more than a bit skewed, even if they don't oversample dems or women.

In a state like California, State polls give Hillary a 20% lead. Using the 2012 election as the model, then that alone skews the poll by 2.6 million votes, or 2% on the national level. When you do the same thing with all the State polling, factoring in where each candidate should win, Clinton has a total of 9.5 million votes over what is needed to win that state, and Trump has 4.5 million votes over what he needs to win his states.

Those 5 million vote different skews the polls by 3.9% on a national level, but mean absolutely nothing.

The pollsters do not quit polling in a State just because it's in the bag for one candidate or the other, so the national polls are skewed by 3.9% for Clinton. The closer to a tie race means that those battleground States have a higher likelihood of going Trump. If on election day, the polls show a slight Trump lead, he will win the EV handily.

 

[NLT]

Early Voting Changes Show SHOCKING Numbers... The 2016 Presidential Election Will Be a LANDSLIDE!

 

[kiwiman127]

Early Voting Changes Show SHOCKING Numbers... The 2016 Presidential Election Will Be a LANDSLIDE!

Political insider?

Political Insider

 

[Statistikhengst]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.

There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

These polls are more than a bit skewed, even if they don't oversample dems or women.

In a state like California, State polls give Hillary a 20% lead. Using the 2012 election as the model, then that alone skews the poll by 2.6 million votes, or 2% on the national level. When you do the same thing with all the State polling, factoring in where each candidate should win, Clinton has a total of 9.5 million votes over what is needed to win that state, and Trump has 4.5 million votes over what he needs to win his states.

Those 5 million vote different skews the polls by 3.9% on a national level, but mean absolutely nothing.

The pollsters do not quit polling in a State just because it's in the bag for one candidate or the other, so the national polls are skewed by 3.9% for Clinton. The closer to a tie race means that those battleground States have a higher likelihood of going Trump. If on election day, the polls show a slight Trump lead, he will win the EV handily.

Uhm, no.

 

[mamooth]

This Upshot/Siena poll says that early voting in NC is Clinton +10, and projects a final NC tally of Clinton +7. And that 40% of the votes in NC have already been cast.

That alone puts Trump away.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/25/upshot/north-carolina-poll.html?_r=0

 

[Pop23]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.

There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

These polls are more than a bit skewed, even if they don't oversample dems or women.

In a state like California, State polls give Hillary a 20% lead. Using the 2012 election as the model, then that alone skews the poll by 2.6 million votes, or 2% on the national level. When you do the same thing with all the State polling, factoring in where each candidate should win, Clinton has a total of 9.5 million votes over what is needed to win that state, and Trump has 4.5 million votes over what he needs to win his states.

Those 5 million vote different skews the polls by 3.9% on a national level, but mean absolutely nothing.

The pollsters do not quit polling in a State just because it's in the bag for one candidate or the other, so the national polls are skewed by 3.9% for Clinton. The closer to a tie race means that those battleground States have a higher likelihood of going Trump. If on election day, the polls show a slight Trump lead, he will win the EV handily.

Uhm, no.

Uhm, yep

 

[Pop23]

I find It funny how a statistical guy does not realize that California skews the national polls by 2.6 million votes.

That's 2.6 million votes out of a possible 129 million total votes max, or 1.8% of the entire vote, which has zero implication on the EC.

Factor all of those other Blue State overvotes, deduct the Red State overvotes and the polls are overestimating Clintons lead by 3.9% and the swing states are not yet factored in.

Clinton needs a national lead of 3.9% to compete in the swing states.

At a 2% lead as of today, she loses the majority of those states and blue states start turning red.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find It funny how a statistical guy does not realize that California skews the national polls by 2.6 million votes.

That's 2.6 million votes out of a possible 129 million total votes max, or 1.8% of the entire vote, which has zero implication on the EC.

Factor all of those other Blue State overvotes, deduct the Red State overvotes and the polls are overestimating Clintons lead by 3.9% and the swing states are not yet factored in.

Clinton needs a national lead of 3.9% to compete in the swing states.

At a 2% lead as of today, she loses the majority of those states and blue states start turning red.

NO.

It does not.

In fact, California polls (the aggregate) were off 7.6 points to the RIGHT in 2012.

So, no.

Learn something practical for a change: simple math.

 

[Pop23]

I find It funny how a statistical guy does not realize that California skews the national polls by 2.6 million votes.

That's 2.6 million votes out of a possible 129 million total votes max, or 1.8% of the entire vote, which has zero implication on the EC.

Factor all of those other Blue State overvotes, deduct the Red State overvotes and the polls are overestimating Clintons lead by 3.9% and the swing states are not yet factored in.

Clinton needs a national lead of 3.9% to compete in the swing states.

At a 2% lead as of today, she loses the majority of those states and blue states start turning red.

NO.

It does not.

In fact, California polls (the aggregate) were off 7.6 points to the RIGHT in 2012.

So, no.

Learn something practical for a change: simple math.

Your reply only bolsters the "don't trust the polls" argument.

The national polls reflect the nation. California, New York and Illinois, being such huge landslide wins gives her plenty of additional popular votes, but no additional EV. Tsk, tsk. Wasted votes. In total 9.5 million of em across the traditional Blue States

Trump has some of those as well, but only to the tune of 4.5 million.

3.9% of the polling is, if the polls are to be believed (Right, we love the polls, correct?), are from the population who's votes don't mean a damn thing.

And Hillary leads the "wasted vote" category by 3.9% of the total votes cast in 2012.

Too bad they mean absolutely nothing but a cosmetic victory.

Bank it Danno.

 

[flacaltenn]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses key states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

Consider:

• At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.
• As we get close to the wire Never-Trump Republicans will realize what a drunken crazy arrogant lying clueless clown Hillary is and they'll back Trump.
  
• There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.
  
• Trump voters are much more enthusiastic.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

I'm sure the DATA in the polls is actually meaningful. But the ANALYSIS and REPORTING of them --- not so much. You mentioned Colorado... Heard the latest this morning in one poll.. 39 -- 39 -- Johnson 5 --- Stein 2..

So obviously -- taking the 3rd and 4th OUT for a moment -- the media thinks you can't add. There is 22% MISSING from the analysis of Clinton vs Trump !!!!

So here's the deal. The poll is the "database", the "filter" you use to formulate an observation of that data can produce ANY NUMBER of different observations on that database. One reason is -- the "filter" often involves secondary poll metrics. Like --- the CONVICTION strength of the respondents primary choice.

Now I know from STATE level polling that Johnson is FIRMLY in double digits in Colorado. And if you wanted to "minimize that observation" -- you would apply the poll question of

"How likely is it that you will vote for this candidate" Scale of 1 to 5.. By taking only only Very Likelies and neglecting the Somewhat likelies and below --- you leave a large uncommitted block on the floor and LOWER the apparent support for people choosing Johnson or Stein as their first choice.

It's ALL INTERPRETATION. It's to make the HEADLINE for your poll. And it's NOT likely the ONLY definitive conclusion that could be drawn. It's all about the message and getting attention. And the MEDIA never even BOTHERS to add up the numbers and question these "CONCLUSIONS"..

Relax -- it's all virtual noise... UNLESS you actually READ the methodology and the data. And make YOUR own "observations"...

 

[Pop23]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses key states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

Consider:

• At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.
• As we get close to the wire Never-Trump Republicans will realize what a drunken crazy arrogant lying clueless clown Hillary is and they'll back Trump.
  
• There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.
  
• Trump voters are much more enthusiastic.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

I'm sure the DATA in the polls is actually meaningful. But the ANALYSIS and REPORTING of them --- not so much. You mentioned Colorado... Heard the latest this morning in one poll.. 39 -- 39 -- Johnson 5 --- Stein 2..

So obviously -- taking the 3rd and 4th OUT for a moment -- the media thinks you can't add. There is 22% MISSING from the analysis of Clinton vs Trump !!!!

So here's the deal. The poll is the "database", the "filter" you use to formulate an observation of that data can produce ANY NUMBER of different observations on that database. One reason is -- the "filter" often involves secondary poll metrics. Like --- the CONVICTION strength of the respondents primary choice.

Now I know from STATE level polling that Johnson is FIRMLY in double digits in Colorado. And if you wanted to "minimize that observation" -- you would apply the poll question of

"How likely is it that you will vote for this candidate" Scale of 1 to 5.. By taking only only Very Likelies and neglecting the Somewhat likelies and below --- you leave a large uncommitted block on the floor and LOWER the apparent support for people choosing Johnson or Stein as their first choice.

It's ALL INTERPRETATION. It's to make the HEADLINE for your poll. And it's NOT likely the ONLY definitive conclusion that could be drawn. It's all about the message and getting attention. And the MEDIA never even BOTHERS to add up the numbers and question these "CONCLUSIONS"..

Relax -- it's all virtual noise... UNLESS you actually READ the methodology and the data. And make YOUR own "observations"...

Colorado had a huge Sanders vote. Maybe the most rabid Sanders voters. They will not turn out for Clinton. They are Johnson voters or simply down ballot voters. They alone will give Colorado to trump.

 

[flacaltenn]

The map keeps changing: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

If Hillary loses key states like North Carolina and Colorado she's done for.

Trump is ahead in the latest poll in North Carolina.

Hillary is ahead by only 1% in the latest poll in Colorado.

Consider:

• At this point in elections people usually abandon 3rd party candidates. Gary Johnson is the most important 3rd party candidate in this race and his libertarian voters will probably go for Trump rather than Hillary.
• As we get close to the wire Never-Trump Republicans will realize what a drunken crazy arrogant lying clueless clown Hillary is and they'll back Trump.
  
• There's also the Brexit factor. Trump may outperform his poll numbers. When a cause or candidate is demonized (and the corporate media has demonized Trump incessantly!) voters are shy about expressing support for the cause or candidate.
  
• Trump voters are much more enthusiastic.

I think it will be a close race.

In the end will the people support the corrupt elite as personified by the Clintons who have betrayed the American people again and again? Or will they try someone new?

I'm sure the DATA in the polls is actually meaningful. But the ANALYSIS and REPORTING of them --- not so much. You mentioned Colorado... Heard the latest this morning in one poll.. 39 -- 39 -- Johnson 5 --- Stein 2..

So obviously -- taking the 3rd and 4th OUT for a moment -- the media thinks you can't add. There is 22% MISSING from the analysis of Clinton vs Trump !!!!

So here's the deal. The poll is the "database", the "filter" you use to formulate an observation of that data can produce ANY NUMBER of different observations on that database. One reason is -- the "filter" often involves secondary poll metrics. Like --- the CONVICTION strength of the respondents primary choice.

Now I know from STATE level polling that Johnson is FIRMLY in double digits in Colorado. And if you wanted to "minimize that observation" -- you would apply the poll question of

"How likely is it that you will vote for this candidate" Scale of 1 to 5.. By taking only only Very Likelies and neglecting the Somewhat likelies and below --- you leave a large uncommitted block on the floor and LOWER the apparent support for people choosing Johnson or Stein as their first choice.

It's ALL INTERPRETATION. It's to make the HEADLINE for your poll. And it's NOT likely the ONLY definitive conclusion that could be drawn. It's all about the message and getting attention. And the MEDIA never even BOTHERS to add up the numbers and question these "CONCLUSIONS"..

Relax -- it's all virtual noise... UNLESS you actually READ the methodology and the data. And make YOUR own "observations"...

Colorado had a huge Sanders vote. Maybe the most rabid Sanders voters. They will not turn out for Clinton. They are Johnson voters or simply down ballot voters. They alone will give Colorado to trump.

So much for the headline "Colorado is a dead heat" --- when you look closer. Huh? It's all BullShit. Johnson will get 10 to 12% in that state. And the 2 others can FIGHT for the rest of the MISSING 22%...

Right now --- and especially AFTER this nasty poo-flinging the partisans call an election -- the loyalty to BOTH the Dems and Reps is TANKING. I firmly believe we're just months away from the point where "independents and 3rd parties" will OUTNUMBER the total of BOTH Dem/Rep party loyalists and registrations. You can see that now in the registrations on the runup to the elections. The "brand names" are clawing their way to irrelevance. Which will make POLLING --- pretty damn impossible if you can't determine a "representative" sample for a poll....

 

[flacaltenn]

Just to be clear -- as that pool of "independents" grows and the party faithful shrinks, you can no longer weight a sampling with an equal number of "republicans and democrats" . Or OVER sample one or the other to reflect the normal voting in that district/region.

So if you ATTEMPT to choose your sample from avowed Dems and Reps ONLY --- you will be missing almost 1/2 of the electorate who are not "party animals". This effect alone accounts for the under performance of Johnson/Stein in this election. Because if you select SOLELY on 2 party loyalty -- then you'll likely miss the poll estimate by a large margin..

 

[Thunderbird]

Regarding Gary Johnson - I wonder if he intentionally acts goofy to help out Trump.

 

[Pop23]

Just to be clear -- as that pool of "independents" grows and the party faithful shrinks, you can no longer weight a sampling with an equal number of "republicans and democrats" . Or OVER sample one or the other to reflect the normal voting in that district/region.

So if you ATTEMPT to choose your sample from avowed Dems and Reps ONLY --- you will be missing almost 1/2 of the electorate who are not "party animals". This effect alone accounts for the under performance of Johnson/Stein in this election. Because if you select SOLELY on 2 party loyalty -- then you'll likely miss the poll estimate by a large margin..

I agree. The polls will need to adjust to changing demographics. It will be interesting to see which did best.

 

[flacaltenn]

Regarding Gary Johnson - I wonder if he intentionally acts goofy to help out Trump.

Difference is that Gary came out that day and apologized. That's honesty and humility. Didn't wait for the focus group results to "spin it". And besides -- He DID answer the question. And the LParty has been ABSOLUTELY correct and consistent on MidEast policy for 30 years.

Wanna see Trump mocking a retard? I think you already have. Did HE apologize?

 

[Thunderbird]

Regarding Gary Johnson - I wonder if he intentionally acts goofy to help out Trump.

Difference is that Gary came out that day and apologized. That's honesty and humility. Didn't wait for the focus group results to "spin it". And besides -- He DID answer the question. And the LParty has been ABSOLUTELY correct and consistent on MidEast policy for 30 years.

Wanna see Trump mocking a retard? I think you already have. Did HE apologize?

I'm suggesting Johnson did know what Aleppo is. He may be sabotaging his own candidacy because he recognizes that Hillary is a threat to liberty.

If this is true Johnson is admirable. Sacrificing himself for his country.

 

[Thunderbird]

By the way Trump did not mock a reporter for being disabled.