In The Only Poll That Matters: Lower Education Level Tends To Predict Lower Voter Turnout Level

mascale

Gold Member
Feb 22, 2009
6,836
800
130
The Democrats so far have a winner among Republicans who are better educated. Apparently, they have never had a Hillary Clinton campaign to be for, until now(?)! Or anyone could blame Donald Trump and RNC generally. Trump had the famous field of sixteen RNC establishment candidates, trying for the same votes. He generally won against them. Democrats and Republicans alike could be for that. Trump actually won, however, among the lesser likely to vote in the general. Lower educated, voter eligible people. The RNC Establishment split their own highly educated vote. A lot of that vote easily became discouraged. Then there was more after that, yet to happen.

Voter Turnout Demographics - United States Elections Project

Democrats would historically be thought to do better among the more Working Class skilled. Now the very people who likely work daily with emails: Are more likely for Clinton. They will vote. Lower education is not predictive of high voter turnout--and likely not predictive, even of too much attention to any of the campaigns.

The RNC primaries more likely created an entertainment production, which everyone could watch. For the next 90 days, there isn't all that much to win, anymore. Everything is mostly dull and routine. Maybe there will be three debates? People watched the RNC Convention and came away 51% likely to never vote for Donald Trump, the nominee. That doesn't bode well for even down-ticket Republican turnouts, now that bread and butter votes have turned away.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Who was that mascale. . .their whatever(?)! "He's The Lo-o-one White Man! Tune In, and See if he's dead yet!" That is likely actually a better sell than any of the Presidential campaigns!)
 
Wow is this truly far out in left field! Try the following:

The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie

This article with lots and lots of links (which Shrillarybots will ignore) comes up with an amazing bit of information that is not widely being reported anywhere.

NYT projects that 73,272,595 Republicans will vote this fall in the general election.

That jaw-dropping number, 7.2 million more potential votes than Barack Obama carried in 2008 and almost 13 million more than Mitt Romney carried in 2012, is the least result achievable when you turn out THE MONSTER VOTE.

It also points out that poll data relying on obsolete sample methodology is going to be significantly inaccurate.

In other words, what I've been claiming all along about ignoring the polls might just be true.

The article is @ Articles: The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie
 
The operating concept is that the author of the article cited in the longknife poster thread admits to having no polling skills, but is willing to cherry pick polls (Only one, LA Times), and "statistical models," (economic and approval ratings): To claim eternal truth about everything. LA Times poll is really not, for example. It is a seven-day tracking poll of the same people over and over again. That likely tends to limit any concept of the population it is able to characterize. It is not a poll of the population. It is a poll of a tiny sample of people who tend who fit demographics known mainly to the pollsters.

So the concept of too much cornstarch in the cherry pie does not apply to the entire population and generations of polls and pollsters. Even in the primaries, there was only a tiny minority of the GOP for Trump. The problem was all the other candidates not being too well known or liked. We could conclude that they were probably Republicans, just on face value.

Donald Trump is new and stuck. People watching the RNC Convention were likely Republican leaning. 51% of viewers polled will not vote for Donald Trump. Mostly all the other polls show him losing outside the margin of error in the polls. That tends to support the reliability of polling generally, and the generations of polling, generally.

Mostly the polls are not slanted, biased, propaganda.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes mainly want to more episodes of transgender federal marshal of the West, at any rate, even(?)! White Eyes not immune from real entertainment when it happens!)
 
The Democrats so far have a winner among Republicans who are better educated. Apparently, they have never had a Hillary Clinton campaign to be for, until now(?)! Or anyone could blame Donald Trump and RNC generally. Trump had the famous field of sixteen RNC establishment candidates, trying for the same votes. He generally won against them. Democrats and Republicans alike could be for that. Trump actually won, however, among the lesser likely to vote in the general. Lower educated, voter eligible people. The RNC Establishment split their own highly educated vote. A lot of that vote easily became discouraged. Then there was more after that, yet to happen.

Voter Turnout Demographics - United States Elections Project

Democrats would historically be thought to do better among the more Working Class skilled. Now the very people who likely work daily with emails: Are more likely for Clinton. They will vote. Lower education is not predictive of high voter turnout--and likely not predictive, even of too much attention to any of the campaigns.

The RNC primaries more likely created an entertainment production, which everyone could watch. For the next 90 days, there isn't all that much to win, anymore. Everything is mostly dull and routine. Maybe there will be three debates? People watched the RNC Convention and came away 51% likely to never vote for Donald Trump, the nominee. That doesn't bode well for even down-ticket Republican turnouts, now that bread and butter votes have turned away.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Who was that mascale. . .their whatever(?)! "He's The Lo-o-one White Man! Tune In, and See if he's dead yet!" That is likely actually a better sell than any of the Presidential campaigns!)

The educated .. :0) That doesn't bode well for Trump ..

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans
Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

:lol::lol:
 
Hang on to your "scientific polls" when the returns come in the night on November 8.

A lot of us will be laughing in glee as The Donald roundly defeats The Hag.
 

Forum List

Back
Top