Will Hillary's landslide victory over Trump be the biggest in modern times?

[MongGrel]

I will be certainly glad to be proven wrong but I still hate the idea of counting chickens before they are hatched. Heck, even the knowledgeable ATPN contributors plan on skipping the vote because they believe Hillary has it in bag.

No they aren't.

 

[DrDoug]

For all of his cheerfulness at having won the last debate, WaPo has an article up titled: Donald Trump is in a funk: Bitter, hoarse and pondering, ‘If I lose. . .’

Mighty optimistic guy!

 

[Commodus]

Trump has created the worst possible conditions for the election: not only does it look like Clinton is very likely to win, but people are so worried that Trump might win that they're still motivated to vote against him. He can't count on a Brexit-style win through complacency.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because Trump is such an authoritarian (in addition to an incompetent buffoon), I certainly hope that you're right, but I would caution against overconfidence. The only poll that matters is the one on November 8th.

Let's just say I have faith in my fellow Americans. Trump's candidacy has been highly entertaining but the people in this country just aren't that crazy.

Only one person will win the election and only one of the candidates is an adult in full control of their faculties. That's becoming increasingly obvious to everybody who has full control of their own faculties. It's a shame that not everybody does.

 

[Jhhnn]

For all of his cheerfulness at having won the last debate, WaPo has an article up titled: Donald Trump is in a funk: Bitter, hoarse and pondering, ‘If I lose. . .’

Mighty optimistic guy!

He knows he's beat, that he blew it. He may never really understand why.

 

[DrDoug]

Even Trump knows that his name isn't worth shit now...lol! Scion Hotels is supposed to be a nod to the yugeness of Trump? I thought it was a crappy little car and I bet the hotel isn't any better.

Amidst reports that occupancy rates at Trump Hotels have slipped this election season, the company has announced that new brand hotels will no longer bear the Trump name.

The newest line of luxury hotels, geared towards millennials, will be called Scion, the company said.

“We wanted a name that would be a nod to the Trump family and to the tremendous success it has had with its businesses, including Trump Hotels, while allowing for a clear distinction between our luxury and lifestyle brands,” Trump Hotels CEO Eric Danziger said in a statement.

Although Trump Hotels has said the new name has nothing to do with the eponymous businessman’s presidential campaign, empty rooms at the hotels have caused officials “to reduce rates during the peak season," according to New York Magazine.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Pictures of Trump's boys being boys. Finding the most beautiful creatures in Creation and killing them. Lion, Elephant. Giraffe........
https://www.google.com/search?q=eri...OJwe7PAhWJej4KHTOZDusQsAQIIg&biw=1280&bih=627

 

[Jhhnn]

Even Trump knows that his name isn't worth shit now...lol! Scion Hotels is supposed to be a nod to the yugeness of Trump? I thought it was a crappy little car and I bet the hotel isn't any better.

My Scion xB is the best kid hauler, grocery getter & bopping around town car I've ever owned, a stone reliable workhorse. Not Trumpish in the slightest.

 

[sontakke]

I don't know. Why don't you link to the article you are talking about?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN12L2T0

Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furor over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

Clinton, the Democratic former secretary of state, led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 poll, a 4-point lead, with the Nov. 8 election fast approaching. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week.

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN12L2T0

Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furor over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

Clinton, the Democratic former secretary of state, led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 poll, a 4-point lead, with the Nov. 8 election fast approaching. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week.

YMMV.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Everyone vote, or you should not be posting in P&N IMHO.

 

[sdifox]

I just hope the result is clear and not something so close that will trigger recount. USA doesn't need that shit. Actually, the world doesn't need that either.

 

[sdifox]

YMMV.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Everyone vote, iregardless of who for.

that is not a word.

 

[K1052]

Even Trump knows that his name isn't worth shit now...lol! Scion Hotels is supposed to be a nod to the yugeness of Trump? I thought it was a crappy little car and I bet the hotel isn't any better.

A bid to replicate SoHo house is downright comical to begin with, though the naming shift is a testament to how much damage he has done to his personal brand. Also just peeked in on DC hotel rates...not looking good for the project there.

 

[jman19]

Pictures of Trump's boys being boys. Finding the most beautiful creatures in Creation and killing them. Lion, Elephant. Giraffe........
https://www.google.com/search?q=eri...OJwe7PAhWJej4KHTOZDusQsAQIIg&biw=1280&bih=627

Disgusting

 

[skyking]

that is not a word.

yes it is. the root is 'irrigation' and it means watering all plants possible, without regard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pictures of Trump's boys being boys. Finding the most beautiful creatures in Creation and killing them. Lion, Elephant. Giraffe........
https://www.google.com/search?q=eri...OJwe7PAhWJej4KHTOZDusQsAQIIg&biw=1280&bih=627

Meh. Hunting is a necessary part of modern wildlife management, like it or not. Rich people like the Trump boys pay a small fortune for African govts to let them do the job. They get to act all manly & the govts get the cash.

 

[MongGrel]

that is not a word.

And that is not really a sentence.

You're actually swooping in like a grammar Nazi over one typo ?

Ni

 

[shortylickens]

No.

We're going to find out theres a hell of a lot of secret Trump supporters and they wont say anything to anyone if he loses. If he magically wins, you're gonna see a ton of loudmouthed assholes bragging about how they saved America.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I must be one of Trump's "bad hombres" since I early voted via absentee ballot for Hillary. Anyway I think back to the 08 election when Obama won and the exit polls where republicans declared their support for McCain yet we see what happened. People said one thing during the interview but did the opposite in the voting booth. Nevertheless, we all know what day the line in the sand is on which SNL declared as being November 35th so don't forget to vote.

 

[sdifox]

yes it is. the root is 'irrigation' and it means watering all plants possible, without regard.

No that is California.

 

[zinfamous]

Pictures of Trump's boys being boys. Finding the most beautiful creatures in Creation and killing them. Lion, Elephant. Giraffe........
https://www.google.com/search?q=eri...OJwe7PAhWJej4KHTOZDusQsAQIIg&biw=1280&bih=627

at least there is some lol buried in that montage of pointless murder

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/eric-trump-poses-carcass-safari-guide-shot-african-53589

 

[dullard]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN12L2T0

Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furor over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

Do you understand anything about statistics? They don't poll every single voter, so there is error in the poll results: (1) systematic error if they make mistakes in the poll or poll analysis and (2) random error since they may randomly get a few more Clinton voters or a few more Trump voters in any randomly selected group. If you look at the same poll over and over again, you basically can see the random error (2) portion. Reuters/Ipsos generally has a +-3.3% random error in their polls, per candidate.

So, here are the Reuters/Ipsos polls for Clinton since August: 44% (newest), 43%, 44%, 44%, 44%, 40%, 39%, 40%, 40%, 42%, 41%, 42%, 43% (oldest). Notice how they are basically steady but are bumping up and down a bit? That is the random error. Sometimes the poll will be randomly a bit higher and sometimes it will be randomly a bit lower. But she started at about 43% and ended at about 43% over those three months. From the data in the Reuter's poll, Clinton didn't actually move at all over that time. Clinton was at 42+-3% the whole time.

What about Trump? In the same polls: 40% (newest), 39%, 37%, 37%, 38%, 39%, 39%, 38%, 39%, 35%, 36%, 36%, 39% (oldest). Again, Trump was pretty steady, starting about 39% and ending about 39%. From the data in the Reuter's poll, Trump didn't actually move at all over that time. Trump was at 38+-3% the whole time.

So, the TRUE conclusion is that they didn't move during that whole three month period. Clinton has had a true steady ~4% lead in the Reuter's poll. But instead, the terrible media will report it as huge gains for Trump and Clinton at various points in that poll over the three months. That is because the media needs to sell you more media. The media will say they Clinton was way ahead on the Aug 24 poll, they were tied on the Sept 19 poll, Clinton was way ahead on the Sept 26 poll, only to lose most of her lead on the Oct 20 poll. No, Clinton didn't move at all (from what we can see in that data). Instead, Clinton and Trump were basically steady and the media wanted to sell more articles to you and advertisers.

You need to stop reading the polls and start looking at the poll numbers.

 

[IronWing]

that is not a word.

Yes it is. When Android evangelists try to win over Apple buyers through "logic" and "reasons", the Apple fans will still buy Apple products iregardless.

 

[werepossum]

Your electoral-vote.com source doesn't seem to say what you think it does. From your quote:

"However, normalizing for political affiliation is very controversial."

And nothing said afterward seems to indicate weighting by political affiliation (i.e. party ID) is done with any regularity at all, unless it's an extreme variance, such as the 60%-40% Dem-results-to-actual-registration ratio example they gave.

Of course it's very controversial, because the pollster has to guess at the actual moment in time AND usually among likely voters. News flash: "Controversial" says nothing about regularity of occurrence.

From my link:
Do pollsters present the actual numbers observed?

Virtually never. All pollsters have a demographic model of the population and want their sample to conform to it. With only 500 people in a poll, there might not be enough single, young, black, Republican, women, or too many married, older, white, Democratic, men. Statistical techniques are used to correct for these deficiencies. Some parameters, such as the fraction of voters in a state who are women are well known and not controversial. However, normalizing for political affiliation is very controversial. If a pollster decides that, say, 60% of the voters in some state are Republicans and 40% are Democrats, then, even if a poll says the Democrat and Republican are tied at 500 votes each in the sample, he will count the 500 Republicans sampled as 600 and the 500 Democrats sampled as 400 and conclude the Republican is ahead, contradicting the raw data. Some pollsters determine the party affiliations based on the exit polls of the previous election, and some use long running means of their own polling data.​

Note two things. First, the "virtually never" refers to the likelihood of a pollster presenting only raw data, not to the likelihood of a pollster adjusting for sampling error by party. Second, the article presents two alternate methods of how weighting by party affiliation may be done, illustrating why it is controversial. Note again that there is no mention of this being very rarely done. To the contrary - there would be little point in wasting so many lines on how something that is very rarely done might be done.

I will concede this though: the number of pollsters weighting by party is clearly on the decrease. Reading this article http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/tag/weighting-by-party/
we see

However, not all pollsters weight their sample by party. That is, if 38% of registered voters in the U.S. are Democrats, many pollsters will not try to weight their sample to get the same proportion of Democrats. Instead, they believe that by weighting by other demographics, the party percentages should come out pretty close to the actual totals in the population as a whole. And they worry that if they try to fix the party weight at a particular percentage, they may skew results, particularly if party support seems to be very volatile. In other words, when it comes to partisan identification, some pollsters let the sample speak for itself, rather than impose their own weight to insure a particular percentage of party members. Historically, CBS has done this; in the last CBS/NYTimes poll taken a month ago, CBS did NOT weight by party. That poll had Obama up 45-42%, with 6% undecided (and 7% “other”).

However, the latest CBS poll DID weight by party. They averaged the number of Democrats who were polled in the three previous CBS/NYTimes poll, and made sure that today’s poll included that same average number of Democrats (and Republicans and independents). Just to give you an idea of what this means, let me provide the “raw” and weighted figures for both initial sample and the smaller sample of registered voters.

I can’t paste the actual table on this blog (I can send the actual table by email if you are interested), but looking at all 1133 respondents – the “raw” initial sample – we see that 28.8% of them are Republicans. This total is almost identical to their weighted sample of voters; when they “weight” the raw sample, they reduce the number of Republicans by only 4, to 28.4% of their sample.

Looking only at the 1004 registered voters, we see that the initial raw sample includes 30.4% Republicans, but this is increased to 31.6% Republicans in the weighted sample of registered voters. Similarly, looking only at registered voters, the percent of Democrats in the raw sample versus final weighted sample doesn’t change much at all – 40% in the unweighted sample versus 40.6% in the weighted sample. The biggest difference is a reduction in independents among the registered voters, from 29.6% in the “raw” sample versus 27.8% in the weighted sample of registered voters.

I show you these numbers to give you an idea of what it means to weight by party. But why does it matter? Compare the CBS weighting to what Rasmussen calculates when they weight by party.

Note that Rasmussen’s tracking polling has always weighted by party, using a “dynamic” system in which they adjust the weight assigned to each party based on the trends revealed by previous survey. In their latest national tracking poll, they weighted their poll to include 38.7% Democrats, 33.6% Republicans, and 27.7% unaffiliated. (That’s a change from the weights they used in their tracking polls for the first thirteen days of September, when the targets were 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated.)

We see, then, that Rasmussen’s weights include a higher proportion of Republicans than does the CBS/NYTimes poll of registered voters. The gap between Democrats and Republicans in the CBS weighted poll of registered voters is 9%. For Rasmussen it is only 5.1%. Given the difference, it is perhaps not surprising that Rasmussen has the race a dead heat, while CBS gives Obama a 4% lead. Which is more accurate? I have no idea. And, in all candor, neither do the pollsters. But both CBS and Rasmussen recognize that the partisan distribution of voters is a changing target, and to their credit they are trying to make sure their samples reflect these changes.

The important point, however, is that the assumptions they make regarding the likely distribution of partisan identification among likely and registered voters has a big impact on the numbers they report. And it means we need to be careful not to impute too much importance to small changes in these polls, or differences across polls that may say more about the pollsters’ decisions on how to weight by party than it does about any changes in voters political preferences.

A final thought: in recent elections, trends in partisan affiliation among survey respondents have been a very good predictor as to who won the election; in 2004, the proportion of people calling themselves Republicans in the raw sample data went up in the latter half of the campaign, presaging the Bush victory. That may be a more important number than any of the actually reported results. I will keep an eye on this figure and report the trends later in the campaign.

As this was identified as a trend in 2008, and has probably gotten more strongly so, it does make sense that fewer pollsters would weight directly by party. Instead, they are weighting by demographics under the assumption that this is a more accurate result of balancing Dems and Pubbies than simply asking. Note though that the pollsters are still weighting by party, just by party as they calculate it rather than as pollees answer. To quote again:

But both CBS and Rasmussen recognize that the partisan distribution of voters is a changing target, and to their credit they are trying to make sure their samples reflect these changes.

 

[Mai72]

I live in South Jersey. In my area, many people are voting for Trump. His rallies are filled with supporters. It's time for a change?

And CNN? The Clinton National Network. C'mon man.