|
|
Post by TAMPATIDE on Jun 24, 2020 12:34:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 24, 2020 12:49:33 GMT -8
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!
We must be ever vigilant. This is all part of Putin's plan to lull Democrats into complacency and overconfidence.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 24, 2020 12:50:51 GMT -8
Would this be the biggest comeback in history if Trump pulls it off?
|
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 24, 2020 13:00:58 GMT -8
This goes along with what I have been saying about classifiers like the Cook Report. They are slow to change from pre-set predictions. The Economist (which I think is British) seems to be aggressive on going with recent polling.
Cook Reports
Lean Republican
Georgia
Iowa
Ohio
Texas
Toss up
Arizona
Florida
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Economist
"Likely" Republican - not the same usage as "lean" and "likely" by others
Iowa
Texas
"Uncertain"
Arizona
Georgia
North Carolina
Ohio
"Likely" Democrat
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 24, 2020 19:45:10 GMT -8
This goes along with what I have been saying about classifiers like the Cook Report. They are slow to change from pre-set predictions. The Economist (which I think is British) seems to be aggressive on going with recent polling. How did they perform in the past elections? IRRC, someone on BZOF posted the Cook Report on a regular basis in the months leading up to the 2004 election. It pained a pretty rosy picture for John Kerry, but we all know what happened. Is anyone following the Princeton Election Consortium? Sam Wong really embarrassed himself in 2016. He famously said if Trump won more than 240 electoral votes, he'd eat a bug. Didn't think he'd ever show his face but he is at it again. He is now predicting a Democrat takeover of the Senate by 53-47. Curb your enthusiasm there, Sam. You are not supposed to be a cheerleader. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 24, 2020 20:24:22 GMT -8
trustNate Silver. Ignore everyone else. Although The Economist guy seems pretty smart.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 24, 2020 20:34:06 GMT -8
trustNate Silver. Ignore everyone else. Although The Economist guy seems pretty smart. Someone might have explained this, so excuse me for asking. I realize that all his battleground state polling numbers were within the margin of error, but weren't they all in Trump's favor? That has to be more than a coincidence? That is like getting the heads for all 10 coin flips. That is why I think "shy" Trump voters are real. There may be even more this time around as Trump's popularity continues to tank, driving more to be coy about their support for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 25, 2020 6:20:03 GMT -8
Someone might have explained this, so excuse me for asking. I realize that all his battleground state polling numbers were within the margin of error, but weren't they all in Trump's favor? That has to be more than a coincidence? That is like getting the heads for all 10 coin flips. That is why I think "shy" Trump voters are real. There may be even more this time around as Trump's popularity continues to tank, driving more to be coy about their support for him. I think there are three main factors you need to consider regarding how the 2016 battleground polls and how this time might be different. - There were a record number of undecided voters in the last two weeks of the election (15%) and they broke heavily for trump. This year, over four months from the election, there are far fewer undecided voters; as little as 5%.
- Polls in 2016 under sampled whites without a college degree and didn't adjust for that in their models. Their impact in the race wasn't the same in all states, but it was decisive in some of them.
- I can't find the numbers right now, but I believe the percentage of white voters to non-white voters increased slightly, reversing a long standing trend, probably because black voter turnout declined significantly for the first time this century.
There's no real evidence for the existence of "shy trump voters". The very concept is based on the idea the polls were wrong, and shy trump voters were the reason why. But if the polls weren't "wrong", then shy trump voters can't be the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 25, 2020 6:51:37 GMT -8
trustNate Silver. Ignore everyone else. Although The Economist guy seems pretty smart. Someone might have explained this, so excuse me for asking. I realize that all his battleground state polling numbers were within the margin of error, but weren't they all in Trump's favor? That has to be more than a coincidence? That is like getting the heads for all 10 coin flips. That is why I think "shy" Trump voters are real. There may be even more this time around as Trump's popularity continues to tank, driving more to be coy about their support for him. Silver gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Trump wasn't the favorite, but a 30% chance is real. That is bigger than the odds of hitting a flush on the river (19%), and that happens all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 25, 2020 9:09:44 GMT -8
trustNate Silver. Ignore everyone else. Although The Economist guy seems pretty smart. Someone might have explained this, so excuse me for asking. I realize that all his battleground state polling numbers were within the margin of error, but weren't they all in Trump's favor? That has to be more than a coincidence? That is like getting the heads for all 10 coin flips. That is why I think "shy" Trump voters are real. There may be even more this time around as Trump's popularity continues to tank, driving more to be coy about their support for him. Here is the actual result minus the 538 forecast in 2016 for key states: Iowa T + 6.5% Ohio T + 6.2% Wisconsin T + 6.1% Maine T + 4.5% Michigan T + 4.4% North Carolina T + 4.4% Penn. T + 4.4% Minnesota T + 4.3% median New Hampshire T + 3.2% median Florida T + 1.8% Arizona T + 1.1% Georgia T + 1.1 % Texas T + 0.5% Virginia T + 0.2% Nevada C + 0.3% Colorado C + 0.5% The national error in the popular vote forecast was Trump did 1.5% better than the 538 forecast, which is a historically typical error magnitude, not an outlier. It was that "Shy Trump voter" belt from Iowa to Maine (+ North Carolina) that was such a big thing in 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 25, 2020 9:38:00 GMT -8
Trump voters don't seem that shy.
Honestly, I think it was the voters who didn't show up in 2016 who made the difference
|
|
