Posted on 10/21/2016 7:17:03 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
First the polls will tighten significantly, as all these bogus polling outfits decide to make them more realistic, so they aren't flagrantly wrong.
And second, the Monster Vote comes in and Trump way outperforms even the tigher corrected fake polls on election day. And, presumably, wins. That's Your hypothesis (fueled by Gateway Pundit analysis, as laid out in your posting) in a nutshell. You've posted on it before.
My hypothesis is much simpler: the polls are pretty accurate when averaged, Trump is behind, and if he's still several points behind on election day, he will lose.
Further: because Nate's a smart guy and polls are mostly accurate when averaged: Nate will correctly call both the result and also correctly call all 51 (States + D.C.) races that contribute electoral votes.
In other words in my opinion there is no Monster Vote
.
We've got a simple baseline to test against:
Clinton is six points over Trump in the RCP average of 4-way race polls. Clinton 45.2%, Trump 39.2%
She's ahead a similar amount in the 2-way polls: 48.5% to 42%, a 6.5% Hillary advantage.
That particular number, 6%, is interesting to me. McCain lost by about 7.2% of the popular vote in his race against Obama in 2008. Romney did a little bit better in 2012, losing by 3.9%.
I've been thinking for a while now that Trump's likely outcome is similar to the last two elections, because when you cut through everything said and done: It is what it is
To back this up I will offer a prediction based on this theory, Trump will lose by about the average of McCain and Romney's loss, or 5.5% (pretty close to where he is today). So, only a little tightening will be seen.
The sad truth is that the only Presidential race the GOP has won even a plurality of popular votes in since 1992 was W's re-election, when the USA was at War and Bush was the incumbent.
Demographics are relentlessly against the GOP, it's a browner, more liberal America than even in 1992, a quarter century ago. And even with that, the best predictor of future performance, in elections, is past performance.
It is what it is.
See you on election night, sport!
Debbie Downer.
Because he was a FAKE ringer candidate for the party establishment. Willard was there to assure no Conservative got near the GOP nomination and to make sure Zero got a second term.
God gawd man, we need this data in a table, my eyes and brain hurts.
But he makes a credible analysis. I hope it turns out to be wrong.
Aside:
Bloomberg TV is talking about the Omnibus bill - and saying that everyone (including Ryan) is taking into account the ‘erosion of majorities’ in both the house and senate. The only way to pass it is to turn it into to ‘Godzilla’ spending bill. Heaven help us ...
Fortunately, the enthusiasm for Trump voters is strong, and we are not at all likely to be discouraged by any poll numbers. We're on a mission to save America; to sit this one out is to give up your home. Those are the stakes.
The pollsters get their “models” at the DNC’s Models R Us store, same as the climate changists.
YEP, also telling is their warning about Russia campaigning for Trump - that tells me there's a lot more negative email info about to drop.
I think the main reason behind this long planned, choreographed outrage about Trump and election acceptance, is to give them justification for not accepting Trump’s impending victory. Think about it. Progressive riots, algore2000 times 100. BLM riots in 50 cities.
Trump’s jiu-jitsu move would be to start loudly asking NOW what Hillary’s answer is—will she accept the results if SHE loses? If I’m right, she won’t give a clear answer.
Agreed wholeheartedly. We get the same poll doubters every 4 years. Rasmussen and LA Times are outliers. Trump is 4%-5% behind now and that is due mostly to demographics and the always more organized Democratic get out the vote ground game. They have more money, more backing and more volunteers. I am not expecting any election surprise. This one will be over like the last one when Trump loses Florida. There’s an 85% probability Hillary is our next president.
Rasmussen was apparently one of the most wrong in 2012, having Romney 4 points ahead of where he really was. Apparently they even overestimated how well Repubs would do in the 2010 mid-terms.
I’m not sure if the sale of the firm occurred after 2012 or not though. If it did, it may be under new ownership than it was in 2012.
Credibility and accuracy is not what some of the pollsters' clients want. For example, CNN, ABC, CBS...etc.
Exactly right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.