Started By
Message
re: OT: Anyone think Trump stands a chance?
Posted on 4/6/16 at 11:17 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
Posted on 4/6/16 at 11:17 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
Trump isn't winning Colorado. Your other stuff is plausible, but Colorado will be blue. I'd bet anything on that.
The head-to-head polls in Colorado are showing Trump beating Clinton by 10 or more points.
Sanders also beat Clinton by a huge margin. They don't like Clinton in Colorado at all.
If the polls were closer, like maybe 2-3 points, I'd say you might be right. But when they're 6 points past the margin of error, I don't think she stands a chance.
1
Posted on 4/6/16 at 11:27 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
So youre basing all your numbers off turnout for the primaries?
Uhh, no.
Did you not see me also post the polling numbers for each state?
Now that said, I understand primary voter turnout doesn't usually mean anything, but don't look at the numbers, look at the change from 2008.
In 2008, 35 million Democrats came out and voted in the primaries, and only 21 million Republicans.
This election, the Republicans are on pace for 33 million primary voters, while Democrats are on pace for only 24 million.
That's nearly a complete flip-flop reversal.
That's overwhelmingly significant. Reps are hitting record numbers. If it weren't so drastic of a change, I'd agree it means nothing. But a near reversal has to mean something IMO.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 5:31 am to BeefDawg
Where are you seeing these Clinton vs. Trump Colorado numbers?
I use real clear politics since they aggregate all of the major polls and you can easily compare them to previous elections at this date.
General Election Polling
Unless I'm missing something, (wouldn't be the first time) there aren't any Colorado polls there.
It seems highly unlikely that Hillary could lead nationally by over 10 points but trail in Colorado by 10. Colorado isn't Oklahoma.
I use real clear politics since they aggregate all of the major polls and you can easily compare them to previous elections at this date.
General Election Polling
Unless I'm missing something, (wouldn't be the first time) there aren't any Colorado polls there.
It seems highly unlikely that Hillary could lead nationally by over 10 points but trail in Colorado by 10. Colorado isn't Oklahoma.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:00 am to BeefDawg
quote:
Uh no
Huh?You are obviusly basing it off both.You used primary turnout to boost your arguement on 2 seperate
posts.
I can see using the polling data for individual states although 2 points are well within the margin of error.Dems suck at a lot of things but they're pretty damn good at the science of national elections.They know the exact precincts they have to target in every key battle ground state.Florida in '12 is a perfect example .
Lets hope the Pubs have caught up.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:30 am to Dawg in Beaumont
Type "Colorado" in the search box on your RCP link and scroll down to the Trump vs Clinton line. It pulls up this Quinnipiac poll:
Trump 48 - Clinton 37
Trump 48 - Clinton 37
Posted on 4/7/16 at 11:33 am to RD Dawg
Dude, you specifically asked if I was basing ALL my numbers on voter turnout. The answer is no. I'm using the polls and voter turnout. I even said in my original post that I'm using voter turnout to put some added perspective on the polls. Reading comprehension is good. Try it out some time.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 12:27 pm to BeefDawg
I wouldn't use it all but point taken.
Back to my second point on the post. Dems have this shite down to a science ESPECIALLY in battle groung states.
Pubs better be up to snuff this time around if they want to stand a chance.
Back to my second point on the post. Dems have this shite down to a science ESPECIALLY in battle groung states.
Pubs better be up to snuff this time around if they want to stand a chance.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 3:51 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Type "Colorado" in the search box on your RCP link and scroll down to the Trump vs Clinton line. It pulls up this Quinnipiac poll:
Touche, I missed that Colorado poll. My bad.
I will say that you are cherry picking polls pretty bad here. Real Clear Politics lists four polls between Trump and Clinton in Ohio. Trump loses all of them except one (the oldest one too) and yet you list Trump as +2 in Ohio. The aggregate of those polls is Clinton +4
Same is true in Florida where you list Trump as up by 2, when the average on RCP has Clinton up 2.2
You should either average all of the polls or acknowledge that you're cherry picking the Trump favorable ones (which are generally the oldest of the polls listed on RCP)
I'm not saying Hillary leading makes me happy. I'll most likely be voting for Gary Johnson for President. I just want to deal with reality on reality's terms. There is a reason gambling markets have her as a massive favorite over Trump.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 4:13 pm to RD Dawg
Dems don't have anything down to a science. Obama was able to get record numbers of black voters to the polls. You can guess why. Do you really think they are going to get the same voter turnout when Obama is not the candidate? When the candidate is someone as unlikable and unpopular like Hillary?
Voter turnout is all about voter enthusiasm. I'm not so sure there is going to be a lot of enthusiasm for Hillary.
I'm not saying there will be for Trump either but I think it is a mistake to think that voter turnout for the Dems in 2016 will be anything similar to what it was in 2008 and 2012.
Voter turnout is all about voter enthusiasm. I'm not so sure there is going to be a lot of enthusiasm for Hillary.
I'm not saying there will be for Trump either but I think it is a mistake to think that voter turnout for the Dems in 2016 will be anything similar to what it was in 2008 and 2012.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 7:18 pm to MacDawg
quote:
Dems don't have anything down to a science
Sorry,dead wrong.They were far better in data mining than the Pubs and it wasn't close.I highly doubt you know much about it but it played a huge role in his reelection.
Go ahead and google you might learn something.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 7:27 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
I used the most recent polls or the polls closest to the date of the actual primary done in that state.
The RCP average is flawed since it includes polls before candidates even campaigned in the state. Sometimes polls from over a year ago even.
You need to click on them and check the dates. Some of the ones labeled as March, for instance, were March of 2015.
The RCP average is flawed since it includes polls before candidates even campaigned in the state. Sometimes polls from over a year ago even.
You need to click on them and check the dates. Some of the ones labeled as March, for instance, were March of 2015.
Posted on 4/7/16 at 7:40 pm to BeefDawg
Every poll I will describe or link below is from 2016.
You quote Quinnipiac for Ohio. It's from February. Three other polls on RCP are more recent. All show Clinton leading Trump by 5 or more percent
Ohio
You interestingly switch to Public Policy Polling for Florida. That poll is from February. Three more recent polls on RCP (all from March) show Clinton leading by 7, Clinton leading by 8, and one shows Trump leading by 1.
Florida
You then switch to the NBC Poll for New Hampshire since it is the most friendly to Trump (he only trails by one point). However the other polls from NH show Clinton leading by much more. The RCP aggregate has her up by 7.5
New Hampshire
Anything can happen to change the polls over the next seven months, but to say that Trump is currently polling ahead of Clinton is full on poll denial. Tons of Republicans did that to their detriment in 2008 and 2012. If the election were today, which of course it isn't. He would get completely slaughtered.
In my opinion betting markets are the best source of future predictions. Talking heads and journalists may all have biases, but sportsbooks can't have too much bias because their actual livelihood is on the line. I think these numbers reflect the reality pretty well as it stands today.
Gambling markets on the 2016 election
You quote Quinnipiac for Ohio. It's from February. Three other polls on RCP are more recent. All show Clinton leading Trump by 5 or more percent
Ohio
You interestingly switch to Public Policy Polling for Florida. That poll is from February. Three more recent polls on RCP (all from March) show Clinton leading by 7, Clinton leading by 8, and one shows Trump leading by 1.
Florida
You then switch to the NBC Poll for New Hampshire since it is the most friendly to Trump (he only trails by one point). However the other polls from NH show Clinton leading by much more. The RCP aggregate has her up by 7.5
New Hampshire
Anything can happen to change the polls over the next seven months, but to say that Trump is currently polling ahead of Clinton is full on poll denial. Tons of Republicans did that to their detriment in 2008 and 2012. If the election were today, which of course it isn't. He would get completely slaughtered.
In my opinion betting markets are the best source of future predictions. Talking heads and journalists may all have biases, but sportsbooks can't have too much bias because their actual livelihood is on the line. I think these numbers reflect the reality pretty well as it stands today.
Gambling markets on the 2016 election
This post was edited on 4/7/16 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 4/7/16 at 9:49 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
Does anyone else feel like if Trump is nominated that minority voters are going to come out of the woodworks to vote against him? Beef showed something projecting 24 million dem voters. I get the feeling that if Trump is nominated that number will grow by the millions (even if only 100,000 of them are alive) 
Posted on 4/8/16 at 7:01 am to Porter Osborne Jr
I bet he gets lots of the black vote than a republican has gotten in years. His celebrity status and brand just seems like it would play well vs Hillary.
The whole "yeah...Trumps gonna fix it" will play accros racial barriers.
The whole "yeah...Trumps gonna fix it" will play accros racial barriers.
Posted on 4/8/16 at 12:51 pm to SquatchDawg
If Trump wins the nomination and then pulls ahead of Clinton I expect him to advocate Nuking Canada and England.
The Donald just wants to troll republicans. Being president is much less fun.
The Donald just wants to troll republicans. Being president is much less fun.
Posted on 4/8/16 at 3:49 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
OT: Anyone think Trump stands a chance? by SquatchDawg
I bet he gets lots of the black vote than a republican has gotten in years. His celebrity status and brand just seems like it would play well vs Hillary.
The whole "yeah...Trumps gonna fix it" will play accros racial barriers.
I highly doubt this. Some of Yall are really exaggerating his likeability. Besides some poor uneducated white men, folks dislike him.
Posted on 4/8/16 at 4:18 pm to djsdawg
Then how is he leading Cruz right now? I'm not saying he will win but more than a few people like him.
Posted on 4/8/16 at 5:04 pm to RedFive
The majority of the wacko minority like him. They also liked McCain and Romney, and that didn't do a whole lot of good. Ron and Rand Paul didn't talk enough trash and make dumb enough or simple enough claims to earn the support of the uneducated.
This post was edited on 4/8/16 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 4/8/16 at 5:05 pm to djsdawg
Page 8 of 8
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News