But the left's darling Nate Silver said it's a dead heat!

(09-26-2016 03:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh I'm saying polls are reliable. And the most reliable are the Clinton internals.

If that were true, Max.. Obama would never have gotten in office in '08.

Clinton internals during that campaign had her up HUGE... and we saw what happened.

Lol. Panic.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Plouffe is spinning big time and I like Plouffe. If the numbers are correct (and I tend to work from the assumption that they are)...Trump as seriously closed the gap and playing better in swing states than states that are out of play (he's underperforming in highly republican states, but who cares he will win those). He could easily win the electoral votes without the popular vote...Hillary is unlikely to do so. I think Hillary will win and I think last night showed trump as the rambling lunatic he is, but I'm not the target and he's seemed to do fine with his voters regardless of his repeated lies and insanity at every slight. Still, the numbers show this as a pretty dead even race going into the debate and I have no reason to doubt them.

(09-27-2016 08:09 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  But the left's darling Nate Silver said it's a dead heat!

Neither side likes it when the numbers go against them so they argue the numbers. No reason to doubt Nate's projections at this point. As always there is a chance the numbers are off but the safest bet is trust the numbers. It was a dead even race heading into debate number 1.

(09-26-2016 03:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What he's saying about the internal polls in Florida is consistent with what I've heard. The Clinton internal pollsters survey 10,000 every

Max, I'm not one of those who takes early voting into account (again, I have always believed, if you're not in the military, it's a bad idea to have it)...

But this seems to dispute the statement above that you say you've heard.

Florida Division of Elections

Quote:Here are the numbers, via the Florida Division of Elections:
2016 General Election

Election Number – 10282 Election Date – 11/08/2016

Republican 881,274 – Democrat 760,003

Now it's up to:
®928,836 (D)797,028 (O)51,955 (No party)359,436 2,137,255 09/27/2016 9:41AM

Unless Hillary got a ton of No-Party affiliation votes (And I really doubt that), it's not looking good for her early in Florida.

Looking at things right now ... Hillary is just barely holding on to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. If she loses any one of them she's toast.

(09-26-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 05:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 05:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If they're so confident... cocky even, why aren't they working on Congress and some coat-tails? I mean, she may well win in a run-away... but you'd never know it by the campaign's actions.

Plenty of resources have been diverted to downballot races, incl. millions raised. The more popular surrogates have been appearing with candidates like Hassan and Teachout.

Diverted? Not a dime.

From the AP
Clinton’s campaign had its most expensive month to date in August, eclipsing its previous monthly high by more than $12 million. And combined, Clinton and the national Democratic Party paid out $78 million in August, while Trump and the Republican National Committee spent about $47 million.

I haven't seen any ads in California... a state that Hillary has wrapped up, lobbying for ANY candidates.

Not one.

Sure, the DNC is spending money downstream, but they're still spending vastly more than Republicans, on an election that they supposedly have all wrapped up?

When Hillary starts stumping with Governors and Senators in non-battle ground states, THEN we can talk about 'diverting'. I'm betting she spends election day in a battle ground state.

And she's raising that money for the DNC, and state parties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hill...2de09515d9

Quote:The fundraising haul came from the combined efforts of Clinton’s official campaign committee and two joint fundraising committees, Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary Action Fund. The latter two raise money for the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party committees. The Clinton campaign took in $62 million while $81 million was directed to the Democratic National Committee and various state parties.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/cl...016-226553

Quote:Of the nearly $90 million raised, Clinton's campaign said around $63 million went to the campaign directly, while $26 million was raised for the Democratic National Committee and various state parties.

As for stumping with them, I don't know if you're aware but the fact is she's not the most popular candidate. She got killed by Bernie in New Hampshire, for instance, and so Bernie has been doing the stumping up there. Elizabeth Warren is stumping in OH and many other states, Joe Biden has been in PA. California's EVs are in the bag and it doesn't have any senate or governor races that demand attention right now (both candidates on the ballot are Dems).

(09-26-2016 06:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 05:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 04:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  We have IL getting too close for comfort.

is +6 in IL that funny to you?

Your taking that poll at face value is funny. Emerson released a Wisconsin poll at the same time that had Hillary up by more. The idea that Wisconsin is more blue than Illinois is crazy.

(09-27-2016 09:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Looking at things right now ... Hillary is just barely holding on to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. If she loses any one of them she's toast.

I am predicting Michigan, but history is against the Republicans. A Republican hasnt won the state since 1988.

(09-27-2016 08:00 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 03:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  David Plouffe does not have an official role in this campaign, but most of the Clinton data people are people with whom he worked on behalf of Obama, he has regular contact with them, and on his own he remains one of the smartest people about election data around.

What he's saying about the internal polls in Florida is consistent with what I've heard. The Clinton internal pollsters survey 10,000 every day while the typical poll does like 700-800, so they have a damn good idea on the state of the race. And they're confident, cocky even.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...d96dd04b44

Quote:THE PLUM LINE: You have said that public polls are garbage — Jim Messina said the same in a recent Political Wire podcast — and that everything is about the composition of the electorate at this point. Can you expand on that?

DAVID PLOUFFE: Some polls closely capture where the race stands. But they’re very incomplete. The Clinton campaign is doing large samples for modeling surveys of everybody on the voter file. So you have a very good understanding of how you believe 100 percent of the electorate will be allocated on election day.

When you look at how 100 percent of the vote is likely to be allocated in Florida, I get very optimistic….I can get Donald Trump to within two or three in Pennsylvania, but I can’t get him to a win number. The same is true in Virginia and Colorado. I know everybody goes crazy about the latest Cheetos poll, but I feel very confident about both New Hampshire and Florida. So that puts her over 300 [in the electoral college]. Trump has to pull off a miracle in the electoral college.

FINISH HIM!!!!

Anyone who has taken a statistics course knows you only need roughly 500 random people to create a random poll with a margin of error of 3%. So it doesn't matter whether you interview 500 or 10000 the polls will be similar.

The number of people you need to create a 95% confidence interval (ie MOE) varies depending on the broader population you're polling. 500 people is a lot better in a New Hampshire poll than a national poll because you're talking 1 million vs 300 million. Second, when people commonly say there's a 3% MOE they're talking about a 95% confidence interval per candidate. It's really not all that accurate, and a 10,000 person sample is 20x as accurate as one poll of 500 people. To say there's no difference between interviewing 500 or 10,000 tells me you slept through most of your stats class.

(09-27-2016 08:29 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 03:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh I'm saying polls are reliable. And the most reliable are the Clinton internals.

If that were true, Max.. Obama would never have gotten in office in '08.

Clinton internals during that campaign had her up HUGE... and we saw what happened.

You realize she actually won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries right? Obama outmaneuvered her in caucuses and delegate math because Mark Penn dropped the ball.

(09-27-2016 08:44 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:09 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  But the left's darling Nate Silver said it's a dead heat!

Neither side likes it when the numbers go against them so they argue the numbers. No reason to doubt Nate's projections at this point. As always there is a chance the numbers are off but the safest bet is trust the numbers. It was a dead even race heading into debate number 1.

Internal polls are better quality than public polls. I like Nate a lot, but he had access to Obama's internals the last two cycles to help him with his predictions.

(09-27-2016 09:04 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 03:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What he's saying about the internal polls in Florida is consistent with what I've heard. The Clinton internal pollsters survey 10,000 every

Max, I'm not one of those who takes early voting into account (again, I have always believed, if you're not in the military, it's a bad idea to have it)...

But this seems to dispute the statement above that you say you've heard.

Florida Division of Elections

Quote:Here are the numbers, via the Florida Division of Elections:
2016 General Election

Election Number – 10282 Election Date – 11/08/2016

Republican 881,274 – Democrat 760,003

Now it's up to:
®928,836 (D)797,028 (O)51,955 (No party)359,436 2,137,255 09/27/2016 9:41AM

Unless Hillary got a ton of No-Party affiliation votes (And I really doubt that), it's not looking good for her early in Florida.

I agree that's not good for her, and I attribute his early vote banking lead to enthusiasm (so, his voters were more eager to cast votes than hers, who will need to be dragged by the ground game to the polls). I doubt he'll keep up that pace especially considering internals but we'll see I guess.

Donald leading in Electoral College.....

(09-27-2016 09:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:04 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 03:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What he's saying about the internal polls in Florida is consistent with what I've heard. The Clinton internal pollsters survey 10,000 every

Max, I'm not one of those who takes early voting into account (again, I have always believed, if you're not in the military, it's a bad idea to have it)...

But this seems to dispute the statement above that you say you've heard.

Florida Division of Elections

Quote:Here are the numbers, via the Florida Division of Elections:
2016 General Election

Election Number – 10282 Election Date – 11/08/2016

Republican 881,274 – Democrat 760,003

Now it's up to:
®928,836 (D)797,028 (O)51,955 (No party)359,436 2,137,255 09/27/2016 9:41AM

Unless Hillary got a ton of No-Party affiliation votes (And I really doubt that), it's not looking good for her early in Florida.

I agree that's not good for her, and I attribute his early vote banking lead to enthusiasm (so, his voters were more eager to cast votes than hers, who will need to be dragged by the ground game to the polls). I doubt he'll keep up that pace especially considering internals but we'll see I guess.

but I thought his voters were more of the white old men with landlines...

(09-27-2016 09:46 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Donald leading in Electoral College.....

I am still sticking with my original prediction...

(09-27-2016 09:47 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:04 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 03:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What he's saying about the internal polls in Florida is consistent with what I've heard. The Clinton internal pollsters survey 10,000 every

Max, I'm not one of those who takes early voting into account (again, I have always believed, if you're not in the military, it's a bad idea to have it)...

But this seems to dispute the statement above that you say you've heard.

Florida Division of Elections

Quote:Here are the numbers, via the Florida Division of Elections:
2016 General Election

Election Number – 10282 Election Date – 11/08/2016

Republican 881,274 – Democrat 760,003

Now it's up to:
®928,836 (D)797,028 (O)51,955 (No party)359,436 2,137,255 09/27/2016 9:41AM

Unless Hillary got a ton of No-Party affiliation votes (And I really doubt that), it's not looking good for her early in Florida.

I agree that's not good for her, and I attribute his early vote banking lead to enthusiasm (so, his voters were more eager to cast votes than hers, who will need to be dragged by the ground game to the polls). I doubt he'll keep up that pace especially considering internals but we'll see I guess.

but I thought his voters were more of the white old men with landlines...

They are.

(09-27-2016 09:48 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:46 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Donald leading in Electoral College.....

I am still sticking with my original prediction...

I find a lot to disagree with there. My prediction:



I would give Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump as well, but I anticipate poll shenanigans in Philly and Detroit going on late into the evening (polling stations kept open, etc) to give Hillary a < 1% win in both states.

lol, the best part of this election so far is watching the Dems squirm throughout when they thought from the beginning the election was in the bag.