Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[Wrong Element]

I read the results of the most recent Monmouth poll in Ohio and it prompts me to say something here about polling in general. The raw vote in that random poll showed Trump ahead by two. The pollster weighted the results, which is something virtually all pollsters do, and announced Clinton is ahead by four. The pollster may be right about that, but the pollster may also be wrong. It's really nothing more than a guess. Perhaps an informed guess, but still a guess. I suppose the pollster thought it was a bad sample. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Nobody really knows.

I still like the methodology of the USC/LA Times poll. It's basically the same sample over and over again. Good or bad. And nobody knows whether it's a good sample or a bad one, at this point.

The main reason a pollster would do that is that if you take polls with small sample sizes -- and the Monmouth poll is fairly small, just 400 people -- you're not always going to get a representative sample every time. The idea of the weighting is to avoid wild swings that aren't measuring real changes in public opinion, but rather a fluke with the sample.

So a pollster might say, prior to doing any polls for the presidential race, "We're saying that the electorate is 1/3 Democratic, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 independent," and amend their raw data accordingly, since the chance you're going to get that exact breakdown in a poll of 400 people is not good. They might be wrong about the makeup of the electorate -- which is how Gallup got into so much trouble four years ago -- but it's obviously in their interest to get it right.

Looking at the raw data from the Monmouth poll, they obviously felt they had too few Democrats and too many Republicans in their sample (the number of independents was pretty close to what they are aiming for).

Again, maybe they're just wrong about how many Ds and Rs there are in Ohio, in which case they will look pretty stupid in three months. But the 4-point margin for Clinton is more in line with the other poll of Ohio that came out today, the CBS News poll that showed Hillary up 6.

 

[phrodeau]

RealClearPolitics has just updated their electoral map prediction, and they give Hillary Clinton 272 votes. Donald Trump can take every swing state, and he'd still lose.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[toubab]

The main reason a pollster would do that is that if you take polls with small sample sizes -- and the Monmouth poll is fairly small, just 400 people -- you're not always going to get a representative sample every time. The idea of the weighting is to avoid wild swings that aren't measuring real changes in public opinion, but rather a fluke with the sample.

So a pollster might say, prior to doing any polls for the presidential race, "We're saying that the electorate is 1/3 Democratic, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 independent," and amend their raw data accordingly, since the chance you're going to get that exact breakdown in a poll of 400 people is not good. They might be wrong about the makeup of the electorate -- which is how Gallup got into so much trouble four years ago -- but it's obviously in their interest to get it right.

Looking at the raw data from the Monmouth poll, they obviously felt they had too few Democrats and too many Republicans in their sample (the number of independents was pretty close to what they are aiming for).

Again, maybe they're just wrong about how many Ds and Rs there are in Ohio, in which case they will look pretty stupid in three months. But the 4-point margin for Clinton is more in line with the other poll of Ohio that came out today, the CBS News poll that showed Hillary up 6.

Here's an example of a newcomer to the polling game, happens to be Canadian, doing a poll in Pennsylvania that seems pretty legitimately done, as these things go, and it shows Trump in front by five. It's impossible to know, at this point, if this poll is accurate or not.

http://www.projectexecution.consulting/cepexpoll/

 

[patient1]

Nate Silver's current polls-plus forecast is Hillary 314.7 , Trump 223.0. Johnson 0.2

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election#plus

 

[toubab]

Nate Silver's current polls-plus forecast is Hillary 314.7 , Trump 223.0. Johnson 0.2

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election#plus

It's hard to disregard the preponderance of evidence that Clinton is presently ahead in this race.

 

[neci]

i want his finances hacked and laid out on a toilet for all to see.

 

[sr71plt]

i want his finances hacked and laid out on a toilet for all to see.

Well, of course, it's only Clinton and the Dems being hacked and publicized. Hmmmm.

 

[neci]

Well, of course, it's only Clinton and the Dems being hacked and publicized. Hmmmm.

fair game is fair game.

they already set the terms.

 

[neci]

*note. i don't do any of that shit.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 44.2

Trump 44.0


Trump had an even worse day yesterday than the day before, and Clinton had an even better day than the day before. She retakes the lead.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, of course, it's only Clinton and the Dems being hacked and publicized. Hmmmm.

Might be too much to ask of Hillary AND the DNC but maybe....just maybe....

they should think about adulting for just a second and SECURE THEIR SHIT!!.
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/740deaf11f1bbe9aac052940682c0364c1166e5869dd8077df230a3dd01a1856_1.jpg

If they did that they wouldn't have these fuckin' problems now would they??
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZCNGaafnAGk/hqdefault.jpg

Someone needs to enact some corrective physical training on the DNC...

EXERCISE!!!!
http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/fe787db83e0f5c17e392f49cdeec686106b4e6d3_m.gif

So that the DNC will enact some corrective training on the Clintons.
https://media.giphy.com/media/nIfRyADtcF6KI/giphy.gif

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Some points to consider from Victor Davis Hansen:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/439256/print

 

[Adre]

RealClearPolitics has just updated their electoral map prediction, and they give Hillary Clinton 272 votes. Donald Trump can take every swing state, and he'd still lose.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

It sure looks like come November he's back to selling Chinese made ties.

 

[Wrong Element]

I will say this for Trump: it takes balls for someone with two divorces in his past and an admitted track record of infidelity to bemoan "broken homes" in the black community.

Nate Silver's current polls-plus forecast is Hillary 314.7 , Trump 223.0. Johnson 0.2

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election#plus

Their big changes the last few days have been moving Georgia and Arizona back into the Trump column. The problem he has is that there aren't any other larger states that are all that tight at the moment.


This is Silver on the subject of why some of the national polls have gotten marginally more favorable for Trump, but the state-by-state polls have not followed suit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/

 

[ryan8558]

First, Obama and Hillary don't evolve. I'd love if you found someone who actually believes they changed their opinions. The only question is what is the lie? If I had to hazard a guess Hillary is anti-gay but followed her party and the nation and Obama honestly gave no shits about the subject but when the nation ran over and screamed "We did it Mr. Obama! We did it!" He replied. "Uh. . . I got Osama a few. . .what are all the rainbows. Oh yes Suzy I love the fa. . homo. . . .WOO PARTY REMEMBER ME"

Second, it is always good when a leader comes around to my way of thinking.

Third, Trump doesn't seem (as of this exact moment) to know what his plan is. If this weren't a core issue of his it would be excusable. I mean his plan for Obamacare seems to be he wants his name on it and some other tweaks. He could about face on that and nobody would notice.

yes, David Duke said that too.

 

[toubab]

Some points to consider from Victor Davis Hansen:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/439256/print

Hard to believe the country has voted itself into the lose-lose situation we appear to now be in. I see no way this is likely to turn out well.

 

[Sean Renaud]

yes, David Duke said that too.

David Duke wasn't wrong.

I assume you have an actual point?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hard to believe the country has voted itself into the lose-lose situation we appear to now be in. I see no way this is likely to turn out well.

That's why I posted something sometime back that got me the usual p(H)illorying...,

That the most likely outcome of this election is a one-term Presidency.

As the scandal-cloud continues to surround Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, it amazes me that the pop-zeit culture looks at her and says, yes, she cannot be trusted, but the other guy is Hitler.

Since she has no new ideas, or any ideas at all other than what polling dictates, she cannot change the course of a nation in which the vast majority feel is headed down the wrong path.

Even if he loses, the Republicans can still win in the long game, but the #neverTrump crowd needs to shut the fuck up and endorse the losing candidate or risk one-party rule...

 

[Sean Renaud]

Since she has no new ideas, or any ideas at all other than what polling dictates, she cannot change the course of a nation in which the vast majority feel is headed down the wrong path.

Even if he loses, the Republicans can still win in the long game, but the #neverTrump crowd needs to shut the fuck up and endorse the losing candidate or risk one-party rule...

Here is the problem with your thinking in bold. The polls that show the vast majority feel we are headed down the wrong path doesn't tell you what path those people want. Just looking around the country it's a safe bet to say that some of them think Obama is a socialist two notches from givng us all ration cards instead of money. Many see Obama as more of the same Bush pro-business fuck the little guy. Presumably some people want some third option I'm not thinking of nor discussing at this moment.

The people who think the country isn't far enough left aren't going to support a Republican, even one like Trump who has many fairly liberal ideas. . .well every other time you ask him he does. Obama is also enjoying nice approval numbers which shows that while the overwhelming majority don't like the direction we're headed nearly half like the captain just fine. So it's not the tone being set from the top that is so strongly disliked.

I obviously hope the Never Trump people keep shouting and we get a filibuster proof majority in both houses and the genitals to ram legislation down the throats of people.

But from a pragmatic stance DUH. The Never Trumpers just like the Bernie or Busters need to remember what's at stake.

 

[sr71plt]

As the scandal-cloud continues to surround Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, it amazes me that the pop-zeit culture looks at her and says, yes, she cannot be trusted, but the other guy is Hitler.

The danger of that (and it's a legitimate danger) comes before the election, I think. The Clintons aren't dumb (and the e-mail business is largely the fallout of learning to handle new technology; the foundation one is largely doing business as everyone does at that level and being the one pinned down on it because of the close scrutiny of their enemies). If they can get into office, they'll clean up those particular practices (and probably get hit with others that anyone like them could be hit with as long as their enemies are persistent--there's nothing the Clintons have been hit with that their enemies haven't done/aren't doing as well. Doesn't make it right; it does make it hypocritical.)

It's becoming clearer that Trump will have even more problems whether or not he wins. If he wins, He'll have to put his businesses into receivership and all sorts of "he's bankrupt" and "much of what he's doing is illegal" is going to hit the fan then. There's a very good reason he won't release his taxes. If he doesn't win, the house of cards will probably collapse anyway and his reputation will already have been bankrupted.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"... and the e-mail business is largely the fallout of learning to handle new technology; the foundation one is largely doing business as everyone does at that level and being the one pinned down on it because of the close scrutiny of their enemies"

The email business was not ignorance of technology, but an attempt to take advantage of it in order to operate in the "gray."

She kept trying to claim ignorance of technology, but was easily outed...

I only had the one device.

Colin Powell told me how to set this all up!

 

[Conager]

The danger of that (and it's a legitimate danger) comes before the election, I think. The Clintons aren't dumb (and the e-mail business is largely the fallout of learning to handle new technology; the foundation one is largely doing business as everyone does at that level and being the one pinned down on it because of the close scrutiny of their enemies). If they can get into office, they'll clean up those particular practices (and probably get hit with others that anyone like them could be hit with as long as their enemies are persistent--there's nothing the Clintons have been hit with that their enemies haven't done/aren't doing as well. Doesn't make it right; it does make it hypocritical.)

It's becoming clearer that Trump will have even more problems whether or not he wins. If he wins, He'll have to put his businesses into receivership and all sorts of "he's bankrupt" and "much of what he's doing is illegal" is going to hit the fan then. There's a very good reason he won't release his taxes. If he doesn't win, the house of cards will probably collapse anyway and his reputation will already have been bankrupted.

You strain credulity and yourself as an unapolegetic Clinton apologist.

There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton inept with technology, just as she's inept at anything that she can pawn off on others, but that's hardly the point.

She hired other people to handle her technology. The point of the technology was to violate the law on record-keeping to foil FOIA requests and to be able to pick and choose what she turns over when subpoenaed for discovery and before Congressional overdight.

She learned how to do all that with Watergate. She damn well knew she intended obstructing justice and breaking the law. She did it quite purposefully

She hired people to handle the technology and the technology had shit to do with what happened. if she was more capable with technology she could have explained better to her minions how to do a government wipe of those drives. if she were better at technology we would have less emails and less information not more.

 

[phrodeau]

Here is the problem with your thinking in bold. The polls that show the vast majority feel we are headed down the wrong path doesn't tell you what path those people want. Just looking around the country it's a safe bet to say that some of them think Obama is a socialist two notches from givng us all ration cards instead of money. Many see Obama as more of the same Bush pro-business fuck the little guy. Presumably some people want some third option I'm not thinking of nor discussing at this moment.

The people who think the country isn't far enough left aren't going to support a Republican, even one like Trump who has many fairly liberal ideas. . .well every other time you ask him he does. Obama is also enjoying nice approval numbers which shows that while the overwhelming majority don't like the direction we're headed nearly half like the captain just fine. So it's not the tone being set from the top that is so strongly disliked.

I obviously hope the Never Trump people keep shouting and we get a filibuster proof majority in both houses and the genitals to ram legislation down the throats of people.

But from a pragmatic stance DUH. The Never Trumpers just like the Bernie or Busters need to remember what's at stake.

The majority is two to one. I suppose you could call it overwhelming.

For a really overwhelming majority, look at the Congressional approval polls.

 

[toubab]

That's why I posted something sometime back that got me the usual p(H)illorying...,

That the most likely outcome of this election is a one-term Presidency.

As the scandal-cloud continues to surround Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, it amazes me that the pop-zeit culture looks at her and says, yes, she cannot be trusted, but the other guy is Hitler.

Since she has no new ideas, or any ideas at all other than what polling dictates, she cannot change the course of a nation in which the vast majority feel is headed down the wrong path.

Even if he loses, the Republicans can still win in the long game, but the #neverTrump crowd needs to shut the fuck up and endorse the losing candidate or risk one-party rule...

I find the difference between the two major parties in this election remarkable. The Democrats are relatively united, it seems to me. Most of the Bernie supporters have come around, just as I thought they would, no matter how bad Hillary Clinton is. The Republicans, on the other hand, are relatively ununited, obviously. That fact alone will probably cost them the presidential election, perhaps the Senate majority, and possibly even the House majority, if they persist in their disunity. It will be interesting to see if they can adopt the political pragmatism of the Democrats, or not. They're running out of time to make the decision to do it, if that's their ultimate decision. Soon it will be too late to save themselves from the fate of a Hillary presidency, and all that will mean.

 

[sr71plt]

You strain credulity and yourself as an unapolegetic Clinton apologist.

There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton inept with technology, just as she's inept at anything that she can pawn off on others, but that's hardly the point.

She hired other people to handle her technology. The point of the technology was to violate the law on record-keeping to foil FOIA requests and to be able to pick and choose what she turns over when subpoenaed for discovery and before Congressional overdight.

She learned how to do all that with Watergate. She damn well knew she intended obstructing justice and breaking the law. She did it quite purposefully

She hired people to handle the technology and the technology had shit to do with what happened. if she was more capable with technology she could have explained better to her minions how to do a government wipe of those drives. if she were better at technology we would have less emails and less information not more.

That's a laugh, in your blind reactionary partisanship to say I'm an Clinton apologist. I have consistently said her e-mail problem is a real one (although it's little different from her predecessors' in the short life of e-mail technology and is dwarfed by what the greater Bush administration did in hiding and erasing e-mails they didn't want seen. I'm, in fact, in sympathy with those trying to form policy on either side of the aisle without every Dick, Harry, and Lizzie looking over their shoulder.) I think there's a legitimate problem for her in the Clinton Foundation business (no different from lots of other people at her level, though--lot of other people just don't have vultures sitting on their tails). I even put that in my post here.

My post gave the opinion that those particular issues will be negated if she wins the election, and I think my assessment of that is realistic. I also said she could legitimately be brought down by them before the election--which is hardly being an apologist for her--but you're too doctrinaire to acknowledge that.

You are just a partisan, Swiftboating tool. I'm certainly a whole hell of a lot more balanced and reality based than you are here.