NYT/Siena Polls: Trump Losing Ground with White Voters in Swing States, Not Gaining with Minorities

Breitbart ^ | 27 Jun 2020 | John Binder

[Jim Noble]

I don’t recall a single poll going into the 2016 election showing Pres. Trump winning

The polls measured the popular vote - and Trump lost, by quite a lot.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Believing the New York Times and their polls is like trusting Tom Cat not to eat Tweety Bird if you leave the bird cage open.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The polls measured the popular vote

Not true. MSM released battle ground polls in those days showing massive Trump losses in individual states, even losing in Texas or within just a few digits of defeat. In fact, the Texas poll was released pretty close to the election.

I remember some retarded law students loudly boasting about it, to which I could only chuckle in response.

[nathanbedford]

Hitler managed to find a nationalist theme to combine with his offbrand kind of socialism -we know how that turned out.

I suspect that the globalist impulse, especially as it is financed and presumably strongly influenced by a few dark figures, will work against the emergence of a nationalist theme with which the insurrectionist can complete their revolution. Until now, I view the insurrection as mainly reactive against their broad theme, America is unworthy because it is institutionally racist. I cannot resist resorting once more to Nathan's Bedford's first maxim of American politics: all politics is not local but ultimately racial.

The application of this maxim over decades has carried the Democrats in many an election and may well do so this November. I note that Hitler joined the dark side on racial politics but eschewed the globalist worldview of conventional communism.

If the insurrectionists are primarily a conventional socialist force, that is driven by a dogma of international socialism, the transparently false antiracist platform that has carried them this far will have to be discarded or the left will have to rationalize one of the greatest ideological somersaults since the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact.

Unfortunately, history tells us that the left is quite capable and even eager to sodomize its own ideology when convenient.

[Kickass Conservative]

What does that prove? All the former President’s listed were Reelected.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I am confident that you are fully familiar with Nate Silver

Nate Silver wants us to believe that Trump beat his average poll amounts not just once or twice, but hundreds of times. Citing the average is misleading when you consider the fact that there were many, many polls all wildly incorrect.

Furthermore, it is a matter of absolute fact that these polls oversampled women and minorities, sometimes by 10 or even 15%. All of this was discussed at length at the time on this forum, with the numbers showing Democrats expecting turnout equal to or even better than the Obama years.

Your cheerleading of these polls is silly in light of that.

[nathanbedford]

I am not "cheerleading the polls" I am deploring the reflexive rejection of evidence we do not like.

[Conserv]

What’s unworthy is your political insight. It’s laughable.

Tell us again how the 2016 polls were right. Snicker.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I am deploring the reflexive rejection of evidence

No one is reflexively rejecting anything. You are ignoring thousands of posts and articles posted on FR from the last election proving how biased and unreliable the polls are.

[Conserv]

In fact, the polls were so wrong that even the lame@ss media called Trump’s win the biggest political upset in 100 years.

[billyboy15]

I am familiar with Nate Siver to this extent. He had Clinton with a insurmountable lead as far as the numbers went oif anywhere from 6-12 points and on these polls he based his probability factor of Clinton winning in the 90+% range right up until election day when he suddenly dropped that 90+ probability of Clinton winning down to a tad over 70..still a virtual lock on winning. For this he was attacked by crazed liberals for even DARING to insinuate her chances may have decreased.

The thing is if something within the MOE could cause a swing from 90+ Clinton will win all the way to Trump actually winning and by some 80EC votes why wasn’t this even mentioned before and why was Clinton always shown as the leader even if within the MOE?

Side note-The LAT/Dorsife daily poll of that race showed Trump much, much closer to Clinton and on several occassions actually leading her and the LAT caught holy hell for printing that poll every day.

It is easy to formulate excuses as to why they were so wrong rather than simply say we blew it and did not/could not account for the “silent” Trump supporter?

My guess is today there are more silent TYrump supporters than last time and the pollsters will have no more success identifying them this time than they did last time.

[Vaduz]

Conservative circles have speculated that voters may not be expressing their actual opinions to pollsters.

It worked last time too.

[nathanbedford]

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons for concern. National polls were pretty good in the 2016 presidential election, but state-level polling was fairly poor (although still within the “normal” range of accuracy). Polls of the 2016 presidential primaries were sometimes way off the mark. And in many recent elections, the polls were statistically biased in one direction or another — there was a statistical bias toward Democrats in 2016, for instance.

I refer you to my reply #77 citing article by Nate Silver. On a previous thread I pointed out the polls that are national rather than state focused are virtually useless; polls that are this far out from an election are not of much use; polls that question, voters instead of likely voters are of little utility. That said, there is no logical reason to believe that, even if the polls were wrong in 2016-a very debatable point- that that means they will be wrong in 2020. Every election is sui generis. Common sense tells us that this one might very well be very different.

Although Trump enjoys the advantages of incumbency, he is facing an unremitting unrelenting attack from the media, from his Democrat adversaries in Congress, from the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the Deep State with very little support from his own Republicans. Worse, his best argument, a wonderful economy, is in shambles as is the rule of law across the nation.

Common sense tells us that the polls today are very, very bad. They might be fraudulent, they might be premature, or they might not. Their trend in recent days has been very negative, in other words, the trend is not our friend.

Are we to ignore a threat reflexively or are we to take it seriously and adjust?

The most dangerous human tendency in war or politics, even worse than fighting the last war or projecting from last cycle's polls, is to believe your own press and to underestimate the enemy. We are in a new cycle perhaps not seen since 1860 and polling is telling us that we do not understand it; we certainly do not know how to get control of it or even how we get ahead of it.

What we are doing is not working. There is no evidence that supports optimism toward a positive election. In order to survive we have to accept that those threats are probably true and their truth (or or even, likelihood) means that we have to change course.

We will not change course if we believe that all is well because 4 years ago polls were arguably inaccurate. Many experts say they were not.

I would rather be regretting my pessimism on election morning than rueing my optimism. Act now, now is not too late. Dismiss this threat and it soon will be too late.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Every election is sui generis.

Our commie enemies back to their old tricks of oversampling dem voters and undersampling Republicans is not. That's the actual common sense. I believe the Trump campaign itself for a change, rather than having us do the hard work, recently released a report demonstrating such polling shenanigans, the same exact shenanigans from 2016.

he is facing an unremitting unrelenting attack from the media

Do you really think people are waking up in the morning, seeing a Black Marxist being interviewed by an open fag on CNN foaming at the mouth with hatred towards Trump and the country, and thinking to themselves: "Hmm, I'm going to vote for Dingy Biden!"

Fat chance!

[nathanbedford]

Do you really think people are waking up in the morning...thinking to themselves: "Hmm, I'm going to vote for Dingy Biden!"

From all the evidence before our eyes and on our screens and printed out in polling data, many voters are waking up and making that very decision.

Worse, I believe many more are waking up and saying, "I am going to vote against Donald Trump no matter how dingy Biden is" just as so many woke up in 2016 and voted against a despised Hillary Clinton, no matter their negative feelings about Donald Trump.

My surmise is very unpleasant and yours is quite cheering but feeling cheerful ain't got nothin' to do with reality. I hope you are right, after all it would be a much more pleasant morning after the election, but God help us if I my surmise is unfortunately more accurate.

[windsorknot]

Your comments are sobering and shouldn’t be easily dismissed. Whenever I think that things are getting better and the future is looking brighter, I only have to remind myself that Barack 0bama was POTUS for eight long years. That is always a quick jolt back to reality.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

Between you and me, how many times since 1980 have you heard, “Trump is done, stick a fork in him?”

5.56mm

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes, I did mention Nate Silver, but I only did so because he and I came up with the conversion formula at the same time (I can tell by examining his numbers and the timing of his appearance on the national stage). I had posted that fact many times in prior elections, but not in my response to you. He has the resources of the NYT, and I do not. It was his job to examine polls, I was working in corporate America in my "day job."

That said, others were right to call out the polling lookback as flawed because they only focus on the final polls and conveniently ignore the breathless hyping of Democrat landslide victories that suddenly evaporate after the Last Monday in October.

In Football, the cliché is that "the game was much closer than the score shows."

I think what we saw in 2012 and 2016 was the same thing: the race was much closer than the polling showed. I don't believe the race tightened only in the last week. The rally turnouts on both sides belie this belief. Trump was strong all throughout the general election, while the polls all went the other way. Trump was filling up arenas and Clinton was absent, yet she had the +10 polls in September and October.

To show how a close election can go either way with smart targeting, let me repost my 2014 post mortem of the 2012 election between Obama and Romney, where Obama won 51.1% to 47.2%, or 332-206 Electoral College votes:

---

The election came down to swing states, and to specific precincts in those swing states.

So what happened in 2012?

Colorado went 51%-47% for Obama. Denver alone voted 209,759 to 69,755. In a city the size of Denver (pop. 634,265), Romney could only manage less than 70,000 votes?

9 Electoral votes for Obama from a difference of 137,948 votes.

Florida went 50%-49% for Obama. A squeaker. The vote difference was 74,309. Think about all the polling irregularities we heard from Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, with Republican poll-watchers being kicked out for two hours until the police forced Democrats to let them back in. The vote difference in those three counties alone was 574,033.

29 Electoral votes for Obama from a 74,309 vote difference.

Iowa went 52%-46% for Obama from a 91,927 vote difference. Johnson county had a difference of 26,534 votes, and Linn county had a difference of 20,601 votes. That's half of the state differential right there.

6 Electoral votes for Obama from a 91,927 vote difference.

Virginia went 51%-48% for Obama from a difference of 149,298 votes. Fairfax county had a difference of 87,049 votes. Prince William county had a difference of 28,790 votes. Newport News had a difference of 23,766 votes. Hampton county had a difference of 32,540 votes. These are the heavy blue counties, and they overwhelm the rest of the state.

13 Electoral votes for Obama from 149,298 votes.

Add Ohio's 18 electoral votes from a 166,214 vote difference that came from Cuyahoga county, and it's clear that the election was decided by 1,193,729 from targeted counties in targeted states.

---

All that is possible in a close election, but not in a true runaway landslide election. I didn't look at 2016 in that kind of detail, but I bet I'd see the same thing. The fact is that this kind of sensitivity to a few key precincts in a few key states suggests that D+10 polls are not reflective of what's really going on.

-PJ

[SunkenCiv]

Fake polling.

Partisan Media Shills update.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

My surmise is very unpleasant and yours is quite cheering

surmise a supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it.

Too early to trust polls, let alone a single NYT poll. To say that "The other shoe has not dropped" is an understatement. The are many undropped shoes.