Posted on 10/15/2016 11:17:29 PM PDT by WMarshal
When turnout falls, Democrats perform worse in elections. That general pattern is well known. In making their forecasts, pollsters try to estimate what that turnout will be on the basis of previous elections. This year, pre-election opinion polls were off by the largest amount seen in over 20 years. Could this massive underperformance by Democrats have been connected to a wrong guess about turnout?
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
Dems will only turn out for Obama.
I know quite a few Sanders voters who hate Clinton. She represents everything they fought against. They also resent the primary being rigged against him.
Polling is not an exact science and never can in a predictive sense. Too many uncontrollable attributes that help to hide internal bias.
That is why they apply empirical averaging, to make assumptions from their sample and blend them with theoretical infinity.
Having said that the science is exactly enough, when they truly are disciplined in applying it, for polling by competent people.
Damn you, made me think this morning...I just got up...
Put that in the context of Watergate. Did Nixon really need George McGovern's campaign secrets in order to win the 1972 election? After all, the result of the 1972 election was that Nixon won 49 states.
If Watergate had not happened, Nixon would have won .... 49 states. And Woodward and Bernstein became liberal heroes and household names for it. (Too bad the liberal media ignored the Gulf of Tonkin, but that would be a separate thread...)
Hillary probably did not need to cheat. But she did cheat. Where are Woodward and Bernstein now? (Both still alive, but they will eventually meet Satan where they belong.)
Hillary hasn’t done anything to earn the black vote.
This is the weak spot in the polling. Without Obama on the ticket, few blacks will vote.
Met one at a party last night... He’s debating whether to protest Hillary by voting Trump...
...or writing in Bernie.
He said with convincing passion that there’s no way he could vote Hillary.
While some “republicans” might not be thrilled with Trump.
It’s hard to dislike his posse: Pence, Sessions, Guiliani, Ben Carson. Etc.
Oops... I meant fewer blacks will vote. And Trump will do better than Mitt did in the inner cities.
Polling is not an exact science and never can in a predictive sense. Too many uncontrollable attributes that help to hide internal bias.
That is why they apply empirical averaging, to make assumptions from their sample and blend them with theoretical infinity.
Having said that the science is exactly enough, when they truly are disciplined in applying it, for polling by competent people.
Damn you, made me think this morning...I just got up...
You are right...... Trump does suffer some #neverTrump angst among GOP voters, but you are missing the Sanders supporters. Based on social media trends it appears real - perhaps even more entrenched (despite the media propaganda) than the #neverTrump movement.
GOP primary turnout was record level - DNC primary voting was below 2008 numbers. The enthusiasm factor definitely favored the GOP. Despite so many candidates, does that favor the GOP nominee or not?
What does it all mean? I don’t know and don’t think anyone can really predict it because we have not had an election like this or such blatant media bias. If you watch the MSM you think the election is over, but what if they are missing all of this?
What hurts worse? Sanders had a huge number of votes and it is obvious his supporters were the “anti-corruption/anti-Wall Street” voters and they are ticked off because Sanders was screwed over and Clinton is the Wall Street candidate. That was my point - does this blunt the #neverTrump vote and hurt Hillary worse than the holier than thou GOPe that won’t support Trump?
We don’t know and don’t have models to predict the election because most of these models are based on the Obama election. Hillary is not Obama and the enthusiasm for her is nowhere close to what it was for him. Does Trump have enough supporters who don’t usually participate? New voter registration for the GOP clearly shows there is something happening that is unusual - you have to see that as a plus for Trump.
I don’t pretend to know how it all plays out and I don’t think the pollsters do either. That was my point.
Hillary probably did not need to cheat. But she did cheat. Where are Woodward and Bernstein now?
I know that was a rhetorical question because the enemedia is hellbent on electing Hillary and they have thrown any pretense of neutrality out the window. If we are to believe polls, trust in the media is at an all-time low so perhaps the effect (there certainly is one that is bad for Trump) is not nearly as powerful as we think.
The media is also creating a narrative that the GOP is very much against Trump, but what is that based on? Is it based on the narrative created by Paul Ryan and other GOPe leaders? Do people really give a crap what they think? I don’t think so because their approval ratings are lower than the media!
Only the dead vote Democratic.
The ones who are enthused in this election are those who are voting against Hillary and the Establishment.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
What the Dems are doing now is keeping Hillary out of sight and creating scandal after scandal against Trump in an effort to make him as unpopular as she is. While she’s out of sight, people forget how loathsome she it.
Beware of loving family/friends who try to get you to vote for anyone but Hillary or Trump. They need the regular Republican voters to NOT vote for Trump. They don’t care if you vote for Hillary, just don’t vote for Trump.
This is false, and only questionable "pollsters" do this.
before you select a small sample
You do not select the sample, and only questionable "pollsters" do this. You create a methodology first, then sample. Randomness itself takes care of the "selection."
IT is much like the computer model Global Warming science.
It is nothing like that. AGW models are based on over-simplified assumptions and over-simplified physics. It isn't a case of (just) GIGO: the models themselves are wrong, and cannot produce predictive results even if the data was not fudged and unjustifiably extrapolated.
If you are allowed to juice your model’s input, you can make any claim you wish with a very high degree of exactness.
No you can't, and that is the point of the article, and my post. The only exactness that can be claimed -- and it is rigorously precise -- is how well your sample covers the full cohort. The question of whether that cohort is the same as the one that votes on the first Tuesday in November is one which has little, if any mathematical rigor.
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.