Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Landslide: Reuters Projects 326 Electoral Votes For Clinton (Ya got to be kiddin’ me)
Townhall.com ^ | October 24, 2016 | Matt Vespa

Posted on 10/24/2016 4:20:44 PM PDT by Kaslin

As we get closer to Election Day, there will be a new flurry of stories showing how Hillary has an 85+percent chance of winning—and that her Electoral College count is going to be a landslide. It’s over, basically—that’s the theme. For Reuters, they’re projecting Clinton to win 326 electoral votes, with a 95 percent chance of winning:

In the last week, there has been little movement. Clinton leads Donald Trump in most of the states that Trump would need should he have a chance to win the minimum 270 votes needed to win. According to the project, she has a better than 95 percent chance of winning, if the election was held this week. The mostly likely outcome would be 326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump.

Trump came off his best debate performance of the campaign Wednesday evening but the polling consensus still showed Clinton winning the third and final face-off on prime-time TV. Trump disputes those findings.

And some national polls had the race tightening a wee bit this week though others had Clinton maintaining her solid lead. But the project illustrates that the broader picture remains bleak for Trump with 17 days to go until the Nov. 8 election.

Trump did gain ground in South Carolina where his slim lead last week expanded to seven points, moving it into his column from a toss-up. Unfortunately for him, he lost ground in Arizona, which is now too close to call.

On one hand, some in the GOP will rejoice—this means the end of Trumpism, the ignominious defeat of the alt-right. Well, I’m not so sure these folks are leaving just yet. Second, Clinton would be president. Why is that a good thing? It’s a nightmare for the country. If this ends up being the end result on Election Day, it will not be without a sense of irony. When Mitt Romney decided to get on the Never Trump train, the billionaire lashed out at him, blaming him for losing a winnable election. In 2016, Reuters’ Electoral College map closely resembles that of 2012 (Romney got 206 electoral votes), and this was yet another winnable election for Republicans that we pissed away thanks for nominating flawed candidates, but I don’t want to get into “I told you so” games—though that’s a point of inevitability post-election I’m afraid.

Again, how many epitaphs have we written for this political campaign? Every time Trump looks like he’s about to collapse, he regroups. He survives. It very well could be a drumming by Clinton, but we shall reserve judgment until Election Day. We have polls showing him trailing by four, six, nine, and now twelve points. Some have it at a virtual dead heat (i.e. LA Times), while other have him leading by a point (Investors Business Daily). Now, that doesn’t mean that all is well either. Texas and Arizona are now in the toss-up column, Florida is moving to the Democrats—all of this spell disaster on November 8. If we lose Florida, forget everything else—the jig is up. Even Trump campaign manger Kellyanne Conway said that they’re behind. But the RNC seems to have delved into fantasyland to combat these developments, with Chairman Reince Priebus saying that Trump is going to do better with black voters this cycles than with McCain and Romney, with the added notion that Trump is going to win because “people have had enough.” Yeah, let’s not kid ourselves; Trump is going to do poorly with Hispanics and black voters—and we don’t know if he’s going to win the election. This spin makes the Right look desperate and embodies everything that liberals think about conservatives—that we’re detached from reality.

There is one theory that Trump’s campaign seems to be hedging on, which is that there’s a swath of voters who don’t like to be polled, and if a firm contacts them—these voters tell lies to protect themselves. It’s a fear Democratic pollsters have this cycle, that the people they poll, like the one’s saying they’re either voting for or leaning towards Hillary Clinton, are really voting for Trump. It’s our version of the shy Tory theory, in which the 1992 election in the U.K. projected a Labour win, only to end with the Conservatives winning the most votes ever cast in a British election. It’s impossible to gauge, but if this is the case, it shows how embarrassing these two candidates are for voters for either party. Right now, it’s all about stopping Clinton. And 45 percent of Republicans seem pretty dead set on making that happen, as this cohort has said they will not accept the election result that ends in a Trump defeat.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hillaryrottenclinton; lyingforclinton; polls; projection; rooters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: Kaslin

BM


61 posted on 10/24/2016 4:51:06 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45 (Americans, happy in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own dictators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

It’s fake


62 posted on 10/24/2016 4:51:26 PM PDT by MNDude (God is not a Republican, but Satan is certainly a Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

What bs


63 posted on 10/24/2016 4:52:07 PM PDT by Nifster (Ignore all polls. Get Out The Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner

Ha, ha! Nelson endorses Voter ID. Great pic!


64 posted on 10/24/2016 4:52:35 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Needless to say, Trump is a very unusual candidate. He has support from some of the most unsuspecting places. Watched video of a poorly educated inner city black, former gangbanger, in Chicago, singing Trump’s praise and damning the Democrats for failing blacks, for using them, abusing them, and advocating the murder of black babies. The kid is certainly red pilled, with the Lord, and wanting a better future for his children. This kid is empassioned, and offers the kind of support that is infectuous. He is not alone, and those like him pull in others. There is a movement, a true movement, it is undeniable.

I have to confess, I was not on the Trump Train at first, it took a while even, it was his supporters that won it for me, I mean, his message resonates well but I had to witness his support to realize that he can and should win. Will he? There is no predicting. Polling is everywhere, there has been a big push for untested Internet sampling, I believe the evidence suggests this will naturally lean heavy Dem. We have to contend with dirty tricks, media propaganda, and sadly, a superior ground game. We do have WikiLeaks, O’Keefe, and Illary’s own questionable health on our side. Get out and vote, get out the vote.


65 posted on 10/24/2016 4:54:48 PM PDT by John Robinson (I am a twit @_John_Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Election isn’t tomorrow, and that’s not my definition of a “landslide” in any event.


66 posted on 10/24/2016 4:55:03 PM PDT by Williams (The (republican) party is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Well if Rooters projects a Hillary Rotten Clinton landslide the rats sure can stay home. There is no need for them to vote.


67 posted on 10/24/2016 4:55:26 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I no longer believe a single word from the pollsters or the media.

Besides, I voted yesterday and my wife took our two Trump votes to the drop box at the county courthouse this morning.


68 posted on 10/24/2016 4:56:20 PM PDT by Gator113 (Vote TRUMP!! -- "Because you'd be in Jail!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donglalinger

My thought exactly


69 posted on 10/24/2016 4:57:10 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Well if Rooters projects a Hillary Rotten Clinton landslide the rats sure can stay home. There is no need for them to vote.

One side has little enthusiasm, the other is totally psyched. The media then announces, "It's over already!"

Question: Which side do you think will stay home?

70 posted on 10/24/2016 4:59:49 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Just watched Trump on TV in Tampa Bay. These pollsters are audacious to the point of being ridicule worthy.


71 posted on 10/24/2016 5:01:33 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Enforce the Law. Build the Wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
For Reuters, they’re projecting Clinton to win 326 electoral votes, with a 95 percent chance of winning:

If she gets 326 electoral votes, wouldn't that be a 100% win? They can't even lie right.

Trump will win the 326 EVs and possibly more with the highest vote count in history.

72 posted on 10/24/2016 5:02:32 PM PDT by Evil Slayer ((Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

If you think I am going to stay home just because Rooters projects a landslide for Hillary Rotten Clinton, I got news for you and Rooters and all the other Clinton media.


73 posted on 10/24/2016 5:02:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

(Oops, I misposted that to the wrong quote. Didn’t mean to repeat you.)


74 posted on 10/24/2016 5:02:57 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44

It’s an average and is well-known in polling statistics and there are statistical adjustments that can help to a degree but not when the non-response rate is as high as it is in political polling.

Every survey in statistics is scientifically valid if the random sample is representatively drawn from the population. It doesn’t mean the survey will be true or even accurate. It merely suggests that if the underlying sample is representative, then repeated surveys would have an accurate average.

Every survey can bring out an outlier or luck of the draw even if the sample is validly drawn.

Political polls are so noisy, so shoddy that the only people doing the analyses are considered flunkies because they are no better than liars, their ethics would never be accepted in reputable statistical journals. They are so debauched that they are not even allowed to be called statisticians, rather they are called pollsters. And they do it for one reason only; money.

For example, their political polls will take a designed sample plan and ruin it with non-response, yet they persist in doing the analysis even though the results are invalid on their face. They do not account for the non-responses and they never disclose these rates. They base their MOE on ‘responses’ only, which only adds insult to injury. If they disclosed the non-response rates, the MOE would not be +/-3% or even +/-6%. With the high non-reponse , the MOE would be more like +/-30%.

It is insulting to see certain polling outfits pat themselves on the back in self-congratulations for getting the closest prediction to an actual outcome. It is nothing more than luck of the draw.

If I play a hand of poker and lay down a Royal Flush, it does not mean I am a champion. It is only after many many observations of playing hands where my caliber as a player can accurately be estimated.

In the arena of political polling, there are no champions. Such an arena is a circus for flunkies who could never make it through a rigorous statistical curriculum. They do it for pay and because they have enough skill to do a spreadsheet. But they have no talent to jackknife, bootstrap or stratify sampling, etc. And if they should have such understanding, and they still participate in such a liar’s field, then it is because they have character defects.

The 90% is an average that has been talked about in statistical journals and journals that use statistics heavily. True and reputable statisticians have been requested innumerable times to design methodology to adjust for non-response rates. It can only be done when the rate is not too high.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-5666-6_8

There are hundreds of publications on the subject. No one can raise dead data to life, that is what it boils down to. Look at these search terms on the internet and you will find numerous references to high non-response rates in political surveys. I am looking at a list of 20 on the first page of a search.

There is no statistical method in the realm of the possible that can project an accurate unbiased estimate when the underlying random sample has been destroyed. It is no more possible to do that than it is to make a gas engine run on a fuel tank filled with water.

The political candidates use polls for cheerleading and for sales pitches. Although all the polls are invalid via invalid samples, there are two broad categories of invalid samples. One category is invalid because targeted persons refuse to participate and the other is where the targeted people are oversampled in a set of attributes. Wikileaks has revealed the democrats and Clinton are deliberately pushing the latter while Trump is subject to the former.

There is one valid aspect to the samples that are obtained for Trump, that is from the frustrated underemployed or dissatisfied American worker sitting at home. With 90 million people out of work or underemployed, the respondents are expressing more support for Trump because of their predicament. Even as the nonresponse rates are too high for a valid estimate, the invalid sample picks up on those at home that are frustrated and dissatisfied. But overall, the statistics in this arena are rubbish.


75 posted on 10/24/2016 5:17:57 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I predict monkeys will fly out of her butt.


76 posted on 10/24/2016 5:25:20 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

That’s a good one.


77 posted on 10/24/2016 5:28:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I appreciate all the time you took to write up that reply. As an engineer, I appreciate statistical processes. I can see where the whole random sample thing breaks down. I can also see while “pollsters” would want to hide the percentage of non-response.

My gut feeling is that the folks who are actually working 8-10 hours a day, or those that wish they were, are mad enough that they would tell pollsters to eff-off, and those parasites who live at home on un-deserved govt freebies are the type who would reply so as to support further mooching.


78 posted on 10/24/2016 5:29:05 PM PDT by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

All of these so-called “journalists” should be thrown in prison.


79 posted on 10/24/2016 5:30:40 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

” Whatever you do, don’t fall for the lies of the Clinton Media. They just want us to stay home and therefor guaranty the election of Hillary Rotten Clinton.”

i believe that these polls are being created now in order that when Hilliary wins via massive fraud, the dems will say it couldn’t be voter fraud because so many of these polls had predicted that Hilliary would win come Nov. 8.


80 posted on 10/24/2016 5:33:45 PM PDT by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson