Posted on 10/21/2016 4:49:13 AM PDT by tatown
The IBD/TIPP poll — a collaboration between Investor's Business Daily (IBD) and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP) — has been the most accurate poll in recent presidential elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Trump is going to win, no doubt in my mind. He needs to start doing two things in preparation of this moment:
1. Start talking about statute of limitations on the Obama and Clinton crime syndicate. Let whistle-blowers know they will receive immunity, and they will not be prosecuted for violating their recent forced non disclosure agreements.
2. Start asking publicly about whether Hillary will accept the election outcome. Get her on the record now, before he wins. She has no choice but to agree to respect the outcome, after her recent comments.
IMHO.
And Trump is definitely no McCain or Romney.
They’ll call Clinton the winner before Nevada polls close.
it is all about stealing florida now.
they tried to allow UNVERIFIED registrations to count.
in the past, 40% of provisional ballots were rejected.
I do not trust the blue zones to verify. They have a history of corruption and incompetence. (in Miami two people were convicted for voter fraud long after bush v gore)
we need to take people to the polls.
we have to reinforce to the “claimed undecided” that abortion does not matter [you have to win], purity does not win, those squishy naïve need to understand EVERYTHING is over if they vote for the homosexual lying Hillary.
IBD/TIPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012 and they have Trump ahead as well (even using a D+7 weighting).
IDB/TIP was the most accurate pollster of the last three presidential elections.
Which is why the MSM is ignoring them showing Trump leading.
Yes, I calculate DT odds at this point at 28% chance of winning.
Positive = leading in TIPP
Neutral = still looking for a change in momentum for him
negative = take 3 points off Rasmussen as had 3 pt bias last election; 3 points behind FL; betting odds against
Not sure the RCP average is relevant or not.
Well I calculate your odds as being wrong.
FoxNews continues to push that Trump is behind because of a 20% Gender Gap and then right after that claims that Trump is ALSO 7% Ahead with Independents.
These 2 stats CANNOT both be true.
Unless there are no women voting as Independents.
Their own Polling Statistics cannot be accurate and the data is right there.
How can he be ahead by 7% with roughly 1/3 of the voters but still be 20% behind among ALL men & women?
Its Pure BS.
I could be wrong but I think that this is only day two of the IBD poll. It just started up yesterday.
I agree that our side can be as guilty of cherry-picking poll results that we like as the establishment. However, even taking your caveat into consideration, that still puts Trump into a statistical tie with Clinton given any reasonable margin of error, which is a far cry from the mass media's constantly repeated lie about Clinton being ahead by high single digits or more.
Trump does have a gender gap... but again, its selective reporting...
Trump has been up at least 10 with independents, all election cycle. Early on in the cycle he was down with Republicans from standard levels which is why he was not crushing it... the R’s had come home and he was indeed crushing it then the tape leaked.... then suddenly Hillary is up huge... which petered off after the 2nd debate... quickly... but since they keep pushing Hillary up 7 to 12 or whatever... and the ONLY way she can be up that way is if R’s are staying home... or going elsewhere...
The deviation between registration is about 4 points... roughly 28 to 32... Independents are about 40%... so if everyone went straight party line, and polls are accurate... and Trump is 10 points up among I’s.. that’s basically a TIE... The 10 points of I’s equates to 4 points total, which makes the D registration lead zero.. then the rest of the I’s split even and you get basically a TIE....
You don’t get to Hillary up 6 let alone 12, unless you have large numbers of R’s voting D... or staying home... or going 3rd party.. you just can’t get to Hillary up big without Trump being down, and not down a little, but down big with R’s... and I just don’t see it...
Generally a party candidate gets 90% of his party vote.. .lets say Trump is only around 80% which some polls have suggested again among republicans.. Well, if you assume that 2.8% is going to vote for Hillary... that would put her up no more than 3% MAX... all other things remaining equal.
So the story they are trying to tell just doesn’t jive with the numbers they are trying to spin.. In an honest poll Hillary could be no more than 3 up, even if Trump were polling 80% among R’s and Hillary were polling 90% among Ds... every single poll shows Trump up with I’s.. 10 points or more... all cycle... Now Trump does have a gender gap with women, no doubt, but Hillary has a gender gap with Men. This isn’t something new, or shocking, its been the reality of D v R for every election cycle D’s are always up 10-20 points with women vs men, and R’s are always up 10 or 20 points with men vs women. So this whole gender gap story, isn’t a lie, but its much ado about nothing... its pretty standard operating procedure every election...
What is interesting with the gender gap however, is that if a woman is married, the D’s lose their gender gap advantage quickly.. Among married women there is virtually no advantage for D’s among women.
But I digress.... Anyway.. getting back to the topic at hand... The only way Hillary is getting polls showing her up 7 or 10 or 25 or whatever, is by intentional biased sampling... Every poll showing her up big, is either grossly oversampling D’s, or women, or BOTH.
You just can’t get the result numbers these polls are offering, with the internals they are reporting without skewing the sample.. its just not possible.
If you notice, another constant through every poll is the 10+ point enthusiasm gap for Trump... no matter how badly they skew their samples, it always shows Trump with a major enthusiasm gap... that’s because asking more D’s than R’s doesn’t affect the enthusiasm result.. because no matter how few Trump supporters you ask, they are all going to show the same enthusiasm, just like no matter how many Hillary supporters you ask, they will all show the same lack of enthusiasm.
Now, the real question is, if you weight the polls to registration levels, which is the argument I just made, you cannot get Hillary up more than the level of lower than average support that they are claiming Trump is seeing among R’s.... Now being a 4 way race, this could skew that a bit, and actually would make Hillary’s lead even lower, because its safe to assume that not all of that weaker than normal support will go third party... You could counter and say well yes, but some of that 10% non Clinton support could be going 3rd party too.. and that might get you the mathematical possibility for the lead to be slightly above 2.8%... and that’s true... but... even when you have no prominent 3rd party in the race, you still usually see at least 2% of the vote go elsewhere... so this cycle, it will likely be 5-7% or less.... SO 3rd party might get a little bit over the pure lower support among R range if you assume every D not voting Hillary is going 3rd party, and every R not going Trump will go Hillary... a laughable assumption, but still if you do that, then you could get to maybe 5-6 points.. but you have to make such ludicrous assumptions to get there, that polls showing this just can’t pass the smell test.
Now, personally I have very little doubt, Trump is going to get a lot of D votes, particularly in regions hardest hit by Nafta and “Free Trade” policies. (Rust Belt).. how big? We will see, but I do not think for one minute Hillary will get the support among Dems they are claiming in these polls, at least in important parts of the traditional D states. This also doesn’t account for the “MONSTER VOTE”... which either does or does not exist...
If it exists, and I personally believe it does, you are looking at a lot of things not captured in the polling at all, even if you reweigh it to more realistic registration levels.
Next, that enthusiasm gap... oh that enthusiasm gap... every poll shows it, but then they just ignore it. You can’t ignore it.. yes we know D’s can commit fraud.. particularly in certain cities... but that doesn’t make up for lack of enthusiasm nationally.
And Finally we have the “Undecided” vote... which is by and large simply folks who are going to vote Trump, and just won’t admit it... These folks are going to break huge Trump if they go to the polls... if they haven’t committed to Hillary they aren’t going to....
The goal for the D’s is simply repressing turnout, nothing more.. Hillary’s support is peaked and there is nothing mroe for her to get... low 40s is all she’s ever had a shot at... so they have to keep Trump below that number... and the only way to do it is to try to convince the public there is no point in showing up if you support trump because he’s lost....
That’s what all this is about...
There have always only been 3 possible outcomes of this election.. blowout for Trump... or a squeaker that could go either way.... The narrative that Hillary is looking at a landslide is laughable... Don’t believe it folks, the math doesn’t add up, and never did. The MSM is fully functionally an arm of the DNC... don’t believe what you are reading and seeing... its lies and manipulations.
This nonsense again? Just because one pollster interprets the data one way and another interprets it another doesn't make it not accurate (see below). (eg: More than 30% of people who tell pollsters they are going to vote, don't - which is a massive error rate). LA Times methodology was spot on in 2012, yet you given it no credit. On the other hand....
Rasmussen had a 3 point GOP bias in 2012, so you need to knock 3 off Trump’s results.
So you won't give the LA times credit for nailing the 2012 results but only look at Rasmussen's error from 2012 only while they were off by just 1 in 2008 and nailed 2004 exactly for a 3 presidential cycle average of off by 1.3%.
From the LA Times: Tedeschi's work highlights a crucial point about polling: The numbers that polls present almost always involve a series of decisions made by pollsters, and those decisions are always subjective. Pollsters make their best efforts to get the numbers right, but given the same data, different pollsters will often come up with different results.
Tedeschi's version produces results that closely parallel the Real Clear Politics average of polls. He didn't design his approach with that in mind, but it worked out that way.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily right. Indeed, some of the biggest polling failures in recent years appear to have been worsened by pollsters who tweaked their numbers to stay close to the average -- a practice derisively referred to as "herding."
They’re afraid. Clearly she is losing, but they can’t deal with it.
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.