"Anecdotal Evidence is Wrong"--or is it?

self | 8/23/2016 | LS

[LS]

In the wake of the constant dichotomy between mass rallies, obvious energy for the Trump campaign, internet dominance beyond all imagination . . . and those darned polls . . . we are regaled with tales of 2012. Then, we constantly are reminded, anecdotal evidence was wrong and Obama won.

I have thought about this a lot, and looked at the 5 million vote difference for Obama---but to be fair, a mere 450,000 votes in five states would have made Romney president. This is old news. I bring this up because of what is today an even starker contrast between the no-energy Cankles campaign/internet presence and the polls. Salena Zito has a great pieced today (http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/) on just how real the support for Trump is outside some of the major cities. In her case, she is discussing Pennsylvania, which more than ever before in the last 25 years seems a genuine possibility to go Republican.

Is it all a facade? Let's re-look at the so-called anecdotal evidence of 2012. First, while Romney (and in 1984, Mondale) had a couple of big crowds---I recall one at Westchester, Ohio---he did not have consistently big crowds anywhere, and not until the very (desperate) end. Trump has been having these crowds since last JUNE. I know, I watched the first 11,000 crowd here in Phoenix on local TV. It's one thing to mass 15,000 people one time, quite another to do it 6-7 times a week for 52 weeks and counting. So some of these people "double dip" and attend more than one rally? Probably. Most? Doubtful. Are they the "most committed of the Trump supporters?" Without question.

Other people cite bumperstickers, yard signs (as Zito does) and so on. I think this understates Trump's support this time because people are afraid of vandalism to cars and homes.

But here is what I (we?) missed in 2012: the apathy for Obama, which was, in anecdotal terms clear, obvious and observable (and which showed up on election day with about 4 million fewer votes) WAS MATCHED by apathy for Romney (who only got 2 million more than McCain). Those of us commenting on the decline in enthusiasm for Obama did not notice the commensurate decline in enthusiasm for Romney.

Now, I'm still not quite a believer in the "four million conservatives stayed home" theory. Even if every one of those "four million" showed up (depending on where they showed up) Obama still might have won. But it is pretty obvious that Romney did leave a LOT of votes on the table.

Are there four million "neverTrumpers?" I seriously doubt it. Maybe nationally there are one-tenth that.

So, there is some evidence that in fact the anecdotal evidence was there---some of us just didn't see ALL of it.

This time, there is real, genuine voter registration evidence in FL, IA, NC, and even OH that suggests that Republicans have increased their numbers enough to carry most of these states. (Still working on OH, whose only numbers so far show a net +3000 for Rs in the D county of Cuyahoga). But I do think that the anecdotal evidence is there that Cankles will be no Obama in turning out her vote and I stand by my prediction that she will be hard-pressed to hit 58m votes with both Johnson and Stein in the race.

[Pravious]

Well, as anecdotal evidence, in my area of Pennsylvania I’ve seen a number of Trump signs - a couple very large. Not one Hillary sign.

And I don’t live in a particularly conservative area - in fact, slightly more people voted in the Democrat primaries than in the Republican primaries.

[Vermont Lt]

Lots of folks are acting like the election is this Tuesday.

It’s not even Labor Day.

[papertyger]

I think the mid-terms were the indicator.

All the republicans that delivered the sunami repudiating Obama are now out for the bait-and-switch republican’s political blood.

It just so happens the Reagan democrats get Trump’s appeal, too.

[Steely Tom]

Romney was a terrible candidate, although he was slightly better than McCain, who essentially campaigned for Obama. Whenever Sarah Palin actually scored a point or two, McCain took her to the woodshed.

Obama and his "historical" status paralyzed the Republican establishment. The wise men at the top of the GOP basically decided not to oppose him, because they could not think up a way to do so that would not result in accusations of racism being leveled against them by the fully-in-the-tank MSM.

Hillary is more toxic than Obama, and while the "First Black President" looked like a shiny new tricycle under the Christmas tree, the "First Woman President" looks more like a pair of broken-down running shoes from five or six years ago.

I too find it amazing that a candidate who obviously finds it impossible to attract a live audience of more than a couple hundred listeners on a very good day is marginally ahead of a candidate who easily attracts tens of thousands, in this age of experiencing-the-world-through-your-iPad couch potatery.

Not to mention the fact that most of those audience members are bussed in and - in some cases - paid for their trouble.

[AndyTheBear]

There is more than anecdotal evidence that Trump consistently has large rallies and Clinton does not. An obvious inference is that Trump has far more supporters who are enthusiastic enough to attend rallies, and thus likely has more enthusiasm in the voting public at large. Granted this does not mean he will win on election day. Its possible that Clinton could get more votes, albeit fewer enthusiastic ones. But there is no point in calling the enthusiasm gap anecdotal. It is very real and obvious. How much this enthusiasm gap is baked into the poll sampling methodologies or how much it will effect the actual election I am not sure. My suspicion is that the pollsters are not accounting for it because its hard to quantify.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Few signs or bumper stickers here in central Virginia, either way.

I don’t believe that she’s up 16 points in VA.
I know they’ve imported a lot of voters, but there’s no way that it’s that many.
VA will be close.

[x]

Some people are afraid to tell pollsters they're voting for Trump.

The other side of the coin is that some people who've said they're voting for Trump may be so worn down by all the controversies that they may just not go to the polls in November.

I'm not convinced that crowd sizes and crowd enthusiasm are that important though. If they were, Trump would be running against Bernie Sanders.

[Forty-Niner]

In 2012, my skeet partner, who lived in a well to do and conservative neighborhood, went around his neighborhood and put Obama signs in all the neighbor’s yards. He got his daughter to take pictures of him doing it......busted! He raised heck on all his neighbors the following morning for being crack-pot lefties! Lololololol

I don’t think that is happening there in Pa.......

[stylin19a]

Romney had about a million more votes than McCain.
Obama had about 3.5 million votes less than he got in 2008.

I never believed 4 or 5 million Repubs stayed home.
I will always wonder where the 3.5 million Obama voters went and did they even really exist in 2008 ?

[smokingfrog]

Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily wrong, but not definitive either.

[smokingfrog]

How many people can be undecided at this point? Maybe quite a few, but probably not as many as in the past few elections either.

[LS]

Oh, I know where they went: kids. My college students ALL were on the Zero train in 08, but it was much, much different in 2012. I think they just didn’t vote in 2012.

[stylin19a]

I never thought of that. I wonder if the “kids” will jump back in for Trump.

[arthurus]

Clinton has one large advantage that can counter a lot of enthusiasm. That is the Democrat/Clinton/Obama vote fabrication machine. Controlling the voting machines is terribly easy and con be done in large groups not to mention that a George Soros company is in charge of counting the votes for 11 states including FL and NY. Then there are the more traditional methods like multiple voting and dead men voting and found votes, etc.

[arthurus]

The Democrat primaries were openly stolen for Clinton.

[phoneman08]

The key for a surprise win for Trump should the polls indicate he is still behind once we get close to the election is does he get a slug of unseen votes from the 93 million eligible voters that didn’t bother to vote in 2012, or for that matter in a long, long time.

Who knows, maybe another Clinton gets caught with their pants down, and doesn’t feel the need to drag every last vote out of their section 8 housing thinking they have it in the bag.

Of course, all of this will depend greatly on the debates. She handles herself well in debates. Trump is going to have to be exceptional.

[JAKraig]

Some people are afraid to tell pollsters they’re voting for Trump.
The other side of the coin is that some people who’ve said they’re voting for Trump may be so worn down by all the controversies that they may just not go to the polls in November.

I’m not convinced that crowd sizes and crowd enthusiasm are that important though. If they were, Trump would be running against Bernie Sanders.

_______________________________________________________

Sanders lost because the election was rigged.

I knew after a couple of Trump rally’s that Trump would be the next president. I don’t even think it will be close.

[Biggirl]

Second it. Trump wins big.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It’s not even Labor Day.

This.

It is over a month before October Surprise time. It is up in the air.

LS, do you have any explanation why I seem to be the only American who has ever read the Constitution? Talk Radio is all over “Pay to Play,” and yet according to the Constitution Hillary is guilty until proven innocent:

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

If the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund, it is a fraud and she is guilty of accepting gifts from foreign governments - which the Constitution section quoted above presumes to be bribes. But even if the Clinton Foundation is (“were” definitely seems more like it) an efficient and effective charity, the fact that it is named “Clinton” gives Hillary a good name is due in part to foreign government contributions. Thus, an efficient and effective charity named “Clinton” constitutes a “title” of sorts . . . and a title of any kind whatever, funded by foreign governments, is taboo. Unless of course it was pre approved by Congress. And indeed Obama did pre approve it - and the Senate, arguably knowingly, confirmed her nomination. But no one has averred that the House of Representatives ever was even asked.

So either way, Hillary is in the wrong for being a principal in a foundation accepting foreign government money. And the case against Bill’s honoraria funded by foreign governments is about as strong; arguably he held an office of profit (as POTUS pensioner) and trust (as former POTUS, but also as the spouse of the Secretary of State).

The “Pay for Play” aspect is damning, all right - but evidence of it is unnecessary. The Constitution presumes guilt in the case; we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.