Some Interesting Internals from The Top Polls Used By RealClearPolitics

11/6/16 | OV

[OneVike]

I'm only grabbing information from the internal numbers of the questionable polls that bring into question the final average.




Makes you wonder about those who can't remember if they voted 4 years ago?











There are a few interesting things to note from the McClatchy-Marist poll above. Especially when you consider they under polled Republicans. If you recalculate the number you would find that Trump does much better against Hillary with men than she does with women which is skewed by the over sampling of Democrats. Plus when pollsters say college educated vs college uneducated, they mean those with a 4 year college degree vs anyone who does not have a 4 year degree. I cannot stress the importance of the fact that there are almost 80% more Americans who went to college but never graduated, or just received a 2 year degree compared to the number of Americans who earned a 4 year degree.










Finally, I believe that Trump will win the election by 3% to 5%. I have numbers that points to Trump winning Florida by 3%, and that he will come real close to barely winning in a couple other Battle Ground states, but I have not been able to make the formula to work as surely in them as it does for Florida. I have used my Florida formula all the way back to Bush in 2000 and it is a good one. However, it just won't work as consistently in other battleground state, and my head is too tired to try any more. Plus there is no time left for me to keep trying.

In nut shell, it has to do with the number of registered voters for each party in Florida, and a tried and true formula of 87% of the registered Democrats voting compared to 97% of Republicans who always vote. With such a close number of Dem vs Rep registered voters, Trump will carry the state by 3%, and possibly more if there are a substantial number of Democrats crossing over to vote for Trump.

I tested the formula for 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, and it works within .3% for all four Florida State elections. Not sure why it works that way in Florida and not in other states, but it does. Who knows, maybe it's a number the Democrats found and thus that is why they try to reach so many minority's in their push during their for long registration and early vote in order to steal the elections in Presidential election years.

[AU72]

To be honest, there will be massive fraud,

But I hope this time we can nail these people.

[OneVike]

While I do understand the effect and importance of the ground game, this election is like no other.

No one had the ground game of ted Cruz, that is part of the reason his followers were so hard headed in coming over.

Trump made this a different type of a race,

He truly is the outsider who knows how the other side works. They are sleazy, and being from the wrong side of the tracks, he is like the vast number of Americans ans even though I was a huge Cruzer, I do identify with Trump.

So having a strong ground game is nullified by Trumps normal one of the guys pesonal. That is something that a normal political ground game cannot over come, as Cruz found out.

Trumps ground game is that HE IS ONE OF US. He just did better with what he started with than we did.

He leaked interview tape with Bush actually helped him with mus crude and rude Americans. The woman, like it or not, many like that bad boy image. Nice guys always bitch and complain that the girls go for the bad boy, not the nice boy.

Benjamin Franklyn as a womanizer and he was a bit rude and crude, yet the European socialites loved him. It was, the American persona, and trump is the quintessential American male.

Look, in internal polling I found that trump actually beats Clinton with women. If you look at the NBC Wall Street Journal poll portion O posted you will see they had to over sample women by 6% to give Hillary an edge over Trump. That and and oversampling of democrats and Independents.

There was an article I posted to FR about 3 weeks ago that showed they actually over sample black women and under sampled black men to give Hillary the edge over trump in women overall.

In their own poll they had trump beating Hillary with white women, but losing to her in women over all. You can only do that if you over sample minorities which the did in their polling.

[Vermont Lt]

Are you saying that there is never that much difference between the candidates, or that parties.

What I am suggesting is that you might be missing the independent vote (most of which goes to one of the major parties or the other.). That would more than account for the difference.

Not “debating”, just trying to understand how you got where you are.

[Vermont Lt]

Are you saying that there is never that much difference between the candidates, or that parties.

What I am suggesting is that you might be missing the independent vote (most of which goes to one of the major parties or the other.). That would more than account for the difference.

Not “debating”, just trying to understand how you got where you are.

[OneVike]

It could be, but never has the independent registered voter showed up in numbers that the registered voters of Dem and Rep do.

Perot did get a large vote as an independent, but he received it from registered Democrats and Republicans. Without them Perot would not have gotten past 2 or 3%.

[spintreebob]

When a ground game gets the undecided and clueless to vote the intended way, the undecided and clueless ARE ‘your voters’.

When I swing 30% of voters to vote my way don’t think they were dedicated Ds that I converted. No. That 30% are waiting for someone to be their friend and educate them.

[spintreebob]

re: ground game cannot over come, as Cruz found out.

Where did Cruz have a ground game, except in Iowa?

Here in the SEC he had zero ground game. He was the first choice at RedState, even before there was any Trump news. After RedState he appeared in Newnan with a crowd of many thousands of supporters. My daughter was the #1 organizer of people to attend Rafael Cruz at Hispanic Patriots.

I talked to Cruz staffers at all of these events, expecting go door-to-door for Cruz. At all of these events the Cruz staffers were totally clueless about a ground game. They were totally clueless what to do with their thousands of volunteering activists. I’ve talked to many who attended the same events I attended. They also were totally discouraged by the incompetence of the Cruz staffers.

(The Cruz staffers were clueless about things other than the ground game. Example, They placed Ted to speak in the hot sun when there was shade of tall trees readily available.)

Cruz had over 500,000 small donors in 2015. His staffers (often emailing as Heidi) would send 6 or 7 emails per day pleading for money. Above the 500,000 who gave, there were a million activists who would give time but not money. Never once did an email ask us to knock on doors. Never once did an email tell us where to go to get a walk list and palmcards. In numerous emails and phone calls to alleged Cruz offices never once was there any response other than a form letter asking for money.

I agree Trump is a different type of candidate. To win, a campaign needs to be a COMPLETE campaign. A good candidate, good message, good air game, good ground game.

We don’t win very often. We should learn from that that we should always run as if a COMPLETE campaign is necessary.