POLLS/538/Politico (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

I think the other piece to this was the media and Liberal elites literally shaming people for supporting Trump.  If you were brave enough to post a Trump sign in your yard, it was either stolen or your house got egged.  When the media keeps the talking points around the clock that this guy is the worst human ever and enough people believe it, those that were supporting him just stayed silent.  I suspect if they were polled, some just lied.

The crowds don't lie.  Trump was hitting 3-4 cities a day at the end and drawing 15,000+ everywhere.  Hillary could not draw 2,000 on her own (without Beyonce or some other trick).  

Add this with oversampling tricks and media collusion to suggest this race won't be close and the polls were horribly wrong.  

 

[shader]

What about the polls that were right?  There was a significant trend on this board to completely ignore the polls that favored Trump.

 

[jon_mx]

Electoral college is way more exciting than a popular vote.  Take last night.  We spent like an hour in Fl.  Then once that become clear, we moved to VA, NC and OH.  Then we moved to WI and MI.  The time zones really help to stagger the excitement as well.  Electoral college and time zones is the winning formula. It would be ideal if a a west coast state was in play but then you're getting into the really late hours and I'm normally in bed by 11 ET.

Yep, the founding fathers really had this planned out well.  All the way down to the TV timeouts. 

 

[David Dodds]

100% agree that the electoral college is WAY more fun to watch.  My only suggestion is that states where there are more than 20 electoral votes should be split into multiple pieces so CA, NY could also be in play

 

[FreeBaGeL]

  How could so many polls be so wrong?  Hillary was going to win bigly, and in the end "they" all had it wrong by a LARGE margin.  If anything maybe the way polling is done will change.  It looks as if the polling was very lazy or simply just bad.  I didn't see a single poll that had Trump winning, but I saw several polls that showed Hillary winning over 300 electoral votes.   Hint. I guess the days of calling someone on a land line is not real polling.  I can hear the pollsters now, but, but, but, it was the FBI at the end that changed people's votes, or people were to embarrassed to say they were voting for Trump.  Meh, polls are dead no one is going to trust them now. 

At least a part of it is no different than internet anonymity emboldening people.  There was a non-negligible group of people that were embarrassed to tell pollsters that they were voting for Trump but were willing to actually vote for him when no one could see it.

 

[jonessed]

Electoral college idea is so stupid.  Not a democracy if a vote in OH, FL is more important than a vote in TX or CA.

A true democracy doesn't work well for minority groups.

 

[snogger]

100% agree that the electoral college is WAY more fun to watch.  My only suggestion is that states where there are more than 20 electoral votes should be split into multiple pieces so CA, NY could also be in play

Yea,, I'm fine with the EC over popular vote, but it needs to be "fixed".. it shouldn't be "winner take all" ... Look at most states... Minnesota vote turn out is 85% red this morning, yet the entire state goes to Clinton..

 

[jonessed]

Yea,, I'm fine with the EC over popular vote, but it needs to be "fixed".. it shouldn't be "winner take all" ... Look at most states... Minnesota vote turn out is 85% red this morning, yet the entire state goes to Clinton..

Then you end up with gerrymandering.  It's not that easy to change.

 

[snogger]

Then you end up with gerrymandering.  It's not that easy to change.

Seems to work for Nebraska and Maine.. I don't have the answers that is for sure.. just have always felt a "winner takes all" is the wrong way to decide it..

Republicans in California should feel their vote for president matters, as well as Democrats in Texas.

 

[jonessed]

Seems to work for Nebraska and Maine.. I don't have the answers that is for sure.. just have always felt a "winner takes all" is the wrong way to decide it..

Republicans in California should feel their vote for president matters, as well as Democrats in Texas.

I agree in principle.

 

[Van Dyman]

Electoral college idea is so stupid.  Not a democracy if a vote in OH, FL is more important than a vote in TX or CA.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Hillary has a 90% chance of winning.......

And you can tell them to go #### themselves....

 

[James Daulton]

I think the other piece to this was the media and Liberal elites literally shaming people for supporting Trump.  If you were brave enough to post a Trump sign in your yard, it was either stolen or your house got egged.  When the media keeps the talking points around the clock that this guy is the worst human ever and enough people believe it, those that were supporting him just stayed silent.  I suspect if they were polled, some just lied.

The crowds don't lie.  Trump was hitting 3-4 cities a day at the end and drawing 15,000+ everywhere.  Hillary could not draw 2,000 on her own (without Beyonce or some other trick).  

Add this with oversampling tricks and media collusion to suggest this race won't be close and the polls were horribly wrong.  

Eh, I don't buy this at all.  Trump supporters were afraid to tell a random poller via a phone call?  And I saw plenty of yard signs.

If the crowds mattered as much as you say, Trump should have crushed Hillary.  The fact is that Trump's people got out and Hillary's did not.  If Hillary's people had come out anywhere close to Obama's, she'd have won easily.  It's the fault of the black and white women with college degrees, they were supposed to be in Hillary's corner bigly and they didn't vote close to prior levels.

 

[Riversco]

The one model (perhaps the only model) that has a perfect record in modern times is this:  the winner is always the candidate that people would rather have a beer with. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/would_you_rather_have_a_beer_with_clinton_or_trump

45% of Likely U.S. Voters would prefer to have a beer with Trump over Clinton. Thirty-seven percent (37%) would rather have a beer with Clinton. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided. 

The polls were only wrong twice - 1980 and 2016 - and those also happen to be the ONLY two years where the polls didn't favor the candidate people would rather have a beer with. If this is correct, Booker, Sherrod Brown, Warren, Kaine, Cuomo, and Castro are probably all the wrong choices for the democrats in 2020.  I think people would rather have a beer with Trump than any of those.  The best choice might be Martin O'Malley.