Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Ye, but those polls tend to be even more inaccurate. Look at some of those gaps lel.

https://plot.ly/~busterroni/272/polling-average-vs-reality-in-the-2016-democratic-primary-sanders/

Ehhmmm...without any context or methodology we cannot really say (I just saw the data and code and it's not helpful to understand anything, it just has the numbers without any info about weighting of the polls or something).

Honestly, it seems a shitty page. I'd search something better.

He took the average numbers of all recent polls before the primary from RealClearPolitics and plotted them in a graph. Not sure what's shitty about that.

It's actually not. I'd have to dig up the video, but there's a clip where someone called him on it and he grabbed a handful, lifted it, and you can clearly see his hairline.

Well, if a wig is fake hair, then a fake wig must be real hair.

200 pages... think it's pretty obvious who would win if you just took poe players votes.

Stumbled upon this video today, had a laugh (with him at him), but I think it ties loosely to this thread. Just gonna share, sorry if too ot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrf8kshrikg

] [/spoiler]

"

Xavderion wrote:

He took the average numbers of all recent polls before the primary from RealClearPolitics and plotted them in a graph. Not sure what's shitty about that.

Data was unsourced, and it's a random page. Sketchy job if you ask me. I distrusted it, but it seems legit now that I searched about the whole thing.

That being said, big states like Texas and swing states like Florida have been accurate, and the big errors seem for small states that haven't been paid a lot of attention (so the likehood of error is big). See Idaho for the most egregious mistake: http://www.inquisitr.com/2911990/idaho-caucus-polls-2016-democrats-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-battle-it-out-for-potato-state/ to see that there wasn't a lot of polling there. In that sense is not that horrible of an error because there wasn't a lot of data taken.

I don't think national elections are the same than the primaries in accuracy (that would make the polling too unreliable, and there is an impressive machinery around that in both parties so there is a demand for accurate polling...Occam's Razor), but if you think otherwise and can justify why, I can change my mind.

Also, there is the undecided vote, see California to compare: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html so the polling average in the primaries doesn't necessary need to coincide with the results but the margin doesn't seem that monstruous. It may matter in swing states if Clinton didn't have a visible advantage in many of them.

But again, historical predecent means Trump is doomed anyway. Consider that even some normally solid red states are in play. And Trump is horribly disorganized (no ground game and he is spending resources in places that don't really have a lot of relevance). And that he is disliked even more than Clinton by a reasonable margin (that's just data, not my opinion). After that brief period he had an advantage over Clinton (RNC convention) there was a big reversal (I think it put enough fear in people to vote for Clinton, if anything to be safe, rather than third party).

Then again, this is a weird election (that catches my attention a lot even being an outsider to the point of wanting to be informed). That's just me praxing an explanation though.

"

Antnee wrote:

It's actually not. I'd have to dig up the video, but there's a clip where someone called him on it and he grabbed a handful, lifted it, and you can clearly see his hairline.

Looks like there's a few.Lot of hair on an aged face can look like a wig because people don't expect to see it I reckon.

The Clinton Narrative Network went full damage control with this one:



They're dying btw, 750k peak viewers, most of them all day viewers (aka airports, fitness studios etc that run CNN all day every day). I certainly don't hope for a comeback.

On the subject of polls and Trump. Poli Sci minor here.

There is real reason to believe that people are lying now more than ever on these polls. A lot of folks have been shamed either at work, on FB, whatever when they say anything positive about Trump so they may very well lie to a pollster. In fact, they will lie, we know that. What we do not know is how many.

This pretty much makes the polls meaningless.

"

Xavderion wrote:

They're dying btw, 750k peak viewers, most of them all day viewers (aka airports, fitness studios etc that run CNN all day every day). I certainly don't hope for a comeback.

I agree with you here CNN is garbo, but to be fair to Clinton, she has also had a dedicated outlet in fox news entertainment blasting them for ever concocted bullshit they can think of, realm of possibility be damned, for 20+ years straight