• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump supporters current view of Trump's chances

Trump Supporters Current View of hi

  • Trump is currently ahead

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Trump is statistically tied with Clinton

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Trump will win in November

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Clinton will narrowly win in November

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
I question if Trump really wants to win … or if this just a loud mouth platform for his next venture … Trump News Network. He said he could make a lot of money running for POTUS.

He certainly is not behaving in a way that suggests he wants to or expects to win. Either that, or he is just too arrogant to listen to sound, informed opinion (which would be a fatal flaw, should he actually be elected).
 
Very well. Since you admittedly don't have the capability of conducting a rudimentary forum search, I'll toss this at you:

View attachment 67208628

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/10/13/fox-news-poll-october-13-2016/


Does anything strike you odd about this? If not, then I think it is YOU who has a problem with polls and basic math.

Statistical sampling is about determining the preferences of likely voters. This means you have to find the characteristics of the likely voter. If likely voters are naturally skewed to the dems, the polls have to be skewed accordingly to get the most accurate result.
 
I may not like the choice who we end up with...in fact not liking the choice is a given considering I don't like either one for various reasons...but will accept that the people have spoken.
 
Would you consider that scenario to be a good thing???

The Truth coming out and the American people caring is what good looks like.

The closer we get to that the better.
 
The Truth coming out and the American people caring is what good looks like.

The closer we get to that the better.

Dare to dream. :mrgreen:
 
I was surprised to hear today that there are a great number of Trump supporters that believe he is currently leading in the polls. That seems contrary to everything I see, but I thought it might make an interesting discussion. What do you think are Trump's prospects to win in November?

IMO most important choice for Trump voters is between the last two. Conspiracy theories have been flying all over the place this election cycle, and they serve to benefit nobody except for a very few people who thrive on CTs for power (*cough* Trump).
 
IMO most important choice for Trump voters is between the last two. Conspiracy theories have been flying all over the place this election cycle, and they serve to benefit nobody except for a very few people who thrive on CTs for power (*cough* Trump).

I wouldn't get too confident. with the press shilling for Hildabeast she is the favorite. But one terrorist attack carried about by an illegal immigrant here or in Europe, or another video of Hillary collapsing and it could all change quickly
 
I wouldn't get too confident. with the press shilling for Hildabeast she is the favorite. But one terrorist attack carried about by an illegal immigrant here or in Europe, or another video of Hillary collapsing and it could all change quickly

Never said she was guaranteed the win. Your candidate certainly put himself behind with two terrible debate showings and his "*****" comments. Still, comebacks can happen.
 
Never said she was guaranteed the win. Your candidate certainly put himself behind with two terrible debate showings and his "*****" comments. Still, comebacks can happen.

His first debate wasn't great but his second one was better than Hillary's

if the press covered all the stuff hillary said when in the white house with bill, the numbers would be a bit different
 
His first debate wasn't great but his second one was better than Hillary's

if the press covered all the stuff hillary said when in the white house with bill, the numbers would be a bit different

I don't know but. I think the animosity with independent voters is what is sinking Trump. His own mouth is doing him in, not the media. Hillary sucks, but she can reach out to independents. Trump is attracting racist, racists, misogynists and the average person doesn't want to be identified with that.
 
His first debate wasn't great but his second one was better than Hillary's

You mean the one where Trump was being creepy stalker dude and humping his chair? No, unbiased polls suggest that he lost number two as well. ;)

if the press covered all the stuff hillary said when in the white house with bill, the numbers would be a bit different
:lamo
 
what is clear.. is the wise waking up to the enemy is the media and democrat party

also what is increasing is if hillary wins there will be states rights or secession which will stop liberalism.... trump has all the REAL power and will demand states rights or secession

SECESSION chance is INCREASING FAST... 31 conservative states of america
 
Statistical sampling is about determining the preferences of likely voters. This means you have to find the characteristics of the likely voter. If likely voters are naturally skewed to the dems, the polls have to be skewed accordingly to get the most accurate result.

As noted, in this thread and elsewhere:

Good polls will report factors like party identification in order to adjust the poll to better match the public at large. E.g. if the data shows that 49% of Americans are registered Democrats and Dem-leaning independents, and that 44% of Americans are registered Republicans and R-leaning independents, they will adjust the survey results to better match those figures.

Polls that are consistently inaccurate usually get called out. E.g. Rasmussen tends to provide rosy numbers for Republicans in some elections, so the aggregators try to keep that in mind.

More sophisticated aggregators (like 538) will sometimes try to readjust for poll weighting, and throw in their own special sauce (such as noticing correlations between states, often based on geographical quirks.)

And yes, those numbers are largely accurate. Gallup, for example, has tracked party identification for years, and Dems outnumber Republicans. Fox may rely on Gallup or external polling, or run its own party identification polls.

As I suspected you don't have the first clue about how polling actually works.

You are seeing the raw data. They call random people and they get the data which is what you see with those percentages. What you don't see is how is how that data is weighted based projections of what the electorate will look like. And you won't see that data on hardly any poll as that is the polling agencies proprietary information.

Is it possible that the data is being manipulated to get a result? Yes. Is it likely? No. A poll is only as good as its reputation for accuracy.

And even if data was being manipulated you or I couldn't tell it from the basic data in the press release from a poll.

So...the guy I was responding to bailed with a final insult, but the rest of you failed to answer my question.

Would y'all like to try it again?

Does anything strike you odd about this?


daron-shaw-4.jpg

Hint: Don't just let your eyes glaze over while you look at this. Actually look at the numbers...look at the dates.
 
So...the guy I was responding to bailed with a final insult, but the rest of you failed to answer my question.

Would y'all like to try it again?

Does anything strike you odd about this?
Nope.


Hint: Don't just let your eyes glaze over while you look at this. Actually look at the numbers...look at the dates.
You do realize that "likely voters" and "registered voters" are two different groups?
 
Nope.



You do realize that "likely voters" and "registered voters" are two different groups?

Come on...perhaps you need to keep trying. Likely voters and registered voters is not the issue. The numbers and the dates are the issue.
 
Come on...perhaps you need to keep trying. Likely voters and registered voters is not the issue. The numbers and the dates are the issue.

First of all what site is it from?
What year is it from?
Who did the polling?

It's nothing but a bunch of poll results that mean nothing with no context.

So again...

Pot meet kettle.
 
So...the guy I was responding to bailed with a final insult, but the rest of you failed to answer my question.

Would y'all like to try it again?

Does anything strike you odd about this?


View attachment 67208639

Hint: Don't just let your eyes glaze over while you look at this. Actually look at the numbers...look at the dates.


You are taking issue with the radical change in the composition of Oct 10-12 vs Oct 3-6 numbers. That is curious, indeed. I have no explanation for that, nor do I actually know what this table is from, so, at this time, I can offer nothing intelligent as an explanation, other than I never look at one poll. I think you need to see the results of multiple polls over time to see the story.

This is interesting. I will see what I can find out. Can you link to the source of the document you posted?
 
First of all what site is it from?
What year is it from?
Who did the polling?

It's nothing but a bunch of poll results that mean nothing with no context.

So again...

Pot meet kettle.

Dude...I gave you the link. Do you want me to READ it to you, also?

Jeezus...don't be lazy.
 
You are taking issue with the radical change in the composition of Oct 10-12 vs Oct 3-6 numbers. That is curious, indeed. I have no explanation for that, nor do I actually know what this table is from, so, at this time, I can offer nothing intelligent as an explanation, other than I never look at one poll. I think you need to see the results of multiple polls over time to see the story.

This is interesting. I will see what I can find out. Can you link to the source of the document you posted?
That would be a huge help.
As nearly as I can see, this document is reporting the political lean of their respondents.
I think accurate pollsters adjust their numbers to account for any skewing of their polls that would occur in their sampling.:shrug:
I'll bet Nate Silver understands all this better than I do.
 
I will accept the results of the elections but I also know the fix is in. Trump could have won but he had too many stupid self-inflicted wounds.
 
You are taking issue with the radical change in the composition of Oct 10-12 vs Oct 3-6 numbers. That is curious, indeed. I have no explanation for that, nor do I actually know what this table is from, so, at this time, I can offer nothing intelligent as an explanation, other than I never look at one poll. I think you need to see the results of multiple polls over time to see the story.

This is interesting. I will see what I can find out. Can you link to the source of the document you posted?

I provided the link in post #30, but here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/10/13/fox-news-poll-october-13-2016/

Yes, you are correct about what I'm taking issue with. The explanation, however, is simple. Fox wanted to produce a poll that gave Hillary a bump, so they increased the Dems polled and decreased the Republicans polled which gave Hillary a +9 advantage in people polled. It's no wonder she ended up with a +7 in the poll results.

And, the notion that "it's demographics", as some like to contend, is hogwash because just one week prior their numbers were almost equal between Dems and Republicans polled. It's a clear case of deliberately manipulating numbers to obtain their desired result. And they aren't the only ones to do this kind of thing. NBC, Reuters, CBS...just about ALL of them cook their polls to get the numbers they want. And, since this happens constantly, your "multiple polls over time" thing is useless. It's happening constantly over time. It also means the RCP Average is useless. It's a case of GIGO.

So my position of disregarding ALL polls until the final poll on Nov. 8th is the only honest, realistic position to take to avoid being taken advantage by the pollsters.


btw, I might add that the graphic does show multiple Fox polls over a number of years and never before...at least by the information in that graphic...have they manipulated their numbers to this degree.
 
Last edited:
I provided the link in post #30, but here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/10/13/fox-news-poll-october-13-2016/

Yes, you are correct about what I'm taking issue with. The explanation, however, is simple. Fox wanted to produce a poll that gave Hillary a bump, so they increased the Dems polled and decreased the Republicans polled which gave Hillary a +9 advantage in people polled. It's no wonder she ended up with a +7 in the poll results.
I don't think FOX went out of their way to contact more Dems.
I think they contacted more Dems by happenstance.
I also think they adjust their results to reflect any over-representation of Dems or Repubs in their polls.
Pollsters want their prognostications to be accurate.....with the notable exception of Dick Morris.


So my position of disregarding ALL polls until the final poll on Nov. 8th is the only honest, realistic position to take to avoid being taken advantage by the pollsters.
.
Ignoring polling results is your choice.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There's far too much bitching and personal attacks going on in this thread. Please stop and stick to the topic. And that means you, Mycroft and you, BD. And everyone else who's doing it.
 
I don't think FOX went out of their way to contact more Dems.
I think they contacted more Dems by happenstance.

That's not how it works. Sure, they might end up calling more Democrats or Republicans than the other. Then they adjust their data to reflect some sort of notion of demographics.

I also think they adjust their results to reflect any over-representation of Dems or Repubs in their polls.

Yes. And that's the problem. This time...unlike other times...they adjusted their results to give Democrat respondents a 9% advantage over Republican respondents.

Pollsters want their prognostications to be accurate.....with the notable exception of Dick Morris.

Morris is irrelevant to this discussion, but yeah...one would think pollsters are concerned about accuracy except that this election they seem to have thrown that concern out the window...as Fox did here.

Ignoring polling results is your choice.

Absolutely...it is my choice. Just as other choose to believe these bogus polls. To each his own.
 
You mean the one where Trump was being creepy stalker dude and humping his chair? No, unbiased polls suggest that he lost number two as well. ;)


:lamo

Frank Luntz's focus group said otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom