Jump to content
Nevada Convert

Very 2016 Accurate: Latest Trafalgar 2020 Poll Results

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I mean, the pollsters have changed their methodologies to weight more heavily for the demographic that Trump won last time and who were underrepresented in the polls. And as far as I can tell, that's the only demographic along with Cubans in Florida where Trump hasn't lost support. So unless there is another hidden demographic that comes out in big enough numbers to give him wins in multiple states, the odds are really for the error showing more Trump support than there really is. And since the three big tipping point states (AZ, PA, FL) are three corners of a triangle on the map, I think it's unlikely that the same demographic tips all three states like you saw with MI, WIS and PA last time. It seems like the best bet for things breaking to Trump is getting enough turnout from his support base (basically breaking the likely voter category) and getting those three states close enough for a 2000 redux.

I don’t want to be a pollster.  Predicting turnout in this election is really a crapshoot.   I think the biggest gap will be in the 29 and under group.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smltwnrckr said:

I mean, the pollsters have changed their methodologies to weight more heavily for the demographic that Trump won last time and who were underrepresented in the polls. And as far as I can tell, that's the only demographic along with Cubans in Florida where Trump hasn't lost support. So unless there is another hidden demographic that comes out in big enough numbers to give him wins in multiple states, the odds are really for the error showing more Trump support than there really is. And since the three big tipping point states (AZ, PA, FL) are three corners of a triangle on the map, I think it's unlikely that the same demographic tips all three states like you saw with MI, WIS and PA last time. It seems like the best bet for things breaking to Trump is getting enough turnout from his support base (basically breaking the likely voter category) and getting those three states close enough for a 2000 redux.

Based on the uncertainty from the polling in 2016. I would probably agree with your opinion the most. 
 

We are a bunch weird political junkies. Debating over polls and what they mean. No one really knows. But someone will be right on November 3. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

If Trump wins, it will be interesting to see how much we trust polling companies and data journalists going forward.  It seems to be a complex business.  The polling itself is not the issue, but the modeling that is done with the polling data.  The modeling was definitely off in 2016.

Folks keep repeating this but the models weren't really off in 2016. All of the numbers fell within the margin of error and only about 70,000 votes, out of 136 million, in 3 key state swayed the election.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, renoskier said:

Folks keep repeating this but the models weren't really off in 2016. All of the numbers fell within the margin of error and only about 70,000 votes, out of 136 million, in 3 key state swayed the election.

I am not a polling expert, but these guys seem to disagree with you:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/media/data-journalists-election-models-trump-reliable-sources/index.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trafalgar has not released all of its crosstabs. But where they have, Trump's deficit with women shows. The crosstabs I could find for individual states show large margins of women saying they will vote for Biden over Trump.

Keep an eye on gender along with age demographics of voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

I am not a polling expert, but these guys seem to disagree with you:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/media/data-journalists-election-models-trump-reliable-sources/index.html

 

That article doesn't back up your supposition. 

I phoned The Economist's G. Elliott Morris to hear his thoughts. Is he worried about what might happen next week if Trump manages to win against all odds? "That's something I think about a lot," Morris told me. "If we are wrong this time, the perception that polls are unfixable or our analyses are crap would be quite damaging. I'm concerned about that." Morris is of the mindset that what happened in 2016 was "more of a perceived error than an actual one," noting that the models did allow for a Trump victory. And he's confident in The Economist's model.

I also reached out to FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver who also stressed that in 2016 he and his colleagues did say Trump had a chance of winning. "We warned folks that Trump could win and a lot of people didn't heed that warning," Silver said. Regarding this year's modeling, he explained, "We're not going out on any sort of limb here. We're just stating the obvious. Biden's pretty far ahead in polls and the candidate who's ahead in polls by a margin like that usually wins."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of 538, today Trump's approval rating on their cumulative index is the highest it's been in six months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

That article doesn't back up your position. 

I also reached out to FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver who also stressed that in 2016 he and his colleagues did say Trump had a chance of winning. "We warned folks that Trump could win and a lot of people didn't heed that warning," Silver said. Regarding this year's modeling, he explained, "We're not going out on any sort of limb here. We're just stating the obvious. Biden's pretty far ahead in polls and the candidate who's ahead in polls by a margin like that usually wins."

Silver is so full of shit. He had Hillary at 99% at one point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Folks keep repeating this but the models weren't really off in 2016. All of the numbers fell within the margin of error and only about 70,000 votes, out of 136 million, in 3 key state swayed the election.

I think those three states saw results outside the margins, but otherwise most of the polls were pretty accurate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

If Trump wins, it will be interesting to see how much we trust polling companies and data journalists going forward.  It seems to be a complex business.  The polling itself is not the issue, but the modeling that is done with the polling data.  The modeling was definitely off in 2016.

It wasnt that far off.  The national numbers were close, and the states that were 'off' were within margin of error, except one (think it was Wisconsin).  When the final tallies are that close, that 'off' was all that was really needed.  And in 2016, the polling numbers were trending toward Trump from about 10 days out til Election Day.  People paid too much attention to the national numbers, and not enough to the state numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

If Trump wins, it will be interesting to see how much we trust polling companies and data journalists going forward.  It seems to be a complex business.  The polling itself is not the issue, but the modeling that is done with the polling data.  The modeling was definitely off in 2016.

I think that's a good question should that happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Del Scorcho said:

too bad you didn't use trafalgar's 2018

 

It’s hilarious to watch you retards try to nail me on Trafalgar by not reading my posts. 🤪🤪🤪😂

As I said, they nailed battleground states like Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. in 2016 using their shy Trump voter psychology factors. One of those is to ask the person who their next door neighbor is voting for, and they’re more willing to give their opinions as a neighbor, but not as themselves. The NY Times and others have called it innovative. 

So if you still don’t know why their numbers are so pro-Trump, you’re a dummy because it’s just the shy voter factored in. There’s been a couple of researchers that have studied the shy voter factor, and both determined it’ll at a min. be the same as 2016, but likely to be much larger. The shy factor average for the battleground states in 2016 averaged to be 4.3 points, and it’s expected to be more than that. So suck it. 

 

  • Idiot 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nevada Convert said:

It’s hilarious to watch you retards try to nail me on Trafalgar by not reading my posts. 🤪🤪🤪😂

As I said, they nailed battleground states like Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. in 2016 using their shy Trump voter psychology factors. One of those is to ask the person who their next door neighbor is voting for, and they’re more willing to give their opinions as a neighbor, but not as themselves. The NY Times and others have called it innovative. 

So if you still don’t know why their numbers are so pro-Trump, you’re a dummy because it’s just the shy voter factored in. There’s been a couple of researchers that have studied the shy voter factor, and both determined it’ll at a min. be the same as 2016, but likely to be much larger. The shy factor average for the battleground states in 2016 averaged to be 4.3 points, and it’s expected to be more than that. 

 

can we please stop using that word? 

Not cool.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I think that's a good question should that happen. 

The MSM and Big Tech are trying to censor a legitimate story with lots of evidence, so why would it be hard to imagine if pollsters were also using their craft as a resistance tool? Making voters feel like Trump has no chance is a great way to pull off voter suppression. Some of these loons have TDS-Q so bad, they don’t care if they look stupid being so far off the actual results. 

  • Idiot 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...