Trump's polling goes off a cliff, Clinton opens up huge double-digit lead in post-tapes NBC/WSJ poll - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184983]It would be like saying 100% of americans support trump if you only polled 500 republicans.[/QUOTE] the people chosen for the polls represent likely voters there are more democrats than there are republicans in that group, so they ask more democrats than they do republicans your example wouldn't make sense because 100% of likely voters aren't republican I really don't understand what your complaint is

[QUOTE=phaedon;51184990]What's the issue here? Party affiliation is an attitude, not a demographic and is subject to change.[/QUOTE] The "double digit lead" is only because they asked 10% more democrats than republicans. [IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6lfnhxwzy0qumyhgcnobdg.png[/IMG] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51184993] your example wouldn't make sense because 100% of likely voters aren't republican [/QUOTE] There only 3% more democrats nationwide. So by your own accord, they didn't ask a representative of "likely votes."

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184997]The "double digit lead" is only because they asked 10% more democrats than republicans.[/quote] If they had selected their sample based on a 50-50 party alignment quota they would be skewing the results. [quote]There only 3% more democrats nationwide. So by your own accord, they didn't ask a representative of "likely votes."[/QUOTE] In 2014. I would be surprised if party alignments aren't shifting as we speak, based on recent developments.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184997]The "double digit lead" is only because they asked 10% more democrats than republicans. [IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6lfnhxwzy0qumyhgcnobdg.png[/IMG] There only 3% more democrats nationwide. So by your own accord, they didn't ask a representative of "likely votes."[/QUOTE] here's a good article that I think explains the problem with your point [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/[/url] [quote]The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184997]The "double digit lead" is only because they asked 10% more democrats than republicans.[/QUOTE] And in this post Mikenopa affirms that he can in fact determine what double digits means

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51185022]here's a good article that I think explains the problem with your point [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/[/url][/QUOTE] I'm not saying they purposely over sampled democrats. What I am saying is that it is obvious that the democrats will say they support Hillary, and they did ask more democrats. [QUOTE]Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51185046]I'm not saying they purposely over sampled democrats. What I am saying is that it is obvious that the democrats will say they support Hillary, and they did ask more democrats.[/QUOTE] yes, and why is that surprising? Like that quote clearly states, democrats have historically had consistently higher representation in the exit polls compared to republicans. So again I ask, why is it odd that they'd be overrepresented among likely voters?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51185074]yes, and why is that surprising? Like that quote clearly states, democrats have historically had consistently higher representation in the exit polls compared to republicans. So again I ask, why is it odd that they'd be overrepresented among likely voters?[/QUOTE] It's not odd. It's just not an accurate look into how America as a whole will vote in November.

If you want Hillary to win, news/polls like this is terrible. Apathy is extremely dangerous, and the less likely it seems Trump will be able to win, the less likely people are to go out and vote with the intent to stop Trump from winning.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;51185197]If you want Hillary to win, news/polls like this is terrible. Apathy is extremely dangerous, and the less likely it seems Trump will be able to win, the less likely people are to go out and vote with the intent to stop Trump from winning.[/QUOTE] I actually recall reading (can't find the source currently) that positive polls encourage people to actually go out and vote. Apathy might be a factor, but imagine knowing your group is headed for a victory. Wouldn't you want to be a part of the winning team and know that you are contributing towards a victory?

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51185086]It's not odd. It's just not an accurate look into how America as a whole will vote in November.[/QUOTE] And why not? Identifying as republican or democrat =/= voting Trump or Clinton. Completely separate question, no one is relying on more people identifying as democrat to give Clinton the lead.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51185086]It's not odd. It's just not an accurate look into how America as a whole will vote in November.[/QUOTE] historically, polls have [i]understated[/i] the democrats' success. trump people should very, very worried when a poll doesn't go their way.

[QUOTE=Orkel;51184009]Okay, here's my opinion on the debate. Clinton was more presidential and "official". Trump got the entertainment points and zingers. I think Clinton won debate-wise. Trump only won TV-wise.[/QUOTE] Trump is a good entertainer and skilled at pleasing a crowd because he's that kind of guy. He's had a lot of practice being an entertainer. In a way I'm similar to him in that regard. I'm witty, I'm entertaining, I can make jokes, but I'm immature and unprofessional beyond fuck. Trump takes the latter 2 things to a higher extreme however. He's unprofessional in every regard a president shouldn't be.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51185872]In a way I'm similar to him in that regard. I'm witty, I'm entertaining, I can make jokes, but I'm immature and unprofessional beyond fuck. Trump takes the latter 2 things to a higher extreme however. He's unprofessional in every regard a president shouldn't be.[/QUOTE] The issue isn't really him being unprofessional or immature (well the latter is, to some extent). He is petty, spiteful and narcissistic. Slight unprofessionalism or immaturity can be endearing quirks as far as I am concerned.

[QUOTE=phaedon;51185921]The issue isn't really him being unprofessional or immature (well the latter is, to some extent). He is petty, spiteful and narcissistic.[/QUOTE] I mean, well, also that yeah the dude has the biggest fucking ego like its not even funny

[QUOTE=phaedon;51185256]I actually recall reading (can't find the source currently) that positive polls encourage people to actually go out and vote. Apathy might be a factor, but imagine knowing your group is headed for a victory. Wouldn't you want to be a part of the winning team and know that you are contributing towards a victory?[/QUOTE] From what I understand of the articles I've read on the subject, polls can cause some portion of individuals to switch their vote to the winning side. What I haven't seen specifically examined is the impact on voters whom are voting not for a candidate, but against. A poll from September 12th found "a mere 11% of voters overall say they would feel excited if Trump were to win, virtually the same number (12%) who would be excited if the former secretary of state is victorious." and "Majorities of voters say they are frustrated (57%) and disgusted (55%) with the campaign, dwarfing those who say they are interested (31%), optimistic (15%) and excited (10%).". [url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/politics/pew-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/]Source[/url] Given this, I think its fair to say the majority of votes are votes against the opponent, rather than for the individual. Seeing a double-digit lead in polling for Clinton, how many of those people are going to either not vote or make a protest vote? If their only motivation is to stop the opposition, and it looks like that's going to happen regardless and "their vote doesn't matter", then they have no motivation. Sanders' supporters come to mind as a significant voting block this might apply to, especially given a large portion of that is young adults who historically haven't voted. On the flip side, those voting for Trump just to stop Clinton will either be demotivated seeing it as a lost cause, or be unaffected/further motivated. Not to mention, polling has shown Republicans and those leaning towards Republican this election, and historically, are more likely to vote. [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/americans-less-sure-vote-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles]Source[/url] All of that said, I'm certainly no expert and I haven't found anything specifically discussing this concept for the current election. But I don't think it is that far fetched, given just how shit most people seem to think this election is.

Another poll shows a double-digit lead for Clinton [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/prri-atlantic-poll-trump-plummets/503561/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51184499]Because I am of the opinion that it is so vague that you could pull almost any meaning from it that you want, many of them completely wrong, many of them correct.[/QUOTE] Really? I mean sure, if you're trying to be purposely obtuse. But cmon. Clinton's lawyers used BleachBit to 100% erase those emails beyond recoverability. Then Trump says that she "acid washed her emails" and quickly corrects it to "bleached". Is it really so hard to discern what he is talking about? My issue with this is that I want Trump to lose. To any undecided voter who's aware of the email controversy, do you think seeing this makes Clinton look more credible? or does it make Trump's claims of media bias look more credible?

Is it me or is it hard to understand how the most unlikable and unpopular candidates were somehow the most popular when it comes to the primaries? Then go on to be the nominee, the person who is kinda supposed to be the most popular?

[QUOTE=Blazyd;51187390]Is it me or is it hard to understand how the most unlikable and unpopular candidates were somehow the most popular when it comes to the primaries? Then go on to be the nominee, the person who is kinda supposed to be the most popular?[/QUOTE] I think Bernie lost partly because of name recognition, the fact that many democrats probably don't identify with his politics, and the fact that the race basically seemed predetermined when some no-name candidate challenged Clinton. Maybe Bernie could've won if people didn't think he was behind from the start. Those popularity scores also include both republicans and democrats - Hillary may be fairly unpopular with democratic voters still (I don't know), but that may still mean that 80% of them have a favourable view of her - more than enough to win the primaries. Donald Trump on the other hand won out of a selection of candidates where your typical establishment republican had multiple reasonable choices (Cruz, Rubio, Kasich etc.) from their point of view. Many states being FPTP meant a lot of divided (wasted) votes on the established republican candidates against a unified protest vote for Donald Trump (basically the reverse of the Democratic situation? - one established candidate against the protest vote). If the republican field had been smaller, he might not have won. Also same point as above. Or at least that's my take on it.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;51187390]Is it me or is it hard to understand how the most unlikable and unpopular candidates were somehow the most popular when it comes to the primaries? Then go on to be the nominee, the person who is kinda supposed to be the most popular?[/QUOTE] something like 16 million people in the primaries voted for someone other than Trump, but he had the largest minority so everyone else had to live with it, regardless of how much those 16 million hated his guts. [thumb]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/VoteTotals_Agin.jpg&w=1484[/thumb] don't need to be good at your job when you've got one fuck of a cult of personality

[QUOTE=Cone;51187608]something like 16 million people in the primaries voted for someone other than Trump, but he had the largest minority so everyone else had to live with it, regardless of how much those 16 million hated his guts. [thumb]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/VoteTotals_Agin.jpg&w=1484[/thumb] don't need to be good at your job when you've got one fuck of a cult of personality[/QUOTE] This is why parties should switch their primaries to STV voting or basically anything other than FPTP. I've accepted that we're essentially stuck with FPTP for the actual elections for historical reasons, but why can't the parties themselves do better? They may have a vested interest in FPTP's implicit two-party system staying around, but they also have a vested interest in nominating a candidate that the majority of their party finds acceptable, if not necessarily their first pick.

Trump got 45% in the GOP primary, Clinton got 55% [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] Trump is currently having a twitter meltdown, has tweeted that disloyal Republicans are worse than Crooked Hillary and they should be loyal to their nominee like the Democrats [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] He's going all out! [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785842546878578688[/media]

[QUOTE=smurfy;51187714] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785842546878578688[/media][/QUOTE] Huh, didn't know that fighting for your country involved molesting women.

A few polls are now showing Clinton over 50% for the first time - it's not just that voters are abandoning Trump; some are also moving to Clinton [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] His campaign has apparently gone full Breitbart [media]https://twitter.com/costareports/status/785860777047629826[/media] [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] Clinton's now at 84% chance to win on 538, and Arizona is about to flip

[QUOTE=smurfy;51187714][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785842546878578688[/media][/QUOTE] Ugh, this is actually a relief because I never loved you anyway, and I was just waiting for the right moment to tell you! YOU ARE NOT DUMPING ME, I AM DUMPING YOU!

[QUOTE=smurfy;51187714]He's going all out! [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785842546878578688[/media][/QUOTE] I'm really hoping the campaign is going to turn into this. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFZktZNySg[/media]

does anyone have a poll that was taken After the debate? I'm only seeing polls here that end Before it.

I have to say, after watching this election from the beginning and hating Trumps guts, after watching these debates and seeing Hillary grin through the guilt of all her corruption and wrong doing, I have to say I'm now for Trump, and I still fucking hate him. As much as I disagree with alot of Trumps politics, I'm not getting rolled up by the news bias, I would say he won the debate by actually answering questions honestly (if not ridiculously). America will continue as normal if Hillary wins, which isn't a good thing.

[QUOTE=Deepee;51188196]I would say he won the debate by actually answering questions honestly (if not ridiculously).[/quote] He seriously couldn't stay on one topic for more than a few seconds. He answered the sex tape question by speaking about ISIS. How is that honest? [quote]America will continue as normal if Hillary wins, which isn't a good thing.[/QUOTE] It might not be a good thing (though I don't think that 2016's status quo will persist with zero changes until let's say, 2024), but it beats the alternative of bringing instability to the US and the world. A US president that has Russian cock-sucking as his hobby would have very serious effects for Estonia, especially considering the fact that Estonia heavily relies on NATO. [quote]the news bias[/quote] Could you elaborate on this?