(11-06-2016 01:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 10:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 09:24 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 08:42 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you continue to examine Dr. Bitzer's data you will note that "One third of all unaffiliated voters are either Millennials or Gen Xers living in an urban county in North Carolina. The 'assumption' of these voters is that they would lean Democratic in general." I'm not saying that this means Clinton will win unaffiliated by five, but that you can see that a fifteen percent win among them like in 2012 isn't as likely either.

No one should mock you if you are wrong. The number and percentage of unaffiliated voters in NC has grown greatly in the last few years. They are the great unknown in NC politics. Another is the large number of transplants here today. They outnumber native born early voters in this cycle.

Also, when Saturday's data comes in how will the African American vote look? By Friday they had reduced the gap between this year and 2012 turnout to less than 60k in early voting.

There are certainly more questions that answers in examining the data in NC.

Roughly 54% I believe voted in the GOP primary. Clinton winning them by 5 just doesn't add up

Could you double check that figure? If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, about half the unaffiliated that have voted early didn't vote in the primary at all. I think the 54% you are citing is for that roughly half of them that voted in the primary. If that is the case, 46% of the half that did vote in the primary voted a Democratic ballot and about 50% of the total that early voted didn't vote at all in the primary. So the key would be how those that didn't vote in the primary voted in the general. That is certainly an unknown. If polling in recent days has separated those that have voted from those that plan on voting perhaps the NY Times knows something we don't know.

The figures are in for early voting and it exceeds 3 million, a new record. With 6.8 million registered voters in the state I think it is safe to say well over half the vote in NC is already banked. This is probably over 60% of the total vote.

I could be wrong but I don't think half of the unaffiliated early voters did not vote in the primary

I have yet to see any early voting statistics that show me Clinton is winning NC. NV yes NC no

It is somewhere in Dr. Bitzer's work or that other guy that crunches the numbers, I just can't find it right now. Anyway, that 54% number that you posted isn't all of the unaffiliated, just a segment of it.

47.5% of registered Democrats, 47.5% of the registered Republicans, and 39% registered unaffiliated voters in North Carolina have voted early. I doubt the % of registered voters that vote this year in total could be much higher than 65-75%. So only about 25% to at most 30% of the vote is left for election day. If Clinton does have a lead as of today I don't think she can be caught here. What do you think?

Obama led early voting and lost in 2012

People liked Obama

Why would Clinton be any different? Even those voting for her don't like her

(11-06-2016 10:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Florida may well be the deciding state again. Trump seems to be pulling away in his states. NV, NC and NH are close but trending better and better for him. He's narrowing states like VA, MI, WI and NM, but probably not enough. CO will be close, but may be irrelevant.

Do you not believe the Nevada news that early voting Latinos have the state sewed up for the Dems?

(11-07-2016 07:39 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 10:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Florida may well be the deciding state again. Trump seems to be pulling away in his states. NV, NC and NH are close but trending better and better for him. He's narrowing states like VA, MI, WI and NM, but probably not enough. CO will be close, but may be irrelevant.

Do you not believe the Nevada news that early voting Latinos have the state sewed up for the Dems?

No.

(11-07-2016 07:38 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 10:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 09:24 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Roughly 54% I believe voted in the GOP primary. Clinton winning them by 5 just doesn't add up

Could you double check that figure? If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, about half the unaffiliated that have voted early didn't vote in the primary at all. I think the 54% you are citing is for that roughly half of them that voted in the primary. If that is the case, 46% of the half that did vote in the primary voted a Democratic ballot and about 50% of the total that early voted didn't vote at all in the primary. So the key would be how those that didn't vote in the primary voted in the general. That is certainly an unknown. If polling in recent days has separated those that have voted from those that plan on voting perhaps the NY Times knows something we don't know.

The figures are in for early voting and it exceeds 3 million, a new record. With 6.8 million registered voters in the state I think it is safe to say well over half the vote in NC is already banked. This is probably over 60% of the total vote.

I could be wrong but I don't think half of the unaffiliated early voters did not vote in the primary

I have yet to see any early voting statistics that show me Clinton is winning NC. NV yes NC no

It is somewhere in Dr. Bitzer's work or that other guy that crunches the numbers, I just can't find it right now. Anyway, that 54% number that you posted isn't all of the unaffiliated, just a segment of it.

47.5% of registered Democrats, 47.5% of the registered Republicans, and 39% registered unaffiliated voters in North Carolina have voted early. I doubt the % of registered voters that vote this year in total could be much higher than 65-75%. So only about 25% to at most 30% of the vote is left for election day. If Clinton does have a lead as of today I don't think she can be caught here. What do you think?

Obama led early voting and lost in 2012

People liked Obama

Why would Clinton be any different? Even those voting for her don't like her

It won't be any different, IMO. The turnout factor is significant. 2012 was the first year early voting was a significant factor and overall turnout was down. My gut tells me Hillary underperforms.

(11-07-2016 08:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:38 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 10:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Could you double check that figure? If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, about half the unaffiliated that have voted early didn't vote in the primary at all. I think the 54% you are citing is for that roughly half of them that voted in the primary. If that is the case, 46% of the half that did vote in the primary voted a Democratic ballot and about 50% of the total that early voted didn't vote at all in the primary. So the key would be how those that didn't vote in the primary voted in the general. That is certainly an unknown. If polling in recent days has separated those that have voted from those that plan on voting perhaps the NY Times knows something we don't know.

The figures are in for early voting and it exceeds 3 million, a new record. With 6.8 million registered voters in the state I think it is safe to say well over half the vote in NC is already banked. This is probably over 60% of the total vote.

I could be wrong but I don't think half of the unaffiliated early voters did not vote in the primary

I have yet to see any early voting statistics that show me Clinton is winning NC. NV yes NC no

It is somewhere in Dr. Bitzer's work or that other guy that crunches the numbers, I just can't find it right now. Anyway, that 54% number that you posted isn't all of the unaffiliated, just a segment of it.

47.5% of registered Democrats, 47.5% of the registered Republicans, and 39% registered unaffiliated voters in North Carolina have voted early. I doubt the % of registered voters that vote this year in total could be much higher than 65-75%. So only about 25% to at most 30% of the vote is left for election day. If Clinton does have a lead as of today I don't think she can be caught here. What do you think?

Obama led early voting and lost in 2012

People liked Obama

Why would Clinton be any different? Even those voting for her don't like her

It won't be any different, IMO. The turnout factor is significant. 2012 was the first year early voting was a significant factor and overall turnout was down. My gut tells me Hillary underperforms.

I don't really have a gut feel. The people who really like Hillary are aliens. So are the people who really like Trump. And the people who don't like either are legion and very different from each other.

Between my wife and me, we really only know a couple of people who actually like Trump. We know a few more who actually like Hillary, but mostly the Hillary supporters we know are filled to the bursting point with an irrational hatred for Trump more than anything else.

The Fox people last night seem to think Hillary will win. Karl Rove and some others were on. I think the media would be a lot better served if they weren't all in New York and talking to the same people. CNN went down the tubes when they moved most of their operations from Atlanta to NYC.

(11-07-2016 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 08:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:38 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think half of the unaffiliated early voters did not vote in the primary

I have yet to see any early voting statistics that show me Clinton is winning NC. NV yes NC no

It is somewhere in Dr. Bitzer's work or that other guy that crunches the numbers, I just can't find it right now. Anyway, that 54% number that you posted isn't all of the unaffiliated, just a segment of it.

47.5% of registered Democrats, 47.5% of the registered Republicans, and 39% registered unaffiliated voters in North Carolina have voted early. I doubt the % of registered voters that vote this year in total could be much higher than 65-75%. So only about 25% to at most 30% of the vote is left for election day. If Clinton does have a lead as of today I don't think she can be caught here. What do you think?

Obama led early voting and lost in 2012

People liked Obama

Why would Clinton be any different? Even those voting for her don't like her

It won't be any different, IMO. The turnout factor is significant. 2012 was the first year early voting was a significant factor and overall turnout was down. My gut tells me Hillary underperforms.

I don't really have a gut feel. The people who really like Hillary are aliens. So are the people who really like Trump. And the people who don't like either are legion and very different from each other.

Between my wife and me, we really only know a couple of people who actually like Trump. We know a few more who actually like Hillary, but mostly the Hillary supporters we know are filled to the bursting point with an irrational hatred for Trump more than anything else.

The Fox people last night seem to think Hillary will win. Karl Rove and some others were on. I think the media would be a lot better served if they weren't all in New York and talking to the same people. CNN went down the tubes when they moved most of their operations from Atlanta to NYC.

Rasmussen: Clinton has a 2-point lead, but...

Quote:Just 88% of all likely voters say they have made up their minds how they will vote. Among these voters, Trump leads 52% to 43%

5 polls out today on RCP:
CBS 45-41 Clinton
ABC 47-43 Clinton
Bloomberg 44-41 Clinton
IDB 43-41 Trump
LA Times 48-43 Trump

If 12% haven't made up their mind, there really could be a surge one way or the other. Or not.

(11-07-2016 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  5 polls out today on RCP:
CBS 45-41 Clinton
ABC 47-43 Clinton
Bloomberg 44-41 Clinton
IDB 43-41 Trump
LA Times 48-43 Trump

If 12% haven't made up their mind, there really could be a surge one way or the other. Or not.

Many of those polls have the bias cranked up really high, despite the early numbers that says dem turnout is going to be down.

(11-07-2016 09:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  5 polls out today on RCP:
CBS 45-41 Clinton
ABC 47-43 Clinton
Bloomberg 44-41 Clinton
IDB 43-41 Trump
LA Times 48-43 Trump

If 12% haven't made up their mind, there really could be a surge one way or the other. Or not.

Manu of those polls have the bias cranked up really high, despite the early numbers that says dem turnout is going to be down.

If they are based on Obama's turnout, they will be really wrong. On the other hand, they are probably having a tougher and tougher time getting a representative sample, which could go either way. Fewer people have landlines. More people screen their calls.

Those polls have like Dems +10.

George Will yesterday had some numbers:
1976-20 states decided by 5% or less. 2012-4 states.
18 states with 242 votes have gone Democratic for 6 straight elections. 13 states with 102 votes have gone Republican for 6 straight elections.

FYI, the LAT poll is conducted by USC. The LAT is just sponsoring it.

Here's what looks like the final full list of national polls (no cherrypicking):

Bloomberg/Selzer: Hillary +3
New Orleans Times-Picayune: Hillary +5
Fox News: Hillary +4
IBD/TIPP: Trump +2
CBS/NYT: Hillary +4
Rasmussen: Hillary +2
LAT/USC: Trump +5
UPI/CVOTER: Hillary +3
NBC/SurveyMonkey: Hillary +6
Politico/Morning Consult: Hillary +3
NBC/WSJ: Hillary +4
ABC/WaPo: Hillary +4
Boston Herald/RKM: Hillary +3
Reuters/Ipsos: Hillary +4
McClatchy/Marist: Hillary +1
Breitbart/Gravis: Hillary +2
YouGov: Hillary +3
RAND: Hillary +9
Google Consumer Surveys: Hillary +3


So 17 of 19 have Hillary winning. It will be interesting to see who got the closest, whatever the result.

Not surprising Max. In all seriousness I don't doubt the sample...but most of those polls are heavily sampled for Democrats, so of course she's gonna carry the polling. If that's the turnout, she wins. If it's off by 2-3 points, Trump probably wins.

We'll see what happens tomorrow.

Okay, but the pollsters don't weigh for party ID because it's fluid. They only weigh for immutable traits like race and age and let the chips fall where they may after that. And if a candidate is winning a poll, the people who are giving him/her that advantage are more likely to identify with that candidate's party, so a poll with the Dem winning is going to have higher than average Dem identifiers, and a candidate with the GOP candidate winning is going to have higher than average number of people identifying as Republicans. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. That's why unskewing for party ID was wrong in 2012, and it's wrong today.

The LA Times poll is biased to the 2012 turnout model. She aint getting the 2012 turnout model, but even if she does, she loses based upon that poll, by 5 points.

Most every other poll has the bias cranked beyond the 2008 model. Considering AA vote is down in FL and NC already from 2012, I'm not sure how you can say the boas needs to be cranked to Dem +7 to Dem+13 like some of those polls have.

(11-07-2016 11:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The LA Times poll is biased to the 2012 turnout model. She aint getting the 2012 turnout model, but even if she does, she loses based upon that poll, by 5 points.

Most every other poll has the bias cranked beyond the 2008 model. Considering AA vote is down in FL and NC already from 2012, I'm not sure how you can say the boas needs to be cranked to Dem +7 to Dem+13 like some of those polls have.

Only way she can win. The media writes the story, then they configure their polls to reflect the narrative they created -- as pointed out by Joe Scarborough after puzzygate.

(11-07-2016 11:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

You need to get a few more headbangs in before tomorrow night. Last chance.

(11-07-2016 11:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Okay, but the pollsters don't weigh for party ID because it's fluid. They only weigh for immutable traits like race and age and let the chips fall where they may after that. And if a candidate is winning a poll, the people who are giving him/her that advantage are more likely to identify with that candidate's party, so a poll with the Dem winning is going to have higher than average Dem identifiers, and a candidate with the GOP candidate winning is going to have higher than average number of people identifying as Republicans. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. That's why unskewing for party ID was wrong in 2012, and it's wrong today.

True, but what happens if, for instance, black voters are only 10% of the electorate this year instead of the 15% in 2012? Or what happens if men are closer to 50% of the electorate than the 47% most of the polls are showing? In that case, the weights assigned to immutable traits are wrong. It only takes a 2-point error to erase a 4-point leading sample and we have seen it plenty of times before. I could be wrong, but I have serious doubts that Hillary is going to outperform Obama.

The inherent limitation with polling is that most likely voter screens just take peoples' word for it on whether they'll vote, or whether they have voted in past elections and for whom. If a poll shows 47% are going to be men, that could be off if some men (or women) are changing their mind or saying one thing and doing another.

But it's the best system we have, that's available to the public anyway.