2016 Presidential election campaign 3

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And just two weeks ago Trump got a court date for a suit regarding alleged rape of a 13-year-old.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-eps...

And in November for racketeering:

He should address that to the news media, not the people.

dp

I posted it on facebook.

30% have already voted

Humm........

josh wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry Cody, seeking a politcal home, NDPP but....... 

A Hillary Clinton secret: lots of voters really like her

U.S. presidential nominee has an overlooked but large base of devoted admirers. Her greatest strength is Democratic women 50 and older.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/30/a-hillary-clinton-secret-l...

While i think national numbers for trump will propably show him leading at end if their no surprises. I must admit the state numbers look dodgy for trump.  Both sides seem to have solidifed their bases, will you can agrue demograhic groups will be key.  My presecpitive i am looking how the indepentents break, if independents break in a sgnificant way for trump then he wins.  If the indepentents go half and half then trump loses.  I can also address the whole idea of the bais that trump talks about the silent majority.  i dont recall the name of the effect but people have a bais to look good in the eyes of people around them, its just one those bias that exist in frame of a social science polling.  Since people think that trump is cad then will not admit to the pollsters that will not vote trump in the polls but will vote for trump in polling booth.  This effect event is maybe worth a point, but i am doubtful because no polling has effectively showed no proof of silnet mafority.

In Feb in the made the following prediction on rabble.

Hilliary will beat sanders   check

Trump will become the rep canadiate.   check

Trump beats hillary   ??????

iam 2 for 3 at the moment

It's called the shy Tory effect. Most recently seen in Brexit.

Also, remember that polls are weighting their samples so there is about 7 percentage points more democrats voting than republicans (same as Obama in 2008). If this assumption is wrong, (say the population actually only has 3 percentage points more democrats like in 2012), then this means the polls are off by roughly that amount.

To make this clearer:

Say that after weighting you poll 100 people.

35 democrats

28 republicans

37 independants

For simplicity, assume the dems go straight clinton and repubs straight trump. Assume independants slightly favour trump (so 20 for trump 17 for clinton).

That's 52-48 in favour of clinton. But if it's actually 33 dem 30 rep 37 independant then we're now 50-50.

If Trump pulls lots of new voters (like in the primaries) which are ignored by most, but not all, likely voter models, then this could have a big impact even ignoring the shy tory effect.

Consider that 8% more democrats than republicans voted in 2008 primaries. In 2016 primaries, 1% more republicans voted. Lots of evidence that independents decide this election.

 

Nope.  Independents went for Romney and Obama still won.  Moderates decide the election.

Cody87 wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry Cody, seeking a politcal home, NDPP but....... 

A Hillary Clinton secret: lots of voters really like her

U.S. presidential nominee has an overlooked but large base of devoted admirers. Her greatest strength is Democratic women 50 and older.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/30/a-hillary-clinton-secret-l...

While i think national numbers for trump will propably show him leading at end if their no surprises. I must admit the state numbers look dodgy for trump.  Both sides seem to have solidifed their bases, will you can agrue demograhic groups will be key.  My presecpitive i am looking how the indepentents break, if independents break in a sgnificant way for trump then he wins.  If the indepentents go half and half then trump loses.  I can also address the whole idea of the bais that trump talks about the silent majority.  i dont recall the name of the effect but people have a bais to look good in the eyes of people around them, its just one those bias that exist in frame of a social science polling.  Since people think that trump is cad then will not admit to the pollsters that will not vote trump in the polls but will vote for trump in polling booth.  This effect event is maybe worth a point, but i am doubtful because no polling has effectively showed no proof of silnet mafority.

In Feb in the made the following prediction on rabble.

Hilliary will beat sanders   check

Trump will become the rep canadiate.   check

Trump beats hillary   ??????

iam 2 for 3 at the moment

It's called the shy Tory effect. Most recently seen in Brexit.

Also, remember that polls are weighting their samples so there is about 7 percentage points more democrats voting than republicans (same as Obama in 2008). If this assumption is wrong, (say the population actually only has 3 percentage points more democrats like in 2012), then this means the polls are off by roughly that amount.

To make this clearer:

Say that after weighting you poll 100 people.

35 democrats

28 republicans

37 independants

For simplicity, assume the dems go straight clinton and repubs straight trump. Assume independants slightly favour trump (so 20 for trump 17 for clinton).

That's 52-48 in favour of clinton. But if it's actually 33 dem 30 rep 37 independant then we're now 50-50.

If Trump pulls lots of new voters (like in the primaries) which are ignored by most, but not all, likely voter models, then this could have a big impact even ignoring the shy tory effect.

Consider that 8% more democrats than republicans voted in 2008 primaries. In 2016 primaries, 1% more republicans voted. Lots of evidence that independents decide this election.

Social desirability bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

Eureka i find it. I remember(but not the name of bias) we talked this issue during my time at university and how to remove bias in designing better polling methods.

Cody you could be right,( i am abit unsure how powerful this will be),but talking heads on CNN are saying that Clinton campaign is taking this bias effect seriously.  Your position could be closer to the truth than mine on how powerful this hidden vote effectivly will be.

Three easy pieces

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/01/three-easy-pieces/

Trump claims momentum and everyone knows how truthful he is whereas data favours Clinton

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-clinton-polling-230602

Only the margin seems in doubt

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10136

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/01/dem_strategist_clinton...

A glumy outlike by an democratic official on the turn out of black voters.  I think here candor will mean that this will be her last appearence on tv until the end election.

A Sanders backer. I'm sure she has no axe to grind.

bekayne wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/01/dem_strategist_clinton...

A glumy outlike by an democratic official on the turn out of black voters.  I think here candor will mean that this will be her last appearence on tv until the end election.

A Sanders backer. I'm sure she has no axe to grind.

Bernie is on board, but I see your point.  Been watching the american media its clear the democracts are disapointed with the black voter turn.  The narrative has changed though in last 3 days.  Democratics were saying the turn out will be outstanding, now that the results don;t fit in the narrative so we get . 1) We knew that we  could not achive the Obama results because he was black candidiate. 2)Voter suppersion 3)latino vote will put the democratics over the top.  These are reasonable statements true, they have started this narrative over the last 36 hours.  So to me that means taking this decline in black voter turn is a real thing.  If that was not the case their was no need to change the narative. 

http://www.30days30songs.com/

Slow train coming

Of far greater import is the recent shift in Senate polls, which are also post-Comey (though we’re using a longer time window there). As of now, six races show medians (calculated using the PEC rule) of 1 percentage point or less. Entering the sharpest knife-edge zone are two states that have been trending toward Republicans: Indiana and Wisconsin. Democratic candidates Bayh (D-IN) and Feingold (D-WI) may be caught in an undertow caused by a shift from Clinton +6% (median of 19 polls that were in the field on October 24th) to Clinton +2% (median of 7 polls, October 31).

Things aren’t looking great for Bayh – the most recent 3 polls show his opponent Todd Young (R) leading by a median of 4 percentage points. The Senate Meta-Margin is staying steady, in part because Jason Kander (D-MO) is improving.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/03/slow-train-coming/

3,427

Two Princeton professors walk through your election anxiety

As the election ticks down to the final hours, supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are nervously eying the latest polls, watching as their candidates crisscross the country, and trying to figure out who has the edge in what could be a very tight race. Princeton professors Sam Wang and Julian Zelizer, co-hosts of a podcast called "Politics & Polls," had the following email exchange about the final days of the campaign:

Julian Zelizer: Every Democrat I speak to is really nervous about this election. They tell me, "I know what Sam says," but it really seems like the polls have tightened. How are you so calm?

Sam Wang: Yeah, both Democrats and Republicans are really worked up. In my own mind I try to separate the drama from the data. Early this season, I noticed that no matter what happened, opinion didn't move that much. The race has shown less variation than ever in the history of presidential polling. It made me realize that the race probably wasn't going anywhere. But when was the last time a presidential race was this emotional?Zelizer: It's funny, I think about that often. Sometimes we are really nostalgic and forget how emotional people become around elections. Even though this is a cynical age, with trust in institutions declining steadily since the 1960s, people still really get caught up in the democratic choice. I remember being in a hotel in Virginia after the election in 2004 with some people who were clearly liberals and profoundly upset by the outcome, moving-out-of-the-country kind of upset. I suspect there were conservatives who felt that way in 2012. What keeps getting to me is just the ongoing flood of surprises, twists and turns. It's not the just the emotions about the candidates but the ongoing swings in the news, like the James Comey letter on Hillary Clinton's emails.

Wang: Wait, so what distinguishes normal emotion from full meltdown? Come on, this year is different. The GOP nominee has never held office, he's basically a reality TV star, and the following organizations have come out against him: Scientific American, Nature (another scientific journal), Skittles, and Tic Tacs. Tic Tacs? This year feels like a culmination of trends that started in the mid-1990s. Newt Gingrich and his associates wanted to remake their party and government, and those seeds they planted have come to full flower.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/opinions/clinton-trump-data-not-drama-wang...

Some good news for Hillary, jobs growth of 161,000 and wages up 2.8%

See should talking about this all day long becasue it goes agaisnt Trump's narative of the US falling apart.

CrossTalk on US Election: Criminal In Chief?

https://youtu.be/RvZVJndfr6s

"The polls are tightening, as well as the growing investigation around the Clintons and their foundation. Will they vote for a candidate facing criminal prosecution?"

'They've Ruined Our Country, Why Would We Vote For Them?'

https://youtu.be/RdTOd4xSl04

Jesse Ventura on Reps & Dems

Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton Published November 05, 2016 FoxNews.com

 A Democratic elector in Washington state said Friday that he would not cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton if, as is likely, she wins the state in Tuesday's election.

Robert Satiacum, a member of the Puyallup Tribe, supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, which the Vermont senator won by approximately a 3-to-1 margin. He said he believes Clinton is a "criminal" who doesn't care enough about American Indians and "she's done nothing but flip back and forth."

He said he has wrestled with what to do, but feels that neither Clinton nor Republican Donald Trump can lead the country.

"She will not get my vote, period," he said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

Satiacum said he believes Sanders did a better job of reaching out to Native Americans. "She doesn't care about my land or my air or my fire or my water," he said of Clinton.

Americans vote for the president on Election Day, but they're really casting votes for each state's electors, who will decide the next president on Dec. 19.

In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner of the state's popular vote gets all of the state's electors. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the electors are required to vote for a particular candidate, but some states have penalties for so-called "faithless electors." Satiacum faces a $1,000 fine in Washington if he doesn't vote for Clinton, but he said he doesn't care.

"I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” he told The Seattle Times. "Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up."

Satiacum is one of 12 Democratic electors in Washington, which has 12 electoral votes and has not gone for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Satiacum said he has gotten a lot of criticism since he told media outlets last month that he might not vote for Clinton. But he said he has also heard from electors in other states who thanked him for speaking out. He said he hopes some of those electors follow his lead.

iyraste1313 wrote:

Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton Published November 05, 2016 FoxNews.com

 A Democratic elector in Washington state said Friday that he would not cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton if, as is likely, she wins the state in Tuesday's election.

Robert Satiacum, a member of the Puyallup Tribe, supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, which the Vermont senator won by approximately a 3-to-1 margin. He said he believes Clinton is a "criminal" who doesn't care enough about American Indians and "she's done nothing but flip back and forth."

He said he has wrestled with what to do, but feels that neither Clinton nor Republican Donald Trump can lead the country.

"She will not get my vote, period," he said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

Satiacum said he believes Sanders did a better job of reaching out to Native Americans. "She doesn't care about my land or my air or my fire or my water," he said of Clinton.

Americans vote for the president on Election Day, but they're really casting votes for each state's electors, who will decide the next president on Dec. 19.

 

In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner of the state's popular vote gets all of the state's electors. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the electors are required to vote for a particular candidate, but some states have penalties for so-called "faithless electors." Satiacum faces a $1,000 fine in Washington if he doesn't vote for Clinton, but he said he doesn't care.

"I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” he told The Seattle Times. "Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up."

Satiacum is one of 12 Democratic electors in Washington, which has 12 electoral votes and has not gone for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Satiacum said he has gotten a lot of criticism since he told media outlets last month that he might not vote for Clinton. But he said he has also heard from electors in other states who thanked him for speaking out. He said he hopes some of those electors follow his lead.

I disagreed with this when it was suggested before (against Trump), and I disagree with it now (against Clinton).

Do you want a civil war? Because after an election like this, that's how you get a civil war. And anyway, it's a bad precedent to set.

iyraste1313 wrote:

Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton Published November 05, 2016 FoxNews.com

 A Democratic elector in Washington state said Friday that he would not cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton if, as is likely, she wins the state in Tuesday's election.

Robert Satiacum, a member of the Puyallup Tribe, supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, which the Vermont senator won by approximately a 3-to-1 margin. He said he believes Clinton is a "criminal" who doesn't care enough about American Indians and "she's done nothing but flip back and forth."

He said he has wrestled with what to do, but feels that neither Clinton nor Republican Donald Trump can lead the country.

"She will not get my vote, period," he said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

Satiacum said he believes Sanders did a better job of reaching out to Native Americans. "She doesn't care about my land or my air or my fire or my water," he said of Clinton.

Americans vote for the president on Election Day, but they're really casting votes for each state's electors, who will decide the next president on Dec. 19.

 

In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner of the state's popular vote gets all of the state's electors. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the electors are required to vote for a particular candidate, but some states have penalties for so-called "faithless electors." Satiacum faces a $1,000 fine in Washington if he doesn't vote for Clinton, but he said he doesn't care.

"I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” he told The Seattle Times. "Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up."

Satiacum is one of 12 Democratic electors in Washington, which has 12 electoral votes and has not gone for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Satiacum said he has gotten a lot of criticism since he told media outlets last month that he might not vote for Clinton. But he said he has also heard from electors in other states who thanked him for speaking out. He said he hopes some of those electors follow his lead.

Interesting. And Google has found an interesting Canadian tie-in. There was another Puyallup Robert Satiacum, who died under mysterious circumstances in detention in BC several decades ago, according to an old Gustafsen Lake, SISIS release, which contains some additional information on this other Robert Satiacum. Perhaps a relative?

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/court/jul28sis.html

'Red Scare 2': Russia and the 2016 US Election

http://on.rt.com/7u1k

Tks lagatta

Trump drifts off message 

The Republican nominee punctuates his closing argument with riffs about a Trump mask and complaints about rap music.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-2016-election-eve-spe...

Is 99% a reasonable probability?  

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/

iyraste1313 wrote:

from zerohedge------

Some banks are projecting a more extreme drop in the event of a victory for Republican Donald Trump, with Citigroup Inc estimating that a Trump victory could trigger a 3 percent to 5 percent sell-off for the S&P 500.....

 

That stands to reason. Many S&P 500 companies have "invested" heavily in a Clinton victory.

Quote:

That stands to reason. Many S&P 500 companies have "invested" heavily in a Clinton victory.

It stands to reason, but because big business hates uncertainty and chaos, and Donald Trump's middle name is chaos.