Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Trump leads in Rasmussen poll | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 2 2016, 10:51 PM (230 Views) | |
| HoosierLars | May 2 2016, 10:51 PM Post #1 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39 |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | May 3 2016, 06:34 PM Post #2 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
I assume you know the problems with the Rasmussen polls, don't you? We talked about this last election when Rasmussen was so far off (nearly 4% off toward the republican candidate in 2012). And the errors that their polls to be off STILL haven't been corrected.....they still do not do any cell phone calling for data, a group that largely trends younger and more liberal. The amount their polls were off in 2012 is even greater in 2016 as more and more people get rid of landlines. Seriously -- and I'm not saying this as an opponent of republicans, but rather as an opponent to bad science -- don't quote Rasmussen. There is a reason their poll is 10% off the average of the other five polls which has Clinton up 8%. Hell, the Fox News poll has Clinton up 7%. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | May 3 2016, 06:42 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
The 538 blog is pretty much the only polls resource that I find relevant. br |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | May 5 2016, 08:39 AM Post #4 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Trump just posterized LeBron, and won an Emmy. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-real-candidate-in-one-chart/ For this reason alone, Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination Edited by HoosierLars, May 5 2016, 08:40 AM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | May 5 2016, 12:00 PM Post #5 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
That's an op-ed piece. And it being wrong about the republication nomination in June of 2015 has zero to do with the fact that in all legitimate polls, Trump is averaging about a -9 against Hillary Clinton. Winning about 40% of all republican votes cast in the primary doesn't bode well when you have to alienate the number of voters he did. I'm willing (as I have put the same bet to you the last two presidential elections) to put my posting rights up against yours in the matchup. If Trump wins, I stop posting for a month. If Clinton wins, you stop posting for a month. So basically, you can either win or the entire board can win. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | May 5 2016, 12:10 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
I don't want either of you to disappear for a month. Regarding 538, I'd be happy to use another blog as my go-to election projection site if they can show they're more accurate than Nate Silver has been in the last two presidential elections. Fortunately, for Silver, I'm not sure another human being on this planet can make that claim. br |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | May 5 2016, 08:09 PM Post #7 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
" has zero to do with the fact that in all legitimate polls, Trump is averaging about a -9 against Hillary Clinton." :facepalm: So the polling guru himself said that Trump had a zero chance to be the Repub nominee. Maybe this isn't a normal election cycle? Edited by HoosierLars, May 5 2016, 08:10 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | May 5 2016, 09:29 PM Post #8 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Apparently you didn't even bother to read who wrote the article. It wasn't Nate Silver. And the fact is that Trump -- in every legitimate poll (which, BTW, the last eight years have shown overpredict republican percentages in presidential elections) by an average of 9 points. The one thing that 538 might have gotten wrong is that Trump would look to say things that would increase his chances of winning the republican nomination at the risk or getting creamed in the national. There is a reason that he beat Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, et al yet produces the worst matchup numbers for the republicans in the national election. When you campaign to the group he has targeted, you don't produce a winning strategy in the national. A legitimate candidate creams Clinton in the national. He is getting killed. Edited by brumdog44, May 5 2016, 09:38 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | May 6 2016, 09:18 AM Post #9 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
AUG 5, 2015 The three panelists rate Trumps chances: 2%, 0%, -10% http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/podcast-totally-subjective-presidential-odds-early-august-edition/ So far he’s on that Cain/Gingrich trajectory. But look, it’s entirely possible that he’ll hold on to 20 or 25 percent of the vote through Iowa. Pat Buchanan did, Steve Forbes did. That’s the optimist’s case for Trump. But then what happens is that the rest of the field starts to consolidate. And you can’t win with only 25 percent of the vote. Especially when the rest of your party wants to make sure you are not the GOP nominee. AUG 6, 2015 http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/ The lesson, rather, is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination. Sept 15,2015 So maybe the Donald has about a 5% chance of winning the general? http://www.politicaldog101.com/2015/09/15/nate-silver-trumnp-or-carson-5-chance-to-win/comment-page-1/ Fivethirtyeight.com founder Nate Silver said that GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have a “maybe about 5%” chance of winning the nomination on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360.” |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | May 6 2016, 09:55 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by posting links from summer, 2015. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | May 6 2016, 10:32 AM Post #11 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
So what percent chance do you give someone losing by 9% in head to head matchups in the general election? Are you seriously trying to compare Silver's track record with the Rasmussen Reports? Really? It's as if you are trying to say that if Silver was wrong, then Rasmussen is correct and the other polls are wrong. Logic at its worst. Rasmussen was and is wrong because their methods are horrendous. They have been in both of the last two elections (and midterms as well) and they did nothing to correct it. They still only do landline polling (and internet polling, LOL). Their polls have been shown through the last eight years to sharply overestimate the republican vote. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | May 6 2016, 10:41 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
I think we are headed into probably the most interesting full campaign season of my lifetime. While the 2000 result fiasco was movie-worthy, this is the first time in my life we have two candidates that are very disliked by large percentages of their own parties. How this will affect polling with a four spectrum split, I'm not really sure. But in terms of polling methodology, etc, I'm not quite sure where the argument for Rasmussen is outside of "they posted an outlier poll that favored my guy." Where rcp shows only meta-data, 538 takes this information and runs it against the historical accuracies of each polling agency. This is how he was only off by ONE electoral college vote in the 2008 election. That's like having a perfect bracket with the exception of one play-in game. It's still a perfect bracket. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | May 6 2016, 07:47 PM Post #13 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
The political landscape and rules have changed. Try to keep up, guys. :P |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | May 6 2016, 07:50 PM Post #14 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
The bracket comparison is horrible. It's more like the stock picker who has a great year, or the gambling "expert" who has a good run. It's part skill with a lot of luck. The political rules have changed. Nobody knows what's going to happen the next six months. Given the choice of being up or down 9 pts, sure I'd choose being up. But I won't have much confidence in any polling for the next 3-4 months until the two campaigns get off the ground. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | May 6 2016, 09:07 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
I suppose it is a bad analogy because it implies luck. What I'm saying is that no entity has a better methodological argument at this time. That is undeniable. And believe me, I really hope someone else creates a better way. I think Nate silver would agree. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:54 PM Jul 10
|











7:54 PM Jul 10