• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

General Election Thread: Two Weeks Out

Shooshmoo said:
Cuck, huh? You are so alt-right trendy! I bet you've made some great new friends!
Click to expand...

They are my bestest internet friends!
feels-good-man.png
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I saw this post on reddit from a couple weeks ago:
Recent Emerson College state polls show Trump getting 15% of the black vote in Virginia, 15% in New jersey, and 16% in North Carolina.
Boston Herald poll shows Trump with 19% of the black vote, up from 10% in previous poll in July.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump at 14% of the black vote, up from 3% 2 weeks ago.
The PPD Daily Tracking Poll shows Trump at 11% of the black vote, up from 8% about a week ago when they frist started reporting the detailed demographic breakdown.
Yesterday's CNN Poll shows Trump with 17% of the non-white vote which is up from 7% in the previous CNN poll a month ago.
Last week's Rasmussen poll showed Trump with 24% of the black vote.
Click to expand...

Those are probably the non-white vote numbers, not the black vote.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I saw this post on reddit from a couple weeks ago:
Recent Emerson College state polls show Trump getting 15% of the black vote in Virginia, 15% in New jersey, and 16% in North Carolina.
Boston Herald poll shows Trump with 19% of the black vote, up from 10% in previous poll in July.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump at 14% of the black vote, up from 3% 2 weeks ago.
The PPD Daily Tracking Poll shows Trump at 11% of the black vote, up from 8% about a week ago when they frist started reporting the detailed demographic breakdown.
Yesterday's CNN Poll shows Trump with 17% of the non-white vote which is up from 7% in the previous CNN poll a month ago.
Last week's Rasmussen poll showed Trump with 24% of the black vote.
Click to expand...

Can't speak to any of the others, but the Boston Herald is an interesting one. He is polling at 19% (or around there) as you said, but the sample of black voters is pretty odd (read: likely not representative). Of those sampled in the poll - and I forget the exact numbers but was talking about it last week with some friends and found the data, I'll try to find it again - there were something like 113 black people and only 76 of those had voted for Obama in the last election. Obama received around 93% of the black vote in 2012 so to have 76/113 (or a similar ratio) as your representative group is an...interesting decision.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Also this is an article directly from the LA Times on the issue:

A few days ago, Donald Trump's support among African American voters in the USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak tracking poll of the election appeared to shoot upward.

Since early summer, when the poll started, Trump's support among black voters had been in the low single digits in the poll, as it is in most surveys. Suddenly, he seemed to be nearing 20%.

Some of Trump's supporters cheered and began developing theories for why their candidate had finally started breaking through to black audiences. Outraged liberal critics of the poll denounced it anew.

And then, just as quickly as the line on the chart had turned upward, it turned back down. As of Wednesday, Trump's black support in the poll is back to the single digits, near where it had been all along.

What happened is an object lesson in how not to read polls, particularly a daily tracking poll such as the Daybreak survey.

All polls are subject to random statistical noise. Tracking polls, because they take a sample every day, are particularly likely to jump around for no reason other than chance. That's especially true with a small sub-group like African Americans, who make up about one-eighth of the electorate.

The change in Trump's support was always well within the poll's margin of error for black voters, meaning there was a good likelihood that what appeared to be a shift was just random. Now that the level of support has returned to where it was, that seems likely to have been what happened.

The lesson for poll watchers: Be wary of short-term fluctuations, particularly those involving subgroups. Take margins of error seriously. And don't leap to conclusions until the evidence is solid.
Click to expand...

Any candidate's "image of success" and "winability" is vitally important to their actual success, but Trump has based his entire campaign and career on these images. As long as there is anything closely resembling a poll that says Trump has even the slightest chance at swaying black voters, he is going to blow it out of proportion and promote it endlessly.

Something I thought was interesting that was said on NPR this morning is that while Trump may not be having success swaying the black vote, his recent attempts are actually swaying white voters who had marked him off as a racist bigot. They also commented that this was likely his plan all along, but who knows.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Those are probably the non-white vote numbers, not the black vote.
Click to expand...

I posted a poll a while back, maybe Rasmussen (?), where Trump was getting like 24% of the black vote, 36% of the Hispanic vote, and 51% of other. And of course a majority of white people. But he was actually winning a majority of non-black/non-Hispanic minorities. Lots of Asians are big Trump supporters.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I saw this post on reddit from a couple weeks ago:
Recent Emerson College state polls show Trump getting 15% of the black vote in Virginia, 15% in New jersey, and 16% in North Carolina.
Boston Herald poll shows Trump with 19% of the black vote, up from 10% in previous poll in July.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump at 14% of the black vote, up from 3% 2 weeks ago.
The PPD Daily Tracking Poll shows Trump at 11% of the black vote, up from 8% about a week ago when they frist started reporting the detailed demographic breakdown.
Yesterday's CNN Poll shows Trump with 17% of the non-white vote which is up from 7% in the previous CNN poll a month ago.
Last week's Rasmussen poll showed Trump with 24% of the black vote.
Click to expand...

Maybe Silver and Princeton truly are cooking the books?!? If those numbers were remotely accurate, Trump would be well above 320 EVs. FL, PA, VA, OH, NC, MI, and CO would all be gone. Like your prior claim that Trump was up 9 in FL and our shared opinion that it's not a 6 point race nationally, I'm extremely skeptical.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Maybe Silver and Princeton truly are cooking the books?!? If those numbers were remotely accurate, Trump would be well above 320 EVs. FL, PA, VA, OH, NC, MI, and CO would all be gone. Like your prior claim that Trump was up 9 in FL and our shared opinion that it's not a 6 point race nationally, I'm extremely skeptical.
Click to expand...

One potential criticism (or benefit) of the Silver and Princeton model is that they use a Bayesian analytical approach (I think Silver does), which sets a prior distribution and then allows the data to modify that prior to produce the estimated posterior distribution. A lot of these Bayesian analyses are set up in a hierarchical mode so that the analysis can effectively account for sampling effects as separate parameters from the process effects, which would be an effective way of addressing the sampling oddity noted by numbers a few posts back. The risk I see with the Bayesian approach to analyzing polling results is that the prior could dominate the posterior and the analytical process might not be sensitive to rapid changes in the system state. In other words, if there was a long line of polls estimating that ~5% of blacks support Trump, and something happened to suddenly shift support upwards to ~18%, the prior distribution of 5% +/- 2% would require a lot of data to shift upwards to 18%. The Bayesian approach guards against putting too much confidence in the most recent data, but if the voter preference data change quickly because of the a sudden unexpected event (e.g., collapsing pneumonia) the Bayesian estimator might be slow to respond. That is just my assessments of a possible risk of using a Bayesian model.

ETA: Along with loving birds and knowing a little bit about statistics, I am also dyslexic and my posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Since we're talking about this, has anyone checked out the BlacksforTrump twitter feed? It's pretty awesome in a nut-job, delusional, meme kind of way. Could possibly be run by one of our posters, now that I think about it.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I saw this post on reddit from a couple weeks ago:
Recent Emerson College state polls show Trump getting 15% of the black vote in Virginia, 15% in New jersey, and 16% in North Carolina.
Boston Herald poll shows Trump with 19% of the black vote, up from 10% in previous poll in July.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump at 14% of the black vote, up from 3% 2 weeks ago.
The PPD Daily Tracking Poll shows Trump at 11% of the black vote, up from 8% about a week ago when they frist started reporting the detailed demographic breakdown.
Yesterday's CNN Poll shows Trump with 17% of the non-white vote which is up from 7% in the previous CNN poll a month ago.
Last week's Rasmussen poll showed Trump with 24% of the black vote.
Click to expand...

I already addressed this.

deacvision7 said:
Trump suggesting a nationwide policy of "stop and frisk" will not help him nationally, I don't believe.
Click to expand...
 
Most blacks won't care about Donald supporting a stop and frisk policy? Uh huh
 
Demonwolverine said:
Something I thought was interesting that was said on NPR this morning is that while Trump may not be having success swaying the black vote, his recent attempts are actually swaying white voters who had marked him off as a racist bigot. They also commented that this was likely his plan all along, but who knows.
Click to expand...

Trump will roll in rural White communities, but struggle in inner cities. Suburban Whites will determine the swing states and the election. Anything above 5-6% among swing state Blacks for Trump is gravy and getting above 15% would point to a solid EV win. Bigger prize for the Trump campaign is educated suburban Whites, which seems to be the plan with courting/not overtly trashing Blacks.

Still a tightrope for Trump. Made the right governing call on Tulsa, but birthers is a overt reminder that he lied out his ass for five years. Probably was going to win NC anyway, but coming down hard on rioters (who definitely deserve a ton of shit) may hurt his skim of swing state Blacks.

Can get 270 without PA, but that's with FL, OH, NC, IA, WI, NV, and 1 ME district (exactly 270). Trump has better chances in IA and WI (more rural, more White, less educated) than in PA, VA, NH (more educated suburban Whites). Narrow path for sure, but doable even without PA.
 
My informal bumpersticker survey, primarily I-95 and I-40, is nobody cares. Unlike the Presidents last two elections where seemed like every 4th auto had a Obama sticker.
 
Last edited:
silk said:
My informal bumpersticker survey, primarily I-95 and I-40, is nobody cares. Unlike the Presidents last two elections where seemed like every 4th auto had a Obama sticker.
Click to expand...

Even if I vote for her, why would I want to memorialize that on my car? I wouldn't do that for most politicians and definitely not for her. As opposed to most Trump supporters who are ardent and who probably have 1 on their bumper next to their stars and bars bumper sticker.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Trump will roll in rural White communities, but struggle in inner cities. Suburban Whites will determine the swing states and the election. Anything above 5-6% among swing state Blacks for Trump is gravy and getting above 15% would point to a solid EV win. Bigger prize for the Trump campaign is educated suburban Whites, which seems to be the plan with courting/not overtly trashing Blacks.

Still a tightrope for Trump. Made the right governing call on Tulsa, but birthers is a overt reminder that he lied out his ass for five years. Probably was going to win NC anyway, but coming down hard on rioters (who definitely deserve a ton of shit) may hurt his skim of swing state Blacks.

Can get 270 without PA, but that's with FL, OH, NC, IA, WI, NV, and 1 ME district (exactly 270). Trump has better chances in IA and WI (more rural, more White, less educated) than in PA, VA, NH (more educated suburban Whites). Narrow path for sure, but doable even without PA.
Click to expand...

She's still up in WI. No Republican has won in WI since 1984.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top