.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Scott Mayers]

I don't trust any polling now. It's too normalized in contrast to its origins (if even useful then) because everyone has sufficiently learned to use that and other propaganda devises purposely used to foster the illusion of support in the hopes that it makes others act according to their natural tendencies to appeal to popularity for things they cannot follow with sufficient clarity.

We were overly 'confident' here in Saskatoon for precisely interpreting NDP to win without a need to even try. We only have one NDP seat here! (And now I've got Trost as another extreme personality who is about to try running for the Conservative Party leadership! We had Vellecott last time who was relatively extreme too before.)

Best bet is to ignore polls, focus on the issues, and entice others to vote where possible.

[Smeelious]

The problem with any system is that observation affects the results.

[cybercoma]

Scott, You miss the point entirely. These polls are the single most accurate indicator. FiveThirtyEight predicted Obama's win near exact.

Feel free to ignore the polls though. That's what conservatives did in the last election. Shady was notorious for saying that the polls were wrong and biased and that Romney was actually going to win. He disappeared after the election for awhile.

Edited August 9, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

The problem with any system is that observation affects the results.

The polls don't affect the results. The results of the polls are a snapshot in time. They may affect future polls but even those polls will be accurate as a snapshot for their time. So despite the polls affecting voters decisions, this still doesn't introduce bias into the polls. They're accurate in the moment.

[cybercoma]

To give you an idea of how badly Trump is losing, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia are currently leaning blue in FiveThirtyEight's Now-Cast map. He's also losing Florida.

Edited August 9, 2016 by cybercoma

[Topaz]

In my view, when it comes to politics in the US, take every info. one sees or hears with a grain of salt. My friend, who does a lot of research on this election, says the polls are ripped in favor of Clinton. Bill and George Soros, are paying for anything that makes Clinton look good. You won't hear anything about what REALLY IS HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES OF THIS ELELCTION, from main stream news agencies, because they are for Clinton. So, in my view, one has to have an open mind that anything and everything is being done to one or both candidates, anything is possible. I've also been told that Clinton has health problems and I'm wondering why she hasn't had more news conferences with the journalist?

[Scott Mayers]

Scott, You miss the point entirely. These polls are the single most accurate indicator. FiveThirtyEight predicted Obama's win near exact.

Feel free to ignore the polls though. That's what conservatives did in the last election. Shady was notorious for saying that the polls were wrong and biased and that Romney was actually going to win. He disappeared after the election for awhile.

What do you think the polls are for if not to (1) help other politicians reflect on 'how' they should anticipate WHAT they might attempt to do next, or (2) to influence voters?

Politicians by now affect the results of polls if only to aid in influencing behavior. This is done by pundits too as they attempt to downplay whether a country is going into recession or not because when others 'think' the trend is going one way or the other, it affects how they will invest or not.

You can no longer 'trust' the validity of any polls with regards to politics. Even literal voting results now is not an actual indicator of people's thoughts necessarily because there are just too many variables for why people opt out of voting.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[cybercoma]

Imagine that. Politicians affect how people will vote for them. That's what you're trying to explain to me.

[Big Guy]

This could be the most lob sided presidential win in USA history.

[Queenmandy85]

This could be the most lob sided presidential win in USA history.

It would have to go a long way do rival Nixon's win over McGovern. Nixon carried 50 states and McGovern won Washington, DC.

[cybercoma]

I don't suspect it will be that bad, but the GOP will have some thinking to do if Trump consistently falls at or below 35%.

[The_Squid]

Trump's new strategy is to call for the assassination of Hillary. Could work......

[Moonlight Graham]

If you doubt Nate Silver's predicting power at fivethirtyeight:

After Silver successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009.

In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia

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

[kimmy]

This could be the most lob sided presidential win in USA history.

It would have to go a long way do rival Nixon's win over McGovern. Nixon carried 50 states and McGovern won Washington, DC.

Indeed. As things stand right now, the Republicans could nominate a monkey in a funny hat and still be guaranteed to win several Deep South states.

However, it's a monument to Trump's incompetence that right now, even Georgia is changing from a Republican fortress into a "battleground state".

-k

[cybercoma]

These polls don't even account for the completely idiotic message that people should stop Hillary with their right to bear arms. If that's not distasteful to everyone but the blindest supporters then literally nothing he says or does will convince anyone. His commentary since the convention is so painfully stupid that I seriously question whether his entire campaign has been a rouse by the Clintons, considering he attended their wedding and had been a Democrat in the past until recently.

[BubberMiley]

If you doubt Nate Silver's predicting power at fivethirtyeight:

After Silver successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009.

In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia

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

Silver doesn't predict. He says what the results would be if the election were held today. That's why Donald and Hillary were neck and neck a week ago on 538. A lot can happen between now and November and all of that will be incorporated in his forecast as we go.

[cybercoma]

He doesn't say what the results will be, he predicts based on educated statistical inference.

[Moonlight Graham]

He doesn't say what the results will be, he predicts based on educated statistical inference.

exactly. he's making statistical projections.

[cybercoma]

Projected safe states for Clinton have her getting over 270 electoral college votes already. GOP strongholds, South Carolina and Georgia, are now battleground states. If the vote were today, there would be a 95% chance of her victory.

At this point in the election, Trump is being annihilated.

Johnson is closing in on the 15% he needs to be in the debates.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-state-polls-1.3719007

Edited August 12, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Clinton extends her lead in Ohio to 46. Trump now at 40. No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-extends-lead-ohio-iowa-donald-trump/

[Guest]

"You're living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"

—

Donald Trump, on why African-Americans should vote for him

I wonder what that will do for him in the polls.

I'd still vote for Hillary if I was forced to vote, but how refreshing is it to see that kind of frankness from a politician?

I suppose he's not really a politician.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I suppose he's not really a politician.

He really isn't, but he is counting on celebrity and name recognition to offset his disadvantages (a la Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura).

Trump is not even spending serious money like a real career politician would....yet.

[eyeball]

As it was with our last election, the outcome will never be more than a galvanizing event away from shift in fortune.

[Hal 9000]

"You're living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"

—

Donald Trump, on why African-Americans should vote for him

I wonder what that will do for him in the polls.

I'd still vote for Hillary if I was forced to vote, but how refreshing is it to see that kind of frankness from a politician?

I suppose he's not really a politician.

One does have to wonder why the black community consistently vote democrat. I can understand Latinos somewhat...but not African americans. It makes no sense whatsoever, beyond the obvious unhealthy co-dependant relationship that the black community just can't shake.