Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's interesting to see Hillary's Facebook page(which has lower "likes" than Trump). Most of the comments are scathing towards her. You would think there would be more positive comments on her own page.
Maybe Clinton supporters on Facebook (I'm one) are just less inclined to trash other candidates' pages? And for whatever reasons are generally not as active on social media?
National polls mean little to me, and this past year has proven that anything can happen in an election. However, many things have changed over the years. With early voting and mail-in ballots, I think the majority of people have made up their minds by now.
Still, with more than 145 million registered voters in the U.S. I don't see how polling 500 or 1,000 people can determine election results. OTOH, if the gap between Clinton and Trump continues to grow, I'll feel a lot happier.
But until all the votes are counted, or one of the candidates leads by a significant amount, I will be very nervous and hope America gets it right. (I already voted)
Hillary is up anywhere from 4-8% points in the presidential polls, yet seems to have poor attendance and limited enthusiasm at her rallys, while Trump has standing room only.
Are the polls a good reflection of actual election results?
Despite lower turnouts at speeches, will voters show up and vote for Hillary?
Are Trump's large crowds simply a reflection of a small, enthusiastic segment of the population, but not of people who will actually vote?
Is there any correlation between crowds at speeches and election results?
Many people will tell you that there isn't, but Walter Mondale knows better. In 1984, he was trailing Ronald Reagan in most polls, but a week before the election he held a rally in New York City that drew over 100,000 people. The size of that crowd was all he needed to see to know that he was going to win the election, and in fact a week later he was elected the 41st President of the United States. The 100K rally conclusively predicted his victory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Either the liberals have been hiding in their safe space.
or
The polls are very, very wrong.
See brexit polling for your recent examples of how wrong they can be. And how I discovered this interesting historical fact, how carter was leading reagan one week before the 1980 election according to gallup polling:
"Just two days before the October 28 debate, Carter was eight points ahead in the Gallup poll. A week after the debate, he lost to Reagan by nearly ten percentage points."
Especially in this day in age of agenda galore in the media and beyond, I trust NOTHING about polling.
So don't get too arrogant hil supporters. Have your safe space ready if your dreams all fall apart if the "Extremely careless" one loses.
Carter was ahead prior to that debate, and in the days afterward momentum shifted dramatically away from him and toward Reagan. It was very close up until a day and a half before Election Day, and was actually changing on an hourly basis. It was around 7 or 8 PM the night before the election that Carter's pollsters concluded that Reagan had pulled ahead and that the election was out of reach, and in fact the final numbers were very close to what the predicted the day before. The 1980 election was a vindication of polling science, not a repudiation.
The projections showing Hillary ahead is based on Hillary getting the same turnout as Obama.
There is no way Hillary is going to get the same turnout as Obama. Now add the problems that all of these leaks are creating, and Hillary could have a very serious turnout problem.
As you have already pointed out, Hillary has turnout problems at her rallies, it's a reflection of just how little interest, and enthusiasm there is for Hillary.
Not sure what polls you are looking at. Every poll I have seen has actually given trump better demographics than Hillary with the exception of latinos.
Either the liberals have been hiding in their safe space.
or
The polls are very, very wrong.
See brexit polling for your recent examples of how wrong they can be. And how I discovered this interesting historical fact, how carter was leading reagan one week before the 1980 election according to gallup polling:
"Just two days before the October 28 debate, Carter was eight points ahead in the Gallup poll. A week after the debate, he lost to Reagan by nearly ten percentage points."
Especially in this day in age of agenda galore in the media and beyond, I trust NOTHING about polling.
So don't get too arrogant hil supporters. Have your safe space ready if your dreams all fall apart if the "Extremely careless" one loses.
I dont know why Conservatives keep using Brexit as an example that helps them, it doesnt
It's interesting to see Hillary's Facebook page(which has lower "likes" than Trump). Most of the comments are scathing towards her. You would think there would be more positive comments on her own page.
All That proves is that Conservatives troll more than liberals do.
Still, with more than 145 million registered voters in the U.S. I don't see how polling 500 or 1,000 people can determine election results.
I wish statistics was a required course in every high school in the US. I didn't take Statistics 101 until age 26 when I was required to my employer. I went on to take 2 more classes and would have taken more if they had been available.
In my 1st class, we were given a bucket with a large quantity (1000-2500) of black and white marbles and had to determine the minimum number of marbles to be drawn in order to accurately determine the total number of marbles in the bucket of each color.
By the end of the course, we were adept at determining how small a sample of marbles was needed to calculate the answer accurately to +/- 1%. It seems like magic but it works every time. It's such a bedrock of mathematics that it reliably applies, no matter how large the population. Actually, the larger the population, the smaller the sample needed and the more reliable the results.
That said, a political poll with a MOE of 3-4% should be taken with a grain of salt: by itself that poll says zilch. But when a series of poll reports the same results (more marbles of the same color dominating), that means something. You can take it to the bank when several polls in a row show the same candidate/color leading.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And how I discovered this interesting historical fact, how carter was leading reagan one week before the 1980 election according to gallup polling:
