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.
I do not answer phone polls, like many Trump supporters. We do not need the target on our backs. The same reason we do not place yard signs out, like usual.
But when we go pull the lever and are all alone in the voting booth, everyone will get to see our vote.
Then you have those that are going to vote for Hillary, just because she is a democrat and they have loyalty over principles, who are too embarrassed to say they are voting Hillary with a yard sign, but will tell those calling they are voting for her.
This may be that one election, where it is either going to be a landslide for one or the other. It is not going to be close in any one state.
Previous presidential candidates who served as governors normally win their own state. Even Mondale in 1984 won Minnesota as the only state while President Reagan won the other 49.
That's why it's surprising that Hillary is losing so bad in Arkansas to Trump. Trump is leading Hillary by over 20 points now.
Even though Hillary has pulled out of Arkansas, she also has accepted losing Ohio and Colorado.
Your post is so full of inaccuracies; it's hard to address.
1. Arkansas is NOT Clinton's home state.
2. Clinton IS winning her home state.
3. Donald IS losing HIS home state.
4. Clinton IS winning Donald's home state.
5. Clinton IS winning Colorado. Last poll had her 11 points ahead.
Polls-only forecast: Clinton 75% chance of winning
Polls-plus forecast: Clinton 71.2% chance of winning
Now-cast: Clinton 81.8% of winning
Those numbers are high! If they're accurate, Clinton will the election.
That depends on whether you think that polling reflects reality.
The fivethirtyeight model has a great track record, but it is reliant on good data, which is why they put so much effort into gauging polls' past performance. Still, polls are samples, and there's a very small, but non-zero, chance that if you had a hundred different polls all saying the same thing, they could all be wrong. This is why betting exists!
In this case, I'm not concerned, but it's the nature of statistics that it isn't arithmetic.
Some people don't believe ANY polling because of this inherent fuzziness, and that makes logical sense. Other people look at things like the number of lawn signs they happen to see, and think that is a more reliable indication of how the election is going. It isn't.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
Actually it's not surprising at all, it fits with Trump's demographic of supporters. Take a look at the education ranking of Arkansas; it's one of of the wort in the nation, along with West Virginia and a few others. You will find that these states are where Trump has the strongest support. Conversely, the states with the best education rankings are all Clinton supporting states. It says something about these two candidates doesn't it?
Those States are also right in the buckle of theBabble™ belt. Which seems to correlate with the quality of education for some strange reason.
I was on the LA Times poll site just now. The first question asked of people being polled is:
Now it's clear to me why Donald Trump is leading in this poll - the USA Dornsife poll weights it polling by 'enthusiasm'. Of course Trump is leading, his faithful following is 100% certain that they are voting for Trump, while Hillary Clinton's supporters may only be 60% or 75% on average certain that they are voting for Clinton. While it's a new and interesting way of polling (one might even call it special), it assumes that supporter enthusiasm is directly proportional to actual voter participation.
My take on this is that the 'chance that you'll vote for' your candidate of choice will improve significantly for Clinton as Election Day nears. But a large block of Trump's voters are already near 100% enthusiasm - he's already at his 'popularity ceiling' with the Trump faithful.
This why quoting the who would you vote for figures for LA Times poll is misleading. It does illustrate what we already know, most Trump supporters are die hard and are going to vote for him no matter what. However the Who do you think will win question is more in line with other polls and reflects that more people think that Clinton will win and that belief has increased since the debate.
It's also interesting to see that Clinton supporters have increased in their intend to vote ratings where as Trump supports have stayed relatively flat.
Previous presidential candidates who served as governors normally win their own state. Even Mondale in 1984 won Minnesota as the only state while President Reagan won the other 49.
1) It's not about governors - most candidates, period, win their own states. Not all. There have been exceptions, such as Gore and Romney. But the vast majority do.
2) Walter Mondale was never Governor of Minnesota.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsonkk
That's why it's surprising that Hillary is losing so bad in Arkansas to Trump. Trump is leading Hillary by over 20 points now.
No, it's not. At all. She's not from Arkansas. She wasn't born there. She didn't grow up there. She moved there in her late 20s and left there in her mid-40s. And she hasn't lived there now in over two decades. It was a place she lived for while in her life, long ago. Her political home state - where she held political office - is New York. She is winning handily there.
Anyway, you're confusing the cause-and-effect. Presidential candidates don't win their home states because of some built-in advantage there - they win their home states because blue states produce most Democratic nominees and red states produce most Republican nominees, and for rather obvious reasons Democrats do well in blue states and Republicans do well in red states.
Seriously, do you think the Bushes won Texas because of a home-field advantage? Of course they didn't - they won it because they're Republicans and Texas is a Republican state. Ditto Obama and Illinois, Kerry and Massachusetts, and so forth. Romney lost Massachusetts because he was unusual in being a blue-state Republican Presidential nominee. As for the cases of Bill Clinton and Gore, they built their careers in states that were still fairly blue at the time, but in the midst of a long-term shift to red. That's why Clinton was able to win Arkansas in the 1990s and why by 2000, Tennessee was out of Gore's reach. The fact that Bill Clinton was a much better politician than Gore also explains the success of one against the failure of the other.
Anyone who thinks it's surprising that Hillary Clinton is losing Arkansas simply does not understand American electoral politics.
I hate Clinton but I can't be mad if she wins. Trump's behavior last week really looks like he wants to throw this election
....and a very small part of me wants Trump just for the entertainment value and the fatigue from defending Obama over the last 8 yrs.....time for the R̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ Trump Groupies to do their share of defending his atrocious behavior, policies, and results.
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.
