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.
That still doesn't answer my question - if it's true that there are Trump supporters who feel too socially intimidated to answer a poll truthfully, why wouldn't there be Clinton supporters who feel too socially intimidated to answer a poll truthfully?
Because "racist" is today's scarlet letter and random people are less likely to associate such a word with voting for Hillary?
Because "racist" is today's scarlet letter and random people are less likely to associate such a word with voting for Hillary?
I am not asking a campaign question. I am asking a question about voter behavior as it affects polling. Because no pollster wants to undercount voters.
Let's try a thought experiment here, leaving out the names. We have two candidates running for president. Both have about equally low favorability ratings. Both have been in public life for a long time, and both have, over the years, collected a lot of people who dislike them.
Both cast as many aspersions on each other as they possibly can, within the bounds of public discourse. The supporters in each camp are considerably less restrained. One side uses the words moron, homophobic, racist, sexist to describe the one candidate and, by extension, that candidate's supporters. The other side uses the words criminal, lying, murderer, traitor to describe the other candidate, and, by extension, the other candidate's supporters.
The claim is made that one candidate's supporters are being undercounted in the polls because of social intimidation by the other candidate's supporters. The question I have is, what evidence is there that only one side's voters are susceptible to social intimidation?
Romney carried non-college white men by 31%. Trump is carrying them by 59%. That's keeping him close in the polls. He's losing mnorities, women and is the first Pub since 1952 losing white college grads. Can that huge edge among blue collar men push him to victory? Probably doubtful unless he closes the gap with grads or women, but it will all depend on turnout.
Are you suggesting that Mitt got the uneducated, racist white male vote and Donald will get the uneducated, racist AND misogynistic white male vote?
Oops, I should have used a smaller word than "misogynistic".
OK, change that last part to "Donald will get the uneducated, racist AND SEXIST white male vote".
Trump has certainly lowered the bar - on many levels - not the least of which is intelligence, but extending to just plain decent behavior and parlor manners.
Rebutting this depravity, not to mention the sheer illogic, bold-faced lies, and unbelievable stupidity running rampant in the political arguments being put forth this election is exhausting to the point many sane and thoughtful people have chosen to leave the debate - making their voices heard, instead, on Election Day.
"There are countless numbers of Donald Trump supporters who are afraid to come out and publically support him but will vote for him on Election Day, veteran Republican political consultant Roger Stone tells Newsmax TV.
"We've actually seen this empirically. If you use an automated poll — push one for Trump, push two for Clinton, push three for undecided — and you contrast those polls where a live operator is used, Trump does substantially three to four points better in the automated poll," Stone said Friday to Steve Malzberg on "America Talks Live."
I am not asking a campaign question. I am asking a question about voter behavior as it affects polling. Because no pollster wants to undercount voters.
Let's try a thought experiment here, leaving out the names. We have two candidates running for president. Both have about equally low favorability ratings. Both have been in public life for a long time, and both have, over the years, collected a lot of people who dislike them.
Both cast as many aspersions on each other as they possibly can, within the bounds of public discourse. The supporters in each camp are considerably less restrained. One side uses the words moron, homophobic, racist, sexist to describe the one candidate and, by extension, that candidate's supporters. The other side uses the words criminal, lying, murderer, traitor to describe the other candidate, and, by extension, the other candidate's supporters.
The claim is made that one candidate's supporters are being undercounted in the polls because of social intimidation by the other candidate's supporters. The question I have is, what evidence is there that only one side's voters are susceptible to social intimidation?
It sounds like you should take that up with the author of the article. I never claimed to have supporting evidence - only that my anecdotal interactions with people make the argument seem plausible to me. As I've said, racist is the new scarlet letter. I've yet to hear of a Hillary supporter being labeled a murderer or criminal for supporting her. And let's face it, liar and traitor just don't carry the same weight as "racist" in today's America (although traitor is one I've heard lobbed at HRC, but not really her supporters). Any connection to the word racist in a dead end street when interacting with random people for a brief moment in time.
"There's kind of this consensus that has made people feel slightly embarrassed, ashamed to be patriotic, to believe we should control immigration and so when pollsters ring them, they tend to shy away a little bit," Farage said.
That's not a marriage. Not if one has to make an appointment to see your spouse. That's a business arrangement. Voters are too smart. They won't be fooled easily.
Oh, for heaven's sake ...
Let's leave out marriages, spouses and children. Who cares if Donald has two ex-wives or if Hillary's husband was non-monogamous?
Because "racist" is today's scarlet letter and random people are less likely to associate such a word with voting for Hillary?
I work with a couple of people who have made it their mission this election to make sure everyone knows how racists, sexist ect Trump is. And now that it looks as if Trump has a good chance of winning they're going nuts. They really get heated.
You want to talk politics with such people if you're a Trump supporter? Not me. I've got to work there. Better to say nothing and talk about the weather.
I am not asking a campaign question. I am asking a question about voter behavior as it affects polling. Because no pollster wants to undercount voters.
Pollsters don't count voters. They ask a very small percentage of the electorate how they will vote in the election, then from that, they project, using undisclosed models & weighting, how the entire electorate will vote.
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.
