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.
They won't count the mail-in and absentee ballots until the polls close, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlb
Mail-ins are often counted as they are received.
Depends on the city/county/state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Do you have a source for this information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlb
I am an election official.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
So?
Where is the law reference that votes are counted as they come in? In which state? In which county?
Interesting question - when are absentee ballots counted?
Turns out that it depends on the state. Most count the absentee ballots on the day of the election (November 8th). Some states (Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon) start counting their absentee ballots 7 days before the election (November 1st) but don't release the tabulation until the day of the election. Utah absentee ballot counting begins the day before the date of canvass, date of canvass apparently meaning review of election returns by the board of canvassers; I take this to mean November 7th this year.
According to our resident "experts" simply mentioning a poll that could in any way favor Trump is cherry picking. Fascist.
For example, if I mention that 9 of 11 polls making up the RCP average have it within 6% (average 3.3%) - I'm accused of cherry picking.
False. You were told you were cherry picking when you chose selected polls to try to make the claim that Trump was doing better than he is. Reporting individual polls is fine - drawing conclusions from only the polls that look best for your candidate is foolish.
False. You were told you were cherry picking when you chose selected polls to try to make the claim that Trump was doing better than he is. Reporting individual polls is fine - drawing conclusions from only the polls that look best for your candidate is foolish.
You mean like the Hillary supporter do when one poll shows her 10 points ahead and it's talked about all day long by the Clinton robots?
False. You were told you were cherry picking when you chose selected polls to try to make the claim that Trump was doing better than he is. Reporting individual polls is fine - drawing conclusions from only the polls that look best for your candidate is foolish.
Give me an example of what I did that offended you.
You mean like the Hillary supporter do when one poll shows her 10 points ahead and it's talked about all day long by the Clinton robots?
Exactly. A poll with Hillary up 10 can be discussed all day with no accusations of cherry picking. But you BETTER NOT bring up a poll with Trump close.
Exactly. A poll with Hillary up 10 can be discussed all day with no accusations of cherry picking. But you BETTER NOT bring up a poll with Trump close.
Anyone can bring up whatever poll they feel like, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the consensus of polling. Also if you are discussing an average of recent polling (which you did) you shouldn't be leaving off the polls that isn't beneficial to your side. Saying the average of 9 of the last 11 polls is plain silly...
You mean like the Hillary supporter do when one poll shows her 10 points ahead and it's talked about all day long by the Clinton robots?
Probably because several of us point out when things are bad for Clinton. Eddie selectively only looks for the one poll that shows Trump doing well and ignores the 10 others that say otherwise. He also changes the goal posts all the time. Quoting 538 ad nauseam when things are good for Trump and saying it isn't that important when things are bad. Or changing how many polls he uses to prove his narrative. Sometimes it's the last 2 other times it's the last 5. Anything that gives Trump the advantage. I said yesterday that the high and low polls were not accurate. Clinton isn't +14 and Trump isn't +1. Somewhere in between lies the balance. If the race was tied or Trump was winning then the polling would bear that out. There would be several Trump +3-5 polls, tied polls, and Clinton +3-5.
He also would be breaching Clintons firewall, doing better in some swing states, and not doing so poorly in red states. That's what happened when he got close before. The state polls like PA, CO, and NH bore that reality out. Right now the polls show a 5-7 point Clinton lead. Personally I think it will likely tighten to a 2-5 point one by election day. Of course it could be a dead heat as well and there could be a complete polling failure too. Nobody can say until election day. We can only analyze the data that we have now.
Of course, they don't have anyone standing in the voting booth with you making sure you vote the way they want you to vote. But there's nothing stopping either campaign from asking you who you intend to vote for or who you did vote for.
It's actually much more of a science than you think. Cross-voting happens (people voting across party lines), but that's why nobody bases turnout models on party registration.
It's a burgeoning science.
It's not established science, because it's based on assumptions that are subject to change. We talk about how Obama's grass-roots campaign pioneered massive changes in fund-raising, a model that Bernie Sanders tried to follow, with some success.
And Trump's campaign has been radical in several ways. For one thing, he's a reality TV star. But more than that, he's embraced the internet in similar ways to Obama, and in new ways. The Trump campaign out-spent the Clinton campaign in digital ads. It could be having an impact on turn-out right now, in early voting. There is a real danger that the pollsters are underestimating Trump, because the political terrain is changing due to technology. If Trump's digital ads are reaching his target groups, that's not something that would necessarily show up in the polling, because the formulas the pollsters use to weight their samplings are based on old assumptions which might not necessarily apply.
It's not established science, because it's based on assumptions that are subject to change. We talk about how Obama's grass-roots campaign pioneered massive changes in fund-raising, a model that Bernie Sanders tried to follow, with some success.
And Trump's campaign has been radical in several ways. For one thing, he's a reality TV star. But more than that, he's embraced the internet in similar ways to Obama, and in new ways. The Trump campaign out-spent the Clinton campaign in digital ads. It could be having an impact on turn-out right now, in early voting. There is a real danger that the pollsters are underestimating Trump, because the political terrain is changing due to technology. If Trump's digital ads are reaching his target groups, that's not something that would necessarily show up in the polling, because the formulas the pollsters use to weight their samplings are based on old assumptions which might not necessarily apply.
I think you're on to something with the digital ads.
I went to the Trump site to see about the hats. For days, Trump ads showed up at the edge of everything I looked at.
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.
