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.
Glancing at the winding path graphic midway down the page shows Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Maine going for Clinton, but not necessary to get to 270.
It is difficult to imagine Trump getting all the above states plus tipping one of the solid blue states to get him to 270. Could happen, but doesn't seem likely.
Clinton doesn't have to try very hard to reach 270. She just needs to hold onto the states that are already decisively leaning blue. Trump would need to flip states in which he hasn't had a poll lead in over a month.
The RCP average in 12 was a coupke points more GOP than the result and Rasmussen was off even more. They had it 5 points off.
The state polls in 2012 generally was more spot on than the national polls, which is part of the reason Nate weighs the state polls heavier than the national ones even for his national numbers.
In 2012 Rasmussen's final poll was 4.9% off from the actual result (Obama +3.9%). However, more importantly, their mid October polls (where we are now) was 5.9% off from the final result. Compared to the other pollsters, Rasmussen was at least a minor outlier in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
I don't get people saying Rasmussen does their own thing. Rasmussen's final poll in '08 was off by 1%. Their final poll in '12 was off by 1.7% from the RCP average. It's not like they had McCain winning and Romney up by 5%.
Really, this election will be decided by Florida. Trump has no realistic path to the White House without it.
Let's say he's able to stage a White working-class rebellion in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Ohio. That means he's likely over-performing in North Carolina and Nevada as well. If he loses Florida, he still loses 262-276.
I doubt the White working-class rebellion is coming because Trump's not even polling that strongly in traditional Republican strongholds. I don't see why places like Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina would have many "shy" Trump voters. When have folks down there ever been shy about expressing "politically incorrect" views?
I don't see why places like Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina would have many "shy" Trump voters. When have folks down there ever been shy about expressing "politically incorrect" views?
It's one thing to be a secret Trump supporter in suburban Detroit or Philadelphia. It's another thing to be a "hidden" Trump supporter in suburban Birmingham. That's sort of like being a "hidden" Black Lives Matter activist in Harlem.
I don't see why places like Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina would have many "shy" Trump voters. When have folks down there ever been shy about expressing "politically incorrect" views?
Yeah, I don't see it either.
In a place like Los Angeles, I have no problem thinking that there would be 'shy' Trump voters, but there won't be enough of them to swing an election. But in conservative parts of the country? Why would Trump voters be shy there? More likely, there would be shy Clinton voters, and not enough of them to swing an election either.
The fact is, presidential campaigns have been, um, boisterous since the beginning. We're all used to it by now - or should be. I don't believe that there are EVER enough shy voters to swing a campaign, except maybe in small towns voting for mayor.
In 2012 Rasmussen's final poll was 4.9% off from the actual result (Obama +3.9%). However, more importantly, their mid October polls (where we are now) was 5.9% off from the final result. Compared to the other pollsters, Rasmussen was at least a minor outlier in 2012.
Notice that I mentioned how far off they were from the *RCP average*. RCP had Obama +0.7 and Rasmussen had Romney +1. Thus, considering the MOE of polling, Rasmussen's final poll was spot on with the RCP average. They were spot on with every other pollster.
There's no way we can know which pollsters were more accurate in mid-October. Maybe 1 of them was an accurate snapshot of that moment in time or maybe 6 were accurate and 4 were wrong - who knows?
ZB: What led to the adoption of that vision of America?
SG: I think partly it was the product of a kind of demographic delusion. A lot of conservatives — not so much political professionals who spend their time studying the numbers, but rank-and-file Republicans and voters — really seemed to believe that they are a silent majority. In some ways, this election could be described as the story of a minority that thinks it's a majority.
Some of this was encouraged by the “missing white voters” analysis that developed after 2012. Those accounts of Romney's problems were often misread; it's not the case that there are waiting out there vast numbers of unattached white voters who would vote Republican. Most of the people just don't vote and probably won't.
Even those who do vote and can be counted to vote can only be attracted by the kinds of appeals that are likely to drive away other white voters, including those who have been the backbone of the Republican Party in the past.
Appealing to “missing white voters” is just like trying to walk up a down escalator. It's not only that overall the proportion of white voters is declining, but also that the kinds of appeals that seem likely to draw in nonvoting whites voters drive away educated suburban whites.
One of the difficulties is what you might call the Trump bloc. I'm using this to refer to a silent majority that isn't a majority and is not particularly silent: whites, generally older, generally less educated, although of course with exemptions for all of those generalizations.
[This group] is a very, very awkward size. It seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of the electorate, which is big enough that it feels like a majority but small enough that it isn't actually a majority.
That's a very uncomfortable place to be, politically, because smaller groups I think come to appreciate, not immediately but eventually, that they have to compromise and form coalitions. Larger groups can just win.
But this group doesn't seem small enough to compromise or big enough to win. That makes people very angry. I think some of that anger is reflected not just in Trump's campaign but in the sort of rhetoric you see around the rallies. And everyone has seen footage of people who are just hopping mad in a way that I suspect is alien not just to the journalists who cover them but also to movement conservatives who have claimed to speak for them in the past.
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.
