Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Everywhere you look, El Tupé is underperforming.  Sad.

(Title of the piece: "[El Tupé's] chances of winning are approaching zero")

[Ken B]

Everywhere you look, El Tupé is underperforming.  Sad.

(Title of the piece: "[El Tupé's] chances of winning are approaching zero")

I have had a running debate with (Canadian) friends. I tell them most polls from America are juiced. Pollsters are very good at their job. They know how to remove bias and skew. That means they know how to introduce bias and skew. Most polls are used to grab attention. So there is a big market for juiced polls. The reliable polls are the ones you never see: party internals. You can only infer what they show from behavior. When Trump and the GOP stop spending in Va it means they have a lock or they have no hope as an example. I keep seeing polls showing Trump ahead or close. Those are polls I distrust. I see signs of the GOP giving up on Trump. I see Hillary making a push ion states she would normally never have a chance in. They are acting on internal polls. Those polls that I cannot see I trust. Trump is holed beneath the water.

BTW I launched a mini war against Zogby polls some years ago as he seemed particularly suspicious. He was always an eye-catching outlier until suddenly, just at the last moment, he would show dramatic movement in the numbers. Back towards what was possible. I was pleased to see a paper a couple years ago proving that his published methods could not produce the movement in his polls he claimed unless essentially everyone in the country changed their mind overnight. Don't hear so much of Zogby any more.

I think this is the year my friends will have to concede!

[Brian]

I have had a running debate with (Canadian) friends. I tell them most polls from America are juiced. Pollsters are very good at their job. They know how to remove bias and skew. That means they know how to introduce bias and skew. Most polls are used to grab attention. So there is a big market for juiced polls. The reliable polls are the ones you never see: party internals. You can only infer what they show from behavior. When Trump and the GOP stop spending in Va it means they have a lock or they have no hope as an example. I keep seeing polls showing Trump ahead or close. Those are polls I distrust. I see signs of the GOP giving up on Trump. I see Hillary making a push ion states she would normally never have a chance in. They are acting on internal polls. Those polls that I cannot see I trust. Trump is holed beneath the water.

BTW I launched a mini war against Zogby polls some years ago as he seemed particularly suspicious. He was always an eye-catching outlier until suddenly, just at the last moment, he would show dramatic movement in the numbers. Back towards what was possible. I was pleased to see a paper a couple years ago proving that his published methods could not produce the movement in his polls he claimed unless essentially everyone in the country changed their mind overnight. Don't hear so much of Zogby any more.

I think this is the year my friends will have to concede!

Most polling experts (for instance, Silver, Enten, and the FiveThirtyEight crew) share your view of John Zogby and his dubious habit of putting the thumb on the scale...

Hillary just sunk a million bucks into Missouri and Indiana, by the way.

The most interesting polling situation right now has gotta be Utah, where Clinton, Trump, and the local hero McMullin are (portrayed) in a three-way tie with around 28-30% each of the vote. That's a fascinating situation. If Mitt Romney steps in, the tide may turn pretty decisively there. I'd love to see McMullin steal Utah.

[Karl Henning]

This was at Gettysburg. To steal Hillary Clinton's line from the debate, "I mean, who does that?"

[...] "Trump is no longer even pretending to try to win more votes or not offend most Republicans. Rather, he is solidifying the 5%-10% of Americans who will run with a hyper-nationalist, white-supremacist agenda." He added: "That is not enough for a viable political party in the U.S., but it is probably enough for a profitable website — loyal chums feeding at whatever click bait Trump wants to put on the line."

[Ken B]

Most polling experts (for instance, Silver, Enten, and the FiveThirtyEight crew) share your view of John Zogby and his dubious habit of putting the thumb on the scale...

Hillary just sunk a million bucks into Missouri and Indiana, by the way.

The most interesting polling situation right now has gotta be Utah, where Clinton, Trump, and the local hero McMullin are (portrayed) in a three-way tie with around 28-30% each of the vote. That's a fascinating situation. If Mitt Romney steps in, the tide may turn pretty decisively there. I'd love to see McMullin steal Utah.

I would love to see him win too.He's running pretty explicitly against Trump isn't he?

Do you mean a Romney endorsement or Romney get the EC votes if McMullin wins?  My understanding -- might be out of date -- is that electors in Utah are bound. So McMullin can win the state but Romney cannot. This would mean the House could consider Frick, Frack, and McMullin and (unless Kotlikoff gets more EC votes than McMullin, in which case he's a possibility and McMullin isn't) no-one else. The idea that the House full of party hack incumbents would pick an outsider is silly. But it sure would be nice if they had to put their shit on full display after a McMullin win in Utah!

Remember that Kotlikoff CAN win in the electoral college! https://kotlikoff2016.com/

(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)

[Karl Henning]

"Boo-hoo: he just talks mean!"

The NY Times published a list of people Trump has insulted on Twitter. It's quite long.

[Karl Henning]

(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)

You were likely ahead of me, there, but I remember in the distant past the Disenchantment . . . .)

[drogulus]

     Fact-free conservative media is a symptom of GOP troubles, not a cause


     

[James]

I tell them most polls from America are juiced

Absolutely. I can't wait for the circus to be all over, it goes on for way too long - it's really a joke. The 2 party dictatorship and all ..

[Karl Henning]

October solved Hillary Clinton's millennial problem

Why young voters shifted back toward Hillary Clinton

It's going to take time for experts to pinpoint just what's driving this trend. But a big part of the shift seemed to come during the debates.

"From my interviews, it was clear that a fairly significant number of young people hadn't really seen [Clinton] perform in a long format until then," Della Volpe says. "An overwhelming majority of millennials saw her with fresh eyes — and, generally speaking, they liked what they saw."

Beyond that, young voters who were undecided or gettable never really fell in love with Johnson or Stein. "Young people were looking for an opportunity to connect with a third-party candidate," Della Volpe says.

It never happened. Both Della Volpe and Cohen said that Gary Johnson really was wounded in young voters' eyes by his "Aleppo moment," in which he failed to be able to name the Syrian city. Young voters were also turned off by his positions on climate change, Cohen says. And during the presidential debate, which was viewed by millions, many of them saw a stark contrast between the two major party candidates.

"They're beginning to think about this in a more practical way," Della Volpe says. "They're seeing a big difference between Clinton and Trump."

Now, Clinton has opened up as big a lead over Trump with young voters as Obama had over Mitt Romney — about 23 percent. "She has definitely shored up her position with young voters," said Reuters's Jackson.

Still, while young voters are prepared to back Clinton to stop Trump, the polling suggests they'll do so far more begrudgingly — and with far less enthusiasm — than they supported Obama. And that suggests while the weakness of the third parties and the menace posed by Trump allowed the Democrats to cement their hold on youth voters this time, it may be harder to do so during the next election.

[PerfectWagnerite]

     Fact-free conservative media is a symptom of GOP troubles, not a cause


   

Yes I cannot agree with that more. I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and Mark Levin all the time. Mark Levin is a bit crazy and arrogant but at least he knows his history and can get his fact straight. Others are just plain batty. Hannity for example is so bad he perpetrated the greeting "you are a great American". What the heck is that ? Hannity says months ago he has over 1000 pages of "facts" regarding the dishonesty of Hillary. But everyday you listen to him he has NOTHING beyond what the latest WIKILEAK is coming out with. Completely agree that all their policies are on the fringe and effectiveness not supported by facts.

Glad that someone called them out on it !

[Karl Henning]

Why the pollster who has Trump and Clinton tied says he isn't worried about his results

[Brian]

I would love to see him win too.He's running pretty explicitly against Trump isn't he?

Do you mean a Romney endorsement or Romney get the EC votes if McMullin wins?  My understanding -- might be out of date -- is that electors in Utah are bound. So McMullin can win the state but Romney cannot. This would mean the House could consider Frick, Frack, and McMullin and (unless Kotlikoff gets more EC votes than McMullin, in which case he's a possibility and McMullin isn't) no-one else. The idea that the House full of party hack incumbents would pick an outsider is silly. But it sure would be nice if they had to put their shit on full display after a McMullin win in Utah!

Remember that Kotlikoff CAN win in the electoral college! https://kotlikoff2016.com/

(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)

Sorry I was unclear - I did mean Romney endorsing McMullin, not running. Far too late to run.

[Zeus]

I voted!



Donald who?

I'm outta here!!

[Turner]

Trump Tower - the tenants: billionaire lifestyle and a lot of people with criminal records, gambling habits etc.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-tower/

[Ken B]

Sorry I was unclear - I did mean Romney endorsing McMullin, not running. Far too late to run.

That might be a step too far for him, party loyalty and all, or he might actually support Hillary. But I hope he does. He has been forthright in rejecting Trump from early on, unambiguously. There was a lot of weird stuff before the civil war, with parties and leaders changing faster than John's avatar, and there was TR, but can anyone think of a case where not just the previous nominee (Romney) but the one before that (McCain) and a prior party president (Bush I) dis-endorsed the nominee? And it's clear Bush II does though he hasn't said so. Bob Dole's dead. That's every living republican nominee of the past 28 years disavowing the current one.

[Brian]

Bob Dole's dead.

hahahahahaha ouch 

[Karl Henning]

. . . some advisers have simply bailed out or distanced themselves from the candidate. Others have learned the rules: Repeat what Mr. Trump wants you to say, both to the public and to his face, and you're good. Both Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani were known as stubborn, irascible politicians before this year; both of them have shown impressive adaptability in parroting the Trump line, whatever that line may be.

Like many things about the Trump campaign, this tendency has gotten increasingly comical as Trump continues to sink in the polls. But unlike some things that make for badly run presidential campaigns, Trump's sycophant problem is also a sign that he'd make a bad president. Arguably, it's an even bigger one.

[Ken B]

hahahahahaha ouch 

Hey. I gotta deal with the one counter example somehow!  Dole is the only one supporting Trump!

[drogulus]

     Obama Was Right About Republican Extremism All Along

It should be alarming to Republican strategists that the outgoing Democratic president has a better handle on what's happened to their party than GOP politicians and conservative intellectuals—many of whom blame Trump's rise on the media, or liberal dirty tricks.

"When I was watching the president," the conservative radio host John Ziegler told Business Insider, referring to the above remarks, "I was struck by how he seemed to understand the problems with conservative media more than any Republican does. It was frustrating to see him be the voice of reason."

What is striking about Obama's grand-unified theory of Trump is that a number of related forces have interwoven to make a somewhat complicated story seem simple and obvious. Obama's popularity, and the end of his presidency, give him a degree of moral authority to make this critique that he wouldn't enjoy if he were unpopular or fighting for his own reelection. Likewise, if Trump didn't fit the theory so perfectly, it would not seem so intuitively correct to Ziegler and others today.

    I don't think liberals would impose Trump on the Repubs if they could, because it wouldn't occur to them that Repubs would let them. And while liberals can be nasty and Machiavellian they are not nihilists and won't enable one for an advantage, something as unthinkable for them as it was for Republicans not so long ago.

Republicans have complained endlessly over the past seven years about Obama's tendency to lecture them about their internal politics and strategic incentives. Conservatives in general have been hostile to similar critiques, whether they came from Obama or other liberals, rejecting them reflexively as bad-faith concern trolling by people who sought to defeat, not help them. The validity of the liberal critique, and the sincerity of Obama's desire to govern in concert with a loyal opposition, did not pierce the conservative cocoon until Trump exploited the same false grievances Obama warned them about to terrifying effect.