Predictions for the 2016 Election

[Nous]

Donald Trump will win this presidential election in an upsetting landslide just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 c.e., and the "Brixit" movement this year in the UK. Just like with all things in the cosmic order, the political world is cyclical.

Hillary Clinton is a two faced, lying, corrupt, incompetent, power and money hungry, conniving, bought and paid for establishment political whore. A curse upon her candidacy! And after she is defeated in this cycle may she and her political whore of a husband go into hiding; never to be seen or heard from again!

So your prediction is based on your dislike of Clinton, no?

How do you account for the polls?

 

[Adramelek]

So your prediction is based on your dislike of Clinton, no?

How do you account for the polls?

Reagans numbers in 1980 were down 5-7+ points before the election, and he won in a land sliding upset. The "Brixit" numbers were down about the same before they voted. This is the year of the anti-establishment, the year of the disruption of the status quo. Furthermore, many polls during the primaries proved to be inaccurate.

 

[Nous]

All likely between 4-2.5% stated margin of error

What do you mean? Show us your calculations by which you arrived at that margin of error for the RCP average.

Yes it is. Would fall within MOE for a 3% poll.

With the inclusion of a couple of new polls, the RCP averaged point spread is now 7 in favor of Clinton.

If you're proposing that Trump has an equal chance of winning as Clinton, you need to explain why the polls are so consistently wrong.

True margin of error has historically been larger than 'textbook' margin of error anyway.

Cite your evidence.

This election has dealt with more unpredictable events and volatility in poll results.

Are you saying two different things here--that there have been "more unpredictable events" in this elections, and, distinct from that, "volatility in the poll results"? Or are you saying the latter reflects the former?

Anyway, frankly I don't think Trump's acts and the things that have come out about him since becoming the nominee are all that unpredictable. He's an idiot who can't hold a thought in his head, who has never had and does not have any interest in public service, who is a racist bigot and views women only as things to satisfy his sexual appetites, who is an unapologetic liar, who, when caught in wrongdoing, lashes out at others. I predict he will do more of the same.

The fact that hundreds of Republican officials and current and former elected representatives have expressed their opposition to him as President is not at all surprising, because normal Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can easily discern that he is, to use Clinton's word, "dangerously incoherent".

Some people might not want to admit they will vote for him given his controversial nature. Anonymous polls have tended to report higher numbers for Trump than those carried out personally which might suggest there is something to it.

You're saying that the polls used in the RCP and 538 averages are not anonymous?

Is there any rational reason to believe that there are so many people who are unwilling to admit their support of and future vote for Trump are skewing the results of so many polls, and will throw the election to Trump?

 

[Nous]

Reagans numbers in 1980 were down 5-7+ points before the election, and he won in a land sliding upset. The "Brixit" numbers were down about the same before they voted.

I don't remember either offhand. Show us.

How do you account for the alleged errors of so many polls on the 2016 election?

 

[Adramelek]

I don't remember either offhand. Show us.

How do you account for the alleged errors of so many polls on the 2016 election?

I remember. If it interests you so much, do your own damn research, I've got better things to do.

 

[Nous]

Just as you said, it isn't a clone to the final one.
I don't think anyone or any polls can already conclude anything weeks in advance. It can take a small sample size which could lead to predictions and assumptions and allow people their freedom to use that in whichever way they might.

So you believe that the sample size of the polls is too small? How do you account for their consistency?

 

[Nous]

I remember. If it interests you so much, do your own damn research, I've got better things to do.

So we can rest assured that you will not be able to substantiate your claims.

 

[columbus]

So you believe that the sample size of the polls is too small? How do you account for their consistency?

I believe that, like many other data driven endeavors, political polling has become far more sophisticated in just the last few years.

If there were any operations like 538 back at the turn of the century, they were expensive and didn't give away their results to the public. Much less for free on a daily basis. 538's business model just plain didn't exist.
Tom

 

[Nous]

I believe that, like many other data driven endeavors, political polling has become far more sophisticated in just the last few years.

I think so too.

 

[leibowde84]

I predict Trump will win. The Americans had enough of illegal immigration(i gues they themselves were legal immigrants when they massacred millions of native americans).

I don't think Trump has a chance anymore. Most Americans cannot stand the guy or his "policies". And, while most also aren't too fond of Hillary, Trump has proven her to be the lesser of two evils in the recent weeks.

 

[leibowde84]

That's why it's rigged. No other election has electors.

There is a good reason for the Electoral College. If it didn't exist, candidates would only have to campaign in big cities, able to ignore any interests of those who live in more rural areas. The college ensures that more Americans are campaigned to. And, without a doubt, those who are helped by this (those who live in more rural areas) tend to be Republican.

 

[leibowde84]

Reagans numbers in 1980 were down 5-7+ points before the election, and he won in a land sliding upset. The "Brixit" numbers were down about the same before they voted. This is the year of the anti-establishment, the year of the disruption of the status quo. Furthermore, many polls during the primaries proved to be inaccurate.

I don't know ... the way that Trump has been acting recently seems to show that he has already accepted defeat. Whenever someone whines about a "rigged election" before it even happens, it's an obvious sign of lack of confidence.

 

[Augustus]

What do you mean? Show us your calculations by which you arrived at that margin of error for the RCP average.

Was referring to the original polls

If you're proposing that Trump has an equal chance of winning as Clinton, you need to explain why the polls are so consistently wrong.

I clearly said Clinton was favourite, but when polls are within the margin of error you accept that both have a reasonable chance. Reasonable could be 20-30%.

My point was that it is not a done deal yet.

Cite your evidence.

It's not hard to find. Have a look if you want to learn something.

Are you saying two different things here--that there have been "more unpredictable events" in this elections, and, distinct from that, "volatility in the poll results"? Or are you saying the latter reflects the former?

There is a connection.

You're saying that the polls used in the RCP and 538 averages are not anonymous?

Many are telephone polls.

Is there any rational reason to believe that there are so many people who are unwilling to admit their support of and future vote for Trump are skewing the results of so many polls, and will throw the election to Trump?

As I said, polls not conducted via person to person interaction have been slightly more favourable to Trump.

Brexit polls understated 'leave' possibly partly for this reason. Another controversial politician Margret Thatcher also tended to perform better in elections than polls.

There is enough to say that it is a possibility for perhaps a percent or two..

 

[Nous]

There is a good reason for the Electoral College.

False. There isn't a single good reason for electing the President by the electoral system.

If it didn't exist, candidates would only have to campaign in big cities, able to ignore any interests of those who live in more rural areas.

False.

• Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.
  
  
• Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.
  
  
• The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas--the nation’s 50th biggest city).
  

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/eve-4th-ed-ch-9-myths-2013-2-21.pdf

The college ensures that more Americans are campaigned to.

False. The electoral system ensures that candidates spend their time, money and attention in those few battleground states. The rest of the country is ignored. See: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/01/163632378/a-campaign-map-morphed-by-money

and:

http://www.fairvote.org/2012chart

In the current election, candidates will spend all of their time, money and attention on even fewer states.

The electoral system of electing the President ensures massive vote wasting and therefore voter apathy, along with unequal vote weight, and surprising often gives the office to the candidate who did not win the popular vote.

 

[Nous]

Was referring to the original polls

How do you account for their consistency?

I clearly said Clinton was favourite, but when polls are within the margin of error you accept that both have a reasonable chance. Reasonable could be 20-30%.

538 gives Trump a 12-15% chance of winning, even though some of the polls are within the margin of error.

It's not hard to find.

But for some reason you're not able to provide it?

If you ever come find any evidence to substantiate your claim that the "true margin of error" is something different than what these polls calculate, let us know.

Many are telephone polls.

I'll ask again: So you're saying that the polls used in the RCP and 538 averages are not anonymous?

As I said, polls not conducted via person to person interaction have been slightly more favourable to Trump.

Are you talking about the polls where robots can vote? Link to the polls that you believe give truer results than the ones used by RCP and 538.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is a good reason for the Electoral College. If it didn't exist, candidates would only have to campaign in big cities, able to ignore any interests of those who live in more rural areas. The college ensures that more Americans are campaigned to. And, without a doubt, those who are helped by this (those who live in more rural areas) tend to be Republican.

I'm wondering if that's outdated now. In an age of mass communication, the system seems pointless and easily something that can be worked to a canadates advantage. Like plugging the state's with the most electers and essentally ignoring the rest.

 

[ShivaFan]

I predict the open borders cheap labor benefactors and the one percenters of displacing American jobs with cheap labor such as Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Bloomberg and others who benefit from crony capitalism such as Goldman Sachs and the special interests of arbitrage and global TPP schemes MAY win the election. Since they support Hillary, she MAY win. Then again, she MAY not. But get ready for war. Real war, not the phony war on women, where a lot of women will be killed by Hillary Clinton.

 

[Augustus]

How do you account for their consistency?

There was a 14% spread iirc

538 gives Trump a 12-15% chance of winning, even though some of the polls are within the margin of error.

That percentage doesn't take into account future events so doesn't relate to 'chance of winning'. Just look at the history of 'chance of winning' to confirm that. The percentage is bogus, although it is fair to assume that Clinton is favourite.

But for some reason you're not able to provide it?

If you ever come find any evidence to substantiate your claim that the "true margin of error" is something different than what these polls calculate, let us know.

I know it is true as I am familiar with the evidence without having to search for it, you can choose not to educate yourself if you like though. If you wish to think a poll with a 3.5% MOE at 95% confidence is actually correct 95% of the time then fine by me. You'll be wrong, but not my job to fix your credulity if you are too lazy to find it yourself.

You may Google it if you like, or you may look in some scholarly databases if you want to be more rigorous. Seek and ye shall find

I'll ask again: So you're saying that the polls used in the RCP and 538 averages are not anonymous?

See previous answer.

Are you talking about the polls where robots can vote?

No, don't be silly.

Link to the polls that you believe give truer results than the ones used by RCP and 538.

You're missing the point.

It isn't that there are "magical accurate polls hidden somewhere", it is that there is overconfidence in the accuracy of polls in general.

 

[leibowde84]

False. There isn't a single good reason for electing the President by the electoral system.

False, there certainly is. It is obvious by the fact that in practically every US state and the District of Columbia (all but 4 states), the majority (in most cases the vast majority) live in urban areas. Actually, as a whole, 80.7% of the US population live in Urban areas.
http://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states

As is made obvious in the following US population map, most of the US population is concentrated in our major cities. There are, of course, multiple major cities in some states. So, your example of Los Angeles is irrelevant, as there are several major cities in California just as there is in Florida, Texas, Maryland, etc.

Point is that because 80.7% of the US population live in urban areas, and most live in major urban areas on the East Coast, small sections of the West Coast, and Florida, it is easy to see large parts of the country that would be ignored during campaigns and in national politics. Nevada, Colorado, Montana, North/South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming would be almost completely forgotten, as the elections would be decided by cities like NYC, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Tampa, Miami, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Detroit, etc. States in the Mid-West and Mountain Region would be all but ignored.

Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.

This is a straw man, as I never claimed otherwise. Every vote would count the same, but that is not at issue. My claim had to do with the concentration of votes and the possibility of convincing voters in urban areas with policies specifically aimed at them.

Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.

This is a silly comparison, as there are several major cities in California. You are forgetting about Scranton (the capital), San Diego, San Fransisco, Oakland, etc.

The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas--the nation’s 50th biggest city).

Not a misconception at all. Cleveland is certainly a major city, of the like to which I spoke, and only has 390k people. In fact, most major cities in the US have a population of less than 500k. That is not a surprising fact, nor did I claim anything to the contrary. But, that is not important. My point was to the concentration of population in certain parts of the country.

As is made obvious by the map I provided, the US population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the Eastern Seaboard, Florida, relatively small sections of the West Coast, and several areas in the South East. This would make a popular vote election unfair to many states in the Union.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm wondering if that's outdated now. In an age of mass communication, the system seems pointless and easily something that can be worked to a canadates advantage. Like plugging the state's with the most electers and essentally ignoring the rest.

80.7% of the US population live in Urban areas. And, from the below population map isn't it obvious what areas of the country would be ignored if a popular vote election was held?

View attachment 14904