GMTom wrote:

Will Trump be met with enthusiastic support? About 10% of republicans have indcated they refuse to vote for him.

It may even be more than that!
But here again, you cherry pick what suits you.
You fail to account for the Democrats that will vote for Trump and that could be more than the numbers of Republicans lost. The recent West Virginia polls showed that number is pretty large!

I don't think WV is typical. It's a conservative state, and the 50% of registered Democrats has not really been reflected in national elections since the turn of the century. The margin was 62-35 for Romney in 2012, for example. I think there it is legacy Democrats as you have had in the South since the Civil Rights era, those who inherit party membership from their parents and grandparents back to a time when the Democrats in the region dominated and were conservative.

The Democrats still do well there at state level and below, and there is a Senator from each party (although all the House reps are currently GOP). And Manchin is one of the least partisan Democrats (second only to Ben Nelson according to this from 2011 - http://innovation2.cq.com/media/2011/votestudy_2011/ )

But in Presidential elections they have not voted for the Democrat since W Clinton was on the ballot. So I would question how many of those WV registered Democrats were aligned to the national party

What would be of more interest is what is happening in the more likely pivotal swing states. So far there is the Quinnipac set of polls that are the most recent, but before that point, Clinton was ahead in polling averages in all three of PA, FL & OH. Until we see more polling regularly in the states for the general election, we can't think about doing more than guess what the shakeout of #NeverTrump Republicans and #BernieOrBust Democrats will be, and perhaps more crucially, what the swing voters will do.

West Virginia is absolutely not typical in any way! But it is an example of how Trump may very well pull in quite a few Democrats to his side. WV may have a higher number but still, it shows he has more votes from the other side, possibly enough that some of these typical "red States" may turn blue? But that's as of NOW, I keep saying Trump will implode so please don't later tell me how wrong I was!

as far as Polls, hahahahaha, That's just soooo funny Rickyp, you cherry pick any poll that suits your position, you have used flawed and bad polls over and over and you tell me to use credible ones? That's just rich!

GMTom wrote:West Virginia is absolutely not typical in any way! But it is an example of how Trump may very well pull in quite a few Democrats to his side. WV may have a higher number but still, it shows he has more votes from the other side, possibly enough that some of these typical "red States" may turn blue? But that's as of NOW, I keep saying Trump will implode so please don't later tell me how wrong I was!

as far as Polls, hahahahaha, That's just soooo funny Rickyp, you cherry pick any poll that suits your position, you have used flawed and bad polls over and over and you tell me to use credible ones? That's just rich!

And, he has completely ignored the battleground polls this week that show the race is very close.

fate

And, he has completely ignored the battleground polls this week that show the race is very close

I addressed it.
Here it is again, from actual experts...

But the general election is off to a predictable start. Three Quinnipiac polls released on Tuesday, showing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, got far more attention than they deserved. That’s not because Trump can’t win those states, or the election. Rather, we’re still six months from Election Day and no single poll should receive much attention. Moreover, I would caution against getting bogged down in state polls — even of swing states. The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency; the Electoral College matters only in very close elections, and most of the time not even then.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/don ... lege-math/

In case you don't bother to read it, The gist of this is that general elections can almost always be predicted by national polls. (Plus there are far far more of them that can allow trend analysis and "The wisdom of the crowd".
As they say:

The point is that the 2012 electoral map may not apply in 2016. Let’s say Clinton leads Trump by 6 percentage points in North Carolina, as an average of the three polls conducted there in the past month suggests. So what? We don’t necessarily know what that says about the race overall.

North Carolina, BTW, is a must win for Trump. And he's behind 6 points in those state polls...


.

rickyp wrote:North Carolina, BTW, is a must win for Trump. And he's behind 6 points in those state polls... .

Based on an electorate which is close to matching 2012. Clinton is not going to motivate her base--that's just a fact, particularly the African-American vote, like Obama did.

Here's the thing: if Trump wins OH, FL, and PA, can he lose NC and still win? Yes!

It’s too early to take any poll too seriously. We’ll have plenty of time to get into the weeds of different Electoral College scenarios in the months to come. For now, if you’re interested in whether Trump or Clinton is likely to be our next president, I’d pay attention to the average of national polls.

From another article on the site:

Blacks are consistently Democrats’ best demographic group. Not only did they give Obama 93 percent of their vote in 2012, their turnout rate of 66 percent that year was 2 points higher than that of whites. If black turnout drops in 2016, Democrats will have much less room for error in key states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Thus, it is too early to start giving the election to Hillary.

no, you did not address it!
Your link showing a landslide victory for Clinton gave her Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Every one of them is a statistical tie. Yet there you go making claims based on winning such ties.

You claim you addressed it how ...by telling us to ignore such early polls!?
In one breath you tell us how important polls are (and to of course use only those you approve of) and here you tell us to ignore this part of that poll you want us to listen to.

...Talk about cherry picking!

per Ricky in one breath:

North Carolina, BTW, is a must win for Trump. And he's behind 6 points in those state polls...

then in another breath:

I would caution against getting bogged down in state polls — even of swing states. The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency; the Electoral College matters only in very close elections, and most of the time not even then.

GMTom wrote:per Ricky in one breath:

North Carolina, BTW, is a must win for Trump. And he's behind 6 points in those state polls...

then in another breath:

I would caution against getting bogged down in state polls — even of swing states. The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency; the Electoral College matters only in very close elections, and most of the time not even then.

Good catch.

Mr. Poll?

tom

per Ricky in one breath

yes Tom, I posted the NC poll results, understanding that I'd said an inividual state poll means nothing.
I did not miss the irony. I intended it.

fate

Here's the thing: if Trump wins OH, FL, and PA, can he lose NC and still win? Y

es

http://www.270towin.com/
Maybe.
But you can play around to your hearts content on various scenarios on the map linked.
The central thesis is, however, that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections.
Which makes this chart the one to watch...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

rickyp wrote:fate

Here's the thing: if Trump wins OH, FL, and PA, can he lose NC and still win? Y

es

http://www.270towin.com/
Maybe.
But you can play around to your hearts content on various scenarios on the map linked.
The central thesis is, however, that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections.
Which makes this chart the one to watch...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

Yes, it certainly is . . . in August. How meaningful is it now?

After all, the 2012 race went up and down a bit. Plus, some polls now are "likely voters" and some are "registered voters." All that really matters is who shows up. Theoretically, either candidate could win by 30 points--turnout is the thing.

And, we're going to see a lot of reshaping of the electorate between now and election day.

Tell you what: I'll give you 5:1 odds TODAY that Clinton will not win by 8 points. Deal?

I have to disagree with the claim " that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections"

The problem with this statement is it's not completely true or honest.
GWB vs The Inventor of the Internets
Gore had more votes than did Bush, that's a fairly recent election Ricky wants us to ignore.
Not only that but he points out the electoral maps as proof the Dems will win, because it does come down to the electoral votes and not the popular vote, we mention swing states being so very important yet here he wants us to ignore that whole concept.

The candidate with the most votes may not win, that's the bottom line, having us pretend they don't exist is not only wrong, but it has been wrong only a few years ago! It's a very generalized statement only.

GMTom wrote:I have to disagree with the claim " that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections"

The problem with this statement is it's not completely true or honest.
GWB vs The Inventor of the Internets
Gore had more votes than did Bush, that's a fairly recent election Ricky wants us to ignore.
Not only that but he points out the electoral maps as proof the Dems will win, because it does come down to the electoral votes and not the popular vote, we mention swing states being so very important yet here he wants us to ignore that whole concept.

The candidate with the most votes may not win, that's the bottom line, having us pretend they don't exist is not only wrong, but it has been wrong only a few years ago! It's a very generalized statement only.

Shh! Polls are all rickyp has! Don't ruin it for him!

The New York Times verified this poll,

Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980.

As did Wikipedia,

Arguably the most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (October 28).[24] On October 26, two days prior to the debate, Gallup released a survey that suggested that Carter was leading Reagan by a margin of 47% to 39%.

A Gallup Poll of July 26, 1988, showed Michael S. Dukakis leading George H. W. Bush by 17 points. The New York Times reported,

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

Note well: those polls were much later than we are right now.

May 8th 2012 Romney and Obama were tied
May 11th 2004 Kerry and Bush were tied

How's them for some examples of how much May means in these stupid early polls?

tom

I have to disagree with the claim " that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections"
The problem with this statement is it's not completely true or honest.

Tom, did you bother to read anything of the 538 article?
Here's what they said...

The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency;

And they linked to the Gore Bush election as a notable exception. But also said ....

During the past 50 years, for example, in only two elections has the national popular vote been within 2 percentage points.

And even in close elections, an Electoral College/popular vote split isn’t especially likely. Research by Nicholas R. Miller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, has found that — all else being equal — there’s about a 25 percent chance of a split if the national popular vote is decided by about 1 percentage point, and that the chance is cut in half when the margin is 2 percentage points. We all remember the razor-thin margin in the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won the presidency even though Al Gore won the popular vote. But we forget that the 1960 and 1968 elections were about equally close but didn’t produce a split. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2004 won relatively clear victories in the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a little more than 2 points. If the national popular vote margin is greater than 4 percentage points, Miller found, the chance of a split is about zero.

So yes, with the notable exception of Gore Bush ... the plurality of vote goes to the winner of the election.
Since its happened in 47 elections, and only once, not ... its almost certain- statistically ... to happen again.