Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Black men got the vote before women and one of the arguments against giving them the vote is "we'd have to give women the vote". I think you're underestimating the vagina factor.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this I would be happy to put 5k at 2:1 on Hillary winning the presidency if she gets the nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't be a nit. He's making a prediction, that she wouldn't win. Besides, why bet with a rando on the internets when he can get better odds just about anywhere else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be a nit, I never expected him to take the bet, I did it to make a point. When people make ridiculous statements that deviate this far from what the gambling community says they better offer some concrete evidence and not just pointless drivel. If he had said "I don't think Hillary is going to win" thats fine but he claimed that he can tell a full year from the election that she has no shot when common sense tells you that she, along with any democrat that can win the ticket, have around a 50% chance of being elected.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Black men got the vote before women and one of the arguments against giving them the vote is "we'd have to give women the vote". I think you're underestimating the vagina factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your basic argument is that the country is more sexist than it is racist? I would strongly disagree.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

So the margin of error is 1 percent, but it's unclear how they found the random sample of people willing to partake in the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood the poll. They never said they thought the sample was random. The 1% margin just means that they have a certain confidence level that the true percentage of people who would click and participate in an internet poll is in that 2% spread. This says pretty much nothing about how the voting public will vote.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is pretty funny.
Did you miss the 92 election? Bush Sr. won in 88 because of love for Reagan. The fact that he actually had to fight to even get the nomination at a time were 60% of the country would have elected Reagan again illustrates how little he was loved.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with her bad month, it has to do with Republican turnout. There is always going to be dislike for a candidate from the opposite party, but not to the level of the Republicans and Hillary. I'm not exactly saying ground-breaking stuff here, so the fact that you are acting like I made some sort of shocking statement is a little baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the stuff you are saying is obvious, everybody knows that some people hate Hillary. What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would require all swing voters to go for her. Good luck with that one. Some percentage of the 50% will show up to vote against her. Some percentage of the Democratic base that will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what will show up. The difference has to be made up (or not lost, if it is in your favor) in the swing voters. The size of the hole/mountain is the question.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Black men got the vote before women and one of the arguments against giving them the vote is "we'd have to give women the vote". I think you're underestimating the vagina factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your basic argument is that the country is more sexist than it is racist? I would strongly disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends. I think people consider women less competent and less "strong" and more "emotion driven", but consider black men more antisocial. If you look at treatment of law enforcement officers by their co-workers I think you'll find more sexism than racism. If you look at treatment of civilians by law officers I think you'll find them more racist. It depends on the circumstance. I don't think the people who prefered the idea of black men voting to women voting were necessarily more sexist than racist. They merely were on the issue of voting. Voting is basically an issue of political descision making, so it relates to becoming president as well.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some percentage of the 50% will show up to vote against her. Some percentage of the Democratic base that will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what will show up. The difference has to be made up (or not lost, if it is in your favor) in the swing voters. The size of the hole/mountain is the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ Read this again

We can ignore the pundits, but perhaps you should consider the polling and prediction markets before continuing any further with the "Hillary can't win because she's too polarizing" argument. Actually, maybe you should have considered polling, prediction markets, obvious fund-raising cues, etc. first, but better late than never, right?

I mean, I get the argument; clearly there exists a meme that Hillary is too polarizing to win in a general election. Okay. Fair enough. Is that narrative true?

Well, what kind of indicators and empirical evidence do we have to suggest this isn't true?

Head to head polling shows her not only competitive with the top GOP candidates but beating them. She's "winning" the fund-raising battle in many of the top industries and special interests who aren't so much ideologically inclined as they are looking to hedge their bets and maintain their influence peddling. And not only that, pretty much eveery [censored] gambling site spreading odds says she's the favorite.

Scientific polling, fundraising evidence, and predictions markets probably trump whatever you or I or some right-wing blowhard has to say on the matter, yes?

So smart money says "Hillary is too polarizing to win" probably isn't a true statement.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering turnout. If 40% of the electorate would rather die than see you win, and the other 60% like you, you'll probably lose, because your people won't all vote.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain the fact that Hillary is clearly winning in head-to-head match-ups with every GOP candidate? According to the realclearpolitics.com poll database, Hillary beats Giuliani in 9 out of the 10 most recent polls, and beats Romney and Thompson in all 10 of the 10 most recent polls.

If Hillary is the nominee, she is going to get a lot of votes from people who don't really like her.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering turnout. If 40% of the electorate would rather die than see you win, and the other 60% like you, you'll probably lose, because your people won't all vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was using electorate as people who come out and actually vote, not just people who can legally vote, sorry for not being clear. My statement was pretty stupid, but people don't seem to understand why candidates lose. The point is if win the nomination and lose the election it will be because your people didn't come out to vote for you. Put another way, it doesn't matter if the people who don't vote for you hate you alot or just a little.

Also, GWB was very polarizing when he ran the second time. Many people where in the "anybody but Bush camp". This is part of the reason why Nader did so much worse in 2004 than 2000. Bush was able to win because he got enough support from his base. The fact that a decent percent of the country hate him makes no difference.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the polls are by far the strongest evidence that you are wrong and you didn't address that. The polls are 100% trying to predict who will win and they all show that Hilldog is in great shape

(The internet poll cited before is obviously not reliable as predictor of the voting public.)

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Are there any actual Hillary supporters on this forum? I know our resident leftists are big fans of ending the war and european-style health care, are there any Democrats here who aren't fans of Obama and Kucinich?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual Hillary supporters on this forum? I know our resident leftists are big fans of ending the war and european-style health care, are there any Democrats here who aren't fans of Obama and Kucinich?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a supporter of John Edwards. Hillary voters tend to be older and less educated than the typical internet forum poster.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well the polls are by far the strongest evidence that you are wrong and you didn't address that. The polls are 100% trying to predict who will win and they all show that Hilldog is in great shape

[/ QUOTE ]

Polls are "likely voters". They doesn't take into account the percentages that actually show up. Since my point was about who is going to actually show up in greater numbers, the polls don't prove or disprove my point.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Polls are "likely voters". They doesn't take into account the percentages that actually show up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does not compute.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Polls are "likely voters". They doesn't take into account the percentages that actually show up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does not compute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

What exactly are you confused about?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Polls try to predict the results of elections right?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual Hillary supporters on this forum? I know our resident leftists are big fans of ending the war and european-style health care, are there any Democrats here who aren't fans of Obama and Kucinich?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a supporter of John Edwards. Hillary voters tend to be older and less educated than the typical internet forum poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting the less educated part? Are Hillary supporters less educated than those who support other candidates? Or are you saying that internet forum users are more educated than the supporters of any candidate?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are Hillary supporters less educated than those who support other candidates?
Or are you saying that internet forum users are more educated than the supporters of any candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. Internet forum users tend to be well educated.
Well-educated Dems tend to disproportionately support Obama, while less-educated Dems disproportionately support Clinton.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out the Gallup standards from 2004: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/...oters_i_1.html

[ QUOTE ]
Although Gallup has made minor modifications, the questions and procedures that Perry described 44 years ago remain in use by the Gallup Poll today. Among those who say they are registered to vote (or who plan to do so before the election), Gallup uses the following questions to create a scale that varies from 0 to 7:

1) How much have you thought about the upcoming elections for president, quite a lot or only a little? (Quite a lot = 1 point)

2) Do you happen to know where people who live in your neighborhood go to vote? (Yes = 1 point)

3) Have you ever voted in your precinct or election district? (Yes = 1 point)

4) How often would you say you vote, always, nearly always, part of the time or seldom (Always or nearly always = 1 point)

5) Do you plan to vote in the presidential election this November? (Yes = 1 point)

6) In the last presidential election, did you vote for Al Gore or George Bush, or did things come up to keep you from voting?" (Voted = 1 point)

7) If "1" represents someone who will definitely not vote and "10" represents someone who definitely will vote, where on this scale would you place yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

New York Times says that places use past voting habits, length of residency registrations status, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...gstandards.pdf

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...

[/ QUOTE ]


What do you mean by design? You do not think pollsters are trying to accurately predict who will win?

And I am more than willing to change my mind on if she can win but I would need some facts and logical thinking.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Black men got the vote before women and one of the arguments against giving them the vote is "we'd have to give women the vote". I think you're underestimating the vagina factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your basic argument is that the country is more sexist than it is racist? I would strongly disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the meaning of "sexist" in this context. Some people wouldnt label a woman who would never vote for a woman as "sexist" but there are significant numbers of them. If you include them as "sexist" it is very close wrt whether the country is more sexist than racist. Add in the general dislike for Shrillary, and looking only at "ists and isms" Obama probably wins (ie loses less votes).

Obamas problem is experience. I dont believe that the country would turn over the country to a partial term Senator, whethe he was white, black, man, woman or Vulcan.

The anti-woman + anti-Clinton factor is why I dont think discounting a very large Dem win is unreasonable no matter who the GOP puts up.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this year, some completely unique thing that completely immeasurable right now is going to turn the polls on their head and prove you right after all?

I love it. You actually went and did some research into how pollsters utilize 'likely voter' metrics and why they're accurate, concluded yourself that "most years it works fine", THEN you say "oh well, it usually works, but this year it's going to be all wrong anyway".

A+ cognitive dissonance sir. A+

Anyway, for those looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates why pollsters are pretty accurate, you'll want to start here here.

For instance:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/photo...nal_2000_2.jpg

Final results: Bush 48%, Gore 48%, Nader 3%

But yeah, these guys were WAY off.

Even if you want to harp on the few percentage points the polling averages were off, it's rather easily explainable by Bluementhal:

"Most of the polls were conducted over the final weekend, although a few were done as much as a week before the election. Over the final weekend, four of the five daily tracking surveys charted by the Polling Report (Gallup, Zogby, Battleground and TIPP) showed Gore gaining ground. Second, most of the surveys gave Ralph Nader more support (4% on average) than he received on Election Day (2.7%). Presumably, some Nader supporters switched to Gore at the last moment when the final polls showed that Gore closing on Bush."

I suppose I shouldn't even sarcastically beat the "polls are inaccurate" drum, since you've conceded that "most years it works fine". At this point, you've just embraced the notion that while polling usually works fine, this year it's going to be proven grossly inaccurate by your crackpot theories.

Like others have said, you may want to contact these pollsters and let them know of the major theoretical "Hillary Flaw" you've found. I suspect if you're demonstrably correct on election day, you'll make untold millions. Not sure why you're wasting your energy here when there's a multi-billion dollar polling industry to usurp.