The General Election

[It'sNotAFakeID]

While we're talking about polls: here's a link to 538's pollster ratings analyzing the historical accuracy and overall methodology of the various polls out there. It includes information on the polling centers simple average error, or the difference in margin between the polled and actual result of the top two finishers, the polls accuracy in predicting the outcome of the race, a metric comparing how a poll's average error compared with the average error of other polls, with negative numbers indicating higher quality, a metric describing how accurate a poll will be against other polls in predicting future winners, and a metric showing a poll's bias towards the Republican or Democratic candidate.

 

The Rasmussen poll you cite bnil, is the fourth most biased towards Republican candidate poll out there and doesn't have a favorable comparison against other more right-leaning polls in terms of quality or predictive capacity. Yet they still show Hillary up by 1.

 

Very interesting database that shows which polls we should and should not be paying attention to as this race heats up.

[NM11046]

Not sure if anybody is looking for something to listen to during a commute or while you're in the office, but I found this NPR This American Life broadcast interesting and timely. There's an in-depth interview with the lead pollster from 538 explaining why political polls are whacked, and why theirs is the most dependable (and the mistakes they still make).

 

AND - looking at Wilt Chamberlins' free throw technique and the choice he made.

 

http://tal.fm/590

 

 

 

 

 

[Savage Husker]

 

 

 

Both candidates suck, one talks out of both sides of their mouth, the other with a foot in their mouth, but this broad is the real life version of Claire Underwood and her track record speaks for itself. The ineptitude of this individual is glaring. Passed along from a friend:

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

 

And the crazy thing is, if Donald was a public figure and every one of his moves for his career was noted his mistakes and their impact would also be significant. Depending on your values and beliefs they could be considered worse. He's getting the benefit of not being in the public eye, and even more so, of you all not demanding that he answer any question with information, or that he disclose information like his tax returns etc. Two totally different standards.

 

Why can't republicans sell us their candidate based on accomplishments and policy, plans of action and accountability? Because Trump has offered none. Instead they focus on trying to take down every competitor like Mean Girls. In life most often you must prove yourself and then you can earn the right to compare against your competitor. How he's snowed everyone into not requiring anything of substance to back him is just mindblowing.

 

Andrea Mitchell said it quite well on Meet The Press: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/27/nbcs-andrea-mitchell-donald-trump-is-completely/209566

Trump isn't a public figure? And hasn't been scrutinized over anything he is involved in? Interesting.

Republicans are the only party that tear a candidate down Mean Girls style? I spent 22 years in WA state and raised Christian and conservative, no where else have had my beliefs openly ridiculed and mocked more than the liberals of a state where they are concerned about treating everyone's opinion and rights equally.

I agree that Trump hasn't offered much for policies other than making brash comments about building a wall and kicking out Muslims. However, his healthcare ideas are better than what we're stuck with now, except for his idea about allow foreign pharmaceutical companies to import into the US. Reforming NAFTA is also a good idea too, that original deal has ended up benefitting only the elite and pinched the middle class.

If Trump wasn't a jackmonster, and started clearly outlining policies and his agendas, he would win in a landslide. The policies Hillary and dems are standing for shouldn't even be allowed in an American political platform. Their socialistic ideas are what this nation has stood up to and fought against. There was once a president that spoke about people giving to the country and not asking what the country can do for them, that democrat barely exists and is drowned out by the rest.

Well now perhaps. But before getting into the election a year or so ago he was a private citizen. One that was well known, one that thought of himself as a superstar and certainly craved the spotlight but he was a private citizen. And the result of that, and something he's tried to carry over into this role as political candidate is that he hasn't had to disclose the same amount of information, over the same number of years as someone like Hillary who has been a servant of the public for 30 years.

 

Are you telling me that you feel the tone of this election has been similar with both parties? From my end the name calling, tweet attacks, accusations coming from the right are beyond a maturity and a professional issue. Sadly, the left has started swinging back to some extent. Yes, there's been dirty play in past elections, but this round it's childish and embarrassing (my Mean Girls comment refers to the name calling and bullying - kicking reporters out of conferences because one doesn't like what's been written about them, belittling people for their looks, for their handicaps etc). Seeing it happen from the top has given followers the sense that the behavior is ok, and the world is not a better place for it. Even some of the discussions on this site are more combative than I think we would have seen 4 years ago.

 

I'm sorry that you felt persecuted while in Washington. I'm not sure I fully buy into your perspective that it was because of your religion & beliefs and the fact that it's a liberal state, but regardless I'm sorry. Sadly, there are individuals that align to any party or candidate that are not good, kind people. My issue is that until this election there was a level of respect between candidates, which then resulted in respect for the office. It used to be that you engaged during the election year, and the no matter the outcome you supported the President of the US. No matter the outcome of this election there will be a significant number of people who have zero respect for the candidate elected, they will act out and they will be patted on the back for it.

 

I'm glad you have faith that IF Trump shared the details for his ideas he'd win in a landslide. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. What everyone on the right seems to forget is that the President alone can't do much. Without the support of Congress, he gets nowhere - as we've seen with the refusal of the right to support anything put forward the last 4 years; not because content was necessarily different than they'd support but because of spite and in order to make a point. Trumps not making any friends, in fact he's alienating people within his own party; respected, important people. Although he thinks he can fix things because he demands it - the real world is that he's got to be diplomatic and flexible and open to sacrifice to get something. I don't think he's capable.

In the end, what does disclosing tax returns actually mean? Honest question, other than candidates have done it in the past, what does it mean? And for a public figure like Hillary, who you're pointing out has to share and be open about herself, her famous lines are "i don't recall." For a public servant of 30 years, she doesn't ever answer serious questions that she directly had control over.

 

I'm not saying I was singled out, but the people of a very liberal state - who claim open mindedness - don't live by their own beliefs. When the same people who are offended by nonPC comments or jokes, but smugly mock and ridicule someone's religious beliefs or political beliefs. They proclaim they want respect for people, but they can't accept people having a different opinion than theirs.

 

So we just had emails released about how DNC and liberal media have spun as much as they could to benefit Hillary, the Post notoriously has an agenda against Trump, and protesters show up to an event that's not even for them, but Trump and attendees should stand for their crap? If you're down with trolls and antagonists, then I guess what he did was bad. If you're against those two types of people, then it might look like those people are idiots and don't deserve to be there.

 

I'm not saying I'd agree with his points if he outlined them, but I'd at least want to know how he plans to accomplish his agenda to see if it actually lines up with what I believe in. Obama wouldn't have accomplished anything in his 1st term if it weren't for buying votes to push through the ACA. And from personal accounts I've heard, he isn't the monster many make him out to be when doing business. From the individual I know of, her experience working with Trump was as professional and standard as she had ever been a part of.

[HuskerNation1]

While we're talking about polls: here's a link to 538's pollster ratings analyzing the historical accuracy and overall methodology of the various polls out there. It includes information on the polling centers simple average error, or the difference in margin between the polled and actual result of the top two finishers, the polls accuracy in predicting the outcome of the race, a metric comparing how a poll's average error compared with the average error of other polls, with negative numbers indicating higher quality, a metric describing how accurate a poll will be against other polls in predicting future winners, and a metric showing a poll's bias towards the Republican or Democratic candidate.

 

The Rasmussen poll you cite bnil, is the fourth most biased towards Republican candidate poll out there and doesn't have a favorable comparison against other more right-leaning polls in terms of quality or predictive capacity. Yet they still show Hillary up by 1.

 

Very interesting database that shows which polls we should and should not be paying attention to as this race heats up.

 

Well outside of the 2012 election, Rasmussen has been viewed as one of the most accurate pollsters, including the past 2 midterms and in 2004 and 2008. My point earlier is that pollsters rated by Nate Silver that did well in 2012 may not be the same pollsters that do well in 2016 as this is such an unusual election, and its much more difficult to do polling now. And to confuse matters more, the state polling is all over the board as well. We have some Pennsylvania polls showing HIllary up by 9, while others have Trump up by a few. I guess the real poll will be on election day.

[Lil' Red]

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

 

I believe that is correct. I know from following the Democratic Primary that projections based on the demographics of a state were typically much more accurate than those based on polls.

[NM11046]

I can't believe I just saw this - one of many lifetime Republicans and a retired Army Col lays out the case against Trump (I actually saw it on CNN but wasn't able to get that clip): http://on.msnbc.com/1WxwWPm

[HuskerNation1]

I can't believe I just saw this - one of many lifetime Republicans and a retired Army Col lays out the case against Trump (I actually saw it on CNN but wasn't able to get that clip): http://on.msnbc.com/1WxwWPm

 

I wouldn't get overly excited. Most military generals in recent years are not happy with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy approach against ISIS and in general, as well as their strong opposition to the Iran deal that Hillary came out in support of. Additionally, Panetta, Gates, and Hagel who all worked for the Obama administration also have gone on record stating the Obama/Hillary approach to foreign policy is bad for America. Here are just a few of those who have expressed their dissatisfaction.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-army-general-exposes-barack-obama-in-a-big-way-after-resigning/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-american-generals-stand-united-bold-public-stance-barack-obama/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/28/former-generals-line-up-against-obamas-iran-deal-n2044995

[mrandyk]

 

Welcome to the presidential election in the year 2016, where the above actually has to be said...

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

While we're talking about polls: here's a link to 538's pollster ratings analyzing the historical accuracy and overall methodology of the various polls out there. It includes information on the polling centers simple average error, or the difference in margin between the polled and actual result of the top two finishers, the polls accuracy in predicting the outcome of the race, a metric comparing how a poll's average error compared with the average error of other polls, with negative numbers indicating higher quality, a metric describing how accurate a poll will be against other polls in predicting future winners, and a metric showing a poll's bias towards the Republican or Democratic candidate.

 

The Rasmussen poll you cite bnil, is the fourth most biased towards Republican candidate poll out there and doesn't have a favorable comparison against other more right-leaning polls in terms of quality or predictive capacity. Yet they still show Hillary up by 1.

 

Very interesting database that shows which polls we should and should not be paying attention to as this race heats up.

 

Well outside of the 2012 election, Rasmussen has been viewed as one of the most accurate pollsters, including the past 2 midterms and in 2004 and 2008. My point earlier is that pollsters rated by Nate Silver that did well in 2012 may not be the same pollsters that do well in 2016 as this is such an unusual election, and its much more difficult to do polling now. And to confuse matters more, the state polling is all over the board as well. We have some Pennsylvania polls showing HIllary up by 9, while others have Trump up by a few. I guess the real poll will be on election day.

 

 

The data in the aforementioned link is historical data, based on Presidential outcomes of past elections. Historically, the Rasmussen poll hasn't been all that accurate in comparison. Why that's the case is anyone's guess according to that table. Perhaps Rasmussen sucked in its early stages, but has since been refined resulting in more accurate decisions.

 

My point is is that table gives us some perspective on how we should treat/interpret a right-leaning poll that says Trump up 3 or a left-leaning poll that says Hillary up 5. There is, however, some intrigue, when one of the more right-biased polls has the Democratic candidate up one.

[NM11046]

 

I can't believe I just saw this - one of many lifetime Republicans and a retired Army Col lays out the case against Trump (I actually saw it on CNN but wasn't able to get that clip): http://on.msnbc.com/1WxwWPm

 

I wouldn't get overly excited. Most military generals in recent years are not happy with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy approach against ISIS and in general, as well as their strong opposition to the Iran deal that Hillary came out in support of. Additionally, Panetta, Gates, and Hagel who all worked for the Obama administration also have gone on record stating the Obama/Hillary approach to foreign policy is bad for America. Here are just a few of those who have expressed their dissatisfaction.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-army-general-exposes-barack-obama-in-a-big-way-after-resigning/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-american-generals-stand-united-bold-public-stance-barack-obama/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/28/former-generals-line-up-against-obamas-iran-deal-n2044995

 

Oh bnl, you are so predictable with the republican defense and multiple link posts. You're attempting to defend a position that I didn't question by the way.

 

They may not have liked the past regimes choices and direction militarily, the point of this man's speech, if you listened to it was that no matter his belief in Hilary being or not being the ideal candidate choice, Trump is a danger to this country. Home and abroad and there is absolutely NO WAY Trump should represent the country.

 

And he's not the only one:

 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/07/25/marine-gen-john-allen-has-endorsed-hillary-clinton-president-heres-why-matters/87539996/

 

And the biggest impact, the open letter from the GOP Defense National Security Leaders - signed by 121 well respected thought leaders.

 

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

• His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
• His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
• His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
• His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
• Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
• Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
• His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
• He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
• His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I just saw this - one of many lifetime Republicans and a retired Army Col lays out the case against Trump (I actually saw it on CNN but wasn't able to get that clip): http://on.msnbc.com/1WxwWPm

I wouldn't get overly excited. Most military generals in recent years are not happy with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy approach against ISIS and in general, as well as their strong opposition to the Iran deal that Hillary came out in support of. Additionally, Panetta, Gates, and Hagel who all worked for the Obama administration also have gone on record stating the Obama/Hillary approach to foreign policy is bad for America. Here are just a few of those who have expressed their dissatisfaction.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-army-general-exposes-barack-obama-in-a-big-way-after-resigning/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-american-generals-stand-united-bold-public-stance-barack-obama/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/28/former-generals-line-up-against-obamas-iran-deal-n2044995

Oh bnl, you are so predictable with the republican defense and multiple link posts. By the way your attempting to defend a position that I didn't question by the way.

 

They may not have liked the past regimes choices and direction militarily, the point of this man's speech, if you listened to it was that no matter his belief in Hilary being or not being the ideal candidate choice, Trump is a danger to this country. Home and abroad and there is absolutely NO WAY Trump should represent the country.

 

And he's not the only one:

 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/07/25/marine-gen-john-allen-has-endorsed-hillary-clinton-president-heres-why-matters/87539996/

 

And the biggest impact, the open letter from the GOP Defense National Security Leaders - signed by 121 well respected thought leaders.

 

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on Americas role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

• His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
• His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
• His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
• His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
• Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
• Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
• His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the worlds greatest democracy.
• He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
• His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trumps own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

Well you are trying to suggest that Military leaders are horrified of a Trump Presidency and my counterpoint is that there are far more military leaders AND secretaries of defense who are terrified of a Hillary Presidency. The difference in the 2 arguments is that we have actual results from the Obama Clinton approach to foreign policy and we are seeing it play out in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Normandy, Orlando, Turkey, and more.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

While we're talking about polls: here's a link to 538's pollster ratings analyzing the historical accuracy and overall methodology of the various polls out there. It includes information on the polling centers simple average error, or the difference in margin between the polled and actual result of the top two finishers, the polls accuracy in predicting the outcome of the race, a metric comparing how a poll's average error compared with the average error of other polls, with negative numbers indicating higher quality, a metric describing how accurate a poll will be against other polls in predicting future winners, and a metric showing a poll's bias towards the Republican or Democratic candidate.

 

The Rasmussen poll you cite bnil, is the fourth most biased towards Republican candidate poll out there and doesn't have a favorable comparison against other more right-leaning polls in terms of quality or predictive capacity. Yet they still show Hillary up by 1.

 

Very interesting database that shows which polls we should and should not be paying attention to as this race heats up.

Well outside of the 2012 election, Rasmussen has been viewed as one of the most accurate pollsters, including the past 2 midterms and in 2004 and 2008. My point earlier is that pollsters rated by Nate Silver that did well in 2012 may not be the same pollsters that do well in 2016 as this is such an unusual election, and its much more difficult to do polling now. And to confuse matters more, the state polling is all over the board as well. We have some Pennsylvania polls showing HIllary up by 9, while others have Trump up by a few. I guess the real poll will be on election day.

The data in the aforementioned link is historical data, based on Presidential outcomes of past elections. Historically, the Rasmussen poll hasn't been all that accurate in comparison. Why that's the case is anyone's guess according to that table. Perhaps Rasmussen sucked in its early stages, but has since been refined resulting in more accurate decisions.

 

My point is is that table gives us some perspective on how we should treat/interpret a right-leaning poll that says Trump up 3 or a left-leaning poll that says Hillary up 5. There is, however, some intrigue, when one of the more right-biased polls has the Democratic candidate up one.

Good points. My gut feeling this year is that polling results will be more confusing than ever. Case in point...both the LA Times and Ipsos received an A- grade per Silver, yet these polls are 11 points off as if yesterday and covered a similar time frame. Ipsos had Hillary up 4 and the LA Times had Trump up 7.

[knapplc]

[knapplc]

Convention ratings: Democrats beat Republicans, and cable tops broadcast

Night two of the Democratic convention drew a 25% bigger audience than night two of the Republican convention last week.

Former President Bill Clinton's prospective "first gentleman" speech was seen by roughly 24.7 million viewers across seven broadcast and cable channels, Nielsen said.

The same night of the RNC last week averaged 19.8 million viewers across the same channels.

The political ratings race has received extra attention due to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's reputation as a ratings magnet. Last week he celebrated the Republican convention ratings and predicted that "nobody's gonna watch" the DNC.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

 

It wouldn't surprise me. We have seen huge swings in the recent elections and each polling group will alter their sample to reflect who they they will be showing up this fall. For instance, the general party Identification is something like 36% Dems, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents. Now these numbers will flucutate slightly, but I have seen some polls out that use a final sample of 45% Dems, 32% Republicans, and only 22% Independents. In those cases, the numbers for Trump and Johnson are lower, while they are higher for HIllary. Every time I see a poll I try to see their methodology but most of the polling firms are not real up front on how they weighted their sample to reflect the final results.

 

Actually, as of 2014, it was 30% Dems, 26% Repubs, and 43% independent.

 

According to Gallop.