The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Polling Prognostications on the Eve of the 2016 Presidential Election
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Comments on the 2020 presidential electoral maps as they would appear if election day results were in line with the latest RCP polling averages included several along these lines:

What did the state by state polls show before the 2016 election? If I remember correctly a landslide for Clinton.

The corporate media pegged Clinton’s chance of victory at some place well north of 90%. Nate Silver–who had been wrong about Trump again and again and again leading up to election day–was famously bearish on Clinton, putting her chance of victory at just 71% instead of the 98% likelihood he had been expected to divine.

Surely the polls lent credibility to this assumption about Clinton’s inevitable victory, then, didn’t they?

Fortunately, RCP still has the 2016 data up. And in true Ron Unzian fashion, I’m shocked by what they reveal. On the night of Monday, November 7th, the eve of election day, RCP’s state-by-state averages showed Clinton winning the Electoral College by a remarkably thin margin of 273-265:

It really does seem like the elite assumption was–and still is–that self-fulfilling prophecies magically do the necessary work for the Cloud People to get what the Cloud People want. There was no way the Establishment would let some capricious clown inside the gates. After all, there were powerful people in powerful positions working behind the scenes to make sure that didn’t happen.

But the evidence that it could very well happen was hiding in plain sight. And happen it did.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Election 2016 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I predicted exactly this result (minus Nevada plus New Hampshire and Maine’s second district) on election day.

    I always thought Trump and Kasich had the best potential electoral college advantages, and that Kasich was best for general electability (Cruz was worst).

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    The base didn't have enthusiasm for Kasich. There would have been lower voter turnout on the right.
  2. If the MSM had attempted honesty in reviewing that data the headlines would have read “Trump closing gap–election now too close to call.”

    Nobody had _that_ headline (even though it would have helped to sell newspapers and gain TV and web site viewers on election day).

    That is proof positive that the mass media had an agenda, and the agenda was _not_ corporate profits.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    Once upon a time - before the Polarization (tm) - it was estimated 30% of the American electorate was swayed by polls ("nobody loves a loser"). It is better now :D
    , @res

    If the MSM had attempted honesty in reviewing that data the headlines would have read “Trump closing gap–election now too close to call.”
     
    Good observation. It is interesting to look at the RCP page tracking the changes leading up to the election:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.html

    Some things that caught my eye:
    - On 9/22 they showed Clinton 272 - Trump 266. What was Nate Silver saying then?
    - Florida changed sides a lot. I wonder if analyzing which polls drove those changes would tell us anything.

    Since the election I have wondered if Nate Silver had an idea of what was going to happen and decided to moderate his estimate at the last minute so as not to totally (just mostly) ruin his reputation. In practice I think he managed to ruin his reputation in two areas at once. Both for accuracy and for not adhering to the doctrine of "Orange man bad."
  3. I honestly didn’t see him winning WI or MI, he never won a single poll in either state as far as I remember (or maybe just Wisconsin). He came amazingly close in Michigan too.

    Despite my disappointment with everyone in the administration not named Stephen Miller, I’ll be voting for him again in 2020. What’s the alternative? “125k more refugees in year one” biden? No thanks.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Trafalgar and Richard Baris did polling in the last week that had Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Michigan GOP were very optimistic.

    Just a shame I gave up gambling, the bookies in Britain were giving great odds, even opened an online account but didn't use it.

    https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/11/13/no-ppd-poll-accurate-2016-heres-not-even-close/

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/pollster_who_got_it_right_in_2016_does_it_again_138621.html

  4. Relying on RCP aggregation of polls is the problem. It was obvious looking at the results that the average was being shewed by ridiculous outlier polls showing Hillary cleaning up. If you had thrown out the ridiculous you would have seen the truth that this was a very tight race. The good news is at least Hillary was dumb enough to believe them.

  5. @Justvisiting
    If the MSM had attempted honesty in reviewing that data the headlines would have read "Trump closing gap--election now too close to call."

    Nobody had _that_ headline (even though it would have helped to sell newspapers and gain TV and web site viewers on election day).

    That is proof positive that the mass media had an agenda, and the agenda was _not_ corporate profits.

    Once upon a time – before the Polarization ™ – it was estimated 30% of the American electorate was swayed by polls (“nobody loves a loser”). It is better now 😀

    • Agree: Ash Williams
  6. Google/Facebook etc. have become much more tightly censored since the last election and much pro-Trump stuff will be censored this election that wasn’t last time. Without this viral activism, I’m afraid the Dem nominee will squeak by.

  7. @Justvisiting
    If the MSM had attempted honesty in reviewing that data the headlines would have read "Trump closing gap--election now too close to call."

    Nobody had _that_ headline (even though it would have helped to sell newspapers and gain TV and web site viewers on election day).

    That is proof positive that the mass media had an agenda, and the agenda was _not_ corporate profits.

    If the MSM had attempted honesty in reviewing that data the headlines would have read “Trump closing gap–election now too close to call.”

    Good observation. It is interesting to look at the RCP page tracking the changes leading up to the election:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.html

    Some things that caught my eye:
    – On 9/22 they showed Clinton 272 – Trump 266. What was Nate Silver saying then?
    – Florida changed sides a lot. I wonder if analyzing which polls drove those changes would tell us anything.

    Since the election I have wondered if Nate Silver had an idea of what was going to happen and decided to moderate his estimate at the last minute so as not to totally (just mostly) ruin his reputation. In practice I think he managed to ruin his reputation in two areas at once. Both for accuracy and for not adhering to the doctrine of “Orange man bad.”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  8. @Mikey D.
    I honestly didn't see him winning WI or MI, he never won a single poll in either state as far as I remember (or maybe just Wisconsin). He came amazingly close in Michigan too.

    Despite my disappointment with everyone in the administration not named Stephen Miller, I'll be voting for him again in 2020. What's the alternative? "125k more refugees in year one" biden? No thanks.

    Trafalgar and Richard Baris did polling in the last week that had Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Michigan GOP were very optimistic.

    Just a shame I gave up gambling, the bookies in Britain were giving great odds, even opened an online account but didn’t use it.

    https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/11/13/no-ppd-poll-accurate-2016-heres-not-even-close/

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/pollster_who_got_it_right_in_2016_does_it_again_138621.html

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'd argue ceteris paribus, you should bet against events you want to happen as 1. due to the natural bias to conflate 'is' and 'ought' most people overestimate the likelihood of positive events and 2. it'll cushion the blow if the bad thing happens.
  9. The polling showed Trump with a clear, if narrow, lead in states and districts with 260 Electoral Votes, with four states each of which had ten or more Electoral Votes as true toss-ups. All four of those- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota- would have had to go to Clinton for her to win the election. I wish I’d had the nerve to face that fact, I’d have impressed people if I’d gone around before the election saying that there was a greater than 90% chance that Clinton would win the popular vote but Trump would win the election.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting

    I wish I’d had the nerve to face that fact
     
    I was worse than you. I had crunched the numbers and was fully convinced Trump would win. I took specific actions (that I am not going to discuss here) based on that assessment.

    However, I was terrified of telling anyone at work about my beliefs. They hated Trump so much that it would have just angered them if I was the messenger delivering the bad news.

    When they volunteered that Hillary would easily beat Trump, I just nodded my head in agreement.

    I never discussed the election with anyone at work after that--and they didn't want to talk about it either at that point.
  10. @LondonBob
    Trafalgar and Richard Baris did polling in the last week that had Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Michigan GOP were very optimistic.

    Just a shame I gave up gambling, the bookies in Britain were giving great odds, even opened an online account but didn't use it.

    https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/11/13/no-ppd-poll-accurate-2016-heres-not-even-close/

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/pollster_who_got_it_right_in_2016_does_it_again_138621.html

    I’d argue ceteris paribus, you should bet against events you want to happen as 1. due to the natural bias to conflate ‘is’ and ‘ought’ most people overestimate the likelihood of positive events and 2. it’ll cushion the blow if the bad thing happens.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Ha, indeed, so when you bet on something you don't want to happen, you get to think to yourself "I paid $X to get the result I wanted. Worth it!"
  11. @E. Harding
    I predicted exactly this result (minus Nevada plus New Hampshire and Maine's second district) on election day.

    I always thought Trump and Kasich had the best potential electoral college advantages, and that Kasich was best for general electability (Cruz was worst).

    The base didn’t have enthusiasm for Kasich. There would have been lower voter turnout on the right.

  12. The polls were absolutely spot on in 2018. They were spot on in 2012 too, no matter how much Romney and his high-paid consultants wanted to believe otherwise. Their divergence from the actual results in 2016 was within a very small margin of error – a few tens of thousands of voters spread across multiple states.

    Translation: polls are generally accurate, Vox Day hardest hit.

    Next question: is this good or bad for whites? Given the multiple indicators trending toward some sort of societal/economic blowup somewhere around 2024, it would be convenient to have somebody from the opposite side in charge just before and during any such event. Especially as Mr. Trump has completely passed on doing anything concrete to defuse or mitigate the circumstances leading toward such a blowup.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I want Trump to win, not because he is that great but because it will upset liberals so much. If we have to have a Democrat I would prefer Sanders or perhaps Warren because it would shake things up and get us as close to civil war as possible.A corporate Democrat winning would be the worst possible scenario, although I wouldn't mind seeing the huge financial bubble blow up on their watch.
  13. I remember how angry some Democrats were at Nate Silver’s prediction thinking it was too low. Someone made a comment on his blog that in reality Trump had zero percent chance and when madam President elect makes her acceptance speech Silver should apologize. It was fun responding to his comment after Trump won teasing him about 0%. The shock of him winning still fuels some of their hatred to this day.

  14. @vok3
    The polls were absolutely spot on in 2018. They were spot on in 2012 too, no matter how much Romney and his high-paid consultants wanted to believe otherwise. Their divergence from the actual results in 2016 was within a very small margin of error - a few tens of thousands of voters spread across multiple states.

    Translation: polls are generally accurate, Vox Day hardest hit.

    Next question: is this good or bad for whites? Given the multiple indicators trending toward some sort of societal/economic blowup somewhere around 2024, it would be convenient to have somebody from the opposite side in charge just before and during any such event. Especially as Mr. Trump has completely passed on doing anything concrete to defuse or mitigate the circumstances leading toward such a blowup.

    I want Trump to win, not because he is that great but because it will upset liberals so much. If we have to have a Democrat I would prefer Sanders or perhaps Warren because it would shake things up and get us as close to civil war as possible.A corporate Democrat winning would be the worst possible scenario, although I wouldn’t mind seeing the huge financial bubble blow up on their watch.

  15. Nate Silver is a weird looking loser sporting the world’s least effective comb-over, as drawn by Scott Adams. Nobody should have been listening to this nitwit to begin with.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    but the pollsters you think look normal (or don't know what they look like) mostly had predictions of Hillary winning that were higher than Silver's estimate.
    , @SFG
    Since when has physical attractiveness correlated with mathematical ability or quantitative accuracy? He gave Hillary the lowest chance, i.e. came closer to actually being right.

    And saying someone has a 29% chance of winning doesn't actually prove you wrong if they win. That's between a one in four and one in three chance, after all.
  16. @Intelligent Dasein
    Nate Silver is a weird looking loser sporting the world's least effective comb-over, as drawn by Scott Adams. Nobody should have been listening to this nitwit to begin with.

    but the pollsters you think look normal (or don’t know what they look like) mostly had predictions of Hillary winning that were higher than Silver’s estimate.

  17. @Intelligent Dasein
    Nate Silver is a weird looking loser sporting the world's least effective comb-over, as drawn by Scott Adams. Nobody should have been listening to this nitwit to begin with.

    Since when has physical attractiveness correlated with mathematical ability or quantitative accuracy? He gave Hillary the lowest chance, i.e. came closer to actually being right.

    And saying someone has a 29% chance of winning doesn’t actually prove you wrong if they win. That’s between a one in four and one in three chance, after all.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    They say 40% is the sweet spot to pull off sounding like a 'contrarian' without any reputational downside if you're off the mark.
  18. Anonymous[114] • Disclaimer says:

    Trump went nuts and hit the rust belt like 90+ times in the final month. Hammering PA, MI, WI, OH, and MN to a lesser extent. His trips to MN, MI, and WI were mocked as fool’s errands. Evidently Trump’s people saw what I saw in 2016. RCP had an interactive map based on 2012 results and exit polls with state vote tallies that you could manipulate by turnout and vote share among different races nationally. A moderately depressed black and Hispanic (disaggregated, along with Asian(!) in the app) turnout and a minimally increased white turnout with a moderate (<2%) increase in white vote share would give Trump PA, OH, MI, WI, NH, IA, ME2 and NV over Romney’s 2012 result. I ended up picking 51/53 electoral contests right in my small illicit gambling pool and winning, without reading much about the election and ignoring most of the polls.

    What I’m saying is that the most important poll is on Election Day. My foggy recollection is Trump pulled a lot closer in white Obama districts for which polling was available in the final two weeks. This was used by some lib pundits, early in the administration, as evidence of treachery by the Trump campaign.

  19. Those that do not respect our rights do not deserve our respect, our votes, our patronage, our employment, our viewership, readership, listennership, or readership, or our support.

    End the creepy perverted voyeuristic state of thieves and sex-offenders!

  20. Wisconsin and Michigan polls where off by D+7 and D+4, and Georgia/Texas polls tilted too much to the GOP.

  21. @Acilius
    The polling showed Trump with a clear, if narrow, lead in states and districts with 260 Electoral Votes, with four states each of which had ten or more Electoral Votes as true toss-ups. All four of those- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota- would have had to go to Clinton for her to win the election. I wish I'd had the nerve to face that fact, I'd have impressed people if I'd gone around before the election saying that there was a greater than 90% chance that Clinton would win the popular vote but Trump would win the election.

    I wish I’d had the nerve to face that fact

    I was worse than you. I had crunched the numbers and was fully convinced Trump would win. I took specific actions (that I am not going to discuss here) based on that assessment.

    However, I was terrified of telling anyone at work about my beliefs. They hated Trump so much that it would have just angered them if I was the messenger delivering the bad news.

    When they volunteered that Hillary would easily beat Trump, I just nodded my head in agreement.

    I never discussed the election with anyone at work after that–and they didn’t want to talk about it either at that point.

  22. 67% of white evangelical Christian voters approve of President Trump in the new Fox News poll, down horrifically from ~70% in November 2016 (VOTER survey)

    86% of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016 regardless of disapproval. Georgia governor Kemp got 89% in 2018 (I don’t currently know his approval pre election day)

    I’m surprised the enthusiasm dems are giving the fox poll, it is Biden’s worst numbers in several months, and Trump has a 24% black approval and maintains above 15% against all his competitors (possible)

    But the interesting thing is white catholics polled put approval/intend to vote Trump at around an average 67% each, above the CCES approval numbers of 58% in CCES 2018 and the 59% who reported voting for him in the CCES 2016. Its worth noting Data for Progress polls in 2018 showed 60% of white catholics intended to vote Trump in 2020 and Non-White Catholic support jumped from 27% to 33%

    Now if we look at that on top of Catholic vote in 2018 and well we see why Wisconsin is polling to the right of national polls. –
    Catholic vote 2018

    It is also important to note that an estimated 23.4 million eligible Catholics did not vote in the 2018 midterms. The Catholic voting eligible population (VEP) totals 49 million (Catholic voting age population, including non-citizens and others ineligible to vote, is 53 million). Catholics made up 23% of all voters, which is larger than the share of self-identified Catholics among U.S. adults (21%). While the 2018 results offer some insight into what might happen in 2020 it is also important to consider that some of the Senate and gubernatorial election dynamics (e.g., Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin winning in West Virginia) are unlikely to be reproduced in a national contest and more Catholics will likely go to the polls in 2020.

    Now combine this with NYTs poll of the Midwest

    To my knowledge, no public pollster adjusts for this–either in terms of sampling or weighting.
    Now, here’s Trump approval in PA/WI/MI, by vote history:
    Voted 2016 and 2018: 47-51
    Voted 2016 not 2018: 55-43
    Didn’t vote 2016, voted 2018: 38-61
    Neither: 52-45

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    What are the population shares for those four groupings at the end of your comment?
  23. Dem two way senate vote in 2018 in MI/MN/WI relative to the country overall was R+1/D+1.1/D+1. Pretty clear they’d have been favored to lose in each of those states in an open race in a neutral year.

    Worth remembering that relative to national mean, the Midwest was roughly as bad for Democrats in 2018 as 2016. Basically every midwestern race came in below public expectations. They lost OH-Gov, OH and MI senate ended up being substantially closer than people had thought (and that was due to late movement in the final weeks of the campaign), Wisconsin governor was tied in a D+8 year, Minnesota was D+7 in a D+8 year, the house races in WI/MN were awful

    • Replies: @iffen
    Excellent posts!

    Good info.

    Give us some hope for PA if you can.
  24. Network effect capture is the fentanyl of the elites.

    That includes public sector (monopoly on force), private sector (N^2 scaling advantage of network companies), and public-private sector (reserve currency N^2 advantage of acceptance).

    Failure to understand this dooms any civilization by turning its elites into suicidal junkies.

    Understanding this not only makes civilizations avoid the rise-and-fall-of cycle — it permits those civilizations insight into how to accelerate the collapse of rival civilizations that do not understand this: Just covertly support the thought leaders that serve the elites in their vice.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Huh?
  25. Trump won a national election by about 100,000 votes. it was the closest national election ever. so that map is pretty close to what actually happened. all Clinton needed was 30,000 votes here, 30,000 votes there, and it would have been President Clinton.

    this is why Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected. it took a miracle for him to win an election where 127 million people voted, by 0.1%. his chance of being re-elected is 1% at most. that he had a 10% chance of winning in 2016 should be looked at as generous for the 20202 election.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting

    this is why Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected.
     
    Here is an anti-Trump publication that explains why that is not correct:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/9/16447546/trump-2020
  26. @James Bowery
    Network effect capture is the fentanyl of the elites.

    That includes public sector (monopoly on force), private sector (N^2 scaling advantage of network companies), and public-private sector (reserve currency N^2 advantage of acceptance).

    Failure to understand this dooms any civilization by turning its elites into suicidal junkies.

    Understanding this not only makes civilizations avoid the rise-and-fall-of cycle -- it permits those civilizations insight into how to accelerate the collapse of rival civilizations that do not understand this: Just covertly support the thought leaders that serve the elites in their vice.

    Huh?

  27. @Oblivionrecurs
    Dem two way senate vote in 2018 in MI/MN/WI relative to the country overall was R+1/D+1.1/D+1. Pretty clear they'd have been favored to lose in each of those states in an open race in a neutral year.

    Worth remembering that relative to national mean, the Midwest was roughly as bad for Democrats in 2018 as 2016. Basically every midwestern race came in below public expectations. They lost OH-Gov, OH and MI senate ended up being substantially closer than people had thought (and that was due to late movement in the final weeks of the campaign), Wisconsin governor was tied in a D+8 year, Minnesota was D+7 in a D+8 year, the house races in WI/MN were awful

    Excellent posts!

    Good info.

    Give us some hope for PA if you can.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Imma dump all my Pennsylvania info for you. Good news in CCES y'alls non-voters preferred Trump, is up with White Catholics, and one poll shows state favorables at same rate as Obama. Sadly NYT has Biden getting 99% of Pennsylvania black people and that's just impressive. Literally Obama levels support

    NYT Youth Enthusiasm to vote in 2020 by age

    Almost Certain/very likely

    Pennsylvania - 63/24 (between +24 to +30 Dem) (68% certain for 30-44, 66% 45-65, 62% 65+) (In primary 18-29 are 36% Sanders, 12% Biden, 65+ are 37% Biden, 2% Sanders)

    Your random election data stats of the day: of the 658,450 new registrants in PA since Trump won, 69.2% are Millennials/Gen Z.

    77% are white, compared to 86% of those registered before Trump's win, suggesting Trump will likely face a younger and more diverse electorate in '20.

    Your random election data stat of the day: among people registered to vote in PA since Election Day 2016, Dems have a 17 point advantage over Republicans, almost doubling the 9 point advantage among those registered before Nov, 2016. And yet
    In Pennsylvania, the GOP has lost 31,224 voters (about one-tenth of 1 percent) since 2016. Still, that’s a far lower rate of attrition than Democrats, who have lost 103,862 registered voters (a 2.5 percent drop) over that same span.

    The only other state that may be competitive in presidential voting next year and registers by party is New Hampshire. Democrats enjoy some momentum there, scoring a 2.5 percent gain in registered voters since 2016, compared to a dip of .4 percent for Republicans.

    Overall, these results unfolded about how I expected them to. Republicans continue to dominate in rural areas while Democrats are picking up support in the more educated suburbs growing outside Pennsylvania’s major cities. The one surprise is the erosion of Democratic advantages in places like Dauphin, Erie, Lackawanna and the Lehigh Valley. While the heart of blue Pennsylvania remains the Acela corridor, Dems will still have to hold their own in cities like Reading, Erie and Scranton in order to flip those crucial twenty electoral votes back in November 2020.
  28. @prime noticer
    Trump won a national election by about 100,000 votes. it was the closest national election ever. so that map is pretty close to what actually happened. all Clinton needed was 30,000 votes here, 30,000 votes there, and it would have been President Clinton.

    this is why Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected. it took a miracle for him to win an election where 127 million people voted, by 0.1%. his chance of being re-elected is 1% at most. that he had a 10% chance of winning in 2016 should be looked at as generous for the 20202 election.

    this is why Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected.

    Here is an anti-Trump publication that explains why that is not correct:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/9/16447546/trump-2020

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    "The incredibly boring reason Trump is on track to win in 2020: The incumbent usually wins."

    a boomer take to the max. it's always America 1.0 in boomer world.

    you can throw historical norms out the window once demographics change. kind of like how almost all of the financial wisdom of the last 300 years is 100% dead wrong now that we're into some quasi version of MMT. buy gold and silver and bonds, if you want to lose money.

    "The incumbent usually wins" is as dead wrong in 2020 and forward, as "Own bonds to hedge against stock market fluctuations" is in 2020 and forward. bonds are now totally irrelevant financial instruments, just as the two party system is about to become irrelevant.

    it's hard to believe today, but people actually used to buy Certificates of Deposit. for 100 years, my family did. even as recently as 10 years ago i had to get my boomer father to sell off the last of his CDs returning a whopping <1%.

    money markets paid 4% as recently as 2000. once Texas goes democrat, the idea that Texas automatically votes for the republican every time and they don't even have to campaign or think about it, will be as outdated as the idea that you can simply park your money in money markets for a return above inflation.
  29. @Justvisiting

    this is why Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected.
     
    Here is an anti-Trump publication that explains why that is not correct:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/9/16447546/trump-2020

    “The incredibly boring reason Trump is on track to win in 2020: The incumbent usually wins.”

    a boomer take to the max. it’s always America 1.0 in boomer world.

    you can throw historical norms out the window once demographics change. kind of like how almost all of the financial wisdom of the last 300 years is 100% dead wrong now that we’re into some quasi version of MMT. buy gold and silver and bonds, if you want to lose money.

    “The incumbent usually wins” is as dead wrong in 2020 and forward, as “Own bonds to hedge against stock market fluctuations” is in 2020 and forward. bonds are now totally irrelevant financial instruments, just as the two party system is about to become irrelevant.

    it’s hard to believe today, but people actually used to buy Certificates of Deposit. for 100 years, my family did. even as recently as 10 years ago i had to get my boomer father to sell off the last of his CDs returning a whopping <1%.

    money markets paid 4% as recently as 2000. once Texas goes democrat, the idea that Texas automatically votes for the republican every time and they don't even have to campaign or think about it, will be as outdated as the idea that you can simply park your money in money markets for a return above inflation.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    My paypal money market was returning over 5% for a span of several months in 2006!
  30. @iffen
    Excellent posts!

    Good info.

    Give us some hope for PA if you can.

    Imma dump all my Pennsylvania info for you. Good news in CCES y’alls non-voters preferred Trump, is up with White Catholics, and one poll shows state favorables at same rate as Obama. Sadly NYT has Biden getting 99% of Pennsylvania black people and that’s just impressive. Literally Obama levels support

    NYT Youth Enthusiasm to vote in 2020 by age

    Almost Certain/very likely

    Pennsylvania – 63/24 (between +24 to +30 Dem) (68% certain for 30-44, 66% 45-65, 62% 65+) (In primary 18-29 are 36% Sanders, 12% Biden, 65+ are 37% Biden, 2% Sanders)

    Your random election data stats of the day: of the 658,450 new registrants in PA since Trump won, 69.2% are Millennials/Gen Z.

    77% are white, compared to 86% of those registered before Trump’s win, suggesting Trump will likely face a younger and more diverse electorate in ’20.

    Your random election data stat of the day: among people registered to vote in PA since Election Day 2016, Dems have a 17 point advantage over Republicans, almost doubling the 9 point advantage among those registered before Nov, 2016. And yet
    In Pennsylvania, the GOP has lost 31,224 voters (about one-tenth of 1 percent) since 2016. Still, that’s a far lower rate of attrition than Democrats, who have lost 103,862 registered voters (a 2.5 percent drop) over that same span.

    The only other state that may be competitive in presidential voting next year and registers by party is New Hampshire. Democrats enjoy some momentum there, scoring a 2.5 percent gain in registered voters since 2016, compared to a dip of .4 percent for Republicans.

    Overall, these results unfolded about how I expected them to. Republicans continue to dominate in rural areas while Democrats are picking up support in the more educated suburbs growing outside Pennsylvania’s major cities. The one surprise is the erosion of Democratic advantages in places like Dauphin, Erie, Lackawanna and the Lehigh Valley. While the heart of blue Pennsylvania remains the Acela corridor, Dems will still have to hold their own in cities like Reading, Erie and Scranton in order to flip those crucial twenty electoral votes back in November 2020.

  31. @SFG
    I'd argue ceteris paribus, you should bet against events you want to happen as 1. due to the natural bias to conflate 'is' and 'ought' most people overestimate the likelihood of positive events and 2. it'll cushion the blow if the bad thing happens.

    Ha, indeed, so when you bet on something you don’t want to happen, you get to think to yourself “I paid $X to get the result I wanted. Worth it!”

  32. @SFG
    Since when has physical attractiveness correlated with mathematical ability or quantitative accuracy? He gave Hillary the lowest chance, i.e. came closer to actually being right.

    And saying someone has a 29% chance of winning doesn't actually prove you wrong if they win. That's between a one in four and one in three chance, after all.

    They say 40% is the sweet spot to pull off sounding like a ‘contrarian’ without any reputational downside if you’re off the mark.

  33. @Oblivionrecurs
    67% of white evangelical Christian voters approve of President Trump in the new Fox News poll, down horrifically from ~70% in November 2016 (VOTER survey)

    86% of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016 regardless of disapproval. Georgia governor Kemp got 89% in 2018 (I don't currently know his approval pre election day)

    I'm surprised the enthusiasm dems are giving the fox poll, it is Biden's worst numbers in several months, and Trump has a 24% black approval and maintains above 15% against all his competitors (possible)

    But the interesting thing is white catholics polled put approval/intend to vote Trump at around an average 67% each, above the CCES approval numbers of 58% in CCES 2018 and the 59% who reported voting for him in the CCES 2016. Its worth noting Data for Progress polls in 2018 showed 60% of white catholics intended to vote Trump in 2020 and Non-White Catholic support jumped from 27% to 33%

    Now if we look at that on top of Catholic vote in 2018 and well we see why Wisconsin is polling to the right of national polls. - http://magaimg.net/img/a2he.jpg

    Catholic vote 2018

    It is also important to note that an estimated 23.4 million eligible Catholics did not vote in the 2018 midterms. The Catholic voting eligible population (VEP) totals 49 million (Catholic voting age population, including non-citizens and others ineligible to vote, is 53 million). Catholics made up 23% of all voters, which is larger than the share of self-identified Catholics among U.S. adults (21%). While the 2018 results offer some insight into what might happen in 2020 it is also important to consider that some of the Senate and gubernatorial election dynamics (e.g., Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin winning in West Virginia) are unlikely to be reproduced in a national contest and more Catholics will likely go to the polls in 2020.

    Now combine this with NYTs poll of the Midwest

    To my knowledge, no public pollster adjusts for this--either in terms of sampling or weighting.
    Now, here's Trump approval in PA/WI/MI, by vote history:
    Voted 2016 and 2018: 47-51
    Voted 2016 not 2018: 55-43
    Didn't vote 2016, voted 2018: 38-61
    Neither: 52-45

    What are the population shares for those four groupings at the end of your comment?

  34. @prime noticer
    "The incredibly boring reason Trump is on track to win in 2020: The incumbent usually wins."

    a boomer take to the max. it's always America 1.0 in boomer world.

    you can throw historical norms out the window once demographics change. kind of like how almost all of the financial wisdom of the last 300 years is 100% dead wrong now that we're into some quasi version of MMT. buy gold and silver and bonds, if you want to lose money.

    "The incumbent usually wins" is as dead wrong in 2020 and forward, as "Own bonds to hedge against stock market fluctuations" is in 2020 and forward. bonds are now totally irrelevant financial instruments, just as the two party system is about to become irrelevant.

    it's hard to believe today, but people actually used to buy Certificates of Deposit. for 100 years, my family did. even as recently as 10 years ago i had to get my boomer father to sell off the last of his CDs returning a whopping <1%.

    money markets paid 4% as recently as 2000. once Texas goes democrat, the idea that Texas automatically votes for the republican every time and they don't even have to campaign or think about it, will be as outdated as the idea that you can simply park your money in money markets for a return above inflation.

    My paypal money market was returning over 5% for a span of several months in 2006!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS