Trump's Soaring Approval

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caldera said:
. Many of the polls collected by FiveThirtyEight overestimated Clinton (or underestimated Trump) in key states and many others.
Click to expand...
Individual states run a higher margin of error due to the smaller sample sizes. In 2016 they were compounded by the October surprise of Comey’s announcement which reopened the email investigation and probably affected Clinton’s turnout. The overall decline in Clinton’s popularity dropped several points to about 3% before election day using that day’s data only. (She won by 2%)

Whatever mistakes that were made in the Nov 16 elections were somewhat corrected prior to the Nov 18 elections which gave the Democrats an 8-pt lead in the polls.
 
We have our work cut out for us.

But historic lows of black unemployment.

The welfare roles are down.

The most pro-life presidency versus the abortion extremism of the Democrats. Even voting against the infanticide prohibition bill.

Basically calming the quagmires in Iraq/Syria, that put Christianity in that area of the world at risk.

The country is going in a great direction. Yes, the media hold sway, lifelong allegiances hold sway but hopefully, things can be worked out.
 
Last edited:
Caldera said:
The state polling tells the story.
Click to expand...
If you check the final polls, with MoEs with outcomes, you will see that the polling data was for the most part good. I am not sure if anyone has applied an outlier test to the deviation between poll and results across the various states, but at a glance., it doesn’t seem that there is much there there.

As you note, but somehow criticize, most polls got the national numbers very well.
 
It is interesting.
But the lesson is less about polls being “wrong” than about the poor manner in which inferences are drawn from the polls.

A major problem with the article is that the polling dates and MoE are not attached to the polls.
What are the MoEs from sampling error; what are estimates of errors from the “snapshot” problem, of the DK problem?

When the article talks of Trump’s performance being underestimated by at least 1 percent in 33-37 states, there is no solid inference that can be drawn about polling, turnout modelling, or aggregation errors without the above error estimates.

On the other hand the data do have an interesting property that goes beyond the matter of polling itself and illuminates a difficulty in predicting the results from the polls. The key question is: how do estimate from the outcome probabilities in the various states, the joint probability of of various nation–wide electoral college outcomes. The simplest approach would be to take the events in each state as uncorrelated. The data suggests that this was not the case - although here again, it would be great to see real statistical tests: does an underestimate (of any value) in, say 35 states, even though less likely than in just half the states (Pascal’s triangle) allow the rejection of the hypothesis that the events are random and uncorrelated?

I think that 538 did a better job in modelling correlations that others who made electoral college prediction, and that is why his estimating Trump’s chances of electoral college victory as 3 to 6 times better than others making those predictions.
 
It’s not a bit of a myth. It’s a significant myth. The battleground states Trump won in, he won by the margin of error. While some of the poll aggregators made some pretty wild extrapolations, 538 gave him something like 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chances of winning, which are pretty darned good odds for a candidate who was a political outsider. There’s are decent betting odds.
 
niceatheist said:
538 gave him something like 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chances of winning, which are pretty darned good odds for a candidate who was a political outsider. There’s are decent betting odds.
Click to expand...
???
No, a one in four chance of winning is a horrible bet.
People flock to the Casino games that approach even odds, not 1 in 4
 
Theo520 said:
People flock to the Casino games that approach even odds, not 1 in 4
Click to expand...
From Wiki:
Odds are a numerical expression, usually expressed as a pair of numbers, used in both gambling and statistics. In statistics, the odds for or odds of some event reflect the likelihood that the event will take place, while odds against reflect the likelihood that it will not. In gambling, the odds are the ratio of payoff to stake, and do not necessarily reflect exactly the probabilities. … In gambling, odds represent the ratio between the amounts staked by parties to a wager or bet.[3] Thus, odds of 6 to 1 mean the first party (normally a bookmaker) stakes six times the amount staked by the second party.
Click to expand...
So in a casino a one in four chance of winning is a decent bet, provided the payoff to stake is also about four to one. Similarly people bet numbers on the roulette wheel.

More to the point, however, is the strategy of going for long odds in poker hand, when the object is to not simply to ake a good hand but a make a winning.
 
Last edited:
One would think so. Possibly the Dems and their media overplayed it with the Mueller investigation. They’ll try to salvage some anti-Trump material from the full Mueller report and likely leaks from the classified and grand jury material. But it’s possible many now just see it as an abusive form of politics. Trump’s original supporters will probably remain as his supporters with the possible exception of the historically Dem voters in a few depressed counties in some states that tend to go Dem. But if their economic prospects have improved, they might stay with him.
 
dvdjs said:
So in a casino a one in four chance of winning is a decent bet, provided the payoff to stake is also about four to one. Similarly people bet numbers on the roulette wheel.
Click to expand...
The pay off was even in the presidential election, so the odds make it a bad bet. That’s like low odds number bets paying the same as just betting red.

People in casinos do bet were the odds are closest to even, only ‘suckers’ put their money on the bad odds.
 
That’s true by definition, from someone who used to go to the racetrack a lot. 🙂

But I made more money by betting on two 6-1 or 5-1 horses. 🙂 And the lines are shorter when you collect.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see that as a reason to gloat. They failed to prove OJ guilty in a criminal trial but he wasn’t exonerated. He’s still paying a price.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t see that as a reason to gloat. They failed to prove OJ guilty in a criminal trial but he wasn’t exonerated. He’s still paying a price.
Click to expand...
I’m not gloating. I’m merely observing that sometimes people overplay their hand to their own detriment, and that might figure in the 2020 elections.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
They’ll try to salvage some anti-Trump material from the full Mueller report and likely leaks from the classified and grand jury material.
Click to expand...
I think that you missed the real game here, as transparent as it is.

Trump and company have taken two weeks to plant idea that there was no collusion, no obstruction and no evidence to suggest any of that - that it was a hoax. Now that that idea is rooted, we will get some, but not all, of the actual facts. But the rooted, first-impressions will remain among those who had chosen to form their beliefs in advance of the facts.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
sometimes people overplay their hand
Click to expand...
Maybe so but many still have questions about how the Ukraine language in the RNC platform got changed, what Trump meant by “discussing all of the things that have been taking place with the Clintons,” possible conflicts of interests, etc. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand some transparency. We certainly didn’t get much answered when Republicans had control of the House; it only raised suspicions. Same thing will probably happen when the counter to the Meuller report is released. The more redactions on the report, the more suspicion.
 
Victoria33 said:
We have our work cut out for us.

But historic lows of black unemployment.

The welfare roles are down.

The most pro-life presidency versus the abortion extremism of the Democrats. Even voting against the infanticide prohibition bill.

Basically calming the quagmires in Iraq/Syria, that put Christianity in that area of the world at risk.

The country is going in a great direction. Yes, the media hold sway, lifelong allegiances hold sway but hopefully, things can be worked out.
Click to expand...
Of course, anyone who thinks that they might ever need some sort of welfare in the future if they fall on hard times or has a pre-existing medical condition or is poor or cares about the environment would not want to vote for Trump. If the Trump administration gets its way and Obamacare is rolled back, millions of people will lose health insurance coverage. His administration is doing everything it can to make it much more difficult to get help if you need it and is trying to remove as many regulations as it can that protect consumers and the environment.
 
Thorolfr said:
Of course, anyone who thinks that they might ever need some sort of welfare in the future if they fall on hard times or has a pre-existing medical condition or is poor or cares about the environment would not want to vote for Trump. If the Trump administration gets its way and Obamacare is rolled back, millions of people will lose health insurance coverage. His administration is doing everything it can to make it much more difficult to get help if you need it and is trying to remove as many regulations as it can that protect consumers and the environment.
Click to expand...
That’s the Democrat point of view…but of course, that can be called a lot of fluff, the Democrats are funded by Planned Parenthood. So, there is a real connection to evil. I would believe nothing that is said by them.

If oneself is more important, than the lives of babies, the Democrats believe in snuffing the life out of. I can not do anything about it. However, this is a Catholic forum and we are suppose to be pro-life.

This health care system has failed millions. I don’t buy anything the DNC would say.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
This health care system has failed millions. I don’t buy anything the DNC would say.
Click to expand...
The fans of Fox News seemed to be quite receptive of Sanders’ Medicare for All message. Just sayin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top