If Trump wins is anyone going to trust opinion polling ever again ?
Well I'll only trust the LA Times poll
Current LA Times is Trump 3.6 I think - that probably overestimates it as swingback following decision not to pursue Clinton after all isn't complete.
That's probably true, but 3.6% is phew .... 3.6%. What sort of history does the LA Times have I wonder in terms of its polling accuracy? With the likes of UK headquartered YouGov very much involved this time, I suspect the methodologies have changed somewhat since 2012.
Why not - the BBC/ Sky/ ITV have to spend long periods talking about nothing in particular on election nights. Even after Sunderland comes in there are big gaps before the tempo of results starts picking up.
Wonder why just Colorado? Only state Clinton leading?
Clinton 42 Trump 38 on favourability is conceivably level within the MoE and if you accept the theory of the Shy Right.
It certainly isn't an overwhelming gap.
Add in all the votes for Johnson and Stein, the reported high numbers of writeins for Sanders/Romney/your mum/whoever and some plain spoiled ballots, the absolute numbers for Hillary and Donald could be lower than expected.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because changing the constitution is hard and the reform wouldn't worth the political capital that would need to be spent.
I imagine that the swing states like their status - it means they get lots of attention from candidates and presidents alike. You only need 13 states to oppose and you have a blocking majority.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
A poor attempt to count voters at polling stations in swing states by demographic information, and extrapolate results from them based on prior interviews - with lots of hype and 'edginess', apps and social media. Failing badly so far.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It says its conveying real-time exit polls on 6 battleground states (which is new - exit polls are normally only released after voting closes). If it proves accurate and is allowed to continue then it is a great boon to people who live and die by elections. If it is no better than push-polling then this will be the one and only performance.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because it's a federation not a single country
ECV isn't such a bad system surely, with adjustments made for population shifts. It just needs a degree of PR to be introduced, so that if I'm a Republican living on either the Western or Eastern Seaboards, I don't spend my entire adult life wasting my vote. The same of course applies equally to Democrats living in GOP dominated States. Just imagine queuing for hours on end for absolutely no useful purpose - it's amazing that turnouts reach the levels they do.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Yeah, I'm not 100% sold on it as being reliable. Seems to be an exit poll which assumes that the amount of votes at 10.00 in the morning will be the same as the amount of votes at 4.00 in the afternoon.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because it's a federation not a single country
ECV isn't such a bad system surely, with adjustments made for population shifts. It just needs a degree of PR to be introduced, so that if I'm a Republican living on either the Western or Eastern Seaboards, I don't spend my entire adult life wasting my vote. The same of course applies equally to Democrats living in GOP dominated States.
I like it in general, it just isn't designed for some states to be so much bigger (in people/ECV) than others. Back in the day they would have partitioned California by now.
Why not - the BBC/ Sky/ ITV have to spend long periods talking about nothing in particular on election nights. Even after Sunderland comes in there are big gaps before the tempo of results starts picking up.
Wonder why just Colorado? Only state Clinton leading?
Because of the all postal voting they have lots of data to analyse.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
If Trump wins is anyone going to trust opinion polling ever again ?
Not until they prove themselves in a tight election. The UK election which is just around the corner isn't going to help because it will be a blowout.
There can be (almost) as much to bet on in a landslide as in a tight election - and landslides can be useful in testing corrections for shy voters, for example (not that that necessarily helps if by the next election those voters aren't shy any more).
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Because that's what would make it an illegal exit poll!
Was just a guess :-) There's no data on Stein/Johnson there, just the big two. It was just interesting to me they had exactly the same as 538 for the Trump figure, to one decimal place.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because changing the constitution is hard and the reform wouldn't worth the political capital that would need to be spent.
I imagine that the swing states like their status - it means they get lots of attention from candidates and presidents alike. You only need 13 states to oppose and you have a blocking majority.
Changing the constitution is more than difficult - it's well nigh impossible these days.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Right, I should have read the further replies.. apparently it's illegal to do an exit poll?
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Right, I should have read the further replies.. apparently it's illegal to do an exit poll?
Not illegal to do one, probably highly illegal to report it whilst voting is going on.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Right, I should have read the further replies.. apparently it's illegal to do an exit poll?
Not in America. Its just a convention since 1980 for the networks not to call the country until polls close on the mainland.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Because that's what would make it an illegal exit poll!
That'll teach me for replying before drinking a single sip of my coffee.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because it's a federation not a single country
ECV isn't such a bad system surely, with adjustments made for population shifts. It just needs a degree of PR to be introduced, so that if I'm a Republican living on either the Western or Eastern Seaboards, I don't spend my entire adult life wasting my vote. The same of course applies equally to Democrats living in GOP dominated States. Just imagine queuing for hours on end for absolutely no useful purpose - it's amazing that turnouts reach the levels they do.
Mr. Putney, aside from the queuing issue, are those issues exactly the same one we have we safe seats over here. The ECV thing is also analogous to the selection of the PM, we vote for MPs some of whom then control who will get the top job.
O/T should I take up the Irish passport I've just been offered?
You've been offered it on the street?
I'm a Unionist in NI yet I will probably/almost certainly take advantage of residency/marriage etc rights to an EU passport when UK leaves. In my defence, I voted Remain.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Right, I should have read the further replies.. apparently it's illegal to do an exit poll?
Not in America. Its just a convention since 1980 for the networks not to call the country until polls close on the mainland.
I think there's an agreement whereby a small number of people in the newsrooms have access to the exit poll data as it comes in throughout the day, which is of course absolutely necessary in order to process the data. The problem is some people have taken exception to the fact that a "select group" of people have access to the data when they don't.
In the way voodoo polls are banned on PB, voter turn out anecdotes should also be verboten.
I kind of sympathise with that view – but what else would we post on election day itself?
Discussion of electoral systems, AV vs PR^2.....throws hand grenade and runs for the door...
Agree. Time for an AV thread.
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68% Yes to AV 32%
Why is a technologically advanced country like the US still using an electoral college voting system designed for the circumstances of over 200 years ago. They should count the Presidential votes for the country as a whole, using AV of course. No more swing states, except for Congress.
Because changing the constitution is hard and the reform wouldn't worth the political capital that would need to be spent.
I imagine that the swing states like their status - it means they get lots of attention from candidates and presidents alike. You only need 13 states to oppose and you have a blocking majority.
Changing the constitution is more than difficult - it's well nigh impossible these days.
I guess it could be done if the Democratic and Republican Parties agreed, all you need is a few Statesmen at the top of each party ;-)
Will be interesting to see how well/badly this does. The one thing that has irked me about this election is just how much everything is down to race (I think they are counting people based on the colour of their skin to call an election here?). I think it shows that the US is still a pretty racist country.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
I read today that one organisation does 12 states - and the media consortium agrees to stay silent until all polls close. DYOR.
O/T should I take up the Irish passport I've just been offered?
You've been offered it on the street?
I'm a Unionist in NI yet I will probably/almost certainly take advantage of residency/marriage etc rights to an EU passport when UK leaves. In my defence, I voted Remain.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
Why not go that extra tiny step and ask people how they voted?
Right, I should have read the further replies.. apparently it's illegal to do an exit poll?
Not in America. Its just a convention since 1980 for the networks not to call the country until polls close on the mainland.
I think there's an agreement whereby a small number of people in the newsrooms have access to the exit poll data as it comes in throughout the day, which is of course absolutely necessary in order to process the data. The problem is some people have taken exception to the fact that a "select group" of people have access to the data when they don't.
Like our Prof Curtice, whose team is locked up securely in some bunker at an undisclosed location for the duration of the count? Why would some people take exception to that?
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
If that's the case why on earth are they being taken seriously on here?
Will votecastr be banned by next time. Whole point of established media not doing this was it would influence other voters. But then again exit polls are used when CA is still voting.
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
If that's the case why on earth are they being taken seriously on here?
We are just working our what they're actually doing, and coming to a collective view that on the evidence so far it's likely to be rubbish!
Will votecastr be banned by next time. Whole point of established media not doing this was it would influence other voters. But then again exit polls are used when CA is still voting.
I suspect the money will dry up if they are totally wrong.
Votecastr newsfeed is giving Clinton a 4% lead on a 40% votecount in Iowa, about 3.5% in Ohio on 30% votecount and 3.5% in FA.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBwGlqrP1-E
Based on 0 votes counted. I read their website, and I think they are making a false equivalence between their approach (counting people and noting demographics) and exit polls (where you bloody ask someone how they voted!).
Votecastr has an identical Trump figure to 538: both 43.6%. The difference is 538 has Clinton 47.7%, VC has 46.3%.
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
What's Votecastr? Never heard of it until now.
It's a new online thing that's supposed to track ballots as actually cast in a few swing states. Technical problems so far on the key areas...
Thanks. I think it's technically illegal for them to do this.
They are very keen to point out it isn't an exit poll.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
If that's the case why on earth are they being taken seriously on here?
Think we're more fascinated as to whether it is accurate for future ref than taking it entirely seriously. If Iowa goes blue, as this suggests, it could have been a profitable thing to follow.
Votecastr newsfeed is giving Clinton a 4% lead on a 40% votecount in Iowa, about 3.5% in Ohio on 30% votecount and 3.5% in FA.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBwGlqrP1-E
Based on 0 votes counted. I read their website, and I think they are making a false equivalence between their approach (counting people and noting demographics) and exit polls (where you bloody ask someone how they voted!).
Is that really what they're doing? That's ridiculous.
It perked me up from a snooze...but I'll try and get back to it....
The presenter though is really fit, so that helps
Have to say with the number of people in their 'newsroom' you would think they could keep going with the chat, rather than breaking off for longer breaks than they spend on air.
Comments
A few more Clinton voters going for Stein then predicted?
It certainly isn't an overwhelming gap.
With the likes of UK headquartered YouGov very much involved this time, I suspect the methodologies have changed somewhat since 2012.
Wonder why just Colorado? Only state Clinton leading?
I imagine that the swing states like their status - it means they get lots of attention from candidates and presidents alike. You only need 13 states to oppose and you have a blocking majority.
All they appear to be doing is counting blacks, whites, women, men, young and old as they vote but without interviewing them today. They did the interviews previously, and think they can call the election based purely on the demographics turning up.
It becomes easier to get tickets for England matches at Old Trafford if you're a member.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
1/4 REMAIN
3/1 LEAVE
Current #ElectionDay odds:
1/4 CLINTON
3/1 TRUMP
http://votecastr.us/widgets/#/states/FL
I'm a Unionist in NI yet I will probably/almost certainly take advantage of residency/marriage etc rights to an EU passport when UK leaves. In my defence, I voted Remain.
!!!
Well, that and Trump not exactly endearing himself to large sections of the electorate (a bit 'little Englander').
Mr. Eagles, if you say so, Mister Screaming 'Judas' Eagles.
of expected votes observed
You might get some odd biasing with such a small number of votes.
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html
http://votecastr.us/widgets/#/states/FL
http://votecastr.us/widgets/#/states/CO
I got on at 10/1 ish and also at lower odds which saved me a lot of money.
Remain was something rediculous like 1.05 if I remember correctly.
FL looking good for Hillary.
FL only.
COULD OF? COULD OF????
It is Could have!
https://twitter.com/sharonclott/status/795980259824963584
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBwGlqrP1-E
And at what time - 2/3 AM ?
Tut tut
The presenter though is really fit, so that helps
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
Lame effort, to be honest.