2018 - Elections and Trends

[G650 13982]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

People in general are getting too many spam calls as well, so answering the phone to strange numbers is becoming uncommon. 

 

This is very underappreciated I think.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

I still question the polls if a lot of people don’t answer their phones and don’t have land lines.  You get people in their 60s like my mom who are naturally suspicious, they aren’t going to answer strange phone calls because they’ll get charged $900 by some Jamaican or Nigerian according to Facebook.   And good luck with the under 50 crowd.  

People in general are getting too many spam calls as well, so answering the phone to strange numbers is becoming uncommon. 

NYT Upshot has tried polling GA-6 the past two nights and they still don't have enough responses (250+) to put out a confident number. I would assume someone like Nate Cohn accounts for this in his analysis since they know how old the people are that they're calling and to weigh it accordingly, but I'm hoping the same that so many of these phone polls (which many are cell) are oversampling the olds.

[troph 24545]

Republicans wouldn't be shifting on pre-existing conditions like they are if they didn't already know it matters a lot to people.  You even saw Trump tweet about Republicans protecting pre-existing conditions.  It's a real issue.

When push comes to shove in our system it’s as big as taxes, SS and Medicare. Everyone over 40 has something.

[atomheartbevo 89353]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

When push comes to shove in our system it’s as big as taxes, SS and Medicare. Everyone over 40 has something.

And many parents of young kids, as well as many older adults who maybe changing jobs or salaries, etc. are terrified of healthcare costs.  Pols in Congress don’t have to worry about this, so they are coming around to this later.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 minute ago, troph said:

That’s true except our discussion about new voters and difficulty accessing them for polling. EV in Texas shows 10% have never voted before. The uptick in younger voters and the apparent smaller surge in olders. These polls are unreliable. Doesn’t mean Beto wins it just means we really have an unknown outcome in a lot of races.

I agree 100%.  If polls have flawed assumptions regarding the electorate, then everyone is in agreement the results are almost guaranteed to be wrong.  Or if they're right, its luck.

However when polls are closely aligned with each other, the easy and most likely answer is that they're right.  I'm not trying to make anyone feel unrealistically hopeful or overly confident if their candidate is up or down, but it's also a fact.   

The best part of all of this is that the ultimate poll results are a few days away.  Our speculation can end, and we can go back to normal political arguments.

[cactusflinthead 27593]

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/texas-elections-2018/2018/10/31/310068/culbersons-record-looks-thin-apart-from-harvey/

But Jon Taylor, professor of political science at the University of Saint Thomas, says Fletcher presents a fresh face, while Culberson’s record could actually hurt him. “Name me one major piece of legislation he’s accomplished in his 18 years,” Taylor says.

[atomheartbevo 89353]

5 minutes ago, G650 said:

This is very underappreciated I think.

The constant spam is really changing things up for how people are answering their phones.  Polls needs to be texting.   

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

5 minutes ago, troph said:

When push comes to shove in our system it’s as big as taxes, SS and Medicare. Everyone over 40 has something.

I don't even know what someone really means when they say they are for (or against) coverage of pre-existing conditions.   There is the question of continued coverage vs gaps in coverage and also premium increases for pre-existing coverage.   Like most issues it's not a simple For or Against.

[troph 24545]

I agree 100%.  If polls have flawed assumptions regarding the electorate, then everyone is in agreement the results are almost guaranteed to be wrong.  Or if they're right, its luck.
However when polls are closely aligned with each other, the easy and most likely answer is that they're right.  I'm not trying to make anyone feel unrealistically hopeful or overly confident if their candidate is up or down, but it's also a fact.   
The best part of all of this is that the ultimate poll results are a few days away.  Our speculation can end, and we can go back to normal political arguments.

The question is when you talk about likely voters if you are across the board in each poll failing to account for actual voters who were unlikely and they account for 10% of EV totals then all of these even the gold standard polls are off. I think that’s as likely as they are right.

[sushihorn 3233]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The constant spam is really changing things up for how people are answering their phones.  Polls needs to be texting.   

They would have to change the structure of their polls. A lot of them will ask 50+ questions.  I'm sure a lot of people would respond to a text asking 2 or 3 questions. But the demographic stuff on race, income, party affiliation, etc would be lost.  I think the response rates would be more than worth it but the industry would have to get used to having less data to analyze.

[Aqua Buddha 14485]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The constant spam is really changing things up for how people are answering their phones.  Polls needs to be texting.   

I don't have a landline and never answer a call from a number I don't know.  Throw is the number of people that have numbers from three moves ago and I'm not sure how a pollster contacts anyone.

[Dertyberd 394]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And many parents of young kids, as well as many older adults who maybe changing jobs or salaries, etc. are terrified of healthcare costs.  Pols in Congress don’t have to worry about this, so they are coming around to this later.  

This was a part of the conversation I had with a very well connected Republican lobbyist this morning.  They tried to make the late push with being "for pre-existing conditions" and its backfired in the latest internal polling.  The public is dumb, but not dumb enough to know R's have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA/Obamacare and that most families(extended) have one person in it with a pre-existing.  House R's know that it's over and many are making plans for their future on K street.  

Take it for what it's worth, but my friend has been doing this for 40 years and he's not a bullshitter.

[Huckleberry 32682]

35 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

 

30 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's probably overstating it quite a bit but is the exact reason that nobody knows anything about how these elections are going. I find it hard to believe that independents will break 67/33 for Democrats (that's an estimate based on eyeballing that chart to show 58/28 with 14 undecided and then assigning the undecided votes proportionally) but it wouldn't take that big of a discrepancy to overcome what looks like early voting Republican leads.

To follow up on this a bit, there was a tweet put out last week that listed party identity numbers for early voters. Using that information, and assigning Republicans to R votes and Democrats to D votes, I found that meant that the early Texas votes at that point in the election were 50.4% Republican and 49.6% Democrat in the 15 largest counties. That didn't include independent voters but was bad news for O'Rourke.

In 2016 Clinton won those counties 54.5% to 45.5% over Trump (not counting votes that went to another candidate).

Now, let's use this guy's vote breakdown. If Republicans are going 88/12 in favor of Rs, Democrats are going 92/8 in favor of Ds, and Independents are going 67/33 in favor of Ds, then instead of 50.4% to 49.6% in favor of Republicans we now have a total at that point of 56.2%-43.8% in favor of the Democrats. That would mean that in the top 15 counties O'Rourke would be leading by 12.4% versus the 9% that Clinton won them by.

Again, I don't think 67/33 is realistic, but just pointing out how important actual votes versus party identity are in this election.

By the way, in order for O'Rourke to have the same 9% lead as Clinton had, the independent vote would need to be 61/39 toward the Democrats.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Js1 85050]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

To follow up on this a bit, there was a tweet put out last week that listed party identity numbers for early voters. Using that information, and assigning Republicans to R votes and Democrats to D votes, I found that meant that the early Texas votes at that point in the election were 50.4% Republican and 49.6% Democrat in the 15 largest counties. That didn't include independent voters but was bad news for O'Rourke.

In 2016 Clinton won those counties 54.5% to 45.5% over Trump (not counting votes that went to another candidate).

Now, let's use this guy's vote breakdown. If Republicans are going 88/12 in favor of Rs, Democrats are going 92/8 in favor of Ds, and Independents are going 67/33 in favor of Ds, then then instead of 50.4% to 49.6% in favor of Republicans we now have a total at that point of 56.2%-43.8% in favor of the Democrats. That would mean that in the top 15 counties O'Rourke would be leading by 12.4% versus the 9% that Clinton won them by.

Again, I don't think 67/33 is realistic, but just pointing out how important actual votes versus party identity are in this election.

[texastough 1128]

That gif would be funnier if it had simple arithmetic instead of calculus. But its funny regardless

[Biff Tannen 45473]

I'm still stunned at the high R turnout.  Full on tribal warfare.

[Bateshorn 9882]

22 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/texas-elections-2018/2018/10/31/310068/culbersons-record-looks-thin-apart-from-harvey/

But Jon Taylor, professor of political science at the University of Saint Thomas, says Fletcher presents a fresh face, while Culberson’s record could actually hurt him. “Name me one major piece of legislation he’s accomplished in his 18 years,” Taylor says.

Uh, every Commerce, Science , Transportation appropriation bill of the last 3 Congresses?  

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

11 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I don't have a landline and never answer a call from a number I don't know.  Throw is the number of people that have numbers from three moves ago and I'm not sure how a pollster contacts anyone.

Basically everyone over ~25's area code now is where they lived in 2009 and not where they live now.

[MidTexHorn 822]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm still stunned at the high R turnout.  Full on tribal warfare.

Any hope that Rs wouldn't turn out was dashed by the Kavanaugh hearings. Sent people on both sides into fits of rage and IMO helped spur the huge early voting. Everyone wanted to vote ASAP as a big fuck you to the other side.

[sushihorn 3233]

17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

To follow up on this a bit, there was a tweet put out last week that listed party identity numbers for early voters. Using that information, and assigning Republicans to R votes and Democrats to D votes, I found that meant that the early Texas votes at that point in the election were 50.4% Republican and 49.6% Democrat in the 15 largest counties. That didn't include independent voters but was bad news for O'Rourke.

In 2016 Clinton won those counties 54.5% to 45.5% over Trump (not counting votes that went to another candidate).

Now, let's use this guy's vote breakdown. If Republicans are going 88/12 in favor of Rs, Democrats are going 92/8 in favor of Ds, and Independents are going 67/33 in favor of Ds, then instead of 50.4% to 49.6% in favor of Republicans we now have a total at that point of 56.2%-43.8% in favor of the Democrats. That would mean that in the top 15 counties O'Rourke would be leading by 12.4% versus the 9% that Clinton won them by.

Again, I don't think 67/33 is realistic, but just pointing out how important actual votes versus party identity are in this election.

By the way, in order for O'Rourke to have the same 9% lead as Clinton had, the independent vote would need to be 61/39 toward the Democrats.

In raw votes, Clinton piled up a 500k vote margin in the top 15 counties in 2016.  The real problem for her was that the rest of the state went the other way by 1.3 million votes.  All of the analysis is focusing on the top 15 counties because that's where we have detailed data.  It may be a case of the drunk who keeps looking for his keys under the streetlamp because that's where the light is.

Edited November 1, 2018 by sushihorn

[fuggled 576]

I think the better approach would be to text people and ask them to call in and take a poll.

They would have to change the structure of their polls. A lot of them will ask 50+ questions.  I'm sure a lot of people would respond to a text asking 2 or 3 questions. But the demographic stuff on race, income, party affiliation, etc would be lost.  I think the response rates would be more than worth it but the industry would have to get used to having less data to analyze.

[Huckleberry 32682]

2 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

In raw votes, Clinton piled up a 500k vote margin in the top 15 counties in 2016.  The real problem for her was that the rest of the state went the other way by 1.3 million votes.  All of the analysis is focusing on the top 15 counties because that's where we have detailed data.  It may be a case of the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp because that's where the light is.

Right, what's your point? Everyone is aware that O'Rourke would need a huge margin in the Top 15 counties to win the election.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[sushihorn 3233]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Right, what's your point? Everyone is aware that O'Rourke would need a huge margin in the Top 15 counties to win the election.

My point is that almost no analysts are even looking at what is going on in the rest of the state.  Beto won't win the top 15 by over 1 million votes (assuming 75-80% of 2016 turnout).  So he has to reduce the Cruz' margin in the rest of the state.  I see very few people asking that question, much less seriously looking for answers.

[Longhorn94 2427]

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

To follow up on this a bit, there was a tweet put out last week that listed party identity numbers for early voters. Using that information, and assigning Republicans to R votes and Democrats to D votes, I found that meant that the early Texas votes at that point in the election were 50.4% Republican and 49.6% Democrat in the 15 largest counties. That didn't include independent voters but was bad news for O'Rourke.

In 2016 Clinton won those counties 54.5% to 45.5% over Trump (not counting votes that went to another candidate).

Now, let's use this guy's vote breakdown. If Republicans are going 88/12 in favor of Rs, Democrats are going 92/8 in favor of Ds, and Independents are going 67/33 in favor of Ds, then instead of 50.4% to 49.6% in favor of Republicans we now have a total at that point of 56.2%-43.8% in favor of the Democrats. That would mean that in the top 15 counties O'Rourke would be leading by 12.4% versus the 9% that Clinton won them by.

Again, I don't think 67/33 is realistic, but just pointing out how important actual votes versus party identity are in this election.

By the way, in order for O'Rourke to have the same 9% lead as Clinton had, the independent vote would need to be 61/39 toward the Democrats.

are you comparing EV in '18 with final vote in '16?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

17 minutes ago, MidTexHorn said:

Any hope that Rs wouldn't turn out was dashed by the Kavanaugh hearings. Sent people on both sides into fits of rage and IMO helped spur the huge early voting. Everyone wanted to vote ASAP as a big fuck you to the other side.

I think all the cheers of blue wave also energized the right.  They see a million Beto signs and read all the predictions and are reminded that the evil libs want to take over.  They feel the need to get out and vote to prevent it.  I don't remember this sort of coverage of impending wave in the right swinging years.

[Biff Tannen 45473]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think all the cheers of blue wave also energized the right.  They see a million Beto signs and read all the predictions and are reminded that the evil libs want to take over.  They feel the need to get out and vote to prevent it.  I don't remember this sort of coverage of impending wave in the right swinging years.

This is what I'm thinking.  Gotta stop the evil Dems.  It's fucking insane.  Overall, in some sick way, it's a good thing because with high turnout we will truly know who we are.  No blaming it on the fringe.  America is going to show its true colors on Tuesday.  Let's fucking go.  

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, NameWithHeld said:

Arizona just baffles me.  I can’t believe after all of her derogatory quotes about Arizonans that Sinema has be linked to including having no problem with people going overseas to fight with the Taliban.  McSally was a 28 yr Air Force Vet who was the first female pilot in combat and the first to command a Squadron in combat. 

Say what you want about the other races this one shouldn’t even be close   I have faith the voters of AZ will not make it close with McSally winning handlely. 

Then again I thought Texas would beat OSU without any problem  

 

 

Some republicans I know have this misconception that mcstinky is a good candidate, but she’s really not. She has a lot of baggage as well. She’s running for senate because her district AZ-02 couldn’t stand her and was going to vote her out. Pretty much every interview she starts off by saying “ I’m a fighter pilot”. When the repubs tried and failed to repeal Obamacare, she infamously stood up and yelled at her GOP colleagues in the house “LETS GET THIS FUCKING THING DONE”. Ok......So Mcstinky was very excited and enthusiastic about taking healthcare away from over 20 million Americans ( the non partisan CBO projection at the time).

Of course she’s getting hammered on healthcare. 

 

[Celery Man 20870]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

NYT Upshot has tried polling GA-6 the past two nights and they still don't have enough responses (250+) to put out a confident number. I would assume someone like Nate Cohn accounts for this in his analysis since they know how old the people are that they're calling and to weigh it accordingly, but I'm hoping the same that so many of these phone polls (which many are cell) are oversampling the olds.

Yeah and are phone answering you ha a representative sample of all youngs.  Or is there a skew that correlates with a political skew.

which starts to sound like digging through the weeds to look for reasons not to believe polling.  But still.

[Mo Horn 8795]

Saw something on the news about celebrating the fact that it looks like voter turnout will reach 55%. That is a really sad commentary on the U.S.

[Huckleberry 32682]

My point is that almost no analysts are even looking at what is going on in the rest of the state.  Beto won't win the top 15 by over 1 million votes (assuming 75-80% of 2016 turnout).  So he has to reduce the Cruz' margin in the rest of the state.  I see very few people asking that question, much less seriously looking for answers.

I'm sure people are looking, the problem is that the State of Texas hasn't released more early voting data until this year (Top 30 counties) so comparative analysis to previous elections is impossible.

But yes, he absolutely has to narrow the rural gap. He's never going to win those areas, just has to lose them by less. It's still a huge uphill fight I don't see him winning, just saying that nobody has any real idea where this is going to end up percentage wise. That's why I keep just playing the middle between the extreme predictions and seeing a 4-6% Cruz win.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

40 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

My point is that almost no analysts are even looking at what is going on in the rest of the state.  Beto won't win the top 15 by over 1 million votes (assuming 75-80% of 2016 turnout).  So he has to reduce the Cruz' margin in the rest of the state.  I see very few people asking that question, much less seriously looking for answers.

 

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Saw something on the news about celebrating the fact that it looks like voter turnout will reach 55%. That is a really sad commentary on the U.S.

Assuming a 55% turnout and 1,000,000 margin in the top 15 counties to win, Beto needs to win the 15 big counties 57.4%-42.6%.  Doesn't seem impossible:

 

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

In 2016 Clinton won those counties 54.5% to 45.5% over Trump (not counting votes that went to another candidate).

He has to beat Hillary by 2.9%.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm still stunned at the high R turnout. 

I wouldn’t read too much into that.  I mean, it’s better for Cruz than Beto on face but how many in this thread are registered Republicans that voted for Beto?  I bet there are a few. 

Out of curiosity, what is the party affiliation breakdown statewide? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I don't have a landline and never answer a call from a number I don't know.  Throw is the number of people that have numbers from three moves ago and I'm not sure how a pollster contacts anyone.

I reviewed some of the NY Times live polls and they call many cell lines.  For the current poll of TX-32 (Sessions), they've called 5700 cell numbers and had 151 responses: a success rate of 1 in 38 calls.  Landlines had 8000 calls with 84 responses.  Success rate of 1 in 95.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-tx32-3.html

I would assume they can call thousands of numbers an hour with only a few agents.  When the agents are in a conversation with someone, they can stop auto calling people until the agent is free.  You can also call a non-answered line a dozens of times.  I think if I saw a certain number called me 4 times, I would be more likely to answer the 5th time.  At that point it's someone that really wants to talk to me.

And I agree with another comment that I would be more likely to participate in any poll (politics, shopping preferences, etc.) if they would lead off by telling me how many questions they had.  Too many of them want to ask 75 questions.  "On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best...."    Tell me you have 5 questions that will take 1 minute, and I will respond every time.

 

[sushihorn 3233]

28 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

Assuming a 55% turnout and 1,000,000 margin in the top 15 counties to win, Beto needs to win the 15 big counties 57.4%-42.6%.  Doesn't seem impossible:

 

He has to beat Hillary by 2.9%.

If we get 55% turnout those numbers shift dramatically.  Keep in mind that 2016 turnout was 59.39%.  You'd be looking at 93% of 2016 numbers, not 75-80%.  In that scenario, Beto has to win the top 15 counties by over 1.2 million votes.

[Homercles 10205]

The constant spam is really changing things up for how people are answering their phones.  Polls needs to be texting.   

Personally even if I get a text for polling, I’d likely assume it’s a spammer trying to get legit phone numbers and ignore. I’m a 38yo white guy who already voted straight Dem

[HenryJames 65866]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33823]

I wouldn't call that blowing up. I would call that dodging a valid question

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I wouldn't call that blowing up. I would call that dodging a valid question

I’d call it snowflaking 

[atomheartbevo 89353]

2 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Basically everyone over ~25's area code now is where they lived in 2009 and not where they live now.

Father-in-law, bro-in-law, multiple friends have area codes that do not match where they’ve lived for the past several years.  

[horn4life 3753]

I think I have a rythm now over the last two years-

Trump lies...

Media reports lies as lies...

Trump attacks the media as fake for reporting that his lies are not truth...

Trump then again attacks with lies because he was "attacked" with the Truth...

 

Trump lies...

Media reports lies as lies...

Trump attacks the media as fake for reporting that his lies are not truth...

Trump then again attacks with lies because he was "attacked" with the Truth...

 

You can repeat this patter for the next 800 days and it will hold true.  SO at least there is consistency somewhere in the universe.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by horn4life

[Longhorn_Fan68 33823]

I think I have a rythm now over the last two years-
Trump lies...
Media reports lies as lies...
Trump attacks the media as fake for reporting that his lies are not truth...
Trump then again attacks with lies because he was "attacked" with the Truth...
 
Trump lies...
Media reports lies as lies...
Trump attacks the media as fake for reporting that his lies are not truth...
Trump then again attacks with lies because he was "attacked" with the Truth...
 
You can repeat this patter for the next 800 days and it will hold true.  SO at least there is consistency somewhere in the universe.
 

Yes, this president has been consistently shitty.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I think Mike Pence has hurt feelings.

[Chooky 13292]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

White pouter.

[kevwun 15591]

I hope he gets his moment in the sun, just like Spiro Agnew did.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm sure people are looking, the problem is that the State of Texas hasn't released more early voting data until this year (Top 30 counties) so comparative analysis to previous elections is impossible.

But yes, he absolutely has to narrow the rural gap. He's never going to win those areas, just has to lose them by less. It's still a huge uphill fight I don't see him winning, just saying that nobody has any real idea where this is going to end up percentage wise. That's why I keep just playing the middle between the extreme predictions and seeing a 4-6% Cruz win.

 

 

IF Beto wins (huge if), it will be because he went to places like Big Springs and Carthage and Mentone and Victoria multiple times. Those are small towns that Senators and Sentate candidates NEVER go to. I've spent a lot of time in small Texas towns. If you show your face, talk to the locals and are polite and decent, it goes a long way. A portion of those repulican voters he met in diners and coffee shops will vote for him because they met him and he is likely the only congressmen they've ever met. And the little old ladies that met him and liked him as a person, will tell their friends in the beauty parlor and bridge clubs. He's not going to win Reeves County, but he will do better than Clinton did because he went to those towns and met those people. Just not sure if it will be enough. 

 

[Patrick Bateman 3902]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, Dertyberd said:

This was a part of the conversation I had with a very well connected Republican lobbyist this morning.  They tried to make the late push with being "for pre-existing conditions" and its backfired in the latest internal polling.  The public is dumb, but not dumb enough to know R's have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA/Obamacare and that most families(extended) have one person in it with a pre-existing.  House R's know that it's over and many are making plans for their future on K street.  

Take it for what it's worth, but my friend has been doing this for 40 years and he's not a bullshitter.

Good post and I believe this to be true. The republicans have started focusing ads on preexisting conditions which was in fact was a mistake because everyone except the most insane trumpkin knows they’re full of shit about their so called protection for coverage of them, so all they’re really doing is putting greater emphasis on an issue that is a complete loser for them. Not only will they take that coverage away and voted for it a hundred times, but now they’re lying about it. 

Im predicting a route. 

[G650 13982]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

 

Im predicting a route. 

To where exactly.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

 

 Im predicting a route. 

Google maps can do that for you now.

[cactusflinthead 27593]