[www.aol.com]

Thanks to the hidden support from voters who are embarrassed to admit they will vote for Donald Trump, the president will be narrowly reelected on Nov. 3, says one of the few pollsters who correctly predicted his 2016 victory.

Pollster Robert Cahaly, the head of the Georgia-based Trafalgar Group, saw interest in his company skyrocket in 2016 after he bucked the consensus of other pollsters and forecast that Trump would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two states that were crucial to his victory. He credits a proprietary model of calculating a polling sample that takes into account the social pressure that leads many people to hide their support of a controversial, polarizing candidate like Trump, even from anonymous pollsters.

It’s that same demographic that Trump often refers to as the “silent majority,” whom the president says will help him “win this election big.” Unlike the rally goers in MAGA hats who have memorized the lyrics and sing along to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” these “shy Trump voters,” Cahaly told Yahoo News in an interview Friday, will show that the methods of most polling outfits are outdated and unreliable.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Polling guru Nate Silver has been critical of Trafalgar, giving you a C-minus rating. “They know what result they want, then engineer their sample, etc., to get there,” he has written. How do you respond to that?

Nate Silver makes money off of clicks. God bless him for doing so, that’s his business. He’s got to be provocative. We make most of our money in the private sector only because we have a reputation for getting it right.

Do you consider yourself a pro-Trump pollster?

No. Don’t get me wrong — as a Republican, of course I would like to see him win, but you know what I’d like more? I’d like to be right.


Nate Silver also makes his money in the private sector.

If every major poll in the country turns out to be wrong (way off) about Pennsylvania but not the other states (?) that'll be something. Doesn't seem likely to me.

Yeah, I don’t think this is 2016. Even if “undecideds do break for Trump, Biden is already above 50% in many of the swing states that have to be won by the Orange menace.

If we vote, we win. And it looks like we are voting.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "if we vote, we win" mantra is, unfortunately, simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. [forums.macresource.com]

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

A poll can always be found later to be “correct” without ever knowing why. If it was easy, everyone would know, and well, we wouldn’t “need” polls.

I personally know several that will vote for Trump. It’s not that they’re “shy,” they just aren’t activists or overt in their support. This image of people cowering in the corner before heading off to vote is part of why Trafalgar merely took a feel-good idea and wants it to be relevant.

Quote
PeterB
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "if we vote, we win" mantra is, unfortunately, simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. [forums.macresource.com]

Simple math. Enough voters in the right categories in the right states, we win.

Witness young adult turnout in battleground states. The regenerative generation is on fire.
[twitter.com]

Turnout among nonwhite voters. Turnout among women, who've been pissed off nonstop since Nov. 9, 2016.

If "we" vote and by "we" I mean people who are not older white males, we will win. There are simply more of us, everywhere. OWM's are doing their best to screw us all over again because as a group they are predominantly greedy and care about nothing but their own tax bills and 401K balances. They have no idea what's gonna hit them on Nov. 3.

They know they can only win if they exclude people from voting, because it's impossible to win converts to their horrible ideas. But we're on to you fellas. You're about to see what democracy looks like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2020 11:47AM by Lemon Drop.

I think the polls are missing a critical data point - just who WILL show up to vote?

The closer we are to 100% voting, the more accurate a poll will be in terms of predictive value.

What we do NOT know is how they are doing their calculations. If they are basing it on 2016, that's a mistake.

We may hit 160 million votes in 2020, over 20 million higher than the previous record.

Who are these new voters? Young? Dems win.

Activated conservative whites who are pissed because they've 'lost jobs to brown people'? GOP wins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2020 11:58AM by sekker.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
PeterB
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "if we vote, we win" mantra is, unfortunately, simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. [forums.macresource.com]

Simple math. Enough voters in the right categories in the right states, we win.

Witness young adult turnout in battleground states. The regenerative generation is on fire.
[twitter.com]

Turnout among nonwhite voters. Turnout among women, who've been pissed off nonstop since Nov. 9, 2016.

If "we" vote and by "we" I mean people who are not older white males, we will win. There are simply more of us, everywhere. OWM's are doing their best to screw us all over again because as a group they are predominantly greedy and care about nothing but their own tax bills and 401K balances. They have no idea what's gonna hit them on Nov. 3.

They know they can only win if they exclude people from voting, because it's impossible to win converts to their horrible ideas. But we're on to you fellas. You're about to see what democracy looks like.

Of course I don't disagree with you about the math -- but you're assuming that the ballots are properly counted, that there is no voter intimidation or funny business going on at the voting locations, no interference from foreign actors or ballot box stuffing/manipulation of the vote counts from within, no close vote and challenge that ends up going to the SC, etc., etc. In other words, no dirty pool. I wish it were really as simple as "if we vote, we win". I don't put anything past these frackers, they'll do whatever is necessary to win, as simple as that.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
sekker
I think the polls are missing a critical data point - just who WILL show up to vote?

The closer we are to 100% voting, the more accurate a poll will be in terms of predictive value.

What we do NOT know is how they are doing their calculations. If they are basing it on 2016, that's a mistake.

We may hit 160 million votes in 2020, over 20 million higher than the previous record.

Who are these new voters? Young? Dems win.

Activated conservative whites who are pissed because they've 'lost jobs to brown people'? GOP wins.

Unfortunately, I think the trends are showing that mostly who will show up on voting day is actually the latter category. Most of the early / mail-in voters seem to be trending blue, whereas those who leave the voting to do on the day of, are trending red. The rationale I'm hearing from those folks is that they see voting on the day of as their "patriotic duty" and that mailing it in or voting early is somehow "unpatriotic". (Don't look at me, I'm just the messenger!)

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
PeterB
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "if we vote, we win" mantra is, unfortunately, simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. [forums.macresource.com]

Simple math. Enough voters in the right categories in the right states, we win.

Witness young adult turnout in battleground states. The regenerative generation is on fire.
[twitter.com]

Turnout among nonwhite voters. Turnout among women, who've been pissed off nonstop since Nov. 9, 2016.

If "we" vote and by "we" I mean people who are not older white males, we will win. There are simply more of us, everywhere. OWM's are doing their best to screw us all over again because as a group they are predominantly greedy and care about nothing but their own tax bills and 401K balances. They have no idea what's gonna hit them on Nov. 3.

They know they can only win if they exclude people from voting, because it's impossible to win converts to their horrible ideas. But we're on to you fellas. You're about to see what democracy looks like.

Of course I don't disagree with you about the math -- but you're assuming that the ballots are properly counted, that there is no voter intimidation or funny business going on at the voting locations, no interference from foreign actors or ballot box stuffing/manipulation of the vote counts from within, no close vote and challenge that ends up going to the SC, etc., etc. In other words, no dirty pool. I wish it were really as simple as "if we vote, we win". I don't put anything past these frackers, they'll do whatever is necessary to win, as simple as that.

Of course there are ongoing attempts to undermine a fair election - but it's never been watched to the degree that it is this year. The whole world is watching...as we lefties like to say. And my hunch is that the margins for Biden will be too large to plunge the country into another year 2000-style hanging chad horror show.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
PeterB
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "if we vote, we win" mantra is, unfortunately, simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. [forums.macresource.com]

Simple math. Enough voters in the right categories in the right states, we win.

Witness young adult turnout in battleground states. The regenerative generation is on fire.
[twitter.com]

Turnout among nonwhite voters. Turnout among women, who've been pissed off nonstop since Nov. 9, 2016.

If "we" vote and by "we" I mean people who are not older white males, we will win. There are simply more of us, everywhere. OWM's are doing their best to screw us all over again because as a group they are predominantly greedy and care about nothing but their own tax bills and 401K balances. They have no idea what's gonna hit them on Nov. 3.

They know they can only win if they exclude people from voting, because it's impossible to win converts to their horrible ideas. But we're on to you fellas. You're about to see what democracy looks like.

Of course I don't disagree with you about the math -- but you're assuming that the ballots are properly counted, that there is no voter intimidation or funny business going on at the voting locations, no interference from foreign actors or ballot box stuffing/manipulation of the vote counts from within, no close vote and challenge that ends up going to the SC, etc., etc. In other words, no dirty pool. I wish it were really as simple as "if we vote, we win". I don't put anything past these frackers, they'll do whatever is necessary to win, as simple as that.

Of course there are ongoing attempts to undermine a fair election - but it's never been watched to the degree that it is this year. The whole world is watching...as we lefties like to say. And my hunch is that the margins for Biden will be too large to plunge the country into another year 2000-style hanging chad horror show.

Regarding the margins, I sure as heck hope so! (Can you imagine something like what happened in Florida in 2000 play out this year?)

And if there is any funny business, I sure hope the Dems have a plan in place to deal with it. I think it's entirely possible that this election will be "stolen" and there will have to be an investigation, which of course will itself be disputed.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

[forums.macresource.com]

Polls should be irrelevant to individual voters. Vote what you believe.

This is why I no longer take 538 seriously. They can't properly correct for the 3% to 5% of people that are purposely lying to pollsters. It is a betting site that covers elections.

Each poll needs it's own correction. We need a national poll that will have at least 900 people in each of the lowest population states.

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Quote
cbelt3
Polls should be irrelevant to individual voters. Vote what you believe.

Not only but no one anywhere has ever attempted to poll during a pandemic -- they're all making it up as they go and although will deny it (there's big money on that polling table), they are flying blind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2020 03:26PM by RgrF.

Fivethirtyeight has a short video explaining the polling process, what it learned from 2016 and changes that have been made since then. Did they get it right? We'll know in the near future.

[fivethirtyeight.com]

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
We need a national poll that will have at least 900 people in each of the lowest population states.

Not a problem, just wait ten more days.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
This is why I no longer take 538 seriously. They can't properly correct for the 3% to 5% of people that are purposely lying to pollsters. It is a betting site that covers elections.

Each poll needs it's own correction. We need a national poll that will have at least 900 people in each of the lowest population states.

While we didn't lie to pollsters in 2016, we also didn't vote for the top of the ticket in 2016. We dropped our mail-in ballots off at the poll on election day in 2016, and put 'em in the local drop box over a week ago this year; for the express purpose of voting for the top job & jobette. IOW, voting/polling dynamics are fluid, and I would imagine the "lying" is subject to expansion/contraction depending on year/candidates involved. Also, we didn't have NoMoRobo in 2016, as we do now, so the polling calls that have gotten thru this year are minimal here, and I gotta believe similar services have cut down on poll responses nationwide and/or skewed the results.

Definitely gotta account for a lot more variables, and get larger sample sizes now, than ever before, in order to maintain poll integrity and accuracy.
==