Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

The Only Pollster Who Predicted Trump's 2016 Win in Michigan: Trump Up In Key Swing State...Michigan Also Closer for Trump

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kestrel

100percentfedup.com

The Only Pollster Who Predicted Trump's 2016 Win in Michigan: Trump Up In Key Swing State...Michigan Also Closer for Trump

The only pollster to predict President Trump’s win in Michigan in 2016 is now saying that the president is up on Joe Biden in Wisconsin and has a closer lead in Michigan. These swing states could be the difference for President Trump in November.

The new Trafalgar Group poll was released on Sunday, and the Georgia-based political strategist Robert Cahaly, who owns the Trafalgar Group, has a slight edge to Trump, similar to the 2016 win with Trump at 47.2% and Clinton at 46.5%.

The new poll has Trump leading Biden, 45.5% to 44.6%.

According to the Trafalgar Group, Michigan is closer in the polls than reported by other pollsters. African American support for Trump in the survey registered at 11.8%, which is a big jump from the 6% Trump got in exit polls in 2016.

The big difference between poll results in Michigan is exactly why most Americans don’t trust them.

In a survey of 1,101 likely general election voters polled between June 16-18, 2020, Cahaly found Biden leading Trump among Michigan residents by less than a percentage point. Lansing, Michigan-based EPIC-MRA released a survey around the same time showing Trump trailing Biden by 16 percentage points.

The Trafalgar Group’s Cahaly must be doing something right in his polling because he predicted correctly in 2016 when no one else did. He told RealClear Politics he’s using the same methodology he used four years ago with an enhanced system for targeting likely voters.

Cahaly also says his polling suggests there is the silent majority that is still shy to say that they are voting for President Trump. With the cancel culture rearing its ugly head at everyone who doesn’t agree with them, it’s no wonder that people are reluctant to speak up.

 

the rest here:https://100percentfedup.com/the-only-pollster-who-predicted-trumps-2016-win-in-michigan-trump-up-in-key-swing-state-michigan-also-closer-for-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specs
34 minutes ago, kestrel said:

100percentfedup.com

The Only Pollster Who Predicted Trump's 2016 Win in Michigan: Trump Up In Key Swing State...Michigan Also Closer for Trump

The only pollster to predict President Trump’s win in Michigan in 2016 is now saying that the president is up on Joe Biden in Wisconsin and has a closer lead in Michigan. These swing states could be the difference for President Trump in November.

The new Trafalgar Group poll was released on Sunday, and the Georgia-based political strategist Robert Cahaly, who owns the Trafalgar Group, has a slight edge to Trump, similar to the 2016 win with Trump at 47.2% and Clinton at 46.5%.

The new poll has Trump leading Biden, 45.5% to 44.6%.

According to the Trafalgar Group, Michigan is closer in the polls than reported by other pollsters. African American support for Trump in the survey registered at 11.8%, which is a big jump from the 6% Trump got in exit polls in 2016.

The big difference between poll results in Michigan is exactly why most Americans don’t trust them.

In a survey of 1,101 likely general election voters polled between June 16-18, 2020, Cahaly found Biden leading Trump among Michigan residents by less than a percentage point. Lansing, Michigan-based EPIC-MRA released a survey around the same time showing Trump trailing Biden by 16 percentage points.

The Trafalgar Group’s Cahaly must be doing something right in his polling because he predicted correctly in 2016 when no one else did. He told RealClear Politics he’s using the same methodology he used four years ago with an enhanced system for targeting likely voters.

Cahaly also says his polling suggests there is the silent majority that is still shy to say that they are voting for President Trump. With the cancel culture rearing its ugly head at everyone who doesn’t agree with them, it’s no wonder that people are reluctant to speak up.

 

the rest here:https://100percentfedup.com/the-only-pollster-who-predicted-trumps-2016-win-in-michigan-trump-up-in-key-swing-state-michigan-also-closer-for-trump/

I figure he will get around 14% black support, 40% Hispanic, and 40% Asian. With white support remaining at around 64%. I think he will carry every state outside of NY and CA.

I do see him leading in WI, MI, OH, FL and tied in PA. looking at polling data.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
7 minutes ago, Specs said:

I figure he will get around 14% black support, 40% Hispanic, and 40% Asian. With white support remaining at around 64%. I think he will carry every state outside of NY and CA.

I do see him leading in WI, MI, OH, FL and tied in PA. looking at polling data.

Yep...Definitely in Mi

K...

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Thanks wHitler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moocow

One problem with polling is it assumes an unbiased sample.  I tend to think that pollsters might try their hardest to get probabilistic samples, but that's probably not the easiest thing to do with the current population.  I, for one, would refuse to answer any polling (for one, my time is valuable.  For another, why give out free information, particularly information that is likely to get you 'canceled' in this day and age).  If other conservatives or right leaning people feel the same way, you can see that getting an unbiased, probabilistic sample will be next to impossible.  So the polls will be inherently biased.  

As for the effect of bias on polling, here's a rather fun & short article on it (in the context of analyzing Big Data):

https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/breakfast-bytes/posts/bigdata

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, moocow said:

One problem with polling is it assumes an unbiased sample.  I tend to think that pollsters might try their hardest to get probabilistic samples, but that's probably not the easiest thing to do with the current population.  I, for one, would refuse to answer any polling (for one, my time is valuable.  For another, why give out free information, particularly information that is likely to get you 'canceled' in this day and age).  If other conservatives or right leaning people feel the same way, you can see that getting an unbiased, probabilistic sample will be next to impossible.  So the polls will be inherently biased.  

As for the effect of bias on polling, here's a rather fun & short article on it (in the context of analyzing Big Data):

https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/breakfast-bytes/posts/bigdata

Interesting piece..thanks.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
7 hours ago, Specs said:

I think he will carry every state outside of NY and CA.

Want to bet on it? 🤣

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG
7 hours ago, Specs said:

I figure he will get around 14% black support, 40% Hispanic, and 40% Asian. With white support remaining at around 64%. I think he will carry every state outside of NY and CA.

I do see him leading in WI, MI, OH, FL and tied in PA. looking at polling data.

I’m very optimistic this time around. I think Trump will grab more than 14% of the black vote. Dare I dream he will bust into the 20s?

Blacks have made out very well under Trump. Their unemployment numbers were down, their wages were up. I think the ones who are honestly working towards creating a better life for themselves will recognize that. 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, kestrel said:

The Trafalgar Group’s Cahaly must be doing something right in his polling because he predicted correctly in 2016 when no one else did.

...or they oversampled Republicans and happen to get lucky when undescided broke for Trump last min. That luck just may cut the other way this time.

For 2018 elections Trafalgar Group's 15 poll error was 4.0% and average weighted accuracy.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
48 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

...or they oversampled Republicans and happen to get lucky when undescided broke for Trump last min. That luck just may cut the other way this time.

For 2018 elections Trafalgar Group's 15 poll error was 4.0% and average weighted accuracy.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

The science is settled..end of story. Next?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
6 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Want to bet on it? 🤣

Want to,  foreigner?

 

:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
6 hours ago, AntonToo said:

...or they oversampled Republicans and happen to get lucky when undescided broke for Trump last min. That luck just may cut the other way this time.

For 2018 elections Trafalgar Group's 15 poll error was 4.0% and average weighted accuracy.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, CHANG said:

I’m very optimistic this time around. I think Trump will grab more than 14% of the black vote. Dare I dream he will bust into the 20s?

Blacks have made out very well under Trump. Their unemployment numbers were down, their wages were up. I think the ones who are honestly working towards creating a better life for themselves will recognize that. 

I work at a place with 68% of my co-workers being black. I can say with certainty that well over 25% of them are voting for Trump. They agree with him and love how he fights back and takes no shidt from the media.

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PaleoPatriot

The only reason that some "polls" say the demented hair sniffer is up over Trump by 16 points is just hoping we believe it and stay home in November.  Not going to happen.  A high percentage of those asked are afraid to say who they will vote for, they don't want to be called a racist, homophobe, islamaphobe and neanderthal.  All that fear goes away once behind the curtain at the voting booth.

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, PaleoPatriot said:

The only reason that some "polls" say the demented hair sniffer is up over Trump by 16 points is just hoping we believe it and stay home in November.  Not going to happen.  A high percentage of those asked are afraid to say who they will vote for, they don't want to be called a racist, homophobe, islamaphobe and neanderthal.  All that fear goes away once behind the curtain at the voting booth.

Absolutely!.. know many former dem's that are voting for Trump...matter of fact I don't know any Dem's that aren't voting for Trump!

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2020 at 4:01 PM, Specs said:

I figure he will get around 14% black support, 40% Hispanic, and 40% Asian. With white support remaining at around 64%. I think he will carry every state outside of NY and CA.

I do see him leading in WI, MI, OH, FL and tied in PA. looking at polling data.

I think the map will be pretty much the same as 2016, and I don't see him getting any state Northeast of PA except maybe NH (4 EV) where he was within 0.5% of Hillary in '16

PA itself is too close to call, but he still wins even without PA's 20 electoral votes.   He was within 2% of Hillary in NV (6 EV) and 5% in CO (9 EV); I think he'll probably get NV this time and maybe CO.

If I start with the 2016 map, but this time he also gets every state that he lost by (only) 2% or less, he picks up ME, MN, NV and NH. I think that's plausible. If I expand that to 5% then it adds CO and VA as well. I think that's possible but unlikely, and probably the upper limit of what Trump can do; Moving those total 44 EVs from blue to red would change the electoral map from Trump 306 : Clinton 232 (2016) to Trump 350 : Biden 188 (2020); Not quite a landslide but still pretty good. It would basically put him right in between Obama's two elections in terms of electoral margin (365:173 in '08 and 332:206 in '12)

 

EtA: How would I define "Landslide"? In the modern era of 538 EVs, two obvious examples are Reagan '84 (525:13) and Nixon '72 (520:17). I'll also include FDR '36 from (523:8) the 531 era.  As such, I would define a MAJOR Landslide as 500+ EVs and a MINOR Landslide as 400+, because getting even 400 in the modern era is an accomplishment; That would add LBJ, Ike, Hoover, Wilson, with GHWB '88 (426:111 in the 538 era) and Harding '20 (404:127 in the 531 era) just above the cutoff.

I think Trump will do well, but I don't see it being even a "minor" Landslide ala GHWB '88. The Problem is that, since GHWB, too many states have slipped into the 'solid blue' category; There is a "Blue Wall" of 11 states totaling 153 EVs that has gone blue by more than 5% in every single presidential election from Clinton '92 onwards (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, WA) and i just don't see Trump getting ANY of these eleven.

 

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

You all remember folks, that all of the lamestream media had said the same thing back in 2016 that Trump was going to lose, was way behind in the polls, was dropping out of the race, etc. all were :bs: then and are even more :bs: now.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2020 at 9:51 AM, AntonToo said:

Here is "primitive" Tucker and Trump's insiders:

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-trump-election-1513567

"Not many people are saying it out loud on the right, but the fact is President Trump could well lose this election...

Yes, it's possible that Trump could lose, in the sense that ANYTHING is possible. But it's not LIKELY, for two reasons: "Human Nature" and "History". Start with the History of the 2016 Election as a baseline, then add or subtract based on Human Nature and MORE History.

The Human Nature part of the equation is that, by and large, people don't like to admit they were wrong. Nobody who voted for Trump in '16 is going to want to say to themselves they were wrong about it; He hasn't given them any reason to.  In fact, in the modern (Post-WWII) era, only TWO presidents have convinced enough people that they were wrong for having voted for him the first time that they lost the second time:  Carter '80 and GHWB '92.... and BOTH gave the voters clear and convincing reasons as to why to turn against someone they previously liked (Yes, I myself liked Carter in '76 and GHWB in '88). 

The History part of the equation is that, with the exception of Carter and GHB, not only have MOST president been re-elected when they sought it (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 didn't seek it), but, within that, all but one have done better the second time around: Ike did better in '56 than '52, Nixon did WAY better in '72 than '68, Reagan did better in '84 than '80, Clinton did better in '96 than '92, and GWB did better in '04 than '00. In fact the only exception is Obama who did worse in '12 than '08... but still won anyway.  I believe Human Nature factors into this as well: "Everybody Loves a Winner"; Trump has proven he CAN win, and those who didn't vote for the winner in '16 are more likely to be re-thinking their decision that those who did.

 

 

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee
  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Yes, it's possible that Trump could lose, in the sense that ANYTHING is possible. But it's not LIKELY, for two reasons: "Human Nature" and "History". Start with the History of the 2016 Election as a baseline, then add or subtract based on Human Nature and MORE History.

The Human Nature part of the equation is that, by and large, people don't like to admit they were wrong. Nobody who voted for Trump in '16 is going to want to say to themselves they were wrong about it; He hasn't given them any reason to.  In fact, in the modern (Post-WWII) era, only TWO presidents have convinced enough people that they were wrong for having voter him the first time that they lost the second time:  Carter '80 and GHWB '92.... and BOTH gave the voters clear and convincing reasons as to why to turn against someone they previously liked (Yes, I liked Carter in '76 and GHWB in '88). 

The History part of the equation is that, with the exception of Carter and GHB, not only have MOST president been re-elected when they sought it (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 didn't seek it), but, within that, all but one have done better the second time around: Ike did better in '56 than '52, Nixon did WAY better in '72 than '68, Reagan did better in '84 than '80, Clinton did better in '96 than '92, and GWB did better in '04 than '00. In fact the only exception is Obama who did worse in '12 than '08... but still won anyway.  I believe Human Nature factors into this as well: "Everybody Loves a Winner"; Trump has proven he CAN win, and those who didn't vote for the winner in '16 are more likely to be re-thinking their decision that those who did.

 

 

Pretty good summing-up.

:yes: 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat
22 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Yes, it's possible that Trump could lose, in the sense that ANYTHING is possible. But it's not LIKELY, for two reasons: "Human Nature" and "History". Start with the History of the 2016 Election as a baseline, then add or subtract based on Human Nature and MORE History.

The Human Nature part of the equation is that, by and large, people don't like to admit they were wrong. Nobody who voted for Trump in '16 is going to want to say to themselves they were wrong about it; He hasn't given them any reason to.  In fact, in the modern (Post-WWII) era, only TWO presidents have convinced enough people that they were wrong for having voted for him the first time that they lost the second time:  Carter '80 and GHWB '92.... and BOTH gave the voters clear and convincing reasons as to why to turn against someone they previously liked (Yes, I myself liked Carter in '76 and GHWB in '88). 

The History part of the equation is that, with the exception of Carter and GHB, not only have MOST president been re-elected when they sought it (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 didn't seek it), but, within that, all but one have done better the second time around: Ike did better in '56 than '52, Nixon did WAY better in '72 than '68, Reagan did better in '84 than '80, Clinton did better in '96 than '92, and GWB did better in '04 than '00. In fact the only exception is Obama who did worse in '12 than '08... but still won anyway.  I believe Human Nature factors into this as well: "Everybody Loves a Winner"; Trump has proven he CAN win, and those who didn't vote for the winner in '16 are more likely to be re-thinking their decision that those who did.

 

 

We should also point out that both Carter and GHWB were facing charismatic powerhouses.  (Of course, Perot's little stunt helped Clinton too.)  This is certainly not the situation this election.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
48 minutes ago, Magic Rat said:

We should also point out that both Carter and GHWB were facing charismatic powerhouses.  (Of course, Perot's little stunt helped Clinton too.)  This is certainly not the situation this election.

Another good point.

B)

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I thought it’s AntonToo’s serve now. Did he withdraw due to injury (brain)? 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Yes, it's possible that Trump could lose, in the sense that ANYTHING is possible. But it's not LIKELY, for two reasons: "Human Nature" and "History". Start with the History of the 2016 Election as a baseline, then add or subtract based on Human Nature and MORE History.

The Human Nature part of the equation is that, by and large, people don't like to admit they were wrong. Nobody who voted for Trump in '16 is going to want to say to themselves they were wrong about it; He hasn't given them any reason to.  In fact, in the modern (Post-WWII) era, only TWO presidents have convinced enough people that they were wrong for having voted for him the first time that they lost the second time:  Carter '80 and GHWB '92.... and BOTH gave the voters clear and convincing reasons as to why to turn against someone they previously liked (Yes, I myself liked Carter in '76 and GHWB in '88). 

The History part of the equation is that, with the exception of Carter and GHB, not only have MOST president been re-elected when they sought it (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 didn't seek it), but, within that, all but one have done better the second time around: Ike did better in '56 than '52, Nixon did WAY better in '72 than '68, Reagan did better in '84 than '80, Clinton did better in '96 than '92, and GWB did better in '04 than '00. In fact the only exception is Obama who did worse in '12 than '08... but still won anyway.  I believe Human Nature factors into this as well: "Everybody Loves a Winner"; Trump has proven he CAN win, and those who didn't vote for the winner in '16 are more likely to be re-thinking their decision that those who did.

 

 

No disrespect but my eyes glazed over at all the wishy-washy constructs.

I pay attention to polls, not because they are perfect, but because it’s the best method to gauge opinions in most objective way.

If election were to be held today Trump would more than likely lose, that’s just what they show so that’s what I’m going with, not someone’s half-baked macro psychoanalytics.

Much will change from here and Trump just may win, BUT THAT WAS NOT EVEN WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

Spec was not merely claiming that Trump will win, but that he will win every state except NY and CA - which is a blatantly nutty forecast as I’m sure you’ll agree. When I pressed him on it he started talking about some supposed internal polling that is looking good for Trump...except as Carson is saying, it doesn’t look good at all.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
31 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

No disrespect but my eyes glazed over at all the wishy-washy constructs.

I pay attention polling, not because it’s perfect, but because it’s the best method to gauge opinions.

If election were to be held today Trump would more than likely lose, that’s what just they show and that’s what I’m going with, not someone’s wholesale psychoanalytics.

Much will change from here and Trump just may win, BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

Spec was not merely claiming that Trump will win, but that he will win every state except NY and CA - which is a blatantly nutty forecast as I’m sure you’ll agree.

A construct, YES, but not wishy-washy. Based on looking at EVERY election in the modern (Post-WWII) era.

Polling may be the best way to gauge "opinion". Yeah, okay. But the best way to gauge what someone WILL do is to examine what they HAVE DONE in the past under similar circumstances. This holds true for, on the whole,  not just individual persons but to collective peoples as well, such as voters (YES, of course, there are exceptions, we're humans not automatons)

I would liken it to the way US automakers GOT IT ALL WRONG in the '70s. These guys were 'experts' at "Market Research", second to none. Heck, these guys had it all down to a 'science' right down to knowing within 1/8" the preferred diameter of a knob on a car radio. (GM-Delco was second to none on this). 

Where they failed was in not knowing the difference between people SAYING what they wanted, and what they were willing to DO when push came to shove. I mean, sure, people SAID they wanted a Chrysler New Yorker; They ended up buying VW Rabbits.

Same-Same in the political world today. There is nothing new under the sun (I think I read that in the Good Book somewhere)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...