

08 August 2016




Excellent summary, particularly on Obama/Immanuel destroying the successful organization that Howard Dean had built.


Normally I would agree however it is clear everything, including the kitchen sink, is being thrown at Trump, from multiple candidates to split the vote to censoring by twitter, so why not manipulated polls? There is clearly something wrong with polls that clearly overstate Democrats and when a highly reputable pollster like the LA Times/USC Dornsife has Clinton one point ahead, or others that show the battleground states tied, and some have her thirteen ahead. Well outside an acceptable margin of error.


First, don't pay attention to polls until after Labor Day.
Second, don't pay attention to individual polls, look at polling aggregates.
Third, any time someone talks about "unskewing" polls remember that they failed horribly four years ago.


New poll today shows Clinton has a 13% lead. Have at it:


The Borg is sure throwing everything they got at Trump in the hope something sticks. My good friend who lives in Nevada (a battleground state) has told me that ads attacking Trump are running on all channels and especially on Spanish language channels including radio. They're already at saturation levels. But it is only increasing the resolve of Trump voters to make sure they vote.

I think polls can be valuable if one discards the outliers and build a moving average weighting higher the more recent ones. That should provide a sense of the trends. A big problem with the polls this year are their focus on historical data to construct their models. Those models don't work as well in years when there are changes to underlying social trends. And the big one is the anti-establishment mood right now all across the world.

After Labor day when the campaigns get going in earnest the classic question of "are you better off now compared to 8 years ago?", can't be answered in the affirmative for 90% of the voters and in particular voters in flyover country. If Trump does what Carville did for Slick Willy and emphasize "its the economy, stupid" and then hammers home the Borg Queen's judgment on foreign affairs he could get much more competitive than where he seems today. There's a lot of time left in this election and it will be interesting to see what the situation is at the end of September.


Then the plotter technician is naive. See http://blackboxvoting.org, THEE go-to site.

Bev Harris, the head of blackboxvoting.org, has educated Congress, Election boards, and does not report anything that cannot be proved with her massive data collection. Over ten years ago, she and her volunteers dumpster-dived Diebold’s garbage to retrieve thousands upon thousands of line of code that made up the election machines.

If you’re going to trust anyone’s judgment, trust hers.


Nate Silver’s forecasts are IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY. If you notice the graph on his site, the big change came in the last two weeks. That could change, could reverse, or get worse. Who knows?


Actually, it was VP candidate, Tim Kaine, Hillary's running mate, who was put in charge of the operation, Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" (contesting even in states that were deemed "too red" to have a chance). Ol' Tim promptly took it around behind the barn and put one between its eyes.

The Democrat party (and the Republican party, for that matter) are highly ambivalent about voter recruitment. Best not to give the dirty, unwashed masses any hope that their voices may be heard and responded to. This would only potentially disrupt the progress [sic] toward that globalist, corporatist, neo-liberal utopia that both parties' elites want to see come into full efflorescence. Populist outbursts such as those occasioned by the candidacies of Sanders and Trump are to eschewed, or destroyed by any means necessary. Hence the closing of the ranks of the .01%, the NeoCons, and the NeoLiberals in opposition to Trump, as he in some ways embodies the abominated populist sentiments.

BabelFish, you were perhaps thinking of Obama for America, an organization that was quickly euthanized when its intended purpose of fooling Obama voters into believing that their progressive views might be listened to after the election had run its course. The last thing that Obama, or especially Rahm, wanted to see was the perpetuation of a forum for "f'ing retards" being encouraged.

Then, when OWS arose and seemed to be gaining some traction, Obama coordinated with federal, state, and local authorities to shut it down.

Hmm, do I detect a pattern here?



That was done long before Bernie figured out the system is "rigged". We experienced that in Michigan in the 2008 race when the state was essentially sidelined by party operatives:


My fellow democratic party members in this state conveniently forget this fact.

Dr. K

Molehill is certfiable. Not just tin foil hat crazy.



Romney believed all his polling too.

different clue


Many of the sort of Clinton supporters who show up on blogs speak real contempt and resentment towards the Sandervoters. The Clinton voters appear to be sore winners at the very least. Their behavior towards Sanders people deepens and renews and refreshens the ever-flowing springs of ill will flowing right back from the Sanders people.

The Clinton people make very clear their feelings that we OWE Clinton our votes because First Woman President EVER and redeeming the insults of 2008. They also make very clear their feelings that they don't NEED our Sexist Bernie-Bro White Privilege College-boy Liberal votes anyway. How this will affect the final voting decisions of Sandervoters on Election Day is unknowable to me. I only know myself that I will not vote for Clinton. I don't know what I WILL do.

Dr. K

Half those people at rallies won't vote anyway.

different clue

Mark Gaughan,

I don't believe that. If a vote is not cast on a Legal Paper Ballot, that vote can be faked, flipped, reversed, erased any which way. Digital fraudmasters can change, delete, erase, discount votes anywhere in the process from touchscreen casting to digital tabulation and announcement.

Digital MEANS fraud. The fraud goes in before the name goes on. Can any True Hackmaster here tell me I'm wrong?

different clue


If this is true, the question arises as to how physically body-fit and stamina-healthy Trump is. If he is fit and strong and could campaign and campaign and campaign, perhaps he and his planners could schedule the kind of campaign appearances which place the heaviest possible physical burden on Clinton as she tries to keep up. Having his own private plane and being accustomed to traveling in it could give him an advantage in doing that. Early morning appearance in NYC, then very early morning appearance in Ell Ayy or San Frisco, then mid-day appearance in Texas, then evening appearance in Minnesota where the days are still longer, and back to California again. Doing phyically long-term-sustainable versions of that would pressure Clinton to either keep up and die trying, or not even try. Either would look bad for Clinton.

Did I think that up all by myself? Not really. I remember hearing at a talk somewhere about the Brezhnev-to-Andropov succession that Andropov knew how sick and weak Brezhnev was. So Andropov started doing the Communist Inner Party version campaign appearances all over the USSR to force Brezhnev to wear himself out trying to keep up and die sooner. The lecture-giver said it may have kind of worked. We will never know if
Andropov literally ran Brezhnev to an earlier-than-otherwise death, but Andropov was certainly trying to do that. In the same way, Trump could get Clinton running running running in the hamster wheel . . . and see what happens.

Eric Newhill

bks - I have determined that you are not a serious person; rather, a childish agitator.

I will try one more time. Polls can say anything based on methodology. If you had taken the time to read the link that you posted you would have seen that it suffers from EXACTLY the methodological issues that I have already explained (and that Tyler did elsewhere on this thread).

The Monmouth poll states that it small sample of 803 registered voters consisted of 26% Rep, 39% Ind and 35% Dem - that is not a representative sample and it gave Clinton an automatic artificial advantage of 8% or so simply by inflating the proportion of D to R by 9% when it should have only been 1%. Furthermore, the 39% independent is highly questionable.

If you want to extrapolate a Clinton win from a skewed sample of 803, have fun and enjoy. But don't be surprised in Nov


Here is a new signed "poll" Former Republican serving Intell officials:

Hood Canal Gardner

In any case the hope is that the notion and process of democracy embodied in the Constitution/preparation of will survive the voters 100 days from now and what passes for the Dem/Rep political parties entering the 21st century.

Related is the honest question of trust within the US government. Ie, what is the reason she and apparently other SecSTATE's communicate via "private" servers rather than use fully functional in place White House servers?

My question is what was she or those that either advised her or directed her attempting to 'avoid'? Eg, internecine (DOS/DOD) or other smoke-stacking games? If internecine, what are we looking at vis-a-vis eg, civilian vs military/MIC?

That virtually all electronic communication (civilian/gov/military) is vulnerable if not in minutes then in days or weeks — from within the government and outside domestically/internationally — is surely a KNOWN. So pray-tell what silliness/gross incompetence/cataclysmic whatever is the server drama cover for?


Well said. The people who run the polling organizations think about potential and real problems with the polls for a living. Every criticism that I read above had already been discussed, ad nauseam, when I worked in survey research at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980's. While I'm sure there are frauds and mistakes, there are also a lot of people doing serious political science who are trying to get it right. Trump has has a bad fortnight, but there are 6 more fortnights before the election.


I will admit to being totally sick of this election cycle like some here. I am 67 and first voted in a presidential election in 1972 when I was first eligible. I have voted in every election since then. I found this piece very apt, since I too can recall the Eisenhower campaign in 1956, although I was only seven. See Col. and Prof. Andrew Bacevich on this election and the last 60 years: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176172/

Paul Escobar

To all,

There is much about Donald Trump that reminds one of Justin Trudeau (Canada's current Prime Minister in 2016).

Take a look at this chart depicting "the evolution of voting intention" during our 2015 Canadian elections:

Trudeau is represented in RED.

August 2015...he trails the leading New Democratic Party by around 6 or 7 points.

The "analysts" agree. Trudeau suffers because he does not follow standard operating procedure. He insisted on skipping parliament (and hence, television). Rather, he spends his time "on the ground" meeting various groups & rallying the faceless plebs.

What television coverage he does receive is mockery for his gaffes. He praises the efficient Chinese system of government, visits mosques & embraces unattractive bearded men, has campaign events touting his physical attractiveness to women, etc.

September 2015...he narrows the gap to 1 or 2 points.

The televised debates are occurring. This, and not summer, is when people really start paying attention.

October 2015...he starts to pull ahead by around 5 points, ending with an almost 10 point victory over his nearest rival.

My suspicions were correct (I posted here long ago on this matter, won't rehash). My early warnings to the NDP & Conservatives were not heeded. Trudeau was always a national phenomenon. The polls & models have trouble capturing such men in the early days. The quality of early respondents & context of blanket media hostility conspire to blind many "analysts".

August 2016...the SST commentator 'Freudenschade' points out that Donald Trump trails by around 7 points in the RCP.

The "analysts" agree...


Paul Escobar

To all,

The correct link to the voter intention polling cited above: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015#/media/File%3AOpinion_Polling_during_the_2015_Canadian_Federal_Election.svg


I read this the other day and passed on to several acquaintances. Bacevich is one of the best commentators out there. Earlier this yr I viewed him on Charlie Rose--he had to go up against 2 neocons on the panel of 3. Thus unfortunate, Rose gave him little opportunity to discus the topic at hand.


I am not sure if any polls can be believed, in terms of their overall totals. Just a week ago, LA Times/USC and McClatchy/Marist had national polls conducted over identical periods. One had Clinton leading by 15%, the other by 1%. The goings on under the hood, so to speak that are captured in these polls are fairly consistent: Clinton does well with certain demographics, Trump with another, and some people are jumping all over the place. This leads me to believe that what looks to be the noise is the real data, not the averages: there are many people who really are unsure about how to vote that happen to be casting about somewhat unpredictably (ironically, this group appears to be mostly college educated whites of above average wealth, especially women--who have been fairly predictably Republican even as of 2012.) I do think Trump is probably a bit behind, but the potential for weirdness is such that the chance of an "unexpected" outcome is quite high.


Correct. Romney believed all of the polling his people had done. He did not believe these polls and the ones done by people like Silver. How did it turn out? Who was correct?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad