Trump

[SB Shock]

When I see a NASA shuttle explode, I don't usually feel very adequate at explaining what went wrong, but I feel very comfortable saying there was a major flaw. RCP has been extremely accurate in past elections with Presidential polling, when viewed as an average. What did the LA Times do wrong? I don’t know, other than obviously their shuttle exploded and all they have left is a burning pile of garbage that needs discarded.

RCP is just bowl they throw all the polls together whether good or bad. The better site is 538 where they have an actual methodology.

[1972Shocker]

I do wonder how accurate the polling will prove to be this year. Will the pollster's models hold up in a year where the two major parties have nominated canididates that both have historically low approval ratings. While elections have oftened involved some lesser of two evil considerations the major premise of these year's presidential election is who is the lesser evil between two extremely flawed candidates neither of which may actaully be fit to serve as POTUS. Policy issues seem to have taken a backseat to the more entertaining but less enlightening mud wrestling aspects of personal attacks in an attmept to prove who is really a worse human being. From that that standpoint it seems to be a pretty compettitive race.

Also, 3rd party candidates have been more of a factor this year primarily brecause both major party candidates are so terrible. Utah, traditionally a ruby red state, is getting very interesting. A Rasmussen Poll published yesteday shows the Trump 30%, McMullin 29%m Clinton 28% and Johnson 5%, Stein 1%, Other 2% and undecided 4%. This a statistical 3-way tie. Rasmussen polls have typically been more favorable to Trump than most others this election cycle.

Reputable poll anaylyst Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) says his model probably underestimates McMullins chances in Utah because he was such a late arrival on the scene and only started to attact significant attention recently. He has the potential to benefit from a late feedback loop (the better he does, more voters consider him viable which causes his numbers to go up which causes more voters to consider him viable which causes his numbers to go up.....) not to mention that McMullin is a Morman and a BYU graduate and Morman's have a lot of issues with Trump. You can read more on that here if your interested.

Not sure Gary Johnson can win his home state of New Mexico or not. Probably not as he is only at around 15% which is well off his highwater mark of 18.5%. However, Arizona is another traditional red state that as of right now FiveThirtyEights polls-only show Hillary leading Trump 46.3% to 45.3% with Johnson pulling 7%. Not sure how Johnson's involvment is impacting that state.

In any case, if you live in a Dark Blue state like California or a Dark Red State like West Virginia (and Kansas) you have the luxury and freedom to vote for or write-in whoever you beleive is the best person. No, you impact the outcome but you may sleep better. I suppose you could also help the Libertarian Party 2020. I believe the Libertarians will automatically have access ballot in all 50 states plus qualify for Federal matching funds if Johnson exceeds 5% of the national vote.

But what if you were a resident of Utah or Arizona and your vote might actually have an impact on who gets those electoral college votes? Would you say I just can't vote for Hillary or Trump no matter what or would you try to make a lesser of two EVILS choice? And if you did make that choice who would you vote for?

For me that is a very difficult call. If you are in Utah you could cast your lot with McMullin. But that will harm Trump more because he was counting on Utah and Hillary was counting Utah as a loss. So if you think Trump is the lesser of the two EVILS you might not want to do that. However, if you thought that had a chance of throwing the election to the House or Representatives you might want to do that.

Arizona is more of a binary choice unless you think Hillary and Trump are both equally bad and it really doesn/t make a lot of difference either way. In that case, the down-ballot races become much more of a concern than who is President. In other words you would be in the Paul Ryan camp.

If I felt like I had to make a lesser of two EVILS pick (which as of right now I don't) I probably would have to wait right until the last minute to make that decision. As of now I go back and forth on that. I am just not sure I could really pull the lever for either of these two people even if I knew for a fact that my vote would decide the outcome in my state or for the election nationally.

This is a place we should never, ever find ourselves in as a country. But here we are. It surely does not reflect well on America. Not sure why the rest of the world would continue to look to us for leadership. Perhaps they don't or they won't.

Sorry for the long-winded bloviating. Just have been thinking a lot about this recently. Perhaps I should just quit thinking or worrying about it.

[SB Shock]

Look on the bright side - in a couple weeks we will get a 2 year break from all this.

[1972Shocker]

Look on the bright side - in a couple weeks we will get a 2 year break from all this.

Yeah, but anymore the campaigning seems like it is continuous and it pretty much is. Just about everything is politicized. So much so that our elected representatives simply can not get anything accomplished.

Is there an answer? I don't know. Maybe the Convention of States although not sure whether it will ever have anough support to get off the ground.

[1972Shocker]

Let me ask a question. I asked this recently of a friend whoi is a Trump supporter. I asked him if he had any concerns about Russia's seemingly strong desire to promote Trump for POTUS? Or at least I get the impression that is what Russia doing. He said no he has no concerns about that whatsoever. He seemed to imply that was a positive in Trump's favor. Has anyone given that any thought or is it of little consequence as my friend has suggested?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In any case, if you live in a Dark Blue state like California or a Dark Red State like West Virginia (and Kansas) you have the luxury and freedom to vote for or write-in whoever you beleive is the best person. No, you impact the outcome but you may sleep better. I suppose you could also help the Libertarian Party 2020.

I think the way more likely outcome of voting 3rd party is that you further encourage the Republican Party to come your way. When the base of any movement shows it is unwilling to be taken advantage of, the movement is usually forced to return back to its roots in order to restore its base.

Given the way 2016 has gone, I make no firm predictions that this will necessarily have to be how things play out, but it seems to me the most likely outcome of a mass exodus of Republican voters in Nov 2016, should that end up happening.

[1972Shocker]

I think the way more likely outcome of voting 3rd party is that you further encourage the Republican Party to come your way. When the base of any movement shows it is unwilling to be taken advantage of, the movement is usually forced to return back to its roots in order to restore its base.

Given the way 2016 has gone, I make no firm predictions that this will necessarily have to be how things play out, but it seems to me the most likely outcome of a mass exodus of Republican voters in Nov 2016, should that end up happening.

That's possible although the most recent things I have read is the a mass exodus is not happening although it has happened to some degree among Independents since the Access Hollywood tape came out. I think I heard that right now the national voter registration breakdown is 28% Democrat, 26% Republican with the majority of the remaining 46% Independents, Libertratians, etc. It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party puts itself back together after this election although there is some chance that it could splinter.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

RCP is just bowl they throw all the polls together whether good or bad. The better site is 538 where they have an actual methodology.

538 currently shows the exact same 7% spread that RCP shows, making the LA Times equally as much of an outlier.

I'm standing by my assertion that I need not waste my time studying polling dynamics of the LA Times, or anyone else individually, to quickly see the LA Times is a major outlier and to know I can discard it immediately. If you care to study it in more detail, have fun.

[1972Shocker]

Thought this was a good article in response to some threats the Arizona Republic received after they endorsed Hillary Clinton:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/

Not sure we will ever get back to a time of civil discourse though.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That's possible although the most recent things I have read is the a mass exodus is not happening although it has happened to some degree among Independents since the Access Hollywood tape came out. I think I heard that right now the national voter registration breakdown is 28% Democrat, 26% Republican with the majority of the remaining 46% Independents, Libertratians, etc. It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party puts itself back together after this election although there is some chance that it could splinter.

If there are 1 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 1 million and 1.
If there are 10 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 10 million and 1.
If....

All I can do is make my single vote say what I want it to say. The number of others doing the same doesn't affect my decision.

[jdshock]

538 currently shows the exact same 7% spread that RCP shows, making the LA Times equally as much of an outlier.

I'm standing by my assertion that I need not waste my time studying polling dynamics of the LA Times, or anyone else individually, to quickly see the LA Times is a major outlier and to know I can discard it immediately. If you care to study it in more detail, have fun.

I might be wrong, but I think 538's forecast with the 7% spread is the polls-only model, which would be identical (I think) to RCP. 538 has a polls-plus model, which adds in some of their own estimations. The polls-plus model is a little closer, but they're about the same.

And to add to your point, I listen to the 538 election podcast, and they rail on the LA Times poll consistently. And they do so for about the same reasons: "I don't know what causes it to be wrong, but it's wrong."

[ShockdaWorld]

If there are 1 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 1 million and 1.
If there are 10 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 10 million and 1.
If....

All I can do is make my single vote say what I want it to say. The number of others doing the same doesn't affect my decision.

I 100% agree with this statement. I know way too many people that are voting for Trump, because "any vote not for Donald is a vote for Hillary" as well as too many that are voting for Hillary, because "any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump." If "we the people" (I hate that term) would all vote for what we feel is right instead of just voting against what we feel is "the most wrong", there could eventually be a change. I know some who think voting for Trump is right and some that think voting for Hillary is right. That's fine. The part that's wrong is that there are too many sheep that have been convinced that the only way to vote is to follow the elephant or the jackass.

[jdshock]

If there are 1 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 1 million and 1.
If there are 10 million 3rd party votes, I will make it 10 million and 1.
If....

All I can do is make my single vote say what I want it to say. The number of others doing the same doesn't affect my decision.

I 100% agree with this statement. I know way too many people that are voting for Trump, because "any vote not for Donald is a vote for Hillary" as well as too many that are voting for Hillary, because "any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump." If "we the people" (I hate that term) would all vote for what we feel is right instead of just voting against what we feel is "the most wrong", there could eventually be a change. I know some who think voting for Trump is right and some that think voting for Hillary is right. That's fine. The part that's wrong is that there are too many sheep that have been convinced that the only way to vote is to follow the elephant or the jackass.

Just as an interesting hypothetical, how good must the alternative be to vote against a bad candidate? Should you always vote for the candidate that is the best, or is there a scenario where you vote for a major party candidate because they are good enough and the other option is bad enough?

[Eric]

It'd be nice if on the presidential section of the ballot there was a box that said "no"

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I might be wrong, but I think 538's forecast with the 7% spread is the polls-only model, which would be identical (I think) to RCP. 538 has a polls-plus model, which adds in some of their own estimations. The polls-plus model is a little closer, but they're about the same.

And to add to your point, I listen to the 538 election podcast, and they rail on the LA Times poll consistently. And they do so for about the same reasons: "I don't know what causes it to be wrong, but it's wrong."

You are correct. The "polls-plus" feature shows Clinton +5.6%. Not quite 7%, but still very large to be giving a Trump +2 much credence.