Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LoreD

Will This Be 4 Party Election?

Recommended Posts

Poll: Clinton Holds Four-Point National Lead Over Trump or Does She?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-holds-four-point-national-lead-over-trump-or-n586796

 

 

Now that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, she finds herself in a very close race with Donald Trump. In this week's NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll, Clinton holds a 4-point lead over Trump among registered voters, 48 percent to 44 percent.

 

Her lead grew 2 points from last week, perhaps as a result of her strong national security speech in San Diego on June 2.

 

One looming question, however, is whether third-party candidates like Gary Johnson will draw in non-trivial amounts of support in November, and if so, who will it hurt Clinton or Trump?

 

NBC News

 

The two-way horse race question noted above currently does not offer third-party candidate response options, as adding non-major party candidates is not entirely straightforward. Research has shown that third-party candidates often receive more support in public opinion polls than they actually receive at the ballot box, and the magnitude of this difference is partially dependent on how the question is asked.

 

In this week's Election Tracking Poll, in addition to asking the vote choice question with only Clinton and Trump as options, we also randomly tested two additional vote choice questions from June 2 through June 5 to better understand support for third party candidates.

 

In the first alternative, we asked about Clinton, Trump, Gary Johnson (the Libertarian) and Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate) as explicit options with their party affiliation. The results from this question among registered voters show Trump at 40 percent, Clinton at 39 percent, Johnson at 9 percent and Stein at 4 percent; 8 percent did not answer the question.

 

The other alternative vote choice question we asked gave the option of choosing Clinton, Trump or another candidate with an option to specify the candidate name in an open-ended format. In this version of the question, among registered voters, Trumps beats Clinton by 3 percentage points 39 percent to 36 percent with responses for "other" pulling in a very large 22 percent.

 

 

The clear result from the two different questions that offer third-party alternatives is that Clinton performs worse than Trump.

 

While it is too early to know how much support third-party candidates will receive, the early polling results suggest this may be a good year for non-major party candidates. The open question is whether the supporters of these candidates in public polls will vote at all. It seems likely that in some ways, voicing support for a third party candidate in a poll means that you are less likely to actually vote.

 

However, in our early test of a scenario where these third-party voters do in fact head to the polls in November, the results are far more damaging for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. This cuts against conventional wisdom, at least in the case of the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, where it would be reasonable to expect support would be taken away from the Republican side.

 

 

 

Blu, I don't know how that double posting of a thread happened. Please delete the second thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blu, I don't know how that double posting of a thread happened. Please delete the second thread.

 

No problem, Lore.

 

 

Poll: Clinton Holds Four-Point National Lead Over Trump or Does She?

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...rump-or-n586796

 

Good article about the probabilities of developing trends. As the article points out, it's still very early and much could change between now and November.

 

Although it's inconceivable to most of us, in this room, that Trump could maintain his appeal, and even increase it, with a majority of voters; polls like these show it's possible. The extent of the influence of Johnson and Stein is still unknown but, in this year of deep voter discontent with the status-quo, these third-party candidates could have an outsized effect.

 

Trump must not be our next president. Forget the past .... Never was there a popular presidential candidate, so unqualified and dangerous as Trump. This article gives me more confidence that my reluctant decision to vote for Hillary, is the right one. I supported Bernie and support him still, in his endorsement of Hillary ... And for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that Hillary doesn't poll better than that. If Hillary would push the policies that the Bernie supporters favor, she would be way ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that Hillary doesn't poll better than that. If Hillary would push the policies that the Bernie supporters favor, she would be way ahead.

 

She would be way ahead with people on the left. Not nearly as much among middle-of-the-road and conservative Democrats, and she needs those votes too. And not at all with the more left-leaning on the right, and she needs thos votes too.

 

Candidates play to the base in the primaries and to the center in the general election. They've always done that and for good reason: if you capture the center, you win the election. If you don't, you lose, period.

 

Imagine the normal curve, as below. If you only appeal to the part to the left of -0.5, you will lose the election. But you don't have to appeal to the left of -1.5 if you can capture the group from 0 to 0.5. In fact, from -1.5 to 0, that's only 43.3% of the vote. From -2 to 0 is only 47.7% of the vote. Anyone wanting to win an election, left or right, must grab a chunk of the other sides 19.1%.

 

How you do that is politics. The fact that you must do that is just math.

 

normal67.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

She would be way ahead with people on the left. Not nearly as much among middle-of-the-road and conservative Democrats, and she needs those votes too. And not at all with the more left-leaning on the right, and she needs thos votes too.

 

Candidates play to the base in the primaries and to the center in the general election. They've always done that and for good reason: if you capture the center, you win the election. If you don't, you lose, period.

 

Imagine the normal curve, as below. If you only appeal to the part to the left of -0.5, you will lose the election. But you don't have to appeal to the left of -1.5 if you can capture the group from 0 to 0.5. In fact, from -1.5 to 0, that's only 43.3% of the vote. From -2 to 0 is only 47.7% of the vote. Anyone wanting to win an election, left or right, must grab a chunk of the other sides 19.1%.

 

How you do that is politics. The fact that you must do that is just math.

 

normal67.gif

 

 

You are correct in general. The question is where is the midpoint of the distribution curve? One might say it's in the center between the democrats and the republicans, and I think Hillary goes for that spot; but I suggest it is much further left. The GOP has gone from far right to whacky right. The democrats have moved to the right to take up the middle; all the while the public has not moved that far to the right. I suggest Hillary should move to the left to pick up the middle.

 

So looking at the chart, the GOP is at the 2.5 to 3 location, and Hillary is moving from 1 to 2 to pick up those who don't like Trump. The thought being that those left of 2 to the right have no one else to vote for. I suggest that Hillary would pick up more votes, and energy for her campaign if she moved to 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking at the chart, the GOP is at the 2.5 to 3 location, and Hillary is moving from 1 to 2 to pick up those who don't like Trump. The thought being that those left of 2 to the right have no one else to vote for. I suggest that Hillary would pick up more votes, and energy for her campaign if she moved to 0.

The best measure of where we are, what the spread is, is the popular vote in the last federal presidential election. Our opinions don't count, only numerical facts count. (No pun intended.)

 

The popular vote was: 51.1% Democrat 47.2% Republican. So the line had shifted only a little bit: about 2% off center. She still needs some of the right's 19%.

 

But Trump will help, because he a yuge @$$h01e. He's even alienating the other @$$h01es. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best measure of where we are, what the spread is, is the popular vote in the last federal presidential election. Our opinions don't count, only numerical facts count. (No pun intended.)

 

The popular vote was: 51.1% Democrat 47.2% Republican. So the line had shifted only a little bit: about 2% off center. She still needs some of the right's 19%.

 

But Trump will help, because he a yuge @$$h01e. He's even alienating the other @$$h01es. :D

I see your point, as other polls are often misused. However, I have seen information pertaining to where people are according to the issues and they are left of Obama. For a couple of examples, most, when they are informed oppose TPP, yet Obama wants it for some reason. Most people are opposed to unregulated gun sales. I believe the public on the basis of the issues is significantly left of Hillary and she would have more votes if she embraced at least some of those issues.

 

I am trying to be a bit more specific than the last election because, the election only counts a portion of the population and in general I suspect the ballot count as produced by Chuck Hagel's companies. They are known to be fraudulent and have been demonstrated many times. The fact that the democrats don't oppose those machines is suspicious and possibly complicit.

 

You are correct in your statements pertaining to the statistics, but I think we disagree on where the American public is on the issues. I can understand Hillary's calculation for the election (forgetting the fraudulent election boxes) but I think she would garner more votes, and do much more good for the nation if she embraced policies that were not so pro-corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in your statements pertaining to the statistics, but I think we disagree on where the American public is on the issues. I can understand Hillary's calculation for the election (forgetting the fraudulent election boxes) but I think she would garner more votes, and do much more good for the nation if she embraced policies that were not so pro-corporation.

 

You're probably right about where the American public is on the issues, but I don't think they vote on that. I think they get a vague sense of the candidate's attributes and vote on that. For example, some people will be repelled by Trump's personality, and others will be all for it. They don't really care about wall / no wall, they just want to hear someone talking tough, even stupid tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...