CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Washington Capitals
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8487
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:22 am
 


martin14 wrote:
xerxes wrote:
Meanwhile, in Republican cheating:


I see, computers have already been programmed with the evil Republican subroutine.

Excellent. :lol:

Image
__________________


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7360
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:20 am
 


The U.S. congressional race that could signal a national shift

Quote:
McGrath is a star candidate for the Democrats: a U.S. marine fighter pilot who flew 89 combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq before retiring with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. But this is a new mission. She is trying to win in a district that Donald Trump took by 16 percentage points two years ago, in a state where all but two of the 120 counties voted Republican red.


Image


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60115
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:22 am
 


We'll see.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7360
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:06 pm
 






Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33030
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:54 am
 


Missouri going (R)ed.

Having a 'public' and 'private' policy, ala Hitlery, strikes again.







Robair wrote:
[video]



You are simply deluded if you think coal country will vote

"We will destroy your jobs" - Hldebeast and the Democrats

If they have been doing any better at all, thank Trump for that.


Last edited by martin14 on Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4565
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:56 am
 


martin14 wrote:
Missouri going (R)ed.

Having a 'public' and 'private' policy, ala Hitlery, strikes again.




He has a Fallout 4 minuteman flag. Cool.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60115
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:39 am
 


The November election is starting to look like a series of net losses for the Democrats.

Various media (left and right) say there's no chance for them to gain in the Senate and just the sense of the polls so far concedes that the Dems should expect to lose three to five Senate seats.

In the House the Dems were originally confident of a 'blue wave' but now it's also looking like they're either going to hold on to what they have or else lose seats. No one is seriously projecting gains for the Donks in the House.

Across the country at the state level the Democrats have lost some 1200 elected seats since 2008 and no one...no one...is expecting that trend to end. As many as sixteen states are currently competitive and the expectation is that at least half will swing to the Republicans regardless of what happens in Congress.

Most all of the pollsters comments are linking the behavior of the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearings to the down-ballot effect.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60115
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 am
 


Here's a pretty damned good analysis of current ACTUAL trends (not polls):

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1052 ... 95488.html

Quote:
1) Just so you all understand what I do, for the one-millionth time, I don't do polls.

Yes, from time to time I will post one for those of you who do. But we're WAY past polls now because we have actual NUMBERS.

2) A poll is a sample of opinions that cost nothing to give.

3) For example, before a horse race you can poll everyone---including jockeys (who may or may not know something), owners, bettors, whomever. But it's just an opinion.

Moreover, you have to know that in a political poll you have the correct sample (most absolutely do not).

4) The sample anymore is almost impossible to get, and certainly you cannot get it by phone only and you cannot get it by "self-reporting." So far, only @PPDNews and Trafalgar have a track record of really getting "likely" voters in the proper sample sizes.

5) I don't do polls.

6) I examine ballot REQUESTS and ballot RETURNS BY PARTY. (In 2016, party ID was the single best predictor of a vote according to Pew---very, very few party switchers, but those that were, by 2:1, went from Dem to Republican.

7) But then you need to compare the current numbers to something. The rule of thumb is you never compare a mid-term with a presidential election because the turnout for the latter is supposed to be so much higher.

Guess what I did?

I compared it anyway, just out of intuition.

8) So, in four sample states where we are already seeing large #s of ballot requests---AZ, FL, OH, and IA---and which have very different voting patterns, I have found that so far (and anything can change---but usually the patterns hold) the Republicans are exceeding their #s

8) contd . . . from 2016, a Presidential Election. This is not supposed to happen.

9) Moreover, with the help of Freepers "Ravi" and "SpeedyInTexas" and "Ohio Wan" and "The Accountant" and others, I have found that DemoKKKrats are falling behind their 2016 performance

10) One would not be surprised that Ds are lagging behind 2016, a presidential election year. But it IS surprising that Rs are not only running ahead of 2014 (a midterm) but also 2016.

11) Just in case there was some weird state-wide tilt to these numbers, we also . . . .

11) contd . . . looked at four key FL counties, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Lee, and Broward, and in all four counties (!!) even the blue ones, Ds are underperforming 2016 and Rs are overperforming.

12) Same is true in IA absentees. Ds always lead in total absentees in IA.

12) contd. But again, they are behind the 2016 election---and in 2016 Ds had fallen behind their 2012 #s in IA! But Rs are up from 2016.

13) So we looked at a key IA district that no one is watching, IA2 that everyone just assumed the D incumbent will win. And lo and behold . .

13) contd. . .Same pattern. Rs are up 7% in this district, D is down 2.6%. This is over 5,000 votes shifted already (plus Is are way down, indicating people are "picking sides").

In a district where the D won by 28,000, and where Ds ALWAYS lead in absentees, to be already down

13) contd . . . 5,000 votes before absentee voting is even over, and before the big guns that Rs bring on election day, well, if I was that D I'd be worried.

14) We did something different in Montgomery Co., OH--a key bellwether county. In 2016 "The Accountant" figured out

14) contd . . . how to allocate the "indies" by looking at a 20 year voting history of their addresses. It proved uncanny in its accuracy. We correctly projected Trump to win a county no R had won in 20 years.

15) That same county's absentees are coming in, we can count them .

16) And those absentees, so far, are showing EXACTLY the same pattern as 2016 with, once again, the Rs performing a little better this time around.

17) There are similar #s coming in for absentees in AZ, where the Republicans are out to a 7% lead, despite having only . . .

17) contd. . . a registration advantage of about 140,000. Once again, a pattern. Rs overperforming, Ds underperforming.

18) Then finally you have to take into account voter registration and voter registration trends, where in 8/10 battleground states since 2016 Rs have made
net gains. They don't always lead in registration (as in FL, for example, where they trail) but trends are important. They tell you which way the #s are going.

19) In OH, after doing the "indie" voter math, the Rs have a solid registration lead of 300,000 after all but 2k indies

19) contd . . . are accounted for.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS SHOWS UP WITH "POLLSTERS?" It won't. None of them did this work.

20) So, before you send me "What about this guy?" or "What about this poll?" I don't know and I don't care. Unless someone is getting different math than me on absentee request #S and absentee return #s it's irrelevant.

21) They are asking people in the stands asking their opinion of who will win.

I'm at each turn, giving you photographic evidence of where the horses are.

Now, that STILL doesn't mean I'm always right. Horses fall. Some horses really come on at the end.

But . . .

22) here is another reality the "pollsters" and pundits either miss or flat out ignore:

LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY VOTED. We just haven't counted them yet, but we can know if they were Ds or Rs!!

23) In FL for example some 400,000 absentee ballots went out. So all the campaigning from here on out, and anything that happens that might change a vote . . .

WON'T CHANGE THOSE VOTES.

24) And what do you think is the single biggest issue motivating people in the last 3 weeks?

24) If you said Justice Kavanaugh, you'd be right. Not jobs, not health care, not immigration. That event was the most "motivating" voter event of the last 10 years.

25) So let me now ask you this: if 5,000 more Iowans in a single district requested absentee ballots at this time

25) contd and they were all Republicans, what do you think they'd be voting on?

26) And let me put it this way: if 50,000 (or whatever the number) of FL ballots have already been RETURNED, what was the biggest issue when those people were in the middle of voting?

27) And since we know that the Republicans have about a 7% lead in those RETURNED ballots, would it not be safe to assume that they were all voting on issues rated to Justice K? I think so.

28) Those are touchdowns already scored. Can't take them off the board.

29) So now in all these areas I've mentioned, the Ds have LESS TIME and a much smaller voter pool from which to now recover that 7% lead, or those 5,000 IA votes.

See how this works?

30) Finally, my assumption--could be wrong---is that a river carries all boats the same way.

31) I have asked a historical genius on this kind of data, "Can you think of ANY time in American electoral history where one party gained four to six senate seats and lost the House." None.

32) Therefore, when I see data---not polls, but ballots---ALL going the same way

32) contd . . . they I don't care what polls or "experts" say. The voters are

SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

And this was exactly how I knew Trump would win very early in the 2016 election.
The VOTES were talking.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.