Why Hillary Clinton Will Lose The 2016 Presidential Election

And your evidence for that claim is ... ? Yep, nonexistent.

Partisans seem to think that each election is brand new ground. It's not. These same pollsters can be judged on how they performed in past elections. Pollsters that want to be taken seriously in future elections have an incentive to do their best in this one.

Look into FiveThirtyEight's pollster ratings. He rates them based on methodology and past results, and also notes the extent and direction of their polling bias. And by "bias" I don't mean deliberate bias. I mean the sort of statistical bias that can happen for lots of reasons.

 

I think there's a reason why the NBC/WSJ poll and a few others are consistently the most favorable to Hillary, by wide margins; and I don't think it has to do with benign statistical variance.

Have you noticed that the 4 latest polls listed on RCP show the race tied (LAT/USC); Trump +1 & Clinton +2 (IBD/TIPP); Trump +3 (Rasmussen). Ok, lets say they're statistically biased by as much as 4 points towards Trump; which would put Trump down by a few points.

Meanwhile, NBC/WSJ has Clinton +10, CBS has Clinton +11, and Monmouth has Clinton +12. How much do you think they're biased? And why?

 

And yet you have nothing to support that claim. They may be biased, but you have put forth ZERO evidence of it, other than that they are showing results you don't like. Meanwhile, you are just fine with the EQUALLY outlier polls that show Trump doing much better than the average.

Maybe you should choose a method for analyzing polls that doesn't involve cherry-picking them by result.

The four latest polls in the four-way are:
Trump +1
Clinton +4
Clinton +7
Trump +3

But always going by the four latest polls is going to give you a very volatile average, because it is too easily swayed by outliers (each poll in such an average carries 25% weight). That's why you're better off averaging, say, all the polls released in the last week, or some other measure that gives you a robust number of polls while still being relatively fresh.

You keep asking me this question, and I keep answering it. Any poll that is more than 4 points out from the average is an outlier.

Are they biased? I don't know. I tend to doubt it, as the polling firms have decent records in previous cycles. I don't assume bias unless there is evidence of it.

Are they statistically biased? We won't know until the election, and can measure the polls against the actual results.

But that's the beauty of following the average: I DON'T CARE about overanalyzing each given poll and pollster. The average automatically devalues outliers, and opposite outliers automatically cancel each other out. The average shows me the collective opinion of all the polls in the average, which on balance should yield a good result.

It's like dollar-cost averaging when investing. Investing a steady amount over time guarantees that you will buy more shares when they're cheap, and fewer shares when they're expensive. And overall, you'll do pretty well, without the volatility and risk of trying to time the market.

So they're outliers, but that doesn't mean you ignore them. They should be included in the average, for reasons I've explained.

But you don't cherry-pick them, either, by preferring the outliers to the average.

 

I'm getting de ja vu. I heard that line four years ago.

 

More whining. Threads are deleted for breaking the rules. You should read up on them.

 

Or FOXNEWS. Clinton +7.

 

You forgot to give the democrats credit for picking just about the least liked and trusted democrat with national stature. The DNC culled the eggs before any of them hatched in Iowa and the party faithful and media starved those that did. Both party's get the credit.

 

LOL, I didn't forget. It was decided Hillary would be the Democrats nominee in a meeting between Obama, Bill and Hillary before the 2012 election. In fact Hillary had 30 super delegates endorse her/pledged prior to the year turning 2013. The Democratic primary was just for show, an event the media tried to make look like it was for real. Before Sanders even announced his intentions of seeking the Democratic nomination, Clinton was up over 300 super delegates and every Democratic leader was aboard.

The DNC and the Democratic state party leaders did all they could to ensure smooth sailing for Hillary. The bottom line her nomination was never in doubt.

Clinton is very unpopular outside Democratic circles, running close to a 60% unfavorable rating among independents. Independents that would have voted Republican if it were not for Trump being that Republican. A year ago, I thought it impossible for the Republicans to nominate someone more disliked than Hillary Clinton among Americans as a whole. Give the GOP credit, they managed the impossible,

 

The unreal title of this thread evokes a passage from L Frank Baum in which he depicts Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs, aka the Wizard of Oz:

​

/

He was the prince of humbugs. He was wonderful. He gave the people what they wanted—a show, an adventure.
The people didn’t care that it was all in their head, inside their imagination.​

 

I am a very conservative fellow, but that doesn't make me delusional. I was chagrinned to see Trump win the nomination - as usual, Republicans chose the one guy almost guaranteed to lose. He knows it, too... finally. "This election is rigged," was a concession speech. You don't say that if you think you can win. Personally, I think he'd make a lousy President - maybe he's had too many yes-men around him for too long approving of every ridiculous, cruel, rude or just plain stupid thing that comes out of his pie-hole. I don't know, but how else to explain someone who can't open his mouth without inserting his foot to the knee?

Johnson/Weld are the best choice we (conservatives) have - both two-term state governors with experience in the executive branch. Their platform should be "we aren't Hillary" and their promise "we aren't Donald." Asked any question, that should be their answers. That, and their experience is good enough for me.

 

I want badly for Trump to beat Hillary. That being said, I recognize that
he is likely behind.

In this election, everything is upside down and backwards.

Trump is the only candidate who has conservative values, but he's the worst republican?
Hillary is the most corrupt democrat ever to run for president, but is the most qualified?
WikiLeaks, the FBI, and James O'Keefe as well as scores of others, have exposed the corruption and deception of the Clinton's, but the media refuses to cover it.
Scores of women over decades have accused President Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, sexual assaults, sexual affairs, and even rape, but Donald Trump, who has been a famous celebrity for 30+ years and has never been accused of any sexual harassment or assaults in that entire time, and the media considers 9 women who come forward in the last 3 weeks with last minute baseless accusations is a story for the MSM.
Trump is brutally honest, which is disqualifying, and Hillary is notoriously dishonest, and is the favorite of the media elitists and the very democrats, who she lies to and disrespects!
It's an anti-establishment year, Trump is so anti-establishment, he is rejected by the establishment republicans, Hillary is the biggest insider, knows where the bodies are buried establishment candidate ever!

This is not as so many people say, "Trump's fault", because if his mouth, or his misogyny, this is just the plan of the establishment. Discrediting the GOP nominee, piling on, undermining and smearing his reputation and character, was the plan all along, REGARDLESS OF WHO THE NOMINEE WAS.

If Senator Graham had won the nomination, they would have smeared him as a closeted homosexual and brought forth a dozen men accusing him of raping and sodomizing them. That's the way they role.

 

Donald Trump was a pathetic choice by the GOP...mostly because they let the crazies take control of their party.

He more than likely will lose on November 8th...and he will not lose because of any establishment plans or conspiracies...he will lose because he is totally unfit for the job, and has nothing to disguise the fact that he is totally unfit for it. In fact, he seems to be going out of his way to establish with as much certainty as possible that he is unfit for the job.

 

That's your opinion. The truth is, Hillary Clinton is a pathetic choice by the Democrat Party. She is unlikable, stupid, paranoid, she has a bad temper, she is rude and obnoxious in private, and mean and nasty to law enforcement and to her Secret Service detail. She is a closet lesbian, she is dumb enough to hire Huma as her lover/advisor/Muslim Brotherhood plant/spy. She will lose because her experience is all bad experience, Cattle Futures, Whitewater, Travelgate, Hillarycare, FBI Files, Craig Livingstone, Russia, Libya/Benghazi, Syria, Iran, ISIS, Lying to congress, lying to the FBI, deleting 33,000 emails, destruction of evidence and on and on.

And, she is wrong on all the issues as well.

 

Why didn't Romney win then? He had experience, and the nicest, cleanest candidate maybe of all time. But surprisingly, before long, the libs and MSM had him killing grandmas, puppies, milking taxpayers, etc. Gimme a break. People are sick of this (*)(*)(*)(*), which is why Trump will win in a landslide

 

Perhaps Don is THE ONE?
When he becomes President we'll see the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy aimed at all our enemies-
"The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand" (Deuteronomy 28:49)

 

Yeah, he killed a woman using the most unusual of weapons, cancer, and he also wanted illegal aliens to deport themselves, and he had a "binder full of women"! Also, he had magic underwear and put his dog in a cage on top of the car. He also had a car elevator in his garage. And of course he was a racist who had a black grandchild which was the subject of liberal jokes.

 

Maybe TOO clean..
Heck his teeth were whiter than the White House, and he had the appearance of a shopwindow mannequin!
Plus he was a mormon, so that lost him the black vote..

 

I can just smell the desperation reeking off of these threads by Trump supporters who know, more than likely, Trump is going to loose. Why do I say this?

1. Normally states that are red, and a safe hold for Republicans, like Arizona, are running the possibility of turning colors this election. Texas, the Republican-equiv of California, isn't showing signs of being deep red, its only pinkish at this moment. Plus, you got Georgia in the running as well.

2. People like Michelle Obama are getting the bas out that the Clinton camp needs, increasing turnout.

Not all the tea in China would even come close to helping Trump to win the election. And whining about the MSM like you are here isn't going to change the verdict. If Trump wanted legit chances of winning the WH in 18 days, he would have run his campaign in the primary substance-wise the way he did in the third debate. Your candidate is screwed.

 

Trump win in a landslide? I'd like to know what planet your election is taking place on... so I can avoid it if I ever get that star-cruiser. As a conservative, surrounded by friends and family who are also conservative, not a single one of us wants either candidate. A candidate who fails to garner our votes - and certainly won't get any liberal voters - can't win. I won't vote for him even though it may well mean Hillary - who I dislike immensely - wins. Why? To send a message to Republicans: Get real. They don't seem to get the message.

And to those who claim the problem is the media, not Trump: I quit watching/listening long ago to the biased mainstream media, just like I quit listening to the delusional rantings of ultra-right-wingers who want to dictate conservative issues. My views regarding Trump are based on one thing, and one thing only: Trump, and his own mouth. No thanks, he's not my guy. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, by default, are.

 

What universe do you live in? Seriously. OF COURSE they planned to do that, just like the GOP would have done it to any Dem candidate. Dukakis was 'weak', Bill Clinton a draft dodging adulterer, Kerry was a 'traitor', Obama was 'foreign', Sanders would have been another 'traitor' and someone else would have been hit with something else. The Dems did the same to GOP candidates. As they say in 'the Wire', the game is the game.

Here's the thing that every GOP voter will have to live with - if the GOP had picked any one of the 6-8 most electable candidates it wouldn't matter. Hilary's negatives are such that Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Walker & probably Gilmore, Perry, Graham, Fiorina & maybe even Christie would be comfortable now. Even Cruz or Paul might be competitive. The election would be all about Hilary's negatives & her unenthusiastic base. Right now she would be the one looking panicked & desperate praying for a miracle and some GOP guy would have his transition team going through lists of names for appointments.

Instead the GOP base decided to throw a giant hissy fit at 'the establishment', so you ended up with one of the worst possible candidates in the field. Nice work.

 

Except Hillary is much, much worse than Donald Trump.

 

Nope, and that is the problem. Too close to call. Want badly to vote against both - and will.

 

She deleted 33,000 emails that were under a congressional subpoena. That
is felony destruction of evidence.

 

And he is just another greedy, super-rich man out for his own financial interests - and nothing else. He has said not one word that resonates with my conservative outlook. Think he's never broken any laws? What he would be like diplomatically is down-right frightening. Hillary, Donald - flip a coin. Again, no thanks. Johnson/Weld, with sixteen combined years experience in our executive branch of government look fantastic aside either.

 

If that is your opinion then it made the task of selecting a candidate to beat her all the more important. Who were first and second place for the GOP? Two of the people least likely to beat her. You have to wonder what sort of people would rather posture like angry teenagers than put up a candidate to beat someone they hate so much.

OK, rhetorical question. I encounter them on the net all the time. They are the sort of people who will never, under any circumstance, take responsibility for their own stupidity. Responsibility is something other people have to take, but never them. They will blame the media, pollsters, 'election rigging' and even the parts of the GOP who actually could have beaten Hilary, but never themselves.

The Republican Party, home of angry, low information voters. Enjoy the next 4-8 years.