How did the registered voter polling work out this GE cycle.....not great

I watched the aggregated polling several times a day on 538 for the month preceding the election. 11 days out HRC was ahead 5-7% in almost all demographics, excluding non college educated white males. Polls were close on college educated white males but she had an edge. Senate polls mirrored the presidential polls.

Then James Comey dumped his letter announcing a new inquiry into HRC's emails. Beginning four days after the letter the polls began to narrow until the weekend before the election there was 2% or less difference and the trend was downward for HRC. The senate polls continued to mirror the presidential polls. Given that she actually won the popular vote by 1.5% and climbing I'd say the polls were dead on.

It was voter suppression among the weak HRC supporters that threw the election, not gun control.

2 questions...can you show suppression(no agency has) and why was Hillary's support weak?

I know for a fact that she lost 1000's of votes here in Upstate NY because of her firearm views...same crew that will never vote for Cuomo again...doesn't matter in NY because of NYC..but if she lost votes here... she certainly lost in the rural parts of Pa., Ohio, Mi.. Wi, Fl......to say otherwise is foolish and ignoring facts..

This is your spot on DU so I'll say no more...except...she lost and I KNOW votes were turned by gun issues. Undeniable fact.
I appreciate the interaction...wrong as you are.

I said I appreciated our interaction here....as wrong as you are. I'm good.
I wouldn't banish people for differing viewpoints....which is the SOP on the counter side of this part of DU....
Just saying.
Edit:....you forgot to show suppression....can you?

Actual voting results trump (no pun intended) polls, in my opinion.

Sure, you can get more gun control schemes passed in deep blue states, but meanwhile we've got President Cheetoface McTribblehair to contend with for the next 4 years, and Clinton's demonstrable hostility to the 2nd Amendment sure didn't help her in the election, now did it?

Obviously those 2 million folks are living in the wrong states....... right?

That 2 million gap can be reflected, I think, in the CA totals alone, maybe even moreso.

That's one reason why I don't support the National Popular Vote initiative. If that were in place, candidates would only go to New York, Texas, California and Florida, and the rest of the country could go screw. You would end up with even more polarization than we have now. if you think the red-state folks are spitting mad now, just wait until NPV gets implemented. And also, wait for it to get dumped the moment that the NPV states (mostly Democratic) have to support a future Republican candidate who manages to get the national vote plurality sometime in the future.

I'd much rather have proportional allocation of electors, but that's a 50 state initiative and not likely to happen any time soon.

trump got a single vote in Maine.

The manner of the allocation is also important. The basic choices are:
A: States are divided into districts and the votes are portioned according to the number of districts each candidate wins.
B: Popular proportion where the percentage of popular vote (without regard to district) is rounded to a number of electors pledged to each candidate.
C: A form of either of those above where some (usually 1 or 2) electoral votes are pledged to the candidate who wins the state and the remaining electors are portioned between the candidates.

States make the decision on how votes of the electors are portioned.

That's funny right thar. :]

There are more than 10% that understand what the phrase "universal background checks" really means.

Than actual voting results.

Interesting viewpoint.

That's part of the logic being used by Jill Stein in her recount effort. Her comments to I believe Michigan (I could be wrong), is that vote integrity must be checked since election results (votes) did not match expected results (polls) - (or words to that effect).

Last edited Sun Dec 4, 2016, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Maine defeats universal infringements by over 4%, they pass by less than 1% in NV, and we are supposed to believe that 90% of the country supports the concept of asking the government permission to excercise a constitutionally protected right?

just doesn't fit YOUR needs so fuck it.

Find some tiny nit to pick and pretend it negates everything not suitable to YOUR outlook.

Well, screw that. Today I'm declaring victory and you can just post to your heart's content. Keep it up, makes you look really good.

Oh, and keep promoting that extension of the Republican party, the NRA you hold so dear. It'll catch up with you eventually.

points to a really dismal 2018 and 2020.

Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

wins elections. Haven't you heard?

during class. Teacher asks why he's disrupting class. Kid says it keeps tigers away. Teacher says,'But there aren't any tigers in Cleveland.' Kid says, 'See, it works.'

I think you greatly exaggerate the power of that tiny sliver of the 30% of gun owners who will reflexively vote against their own interest because the gun lobby told them to be afraid, very afraid.

How successful was the effort to sway the vast majority of gun owners to vote Democratic by calling them pre-murdererous racist cowards with small genitals?

For being such a tiny and impotent minority there sure are a lot of words spent bemoaning how they have Congress locked down in the other group...

We know the drill about who supports what is actually a culture war and why. What remains is how to neutralize and drop this issue from Party aims. That, I'm afraid, will require the uprooting of some very cozy Beltway Dems, Party leaders on the coasts, and the hot wiring which has made the gun-control outlook an important style within a number of identity and special interest groups. As I have remarked before (copping Freud's take on syphilis and medicine): "He who knows gun-control knows Democratic Party politics."