Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This discussion started in the Education Factor thread but I think it's best to separate the discussions. Someone in that thread said Clinton lost because of concern over the economy. I said I don't think so.

Now I've looked at exit polling and I think it supports my point of view. You can view the exit polling at http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls.

The biggest thing, to me, is that Clinton won by 10 percentage points, 52% to 42%, among people who considered the economy to be the most important issue facing the country. The vote among the 52% of the people who considered the economy to be the most important issue resulted in a net +5.2 percentage points for Clinton in the overall vote.

There are some other spots where "economy" appears as an issue but none indicate a big advantage for Trump. One involved the question of who voters thought would better handle the economy. Trump has a slight edge. But the net edge for him in the overall vote there is only 1.9 percentage points. Then there's the question of condition of the economy. More people do believe it's poor than good. But if you look at the net edge it goes to Clinton by 2.2 percentage points.

And, again, the big thing is that the people who viewed the economy as the most important issue favored Clinton by 10 percentage points.

She did not lose to Trump because of economic issues.

JohnStOnge wrote:Now I've looked at exit polling and I think it supports my point of view.

Right there is when we know not to read any farther. You've been consistently wrong for 2016. You're just whiffing on pretty much everything. And exit polling was almost as bad as your pontifications have been. It's comical to watch you squirm like this.

JohnStOnge wrote:She did not lose to Trump because of economic issues.

The debate in May between myself and Trip was that the economy was more important than social issues, and I was proven right.

Again.

I've been right so much this year that I feel like I'm gloating anymore. Please don't take it that way. I'm just naturally really really smart I guess.

2012


2016


Note the differences. Tell me again how most of those states don't have some of the most economically influenced voters.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and tourist-sensitive Florida.

^
Nailed it.

JohnStOnge wrote:This discussion started in the Education Factor thread but I think it's best to separate the discussions. Someone in that thread said Clinton lost because of concern over the economy. I said I don't think so.

Now I've looked at exit polling and I think it supports my point of view. You can view the exit polling at http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls.

The biggest thing, to me, is that Clinton won by 10 percentage points, 52% to 42%, among people who considered the economy to be the most important issue facing the country. The vote among the 52% of the people who considered the economy to be the most important issue resulted in a net +5.2 percentage points for Clinton in the overall vote.

There are some other spots where "economy" appears as an issue but none indicate a big advantage for Trump. One involved the question of who voters thought would better handle the economy. Trump has a slight edge. But the net edge for him in the overall vote there is only 1.9 percentage points. Then there's the question of condition of the economy. More people do believe it's poor than good. But if you look at the net edge it goes to Clinton by 2.2 percentage points.

And, again, the big thing is that the people who viewed the economy as the most important issue favored Clinton by 10 percentage points.

She did not lose to Trump because of economic issues.

Here's the question: Why did Trump win states that had not gone Republican since Reagan? In particular Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? Why did he also win Ohio by such a comfortable margin?

Just a look at the marginal percentage of economy voters does not show that economic anxiety did not play a role.

What a fool


Believes that people vote for integrity over their own livelihoods


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JSO is making the mistake, what else is new, of looking at NATIONAL level poll data. Which considering that the election process has nothing to do at a "national level" makes it a pretty pointless academic exercise. I wonder how many of that 52% live in California, New York, and other liberal bastions who feel like Clinton was "better" because they didn't see the economy as a problem that wasn't being improved under Obama...with the whole unemployment rate, Obamacare and other crap data that supports that belief. Hillary wasn't going to change a single thing, hence "Obama's third term".

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

-

Lots of CNN Sucks videos Trump and Bernie supporters agree

Lie like Hilaryl and BHO

I thought JSO would wise up after the mandate election and shut his stupid mouth about hilldog....boy was I wrong. At least the entertainment continues.

SDHornet wrote:I thought JSO would wise up after the mandate election and shut his stupid mouth about hilldog....boy was I wrong. At least the entertainment continues.

It's the classic Forest-Trees thing.

It's the coont, stupid.

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Now I've looked at exit polling and I think it supports my point of view.

Right there is when we know not to read any farther. You've been consistently wrong for 2016. You're just whiffing on pretty much everything. And exit polling was almost as bad as your pontifications have been. It's comical to watch you squirm like this.

JohnStOnge wrote:She did not lose to Trump because of economic issues.

The debate in May between myself and Trip was that the economy was more important than social issues, and I was proven right.

Again.

I've been right so much this year that I feel like I'm gloating anymore. Please don't take it that way. I'm just naturally really really smart I guess.

When I said I hadn't looked at exit polling I was saying I hadn't looked at exit polling to assess the specific question of whether or not the economy as an issue worked in Trump's favor. My impression was that it did not. So I looked at exit polling and confirmed my impression.

It's not just that Clinton had the edge among voters who thought the economy nationally. She had the edge in the key States of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Here's how it went:



It's clear that Trump did not win because of the economy as an issue.

BTW as I went through the exit polling I noted issues that did seem to help Trump a lot. Only 13% thought immigration was the most important issue but among those Trump won by 64% to 32%. The 32 percentage point margin translates into a 32% x 13% = 4% net plus in terms of the overall percentage of voters and that's significant in a national election. Another thing was just what I think is the irrational impulse for "change." 39% of voters thought the most important quality in a candidate was "can bring change" and Trump won among those voters by 83% to 14%. The 69 percentage point margin there translates into a 69% x 39% = 27% net plus in terms of the overall percentage. That's a very large effect.

To me those two look like the two biggest things. Immigration and an irrational desire for undefined change. But you can look at the exit polling results yourself and maybe pick out other things.

Here's one that really makes me shake my head: In answer to the question, "is Trump qualified to serve as president?" 60% answered "no" while 38% answered "yes." What that means is that a pretty substantial proportion of people who voted for Trump had to think he's not qualified for the job.

It's not like it's an important job or anything. Not like we should care if the person we "hire" for it is qualified.

Clinton still lost right, right?

Checking...

Yep! The cunt lost.

Now we can Make America Great Again™.

Unless the economy is roaring along it is always the economy

Here's a story that unequivocally states that the economy was the most important issue to Trump voters here on Delmarva. I suspect it was pretty much the same for Trump areas everywhere:

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/new ... /93955072/

Exit polls

The exit polls were indicating about 5:30 on election day that Hilldog had won.

And an interesting exit poll story -

A co-worker of my wife says she got a telephone call early afternoon of election day claiming that they were doing an exit poll. They asked if she had voted. She said she had. They asked who she voted for and she said "Trump". The caller then said something about putting her down for 3rd party. She said, "no Trump." The caller then said, "ok I'll put you town for Johnson" and hung up.

Who know if this was a legit call but it makes you wonder if somebody was trying to skew exit poll results....


One more thing

CAA Flagship wrote:2012


2016


Note the differences. Tell me again how most of those states don't have some of the most economically influenced voters.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and tourist-sensitive Florida.

The problem is that there is a direct assessment, the exit polling, that contradicts your interpretation of that. That happens.

For example:

During just about any Presidential election including this one, States with higher median and/or average incomes vote Democratic. If one were to take the approach you took by looking at those maps, one would say that higher income voters tend to vote Democrat. But if you look directly at how voters voted using the exit polling data, they clearly show that higher income voters tend to vote Republican.

I noted in a previous post that Clinton beat Trump among voters who consider the economy to be the most important issue in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. I should clarify that there is always uncertainty but, being conservative, I'd say there is 99.9% confidence that she won Wisconsin, 97% confidence that she won in Pennsylvania, and 94% confidence that she won Florida. For some reason

I didn't include Iowa or Michigan in my previous post. But the exit polling estimates for how people who thought the economy was the most important issue voted are a tie in Iowa at 46% each and and estimated 9 percentage point margin in Michigan at Clinton 51%, Trump 43%. That Michigan margin along with the sample size translates into >99.9% confidence that Clinton won among such voters in that State.

So basically you've got one State , Iowa, where it doesn't look like either had the advantage among voters looking at the economy as the most important issue, sufficient evidence by convention (i.e., >95% confidence to conclude that she won among such voters in four of the States (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan), and one case where you wouldn't make the "sufficient evidence" call but it's very close at 94% confidence to being able to make that call in favor of Clinton.

Plus I did it with a short cut that has resulted in "understating" the confidence level in a situation like this every time I've done it and it's almost certain that if I went through the process to specifically estimate the Florida confidence level would be >95%.

HI54UNI wrote:The exit polls were indicating about 5:30 on election day that Hilldog had won.

And an interesting exit poll story -

A co-worker of my wife says she got a telephone call early afternoon of election day claiming that they were doing an exit poll. They asked if she had voted. She said she had. They asked who she voted for and she said "Trump". The caller then said something about putting her down for 3rd party. She said, "no Trump." The caller then said, "ok I'll put you town for Johnson" and hung up.

Who know if this was a legit call but it makes you wonder if somebody was trying to skew exit poll results....


One more thing

I like the turn this thread has made about exit poles.

The other side of the coin is what DID appear to make the difference for Trump in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida.

Well, one obvious thing involves voters who said the most important quality in a candidate is "can bring change." Trump won among those voters by 87% to 10% in Iowa (43% of voters), 84% to 12% in Wisconsin (44%), 83% to 15% in Pennsylvania (46%), 84% to 10% in Ohio (46%), 83% to 14% in Michigan (39%), and 85% to 13% in Florida (40%).

Those are huge margins among large proportions of voters. The smallest net edge in the overall vote there involves Michigan where the numbers indicate a 69% x 39% = 27% net benefit in the overall vote for Trump.

Another one involves voters who said they think illegal immigrants in the United States should be deported to their home countries. Such voters favored Trump by 88% to 10% in Iowa (29% of voters), 77% to 20% in Wisconsin (26%), 83% to 14% in Pennsylvania (31%), 81% to 16% in Ohio (36%), 80% to 15% in Michigan (27%), and 92% to 5% in Florida (23%), The smallest net edge in the overall vote there involves Wisconsin at 15 percentage points.

For some reason they didn't report the question of whether or not voters supported building a wall along the entire Mexican border for each State but nationally those who said they support that were 41% of voters and they voted for Trump by 86% to 10%. That's a 31 percentage point net plus for Trump in the overall vote. Huge.

Meanwhile, again, the vote among those who considered the economy the most important issue facing the country resulted in a modest-by-comparison 5 percentage point net edge for Clinton.

No guys. It wasn't the economy. It was other things like just wanting "change" and wanting to get tough on illegal immigration.

HI54UNI wrote:The exit polls were indicating about 5:30 on election day that Hilldog had won.

I be surprised if that's true because that's not what they're designed for. They're not designed to predict the result. They look at demographics then calibrate that to the actual vote after the fact.

Here's a comment on that from http://www.aapor.org/Education-Resource ... Polls.aspx:

It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did.

These data provide powerful explanations for why people voted the way they did – telling us which key demographic groups voted for which candidates and why. It is in this way that the so-called “mandate” of the election can be measured and reported accurately without relying on the partisan “spin” that the candidates, their campaign staffs, and political pundits typically put on interpretations of the election outcome.

If you can, though, provide a link to something describing that situation and I'll take a look at it. But if somebody is using exit polls to try to predict the result of the election before the results are counted they're misusing the tool. And if they say "the exit polls say A" will win then B wins that does not debunk the final calibrated exit polling data.

The reason I'd be surprised if someone did that is because the media got burned in 2004 by saying the exit polls said Kerry would win. Then there was a big discussion about how they were using exit polls for something they're not intended for and everybody was supposed to stop doing that.

JSO, stop with the friggin' exit poll data. It is inaccurate data. You are a data guy and I don't know why you accept that nonsense. And before you tell me that there is a historical margin of error, I will say that everything about this election was outside normal ranges. There was dishonesty in the data from voters and there was dishonesty in the data from the pollsters. Just stop.

A general thing on polls too because people seem to be saying they were "wrong." No, they weren't. The national polls suggested a narrow popular vote win for Clinton and that's what happened. The electoral college projections were a too close to call situation.

And I'm not just saying that kind of thing after the fact. I've said that type of thing all along including when I made the comments below on a post to this forum on the night before the election:

What I watch most of all is the 538 forecast. What I'd like to see is at least a 95% probability of a Clinton win. It's not there, but I feel hopeful. Right now the "polls plus" forecast...which is the one I watch most...has Clinton with a 70.3% chance to win.

It's not over by any means. To put it into terms we're familiar with a 70.3% chance of winning is about equivalent to football team being an 8.5 point favorite. So by no means a done deal. I feel better than I would if the probabilities were reversed. But not at ease at all.

People who think the polls were showing a high level of certainty that Clinton would win don't know how to interpret statistical survey estimates. Unfortunately that includes a lot of "talking heads" on newscasts. I've written about that in the distant past on this board too. A lot of people look at poll results as hard numbers when they're "fuzzy" estimates. You have to realize that the expectation is that results will fall outside of the "margin of error" about 1 in 20 times and also that the "margin of error" for the difference between two candidates is about twice the "margin of error" reported for the poll. If you see a poll that says "margin of error +/- 3" that's plus or minus 3 for the percentage of the vote one candidate will get. The "margin of error" for the difference between the two candidates is about 6 percentage points.

Actually the national polls were showing "too close to call" too so even if it'd been Trump instead of Clinton who had a narrow popular vote victory the polls would not have been "wrong."

And yes I took all that kind of stuff into account when I estimated confidence levels for Clinton being favored by voters who thought the economy was the most important issue.