Yet provide NO FACTS to back it up... :D

Already resolved.. Please disregard...

Yea, that's what you keep saying..

Yet provide NO FACTS to back it up... :D

chiiirrppppppppppppp, chiiiirrrrppppppppppppp

:D

And your proof of this "wall"???

{{{chiiirrrpppp}}} {{{chirrrrrpppppp}}}

Yea, that's what I thought.. :D

Michale

I like EM's suggestion too if Hillary wins -- which is looking good thanks to actual early vote totals in Clark County, Nevada... build that firewall Vegas -- but if you have to go with ClintonPollWatch.com, a suggestion would be to add the 45 in there to distinguish HRC from WJC.

Clinton45PollWatch.com

Anyhoo, back to business... building a wall of votes in Clark County, Nevada, that Trump won't have an easy time breaking through on election day. :) *LOL* Trump wants a wall, and we're making that happen in Vegas, and what's happening in Vegas will be heard from sea to shining sea.

Oh, one more thing. Is everyone aware that pollsters are probably underpolling the Latino vote?

I hope I didn't type anything silly, I've had a few alcoholic beverages. Cheers, y'all.

Oh, bless your heart JFC. Please take good care of yourself and follow your doctors' orders. :)

That's a pretty good reason to opt for HillaryPollWatch.com ...

You had a stroke!? Good God, I had no idea you weren't 110% ... certainly couldn't tell by your always enjoyable contributions here.

Anyway, take it easy and maybe it would be a good idea to tune out the rest of this election until Tuesday night ... I may do the same, it's really, really getting me down ... in more ways than one ...

which is why I always love to read your extraordinary take on things ... :)

The enthusiasm for Trump, while a mystery to me, is real. The lack of enthusiasm for Hillary from many of her supporters is also real.

I was called to participate in a poll. I agreed as I was sitting for the third hour in a parking lot optimistically called a freeway and had listened to all my podcasts. Just as we started the pollster realized that I was driving, and told me they couldn't conduct a poll with a driver, so they'd call me back (who knew?). When they did one hour later and I had finally got home there was no way I was taking the call. It wasn't like I was going to vote for Hillary - just support her in a poll.

And I'm pretty enthusiastic about Hillary.

Hillary = your vegetables
Trump = cotton candy

I might not be enthusiastic about it, but I know I need to eat my vegetables and can't live off cotton candy for four years.

On big poll slumps following bad news. These slumps don't tend to accurately reflect changing opinions of voters. Rather, they mostly indicate predictable changes in the sample population responding to pollsters. Voters receiving a wave of bad news about their candidate tend to not participate in polls. Supporters of the opponent of the candidate catching flak are only too happy to participate in polls. So, Clinton's steep climb in the polls was likely largely an illusion, as Trump's rise after the Comey announcement.

About National polling data. Useful early in the game, but not this late in the season. State polls are much better predictors near election day.

About polling in small states: It is very hard to get sufficient sample sizes, most people decline to participate in polls, and pollsters tend to run out of people to contact.

About Nate Silver's pessimistic calls on the swing states. Rothschild thinks Silver is assuming the states are highly correlated with respect to a number trends breaking in Trump's favor. Rothschild thinks this is possible, but very unlikely.

Especially if Trump's approval numbers shoot thru the roof, as I fully expect them to do!! :D

If Trump accomplishes even a quarter of what he's promised, it's going to be Morning In America.. Again... :D

Michale

Sending you my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery! It seems this election has been dangerous to two CW.com regulars' health, so it can't end soon enough for me!

Seriously, get well soon and glad to hear from you again.

-CW

Well, I just checked and HRCPollWatch.com is indeed available.

Thanks to all who have chimed in on the subject. I'm still on the fence, personally.

ClintonPollWatch.com is what I'm leaning towards at the moment, but that could always change. And ListenWhenYouHear [7] -- that was indeed pretty funny!

HRCPollWatch.com has two problems, I think. One, "HRC" also stands for the Human Rights Campaign (a gay-rights non-profit), and not everyone knows Clinton by her intials anyway. Two, there are too many capital letters. The "P" in "Poll" doesn't stand out. This isn't that big a deal (domain names are all actually lower case anyway), but it just looks wonky.

I do kind of agree about the respect thing for last names, but then again HRC has made it a huge point to campaign solely as "Hillary," so an equally valid case could be made that HillaryPollWatch.com is just respecting her own choice in the matter. Obama never campaigned as "Barack," in other words.

Well, we've got a few months left to decide. And no, Michale, I did not actually register TrumpPollWatch.com -- if he (or any Republican) won, I doubt I'd invest the energy to a monthly column tracking his poll numbers. It'd just be too depressing.

:-)

But thanks for everyone's thoughts -- I am considering them all, even spending the ten bucks to reserve HRCPollWatch.com. The beauty of owning them all is that I can make them all point to the same page -- so if people want, they can type in any of them and it'll take them to the same place! No matter what I ultimately wind up using, at least for the next year you'll be able to type in the other one if you so choose... (right now they both point to OPW.com)

-CW

Welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation automatically, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly.

Just don't use more than one link in your comment text -- multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation, which can take a while at times.

Again, welcome to the site!

-CW

Maybe it's just me... well, OK, I know it's just me... but SteinPollWatch.com sounds best.

As for Hillary, in the history of modern polling, has any president ever started underwater... as in disapproval higher than approval?

On the off, off Broadway chance, the same question would apply to the Trumpon I suppose.

A

Yep... What she said.......

I think it's fair to say you despise the air I breathe, but I wouldn't wish ill health on anyone here in Weigantia.. Hope you mend well...

Yet ALL of them pick Hillary to win....

How is that not "group think"?? :D

It's like I said... It's nothing but an echo chamber where the only "dissent" is to what degree Hillary is awesome....

Your definition of "group think" needs a bit o' tweaking.. :D

Having said that, I was negligent in not acknowledging and thanking you for your well-wishes....

Thank you.... You are definitely NOT a horrible person, regardless.. :D

"I don't think you're crazy."
"Oh great, that makes me feel SO much better"
-Ghostbusters

:D

Michale

Sorry to hear about your health issue, but I'm glad to hear you are mending. I like the way you distill an issue to just a few well crafted words. I haven't noticed any decline in your quality, so that's something you don't need to worry about!

My prose is too prolix. :-(

Nate Silver's 538 gives HRC a 66% chance of winning, Huffpo and the PEC peg her at 98% and 99% respectively, leaving NYT and PredictWise centerists at 84%. That's BIG spread!

If you look at the state tabulations, 538 gives Clinton only even-ish odds in 4 "battleground" states: NH, NC, FL and NV with 64 EV. Fivethirtyeight is also gives HRC less strength in some Blue Wall states (NM,PA,MN,WI,MI and ME) but this is not what's dragging Clinton down to 66%. NH is the fracture point in the 538 prediction.

Running the 6 shops state data through my own model indicates NYT, 538, HuffPo, PredictWise, and Daily Kos are consistent with low to moderate random independence among the states. PEC's 99% only works if the states are assumed to behave with near complete statistical independence, making it harder for Trump to run up enough battleground EV.

Let it not be said that Upshot suffers from group think!

Thanks for the confidence builder. I had a stroke and I'm on my way back. Unfortunately, for anybody who's hoping for the longshot possibility of unseating Rant Paul, I'm not going to be able to help with that. I won't get to vote against the wacko-bird.

Comparing the numbers of Obama and Reagan is fundamentally misleading. Reagan lived in a different media era than Obama. Mass media was dominated by big players. Pay cable was just beginning to ramp up in the USA. Broadcast TV had 3 major players, CBS,NBC and ABC. People still read about the news on paper, newspapers thrown on their doorstep, magazines shoved in their mailbox. I'm not sure Reagan would have polled any better than Obama if he had taken office in 2008. Pay cable and the Internet make life Hell for politicians. Their is no bell shaped political curve to play to anymore....it's a flat line between extremes.

You could save a bundle (and show your patriotism) if you register using the .us domain... :D

For the record, HRCPollwatch gets my vote, too :D

I owe you an apology regarding your comment about Comey not getting a warrant..

A warrant wasn't required to examine the laptop because the laptop was freely given to the FBI by the owner, Anthony Weiner..

But, because the evidence on the laptop was from a DIFFERENT case (The Hillary Email case) a warrant WAS required for that.

Having said that, you WERE wrong when you claimed that Comey did NOT get a warrant. The issue was brought before Comey in early October. One of the reasons that reporting to Congress was delayed so long was so that a warrant COULD be obtained. CBS News reports that a warrant WAS issued to search the laptop for evidence pertaining to Hillary's SecState emails, which WERE discovered on Weiner's laptop....

And, as I stated, there is absolutely NO LEGAL reason for SecState emails to be on a person's laptop, a person who has NO RELEVANT connection to the State Dept...

Someone is going to jail and it's most likely Huma...

But, regardless of all of that, you were right about a warrant being required and I was wrong...

My apologies..

Looks like CW has access to the same information that I am reading..

Yunno.... REALITY.... :D

Most rank and file Weigantians just refuse to accept how bad this latest bombshell is for Hillary's campaign.. And it's only going to get worse between now and Tuesday...

On another note, are there any plans for a Wiegantian Party on Tuesday? My arm should be healed enough to fully participate and my ticker will have plenty of standby meds.. :D

Heh.

Actually, that was pretty funny.

:-)

That's right. It's not a 'C' ...

Now, THAT'S what I'd call politically correct.

Not that there is anything really wrong with being politically correct but, I'm pretty sure that Trump, for example, doesn't know what the term means.

I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

Perhaps you should go with HRCPollWatch.com ...

Actually, now that I have typed that out, my vote is for HRCPollWatch.com

Anyone who thinks that CPW.com is about Bill is a few fries short of a happy meal anyways...

Michale

And I like the fact that you also registered TrumpPollWatch.com as well..

It restores my faith in Weigantia as a reality-based place... :D

Michale

It's about respect. Typically, society will refer to Presidents by their last names. We don't refer to Obama as "Barack" in conversations. You wouldn't do "Donald Poll Watch" if Trump got elected; you'd choose Trump Poll-a-polooza" or something similar. If anyone thinks "Clinton Poll Watch" is about Bill, then face it, chances are that they are looking for a completely different type of site!

Plus I like the fact that you didn't bother to register TrumpPollWatch.com

Off chance?