Influence of Hispanic in 2016 Election is quite exaggerated.

[Torie]

Oh Hispanics matter certainly in Colorado, in a close election, and maybe Nevada. Heck, even Iowa now has its little pockets of Hispanics. There are some Hispanic precincts in Philly (that was that zone that voted for Hillary over Obama in the 2008 Dem primary, and no, no doubt has expanded). They are popping up just about everywhere now.

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

Tell me more about promoting a website. If it is more than links in a post in context, the Cave considers that spam, and that needs to stop, particularly if he is associated with it.

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

Tell me more about promoting a website. If it is more than links in a post in context, the Cave considers that spam, and that needs to stop, particularly if he is associated with it.

His name. No, to my knowledge, that's not against the rules. Yes, that is promoting a website, and one that basically frames him (as you put it) a "psephological junkie". Therefore, criticism of his bunk commentary is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Promoting a website is against the rules, at least if it is your own, and one poster got a 7 day time out for that conduct. Spam is next to socking as right up there precipitating rapid Cave action.

Sure, if the guy claims to be a pro, go after him based on the merits. More power to you. Taking down purported experts based on the merits, is indeed doing the Lord's work, just like taking people in power down is based on the merits. That is indeed what in part makes America great - the distrust of authority, and willingness to, and indeed joy taken in,  challenging it at every turn, based on the merits.