MT-Mason Dixon: Trump+10
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 13, 2022, 09:54:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  MT-Mason Dixon: Trump+10
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: MT-Mason Dixon: Trump+10  (Read 2788 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,107
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 15, 2016, 08:32:33 AM »



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/trump-leads-in-montana-but-voters-aren-t-that-fond/article_1160276a-1827-51f5-890f-76fa6f4566f4.html
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,614
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2016, 08:34:53 AM »

Romney won Montana by almost 14 points in 2012, by comparison
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,107
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2016, 08:37:33 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,871
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2016, 08:41:15 AM »
« Edited: October 15, 2016, 08:46:26 AM by Alcon »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

I'm always uncomfortable extrapolating a single state poll to a national poll, especially since we have plenty of national polls, but...I'm curious on how you landed at Clinton +5.  That's not a hard swing versus 2012, unless you allocated undecideds/third parties and then applied a national swing.  I think we should be very careful about applying hard swings vs. 2012, even in states that are demographically representative of the U.S., and Montana is not demographically representative of the U.S. in any sense.

edit: and just to emphasize, I agree with Bundou.  Extrapolating a national lead from a state poll, especially a Montana poll, is a really, really bad idea
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2016, 08:41:35 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,107
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2016, 08:47:35 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.

Go to math class again.

MT is a small state and McCain won it by 2, while Obama won by 7 nationally, a difference of 9.

Romney won by 14 while Obama won by 4, a difference of 18.

So, it's likely that MT will be anywhere between 9 and 18 points more Republican than the nation.

A 5% Hillary lead looks likely with a 10% lead for Trump there.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2016, 09:00:25 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.

Go to math class again.

MT is a small state and McCain won it by 2, while Obama won by 7 nationally, a difference of 9.

Romney won by 14 while Obama won by 4, a difference of 18.

So, it's likely that MT will be anywhere between 9 and 18 points more Republican than the nation.

A 5% Hillary lead looks likely with a 10% lead for Trump there.

Whatever bizarre logic you need to delude yourself. Clinton's double digit win is just three weeks away.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,107
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2016, 09:02:39 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.

Go to math class again.

MT is a small state and McCain won it by 2, while Obama won by 7 nationally, a difference of 9.

Romney won by 14 while Obama won by 4, a difference of 18.

So, it's likely that MT will be anywhere between 9 and 18 points more Republican than the nation.

A 5% Hillary lead looks likely with a 10% lead for Trump there.

Whatever bizarre logic you need to delude yourself. Clinton's double digit win is just three weeks away.

Mkay ... and you call me deluded.
Logged
Fusionmunster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2016, 09:05:26 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

No it doesn't. It suggests Hillary 2016 =/= Obama 2008.
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,614
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2016, 09:07:02 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.

Go to math class again.

MT is a small state and McCain won it by 2, while Obama won by 7 nationally, a difference of 9.

Romney won by 14 while Obama won by 4, a difference of 18.

So, it's likely that MT will be anywhere between 9 and 18 points more Republican than the nation.

A 5% Hillary lead looks likely with a 10% lead for Trump there.

Montana is a state with a high ratio of non-college educated whites to college-educated whites. If Trump is lagging Romney in MT he is trailing by high single digits, something like 8-9%
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,557


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2016, 09:08:48 AM »

This is probably a good state for Trump, demographically speaking
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,199
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2016, 09:11:03 AM »

Tender has become as bad a poll-truther as StatesPoll.
Sad.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2016, 09:18:28 AM »

Montana has a residual Democratic base like you don't see in other states in the region, and it's the kind of base you'd expected to have eroded at the Presidential level since 2008.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,922
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2016, 09:21:00 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Trump is only up by 4 in Texas, that suggests that Hillary's lead is around 17% nationally.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,202
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2016, 09:34:14 AM »

Tender stop. You're making this thread reek of dog sweat. Just accept that your Muslim-hating hero is going down in flames.

Also, wtf why didn't they poll the governor's race?!
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,702


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2016, 09:38:48 AM »

Tender stop. You're making this thread reek of dog sweat. Just accept that your Muslim-hating hero is going down in flames.

Also, wtf why didn't they poll the governor's race?!

It's a poll for a newspaper group.  Chances are, they're holding off the governor's numbers for another day to sell more newspapers.

As for Tender's national margin extrapolation, I have no issue with it as long as you keep in mind that swings aren't necessarily uniform.  But I like PVIs more than most here.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2016, 09:39:02 AM »

Tender has become as bad a poll-truther as StatesPoll.
Sad.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,945
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2016, 09:45:06 AM »

We have seen little polling for Montana. It's hard to think of a valid analogy for this state. Neighbors Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, are different enough in culture and economics to be poor predictors of how Montana would vote.  It did go to Bill Clinton in 1992 and was close to going for Barack Obama in 2008. But that is in Presidential politics. There have been times in which Montana had two Democratic senators.

The agricultural activity is largely ranching and not farming, which has typically explained the difference between such states as Iowa (generally D) and Kansas (generally R) even if the demographics are otherwise similar.

Montana gets little attention because its three electoral votes mean little; the state has no large concentrations of people for mass rallies (see Nevada as a contrast). Montana voters typically have concerns other than the Presidential election. The Senate? Of course. Congress has as much importance as the Presidency in determining what America is.  
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,294


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2016, 09:53:50 AM »

This poll suggests Hillary's lead is around 5% nationally.

Actually, no it doesn't. 1). Because trying to guess a national lead from a Montana poll is certifiably INSANE and 2). because even if you wanted to do that, Romney won Montana by 14 when Obama won by 4 nationally, so logic would dictate Clinton is up by 8 now.

Go to math class again.

MT is a small state and McCain won it by 2, while Obama won by 7 nationally, a difference of 9.

Romney won by 14 while Obama won by 4, a difference of 18.

So, it's likely that MT will be anywhere between 9 and 18 points more Republican than the nation.

A 5% Hillary lead looks likely with a 10% lead for Trump there.

As Obama says, C'mon man....you've been following this all election. You know that swings are not going to happen uniformly....states with higher percentages of college educated whites, such as CO and VA are heavily breaking for Hillary. States with higher percentages of non college educated whites are close. According to 538, with Hillary's current 7 point lead, she should lose Montana by 10. And in this poll, she loses by 10.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,194
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2016, 11:33:02 AM »

Montana's a tough state to predict/pin down. It could be a state where Trump does relatively better. A lot of people tend to assume that Montana and Alaska are one and the same, but Alaska has a much higher percentage of Native Americans and Asian Americans than Montana, so it makes sense that Trump would do better in Montana.
Logged
Reluctant hardcore partisan Darthpi
darthpi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,376
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2016, 11:35:00 AM »

That sounds about right. I've long been skeptical that she would have any greater appeal among rural white voters in the West than President Obama in 2012.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,202
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2016, 12:24:33 PM »

This is a state that Bernie could have probably put in play if he were the nominee, but based on the state's demographics there's not really any reason to think it would swing towards Clinton.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2016, 01:01:35 PM »

I'm glad we finally got a poll from here. Still safe R I guess.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2016, 01:06:31 PM »

It could very well be that Montana doesn't trend this year. If Obama lost 41-54 and Clinton goes down 49-38...that could well show a game at 41 to 47.
Logged
Heisenberg
SecureAmerica
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2016, 01:37:52 PM »

Did they poll the governor race, too?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.