# Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [May 4, 2016, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901 "2016-05-04T02:37:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 293
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5843 "2016-09-06T18:24:36Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#):
>
> And it would be very easy to show this bias if it existed. He’s been predicting elections for over a decade now.
Maybe in some form but 538 was founded in 2008. It’s also changed owners since then. It started independent, was bought by the NY Times and is now owned by ESPN.
---
### Author:  [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5844 "2016-09-06T19:09:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> Maybe in some form but 538 was founded in 2008. It’s also changed owners since then. It started independent, was bought by the NY Times and is now owned by ESPN.
So, is the claim that he hasn’t introduced bias in his predictions to show a closer race before, but now he is?
That can also be tested (although obviously not until we have new election results). Yes, it’s possible, at any given point, that Nate Silver has decided to throw his principles overboard, and we won’t know it for a while. But if that’s the claim, I hope someone makes it clear and then shows us how right they were after the election.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5845 "2016-09-06T19:22:20Z")
OK, I’ve not seen this sufficiently explained but I am sure there is an article out there if someone would kindly link: If Silver went 50/50 in predicting State wins doesn’t that by itself show he’s lowballing the odds? By way of illustration: if he put the odds at 90-10 in each state, doesn’t that mean he should have been “wrong” in around 5 states?
---
### Author:  [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5846 "2016-09-06T19:25:43Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#):
>
> The same Alex Jones who is highly concerned about [fish babies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzNeg9D-EZ4).
[Think of the Children.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg)
> [@septimus](#):
>
> When McDonald’s CEO refused to testify before Teddy Kennedy’s Committee, Kennedy put a BigMac and Fries at the witness table and let CSPAN film “Teddy vs the Big Mac.”
>
> Since the debates are already scheduled, could the network televise Hillary vs the Gold Toupee (or whatever) perhaps giving 50% of the time to whatever self-appointed Trump surrogate is willing to appear?
Toupee? I thought it was some sort of dead animal.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5847 "2016-09-06T19:27:53Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> Maybe in some form but 538 was founded in 2008. It’s also changed owners since then. It started independent, was bought by the NY Times and is now owned by ESPN.
One has to remember that 538 did predict how dismal the Democrats would perform in the last mid-term election. IMHO they are still very fair with the data and there were no favors made to the Democrats in 2014.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5848 "2016-09-06T19:44:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> One has to remember that 538 did predict how dismal the Democrats would perform in the last mid-term election. IMHO they are still very fair with the data and there were no favors made to the Democrats in 2014.
I don’t understand this response. I was merely pointing out that he _hasn’t_ been predicting elections for over a decade and he hasn’t been under the same employer for the whole 8 years that he has. I never mentioned anything about a party bias.
---
### Author:  [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5849 "2016-09-06T19:52:49Z")
> [@asahi](#):
>
> Neither.
>
> He’s clearly running a different campaign the last few weeks, and it actually seems to be working. So I’d be careful about writing him off. As I’ve said before, Trump doesn’t have to be presidential; he just has to look presidential long enough to convince a bunch of white know-nothing voters in middle America that he could be president. He’s been doing that the past few weeks. It’ll be interesting to see if his new brain trust can keep the straight jacket on long enough for him to truly transform.
>
> But make no mistake about it: Trump is two good debate performances away from being president of the United States. That’s a thought that ought to scare the piss out of us all.
[Nonsense](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-republican-electoral-map-20160502-story.html). Even if he had not started the campaign with high negative ratings and then continued to make them worse with his various offensive comments, and even if he put in those great debate performances, he would still face an uphill climb.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5850 "2016-09-06T19:57:52Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#):
>
> So, is the claim that he hasn’t introduced bias in his predictions to show a closer race before, but now he is?
>
> That can also be tested (although obviously not until we have new election results). Yes, it’s possible, at any given point, that Nate Silver has decided to throw his principles overboard, and we won’t know it for a while. But if that’s the claim, I hope someone makes it clear and then shows us how right they were after the election.
The problem with any discussion of how close or not-close the race is today is that there is no proof of anything until November.
There is a pollster, I think it’s Rasmussen, that was an outlier in 2012, but the nearer it got to November, the closer the numbers came to the pack, so that the “final” poll was not an outlier at all. And then the election happened, and that pollster was right.
Silver could basically be doing exactly that, but with the predictions that are trying to account for uncertainty. He could be building in a bias toward an electorate that is completely up in the air. Then, as we get closer to November, he can edit out that swing and end up with a prediction that’s right.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5851 "2016-09-06T20:25:25Z")
Texas paper that has endorsed the Republican candidate since 1968, won’t endorse Trump:
> **[Dallas Morning News breaks GOP endorsement streak, backs Clinton | CNN Politics](https://us.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/dallas-morning-news-donald-trump-endorsement/index.html)**
>
> After saying it would not endorse Donald Trump in this year’s election, the Dallas Morning News editorial board went one step further on Wednesday, backing the Democratic presidential nominee for the first time in more than 75 years.
Some quotes:
> [@](#):
>
> In an editorial titled “Donald Trump is no Republican,” the paper’s editors rebuked the GOP hopeful, advising Texas voters that Trump is “not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote.”
> [@](#):
>
> “We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory. Trump doesn’t reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn’t reflect the GOP of the future.”
Now I know newpaper endorsements aren’t the thing they used to be, but when a paper with nearly a 50-year history of endorsing the Republican nominee takes a look at this one and says, “nope, I’m gonna pass”, I think it’s worth mentioning.
Note, they did not endorse Hillary per se, but they sure didn’t give the Trumpsters any good news…
---
### Author:  [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5852 "2016-09-06T20:33:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> OK, I’ve not seen this sufficiently explained but I am sure there is an article out there if someone would kindly link: If Silver went 50/50 in predicting State wins doesn’t that by itself show he’s lowballing the odds? By way of illustration: if he put the odds at 90-10 in each state, doesn’t that mean he should have been “wrong” in around 5 states?
He has done those kinds of post-analyses in the past, and he does in fact miss calls with fairly appropriate frequency. Like, if you look at all the races that he calls 60/40, the candidate with the 60 wins about 60 percent of the time.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> The problem with any discussion of how close or not-close the race is today is that there is no proof of anything until November.
>
> There is a pollster, I think it’s Rasmussen, that was an outlier in 2012, but the nearer it got to November, the closer the numbers came to the pack, so that the “final” poll was not an outlier at all. And then the election happened, and that pollster was right.
>
> Silver could basically be doing exactly that, but with the predictions that are trying to account for uncertainty. He could be building in a bias toward an electorate that is completely up in the air. Then, as we get closer to November, he can edit out that swing and end up with a prediction that’s right.
It’s possible, but this would be hard to hide. If he is biasing earlier models toward closeness, then we should see a trend near the end towards a more unbalanced race. And, in particular, it should be unsupported by any of the input data he claims to use. While his exact model is a secret, he regularly discusses the inputs (polls, economic data, etc.) he uses, and the philosophy he uses to rate them.
We can continue to speculate about ways he might cook the books, but there’s simply no evidence that he’s doing so so far. And most of the ways he might do so would damn him in retrospect. So far he’s built his increasingly-popular media empire on painstaking accuracy. What makes people think he’ll throw away his good name for, what, an increase in page view for a couple months in one election?
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5853 "2016-09-06T20:34:06Z")
> [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](#):
>
> Texas paper that has endorsed the Republican candidate since 1968, won’t endorse Trump:
> [http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/dallas-morning-news-donald-trump-endorsement/index.html](http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/dallas-morning-news-donald-trump-endorsement/index.html)
>
> Some quotes:
>
> Now I know newpaper endorsements aren’t the thing they used to be, but when a paper with nearly a 50-year history of endorsing the Republican nominee takes a look at this one and says, “nope, I’m gonna pass”, I think it’s worth mentioning.
>
> Note, they did not endorse Hillary per se, but they sure didn’t give the Trumpsters any good news…
They announce the endorsement tomorrow. Wanna bet it will be Trump anyway? Maybe they have endorsements written up for each of the four depending on what the reaction is to the savaging of Trump.
After all, Ryan and McConnell are thinking the same thing and still support him. McCain, after being insulted(and the military), supports him.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5854 "2016-09-06T20:40:07Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#):
>
> It’s possible, but this would be hard to hide. If he is biasing earlier models toward closeness, then we should see a trend near the end towards a more unbalanced race. And, in particular, it should be unsupported by any of the input data he claims to use. While his exact model is a secret, he regularly discusses the inputs (polls, economic data, etc.) he uses, and the philosophy he uses to rate them.
No. I’m not talking about changing the poll numbers, only the assumptions made about how variable they can be.
One person looks at a race where the D is ahead by 5 and says “This is a huge lead.” Another person looks at the same race and says “This is an okay lead, but the other guy can come back.” And then build a model that ensures that “the other guy can come back” happens often enough to justify that punditry. As the race goes on, the model changes to account for less time to make up the difference.
There is no way at all to “out” this type of modeling, since the assumptions being made cannot be falsified.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5855 "2016-09-06T20:46:51Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#):
>
> He has done those kinds of post-analyses in the past, and he does in fact miss calls with fairly appropriate frequency. Like, if you look at all the races that he calls 60/40, the candidate with the 60 wins about 60 percent of the time
I’d love a link because most stories I see on this is that he was 50 for 50 or 49 for 50 calling the states in the last two elections.
---
### Author:  [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5856 "2016-09-06T21:19:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> Mr. Shepard is mistaken and missing the point.
>
> How is he missing the point? Trump doesn’t need to win a majority of the vote. That’s not what makes you President. You get elected President by winning a majority of the ELECTORAL votes, and Trump would probably do that if he wins more votes than Hillary Clinton, not a majority of them. If the minor parties continue to do pretty well, nobody will win a clear majority.
>
> Because he is missing that point, he is mistaken in his implicit assumption that he “isn’t even close” in “poll after poll.” Perhaps Mr. Shepard has been looking at very few polls? Here are the most recent national polls, the date the poll was concluded, and the margin of difference, according the the 538 updates site:
>
> RKM Research, Sept 4: Clinton +3
> LA Times, Sept. 4: Trump +2
> CVOTER, Sept. 3: Clinton +4
> CVOTER, Sept. 2: Clinton +4
> Ipsos-Reid, Sept. 1: Clinton +2
> IBD/TIPP, Sept. 1: Tied
>
> Battleground states, you say?
>
> YouGov: NC, Sept 2: Clinton +2
> YouGov, PA. Sept 2: Clinton +8
> Ipsos-Reid, OH, Sept. 1: Trump +2
> Ipsos-Reid, FL, Sept. 1: Clinton +4
> Ipsos-Reid, WI, Sept. 1: Trump +2
>
> … And so on and so forth. No reasonable person could look at these numbers and say it isn’t close.
And yet - Sam Wang says just that. And he looks at way more polls than you do.
Here’s from PEC, today -
> [@PEC Electoral snapshot](#):
>
> As of September 6, 5:04PM EDT:
> Snapshot (125 state polls): Clinton 339, Trump 199 EV Meta-margin: Clinton +4.1%
>
> Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift 87%, Bayesian 92%
That ain’t close.
I also want to quote a paragraph from Wang’s article today -
[http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/06/what-constitutes-a-good-poll/](http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/06/what-constitutes-a-good-poll/)
> [@Sam Wang](#):
>
> Just to remind everyone, variations in this year’s race are quite narrow, consistent with the last 20 years of partisan polarization. Polarization has made both the GOP and Democratic nominees unacceptable to nearly all supporters of the other party. In addition, Donald Trump is radioactive to about one-fifth of his own party. As a result, this year’s race is full of melodrama, but numerically stable. In 2016, the Princeton Election Consortium’s state poll-based aggregate has only varied between a median outcome of 310 and 350 EV for Hillary Clinton.
Of course, all of this depends on people getting to the polls and casting their votes.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5857 "2016-09-06T21:23:00Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#):
>
> Nate Silver has responded to that criticism many times with the point that it’s _much_ more important to him to be right than it is for most media. He wrote an _entire book_ about how pundits don’t care about being correct. To suggest that 538 is just another media source full of talking heads and bullshit is to ignore his entire ethos and body of work.
>
> And it would be very easy to show this bias if it existed. He’s been predicting elections for over a decade now. If his predictions have been biased toward showing an election as “close”, it would be easy to show. Remember, he doesn’t just predict the overall race. He predicts the outcome in each state and the results for each congressional district. There’s _lots_ of data to to look through for that bias.
>
> But no one has produced any analysis that shows such a bias.
>
> So, I’m inclined to believe that this claim is bullshit.
For starters, it was my claim, not CarnalK’s. He can’t defend my thoughts on this. Just FYI.
Secondly, I have no doubt that Silver’s model passes mathematical purity tests of powers beyond my poor comprehension. However, the _narrative_ on their podcasts and articles is still akin to the “horserace” narrative that drives clicks and stories, making it appear that Trump is a mere half a body behind Clinton rather than being 12 furlongs back.
“Oh, no! The horse broke his leg/has no field staff!”
“There’s still plenty of time to catch up and win, though!”
If they start calling this one done, clicks and ratings will start to drop, only bouncing back to today’s level on November 9th and only in the case that Trump wins. It’s just a basic economic fact which impacts the families of Nate Silver and his staff… and therefore they can’t make that call.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5858 "2016-09-06T21:28:21Z")
> [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](#):
>
> Texas paper that has endorsed the Republican candidate since 1968, won’t endorse Trump:
> [http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/dallas-morning-news-donald-trump-endorsement/index.html](http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/dallas-morning-news-donald-trump-endorsement/index.html)
>
> Some quotes:
>
> Now I know newpaper endorsements aren’t the thing they used to be, but when a paper with nearly a 50-year history of endorsing the Republican nominee takes a look at this one and says, “nope, I’m gonna pass”, I think it’s worth mentioning.
>
> Note, they did not endorse Hillary per se, but they sure didn’t give the Trumpsters any good news…
Their endorsement is tomorrow. I believe this is the first time they’ve actually ran a negative endorsement.
---
### Author:  [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5859 "2016-09-06T21:49:39Z")
> [@running\_coach](#):
>
> They announce the endorsement tomorrow. Wanna bet it will be Trump anyway? Maybe they have endorsements written up for each of the four depending on what the reaction is to the savaging of Trump.
>
> After all, Ryan and McConnell are thinking the same thing and still support him. McCain, after being insulted(and the military), supports him.
My money’s on Gary Johnson getting the endorsement.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5860 "2016-09-06T21:56:34Z")
My butt is on Hillary. But I would say that wouldn’t I?
---
### Author:  [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5861 "2016-09-06T22:27:36Z")
> [@JohnT](#):
>
> For starters, it was my claim, not CarnalK’s. He can’t defend my thoughts on this. Just FYI.
>
> Secondly, I have no doubt that Silver’s model passes mathematical purity tests of powers beyond my poor comprehension. However, the _narrative_ on their podcasts and articles is still akin to the “horserace” narrative that drives clicks and stories, making it appear that Trump is a mere half a body behind Clinton rather than being 12 furlongs back.
>
> “Oh, no! The horse broke his leg/has no field staff!”
> “There’s still plenty of time to catch up and win, though!”
>
> If they start calling this one done, clicks and ratings will start to drop, only bouncing back to today’s level on November 9th and only in the case that Trump wins. It’s just a basic economic fact which impacts the families of Nate Silver and his staff… and therefore they can’t make that call.
I tend to agree. Note too that Obama significantly outperformed the final polls in 2016.
Can anyone explain Wang’s “random drift” vs. Bayesian models?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/5862 "2016-09-06T22:33:48Z")
> [@JohnT](#):
>
> My butt is on Hillary. But I would say that wouldn’t I?
Actually, I doubt anyone here thought you two were so close.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901.md?page=292)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901.md?page=294)