2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolls and turnouts - was the turn out in South Carolina depressed because
everyone thought they knew the outcome in advance?
I doubt that the results here would have changed if more people had voted, but low turn out could be a disaster in November.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)scare the shit out of everyone including the over the top HRC supporters.
msongs
(67,401 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)That would be interesting to see.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)he just puts you on Ignore.
onenote
(42,700 posts)Wouldn't completely surprise me if there was.
There is data showing that South Carolina (like a lot of southern states) has fewer homes with Internet connections than many other states. But I doubt that the number of people without access to social media explains the results in South Carolina, where Clinton outperformed Bernie even amongst voters at every educational level (including the 40 percent with college degrees and post graduate degrees) and voters in every income classification.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Is social media able to be tracked? I know, this may be an ignorant question, but that shocked me.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)scientist
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)How can you know how weak social media is in SC?
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Hillary Clinton is the de facto nominee and if there were widespread dissatisfaction with her among Democrats they would be coming out to vote against her in droves, and consequently turnout would be much higher. It seems most Democrats are comfortable wit the fact.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)widespread, "I don't care" about her. In fairness, they would care as much about Bernie Sanders.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Much more likely.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections
https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf
Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.
https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner
The predictions markets suggest she has a 62% chance of being the next president. That's substantially than her closest competitor.
The efficacy of polls nine months out in predicting a general election winner is essentially null:
intend to vote if the election were held today. That is, polls do not provide predictions; they
provide snapshots of public opinion at a certain point in time. However, this is not how the
media commonly treat polls. Polling results are routinely interpreted as forecasts of what will
happen on Election Day (Hillygus 2011). This can result in poor predictions, in particular if the
election is still far away, because public opinion can be difficult to measure and fragile over the
course of a campaign. However, researchers found ways to deal with these problems and to
increase the accuracy of poll-based predictions
https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)RunInCircles
(122 posts)Could it be some knew Hillary was going to win and did not show up because they did not think their vote mattered?