Friday, July 29, 2016

Interest in RNC trumps interest in DNC

Google Trends extends back to 2004. Consequently, it has captured search interest for four national party convention cycles in its history. In '04, '08, and '12 interest in the Democrat convention was greater than interest in the Republican convention.

Trump changed that. This time around the RNC outdid the DNC:


Speaking of search interest, Trump continues to trump his competition:


Hillary barely eclipsed him the week of the California primary when the day prior to the most populous blue state in the country going to the polls it when the major media--that is in the tank for her--announced that she had won the Democrat nomination in an effort to discourage Sanders' supporters from voting. She also overtook him when James Comey detailed her criminal mix of treachery and incompetence. One day after the conclusion of the DNC she is edging him out but only just. By next week Trump will be back on top.

14 comments:

The Z Blog said...

I've always looked at crowd sizes as a measure of depth. It takes effort to show up at an event for a politician. You really have to be committed. Tuning in on-line probably is a useful measure of the breadth of interest, but the live show is a measure of the depth of interest.

In the primary, Bernie is doing stadium shows while Hillary is playing small rooms. She had the nomination rigged so she did not have to put effort into the live shows, but the fact that she was playing small rooms suggest very little enthusiasm for her.

Trump is doing stadium shows. His rallies often look like rock concerts. So far Hillary has not even tried to do a large venue. Part of it is fear of the Bernie Bros, but the bigger problem is they fear the empty seats. That would inevitably feed the Bob Dole narrative.

Audacious Epigone said...

Has she held any rallies (other than the DNC) since securing the nomination? Now that both nominations have been formalized, it'll be interesting to compare rally sizes. Will Hillary's get any bigger? Will crowd size be mentioned in major media? (That last question is rhetorical).

The Z Blog said...

I keep coming back to 2008 when it was reported the Clinton campaign did not understand the rules regarding delegates. They assumed they could bulldoze Obama on Super Tuesday, not realizing delegates were awards by congressional district. That means Obama could lose a state and net more delegates.

That suggested Team Clinton is inclined to re-fight the last war. We've seen similar signs this time. They rigged the system to prevent Sanders from sneaking up on them. They are planning to run a general election to beat Mitt Romney in 2012 or maybe John McCain in 2008. Picking Kaine was what smart people thought you did in the 1990's.

My hunch is they think they have this in the bag. She is going to play it safe and avoid doing much of anything. It's not a terrible strategy as she is so horrible on the stump, but people vote for something over nothing. At some point I expect panic to set in and we see a replay of 2008 where they had her out playing the honky card. I expect the same result.

Cicatrizatic said...

It does look like the comparative campaigning output of the two candidates is set to be markedly different. Trump just does so many rallies. On Wednesday, he did a press conference in Florida, a rally in Scranton PA, and then a night rally in Toledo OH. Is this normal? I have followed this election closer than previous ones, but it doesn't seem like this level of output is typical.

My bet is that over the next two months, we'll see Hillary rely on TV ads and a few targeted, select campaign stops. And of course her media apparatchiks.

I agree that the Clinton campaign thinks that they have this in the bag, and that the Kaine pick is proof of that. The New York Times wrote an article confirming as much.

Cicatrizatic said...

Audacious,

Have you looked into the LA Times/USC Dornsife poll? It is the successor to the 2012 RAND daily tracking poll, which ended up being the most accurate national poll in 2012 (it had Obama +3.3, versus actual result of Obama +3.9). Their methodology appears to be more sound - a large sample size, they start their questioning by asking how likely the person is to vote and filter accordingly, and questions are asked electronically instead of by human voice. It is a 7-day rolling average and currently has Trump +5.

Also of interest is the Axiom Strategies polling of key battleground counties, like Sandusky County, Ohio, and Luzerne County, PA. These are counties that tilted slightly blue in the 2012 election. As of mid-July, Sandusky County is at Trump +12, and Luzerne County, PA at Trump +22. Meanwhile, NBC/WSJ/Marist had Clinton +9 in PA, but Quinnipiac (whose 2012 PA poll was more accurate than NBC) has Trump +2.

It seems unlikely that Clinton could be leading PA by 5-10 points, and yet one of the key battleground counties that went blue in 2012 has wildly swung to red.

Audacious Epigone said...

From the LAT poll:

Trump now edges Clinton among young eligible voters aged 18 to 34, 42 percent to 40 percent. He also has a slight advantage among people with a household income of $75,000 a year or more, 46 percent to 43 percent.

But Trump has a nearly 11 percentage point advantage over Clinton among eligible voters 65 and older. He has a 17 percentage point advantage among those whose annual incomes fall between $35,000 to $75,000. He holds a statistically significant lead among whites (56 percent to 32 percent) and among men (53 percent to 37 percent).

Clinton fares better among eligible voters who hold a college degree (50 percent to 29 percent), Hispanics (54 percent to 32 percent) and African Americans (82 percent to 3 percent).

The margin is tight among women voters: 46 percent for Clinton versus 40 percent for Trump.


Income and educational attainment running so strongly in different directions is remarkable. People with big incomes but without formal education are huge Trump backers, while those with educational credentials but an inability to turn that into actual earnings are big Hillary supporters. That sounds exactly right to me based on my own experience. The coddled, pretentious underachievers are as pro-Hillary and anti-Trump as it gets.

Note to the slight edge Trump has among young voters. That mean he's crushing her among young white voters. Republican presidential candidates don't tend to do that.

As for having it in the bag, I'm most worried about electoral fraud. If it occurs on a large-scale will there be any official reaction to it? Will any part of the federal apparatus do anything about it?

Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

She could play the honky card in '08 when she was winning among whites on the Dem side, but she couldn't even win whites in the primary this time around. How is she, bringing illegal immigrants on stage to address the DNC, going to make it work against Trump?

Vox Day's assessment is the same as yours as far as her best chances go: Stay hidden and hope Democrat demographics and cuckservative resentment is enough to win.

Hillary seems to realize this, too. A couple of days ago Trump was complaining on social media that her campaign was trying to set up debates on nights with big NFL games (presumably Sunday, Monday, or Thursday). I don't follow the NFL anymore to know how much truth there is in that assertion but it makes sense.

The Z Blog said...

These are people willing to say Trump, in cahoots with the KGB, stole all of those e-mails so how hard would it be to put the old witch in a pickup and have her ride around claiming to be the hero of the working man?

The lack of pushback or critical analysis from the media is often a problem for the Democrats. A Republican says something dumb and the media lands on him. A Democrat says something dumb and it is met with cheers from the press, even as the public is laughing. Right now, Team Clinton thinks their strategy is working, because the media is telling them it is working, even though it's no strategy at all.

My guess is Trump goes into September with a lead in a lot of places no one thought he could win. That's when the panic sets in with Team Clinton and they start flailing about for plan B. Maybe they go full on SJW. Maybe they have her replay her working class hero act. Maybe they have cry again. That worked for her in the 2008 primary.



Mil-Tech Bard said...

The problem for Democrats is that we are guaranteed at least one more major domestic Muslim terrorist incident and a dozen more cops gunned down in the growing BLM urban insurgency before election day.

This will be on top of an acceleration of ISIS attacks in white European land marks.

The likelihood of the Domestic Muslim attackers to be known wolves like FBI/DHS informant** Omar Mateen approaches 100%.


** there are media reports of his wife now being in Jordan.

Cicatrizatic said...

PPP with a new national poll: Clinton +5 (their June poll had Clinton +4).

But they changed their sample. Previously they sampled 39%D / 34%R /27% I now it is 43%D / 36%R/21%I.

Their whole narrative explaining the results is about how this election is a cakewalk for Clinton - nothing to see here, no change from the last poll - she'll coast to victory just like Obama.

Meanwhile, the cross-tabs show that Trump is winning with Independents.

It's all about the sample.

Cicatrizatic said...

Another daily tracking poll with a large sample size:

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/latest-polls/election-2016/us-presidential-election-daily-tracking-poll/

They show Trump +5.5

A note on their methodology:

The interviews, which are conducted using both an Internet panel and live (phone & focus), skipped Independence Day and are based on more than 3,000 respondents (variations daily) nationwide. Daily results represent a rolling weekly average (the last seven days). The number of respondents will grow throughout the cycle.

Please note: The People’s Pundit Daily U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll does not weight results based on party affiliation. Voters’ preferences on party are fluid and far less accurate than weighting based on demographics such as age, race, gender, income, ethnicity and religiosity

The Z Blog said...

I'm very skeptical of the "skewed polls" stuff given how that unfolded in 2012. That said, I live in a place that was buried with Obama signs in 2008. Yet, in 2012 it was hard to find any signs for either candidate. The results in 2012 were the same as 2008.

I think a lot of people allowed the apparent lack of enthusiasm for Obama to cloud their reading of the polls. It's entirely possible that Trump fans are wildly enthusiastic, but most people think he is a joke and they will reluctantly vote for Hillary Clinton.

There's also the reality that most people will quietly march off to the gas chambers rather than step out of line.

All that said, this election has been a rough one for the polling outfits. Even aggregators like RCP and 538 have struggled. There's no obvious analog to previous election for which we have reliable demographic data. That makes modeling this one very difficult.

Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

My instincts are the same. Silver wildly missed the GOP primaries not because initial polling was way off the mark but because he assumed that the early polls were gossamer and that Trump's unorthodox background and approach would catch up to him as the voting got closer.

On the other hand, Heartiste's remark that if there is an election where the polls will be rigged in the service of a certain candidate, this is that election. And more darkly, if there is an ever an election were widespread voter fraud on the vote-counting side of things will throw the outcome, this is also that election.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The pollsters have three issues that are killing them.

1. Their own bias.

2. The changed wireless phone environment has killed the statistical population validity of cheap land line polling.

3. The SJW persecution of those who hold politically incorrect political positions has forced those that hold them to "Go Dark" without changing how they vote by one bit.

Only hostile field polling -- where several surrogate questions are asked to get the answer to the real question -- done by face-to-face interviews going to work with a politically incorrect position of politician.

Example -- Gay marriage uniformly did 6% worse on election day than in polls.

BREXIT was 8% more popular when votes were counted than election day polls indicated.

I suspect Trump is somewhere in that 6-to-8% more popular than polls indicate range.