Polls Adjusted For Sanity

I have read somewhere that the author of this blog is a rare example of honest Democrat. It would, in fact, appear to be so if he is really a Democrat, because this post has a simple but fairly brutal analysis of what is happening, based on the findings of the biased polls once adjusted to reality in order to take account of the bias.

The gist is as follows: 

Clinton leads Trump 44.9-43.3%  in the actual 9-poll average.

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation split (40I-32D-28R):
Trump leads Clinton 44.7-41.7% and by 336-202 EV before undecided voter allocation.
Trump leads Clinton 49.0-43.2% after undecided voter allocation. 
There is a 98% probability that Trump will win the popular vote.

(see below for the undecided allocation). 

Basically, this being a collection of national polls, the author of the article has adjusted them to the reality of party affiliation as reflected by the only pollster who has investigated it nationwide, Gallup. I had read from another source that Gallup had 27% each for Republicans and Democrats. This article has different figures, giving Democraps at 32% and Republicans at 28%. Therefore, this analysis makes it more difficult for Trump to emerge as the favourite than the allocation I had read elsewhere. 

The numbers in detail look as follows:

 

GALLUP ADJUSTED			Elect	Vote	Popular Vote	Undec.Alloc.
40I-32D-28R	HRC	Trump	HRC	Trump	Win Prob	Win Prob
Ipsos	37.9%	39.4%	232	306	73.4%	99.4%
IBD	40.9%	45.8%	180	358	96.8%	99.8%
Rasmussen	37.2%	47.4%	46	492	100.0%	100.0%
Quinnipiac	44.7%	40.8%	335	203	6.5%	35.8%
Fox News	39.6%	41.6%	218	320	79.9%	97.3%
CNN	48.6%	44.4%	335	203	7.0%	13.7%
ABC	46.4%	49.7%	202	336	86.5%	87.4%
Gravis	42.6%	45.6%	216	322	86.7%	99.1%
LA Times	40.7%	49.4%	54	484	99.9%	100.0%
Average	41.7%	44.7%	202	336	87.2%	98.1%

This is very interesting as you can gauge the degree of bias of some of the most notorious pollsters (look at Quinnipiac and CNN). Also note what happens when the undecided are added to the calculation according to the statement that

Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) gets approximately 75% of the undecided vote.

As you can see, the now relatively little number of undecided still should – if the past is a good guidance, and I think in this case it will be an excellent one due to the scandals and mistrust surrounding Hitlery – push Trump comfortably toward an uncontested victory.

Finally, the sensitivity analysis (examining how the model changes if you change given parameters in a way that favours the one or other candidate) shows Hitlery with a real chance to win only if Trump gets far less Republican votes or far less Independent votes than expected; however, we know from the events of the last months that this is highly improbable: the Nevertrumpers are nowhere, and we are heading toward great enthusiasm and record turnout, which means an awful lot of independents adding to the Trump vote count.  

What I take away from this excellent analysis is this: unless the voter mobilisation and enthusiasm seen for Trump at his rallies, on social medias and in yard signs proves only a “virtual” phenomenon fueled by “true believers” but with no connection to real life, Trump should win comfortably.

Obviously, this required that you, dear US reader, vote Trump and ask everyone you know to do the same.

I hope and pray that the Lord will give us this opportunity. It’s bad enough to have to deal with a Francis. We don’t need the double whammy of the wrongest Pope and the wrongest President imaginable.

M