You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:I never said every single market was inflated. Every market is unique. I then gave 2 examples of my experiences in different markets. Housing prices are rising sharply again as they did before the bubble. Eventually I will find the chart I was looking at so you can see that too since that seems to be the only way you'll believe anything.
Pure semantics. You claimed housing values were overvalued and would deflate. Then referenced the prior RE bubble. I said all real estate is local and asked for proof of your claims. You then point to local markets...just what I said.
Sometimes it's best to quit trying to be right about everything...
buzzsaw wrote:The chart shows a sharp increase in housing prices. I'll post it if/when I find it. It's very similar to the time when the housing bubble happened, then burst. Maybe prices went down too far and they are just recovering...hard to say, but the prices are increasing at a very fast pace right now.
In many markets prices went well below their floor. In Florida you could buy a nice 1/1 condo for 25-30k in 2009-2010. Nobody would believe it if they weren't there, but it was certainly true. Prices from 2010-2015 would show an absolute spike because the starting point was so ridiculously low. Other markets like San Fran, Miami etc are outrageously overpriced IMO, but that still remains to be seen since we have foreign buyers, hedge funds (not so much anymore) and cash buyers continuing to buy up.
So what you're saying is I am right? I'm sure that's what you're saying because (surprise) I am. The information is national information. Prices nationally are indeed rising at a rapid rate as they did when the bubble was forming. If you're claiming otherwise, you're full of shit. If you're claiming I said otherwise, you're full of shit. I know what I said, and I reposted what I said in case someone forgot. Is each market different? Sure, but I said that. You were the one that asked me to prove prices were rising everywhere when I never said that. I don't care to look, but I would be willing to bet prices weren't ridiculously high everywhere when the bubble was going on, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:Cramer wrote:The Washington Post is reporting it.
It sure sounds like Donald Trump is considering his biggest flip-flop yet:
They also ran several articles about Trump dropping out. Credibility ain't exactly high these days in the Post.
Well, this was based off a CNN interview Kellyanne Conway did.
_________
"On Sunday morning, his newly installed campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, was asked during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" whether Trump still wants "a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants."
"To be determined," said Conway, who in the past has supported creating a pathway to citizenship for the millions of immigrants illegally living in the United States.
Earlier in the interview, she described Trump's immigration position in this way: "What he supports is to make sure that we enforce the law, that we are respectful of those Americans who are looking for well-paying jobs and that we are fair and humane for those who live among us in this country."
Conway said that "as the weeks unfold," Trump will reveal the specifics of his immigration plan. Trump and his aides have also been unclear on whether he still wants to temporarily bar most foreign Muslims from entering the country. Trump is expected to give a policy speech about immigration on Thursday in Colorado.
_________
The campaign manager not wanting to answer what exactly will happen to 11 million people is not worthy of that headline. Even if true and he won't be throwing out every single one of those millions, that's hardly a "major flip flop". Also funny to see the media trying to present that possibility as a bad thing.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
So what you're saying is I am right? I'm sure that's what you're saying because (surprise) I am.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....you're so angry and boring. All you do is pivot in this thread. It seems to be a common trait with Republicans, you never can stand by what you say. Why is this? You're always jumping from one foot to the other.
Either you believe asset prices are in bubble territory or you do not. Yes or no. You state that the RE prices are puffed up, how we should all "learn" economics like you and they will pop again soon. I ask for you to back that up, and you act like an ass instead.
I notice you spend a great deal of time here telling everybody how smart you are, that your always right...you sound like Trump to be honest. You don't have to act like this every day you know, you can take a day off from time to time.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The campaign manager not wanting to answer what exactly will happen to 11 million people is not worthy of that headline. Even if true and he won't be throwing out every single one of those millions, that's hardly a "major flip flop". Also funny to see the media trying to present that possibility as a bad thing.
Everybody is reporting it, and Team Trump isn't denying it. Considering his rabid base is primarily driven by the immigration issue, it's kind of a big deal.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:So what you're saying is I am right? I'm sure that's what you're saying because (surprise) I am.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....you're so angry and boring. All you do is pivot in this thread. It seems to be a common trait with Republicans, you never can stand by what you say. Why is this? You're always jumping from one foot to the other.
Either you believe asset prices are in bubble territory or you do not. Yes or no. You state that the RE prices are puffed up, how we should all "learn" economics like you and they will pop again soon. I ask for you to back that up, and you act like an ass instead.
I notice you spend a great deal of time here telling everybody how smart you are, that your always right...you sound like Trump to be honest. You don't have to act like this every day you know, you can take a day off from time to time.
I suppose if I was a republican I might be offended, but alas you're wrong yet again. I stand 100% by what I say to the point that I had to remind you what I said vs what you said I said. Follow that? I know it's a little more complex than you're used to.
As soon as you and ID stop trying to catch me in a lie, I'll take time off. Until then I'll remind you early and often how right I am. It's up to you how this proceeds...
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Trump Leads Clinton by 5+ Points in the Key Battleground State of Pennsylvania
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has surged to a 5-point lead over democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania as per a latest poll.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - August 21, 2016 - (Newswire.com)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has surged to a 5-point lead over democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania as per the poll conducted by CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution, on Friday (19th Aug 2016).
Trump leads Clinton 41.9 percent to 36.5 percent, with 21.5 percent voters undecided. Trump’s lead is just inside the margin of error and marks the first time that the Republican candidate is catching up in the traditional stronghold state of the democratic party.
The survey contacted around 1,000 registered voters. Results are estimated to be accurate within 7.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. According to CEPEX analysis, the error percentage is high due to the results obtained from just one day of polling. Subsequent polling would be required to reduce the error percentage.
While it is noteworthy that Trump is making headway in this battleground state, the undecided voters hold the key to the eventual outcome on Nov 8.
“With the undecided voters holding the key which way the state eventually goes in November, both the campaign teams should be tweaking their ground games to win over this key demographic” Parth Mukherjee, Expert Principal, CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution.
“One of the reasons of Trump’s surge is attributable to seemingly strong support from the women” added Mukherjee.
CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution will continue to conduct independent polls in the various states leading up to the presidential election this November.
CEPEX- Center for Excellence in Project Execution, a Management Consulting firm, is conducting opinion polling and analysis on the US Presidential Election 2016 as an Independent Unaffiliated source.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Trump Leads Clinton by 5+ Points in the Key Battleground State of Pennsylvania
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has surged to a 5-point lead over democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania as per a latest poll.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - August 21, 2016 - (Newswire.com)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has surged to a 5-point lead over democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania as per the poll conducted by CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution, on Friday (19th Aug 2016).
Trump leads Clinton 41.9 percent to 36.5 percent, with 21.5 percent voters undecided. Trump’s lead is just inside the margin of error and marks the first time that the Republican candidate is catching up in the traditional stronghold state of the democratic party.
The survey contacted around 1,000 registered voters. Results are estimated to be accurate within 7.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. According to CEPEX analysis, the error percentage is high due to the results obtained from just one day of polling. Subsequent polling would be required to reduce the error percentage.
While it is noteworthy that Trump is making headway in this battleground state, the undecided voters hold the key to the eventual outcome on Nov 8.
“With the undecided voters holding the key which way the state eventually goes in November, both the campaign teams should be tweaking their ground games to win over this key demographic” Parth Mukherjee, Expert Principal, CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution.
“One of the reasons of Trump’s surge is attributable to seemingly strong support from the women” added Mukherjee.
CEPEX Center for Excellence in Project Execution will continue to conduct independent polls in the various states leading up to the presidential election this November.
CEPEX- Center for Excellence in Project Execution, a Management Consulting firm, is conducting opinion polling and analysis on the US Presidential Election 2016 as an Independent Unaffiliated source.
Junk poll. Not recognized by Real Clear or Five Thirty Eight.
From Nate Silver.
"As a warning, there's been an increase in fake polls this year. Random people throwing up a website & citing their "polls" to get attention. I'm not throwing shade at any pollsters you've ever heard of. We're talking really obscure cases. But be careful what you retweet / link to. We're VERY inclusive at 538 and will include crappy polls so long as we're confident they're real. But sometimes things don't check out."
CEPEX appears to be a oil and gas consulting firm. I wonder why they'd want Trump ahead?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Election Update: National Polls Show The Race Tightening — But State Polls Don’t
Hillary Clinton moved into a clear polling lead over Donald Trump just after the Democratic convention, which ended on July 28. Pretty much ever since, the reporters and poll watchers that I follow have seemed eager to tell the next twist in the story. Would Trump’s numbers get even worse, possibly leading to the first double-digit victory for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964? Or would Trump mount a comeback? As of last Tuesday, there wasn’t much evidence of an overall shift in the race. Trump was gaining ground in some polls but losing ground in a roughly equal number of them.
Since then, Trump has gotten some slightly better results, with national polls suggesting a race more in line with a 5- or 6-percentage-point lead for Clinton instead of the 7- or 8-point lead she had earlier in August. But state polls haven’t really followed suit and continue to show Clinton with some of her largest leads of the campaign. Trump received some decent numbers in Iowa and Nevada, but his polls in other swing states have been bad.
Overall, Trump has gained slightly in our forecasts: He’s up to a 15 percent chance of winning the Electoral College in our polls-only model, up from a low of 11 percent a week ago. And he’s at 25 percent in polls-plus, up from a low of 21 percent. But the evidence is conflicting enough that I don’t think we can rule out a larger swing toward Trump or, alternatively, that his position hasn’t improved at all.
Let’s start with those national polls. In the table below, I’ve listed every national poll that we’ve added to our database since Tuesday and how it compared to the previous poll from the same pollster, if there was one.
DATE POLLSTER NEW POLL PREVIOUS SHIFT
Aug. 18-20 Morning Consult Clinton +3 Clinton +6 Trump +3
Aug. 14-20 USC Dornsife/LA Times Trump +2 Clinton +5 Trump +7
Aug. 14-18 Ipsos Clinton +7 Clinton +7 —
Aug. 11-17 CVOTER International Clinton +4 Clinton +4 —
Aug 15-16 Rasmussen Reports Clinton +2 Clinton +3 Trump +1
Aug. 14-16 YouGov Clinton +6 Clinton +6 —
Aug. 9-16 Pew Research Clinton +4 Clinton +9 Trump +5
Aug. 15 Gravis Marketing Clinton +4 Clinton +5 Trump +1
Aug. 9-15 Normington Petts Clinton +8
Aug. 8-14 SurveyMonkey Clinton +6 Clinton +6 —
Aug. 12-13 Zogby Analytics Clinton +2 Clinton +3 Trump +1
Average Trump +2
A number of these polls show no change. But where there have been shifts, they’ve been toward Trump, particularly in the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times tracking poll, which now shows a 2-point lead for Trump after having Clinton modestly ahead before, and in Pew Research’s most recent poll, which has Clinton with a 4-point lead as compared with the 9-point lead Pew showed her with before the conventions.
You can, of course, pick apart the individual polls if you like. The USC/Los Angeles Times poll makes some unorthodox methodological choices; I happen to like some of these choices and dislike others, but overall, they produce a poll that’s significantly more Trump-leaning than other pollsters. And I’m not sure anyone should be crowing about Zogby Analytics polls, which have been highly inaccurate historically. But there are ways to adjust for these things, and they don’t obscure the fact that the trend in national polls has mostly been toward Trump.
State polls tell another story, however. Here’s every state poll we’ve added since Tuesday:
STATE DATE POLLSTER NEW POLL PREVIOUS SHIFT
Ohio Aug. 17-19 YouGov Clinton +6 Clinton +4 Clinton +2
Iowa Aug. 17-19 YouGov Tie Trump +1 Clinton +1
Ga. Aug. 17 Opinion Savvy Tie Trump +3 Clinton +3
Nev. Aug. 15-17 Suffolk Clinton +2
S.C. Aug. 15-17 Gravis Marketing Trump +4
N.C. Aug. 15-17 Gravis Marketing Trump +1
Ind. Aug. 13-16 Monmouth Trump +11
Colo. Aug. 9-16 Quinnipiac Clinton +8 Trump +11 Clinton +19
Va. Aug. 9-16 Quinnipiac Clinton +11
Iowa Aug. 9-16 Quinnipiac Clinton +2
Fla. Aug. 12-15 Monmouth Clinton +9
Texas Aug. 12-14 PPP Trump +6
Va. Aug. 11-14 Washington Post Clinton +7
Miss. Aug. 11 Magellan Trump +13
Mich. Aug. 9-10 Mitchell Research Clinton +11 Clinton +6 Clinton +5
Mo. Aug. 8-9 PPP Trump +3 Trump +10 Clinton +7
Average Clinton +6
As I wrote earlier, Iowa and Nevada have been relative bright spots for Trump, with Clinton leading only narrowly even in post-convention surveys. But those states have only 6 electoral votes each, and Trump’s numbers are bad pretty much everywhere else. Since Tuesday, for instance, he’s gotten polls showing him down 6 points in Ohio, 9 points in Florida and 11 points in Virginia — and only tied with Clinton in Georgia. I suppose you can count polls showing Trump ahead by double-digits in Indiana and Mississippi as good news for him, since they’re states that could conceivably have gone to Clinton in a landslide. Then again, other polls this week showed competitive races in Missouri and Texas. Our model thinks that these polls are consistent with Clinton continuing to hold a lead in the mid- to high single digits: You probably wouldn’t get a set of results like these if she was up by only 5 percentage points nationally.
Moreover, these state polls show highly favorable trend lines for Clinton, where they’re available. Among the six polls that had previously surveyed the same state, Clinton gained ground in every one, with an average swing of 6 percentage points toward her. A caution: The average shift is inflated by a Quinnipiac poll of Colorado which found Clinton up 8 points; Quinnipiac had implausibly showed an 11-point lead for Trump when it surveyed the race in November. Even without that poll, however, Clinton’s average gain is 4 percentage points, still pretty good.
There are a couple of further nuances that explain some of the differences. Most of the recent national polls are daily or weekly tracking polls conducted online or via automated surveys, and these tracking polls have generally been a relatively friendly group for Trump. He hasn’t fared well recently in traditional telephone surveys, by contrast, with one or two exceptions like his not-so-bad result in the Pew Research poll. Also, looking at the trend lines doesn’t quite make for an apples-to-apples comparison, because most of the national polls have surveyed the race multiple times since the conventions, while the state polls haven’t. It’s plausible that Clinton is polling slightly off her post-convention peak, as the national polls suggest, but ahead of where she was for most of the pre-convention period, as the state polls suggest.
Still, our model perceives an increasing conflict between state and national polls. Polls-only calculates a national polling average, which has Clinton up by 6.2 percentage points, down from a peak of 8.0 percentage points on Aug. 15. But it also infers an estimate of the popular vote from state polls, and that continues to have Clinton ahead by 7 to 8 points. The 1- or 2-point gap between these estimates doesn’t matter much for now, since Clinton is comfortably ahead either way. But it could become pertinent if the race tightens; it was pertinent in 2012, when state polls continuously (and correctly, it turned out) showed President Obama in better shape than national polls did.
I’m not going to get too much more into the weeds for now. The past week was pretty light for polling and sometimes these differences resolve themselves as you accumulate more data. Maybe this week, we’ll get a couple of national polls showing Clinton 11 points ahead, but others showing her only tied with Trump in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, or something.
In terms of interpreting our forecasts, though, you should know that our models mostly rely on state polls to estimate the level of the race, whereas they lean heavily on input from national polls to estimate the trend. Thus, polls-only has Clinton ahead of Trump by about 7 percentage points nationally, a result more in line with the most recent state polls than with the most recent national polls. But it also detects a modest trend toward Trump, something the national polls show but the state polls don’t yet.
