Why Trump Will Win: The Monster Vote

Let me redpill you on the Monster Vote effect:

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/08/08/the-monster-vote/

1. Primary Turnout

In the 2008 primaries, the Democrats had 37.18 million, while the Republicans had 21.9 million.

In the 2008 general election, Democrats had 69.5 million, Republicans had 58.1 million.

In the 2016 primaries, the Democrats had 30.52 million, while the Republicans had 31.0 million.

2.

Difference Between Open and Closed GOP Primary Increases
Open +64.89%
Closed +19.82%
Difference +45.02%

Difference Between Open and Closed DNC Primary Decreases
Open -29.57%
Closed -10.65%
Difference -18.92%

3.Implications for the GOP

However, closed GOP primary states represent 265 electoral votes in the general election, while open primary states only represent 178 electoral votes, and the rest are hybrid and I don’t know how those are counted in a binary “open / closed” way. If we assume the potential voters is roughly the same as the electoral votes of those states, then open primaries only represents 40.1% of the potential voters.

This implies that the real non-republican voters who wanted to vote in the primaries was actually 19.53 million. We’ll call this the “Big Monster”. I did it based on electoral votes because I’m too lazy to go state-by-state and count populations.

4. Implications for the DNC

But like with the GOP, open primaries are only a part of the democrat primaries. Open primaries represent 201 electoral votes, closed primaries represent 173 electoral votes (again the rest are mixed, which I don’t know how to classify, and I just split that difference.

Since open primaries only represent 53.74% of electoral votes, assuming they roughly represent 53.74% of voters in the democrat primary, this implies that the real decline of non-traditional democrats who wanted to vote in the democrat primary is actually 7.93 million. We’ll call this the “Big Decline”.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?_r=0
nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html
latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-polls-20151221-story.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

5. Implications for the General Election

Model Turnout
GOP “Little Monster” 65.93 million
GOP “Big Monster” 77.63 million
GOP “Giant Monster” 110.83 million
DNC “Little Decline” 65.24 million
DNC “Big Decline” 61.57 million
DNC “Giant Decline” 52.85 million

6. If the “Monster Vote” is real, why isn’t it showing up in general election polls?

Well there’s one obvious answer to why it’s not showing up in general election polls: the “Monster Vote” isn’t real. That certainly would explain it!

Another depressing answer is that the “Monster Vote” to some extent is real, and Trump is getting it, but is still losing anyway.

But then we get into the third possiblity: the pollsters aren’t weighing the “Monster Vote” demographic correctly this election.

Relevant to this theory is that “Monster Voters” tend to have low “education” and lower incomes – and so if pollsters weight by education and income based on past elections, and if in this election we are going to get more “Monster Voters”, then they will underestimate Trump’s support by underweighting the kind of people who will vote for him.

Frankly, I have no idea how they would capture this group, because their weightings are based on past elections, and while we can project primary turnout to get some estimate, there’s no real way for pollsters to tell if the voting demographics in 2016 are going to be radically different from 2012.

In other words: polls showing Trump losing at the time of this article are based (loosely) on the 2012 electorate because that’s how pollsters weigh it. If the new voters are radically different from past elections, all bets are off. Pollsters could guesstimate the size of the “Monster Vote”, but I have no clue how they would factor it in. So they don’t.

6.5

(That said, pollsters are overweighting democrats, and underweighting republicans and independents assuming 2012 turnout projected onto current party ID numbers).

The new open primary GOP voters amount to 7.83 million, and the lost open primary DNC voters amount to 4.26 million. That’s a swing of 12.09 million from 2008. And that ignores any projection of would-be new GOP voters and lost Dem voters in closed primaries, and it ignores any projection onto the general election. There was some rumblings that fear of Trump would mobilize Democrat turnout; well we haven’t seen it in the primaries. Maybe the “Trump fear” vote will turn up in the general election.

In 2008 republicans lost by 11.4 million votes. The “Little Monster” and “Little Decline” would bridge that gap with 609k left over.

Anecdotally, the size of Trump rallies is visual evidence of the “Monster Vote”. That there is a new “kind of person” voting for Trump; because Mitt Romney voters didn’t really go to Romney rallies. And so it appears that Trump is attracting a new kind of people – the kind of people who will go to a political rally – which is evidence in favor of the “Monster Vote”.

7. Aren’t you just “unskewing” like they did in 2012?

It’s certainly possible. But there’s a few key differences:

My “unskewing” is based on a new bloc of voters that the pollsters have no way of knowing about until they vote, and can only make vague guesstimates based on primary votes. Whereas the 2012 “unskewing” was based on saying the pollsters were idiots.

– Donald Trump gets big rallies, Romney didn’t.

– The 2016 GOP primary saw an apparent influx of people who don’t traditionally vote in GOP primaries, the 2012 primary didn’t.

– Donald Trump is a radically different candidate than Romney was. This creates a possibility for new voters.

It doesn’t make much sense to argue too much, because the reality or unreality of this “Monster Vote” will be discovered in around 90 days.

bump because interesting read

...

this

You're a good man, leaf

keep going, this is relevant to my interests

Jesus when did they make illuminati?

I move we give this leaf honorary real person status, upgrading him from his normal 3/5ths.

it was a card game from the 80-90's
there were a couple threads around if you search'card game' on archive
there are two cards in particular that were creepy
'terrorist nuke'
literally shows the twin towers
and pentagon shows 9/11 as well

Bump for a positive Canadian contribution for once

I feel like the social and global consequences of 9/11 are roughly the same as if a small nuke had been set off in the US in a medium city that day instead of the twin towers planes happening.

Obviously tens of thousands more would've died in the attack itself.... but the results politically and in American mindset I think the same.

I doesnt matter how many votes you get, what matters is where those votes are. I'm for trump btw. nigger nigger nigger nigger

Any one who tells you that they can predict this election based on past results has their ivory tower up their ass.

The Canuk is right, the election is going to be a realignment cluster-fuck.

Leafposters are normally 2/5th. You're mixing them up with the Emuposters.

>Time to reshuffle the deck.

The media is pushing the false narrative that he is losing.

Really made me think, thanks OP. Honestly I'm not sure I really understood it all since I'm tired, but really, thanks for this.

they used a small nuke under the towers to open the vaults and get that gold

>There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.
nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?_r=0

>What’s the Matter With Polling?
nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html

>Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds
latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-polls-20151221-story.html

The hilarious thing is, because of Karl Rove and the "unskewed" polls debacle, it's caused people to think that argument is bullshit.

Except this time it's finally happening. People are such shallow thinkers. They simply think "OH UNSKEWED POLLS HUH?? MUH 2012 HUE HUE" and that's the extent of their thinking on the matter. They don't realize key differences that could make or break their analysis:
1) 2012 was establishment vs. establishment. This is establishment vs. outsider. (this obviously affects media bias)
2) 2012 was the usual demographic decline for R's -- this time we are seeing shifts in the electorate, indicated by the primary turnout and many other things
3) In the age of cell phones, poll response rates are at record lows (8% -- down from 80% in the 1980s). Pollsters can't get a random representative sample of the population, which is crucial. They are also basing all of their demographic/educational adjustments off of exit polls they conducted in 2012, which have already been proven to be inaccurate by more detailed databases. (in other words, this isn't even including what's happening in 2016 -- the media doesn't even know what happened in 2012! they think that there were less older white voters than there actually were. they think that there were less blue collar voters than there actually were. they're weighting their polls using false data).

good read, bumpin

This is some good reading canuckbro

You should tripfag (maybe not, its up to you) and bring this up with Trump insider user next time he pops up

Good read

Bump

Posting in epic bread

lol trunptards.


We will rig it.

ANGLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You may be a leaf, but you're our leaf.

>an unknowable, immeasurable mass of voters may be the deciding factor between two wildly different outcomes
Where were you when the US elections literally became entropy in microcosm? The silent majority is fucking dark matter.