(07-15-2020 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:51 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:33 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 03:39 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Update:

Up to 15 now

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/50...ipiac-poll


Concerning.

Dukakis was up 17 over HW in August. And supporting Republicans didn't carry risk of harrassment back in 1988.

I'm not going to go look, but I can't recall any incumbent that was "up" this early in the race. People want to make their Pols a wee uncomfy in the jimmies. They focus on the new shiny object (yea, I know, this one's 50+ years "new") and want to see them fight for their vote, even if they already know pretty damn well who they're voting for.

People, in the grand scheme, are pretty clever if not exactly smart. They want to see the candidate work, no coasting to a smug win. Knock em down a peg, whoever they are.

Anyone who actually believes Sloe coasts to a 15 pt win has completely lost their minds. Likely waiting for the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy to return lost their mind.

I see two probable scenarios here- Sloe wins in a squeaker led by the hangry Karen types storming out from their suburban McMansions.

Trump in a blowout. TYT's and mystified coastals completely melt down. Again.

I posted the demographics of the poll. Waste of paper. Who sits through 47 questions on a phone poll? Anybody that does that shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don’t know how to dig into it on a phone, do you recall who these people allegedly were?

As in, eligible, registered or likely?

Makes a WORLD of difference from one to the next to the next. Eligible? Just throw it out. Registered? Marginally better. Likely? Ok, but only if the sample sizes are right, and they often aren’t. Like wildly aren’t.

Registered. 42% more Democrats polled than Republicans.

Biden would be down if the MSM actually did their jobs - which are to be objective reporters of news. LOL, Biden's handlers have resorted to keeping him largely hidden and only allow the most softball of questions in the shortest time possible. Despite that, Joe still fvcks up most of his answers yet the MSM NEVER calls him out for his fvck ups by asking for clarifications let alone challenges. LOL, when he's allowed to call out a black guy who supported Trump as not being an authentic black person, AND THE MSM DOESN'T CALL HIM OUT FOR DOING THAT then it's blatantly obvious that the MSM is propping Biden up at all costs. Pathetic.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

(07-16-2020 09:56 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

Yeah. I think pollsters over estimate the electorate in Presidential years. Trump wasn't on the ballot in 2018, you cannot use that as the base for all polling.

(07-16-2020 09:56 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

You do realize that when the election happens, the voters are not evenly split between R's, D's and I's, right?

(07-15-2020 04:04 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  National polls correctly showed HRC would win the popular vote.

This keeps being repeated but I'm not sure this is correct. I'm not aware of ANY groups that conducted a 'national' poll... Instead they conducted state by state polls (because those are the polls that mattered, thus where you would spend your money) and they aggregated them... so more likely, they had Hillary winning 'close' all of the swing states that she ended up losing close... and not winning by as much in the states she won.

I'm betting California/West coast accounts for a lot of that... I was out there at the time. Based on knowing hours before polls closed that Trump had won... Both Reps and Dems (mostly dems) in Cali hit the polls (in excitement AND in disbelief/hope)... so the margin percentage was in line, but Hillary got 5mm votes instead of the projected 4mm and Trump 2.5mm vs a projected 2mm. That 500k increase 'masked' numerous states that they had predicted she would win by say, 50-100k votes that she ended up losing by half that amount.

I think them being 'right' was simple chance, compounded by his numerous surprising wins in east coast states and her domination of the west coast time zones.

Seriously... why would a polling organization conduct a national poll, especially separate from 50 state polls they were also conducting?

(07-16-2020 10:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:56 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

You do realize that when the election happens, the voters are not evenly split between R's, D's and I's, right?

the only number that matters are those currently registered when talking measurables...

I can create any poll to distinguish any agenda....

wtf are ewe talking about....

g'dam are ewe easier than a sun morn'...

(07-16-2020 10:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:04 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  National polls correctly showed HRC would win the popular vote.

This keeps being repeated but I'm not sure this is correct. I'm not aware of ANY groups that conducted a 'national' poll... Instead they conducted state by state polls (because those are the polls that mattered, thus where you would spend your money) and they aggregated them... so more likely, they had Hillary winning 'close' all of the swing states that she ended up losing close... and not winning by as much in the states she won.

I'm betting California/West coast accounts for a lot of that... I was out there at the time. Based on knowing hours before polls closed that Trump had won... Both Reps and Dems (mostly dems) in Cali hit the polls (in excitement AND in disbelief/hope)... so the margin percentage was in line, but Hillary got 5mm votes instead of the projected 4mm and Trump 2.5mm vs a projected 2mm. That 500k increase 'masked' numerous states that they had predicted she would win by say, 50-100k votes that she ended up losing by half that amount.

I think them being 'right' was simple chance, compounded by his numerous surprising wins in east coast states and her domination of the west coast time zones.

Seriously... why would a polling organization conduct a national poll, especially separate from 50 state polls they were also conducting?

True...but a national polling average of more than 5% likely makes the Electoral College a moot point. 77,000 votes separated 2016 over less than 3% popular vote advantage for Clinton.

(07-16-2020 10:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:04 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  National polls correctly showed HRC would win the popular vote.

This keeps being repeated but I'm not sure this is correct. I'm not aware of ANY groups that conducted a 'national' poll... Instead they conducted state by state polls (because those are the polls that mattered, thus where you would spend your money) and they aggregated them... so more likely, they had Hillary winning 'close' all of the swing states that she ended up losing close... and not winning by as much in the states she won.

I'm betting California/West coast accounts for a lot of that... I was out there at the time. Based on knowing hours before polls closed that Trump had won... Both Reps and Dems (mostly dems) in Cali hit the polls (in excitement AND in disbelief/hope)... so the margin percentage was in line, but Hillary got 5mm votes instead of the projected 4mm and Trump 2.5mm vs a projected 2mm. That 500k increase 'masked' numerous states that they had predicted she would win by say, 50-100k votes that she ended up losing by half that amount.

I think them being 'right' was simple chance, compounded by his numerous surprising wins in east coast states and her domination of the west coast time zones.

Seriously... why would a polling organization conduct a national poll, especially separate from 50 state polls they were also conducting?

Seems there were quite a few national polls right up until election day in 2016.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-5952.html

Unless there’s a relatively young candidate who motivates their base, dems won’t turn out to vote. Especially when polls predict a landslide for them.

(07-16-2020 10:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 10:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:04 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  National polls correctly showed HRC would win the popular vote.

This keeps being repeated but I'm not sure this is correct. I'm not aware of ANY groups that conducted a 'national' poll... Instead they conducted state by state polls (because those are the polls that mattered, thus where you would spend your money) and they aggregated them... so more likely, they had Hillary winning 'close' all of the swing states that she ended up losing close... and not winning by as much in the states she won.

I'm betting California/West coast accounts for a lot of that... I was out there at the time. Based on knowing hours before polls closed that Trump had won... Both Reps and Dems (mostly dems) in Cali hit the polls (in excitement AND in disbelief/hope)... so the margin percentage was in line, but Hillary got 5mm votes instead of the projected 4mm and Trump 2.5mm vs a projected 2mm. That 500k increase 'masked' numerous states that they had predicted she would win by say, 50-100k votes that she ended up losing by half that amount.

I think them being 'right' was simple chance, compounded by his numerous surprising wins in east coast states and her domination of the west coast time zones.

Seriously... why would a polling organization conduct a national poll, especially separate from 50 state polls they were also conducting?

Seems there were quite a few national polls right up until election day in 2016.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-5952.html

unless ewe're a dippo, there's only one day that matters...

(07-16-2020 10:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:56 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

You do realize that when the election happens, the voters are not evenly split between R's, D's and I's, right?

You obviously don't read well. 35-34-31. Tighten up and step away from the anger.

(07-16-2020 10:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:56 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 09:04 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/201...ed-voters/

Pew Research has the electorate at 35-34-31 D-I-R from 2016. 2020 will looks closer to that than the tabs from this Quinnipiac poll.

And it was lean Dem 51%-Rep 49%. Any poll that doesn't have a demo similar to the numbers you posted above of "Likely Voters" is not a valid poll and just the opposite trying to steer a narrative. What worries me even more is ALL media quote these polls without stating the demographics of the poll.

You do realize that when the election happens, the voters are not evenly split between R's, D's and I's, right?

You do realize that until you count ALL the votes, you really haven't counted any Right?



Polls are presented to bias your thinking.... Whomever wants you to think something can present a poll to "prove" their position. Th
en the sheep gonna sheep.

Trump will win by 3 touchdowns

(07-16-2020 10:18 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  True...but a national polling average of more than 5% likely makes the Electoral College a moot point. 77,000 votes separated 2016 over less than 3% popular vote advantage for Clinton.

Not following. Makes it moot to what? When would the EC vote EVER be moot as it decides the White House?

California and NY (and a few others) could have gone for Hillary 100% and the other states and territories gone 50.1/49.9... giving Hillary a 20% popular advantage, and she still would have lost the election. Am I missing/unaware of something?

(07-16-2020 10:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Seems there were quite a few national polls right up until election day in 2016.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-5952.html

You clearly misunderstand what I'm saying.

You can obviously create a national poll by aggregating state polls, but that's not the same as conducting a national poll. If your state polls are flawed, they will not be corrected by a national poll. The fact that they 'got the national number right' is not because they accurately predicted the outcome, but ACTUALLY because they were (in my example) wrong about swing states and wrong about turnout in western states after 'difference making' surprises in the east.

Again... If you're already surveying 50 states and making predictions and estimates about turnout in each of those states, leading to a number that matters... the electoral college votes....

WHY would you then conduct a seperate 'all state' poll and make predictions about turnout nationally, leading to a number that really didn't matter?

You (almost assuredly) wouldn't. you would simply aggregate the polls that you already had... that were meaningful and detailed... and in this case, WRONG.

It might be different if Trump needed to swing one state (versus the projections) to win, but he swung something like 10.... meaning they misjudged voter opinions in 10 states... and THEN, also misjudged (though in the other direction) voter opinions in a few more.

Imagine we were playing 3 sets of Tennis... and that Vegas predicted that you would win the first set 6-4, that I'd win the second 7-6 in a tie breaker and you'd win the third 6-2. They could easily then say that you'd win 18 games and I'd win 13... Now let's say what really happened was I was more aggressive in set 1 and won the first 7-6, that I strategically decided to coast through set 2 which you won 6-0 and I fought hard again while you were tired and won the third 6-4. You won 17 games, I won 13... almost exactly what they predicted, except I won the match. They were wrong about every single set/state as well as wrong about the outcome/ec vote... I won 2-1 as opposed to you winning 2-1... but they were almost spot on in the number of games we each would win.... now consider that almost EVERYBODY had that same 2-1 prediction 'your way'.

Would you say that they were 'right' with their estimates? Or would you say that they were absolutely wrong... missing how many sets we would each win and thus who would win the match... and that the ultimate number of games won being 'right' was merely chance?

If Biden wins the election, which is likely, are you guys going to accept the results?

(07-16-2020 11:54 AM)Morkai Wrote:  If Biden wins the election, which is likely, are you guys going to accept the results?

Yes - and Biden will be my president. Just like Trump is your president right now.

(07-16-2020 11:54 AM)Morkai Wrote:  If Biden wins the election, which is likely, are you guys going to accept the results?

lmmfao.... likely like colostomy cankles...

let's review....we don't shoot Zero...I don't think we'll shoot the VP nominee. ..or have ewe not figured out that bs to this point...

#stillLaughing

(07-16-2020 11:54 AM)Morkai Wrote:  If Biden wins the election, which is likely, are you guys going to accept the results?

Another one of these stupid memes/projections... "Trump won't leave the white house if he loses'... stupid. We have rules, we have laws.

Will Trump and/or some more extreme factions challenge the results if he loses? Maybe... so did 'your' side before so you can quit with the 'how unbelievable' BS.

For me, if it's close... if it matters... If there's remotely reasonable suspicion of misdeeds, I'd absolutely support looking into it. Lord knows your side hasn't forgotten 'Russia', but I don't think it's going to be that close... one way or another. If you have to prove massive corruption and collusion etc etc etc and some smoking guns (not smoke, but guns) don't show pretty quickly, I'm out.

Here's the better question...
If Biden loses, will THE LEFT accept it? You still haven't accepted that Trump won last time.