The road to 2020

[Michael Hardner]

49 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 Yeah...polls mean nothing these days.

Polls being wrong once don't throw out the science.  That's ridiculous.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Polls being wrong once don't throw out the science.  That's ridiculous.

 

Once ?   History says otherwise...going back to "Dewey Defeats Truman"....or "Labour Defeats Conservatives" in the UK.

Edited September 25, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Trump has terrible health - and no one I know admits he is healthy.  Wasn't he rushed to a hospital for some unreleased reason this year ?  He looked like a walking skeleton when he walked down that ramp.
2. Yes, they're better especially in swing states like PA.
3. Said enthusiasm comes from the already-indoctrinated.  Trump won in 2016 because of swing voters, who - it appears - aren't looking to be duped a second time.
4. Nobody knows this.  fivethirtyeight.com investigated and explained that if this were true, then in-person and online poll numbers would be significantly different but they're not
 

 

You're like CNN...

[bush_cheney2004]

deleted

Edited September 25, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Polls being wrong once don't throw out the science.  That's ridiculous.

 

Keep wishin' Hillary.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Once ?   History says otherwise...going back to "Hewey Defeats Truman"....or "Labour Defeats Conservatives" in the UK.

Let me rephrase: there is a thing called margin of error and it exists.  Being wrong once is well within it.  There was no catastrophic collapse of polling science in 2016.  

Trump could well win in November, in fact there's a significant chance: about 22%.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Keep wishin' Hillary.

Please stop fantasizing about me as a woman.

I appreciate you have an imagination - did you understand my post though ?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Please stop fantasizing about me as a woman.

I appreciate you have an imagination - did you understand my post though ?

 

I appreciate you're yet another poll.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let me rephrase: there is a thing called margin of error and it exists.  Being wrong once is well within it.  There was no catastrophic collapse of polling science in 2016. 

 

But it is not just "once"....the "science" is not just about Trump.

 

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But it is not just "once"....the "science" is not just about Trump.

 

 

Anti-Trumpers should be more worried about the REAL civil war coming when they attempt to steal the election via fraud.  

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

But it is not just "once"....the "science" is not just about Trump.

You are agreeing with me.

[Shady]

I’m guessing this wasn’t what CNN was expecting.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are agreeing with me.

 

No, not even the polls are agreeing with you.

There is no "once".

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

There is no "once".

Yes I agree.

[Infidel Dog]

Anyway..."Polling science" is an an out the butt, invented term based on nothing.Calling polls science negates the utility of science. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Biden voters...uncensored:

 

 

[OftenWrong]

There is not a Trump supporter among them, I’ll wager. 

[OftenWrong]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes I agree.

Still waiting to see your guy’s video. To prove that we are all equal.

[ironstone]

With Trump I think people know what their getting. With Joe Biden,what are they going to get? Middle of the road Joe, who hasn't really accomplished much of note in almost half a century in politics? Are they going to get Bernie Sanders ,AOC and their kind as the real behind the scenes decision makers?

 

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let me rephrase: there is a thing called margin of error and it exists.  Being wrong once is well within it.  There was no catastrophic collapse of polling science in 2016.  

Trump could well win in November, in fact there's a significant chance: about 22%.

I don't think polling is all that important in this election.  It wasn't last election.

We're talking about around 10 swing states or whatever that are usually fairly close.  Poll answers also don't predict who is going to actually vote, and that's even more up in the air with COVID.  I think it's exciting that we have no idea what's going to happen.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, ironstone said:

If Biden is packing it in early on so many days during this campaign, can anyone deny that he would not be up to the job of President?

Biden doesn't surface 'til around noon, he only does one-to-three speaking engagements per week for an hour or less, he has only taken a few cherry-picked questions from friendly faces in the months since he has been nominated, and yet he didn't have the endurance to stay coherent in the limited time that he has been speaking.

If there's another Benghazi or worse, he won't have the endurance to stay in the hotseat for 18 hours a day. He won't do 2 solid hours in a day. He's done. 

At this stage in Biden's life he's just trying to remember to use the toilet, and I'll be surprised if he's not wearing depends during the debate. 

I still give the debate no more than a 25% chance of happening.

Quote

As for the poll numbers,are they all that different from 2016? In that year,there was a huge sign many people missed,myself included. The huge amount of enthusiasm at Trump events. Biden campaign events are like mortuaries by comparison.There seems to be a lot of that same enthusiam in his events right now 

The only place where Biden's voters have any enthusiasm is at a smashed-in WalMart.

[Infidel Dog]

I hear Kamala's not campaigning too hard either.

It's like their strategy is too rely on ads then wait until after the election and let their "people" decide which mail-out ballots can be counted.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. I don't think polling is all that important in this election.  It wasn't last election.

2. We're talking about around 10 swing states or whatever that are usually fairly close.  Poll answers also don't predict who is going to actually vote, and that's even more up in the air with COVID. 

3. I think it's exciting that we have no idea what's going to happen.

1. Why would the value of polling vary ?  That seems weird.
2. Yes they can predict such things.  The margin of error could cut either way.  The idea that Trump has some kind of voodoo magic over polls is superstitious thinking.
3. Exciting, sure.  I think that the need for excitement and entertainment is a problem toay.

[OftenWrong]

1. Because people feel they are not allowed to give vocal support for Donald Trump, in most social and business settings.

2. If the margin of error could cut either way, then it's unpredictable...

3. Exciting today means, let's go have fun at the liberal-condoned riots. Hi Mom, we're in TV.

I think it would be exciting to see these liberals punted right out of the political football stadium. 

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Because people feel they are not allowed to give vocal support for Donald Trump, in most social and business settings.

2. If the margin of error could cut either way, then it's unpredictable...

3. I think it would be exciting to see these liberals punted right out of the political football stadium. 

1. I think I already addressed that above.  This idea has been studied.  I doubt that Trump supporters are "shy" in any context, rather... they seem outspoken and vocal given the historical unpopularity of their candidate.  For a more objective view, I explained that online (anonymous) poll numbers don't vary significantly from phone interviews.  Do you have a response to that fact ?  It does seem to dispute the idea that people are shy about stating their support.

2. There is always error, but 19/20 times it's within the margin - which is why we call it 'predictable'.  If you think that you need certainty to be able to predict something then the spectrum of political events (for you) is quite narrow... but it becomes a semantic argument and a personal one.  You are, of course, to define your own terms even if they disagree with common use.  I do this myself !

3.  You love identity politics, I don't.  I still see politics as a dialogue to objectively improve living standards and culture of the community.