The road to 2020

[DogOnPorch]

1. You have nothing to worry about.

2. You have nothing to worry about.

3. You have nothing to worry about.

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

In regards to voicing publicly support for Donald Trump, it is a perilous thing to do in many settings. I'm not going on a link expedition for you, even that is becoming more and more impossible, and useless as a resource.

Which might be a good thing, if enough people learn to distrust the media.

Your linear thinking is too simple. I don't like polls, I hang up on them.

2. Define things any way you want. I work with statistical analysis for a living, so I only get to use real mathematics.

3. Dont tell me what I love. What I don't love is sanctimonious big-city liberals acting as though they are for equality, but it is truly them and their supporters who are divisive. I have no problem with people of colour and I am not a liberal. What gives you the right to say what I think? You like to demonize me as a charicature to fit your comfortable view that you are right, I'm the bad man and it is my fault, not yours.

Just look on the TV. Unruly mob of emotional children. It's all about skin colour, ironically. The message here is to be divisive, a raised fist. Your people, not mine.

The left even ran out of letters to describe their sexuality, so many divisions they have. The left has become the more divisive of the two. It's not all things are equal, but you wish it were so you won't carry that blame yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

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

2. Poll answers also don't predict who is going to actually vote, and that's even more up in the air with COVID. 

1. Ok.  Maybe explain how polling importance varies ?  To you, I mean.

2. Fair enough, but they use factors to weigh likelihood of voting also.

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Shady said:

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

 

I felt a ripple in the force last night and I didn't quite know what was. Turns out it was 600,000 CNN viewers who's heads were right at the point of bursting lol.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Poll answers also don't predict who is going to actually vote, and that's even more up in the air with COVID.  

Voter apathy is one of the biggest factors in elections and it's often overlooked imo.

In 2016 there were probably a lot of Hillary voters who thought it was in the bag, so they didn't come out, and Hillary's "deplorables" comment basically ensured that every single GOP voter in the country came out. Despite a big gap in the electoral college votes, that election was well within the margins of voter apathy imo.

I think the only strong "voter apathy" issue in 2020 is "Do I really want my vote to put the nuclear codes in the hands of someone who's senile, who hates police, who loves violent riots, and who never accomplished anything, aside from making his son rich, in 5 decades of politics?"

The Dem base is riled because of the SCJ seat, and because they still believe in Russian collusion, but there's no one on earth who'd have Joe Biden as their first choice. Not one single person. Not even his wife "Hold your nose and vote for Joe" lol. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by WestCanMan

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.
 

 

Historical unpopularity ?   Compared to who /what ?  

Did you have the same "objective" view of President Obama's unpopularity ?

Or does that only apply to President Trump ?

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Historical unpopularity ?   Compared to who /what ?  

Did you have the same "objective" view of President Obama's unpopularity ?

Or does that only apply to President Trump ?

 

 

The graph of media favourability would also have Obama at +93% favourable coverage and Trump at 93% hostile & inaccurate unfavourable coverage for each of those 48 months.

For Trump's approval ratings to even be comparable to Obama's at this point is astounding.

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yes they can predict such things.  The margin of error could cut either way.

Some of the 2016 battleground state polling, even averages of the all polls, missed by 6 points.  Some individual polls missed by 9 or 10 points.  These are far beyond the margin of error.  The margin of error is BS.

When these are close battleground states and 2 or 3 points can decide an election the polls don't mean a lot.  One CNN poll had Trump leading Nevada by 6 points and Clinton won it by 2.5 points.  That's an error of 8.5 points!  One Loras poll had Clinton up by 1 point and Trump won by 9.5, that's 10.5 points!!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016StateFinalResults.html

Edited September 26, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[WestCanMan]

52 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Some of the 2016 battleground state polling, even averages of the all polls, missed by 6 points.  Some individual polls missed by 9 or 10 points.  These are far beyond the margin of error.  The margin of error is BS.

When these are close battleground states and 2 or 3 points can decide an election the polls don't mean a lot.  One CNN poll had Trump leading Nevada by 6 points and Clinton won it by 2.5 points.  That's an error of 8.5 points!  One Loras poll had Clinton up by 1 point and Trump by 9.5, that's 10.5 points!!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016StateFinalResults.html

Yup.

IMO polling data is as useful as asking a little kid what the weather is like outside. If it's sunny they'll say "it looks warm outside", even if it's Nov 8th. Sure, you'll come away with a better idea of what it's like outside than you would have had if you kept your head under a blanket, but you'd never choose your jacket, etc and just run out the door based on what they told you if you were going to be outside for a long time.

 

Polling in Canada always had the Liberals ahead for years leading up to the last federal election, and the Liberals lost the popular vote. 

Polling in the US had Hillary with a 92% chance of winning in early Nov of last year and she lost by a lot. If the polls even just said 55% and she got whooped like that I'd still say they were really bad, but they couldn't have actually been much more wrong than they were.

A 92% chance of winning needs to be backed up with a solid 300-238 win or it's just wrong imo. 

It's like if I was getting betting advice from a guy who said "The Bulls have a 92% chance of winning tonight" I'd expect to see them lead from beginning to end, and have a comfortable lead for the 4th quarter. If they trailed for most of the game and then just won by a flukey buzzer beater I'd instantly start getting my advice from somewhere else. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Some of the 2016 battleground state polling, even averages of the all polls, missed by 6 points.  Some individual polls missed by 9 or 10 points.  These are far beyond the margin of error. 

2. The margin of error is BS.

3. When these are close battleground states and 2 or 3 points can decide an election the polls don't mean a lot. 

4. One CNN poll had Trump leading Nevada by 6 points and Clinton won it by 2.5 points.  

1. Yes, there were some bad state polls and that is why Trump beat the odds.
2. Anti-science conspiracy theory stuff.  No, the margin of error is mathematically provable and is real.
3. I don't understand why you would say this.  I'm thinking you don't understand polling.
4. Again, it's such a strange statement I don't know where to begin.  

[Moonlight Graham]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, there were some bad state polls and that is why Trump beat the odds.
2. Anti-science conspiracy theory stuff.  No, the margin of error is mathematically provable and is real.
3. I don't understand why you would say this.  I'm thinking you don't understand polling.
4. Again, it's such a strange statement I don't know where to begin.  

Having faith in something and ignoring evidence to the contrary is anti-science.

If you have faith in the accurate predicting power of US battleground polling then have fun at church.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Having faith in something and ignoring evidence to the contrary is anti-science.

2. If you have faith in the accurate predicting power of US battleground polling then have fun at church.

1. "One CNN poll was wrong" is evidence of what exactly ?
2. You don't understand something, so like a monkey presented with a lazer pointer you run away shreiking.  

[DogOnPorch]

What did the tea leaves say? How about the Tarot? 

Will Joe Biden win?

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "One CNN poll was wrong" is evidence of what exactly ?
2. You don't understand something, so like a monkey presented with a lazer pointer you run away shreiking.  

1. That wasn't the evidence I presented.

2.  Polling is a tool and it has its uses but it doesn't accurately predict the future in tight races.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

Edited September 27, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

Joe Biden is the Ron Burgundy of candidates.  He’ll say whatever’s on the teleprompter!

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Polling is a tool and it has its uses but it doesn't accurately predict the future in tight races.

2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

1. Ok but it doesn't discount polling science to say this.  Also what is 'accurately predict the future' ?  Polls were pretty accurate on the national vote, and since your well-written Pew article came out (Nov 9 2016) they have discovered that the state polls in swing states were the issue.
2. Good article but we can still say "we predict with 75% accuracy that Biden will win"... and these methods are provable through experiments generally.  

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5741186

 

I'd be very interested to see his returns if he'd stop trying to block the release. 

[DogOnPorch]

Amazingly huge crowd at the Prayer March in Washington DC. 

Good thing Biden has this thing in the bag, eh?

Edited September 28, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5741186

 

I'd be very interested to see his returns if he'd stop trying to block the release. 

Apparently there were $70,000 in hairstyling expenses.  Orange mops are not cheap!

[Guest]

Wow, who knew, eh?

A stunning New York Times exposé of the President's tax returns Sunday revealed a pitifully inept businessman and a serial tax avoider crushed by massive debts that could expose him to conflicts of interest given his position as President and power to help undisclosed lenders.

Well, actually...

[Argus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Wow, who knew, eh?

A stunning New York Times exposé of the President's tax returns Sunday revealed a pitifully inept businessman and a serial tax avoider crushed by massive debts that could expose him to conflicts of interest given his position as President and power to help undisclosed lenders.

Well, actually...

This, in a nutshell, is everything wrong with the tax code. And don't for a second assume it's only in the US. Rich people with expensive accountants and tax lawyers find ways to avoid paying taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars in earnings, year after year after year, while the tax people come after little guys running restaurants or waitresses or clerks. Meanwhile the IRS has been auditing him for years now. When is that going to be done?

Just read a story on Meng Wanzhou, you remember her, the Chinese chick we've been trying to send to the US for what feels like forever. The story said the extradition fight could go on for a decade.

The incredible complexity and snails pace of anything concerned with law in both the US and Canada, especially when involving rich people, is the scandal of our times. The tax codes and laws need to be shredded and replaced with simple laws which can be quickly resolved and not manipulated by rich people. And the tax code needs to have minimum payments for rich guys like Trump. It's outrageous he can pull in hundreds of millions in a year and pay zero taxes.

[Boges]

On 9/25/2020 at 1:21 PM, WestCanMan said:

It's not happening because of Trump.

This is the same racial division that the Obamas were pushing when they were in the WH, this is the same rioting and looting from 2014-2016. WTF makes you think that these riots are Trump's fault? Just 'cause CNN said so? Lol.

I never thought it was funny when Charlie Brown trie to kick the football for the 50th time. I don't think it's funny when people believe CNN's 50th consecutive lie.

He's POTUS. Gotta own it. In fact, he likes racial strife. It helps him get a across the pearl clutching message to his frightened base. 

[Boges]

On 9/27/2020 at 10:12 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but it doesn't discount polling science to say this.  Also what is 'accurately predict the future' ?  Polls were pretty accurate on the national vote, and since your well-written Pew article came out (Nov 9 2016) they have discovered that the state polls in swing states were the issue.
2. Good article but we can still say "we predict with 75% accuracy that Biden will win"... and these methods are provable through experiments generally.  

To this, state polls have largely been the focus in this election. National results are largely ignored. 

Biden is leading in all relevant swing states. Yet two outlier polls come out to show Trump's fate is "somewhat" improving. Conservatives will be the first to try and spike the football. 

See recent polls that show him pulling even in Arizona and Florida. Even if they were 100% accurate. Arizona and Florida are states that Biden could lose and still trounce Trump. 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Boges

[DogOnPorch]

Project Veritas provides evidence of Ilhan Omar illegally harvesting votes.

So she buys absentee votes from the Somali community...fills them out and sends them in.

[Boges]

Trump's camp now fears the Biden will not be a senile fool and be rather competent. So his built in excuse will be that Biden is drugged up. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7362308/trump-demands-biden-take-drug-test/

Ironic that Trump showing that level of transparency when he could easily put all these Tax Issues to rest by releasing them. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Boges