Jump to content

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

SaysWho?

By SaysWho?
in The Political Re-Education Camp

 Share

Recommended Posts

thewhyteboar

thewhyteboar

Posted
Posted
Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I dunno picking a literal cop, not an AG like Harris but an actual cop, seems like a complete "missing the fucking point" by Biden so I'm absolutely positive it's her

But it will be amazing when Pelosi delivers a line like "Millennials, this is a presidential ticket you will want to cop."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarSolo

MarSolo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Uaarkson said:

Joe, for the love of god, please just shut the fuck up. For a few more months, please.


I see nothing wrong in what Joe said. In fact, it counteracts all the “Joe Biden wants a lawless country” that the Trump campaign is grasping at.

  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skillzdadirecta

skillzdadirecta

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Jose said:

https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-co-chair-100703240.html

 

There goes my VP pick!

Nina Turner is straight up awful.

 

EDIT: Reading this article led me to the original article she was quoted in which listed reasons why Trump could possibly win in November. Number two jumped out to me.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/how-trump-could-win-reelection/612205/

 

Quote

2. Polling could be wrong (again).

Four years ago, the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton came down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump narrowly won all three. This time around, Biden is leading in each of the same three states by anywhere from 6 to 8 points, the RealClearPolitics average of polls shows.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because state surveys also showed Clinton topping Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania ahead of the election. In Pennsylvania alone, seven different state polls taken in the first two weeks of October 2016 showed Clinton beating Trump by no fewer than 4 percentage points and by as many as 9. She wound up losing the state by about a point.

 

Postmortem analyses of state polling turned up serious flaws. In some instances, surveys failed to correct for the overrepresentation of college-educated voters who participate more in polls and tended to favor Clinton. Or they didn’t capture a trend in which most voters who made up their minds late voted for Trump.

Franklin, the Marquette Law School poll director, told me that his survey now shows Biden leading the president by 8 points in Wisconsin. But how much weight do such polls deserve, given the debacle in 2016? At the end of that race, Clinton led Trump by an average of more than 6 points in Wisconsin and then lost by nearly a point.

“So, that’s a large error,” Franklin said. “Was that a humbling experience?” I asked. “Yes! Absolutely. How could it not be?”

It’s not clear that state polling this time around is any better. “You certainly see state polls appearing today that clearly are not reflecting the educational distribution in the states they’re polling,” said Franklin, who took part in a postelection polling study conducted by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. “That’s a bit of a puzzlement.”

 

Kellyanne Conway, a former pollster and a current counselor to the president who served as Trump’s campaign manager in the 2016 race, argues that nothing has been fixed. “The same problems surround the polls this time because many of the people running the polls then are running the polls now. There’s been no course correction whatsoever,” Conway told me. “If polling were run like a business, the C-suite would have been cleaned out, the shareholders would have revolted, the customers would have walked away.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Signifyin(g)Monkey

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Jose said:

The polls weren't wrong in 2016. I don't know how many more times it has to be said.

They showed Clinton up by considerable margins (often 6-8 points) in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, though.

 

WI: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html

 

Michigan:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html
 

Pennsylvania:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

 

If, by adding on some series of Nate Silver-ian caveats, the polls cannot be said to have been technically ‘wrong’ in 2016 in the states where their accuracy mattered, they can at least be said to have been ‘completely worthless’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

They showed Clinton up by considerable margins (often 6-8 points) in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, though.

 

WI: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html

 

Michigan:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html
 

Pennsylvania:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

 

If, by adding on some series of Nate Silver-ian caveats, the polls cannot be said to have been technically ‘wrong’ in 2016 in the states where their accuracy mattered, they can at least be said to have been ‘completely worthless’.

 

2 of the 3 states were within the MoE and Wisconsin showed massive tightening in the final days before the election. Not wrong. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Not technically wrong, then, when you add in all manner of caveats—just practically worthless.

 

Technically.... you're wrong, lol. Jose has the right idea. Here's what he means, though I don't think many areas do a good job REALLY explaining the polls.

 

First of all, two of the three states you listed were within the margin of error. In no universe is that "practically worthless."

 

Second, here's more of a breakdown:

 

Michigan RCP: Hillary +3.6 (Clinton 47, Trump 43.4)

Michigan Results: Trump +0.3 (Clinton 47, Trump 47.3)

 

Within the margin of error, and huge tightening, mostly due to increased Trump support at the end. Hillary's average of 47% was exactly what she received. Polls were good. If Hillary had over 50% support in the polls, it's unlikely she'd have lost the state.

 

 

Wisconsin RCP: Clinton +6.3 (Clinton 46.8, Trump 40.3)

Wisconsin Results: Trump +0.7 (Clinton 46.5, Trump 47.2)

 

You can make a better case with this, but even then, look at the numbers: Clinton's is exact. So what happened? Undecideds went heavily for Trump at the end. That's why Biden's lead is different; he's actually leading by over 50% in some cases, meaning all undecideds could go to Trump in that scenario and Trump still couldn't win. If Biden has sub-50 close to election day, that's a different story.

 

 

Pennsylvania RCP: Clinton +2.1 (Clinton 46.8, Trump 44.7)

Pennsylvania Results: Trump +0.7 (Clinton 47.5, Trump 48.2)

 

Well within the margin of error. Polls did great in Pennsylvania. Undecideds went more for Trump than Clinton, just not to the same extent as Wisconsin/Michigan.

 

 

You can't say, "Well they're gonna throw in all these caveats so what's the point?" The caveats are important because a 46-40 lead is different than a 51-45 lead, and the number of undecideds is important considering both candidates had no majority support in any of these states.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Another comparison point would be Obama v Romney 2012. Here's Wisconsin:

 

RCP: Obama +4.2 (Obama 50.4, Romney 46.2)

Result: Obama +6.9 (Obama 52.8, Romney 45.9)

 

Not much of a difference between this margin of error and 2016 Pennsylvania. But we don't talk about this because Obama ended up winning even though the margin of error was relatively the same. Romney's numbers were nearly exact, but undecideds went to Obama. And even if they didn't, he already had majority support in most polls, a better position than Clinton's 40-something plurality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here's a better example with the opposite party. While 538 showed Obama with a slim lead in Florida, RCP showed Romney with a slim lead. The numbers:

 

2012 Florida RCP: Romney +1.5 (Obama 48.2, Romney 49.7)

2012 Florida Results: Obama +0.9 (Obama 50, Romney 49.1)

 

No one talks about this, but that's an over 2 point margin of error, similar to 2016 in a place like Pennsylvania. 

 

Romney's lead was off by .6, which is not much, but here's the most important part: he didn't have 50+ support in the polls. His lead there was not as comfortable as places where Obama was leading with 50+. He had the same issue in Florida as Hillary did in a place like Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/

 

I have linked to this article so many times. I remember Silver getting so much shit for this and he ended up accurately predicting that Trump had a shot.

 

Also, Nate essentially predicted the wackiness that went down in Wisconsin. That state ended up being so off because there were so few polls conducted in the state leading up to the collection. Compare with Florida:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

 

30 polls conducted in Florida from October through the election and only 12 conducted in Wisconsin. How could the polls even be trusted to be accurate in Wisconsin when so few were conducted? Blame the pollsters for commissioning such a few amount of polls in Wisconsin, but blaming the polls themselves is wrong.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jose said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/

 

I have linked to this article so many times. I remember Silver getting so much shit for this and he ended up accurately predicting that Trump had a shot.

 

Also, Nate essentially predicted the wackiness that went down in Wisconsin. That state ended up being so off because there were so few polls conducted in the state leading up to the collection. Compare with Florida:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

 

30 polls conducted in Florida from October through the election and only 12 conducted in Wisconsin. How could the polls even be trusted to be accurate in Wisconsin when so few were conducted? Blame the pollsters for commissioning such a few amount of polls in Wisconsin, but blaming the polls themselves is wrong.

 

 

 

And a key passage:

 

Quote

It’s true that Trump would have to make a breakthrough somewhere, by winning at least one state in Clinton’s firewall. But that’s why it’s not only reasonable but 100 percent strategically correct for Trump to be campaigning in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. (I’ll grant that New Mexico is more of a stretch.) Sure, Trump’s behind in these states, but he has to win somewhere where he’s behind — or he’s consigning himself to four more years in Trump Tower instead of the White House. Michigan and Wisconsin are as reasonable as any other targets: Trump isn’t any further behind in them than he is in higher-profile battleground states such as Pennsylvania, and the demographics are potentially more favorable for him.

 

If you want to debate a campaign’s geographic planning, Hillary Clinton spending time in Arizona is a much worse decision than Trump hanging out in Michigan or Wisconsin. Sure, she could win the state — but probably only if she’s having a strong night nationally. If the results are tight next Tuesday instead, Michigan and Wisconsin are much more likely to swing the election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Signifyin(g)Monkey

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jose said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/

 

I have linked to this article so many times. I remember Silver getting so much shit for this and he ended up accurately predicting that Trump had a shot.

 

Also, Nate essentially predicted the wackiness that went down in Wisconsin. That state ended up being so off because there were so few polls conducted in the state leading up to the collection. Compare with Florida:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

 

30 polls conducted in Florida from October through the election and only 12 conducted in Wisconsin. How could the polls even be trusted to be accurate in Wisconsin when so few were conducted? Blame the pollsters for commissioning such a few amount of polls in Wisconsin, but blaming the polls themselves is wrong.

 

 

I'm not so much blaming the polls themselves as pointing out their predictive worthlessness in regards to the General Election once you've applied all the relevant statistical caveats.

 

They're basically irrelevant until right before election day, (because there could always be what you described as a 'last minute tightening' or 'shift' that erases any existing advantage for either candidate) and anytime one of the candidate's advantage falls within the margin of error, they functionally tell you nothing.  The MOE in most of them, particularly in the swing states, is typically around 2-3%, if not higher.  And as we have seen, inevitably the gap between the candidates dwindles to 2 or 3 points in the the most important--and thence competitive--states in the election's final days, when the undecideds pick their side, thence putting any advantage/disadvantage in the margin of error, thence making the polling numbers in those states predictively worthless.

 

I would say their real use is in ex post facto analysis, where you can filter the Rorschach of numbers through the actual outcome of the election.  I would attach no real predictive significance to them save for those that emerge maybe a week or less before November 3, 2020.  Until then, nothing concrete can be gleaned from them outside of the conclusion that "Donald Trump might or might not win the election".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

And as we have seen, inevitably the gap between the candidates dwindles to 2 or 3 points in the the most important--and thence competitive--states in the election's final days, when the undecideds pick their side, thence putting any advantage/disadvantage in the margin of error, thence making the polling numbers in those states predictively worthless.

Good thing Biden is polling 50+% then and that's before anyone undecided on trump (who can go pound sand because it won't really matter) make a choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BloodyHell

BloodyHell

Posted
Posted
On 7/28/2020 at 9:58 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I dunno picking a literal cop, not an AG like Harris but an actual cop, seems like a complete "missing the fucking point" by Biden so I'm absolutely positive it's her

Harris is worse than a cop. She spent her life pushing for long sentences for minor crimes, trying to pad her resume with the incarcerations of her own people. I dislike her almost as much as I dislike Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Hell yeah, dawg!

 

Let's get this "Accelerationism Train" going full speed ahead!

 

I am guess that the actual counting of mail-in votes for many states will take weeks. Now, it could be that Biden comes out so far ahead that the remaining states don't matter...but I don't think that's likely (I think that he'll win, but it will be tighter than the polls are now). So, the day after election day, when no official winner is called (but we are simply waiting for votes to be counted), how likely is it for Trump and his allies to declare the results rigged or invalid, based on those delays? I think it's pretty likely. It's ridiculous, of course, since elections did often taken many days and weeks to tabulate prior to instant communication across the continent. Just because something takes time, that does not make it less valid. But Trump's supports are very dumb, and they are used to elections being called almost instantly, so I think they would go along with it and we're going to have a situation where around 30-35% of the country will agree that the results aren't legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...