Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

And yet here we are.  It was a reactionary vote.  A message to the establishment that they wanted something wholly different because the world in which they’d grown up had changed for the worse.  Your smug condescension doesn’t undo that fact.  I didn’t fall for the appeal of xenophobia.  I didn’t think anything positive about trump and I couldn’t believe he won.  But he did.  You want to write it off as idiots being idiots, that’s on you.   

It’s unfortunately common and a very bad look from those upset they didn’t get their way. Not sure how acting like that appeals to anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

This is why I think Bernie has a shot - plenty of folks still wanting something, ANYTHING that isn’t more of the same and definitely not more of Trump

Far from making up my mind on who I support, but anyone thinking Bernie has no shot are crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It’s unfortunately common and a very bad look from those upset they didn’t get their way. Not sure how acting like that appeals to anyone. 

In fairness to scooby, he was smarter and better equipped to argue with us long before Trump was elected.  It only now seems like liberal arrogance when in reality it’s just well earned arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mile High said:

Far from making up my mind on who I support, but anyone thinking Bernie has no shot are crazy.

He struggles with African American voters. That's a hurdle. Many candidates have adopted his platform, so he's no longer unique. I'm not counting him out by any means, but he definitely has his work cut out for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

He struggles with African American voters. That's a hurdle. Many candidates have adopted his platform, so he's no longer unique. I'm not counting him out by any means, but he definitely has his work cut out for him. 

What are the latest African American numbers for Trump?  Can't be that great.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

He struggles with African American voters. That's a hurdle. Many candidates have adopted his platform, so he's no longer unique. I'm not counting him out by any means, but he definitely has his work cut out for him. 

True, but a lot of the struggles with African Americans was in the older age groups, which are less Internet savvy than the younger generations. He won the young African American vote. I saw something from Tyndall Report back in the day that, in 2015, the broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) gave 327 minutes of coverage to Trump, 121 mins to Clinton, and 20 mins to Sanders (with 10 of those minutes coming in Dec 15). The first primaries were only a month or two after that. Also, remember that during 2015, Sanders was drawing larger rally crowds than both Trump and Clinton. I think when he went through one West Coast trip later in the year, he had about 77,000 rally attendees in something like 2-3 stops. 

I also worry about the lack of totally unique messaging, but I could also see that as a potential benefit. As one of my friends put it on social media: "why settle for imitation when you can have the original?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

He struggles with African American voters. That's a hurdle. Many candidates have adopted his platform, so he's no longer unique. I'm not counting him out by any means, but he definitely has his work cut out for him. 

Like who

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

One of the biggest advantages Bernie has, right now, is a huge email/donor list from 2016.

Most are probably like me - I don't pay much attention to Bernie's emails, but I never unsubscribed - so I got a few emails and a couple of texts today.  And, that is how you raise money - hit enough people, and then work on your conversion rates.

Gave money in 16. Put his emails on ignore, but I might resubscribe if the train gets going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2019 at 10:35 PM, timschochet said:

That’s not Bernie’s problem. I don’t think there’s enough of us anymore to decide anything. 

Bernie’s problem is that he’s not popular enough  with blacks, particularly black women. 

Show a poll with a Dem more popular with minorities.  I think you are incorrect.

Edited by IC FBGCav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IC FBGCav said:

Show a poll with a Dem more popular with minorities.  I think you are incorrect.

Bernie's polling about as well as anyone with minorities...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/12/18221752/2020-democrats-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-poll

Based on the polling in the article, Bernie has the 2nd highest combined polling percentage among Blacks and Hispanics of the top 5. And he's the only one polling at 20% or above with both...

Harris - 45%

Sanders - 43%

O'Rourke  - 40%  :rolleyes:

Biden - 36%

Warren - 29%

 

Edited by Mr Anonymous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WaPo - Ranking the Dem contenders

  1. Kamala Harris
  2. Bernie Sanders
  3. Elizabeth Warren
  4. Cory Booker
  5. Joe Biden
  6. Beto O'Rourke
  7. Amy Klobuchar
  8. Sherrod Brown
  9. Kirstin Gillibrand
  10. Michael Bloomberg
  11. Hillary Clinton
  12. Julian Castro
  13. Jay Inslee
  14. Terry McAuliffe
  15. Eric Holder

 

Other than Harris as the favorite, and Bernie as a top contender, not sure I agree with much else about the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Rolling Stone - Ranking the Dem contenders

  1. Harris
  2. Sanders
  3. Brown
  4. Biden
  5. O'Rourke
  6. Warren
  7. Booker
  8. Gillibrand
  9. Klobuchar
  10. Castro
  11. Hickenlooper
  12. Buttigieg
  13. Inslee
  14. Bullock
  15. Holder

 

 

 

Gillibrand is way too high. Then again, she is trying to replicate Trump's strategy of building a small, but loyal, base. Maybe she's onto something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Hampshire polling

 

  1. Bernie Sanders - 27%
  2. Joe Biden - 25%
  3. Kamala Harris - 12%
  4. Elizabeth Warren -  9%
  5. Amy Klobuchar  - 8%
  6. Beto O'Rourke - 5%
  7. Cory Booker - 5%
  8. Michael Bloomberg - 2%
  9. Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Sherrod Brown - 1%
  10. Tulsi Gabbard, Julian Castro - 0%
  11. Other - 5%

 

Obviously way too early to take a poll like this too seriously, but its a bad sign for both Warren and Gillibrand to poll this poorly in a near-by state.  Sanders should be expected to do well here, Harris' number is respectable, same for Klobuchar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also polled:

Warren v. Trump  52% v. 48%

Warren v. Trump v. Schultz  44% v. 45% v. 12%

Sanders v. Trump  55% v. 45%

Sanders v. Trump v. Schultz  48% v. 42% v. 10%

 

 

ETA:  Hillary edged Trump 47% v. 46.6% in 2016.

Edited by Sinn Fein
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

They also polled:

Warren v. Trump  52% v. 48%

Warren v. Trump v. Schultz  44% v. 45% v. 12%

Sanders v. Trump  55% v. 45%

Sanders v. Trump v. Schultz  48% v. 42% v. 10%

 

 

ETA:  Hillary edged Trump 47% v. 46.6% in 2016.

2016 should have been a lesson about some polls

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The lesson continues to be that a large amount of people don’t understand polling and statistics.

Including those pundits and "experts" on liberal stations like CNN and MSNBC.  

 

Doubtful the morons learn from their mistake, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt...should be fun.  :popcorn:

 

 

 

 

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Are they?

Yes and no....hard to say if the methodology is the same, sample size, margin of error...but if they were that is pretty irrelevant to the point.

Do you need a lesson in polling, statistics, and margin or error?  I don’t mean to be snarky...but it seems many need such a lesson when they ask that question or act as if polling was all that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes and no....hard to say if the methodology is the same, sample size, margin of error...but if they were that is pretty irrelevant to the point.

Do you need a lesson in polling, statistics, and margin or error?  I don’t mean to be snarky...but it seems many need such a lesson when they ask that question or act as if polling was all that bad.

Sure, give me a lesson in polling and then tell me why they were so far off in 2016, but please do both.  It may clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCP Average    11/2 - 11/7    --    --    45.5    42.2    4.7    1.9    Clinton +3.3
Bloomberg    11/4 - 11/6    799 LV    3.5    44    41    4    2    Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking    11/4 - 11/7    1026 LV    3.1    43    45    8    2    Trump +2
Economist/YouGov    11/4 - 11/7    3677 LV    --    45    41    5    2    Clinton +4
ABC/Wash Post Tracking    11/3 - 11/6    2220 LV    2.5    47    43    4    1    Clinton +4
FOX News    11/3 - 11/6    1295 LV    2.5    48    44    3    2    Clinton +4
Monmouth    11/3 - 11/6    748 LV    3.6    50    44    4    1    Clinton +6
Gravis    11/3 - 11/6    16639 RV    1.0    47    43    3    2    Clinton +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl    11/3 - 11/5    1282 LV    2.7    44    40    6    2    Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos    11/2 - 11/6    2196 LV    2.3    42    39    6    3    Clinton +3
Rasmussen Reports    11/2 - 11/6    1500 LV    2.5    45    43    4    2    Clinton +2
CBS News    11/2 - 11/6    1426 LV    3.0    45    41    5    2    Clinton +4

 

These were the last national polls prior to the 2016 election - with the final RealClear Politics average being Clinton +3.3.

The final election result was Clinton +2.1

 

I'm not sure that difference is statistically significant.  The national polls seemed to be remarkably accurate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Sure, give me a lesson in polling and then tell me why they were so far off in 2016, but please do both.  It may clear things up.

No.  Because of you still think was so far off in 2016, despite this topic coming up and people explaining that many times over the past 2+ years...you may never understand it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

The lesson continues to be that a large amount of people don’t understand polling and statistics.

 

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

These were the last national polls prior to the 2016 election - with the final RealClear Politics average being Clinton +3.3.

The final election result was Clinton +2.1

 

I'm not sure that difference is statistically significant.  The national polls seemed to be remarkably accurate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

All those numbers had Hillary winning.  Not ONE for Trump.  Maddow was classic.

psst - those numbers (one actually did have Trump winning) reflect the national vote.

Clinton did, in fact, win the national vote - by about the same amount that those polls suggested she would win by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

All those numbers had Hillary winning.  Not ONE for Trump.  Maddow was classic.

Do you understand what the popular vote was bs what the polling said (the polling wasn’t based on electoral votes) and was quite accurate wishing the margin of error?

Thwy didn’t have her as a landslide as you keep claiming and SF just showed you the numbers.

But if you want to keep digging that hole, go ahead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sinn Fein said:

psst - those numbers (one actually did have Trump winning) reflect the national vote.

Clinton did, in fact, win the national vote - by about the same amount that those polls suggested she would win by.

 

I distinctly remember all those liberal pundits asking why the polls had it so wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Do you understand what the popular vote was bs what the polling said (the polling wasn’t based on electoral votes) and was quite accurate wishing the margin of error?

Thwy didn’t have her as a landslide as you keep claiming and SF just showed you the numbers.

But if you want to keep digging that hole, go ahead.

Ok, but all of them had her winning the election and were wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Ok, but all of them had her winning the election and were wrong 

 

5 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I distinctly remember all those liberal pundits asking why the polls had it so wrong.

 Just put those goalposts wherever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

Ok, but all of them had her winning the election and were wrong 

No.  Thats not what those numbers indicate.

And, that is part of the problem, and general misunderstanding of polls in general, and extrapolating information from polls that the data does not support.

 

Those polls suggested that Clinton would win the national vote by 3.3%.  She won the national vote by 2.1%.  From a statistical polling standpoint - that is pretty darn accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

No.  Thats not what those numbers indicate.

And, that is part of the problem, and general misunderstanding of polls in general, and extrapolating information from polls that the data does not support.

 

Those polls suggested that Clinton would win the national vote by 3.3%.  She won the national vote by 2.1%.  From a statistical polling standpoint - that is pretty darn accurate.

Sorry, but I was referring to polls on who would win the election not pop vote.  

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...