Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great Place


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Silver was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009 after an election forecasting system he developed successfully predicted the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.[5] In the 2012 United States presidential election, the forecasting system correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[6]

You have to go back to 2012 because they wished they could take that award away from him after 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • knowledge dropper

    2406

  • timschochet

    1780

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1688

  • The General

    1584

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For anyone who has ever wondered how authoritarians manage to take power in "modern" democracies, here's your first hand evidence that the USA is not immune. Thankfully it appears that the system is h

Are we sure it isn't Alamo Landscaping?

Following in the footsteps of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and Google Plus, the Footballguys Forum hereby suspends President Trump's posting privileges. The suspension takes effect immediat

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

It is not just Nate Silver working by himself, 538 tracks all the polls and has a pretty good (but not infallible) track record

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight, sometimes rendered as 538, is a website that focuses on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging. The website, which takes its name from the number of electors in the United States electoral college,[538 1] was founded on March 7, 2008 as a polling aggregation website with a blog created by analyst Nate Silver.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

Silver was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009 after an election forecasting system he developed successfully predicted the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.[5] In the 2012 United States presidential election, the forecasting system correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[6]

Yeah. One source.   Polls are biased, generally unreliable and a waste of time.

Of course that's my pinion.   But there is enough evidence to support my position.  IF you are willing to look at all polls and not just the ones you agree with.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

You have to go back to 2012 because they wished they could take that award away from him after 2016.

Why is that? 

My, albeit rusty, recollection was that 538 gave Trump the best chance of winning of any of the media outlets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah. One source.   Polls are biased, generally unreliable and a waste of time.

Of course that's my pinion.   But there is enough evidence to support my position.  IF you are willing to look at all polls and not just the ones you agree with.

No, an aggregate of polls is not just one source.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Why is that? 

My, albeit rusty, recollection was that 538 gave Trump the best chance of winning of any of the media outlets.

Your recollection is correct (and it should be remembered that the Trump campaign itself did not expect to win, as evidenced by the fact they didn't bother in advance to draft a campaign acceptance speech). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

2016 U.S. elections[edit]

Main article: FiveThirtyEight: 2016 U.S. elections

In the week leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FiveThirtyEight team predicted that Hillary Clinton had a 64.5% chance of winning the election. Their final prediction on November 8, 2016, gave Clinton a 71% chance to win the 2016 United States presidential election,[89] while other major forecasters had predicted Clinton to win with at least an 85% to 99% probability.[90][91] Donald Trump won the election. FiveThirtyEight argued it projected a much higher chance (29%) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than other pollsters,[90] a projection which was criticized days before the election by Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post as "unskewing" too much in favor of Trump.[92]

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well, maybe 3-5 states, though I wonder about that. Is anyone really familiar with Wisconsin polling in 2016? Is anyone now?

Why is this so confusing? Yes, polls that said Hillary would win by 3% nationally were right. Yes, people consumed by horserace politics (I plead guilty) were wrong to assume MI, WI & PA were in the bag. Don't make the same mistake. No one should care (well maybe a little) about enthusiasm for Trump or Biden nationally. What's Dem enthusiasm in Philly and Detroit? How is GOP enthusiasm in Phoenix and Pittsburgh suburbs? IIRC 2016 came down to like 250 (?) counties.

I can tell you here in Philly, it's very Democratic.  They will vote Democrat even against their best interest.  But the leadership of Gov. Wolf, Mayor Kenney and DA Larry Krasner has people starting to get pissed with the Democratic leadership here in Philly and the close suburbs.  Obama in 2012 got 588,000 votes in Philly vs. 96,000 for Romney.  In 2016, Hillary got 560,000 vs Trumps 105,000.  My guess is Trump beats the 105,000 votes here in Philly.  Does Biden get more than the 560,000 Hillary got?  His ceiling is Obama's 588,000 but I don't think he sniffs that.  At best you could see a return of the results of 2008 where Obama got 574,000 votes vs. 113,000 for McCain.  So basically, a negligible increase for Biden at best, but I'm not sure Biden reaches 570,000.  Looking at the results maps in PA the areas north of Philly matter more.  They were blue for Obama and red for Trump.

EDIT: Trump won PA by 78,000 votes.  Biden is going to need way more than a bump in Philly.  Gov. Wolf is doing his best to get people to vote Republican in November. 

Edited by Snotbubbles
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I can tell you here in Philly, it's very Democratic.  They will vote Democrat even against their best interest.  But the leadership of Gov. Wolf, Mayor Kenney and DA Larry Krasner has people starting to get pissed with the Democratic leadership here in Philly and the close suburbs.  Obama in 2012 got 588,000 votes in Philly vs. 96,000 for Romney.  In 2016, Hillary got 560,000 vs Trumps 105,000.  My guess is Trump beats the 105,000 votes here in Philly.  Does Biden get more than the 560,000 Hillary got?  His ceiling is Obama's 588,000 but I don't think he sniffs that.  At best you could see a return of the results of 2008 where Obama got 574,000 votes vs. 113,000 for McCain.  So basically, a negligible increase for Biden at best, but I'm not sure Biden reaches 570,000.  Looking at the results maps in PA the areas north of Philly matter more.  They were blue for Obama and red for Trump.

EDIT: Trump won PA by 78,000 votes.  Biden is going to need way more than a bump in Philly.  Gov. Wolf is doing his best to get people to vote Republican in November. 

This is great stuff, love the insight from PA, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys seem to be spending a lot of time trying to reassure each other why these polls don’t matter or are wrong (or in the case of one of you, why NO polls matter and they’re ALL wrong.) Why not just embrace reality? 
 

Let me offer an example: I am for pretty much wide open immigration to this country. At least 70% of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, disagree with me on this. So I’m not going to get what I want and the issue is a political loser for me. It’s always going to be a loser for me unless the public changes their mind about that. I seriously doubt they ever will. 
 

See? Was that so hard? Never once did I have to admit that I am wrong about that issue (I’m not; it’s the majority who’s wrong.) I just had to admit that in terms of public opinion I’m in the minority. I can deal with reality.

Why not just admit: “Hey things look pretty bad for Trump right now. As a Trump supporter I sure hope that changes before November, but right now it doesn’t look good for me.” Why try to argue yourself into knots? Public opinion is what it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

You guys seem to be spending a lot of time trying to reassure each other why these polls don’t matter or are wrong (or in the case of one of you, why NO polls matter and they’re ALL wrong.) Why not just embrace reality? 
 

Let me offer an example: I am for pretty much wide open immigration to this country. At least 70% of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, disagree with me on this. So I’m not going to get what I want and the issue is a political loser for me. It’s always going to be a loser for me unless the public changes their mind about that. I seriously doubt they ever will. 
 

See? Was that so hard? Never once did I have to admit that I am wrong about that issue (I’m not; it’s the majority who’s wrong.) I just had to admit that in terms of public opinion I’m in the minority. I can deal with reality.

Why not just admit: “Hey things look pretty bad for Trump right now. As a Trump supporter I sure hope that changes before November, but right now it doesn’t look good for me.” Why try to argue yourself into knots? Public opinion is what it is. 

Because I guarantee I can find a poll that shows Trump is not looking bad.

Are your partisan binders that restrictive you cant acknowledge that?
Was that SO hard to admit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I can tell you here in Philly, it's very Democratic.  They will vote Democrat even against their best interest.  But the leadership of Gov. Wolf, Mayor Kenney and DA Larry Krasner has people starting to get pissed with the Democratic leadership here in Philly and the close suburbs.  Obama in 2012 got 588,000 votes in Philly vs. 96,000 for Romney.  In 2016, Hillary got 560,000 vs Trumps 105,000.  My guess is Trump beats the 105,000 votes here in Philly.  Does Biden get more than the 560,000 Hillary got?  His ceiling is Obama's 588,000 but I don't think he sniffs that.  At best you could see a return of the results of 2008 where Obama got 574,000 votes vs. 113,000 for McCain.  So basically, a negligible increase for Biden at best, but I'm not sure Biden reaches 570,000.  Looking at the results maps in PA the areas north of Philly matter more.  They were blue for Obama and red for Trump.

EDIT: Trump won PA by 78,000 votes.  Biden is going to need way more than a bump in Philly.  Gov. Wolf is doing his best to get people to vote Republican in November. 

I will say this: I do believe that Pennsylvania will decide the election. If Trump wins that state, it’s likely he wins the election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Because I guarantee I can find a poll that shows Trump is not looking bad.

Are your partisan binders that restrictive you cant acknowledge that?
Was that SO hard to admit?

Sure you can. Start with Rasmussen. And there are a few other outliers. 
But the majority of polls reflect clearly that Trump is in deep trouble. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Sure you can. Start with Rasmussen. And there are a few other outliers. 
But the majority of polls reflect clearly that Trump is in deep trouble. 

Not gonna have the same fight with you man. Joe already told me to stop.  You're wrong and you're biased and this conversation cannot continue.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Not gonna have the same fight with you man. Joe already told me to stop.  You're wrong and you're biased and this conversation cannot continue.  

Sorry you feel that way. If you believe you can’t continue the conversation without personal attacks, then you’re right to stop. Best of luck. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best thing to happen to Trump's re-election campaign was getting Biden. A worse candidate than Hillary. 

I can't wait for Joe to be in the spotlight again. Except it isnt safe for him to leave his house yet. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Best thing to happen to Trump's re-election campaign was getting Biden. A worse candidate than Hillary. 

 

You could be right but I don’t believe President Trump shares your opinion. He did everything he could to destroy Biden before the primaries, (for which he was rightfully impeached) and then tried to promote Bernie at every opportunity. Biden is the one guy Trump didn’t want to face. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

Dems know that Biden doesn't motivate people to go vote for him.  It's not enough to say you would vote for Biden, you actually have to get up and do it.  Trump supporters are very motivated. 

What's this assumption based on?  2016 or the 2018 elections?

I'd imagine that Trump carried 2016 based on a combination of traditional Republican values, being a newcomer, Democratic fatigue and Hillary hate.

2018 showed that once Hillary (arguably right there with Trump as the most liked/disliked National political candidate of the past 40 years) was out of the picture and Trump wasn't the newcomer and actually had a political record......his party suffered. 

 

What have Trump/Republicans done since 2018 that mitigates some of the hate/concern over his leadership methods that helped flip the script from 16 to 18?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Power said:

Best thing to happen to Trump's re-election campaign was getting Biden. A worse candidate than Hillary. 

I can't wait for Joe to be in the spotlight again. Except it isnt safe for him to leave his house yet. 

Hillary runs circles around Biden in every conceivable way. As I mentioned earlier, I have no idea how this man is the nominee.

That said, the way he is discussed is very similar to how those on "my side" talk about Trump. "He's this, he's that. How does this appeal to anyone?"

And then suddenly you wake up one day and he's the President.

Wouldn't be shocked if that is what happens with Biden.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

I can tell you here in Philly, it's very Democratic.  They will vote Democrat even against their best interest.  But the leadership of Gov. Wolf, Mayor Kenney and DA Larry Krasner has people starting to get pissed with the Democratic leadership here in Philly and the close suburbs.  Obama in 2012 got 588,000 votes in Philly vs. 96,000 for Romney.  In 2016, Hillary got 560,000 vs Trumps 105,000.  My guess is Trump beats the 105,000 votes here in Philly.  Does Biden get more than the 560,000 Hillary got?  His ceiling is Obama's 588,000 but I don't think he sniffs that.  At best you could see a return of the results of 2008 where Obama got 574,000 votes vs. 113,000 for McCain.  So basically, a negligible increase for Biden at best, but I'm not sure Biden reaches 570,000.  Looking at the results maps in PA the areas north of Philly matter more.  They were blue for Obama and red for Trump.

EDIT: Trump won PA by 78,000 votes.  Biden is going to need way more than a bump in Philly.  Gov. Wolf is doing his best to get people to vote Republican in November. 

The suburbs however are an absolute mine field for Rs in the time of Trump however. I'd imagine bumping Philadelphia city turnout and then peeling away more of the educated white vote in the suburbs is the entire Biden playbook.

Obama net about 62k more votes than Romney in Bucks/Chester/Montgomery in 2012.

Clinton net about 120k more votes than Trump in those same counties in 2016.

The biggest piece of the puzzle here is how much further can Ds fall in the rural rest of the state. Clinton still carries PA with Obama '12 rural margins. The bottom totally fell out there however leading to the narrow Trump win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

What's this assumption based on?  2016 or the 2018 elections?

I'd imagine that Trump carried 2016 based on a combination of traditional Republican values, being a newcomer, Democratic fatigue and Hillary hate.

2018 showed that once Hillary (arguably right there with Trump as the most liked/disliked National political candidate of the past 40 years) was out of the picture and Trump wasn't the newcomer and actually had a political record......his party suffered. 

 

What have Trump/Republicans done since 2018 that mitigates some of the hate/concern over his leadership methods that helped flip the script from 16 to 18?

Mid-terms usually don't end up to well for the party that wins the general election.  There is usually a lack of enthusiasm for the winning party and a wave for the losing party.  Obama lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats.  He did ok in 2012.  Clinton lost 54 House and 10 Senate seats.  He did ok.  Trump lost 40 House seats and GAINED 2 Senate seats.  So he definitely did better in the mid-terms than either of those two guys.  Going back 100 years only FDR and Bush II didn't lose seats in their first mid-term.  2018 isn't even relevant for 2020 IMO.

I base my thoughts on the voter turnout in the primaries.  This isn't the article I wanted to link but it's good enough.  The one I read the other day had charts and percentages of voter turnout in the primaries that showed a larger percentage of Republicans turned out to vote in the primaries than Democrats.  But this article is a symptom of the enthusiasm problems Biden has and why I think he's going to lose in November.  

 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democratic-primary-turnout-problems-960784/

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1263516997746405379?s=21

Trump supporters want to say Biden’s mental decline is a reason we shouldn’t vote for him yet this is the other option and the guy that they worship? Good god :lol:

Yes, I was just about to post this - and we keep hearing that Biden can't string two coherent sentences together.

Trump this morning on not having the coronavirus:

"And I tested very positively in another sense. So this morning, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative."

:mellow:

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

I am going to love Joe’s reaction when he sees Corn Pop sitting in the front row of the debate as a guest of Trump   

I would too, considering Corn Pop died in 2016.  ☠️

  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

Yes, I was just about to post this - and we keep hearing that Biden can't string two coherent sentences together.

Trump this morning on not having the coronavirus:

"And I tested very positively in another sense. So this morning, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative."

:mellow:

I'm sure Trump will make that a campaign slogan.

Edited by Leroy Hoard
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

Does Biden even have a platform?  Any fresh ideas?

Bringing back record players. Proposing solar-powered ports to land locked states.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

Yes, I was just about to post this - and we keep hearing that Biden can't string two coherent sentences together.

Trump this morning on not having the coronavirus:

"And I tested very positively in another sense. So this morning, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative."

:mellow:

:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing more fruitless than arguing who's going to win, but I've been guilty of it myself.

Uncle Joe has about as much chance as a snowball in hell, especially after trying to feel up the little girl. Slim-to-none at best (& Slim left town), but we'll see.

It can't come soon enough for me, LOL.

Edited by Football Jones
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Damn right. I would love that. Been reading she might be our next attorney general though. We need to put a stop to civil rights violations in voting in the south. 

I don't think that President Trump would ever appoint her.

But hey...dare to dream.

Edited by Opie
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the gift Joe Biden’s VP shortlisters are delivering President Trump in the Senate. What a 🤡 show. 
 

Quote

Senator Kamala Harris last week introduced a resolution condemning the use of the phrase “Wuhan virus” to refer to SARS-CoV-2, the deadly coronavirus that has spread from the Chinese city of Wuhan across the globe, as racist.

Harris introduced the resolution on Thursday, joined by fellow Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. It aims to “condemn and denounce anti-Asian sentiment, racism, discrimination, and religious intolerance” related to the coronavirus, and specifically cites phrases such as “Wuhan virus,” “Chinese virus,” and “Kung-flu.” It also calls on federal officials to “expeditiously investigate and document” credible reports of hate crimes or threats against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander communities and “investigate and prosecute perpetrators” if necessary.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coronavirus-pandemic-senator-kamala-harris-introduces-resolution-condemning-use-of-wuhan-virus-as-racist/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Damn right. I would love that. Been reading she might be our next attorney general though. We need to put a stop to civil rights violations in voting in the south. 

Surprised Obama and Biden didn't already do that.  They were in the White House for 8 years.  Biden's only been a politician for what, 40 years?  But now he's gonna stop civil rights violations?   Okay.  Lol. 

It took Trump 2 years in office to do criminal justice reform, turning back crap policies Biden and his Democratic cronies like Bill Clinton put together back in the 90s.  Gimme a break.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

Look at the gift Joe Biden’s VP shortlisters are delivering President Trump in the Senate. What a 🤡 show. 
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coronavirus-pandemic-senator-kamala-harris-introduces-resolution-condemning-use-of-wuhan-virus-as-racist/

She was complaining the other day that the Hunter Biden investigation was a wasting resources when there were more important issues at hand.  I guess she meant this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Surprised Obama and Biden didn't already do that.  They were in the White House for 8 years.  Biden's only been a politician for what, 40 years?  But now he's gonna stop civil rights violations?   Okay.  Lol. 

It took Trump 2 years in office to do criminal justice reform, turning back crap policies Biden and his Democratic cronies like Bill Clinton put together back in the 90s.  Gimme a break.

Yeah, pretty safe to say Biden clearly isn’t the guy for that job. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7%3famp

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

Which enthusiasm poll are you using?  The one I saw reported this:

On March 24, 2020 here were the enthusiasm results.

Trump supporters: 53% very, 32% somewhat, 14% not at all

Buden supporters: 24% very, 49% somewhat, 26% not at all

To compare Biden to Hillary was at 32% very.  

We'll see in the next couple months how the enthusiasm changes based on the coronavirus.  If the recovery looks like it's going in the right direction, Trump should have some good enthusiasm results.

This poll that came out from Fox News today is really bad news for Trump

”Among voters who are extremely motivated about voting this fall, Biden has a 12-point advantage (53-41 percent).  More Biden supporters (69 percent) than Trump supporters (63 percent) feel extremely motivated to vote.“

I for sure expected Trump voters to be more motivated than Biden voters but if this is how it’s trending... yikes, Trump might be in serious trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well, maybe 3-5 states, though I wonder about that. Is anyone really familiar with Wisconsin polling in 2016? Is anyone now?

Why is this so confusing? Yes, polls that said Hillary would win by 3% nationally were right. Yes, people consumed by horserace politics (I plead guilty) were wrong to assume MI, WI & PA were in the bag. Don't make the same mistake. No one should care (well maybe a little) about enthusiasm for Trump or Biden nationally. What's Dem enthusiasm in Philly and Detroit? How is GOP enthusiasm in Phoenix and Pittsburgh suburbs? IIRC 2016 came down to like 250 (?) counties.

You believe the polls and you trust them.
Good for you....whatever gets you through the night.

But they mean absolutely nothing and can be skewed to the will of the pollsters.

As for me....I'll never believe 'one....never trust 'one....and never quote one.

Well....that is....until the final one...the only one that counts for anything.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Opie said:

You believe the polls and you trust them.
Good for you....whatever gets you through the night.

But they mean absolutely nothing and can be skewed to the will of the pollsters.

As for me....I'll never believe 'one....never trust 'one....and never quote one.

Well....that is....until the final one...the only one that counts for anything.

You go girl.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Opie said:

Yay polls!!

Gotta trust 'em....gotta believe 'em.

Money in the BANK!

No they aren't and I never said or suggested that they were.

They are just are just a snapshot in time, which may or may not be predictive.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...