Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2020 Presidential Election Polling Thread


TripItUp

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2020 at 1:36 PM, Anarchy99 said:

For those that put stock and faith in 538's model (which is certainly open for debate), they have Biden sitting at 82% to win. On a state by state basis, here are the states where they have him 80% or better to win . . .

DC - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 75.5 in polls
MA - 11 delegates - 99% to win - Up 36.3 in polls
MD - 10 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.7 in polls
VT - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.2 in polls
CA - 55 delegates - 99% to win - Up 30.8 in polls
NY - 29 delegates - 99% to win - Up 29.8 in polls
HI - 4 delegates - 99% to win - Up 29.6 in polls
WA - 12 delegates - 99% to win - Up 26.8 in polls
DE - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 24.1 in polls
CT - 7 delegates - 99% to win - Up 23.6 in polls
RI - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 23.2 in polls
IL - 20 delegates - 99% to win - Up 17.4 in polls
NJ - 14 delegates - 98% to win - Up 20.0 in polls
VA - 13 delegates - 98% to win - Up 11.8 in polls
ME1 - 1 delegate - 97% to win - Up 24.6 in polls
OR - 7 delegates - 96% to win - Up 18.4 in polls
NM - 5 delegates - 96% to win - Up 13.1 in polls
CO - 9 delegates - 92% to win - Up 12.3 in polls
MN - 10 delegates - 90% to win - Up 9.1 in polls
MI - 16 delegates - 90% to win - Up 7.3 in polls
ME - 2 delegates - 89% to win - Up 15.2 in polls
NV - 6 delegates - 84% to win - Up 6.6 in polls
PA - 20 delegates - 84% to win - Up 6.6 in polls
WI - 10 delegates - 83% to win - Up 6.9 in polls
NH - 4 delegates - 80% to win - Up 9.7 in polls
TOTAL - 278 delegates

Also currently leading in:
NE2 - 1 delegate - 70% to win - Up 6.2 in polls
AZ - 11 delegates - 66% to win - Up 4.4 in polls
FL - 29 delegates - 65% to win - Up 3.3 in polls
NC - 15 delegates - 58% to win - Up 2.0 in polls
ME2 - 1 delegate - 53% to win - Up 3.9 in polls
OH - 18 delegates - 51% to win - Up 0.5 in polls

I won't bother listing the other states that Trump is leading in ( a couple of which could go either way). Even if Trump won all the ones I didn't list AND all the ones on that short list above including OH and FL, Trump still would need to break into that longer list to win to get to 270 delegates. That would mean Trump would have to win one or two states on that list to pull off the victory. Maybe the polls are off (certainly possible), maybe something happens that swings the polls some (also a possibility), but Trump certainly looks like he is running out of paths to win the election if the polls are accurate (which is always open to debate). Of course, Trump could also run interference to challenge the results and claim fraud, but he seemingly is far enough behind that even allegations and recounts may not come into play (again, if the polls are close to accurate).

Updated 2 days later.

DC - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 75.7 in polls
MA - 11 delegates - 99% to win - Up 36.9 in polls
MD - 10 delegates - 99% to win - Up 32.0 in polls
VT - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.4 in polls
CA - 55 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.2 in polls
NY - 29 delegates - 99% to win - Up 30.4 in polls
HI - 4 delegates - 99% to win - Up 30.3 in polls
WA - 12 delegates - 99% to win - Up 27.5 in polls
DE - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 24.6 in polls
CT - 7 delegates - 99% to win - Up 24.3 in polls
RI - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 23.9 in polls
IL - 20 delegates - 99% to win - Up 17.9 in polls
NJ - 14 delegates - 98% to win - Up 20.6 in polls
VA - 13 delegates - 98% to win - Up 12.3 in polls
ME1 - 1 delegate - 98% to win - Up 26.5 in polls
OR - 7 delegates - 97% to win - Up 18.9 in polls
NM - 5 delegates - 96% to win - Up 13.7 in polls
CO - 9 delegates - 93% to win - Up 13.0 in polls
MI - 16 delegates - 91% to win - Up 7.8 in polls
MN - 10 delegates - 90% to win - Up 8.9 in polls
ME - 2 delegates - 89% to win - Up 15.0 in polls
NV - 6 delegates - 86% to win - Up 6.8 in polls
PA - 20 delegates - 85% to win - Up 7.1 in polls
WI - 10 delegates - 83% to win - Up 7.0 in polls
NH - 4 delegates - 81% to win - Up 10.0 in polls
TOTAL - 278 delegates

Also currently leading in:
NE2 - 1 delegate - 73% to win - Up 6.8 in polls
FL - 29 delegates - 72% to win - Up 4.7 in polls
AZ - 11 delegates - 68% to win - Up 4.5 in polls
NC - 15 delegates - 61% to win - Up 2.7 in polls
OH - 18 delegates - 51% to win - Up 0.5 in polls

Generally speaking, Biden moved up roughly 0.5 in most of these state. The only thing that changed of note was District 2 in Maine has swung to leaning Trump (worth 1 delegate). Biden currently +9.8 nationally, 85% to win, and currently projected at 344-194. If Biden wins all the states on that top list, Trump can't get enough electoral votes to win (short of getting into a legal or legislative battle).
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 Oct, some other year . . . (link)

Quote

Even with a comfortable victory on the cards, it seems Clinton’s time in the White House could be as tough as Obama’s

Quote

That probability is that Hillary Clinton, with all her strengths and weaknesses, is going to win on 8 November, and is quite possibly going to win by a very large margin.

Quote

The immediate question, 12 days from the election, is less whether Clinton will win the presidency. It is more whether she can manage to persuade enough voters to elect a Congress that can work with her, not against her, as has been Obama’s fate for the past six years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spodog said:

27 Oct, some other year . . . (link)

 

My favorite charts to look at about the 2016 election are the How the Forecast has Changed charts on FiveThirtyEight.  Look at electoral college, chance of winning and popular vote charts.  Then, compare it the 2020 versions.  You'll notice the 2016 was often much closer and more volatile.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Trump can't win reelection.  It's just less likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Monmouth University Polling Institute recently conducted a poll that found young, college-educated Americans are more likely to believe the violent actions of protestors are justifiable.

Quote

 

Do you think the actions of the protestors have been fully justified, partially justified, or not at all justified?

Fully or Partially Justified - 64%

Not Justified - 31%

Depends - 3%

Don't Know - 2%

 

Polls don't lie - sounds like violent actions of protestors should continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spodog said:

The Monmouth University Polling Institute recently conducted a poll that found young, college-educated Americans are more likely to believe the violent actions of protestors are justifiable.

Polls don't lie - sounds like violent actions of protestors should continue.

The question doesn't state "violent actions" just "actions".

Quote

As you know, there have been protests over the past few months about incidents involving police and the deaths of Black civilians. Do you think the actions of the protestors have been fully justified, partially justified, or not at all justified?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Drunken Cowboy said:
22 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Right, especially this year when it seems probable we won’t have enough mail-in votes counted to declare a winner on November 3rd.

This is only if it is close. I expect a big enough Biden win to declare on Nov 3rd. 

If you don't think Trump would do a complete 180 and say "hey, we need all the mail-in votes counted before I relinquish my control" you're fooling yourself.  

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

The question doesn't state "violent actions" just "actions".

 

The violent actions quote came from here

The Monmouth University Polling Institute recently conducted a poll that found young, college-educated Americans are more likely to believe the violent actions of protestors are justifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spodog said:

The violent actions quote came from here

The Monmouth University Polling Institute recently conducted a poll that found young, college-educated Americans are more likely to believe the violent actions of protestors are justifiable.

So you see the problem, right?  You should be careful where you get your news.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

So you see the problem, right?  You should be careful where you get your news.

Or you can cut out all of these middlemen with an agenda, left, right or otherwise, and turn on twitch.tv on any given night and watch "mostly peaceful protesters" destroy s#& in Portland and livestream it to the internet.

I don't think anyone can truly quibble with the adjective violent regardless of what media outlet it springs forth from.

Would like to call this the aftermath, but not likely this is behind us:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzFr5xD_q8

Edited by spodog
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spodog said:

Or you can cut out all of these middlemen with an agenda, left, right or otherwise, and turn on twitch.tv on any given night and watch "mostly peaceful protesters" destroy s#& in Portland and livestream it to the internet.

I don't think anyone can truly quibble with the adjective violent regardless of what media outlet it springs forth from.

Or you can stop quoting sources that add words that were never there that change its meaning.

We can do this all day.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spodog said:

Or you can cut out all of these middlemen with an agenda, left, right or otherwise, and turn on twitch.tv on any given night and watch "mostly peaceful protesters" destroy s#& in Portland and livestream it to the internet.

I don't think anyone can truly quibble with the adjective violent regardless of what media outlet it springs forth from.

I can quibble if they didn't use it in the ####### poll that you just pointed to as some sort of evidence, are you freakin' kidding right now?

 

Geez, man, you literally just gave a better example of these absurd news sources twisting things and spreading disinformation than I could find if I had three hours.  Amazing.  

Edited by massraider
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spodog said:

Or you can cut out all of these middlemen with an agenda, left, right or otherwise, and turn on twitch.tv on any given night and watch "mostly peaceful protesters" destroy s#& in Portland and livestream it to the internet.

I don't think anyone can truly quibble with the adjective violent regardless of what media outlet it springs forth from.

Would like to call this the aftermath, but not likely this is behind us:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzFr5xD_q8

I guess I would answer the question "partially justified".  I support peaceful protesting but not rioting, looting, or violence.  As I'm sure you know, most protests weren't violent.

If the question stated "violent actions", my answer would change to "not all all justified".

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, massraider said:

I can quibble if they didn't use it in the ####### poll that you just pointed to as some sort of evidence, are you freakin' kidding right now?

 

Geez, man, you literally just gave a better example of these absurd news sources twisting things and spreading disinformation than I could find if I had three hours.  Amazing.  

Yes, it's a textbook example of fake news.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

My favorite charts to look at about the 2016 election are the How the Forecast has Changed charts on FiveThirtyEight.  Look at electoral college, chance of winning and popular vote charts.  Then, compare it the 2020 versions.  You'll notice the 2016 was often much closer and more volatile.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Trump can't win reelection.  It's just less likely.

If you look at the popular vote rather than the chance of winning, how close the race was is more clear. Biden's lead is much bigger, but as you point out, the stability of his lead is also striking. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Yes, it's a textbook example of fake news.

That is exactly the reason my mother cannot have a rational conversation about this.

Most of us in here are Gen X, I am pretty dang sure I'm not alone in this.  

 

There needs to be a support group for Gen X kids dealing with their parents going completely off the rails.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I guess I would answer the question "partially justified".  I support peaceful protesting but not rioting, looting, or violence.  As I'm sure you know, most protests weren't violent.

If the question stated "violent actions", my answer would change to "not all all justified".

 

This is how I would respond as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

Biden's lead could be bigger than the remaining ballots.

I like that you think that matters GB.  I am absolutely 1 billion percent confident that if the situation suits him, he will absolutely cling to mail in ballots.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I like that you think that matters GB.  I am absolutely 1 billion percent confident that if the situation suits him, he will absolutely cling to mail in ballots.  

I suspect him to use how badly he was beaten that there is a problem with the election. However that is not going to be at all effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

I suspect him to use how badly he was beaten that there is a problem with the election. However that is not going to be at all effective. 

I make no comments around effectiveness...I agree with you FWIW on that.  It's not going to stop him from trying though.  I'd bet my life savings on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

Some factors include Biden/Harris favorability is significantly higher than Hillary's meaning there's no real likelihood of an "anyone but Hillary" vote. Plus, in 2016 Trump was an unknown (not really, it was clear he'd be a disaster to many but whatever) but now there's 4 years of experiencing his "leadership." There's also been no volatility, really, in the polling especially when compared to 2016. Biden grabbed the lead and has generally only added to it. Finally, no emails for Comey to bring up right before election. I'm sure there's more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

Cliffs notes:

—This race has been much steadier than 2016, when polls were pretty reactive to new developments. 

–Biden’s lead is bigger, and his favorability numbers are much better than Hillary’s

—Fewer undecideds (they broke hard towards Trump in ‘16)

—Pollsters have tweaked their methodology so they don’t undersample white/non-college voters this time

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

You are playing Texas Holdem and you have a 4 outer gut shot straight with the river card to come.  You hit the river and collect the pot.

4 years later you are playing and have another 4 outer gut shot straight with the river card to come.  

Just because Trump overcame a 15% chance of winning to pull it off in 2016, doesn't give him any better odds of doing the same thing in 2020.  It could happen.  But it's unlikely.  Upsets do happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

MO - they underestimated how much she was hated and how willing some people were to give Trump (an "outsider") a chance.  People have had 4 years to see what we get with Trump and there will be few people sitting on the sidelines because they couldn't/can't stomach either nominee.

I honestly don't expect it to be close.

 

*Note - I also didn't expect last time to be close - so ignore me, I'm a moron.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I look at it.

Hillary got 3 million more votes. She dropped the ball in the midwest.  77,000 votes over 3 states were the electoral difference (think I have that right).

That is a slim margin.

 

In the 4 years since, has Trump maintained or widened that lead? Do the Dems have a more likable candidate?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

Model is different as well so it's a bit of comparing apples/oranges. 538 never re-ran the 2016 data thru the 2020 model, but its surmised it would spit out something much less than say the 85%.

You would think its more robust now and the underlying inputs are different (ie undecideds, etc). Also there is still 27 days left... (ie the Comey had a material impact on the result).

With that said if polling/forecasts get this wrong again all those leading indicators will have to be overhauled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

1. fewer 3rd party/undecided voters. (At this point in 2016, Gary Johnson was at around 6-7% in the polls, and undecideds were between 10 and 15%. Right now, Jo Jorgensen is at around 2% and undecideds are around 7%.)

2. Biden has a much higher Favorability rating. Hillary's favorability was below 50% for most of the campaign, and her "lead" over Trump was around 12 points. But, in 2020, Biden is OVER 50% for favorability, and his lead over Trump is around 18 points. Fewer people hate Biden, which makes it less likely that people will vote against him.

3. lower likelihood of a pro-Trump October surprise. We already had an October surprise (Trump's COVID infection), and Trump mishandled it so badly that it helped Biden. (I still expect Bill Barr to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden in late October, but I don't expect that such an announcement would influence voters in the way that Comey's announcement did.)

4. the polls have already made adjustments to account for things that they missed in 2016 -- shy Trump voters, non-college whites, unenthusiastic blacks, etc. If voting patterns match 2016, then Biden wins a fairly close race; but if voting patterns revert to what it was like in previous years, then Biden wins in a landslide.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

There is now 4 years of Trump priors instead of 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

I usually preface anything 538 related with "if the numbers and polls are accurate," which clearly was an issue last go round. As was just posted, the 2016 campaign was a lot more up and down.

Hilary was up big early before the GOP settled in on a candidate (she was pegged to have an 80% chance to win on 7/1. After the conventions, things closed to a toss up a month later. A week later, her chances shot back up to 87%. I don't remember what happened that Clinton zoomed up in the polls in a week's time the first week of August. She was down to 54% at the first debate in late September, back up over 80% at the second debate in October, and soared back to 87% at the third debate. A day or two prior to the election she had fallen to 64%. 538 called her a 71% favorite on election day, but they would readily admit they had the wrong mix of voters in several key states that Trump went on to barely win. 

Throughout the summer, Biden has pretty much stayed in the 70-75% range. The lowest he dipped to was 67% around 9/1. He first hit 80% on 10/1 and has been tacking on another percentage point seemingly every 2-3 days since. Of the states I listed off earlier today, Biden is getting reported as being up at least 7 points in all of them.

In 2016, 538 showed Hilary slightly ahead in these states:

FL +0.7 (lost by 1)
PA +3.7 (lost by 1)
MI +4.2 (lost by 1)
WI  +5.3 (lost by 1)
NC +0.7 (lost by 4)

They were off by about 5-6 points in some of those states. Here how things look so far this year for Biden (obviously subject to change but mostly trending higher in recent polls):

FL +3.6
PA +6.1
MI +8.3
WI + 6.2
NC + 1.7

Biden looks to be doing better than Hilary in some other places as well: (I left off TX, but he is polling pretty close this week)

AZ - Hilary lost by 5 points, Biden currently at +3.1
OH - Hilary lost by 8 points, Biden currently at +0.4
NE2 - Hilary lost by 4 points, Biden currently at +4.2
ME2 - Hilary lost by 11, Biden currently at -0.9
GA - Hilary lost by 5, Biden currently at -0.4
IA - Hilary lost by 10, Biden currently at -1.1

Certainly things can change over the next few weeks, the polls could be wrong, and 538's model could be off. But it certainly looks like Biden is a more viable option in more states (and farther ahead in many others).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I usually preface anything 538 related with "if the numbers and polls are accurate," which clearly was an issue last go round. As was just posted, the 2016 campaign was a lot more up and down.

I'm being picky because I follow Nate Silver on Twitter and this appears to be a pet peeve of his.

Quote

The 538 model doesn't assume that polls are right. It does exactly the opposite: **it tells you the chance that the polls will be wrong**.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016?  For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose.  Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win.  What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?

CNN's prediction market (whatever that is), ratcheted Hillary up to 91% the week prior to the election.     Guess not many people shop at that market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McBokonon said:

Plus, in 2016 Trump was an unknown (not really, it was clear he'd be a disaster to many but whatever) 

Do you guys ever read this stuff before hitting the SUBMIT REPLY button?

Trump was an unknown?     This dude had been in the public spotlight for literally decades upon decades, with 1000's of articles, television shows, magazine profiles, etc written about him before he ever entered the race in '15.    He did commercials for fast food chains, and slapped his name and brand on anything that moved for years upon years.    There is a lot to criticize him about, but to state that he is an unknown  .  .  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spodog said:

Do you guys ever read this stuff before hitting the SUBMIT REPLY button?

Trump was an unknown?     This dude had been in the public spotlight for literally decades upon decades, with 1000's of articles, television shows, magazine profiles, etc written about him before he ever entered the race in '15.    He did commercials for fast food chains, and slapped his name and brand on anything that moved for years upon years.    There is a lot to criticize him about, but to state that he is an unknown  .  .  .

I'm assuming he means unknown politically and I agree with him.  I didn't vote for him nor Hillary (not making that mistake again), but I thought "Oh, he'll surround himself with competent, political people and his zaniness will be dampened bigly." 

 

Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2020 at 4:18 PM, AAABatteries said:

I'd love to believe this but not sure I buy it.  If 7-8% of people changed their mind just because Trump got the virus then I'm not sure if they've been paying attention and if that changes their mind, who knows what else may change it.

Why would you doubt the outcome of what 1,003 people said on a particular day as a way to determine what 130,000,000 casting votes in a few weeks will do?

Pollsters are modern day PT Barnum protege's.    As long as people keep lapping up what they are selling, they keep cranking it out.    Matters not whether it means anything at all.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2020 at 4:18 PM, AAABatteries said:

I'd love to believe this but not sure I buy it.  If 7-8% of people changed their mind just because Trump got the virus then I'm not sure if they've been paying attention and if that changes their mind, who knows what else may change it.

trust your instincts, the reason you are skeptical is because this Boston Herald article is nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spodog said:

Do you guys ever read this stuff before hitting the SUBMIT REPLY button?

Trump was an unknown?     This dude had been in the public spotlight for literally decades upon decades, with 1000's of articles, television shows, magazine profiles, etc written about him before he ever entered the race in '15.    He did commercials for fast food chains, and slapped his name and brand on anything that moved for years upon years.    There is a lot to criticize him about, but to state that he is an unknown  .  .  .

Hasn't unknown to me. I knew he was a lying cheating conman before he was President. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spodog said:

Do you guys ever read this stuff before hitting the SUBMIT REPLY button?

Trump was an unknown?     This dude had been in the public spotlight for literally decades upon decades, with 1000's of articles, television shows, magazine profiles, etc written about him before he ever entered the race in '15.    He did commercials for fast food chains, and slapped his name and brand on anything that moved for years upon years.    There is a lot to criticize him about, but to state that he is an unknown  .  .  .

To me his was a political unknown.  Sure, I had heard of Trump and knew he was a NY real estate guy.  I knew about The Apprentice.  But I had zero clue what he stood for and how he would do in the office.  My #1 issue with Trump in 2016 was he was totally unqualified and I have no interest in an "outsider" running the country.  Little did I know we would be 4 years down the road and qualifications is down the list some because he has so many other horrible qualities.  But amazingly, even after four years in the job he's still totally unqualified.  He has no clue what he's doing and it shows on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some goofball looking stressed that ran a professional polling organization, back in '08, trying to explain away why his company and all of his competitors all got their polling wrong on the CA Prop 8 voting:   Well, uh

And here is the same guy, 8 years later, still making excuses, after his polling company was 100% wrong on the 2016 Presidential voting polls:  must have been late deciders.   Only in this second clip, he seems even more stressed because he has lost all of his customers and his underwriter (aka corporate sugar daddy) pulled his funding.  His company (Field Poll) was in the process of shutting down due to incompetence as this second clip was filmed. 

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...