2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[Duck Dodgers]

I'll be a skeptic. Can we trust polls at all? Refer to all of the polls in '16 that said that Clinton was going to roll. I love reading the Pew Research Center but I even have to take a step back sometimes and question the writing.
And has anyone ever taken part in any polling??

No you can't trust the polls.

First, national polls are worthless, as there is no national election, it's a state by state one. Any national poll is going to be highly skewed by the vote spread in California, New York, and other places that won't factor in as to the final result, as they are already baked in.

Who's doing most of these polls? Media organizations and universities. What group has 100% control of those groups - the Democrats. Not hard to figure out what result they get out of them. The ability of weak willed people on our side to convince themselves that a poll done by an organization that desperately wants the Republicans to lose, is somehow an unbiased source of information, continues to amaze me. Somehow they say "Well yes NBC is a wholly aligned component of the Democrat Media Complex, but to say they fix the polls in their favor, why that's just too much!".

Since 2016, polls have been wrong on the following large races - 2016 Brexit. 2016 Presidential race, and many of the senate races that year too. 2018 Florida governor and senator race, Georgia governor, Ohio governor, Indiana senator. 2019 Australia parliament race, 2019 UK parliament race.

Now note that in all those cases, the polls were wrong in that they predicted a conservative loss or bare tie for the UK race, while in actuality, the conservatives won all those races. If there's been a case where polls predicted a conservative win and the leftist won in a big race, not some House seat, I've not seen it. That should tell you something about what side polls are on.

Trump was down, allegedly, in all the major polls in 2016 too, yet won the biggest electoral victory since Bush in 88. Have any of those polls changed their methods - doubtful. Like the media, they spent 2 days wondering what they got wrong, then went back to blaming everything on Trump.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

You would think this bozo would be so focused on campaigning at this time that he wouldn't have time for this garbage. I suppose he thought the press wouldn't report it since he's on their team. Pathetic.

Even the busiest men will always make time for their junk.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'll be a skeptic. Can we trust polls at all? Refer to all of the polls in '16 that said that Clinton was going to roll. I love reading the Pew Research Center but I even have to take a step back sometimes and question the writing.
And has anyone ever taken part in any polling??

In 2016, in certain areas (mostly battleground states), polls showing highest Trump support were the most accurate. Wasn’t true everywhere but 100% true in states like NC, PA, WI, etc.

To me the issue isn't whether the polls skew in favor of Democrats. They clearly do. It's a matter of how much. So do I trust the polls a lot? No. In fact, I trust them to generally overstate Democratic strength. But do they have some relevance to the state of the race? Yes, because there's a point at which they can correctly pick a winner even if the margin is off. And sometimes, they are right. For example, they predicted an 8.4 percent Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot for 2018. The result was 8.6 percent. Pretty close.

As for me, I have never taken part in political polling and have never been solicited to do so. I was solicited to do a Nielsen ratings survey once about 15 years ago. One friend of mine was solicited for political polling one time.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Still up in the air....its ok to do that if your a Dem. All he has to do is apologize and they will all forgive him.

Look at how much **** this toolbag got away with

Did he get away with much? He lost his political career, became a Jim Bakker-level punchline, went to the slammer, and the entire country can see and ridicule his schlong anytime they want. The dude will never get a date again.

 

[Horn6721]

Weener is CEO of Icestone, a recycled glass company. I bet he gets plenty of dates.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Weener is CEO of Icestone, a recycled glass company. I bet he gets plenty of dates.

I guess you're right. Looks like he's hanging out with his ex-wife. Link.

 

[mchammer]

To me the issue isn't whether the polls skew in favor of Democrats. They clearly do. It's a matter of how much. So do I trust the polls a lot? No. In fact, I trust them to generally overstate Democratic strength. But do they have some relevance to the state of the race? Yes, because there's a point at which they can correctly pick a winner even if the margin is off. And sometimes, they are right. For example, they predicted an 8.4 percent Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot for 2018. The result was 8.6 percent. Pretty close.

As for me, I have never taken part in political polling and have never been solicited to do so. I was solicited to do a Nielsen ratings survey once about 15 years ago. One friend of mine was solicited for political polling one time.

How are these results even possible? Basically a 10 pt variability. The polls are useless. How did polling become so political?

 

[horninchicago]

Polls are about as accurate as the prediction thread last week.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How are these results even possible? Basically a 10 pt variability. The polls are useless. How did polling become so political?

Are you familiar with Trafalgar? They don't poll like other polling firms do.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I'm not familiar. What do they do differently?

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

I'm not familiar. What do they do differently?

When they poll they also ask the person they're polling who they think their neighbors and associates would vote for. Kind of a blended polling method. I don't trust it anymore than the traditional method

 

[horninchicago]

When they poll they also ask the person they're polling who they think their neighbors and associates would vote for. Kind of a blended polling method. I don't trust it anymore than the traditional method

Doesn't sound like a good method, and I think my neighbors and associates would agree.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

This is sad. At the time of the photo (early 70s?) I wouldn't have thought Betty White was remotely doable.. From that picture, and now in my mid 60s, I'd strongly consider. Not any hotter than my wife but certainly not much less.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is sad. At the time of the photo (early 70s?) I wouldn't have thought Betty White was remotely doable.. From that picture, and now in my mid 60s, I'd strongly consider. Not any hotter than my wife but certainly not much less.

So is Bruce Jenner more doable than you thought he'd be?

 

[theiioftx]

I’ll leave this little nugget here.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is sad. At the time of the photo (early 70s?) I wouldn't have thought Betty White was remotely doable.. From that picture, and now in my mid 60s, I'd strongly consider. Not any hotter than my wife but certainly not much less.

Wait, which of those 2 women are we talking about?

 

[Duck Dodgers]

And he was able to get his shoes shined, his laundry done, and some good flap jacks cooked up too. Thanks Auntie J!

Ahh so easy to run as a Democrat. You can say about anything offensive and the press pretends it never happened.

 

[mchammer]

 

[horninchicago]

She should have smashed that ***** with the pole for grabbing that flag like that.

 

[mchammer]

I think Trump wins NV. Dem lockdowns hurting the casino workers. No big senate race this year either. Paired with a NH win, Trump doesn’t need MI, PA, MN, or WI.

Joe Biden is counting on Nevada. Has the COVID-19 pandemic hurt his chances?

 

[WillUSAF]

When they poll they also ask the person they're polling who they think their neighbors and associates would vote for. Kind of a blended polling method. I don't trust it anymore than the traditional method

my neighbors are morons so i'm not so sure that would be so accurate.

 

[WillUSAF]

So is Bruce Jenner more doable than you thought he'd be?

 

[mchammer]

More about polls: US Today/Suffolk poll shows race tied in FL. Okay. CNN shows Trump ahead nationally by 16 points. WTF???

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Polls are BS. The optimum number for any poll to show is "we are winning, but only by a couple of points. So we need your vote to put us over the top" . That is the most motivating message you can send your constituents. Funny how most polls seem to send that very message. America votes in highly geographical patterns. It is pretty easy to plan your polling so that your partisan sample skews ever so slightly to the outcome you desire.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So I have cast my absentee ballot. I took enormous flack from the Right when I voted Libertarian last time, and I'm prepared to take criticism from the center-left side here if they choose. I understand.

I was leaning voting Libertarian again. Trump has been a long term drain for conservatism, even if he personally won in 2016 and wins again in 2020. He might be good at making himself a successful brand, but he's terrible at communications and issue advocacy. In other words, he makes the conservative position harder to push. Furthermore, even if I have agreement with him on social issues and partial agreement on illegal immigration, he is an unmitigated trainwreck on fiscal policy and was so long before Covid.

What changed my mind was the debate. No, it wasn't anything Trump said. He sucked swamp *** as I said at the time. It was the court-packing answer (or non-answer) Biden gave. Frankly, I don't understand the relative lack of outrage at that. It is by far the most consequential issue in the election - way bigger than Covid, way bigger than any money issue, way bigger than foreign policy, way bigger than the protests and riots, way bigger than healthcare. The reason why is that it breaks the federal judiciary and is effectively irreversible. If that door is opened, there's no foreseeable way to close it.

I understand the case for it. Republicans are flip-flopping on the election year Supreme Court pick. It may not be all of them, but it's enough of them to be decisive. If you pack the court, you can undo that, but does anyone really think that's going to end with nullifying the Barrett appointment? It won't. It'll lead to a partisan tit-for-tat on court-packing, and once that happens, the federal judiciary loses its credibility, and the rule of law (in the truest sense) is gone. Might will make right. The appropriate remedy if Democrats think Republicans were unfair to them is to be unfair back to them when they're calling the shots or better yet, wake up to the fact that Supreme Court appointments simply shouldn't be this consequential. This same scenario could easily come up in reverse with Justices Thomas or Alito in the next 4-8 years, and they may get their chance. The appropriate remedy isn't to trash the federal judiciary for the long term.

I understand the argument that there's no magic to having 9 justices and that it isn't constitutionally mandated. That is true. The figure is arbitrary and has been changed before - last time was back in the 1860s to screw with Andrew Johnson. However, it wasn't expanded to put new life appointments on the Court for the purpose of nullifying previous life appointments. It was reduced by attrition to deny Johnson appointments and was quickly increased 9 where it has remained for about 150 years. It was still a sleazy move but less damaging than actually increasing the number of justices to shift the ideological balance of the Court. It is also worth noting that the Court had only a fraction of the significance that it has now. There's a reason why a solidly Democratic Congress rejected this option with FDR. It's dangerous and should be treated as such.

 

[Mr. Deez]

More about polls: US Today/Suffolk poll shows race tied in FL. Okay. CNN shows Trump ahead nationally by 16 points. WTF???

The CNN poll showed Biden ahead by 16 points. If it had shown Trump up by that much, they wouldn't have publicized it.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Monahorns]

Trump speaks clearly against Critical Race Theory too.

He at least tries to reduce/end wars.

He won't enact the Green New Deal, though I wish he was more pro-fossil fuels.

He won't enact a national mask mandate or lockdown.

To me, those 4 things are at least as important as not packing the court, as well.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

I think Trump wins NV. Dem lockdowns hurting the casino workers. No big senate race this year either. Paired with a NH win, Trump doesn’t need MI, PA, MN, or WI.

Joe Biden is counting on Nevada. Has the COVID-19 pandemic hurt his chances?

More about polls: US Today/Suffolk poll shows race tied in FL. Okay. CNN shows Trump ahead nationally by 16 points. WTF???

Trump wins Florida without much difficulty I'd say. Apparently he's doing very well with Hispanics there. I think the whole Burn Loot Movement isn't playing well in that group - Hispanics are few and far between in any march for that foolishness.

NV is a interesting case. Was a reliable R vote for many years, then as the West trended leftist, it has as well, with lots of Hispanic's brought in to work in Las Vegas, and all the old Boss Tweed style political machine to get them to the polls and vote the correct way, once, maybe twice!

The R party there took a beating in 18, including the loss of the Senator seat (which is why the +4 R Senator victories in ND, MO, IN, and FLA can't just waved away regardless of what some think - a true national wave would have killed R's there too).

Will unemployment there, from the strict and stupid lock down by the D governor sour voters on Slow Joe? You'd hope so, but the media complex will just blame Trump for the fact that the governor "had, just had" to shut everything down, lest everyone die of something that kills about 0.01 percent of those under 70.

If NV was in the east, a Trump win here would show that it's game over (similar to a Trump win in NH would show). But the election may be over before NV gets to bat.