Trump Won A Poll. Five Thirty Eight Calls it EVEN

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I have to assume they are preparing him feverishly, because I anticipate he does not have the capacity to handle an actual debate, but maybe he proves to be more capable than he seems.

I am thinking that something happens where they setu0p a justification for him to not do it.  Whether its a COVID thing or something else. I think the leftists will shield him.  

It would not surprise me if he is suddenly "diagnosed" as having COVID in the days leading up to the planned debate to give him an easy out.

Kills 2 birds with 1 stone. Won't debate, and "proves" he is in tip top healthy shape to resist the evil "deadly Trump" virus.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

11 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

A few things helped. The coaches and players all wanted to play.... but that was already factored in and they had been ignored originally. The Big Ten decided first that they would lead the country in virtue signalling by deciding not to play for fear of the virus.... then the Big 12, ACC, and SEC said "Fock Off. We're going to play football anyway and the Big Ten can suck our balls," and the Big Ten looked stupid.

Then it dawned on them that they were both handing the evil orange man a big stick to beat them over the head with and that were losing a ton of money by pandering over an issue/stance that was getting increasingly unpopular and capitulated.

Pretty much nailed it.

[lickin_starfish 1,482]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm still scratching my head at how Trump got all the credit for this one.

Do you ever wonder how he gets credit for Chinabug deaths or West Coast wildfires? No? Didn't think so.

[Hawkeye21 1,854]

36 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

Do you ever wonder how he gets credit for Chinabug deaths or West Coast wildfires? No? Didn't think so.

He's the President and it's a world wide pandemic so he's going to share some responsibility for how we are prepared and how we handle it.  I don't agree with the nut jobs on the left that think he's responsible for all the deaths though, that's stupid.

[lickin_starfish 1,482]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

He's the President and it's a world wide pandemic so he's going to share some responsibility for how we are prepared and how we handle it.  I don't agree with the nut jobs on the left that think he's responsible for all the deaths though, that's stupid.

Do you also hold Hussein Obama partly responsible for the ChinaFlu response, since he depleted our supplies with the Swine Flu, and didn't replace them? Or is this all on Trump?

I think Trump did an amazing job, considering he mobilized the production of medical equipment and pop-up hospitals, all while defending himself from bloodthirsty Democrats and Media hellbent on impeaching him.

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, lickin_starfish said:

Do you also hold Hussein Obama partly responsible for the ChinaFlu response, since he depleted our supplies with the Swine Flu, and didn't replace them? Or is this all on Trump?

I think Trump did an amazing job, considering he mobilized the production of medical equipment and pop-up hospitals, all while defending himself from bloodthirsty Democrats and Media hellbent on impeaching him.

Doubt that would work, Obama put the cages solution in place at the Mexican border, but Trump is somehow made accountable for Barry's actions....which were apparently fine when Barry was doing it....so.....yeah, makes no focking sense

[Hawkeye21 1,854]

Just now, lickin_starfish said:

Do you also hold Hussein Obama partly responsible for the ChinaFlu response, since he depleted our supplies with the Swine Flu, and didn't replace them? Or is this all on Trump?

I think Trump did an amazing job, considering he mobilized the production of medical equipment and pop-up hospitals, all while defending himself from bloodthirsty Democrats and Media hellbent on impeaching him.

Not a fan of how he downplayed it in the beginning.  I think he could've done better but I know he could have done much worse too.

[Reality 2,710]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm still scratching my head at how Trump got all the credit for this one.

He's not getting 'all' of the credit. He's getting some and he deserves it, only a hack scared to death of any positive news for Trump would think otherwise.

Warren and Trump had ongoing conversations. This one is pretty simple, don't over think it fella. 

[Hawkeye21 1,854]

1 minute ago, Reality said:

He's not getting 'all' of the credit. He's getting some and he deserves it, only a hack scared to death of any positive news for Trump would think otherwise.

Warren and Trump had ongoing conversations. This one is pretty simple, don't over think it fella. 

I'm not overthinking.  I just find it funny when I see people thanking Trump for the Big Ten starting again.

[Reality 2,710]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not overthinking.  I just find it funny when I see people thanking Trump for the Big Ten starting again.

He's in the group of people who should be thanked. Nothing funny about it.

[nobody 2,043]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not a fan of how he downplayed it in the beginning.  I think he could've done better but I know he could have done much worse too.

He should've downplayed it.  They were saying the death rate was like 5% originally.  In reality, it is closer to 0.5%.  Dude is getting beat up for being right.

And by the way, if people knew the death rate was this low, there is no chance we would've shut everything down like we did.  We would've ignored it.  Now that we shut everyone down, it's a scramble to make sure the decision is justified.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

What you need to remember is that Trump has a huge lead in percentage of supporters that strongly support him.  Those people are extremely likely to actually cast a ballot.  It is almost certain more Americans support Biden, but a much larger chunk of Biden supporters will not cast a ballot in the end. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/08/PP_2020.08.13_voter-attitudes_0-03.png

[JustinCharge 2,397]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not a fan of how he downplayed it in the beginning.  I think he could've done better but I know he could have done much worse too.

When you were told that FDR's response to the Great Depression in 1933 was "We have nothing to fear but fear itself!" Were you heavily critical of FDR downplaying the severity of the Great Depression in its early years?

[Hawkeye21 1,854]

1 hour ago, riversco said:

When you were told that FDR's response to the Great Depression in 1933 was "We have nothing to fear but fear itself!" Were you heavily critical of FDR downplaying the severity of the Great Depression in its early years?

Seriously?  

[Big Guy 1,400]

We are so screwed unless he's able to put in place peacekeeping measures.

and NO......not the UN

[TimmySmith 2,782]

15 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not overthinking.  I just find it funny when I see people thanking Trump for the Big Ten starting again.

Come on cuck, with a lib President we would all be stuck inside and there would be no sports anywhere.  Everything we get to do is Trump. 

[MDC 5,892]

16 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Come on cuck, with a lib President we would all be stuck inside and there would be no sports anywhere.  Everything we get to do is Trump. 

Imagine being an adult male who unironically uses the word “cuck.”  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Imagine being an adult male who unironically uses the word “cuck.”  

Not as bad as an adult Male who actually is one, cuck.

[MDC 5,892]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

Not as bad as an adult Male who actually is one, cuck.

Are you at all embarrassed about talking like a preteen on Twitter? Just wondering.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

Cuck really bothers some people.  

[Groundhog 24]

I think FiveThirtyEight is about the most transparent of election forecasters out there. Keep in mind, their last forecast ahead of the 2016 federal election gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, which (although obviously less than 50%) was still higher than betting markets' 18% odds, and other polls tracked by the NY Times ranged from 1% to 15% odds of Trump winning. But all polls have a margin of error associated with them. The actual outcome was still within that margin of error. You can say that Nate messed up, but then you'd be assigning more certainty to the individual state polls than really exists. 

Trump supporters can decry these polling results pointing to a Biden victory, but their current simulations still say that Trump has a 23% chance of winning, which isn't that far off from where things stood in 2016. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

In a country that is pretty much spilt down the middle in swing states, how can anyone assign any candidate of the two parties a 15 pct chance of winning? It’s  so stupid on its face. If the odds aren’t 45 pct or better for either candidate dismiss it. Who cares that California is gong to break 2-1 for the Democrats candidate? You don’t get any more electoral votes for having a wide margin. Ask Hillary. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

36 minutes ago, Groundhog said:

I think FiveThirtyEight is about the most transparent of election forecasters out there. Keep in mind, their last forecast ahead of the 2016 federal election gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, which (although obviously less than 50%) was still higher than betting markets' 18% odds, and other polls tracked by the NY Times ranged from 1% to 15% odds of Trump winning. But all polls have a margin of error associated with them. The actual outcome was still within that margin of error. You can say that Nate messed up, but then you'd be assigning more certainty to the individual state polls than really exists. 

Trump supporters can decry these polling results pointing to a Biden victory, but their current simulations still say that Trump has a 23% chance of winning, which isn't that far off from where things stood in 2016. 

Nate explained that he had hit the pop vote and he missed several states by fractions where Trump won by fractions.  But he NEVER gave Trump an honest chance to win, in what was basically a coinflip.  He claimed to be a numbers guy and he blew it, his own political leanings got in the way.  And he is repeating his mistake, when history has shown that an incumbent President simply doesn't lose unless there is outside influence.  Trump should be the outright favorite until Biden shows that he is capable of unseating him.

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

I've never heard of an incumbent losing with a good economy with signs it will improve more. Rarely if ever does that happen. Nate and his team won't even discuss it. The challenger, most of his cities are in deep fiscal trouble and are dealing with high crime and excessive homelessness. 

Despite all that he's up double digits or close to it in most of the polls. Sorry not believable on any level. Not saying Biden can't win but going of of history he has almost no chance.

 

[Groundhog 24]

53 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Nate explained that he had hit the pop vote and he missed several states by fractions where Trump won by fractions.  But he NEVER gave Trump an honest chance to win, in what was basically a coinflip.  He claimed to be a numbers guy and he blew it, his own political leanings got in the way.  And he is repeating his mistake, when history has shown that an incumbent President simply doesn't lose unless there is outside influence.  Trump should be the outright favorite until Biden shows that he is capable of unseating him.

I think you're being too dismissive of his process. Check out the forecast for a swing state, Arizona. He's taking into account (1) current poll average, (2) momentum from recent polls, (3) allocating undecided voters in a 50/50 split, (4) adjusting for demographics, and (5) adjusting for economics and incumbency. The weights that he assigns demographics and economics/incumbency are determined by prior results in Arizona, and both of those factors, in Silver's work, favor Trump - that is, they give Trump a boost. 

Now, you could argue that the weight given to those latter two factors should be higher, because you prefer them to be higher, but that would be acting as a partisan, not as a pollster. Silver gives economics/incumbency (a Trump-favorable factor) a 15% weight, and the polling data are given an 85% weight.  Because it has been determined that this is how influential these factors have been in the past. If now you say, well, I think economics/incumbency in this election should be 35/65, or 40/60  you've basically picked that out of thin air. 

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 minutes ago, Groundhog said:

I think you're being too dismissive of his process. Check out the forecast for a swing state, Arizona. He's taking into account (1) current poll average, (2) momentum from recent polls, (3) allocating undecided voters in a 50/50 split, (4) adjusting for demographics, and (5) adjusting for economics and incumbency. The weights that he assigns demographics and economics/incumbency are determined by prior results in Arizona, and both of those factors, in Silver's work, favor Trump - that is, they give Trump a boost. 

Now, you could argue that the weight given to those latter two factors should be higher, because you prefer them to be higher, but that would be acting as a partisan, not as a pollster. Silver gives economics/incumbency (a Trump-favorable factor) a 15% weight, and the polling data are given an 85% weight.  Because it has been determined that this is how influential these factors have been in the past. If now you say, well, I think economics/incumbency in this election should be 35/65, or 40/60  you've basically picked that out of thin air. 

I am being extremely dismissive of his process.  He has offered up very little than other polling companies and is presenting essentially the same result with the claim of arriving at it in a more careful manner.  He gives polls poor grades for the only reason that they vary too greatly from other polls.  When it is clear that when it comes to Trump, outlier data should be given a greater weight.  In other words, he is 100% committed to a garbage in, garbage out philosophy but has no idea what constitutes garbage in.  As far as Arizona goes,  he gives an A+ to a poll that has Biden +9, in a state that Trump took nearly +4 in 2016.  You're telling me that Trump lost 13%.  Really?  

[nobody 2,043]

Why do people care about polls?  I get why it would be useful for politicians and wall street, but why does Joe Plumber care what the polls say?  Just to feel good that whatever candidate you want is ahead and pump your fist?  

[Groundhog 24]

1 hour ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

I've never heard of an incumbent losing with a good economy with signs it will improve more. Rarely if ever does that happen. Nate and his team won't even discuss it. The challenger, most of his cities are in deep fiscal trouble and are dealing with high crime and excessive homelessness. 

Despite all that he's up double digits or close to it in most of the polls. Sorry not believable on any level. Not saying Biden can't win but going of of history he has almost no chance.

 

Nationally, unemployment is at 8.4% as of August, which thankfully is on the mend from over 14% earlier this year, but for most of Trump's presidency, it was below 4%. 

To put that in context, Obama's administration ended with unemployment at 4.7%, well below what he inherited from Bush (7.8%) and below the post-war average (5.6%). Trump took a fairly good situation on unemployment and improved it, until the pandemic happened. 

[Groundhog 24]

24 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

I am being extremely dismissive of his process.  He has offered up very little than other polling companies and is presenting essentially the same result with the claim of arriving at it in a more careful manner.  He gives polls poor grades for the only reason that they vary too greatly from other polls.  When it is clear that when it comes to Trump, outlier data should be given a greater weight.  In other words, he is 100% committed to a garbage in, garbage out philosophy but has no idea what constitutes garbage in.  As far as Arizona goes,  he gives an A+ to a poll that has Biden +9, in a state that Trump took nearly +4 in 2016.  You're telling me that Trump lost 13%.  Really?  

He gives poor grades to polls that consistently show forecasts that diverge greatly from actual results. I don't think he's discounting outliers solely because they're outliers per se. A poll of Biden +9 in Arizona is unusual, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong. If subsequent polls show a much closer vote, I would argue that Biden +9 is probably from sampling error. 

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

25 minutes ago, Groundhog said:

Nationally, unemployment is at 8.4% as of August, which thankfully is on the mend from over 14% earlier this year, but for most of Trump's presidency, it was below 4%. 

To put that in context, Obama's administration ended with unemployment at 4.7%, well below what he inherited from Bush (7.8%) and below the post-war average (5.6%). Trump took a fairly good situation on unemployment and improved it, until the pandemic happened. 

You are skimming over homelessness, crime and black on black shootings and murder. These are serious problems for left run cities. Leave out national averages. Look at where these problems are the worse. Nobody cares about unemployment right now because many that were unemployed were getting fat checks with Trumps name on it. Something like 67% were doing better just getting checks. I know some of these people. The shutdown worked out great for them.

 

 

[nobody 2,043]

By the way, polls showing Harris with a false lead is actually good for Trump.  That's probably the real reason why Hillary lost.  She was misinformed that she should win certain states and didn't spend her campaign capital in the right places.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

29 minutes ago, Groundhog said:

He gives poor grades to polls that consistently show forecasts that diverge greatly from actual results. I don't think he's discounting outliers solely because they're outliers per se. A poll of Biden +9 in Arizona is unusual, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong. If subsequent polls show a much closer vote, I would argue that Biden +9 is probably from sampling error. 

He praises an outlier that favors Biden, of course. If Nate is not partisan, which I think is ridiculous, then my opinion is the same as many, Republicans are simply less honest when being polled, whatever the motivation.  Garbage in.

[lod001 1,237]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

By the way, polls showing Harris with a false lead is actually good for Trump.  That's probably the real reason why Hillary lost.  She was misinformed that she should win certain states and didn't spend her campaign capital in the right places.

That's one of the reasons the pear shaped old bag lost to Trump. Blowjob kamala will fall as well.