Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 24 Days Left


24 Day Poll  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. In what area has Trump been Great to Above Average as president

    • Economy
    • Healthcare
    • Criminal Justice
    • Trade
    • Foreign Relations
    • Military affairs and Veterans affairs
    • Crisis Management
    • Education and Student Loans
    • Environment and Climate Change
    • Energy and National Resource
    • Business and Labor
    • Urban Affairs
    • Farming and Agriculture
    • National Security
    • Infrastructure
    • Being a global leader.
    • Being an American leader.
    • Being a party leader.
    • Judicial appointments
    • Cabinet and cabinet-level appointments
    • Rhetoric and communication
    • Civil Rights
      0
    • Civil Liberties
    • Relations with Congress
      0
    • Integrity and avoidance of Scandal
      0
    • Willingness to Compromise/Deal Making
      0
    • Avoiding Crucial Mistakes
    • Other (mention below)
  3. 3. Do you approve of Congress creating a commission to gauge Presidential capacity?

  4. 4. Do you think Trump has completely recovered from Covid as he claims?



Recommended Posts

 

 

Getting major 2016 vibes, we'll see

 

at least the media isn't doing their, "There is no path" like 4 years ago.

 

Nothing would surprise me (Biden blowout, close trump win, close biden win, trump win similar to 2016 etc) but the idea that Biden is going to win like 85-15% (538 Nate Silver) is ludicrous to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agreed. I happen to disagree with @PoliticalPundit's analysis, but he's been much more civil than @Patine has been lately. You've got to calm down, man. The personal attacks left and right have got to

Wait -- did we just confirm that @SilentLiberty is dating @Hestia11's mom? ;c)

OK, letting both our interlocutors cool off for a day. Thread locked.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, PoliticalPundit said:

 

Nothing would surprise me (Biden blowout, close trump win, close biden win, trump win similar to 2016 etc) but the idea that Biden is going to win like 85-15% (538 Nate Silver) is ludicrous to me. 

I buy that if the election were held tomorrow that Biden has an 85% chance of winning. 538 was pretty accurate in 2016.

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

you're comparing apples to oranges

national polling doesn't matter whatsoever

 

even a "gross % of a few battleground states" is more effective data than national polls 

but tbh im down on polls in general 

Most people get down on polls when the polls don't say what they want

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I buy that if the election were held tomorrow that Biden has an 85% chance of winning. 538 was pretty accurate in 2016.

538 had Clinton at 71% vs. Trump at 29% 

So technically 538 will never be wrong bc their model says, "Oh well they had a ___% of winning and they did!"? 

If Trump wins again polls are dead in America. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

so what explains 2016 then? 

Polls were pretty accurate in 2016. They predicted Hillary would win by two, she did.

Just now, PoliticalPundit said:

538 had Clinton at 71% vs. Trump at 29% 

So technically 538 will never be wrong bc their model says, "Oh well they had a ___% of winning and they did!"? 

If Trump wins again polls are dead in America. 

Yeah that’s kinda how percentages work?

I think your name could use some work lmao.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Polls were pretty accurate in 2016. They predicted Hillary would win by two, she did.

Yeah that’s kinda how percentages work?

I think your name could use some work lmao.

lmaoo Nate Silver was celebrating Trump's loss all of 2016 in his tweets then acted like he knew all along Trump would win. Hence the backlash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

so what explains 2016 then? 

 

8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Polls were pretty accurate in 2016. They predicted Hillary would win by two, she did.

Yeah that’s kinda how percentages work?

I think your name could use some work lmao.

I concur with what @Reagan04 is saying, but if you want a good reason, here's one:

I watched a lecture by a leading pollster (Peter Hart) who has been doing presidential polling since 1964. He's part of a team aiming to not make the same mistakes as in 2016. He found that the most important poll that he and other pollster overlooked were undecided voters in WI, MI, OH, and PA that disliked both Clinton and Trump.  This demographic swung towards Trump in the last two weeks to a week. He found that these people voted for Trump over Clinton, despite disliking both of them, because they knew Clinton and what they thought she'd do, but Trump might surprise them. 

Here's a key differences in this election. 1) Undecideds are expected to be fewer. 2) Biden has a +18 favorable on Trump, whereas Clinton and Trump were both very unfavorable. 3) These voters now know what a President Trump is. Additionally, there was a poll recently that showed that Trump lead among whites with no college education had dropped considerably from his margin in 2016. For whatever reason, the voters that helped barely pushed Trump over the edge in WI, MI, and PA like Biden more than they liked Clinton. 

One thing you have to ask yourself, do you think it makes sense that voters that had voted for Obama twice and then voted Trump would like Biden more than they liked Clinton? Considering the razor thin margin, it shouldn't be surprising to see that Biden is leading Trump in WI, MI, and PA but is probably actually going to win these states. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

from an outsiders perspective I think people would disagree with all due respect. 

 

4 hours ago, Patine said:

Who are "people." What specific "people," do you refer to. Clumsy, generalized "bloc references," of opinion almost always lack any credibility at all. So, who are you speaking for, there? Specifically.

I'm still waiting to hear who these "people,' you claim to speak for in a general - very close to absolute - sense who would disagree with me are, and why you feel entitled to speak for said "people."

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

 

 

Getting major 2016 vibes, we'll see

 

at least the media isn't doing their, "There is no path" like 4 years ago.

 

Nothing would surprise me (Biden blowout, close trump win, close biden win, trump win similar to 2016 etc) but the idea that Biden is going to win like 85-15% (538 Nate Silver) is ludicrous to me. 

There isnt as many undecideds this time and unless theres a credible reopening of a case a few weeks before the election like 2016 its going to be a pretty tough climb.

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

 

I concur with what @Reagan04 is saying, but if you want a good reason, here's one:

I watched a lecture by a leading pollster (Peter Hart) who has been doing presidential polling since 1964. He's part of a team aiming to not make the same mistakes as in 2016. He found that the most important poll that he and other pollster overlooked were undecided voters in WI, MI, OH, and PA that disliked both Clinton and Trump.  This demographic swung towards Trump in the last two weeks to a week. He found that these people voted for Trump over Clinton, despite disliking both of them, because they knew Clinton and what they thought she'd do, but Trump might surprise them. 

Here's a key differences in this election. 1) Undecideds are expected to be fewer. 2) Biden has a +18 favorable on Trump, whereas Clinton and Trump were both very unfavorable. 3) These voters now know what a President Trump is. Additionally, there was a poll recently that showed that Trump lead among whites with no college education had dropped considerably from his margin in 2016. For whatever reason, the voters that helped barely pushed Trump over the edge in WI, MI, and PA like Biden more than they liked Clinton. 

One thing you have to ask yourself, do you think it makes sense that voters that had voted for Obama twice and then voted Trump would like Biden more than they liked Clinton? Considering the razor thin margin, it shouldn't be surprising to see that Biden is leading Trump in WI, MI, and PA but is probably actually going to win these states. 

Fair.. but I find it pretty difficult to believe that ALL (or virtually all) of the undecided flipped to Trump last minute. If anything they were always leaning Trump and just waited till the last minute.

 

I just don't believe polls.. but I will say the one demographic that looks very troubling more than anything is white suburban woman. Even if Trump as I suspect will far exceed expectations w Black and Hispanic voters, I think it's highly possible that the white suburban vote just blows Trump out of the water at like outrageous margins. 

 

I agree that Biden is a much "safer" option that Clinton was favorability wise. I just buy the idea that Trump's "base"  or "secret Trump voters" is far greater than what's ever being reported. We'll see..  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PoliticalPundit So I take it there are no such people. Just a wistful support base of imaginary friends. And judging by all your other ridiculous and half-baked proclamations and answers to other posters here, and trying to aggressively shove such nonsense down everyone's throats, it seems you're at least partially a troll. To everyone else on this forum, this guy's obviously another whack-job whose not on this site for his advertised and claimed reason, and should, like @NYConservative, @billay, and @servo75 be put on ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

@PoliticalPundit So I take it there are no such people. Just a wistful support base of imaginary friends. And judging by all your other ridiculous and half-baked proclamations and answers to other posters here, and trying to aggressively shove such nonsense down everyone's throats, it seems you're at least partially a troll. To everyone else on this forum, this guy's obviously another whack-job whose not on this site for his advertised and claimed reason, and should, like @NYConservative, @billay, and @servo75 be put on ignore.

do you read your own posts man? Just because you write 100 adjectives in your paragraphs doesn't make you coherent. 

 

Calling me a "whack job" really shows your character. Take care. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I buy that if the election were held tomorrow that Biden has an 85% chance of winning. 538 was pretty accurate in 2016.

RCP was better, only falled 4 states, 538 falled 6 I think.
Anyway if Trump loses, he will be the first Republican since Benjamin Harrison in 1892 to not win GOP second mandate in a row. 

They won 1864 after 1860

They won 1900 after 1896

They won 1924 after 1920

They won 1956 after 1952

they won 1972 after 1968

They won 1984 after 1980

They won 2004 after 2000

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Entrecampos said:

RCP was better, only falled 4 states, 538 falled 6 I think.
Anyway if Trump loses, he will be the first Republican since Benjamin Harrison in 1892 to not win GOP second mandate in a row. 

They won 1864 after 1860

They won 1900 after 1896

They won 1924 after 1920

They won 1956 after 1952

they won 1972 after 1968

They won 1984 after 1980

They won 2004 after 2000

What about George H.W. Bush?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

@PoliticalPundit So I take it there are no such people. Just a wistful support base of imaginary friends. And judging by all your other ridiculous and half-baked proclamations and answers to other posters here, and trying to aggressively shove such nonsense down everyone's throats, it seems you're at least partially a troll. To everyone else on this forum, this guy's obviously another whack-job whose not on this site for his advertised and claimed reason, and should, like @NYConservative, @billay, and @servo75 be put on ignore.

Well this was uncalled for. First of all since you have claimed to ignore me you've quoted me in several posts. Weird how that works.

Also aside from the week of the conventions were emotions were high amongst everyone, I would argue I've toned it down. Infact I think me and most of the board who've disagreed with me a quite frankly cant stand me were still able to find common ground.

 

So really your call out was childish and uncalled for. Do better. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

so what explains 2016 then? 

I recall many people disbelieving the polls when they said Trump would be the Republican nominee.  People couldn't believe the GOP was going to nominate someone so obviously unqualified and unprepared for the job despite what the polls kept showing.

As for the general election, polls aren't perfect.  They don't often miss by that much twice in a row.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Fair.. but I find it pretty difficult to believe that ALL (or virtually all) of the undecided flipped to Trump last minute. If anything they were always leaning Trump and just waited till the last minute.

 

I just don't believe polls.. but I will say the one demographic that looks very troubling more than anything is white suburban woman. Even if Trump as I suspect will far exceed expectations w Black and Hispanic voters, I think it's highly possible that the white suburban vote just blows Trump out of the water at like outrageous margins. 

 

I agree that Biden is a much "safer" option that Clinton was favorability wise. I just buy the idea that Trump's "base"  or "secret Trump voters" is far greater than what's ever being reported. We'll see..  

I think you aren’t reading what I’m saying. I’m not talking about undecideds. I’m talking about a fragment of undecideds that proved crucial in the close states: undecideds that disliked both Trump and Clinton. That is, in the poll they marked them both unfavorable. Your response seemed to imply I was talking about all undecideds. That’s not the case. You also claim, out of nowhere, that I’m saying they all swung for Trump. I did not say that. To be clear, it was something like 60% or a little more that decided they’d vote Trump in the last 2 weeks. 
 

I see no reason silent Trump voters would be any more silent than in 2016 or any more than they were in 2016. Seems a lot of them might be with Biden this time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think you aren’t reading what I’m saying. I’m not talking about undecideds. I’m talking about a fragment of undecideds that proved crucial in the close states: undecideds that disliked both Trump and Clinton. That is, in the poll they marked them both unfavorable. Your response seemed to imply I was talking about all undecideds. That’s not the case. You also claim, out of nowhere, that I’m saying they all swung for Trump. I did not say that. To be clear, it was something like 60% or a little more that decided they’d vote Trump in the last 2 weeks. 
 

I see no reason silent Trump voters would be any more silent than in 2016 or any more than they were in 2016. Seems a lot of them might be with Biden this time. 

This poster seems to not read most posts - or is having trouble in reading comprehension - that he responds to. There always seems to be a disconnect between the post and his response that indicates this. It's entirely likely he doesn't really care about the point he's responding to, or he mentally edits parts he doesn't want to tackle, or that interfere with his personal narrative.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@SilentLiberty by the way, my mother works at the Med Center, and she received an email from her hospital that the ICU was pretty much at capacity. Thought you would be interested since you live in the area. But elsewhere this isnt over yet. Hospitals are filling again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

@SilentLiberty by the way, my mother works at the Med Center, and she received an email from her hospital that the ICU was pretty much at capacity. Thought you would be interested since you live in the area. But elsewhere this isnt over yet. Hospitals are filling again.

My girlfriend also works at the Med Center! Small world! 😊

The email that went out has been mass shared on social media. The email from Dr. Johnson right and if not I'm sure the details are very similar.

It is pretty scary. Numbers are rising and the prediction is these next weeks will be a lot worse and most hospitals in the Omaha Metro area are already at full capacity or pretty damn close. Ricketts isn't doing anything but there are state and city level politicians trying to do stuff without much success. When I go out for the necessities I notice it's about 50/50 most of the time with people wearing masks. If we could get it to 75 with and 25 without I think that'd be a massive improvement. Though honestly I might be bias with the 50/50 it could be more like 35 with masks 65 without sadly. I wish it wasn't so politicized. 

Edited by SilentLiberty
He should have been be and was should have been wasn't. Fixed now.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

My girlfriend also works at the Med Center! Small world! 😊

The email that went out has been mass shared on social media. The email from Dr. Johnson right and if not I'm sure the details are very similar.

It is pretty scary. Numbers are rising and the prediction is these next weeks will be a lot worse and most hospitals in the Omaha Metro area are already at full capacity or pretty damn close. Ricketts isn't doing anything but there are state and city level politicians trying to do stuff without much success. When I go out for the necessities I notice it's about 50/50 most of the time with people wearing masks. If we could get it to 75 with and 25 without I think that'd be a massive improvement. Though honestly I might be bias with the 50/50 it could be more like 35 with masks 65 without sadly. I wish it wasn't so politicized. 

I really should take breaks and re-read when I use my phone for the forum. So many typos and quick wrong word choices. Sorry everyone!

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

@PoliticalPundit So I take it there are no such people. Just a wistful support base of imaginary friends. And judging by all your other ridiculous and half-baked proclamations and answers to other posters here, and trying to aggressively shove such nonsense down everyone's throats, it seems you're at least partially a troll. To everyone else on this forum, this guy's obviously another whack-job whose not on this site for his advertised and claimed reason, and should, like @NYConservative, @billay, and @servo75 be put on ignore.

He’s not shoving anything down your throat. He’s sharing an opinion, which he is entitled to as you are entitled to yours. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...