Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 17 Days Left


17 Day Poll  

31 members have voted

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

  2. 2. Which "organization" is worse?

  3. 3. Which of the following incumbents Senators is most likely to be defeated in an upset if any upset occurs?

    • Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC) will be defeated by Jaime Harrison
    • Sen. John Cornyn (TX) will be defeated by MJ Hegar
      0
    • Sen. Steve Daines (MT) will be defeated by Steve Bullock
    • Sen. Dan Sullivan (AK) will be defeated by Al Gross
      0
    • Sen. David Perdue (GA) will be defeated by Jon Ossoff
    • Sen. Kelly Loeffler (GA) will be defeated by Rev. Raphael Warnock
    • Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) will be defeated by Amy McGrath
      0
  4. 4. Which of the following is helping Biden earn votes the most?

    • Refusal to commit on whether or not he'd pack the court until after confirmation, even though he's clear that he doesn't agree with doing it.
      0
    • Refusal to commit to the Green New Deal and other initiative and stances advocated by Sanders, AOC, and Warren.
    • Advocacy of a return of bipartisanship and an open channel of communication between the opposing major parties.
    • Being cautious and "safe" with the pandemic by regularly wearing a mask and infrequently campaigning.
    • Trump's controversial rhetoric
  5. 5. Which of the following is helping Trump earn votes the most?

    • Doubling down on making his base happy, mostly through rhetoric.
    • Playing down the pandemic, for whatever reason, including campaigning as if the pandemic isn't a barrier to campaigning.
    • Reluctance to disavow controversial supporters, such as Proud Boys or QAnon.
      0
    • Sympathy from having had Covid + how quickly he recovered.
    • Biden's rambling rhetoric


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

no incumbent president has had lower than 47% approval rating or lower at this point in an election and won reelection.

Ya, but is 47% the cut-off? The next data point is 44%. So more carefully, somewhere between 44% and 47% seems the relevant point.

Trump's latest Gallup approval rating is 46%.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hmm, I don't think one tops each other as the "worse". They both are equally bad for America.

I dont understand why they are a C- pollster (except the hate Nate and Trafalgar owner have between themselves), in 2016 they predicted Red Michigan and were right (the nearest of all pollsters), Red

QAnon is more like a joke imo, they're not a threat as much as they'd like to be.

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Why do you believe that? Polls rely on complex models of electorates (where there are relevant differences in voting patterns, which demographics will turn out to what degree, and so on). If things are so unprecedented, why are those better than other methods?

I mainly take the polls with a grain of salt because they got it so wrong last time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, but is 47% the cut-off? The next data point is 44%. So more carefully, somewhere between 44% and 47% seems the relevant point.

Trump's latest Gallup approval rating is 46%.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

The net approval is probably more important. He’s double digit negative, along with Carter and Bush 1

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Since 1912, when primaries basically began, in cases where an incumbent President has faced no serious opponent within his own party, he has won the election 11/11 times.

George H.W. Bush faced no significant opposition in his Party primaries in 1992. Buchanan was EASILY sidelined and marginalized.

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

George H.W. Bush faced no significant opposition in his Party primaries in 1992. Buchanan was EASILY sidelined and marginalized.

He only got 73% of the vote. Buchanan got 37.5% in NH (first primary).

According to the metric I'm referring to, that is serious opposition for an incumbent President.

By comparison, Trump got 95% of the vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

He only got 73% of the vote. Buchanan got 37.5% in NH (first primary).

According to the metric I'm referring to, that is serious opposition for an incumbent President.

By comparison, Trump got 95% of the vote.

Trump had three throwaway opponents competing with each other as well, Bush had only one. That should be calculated in. It significantly affects these kinds of results.

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

Trump had three throwaway opponents competing with each other as well, Bush had only one. That should be calculated in. It significantly affects these kinds of results.

That's the point. Bush had significant opposition, Trump didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

That's the point. Bush had significant opposition, Trump didn't.

There's more than the numbers achieved that determine, "significance," of opposition. Context is king. People who obsessively quote numbers often ignore context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

He only got 73% of the vote. Buchanan got 37.5% in NH (first primary).

According to the metric I'm referring to, that is serious opposition for an incumbent President.

By comparison, Trump got 95% of the vote.

I think he got like 93%. Nixon only got 86%. Eisenhower 85%. Coolidge 68% (incumbent who won) but has a lower % than Bush I. 

Bush II and Reagan were at like 98%

FDR 71% in 1940 and 79% in 1944. Truman 63% and won. LBJ won and didn't really win many primary states. Clinton 89%. Obama 88%

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

I think he got like 93%. Nixon only got 86%. Eisenhower 85%. Coolidge 68% (incumbent who won) but has a lower % than Bush I. 

Bush II and Reagan were at like 98%

FDR 71% in 1940 and 79% in 1944. Truman 63% and won. LBJ won and didn't really win many primary states. Clinton 89%. Obama 88%

Yes, Coolidge faced serious opposition but still won. The stat is re incumbents who didn't face serious opposition. All of them since 1912 won.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, Coolidge faced serious opposition but still won. The stat is re incumbents who didn't face serious opposition. All of them since 1912 won.

I still dispute whether or not Buchanan can properly be called "significant opposition," to Bush, Sr. I ask for @vcczarto help give guidance, rather than descend into another quagmire debate.

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

I still dispute whether or not Buchanan can properly be called "significant opposition," to Bush, Sr. I ask for @vcczarto help give guidance, rather than descend into another quagmire debate.

To avoid a terminological debate, the statistic is re % of vote in primaries for incumbent with a cutoff at a certain point. To me it's plausible to say 'significant opposition' for the % threshold. Bush is below that threshold. Take it for what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

To avoid a terminological debate, the statistic is re % of vote in primaries for incumbent with a cutoff at a certain point. To me it's plausible to say 'significant opposition' for the % threshold. Bush is below that threshold. Take it for what you will.

I still firmly think ignoring the context of the election, and which states the challenger showed strength in, should also be accounted for - not just raw numbers in and of themselves.

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

I still dispute whether or not Buchanan can properly be called "significant opposition," to Bush, Sr. I ask for @vcczarto help give guidance, rather than descend into another quagmire debate.

He was a threat for like a week or two. I can see an argument either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Has Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign denied the e-mails in question?

I'm not sure. I dont keep track of Hunter Biden that much nor try to. I want to see what the FBI ends up finding either way. Its important. 

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

I still firmly think ignoring the context of the election, and which states the challenger showed strength in, should also be accounted for - not just raw numbers in and of themselves.

Just rephrase the claim as "All incumbents > 75% of primary vote have won the election."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

I'm not sure. I dont keep track of Hunter Biden that much nor try to. I want to see what the FBI ends up finding either way. Its important. 

I don't think they have - odd they haven't if it's Russian disinformation. Hold on, I've seen this movie before ... It's 2016 Part Deux!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I don't think they have - odd they haven't if it's Russian disinformation. Hold on, I've seen this movie before ... It's 2016 Part Deux!

Uh...maybe if you were more concerned about the actual veracity of it you would be more impartial. If this is as big as what Trump supporters believe it is, if the FBI finds it wasn't, that definitely helps him. Not sure why that's a big deal besides partisanship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

maybe if you were more concerned about the actual veracity of it you would be more impartial

This is like the e-mails being released in 2016. They were real, I don't believe the Clinton campaign denied it, they just said the Russians were behind the release.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

I don't understand this. We are in an unprecedented situation and polls got it wrong last time, but polls are still the best indicator? Why?

The best that we have. I never said they were good.

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...