Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 5 Days Left


5 Day Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. See my map and write up for the map: Who wins if the election is today?

  2. 2. US shows historic GDP gains after the Covid Drop. Which of these align with your thoughts?

    • This is just the kind of last second news Trump needs to win! This news will see votes swerve in his direction as he sees momentum in the final days.
    • It might help Trump a little, but despite these gains, we are still far below pre-Covid levels, which means Trump fails the "are you better off 4 years ago" test.
    • The 33% GDP growth is faster than most economists predicted, which will align with Trump's message of the recovery, giving him more credibility on this topic.
    • Economists suggest "actual GDP growth" is a better metric, which shows only 7.4% growth. Trump's economic argument could be countered with this.
    • These gains are likely to be short-lived with Covid cases ticking back up. Trump's economic argument can be countered with this.
    • The record gains only exist because there was a record decline. It's like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest runner again once he takes his first step after having had a stroke.
    • Unemployment is still very high and people are still relying on government money to survive; this will diminish the economy helping Trump in this final week.
    • The economic report does not factor well-paying jobs, full-time or part-time work, etc. so it can't capture how middle class and lower middle class families are doing.
    • This GDP Report also shows that personal income fell in the third quarter. This number might be as important as the GDP #. Voters vote on a personal level not on a abstract GDP level.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it will favor Trump.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it won't make a difference.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it will favor Biden.
      0
  3. 3. Which kind of candidate would you be more likely to support?

    • Social and Economic Conservative who is a trans man and an atheist.
    • Social and Economic Liberal who is an Lutheran minister who has never made more than $40,000 a year.
  4. 4. If you were God, do you think you would be a more just and benevolent God than God?

    • It's impossible to be more just and benevolent than God.
    • Yes. They wouldn't be required to worship me. I wouldn't leave people defenseless in war, poverty, illness, and elsewhere. You'd see more people in heaven. In fact, life would pretty much be like heaven. No reason to test people if I can already predict how they'll respond.
    • No. I would seek more worship and would be willingly more unjust and less benevolent.
      0
    • Other (mention below)
  5. 5. Do you think the United States would become a better country if you were given the power to re-write the Constitution and it was automatically ratified?

    • Yes (why, please explain below)
    • No (why, please explain below)
    • I don't know, and I won't explain below.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Again, the phrase you are referring to is fairly ambiguous. It could mean all sorts of things. 

I know. I think there's a strong case that it's metaphorical about human nature though, and that surely includes 'good and evil'. How do you interpret it?
 

7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Second, through an understanding involving basic descriptions, like 'God is love' or 'God is the good'.

Third, through an understanding of God's nature by the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth.

What makes you think those basic descriptions have any validity or genuine meaning?

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was literally the son of God? And if so what do you take that to mean, and what gives you confidence that that is the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

... and also appoints conservative SC Justices.

I've been monitoring the betting market on Predictit of what the electoral college margin will be (including who will win) for weeks.  It's mostly been stable.  All of a sudden, today, there's a huge

Also, don't forget MN, IA and WI form a little bit of a trio in the Northern Midwest - it isn't too difficult to make a jump up to MN for a bit in time. It's worth it more than likely for the relative

1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

Perhaps you have a different statistic to quote to combat my point? 

im just saying

I bet 4 years ago you'd counter my points with, "58% of people believe Trump is racist he won't win" or something.

 

Especially the opinion polls "Did X do a good job with Covid, would you go to an outdoor rally etc.." they dont mean anything 

 

im sure there were plenty of polls 4 years ago, "Who would make a better commander in chief" and Hillary would have like 57% of the vote with like 38% for Trump 

 

my point is that biden has 0 enthusiasm.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

What makes you think those basic descriptions have any validity or genuine meaning?

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was literally the son of God? And if so what do you take that to mean, and what gives you confidence that that is the case?

And what if one does? Are you into persecution of religion, or certain religions, or holding one who adheres to a given religion responsible for all nastiness done in the name of a religion, even if completely inappropriate or anathema to that's religions points, or purely for secular manipulation and gain?

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

im just saying

I bet 4 years ago you'd counter my points with, "58% of people believe Trump is racist he won't win" or something.

 

Especially the opinion polls "Did X do a good job with Covid, would you go to an outdoor rally etc.." they dont mean anything 

 

im sure there were plenty of polls 4 years ago, "Who would make a better commander in chief" and Hillary would have like 57% of the vote with like 38% for Trump 

 

my point is that biden has 0 enthusiasm.  

You're not citing sources, you're citing your opinion, so there's not really "points" being made. You can't just say my points are invalid when I cite actual hard facts. I asked for facts, and you replied with opinion. The data shows that people don't care about rallies. There's also a distinct difference in polling answers when asked "Are you enthusiastic to vote for Trump (or Biden)" vs "Are you enthusiastic to vote". Trump wins when asked how enthusiastic they are to vote for the candidate. Biden wins when asked how enthusiastic people are to vote, period. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

And what if one does? Are you into persecution of religion, or certain religions, or holding one who adheres to a given religion responsible for all nastiness done in the name of a religion, even if completely inappropriate or anathema to that's religions points, or purely for secular manipulation and gain?

I absolutely am not into persecution of religion or holding one who adheres to a given religion responsible for all crimes done in its name. And if anyone's religious views do no harm then I don't question them at all.

But if you're on a politics forum and you think that your religious views relate to political positions then they should be challenged. I'm trying to understand what validity there is behind these views, and in a discussion with someone who I know can cope with their views being challenged and questioned. Religious views on this forum will often be what is driving views on abortion, the death penalty, immigration, basically everything, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to question what someone believes, why, and whether there's an evidence base supporting it.

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

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he has both the power and the knowledge to anticipate murder that will happen and to prevent it. He did not do this. He murdered his son or is at least an accomplice. 

I also question whether God is all that good or loving if he can love anything more than another. Was he powerless to love us as much as he loved his son (who is also him, so maybe he's narcissistic?)? This reminds me of something philosopher Slavoj Zizek said (to paragraph): That love is evil, because one doesn't say, I love you all equally. They say I love this one person or thing more than anything else.  God sacrifices his Son (something he didn't have to do if he's powerful). But how much of a loss is that when he just ascends to Heaven and is reunited with God after 3 days? 

I question many of God's actions as being needless or rash when he is supposedly all powerful, all good, and all knowing. He is seriously flawed. This is why I think there are several humans that can be more just and more benevolent Gods if given the same powers as God. 

 

I'm sorry, @vcczar, but that's the kind of thinking that led many early Christians into the hands of Manichaeanism, whose Dualist thinking (if not as a religion) plagues society, politics, culture, and the very fabric of our world's (especially the U.S.') ailing death spiral of civilization.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, my understanding of God is different, I suppose.

First, through an intuitive spiritual understanding.

Second, through an understanding involving basic descriptions, like 'God is love' or 'God is the good'.

Third, through an understanding of God's nature by the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth.

Only fourth do I look at more abstract theological conceptions, such as the triple-O God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent - I honestly have a hard time even understanding what these words might mean).

So to me, the fourth are derivative ways of understanding God, but it sounds like to you perhaps they are primary.

Yeah. I have zero spirituality in me. Not sure where it went, if it was ever there. Arguments from a faith-based position won't really work with me. I went to Church every Sunday and on Wednesdays until age 17. My dad was very religious.

This said, I'm not an atheist. Certain Christianities like Unitarianism are appealing if I were spiritual. Elements of Gnostic Christianity do as well--especially the idea of ignorance as sin. 

Anyway, I'm done talking talking about this. Back to politics. 

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

I know. I think there's a strong case that it's metaphorical about human nature though, and that surely includes 'good and evil'. How do you interpret it?

I don't really try to interpret the early part of the book of Genesis. 😉 Very difficult text IMHO.

2 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

What makes you think those basic descriptions have any validity or genuine meaning?

Because they connect naturally with my intuitive spiritual understanding.

2 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was literally the son of God? And if so what do you take that to mean, and what gives you confidence that that is the case?

Well, nothing like easy questions! I think Jesus is the Messiah (a spiritual 'King'), and is the Son of God in some unique sense (as opposed to sons and daughters of God, a relationship open to every human). I have no problem with the Gospel of John's description of him as an incarnation of the Logos (the 'Word', or divine principle that develops the universe).

But I'm primarily interested in Jesus because I think he has significant spiritual insight. That's where I would start.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

I absolutely am not into persecution of religion or holding one who adheres to a given religion responsible for all crimes done in its name. And if anyone's religious views do no harm then I don't question them at all.

But if you're on a politics forum and you think that your religious views relate to political positions then they should be challenged. I'm trying to understand what validity there is behind these views, and in a discussion with someone who I know can cope with their views being challenged and questioned. Religious views on this forum will often be what is driving views on abortion, the death penalty, immigration, basically everything, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to question what someone believes, why, and whether there's an evidence base supporting it.

"Political Christians," are among the easiest to fall from Christ's Ministry, and the Path to Salvation, and big time. "Political Christianity," is anathema and antithesis to so any aspects of the Teachings of Christ, and using the Lord's Name in Vain CONSTANTLY, it literally angers and my offends my more humble Christian views, which try (though I am only human) to adhere to the Religion of Love, Life, Charity, and Peace Christ enjoined, not the vile mockery of Hate, Death, Greed, and War supposedly in the name of Christ (which is inexplicable, if you read his Ministry) practiced by "Political Christians."

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

You're not citing sources, you're citing your opinion, so there's not really "points" being made. You can't just say my points are invalid when I cite actual hard facts. I asked for facts, and you replied with opinion. The data shows that people don't care about rallies. There's also a distinct difference in polling answers when asked "Are you enthusiastic to vote for Trump (or Biden)" vs "Are you enthusiastic to vote". Trump wins when asked how enthusiastic they are to vote for the candidate. Biden wins when asked how enthusiastic people are to vote, period. 

So my "opinion" that the 2016 polls in every sense were totally off and therefore will affect 2020 polls are not facts?? This is the same exact candidate running buddy. 

 

That's not an opinion thats a FACT.

 

The "data" is biased. And talk about facts: The fact is that Trump is drawing massive record high crowds while Biden can barely get 100 people to show up to an event. You'll probably counter with your "polling data" but polls are not objective metrics to look at. The one thing we can see crystal clear in front of our face is people showing up to rallies. 

 

I am curious about your bolded part though, I agree there is a good amount of people enthusiastic to vote against Biden.. but my opinion (not fact lol) is that these people were planning to vote against Trump anyway. The real issue is "undecideds" woh may vote for Trump or not vote at all, and suburban white women.

 

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

So my "opinion" that the 2016 polls in every sense were totally off and therefore will affect 2020 polls are not facts?? This is the same exact candidate running buddy. 

 

That's not an opinion thats a FACT.

 

The "data" is biased. And talk about facts: The fact is that Trump is drawing massive record high crowds while Biden can barely get 100 people to show up to an event. You'll probably counter with your "polling data" but polls are not objective metrics to look at. The one thing we can see crystal clear in front of our face is people showing up to rallies. 

 

I am curious about your bolded part though, I agree there is a good amount of people enthusiastic to vote against Biden.. but my opinion (not fact lol) is that these people were planning to vote against Trump anyway. The real issue is "undecideds" woh may vote for Trump or not vote at all, and suburban white women.

 

You keep saying that its the same candidate, when that is literally untrue. That unravels the last part of your argument. Biden is much better liked, and has less baggage than Hillary did. There's no point in discussing with you if you can't even get the candidate right.

Trump is getting crowds, yes. Biden's running his campaign differently, so it's obvious that the amount of people that will show up will be different because of the way his campaign is being run. Rallies don't vote, and usually aren't undecideds/people looking for information. It's an event, just the same as anything else. If it were a normal campaign, I doubt Biden would be pulling too many people to events. However, I bet both Obama's would be pulling quite a few people. Elizabeth Warren had 20k people at an event in New York for her campaign, yet she didn't even make it to that state's primary. It doesn't mean anything. 

What about the people that were planning to vote for Trump anyway? It's a two-way street. 

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

You keep saying that its the same candidate, when that is literally untrue. That unravels the last part of your argument. Biden is much better liked, and has less baggage than Hillary did. There's no point in discussing with you if you can't even get the candidate right.

Trump is getting crowds, yes. Biden's running his campaign differently, so it's obvious that the amount of people that will show up will be different because of the way his campaign is being run. Rallies don't vote, and usually aren't undecideds/people looking for information. It's an event, just the same as anything else. If it were a normal campaign, I doubt Biden would be pulling too many people to events. However, I bet both Obama's would be pulling quite a few people. Elizabeth Warren had 20k people at an event in New York for her campaign, yet she didn't even make it to that state's primary. It doesn't mean anything. 

What about the people that were planning to vote for Trump anyway? It's a two-way street. 

I'm talking about Trump buddy if that was not able to be comprehended by you, not Biden. The Shy Trump voter is a thing and you'll see on Tuesday. Trump could be running against Obama or George Washington and it'd be the exact same point. 

 

"Rallies don't vote?" So these people who are at home are more likely to vote than people who may spend hours and hours to listen to a 2 hour speech from Trump?? Please. There' son point in discussing with you if you can't understand that. And based on RNC data, most of these people are newly registered Republicans or independents. 

 

And Pete, Beto, Warren etc all had far larger crowds than Biden pre Covid. Let's remember how badly Biden got trounced till SC and basically got gifted the nomination.

 

And yes agreed with this... that's exactly why I'm saying it's negating each other, except Trump is an incumbent and they always have a major advantage. If you realize nearly all of Republicans are voting for Trump you'll realize who has the advantage. The Democrats are in trouble w the Progressive party who are far more likely to not vote/go 3rd party than any "Never Trumpers/RINO's or whatever it's called" BASED ON 2016 DATA. 

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

I'm talking about Trump buddy if that was not able to be comprehended by you, not Biden. The Shy Trump voter is a thing and you'll see on Tuesday. Trump could be running against Obama or George Washington and it'd be the exact same point. 

 

"Rallies don't vote?" So these people who are at home are more likely to vote than people who may spend hours and hours to listen to a 2 hour speech from Trump?? Please. There' son point in discussing with you if you can't understand that. And based on RNC data, most of these people are newly registered Republicans or independents. 

 

And Pete, Beto, Warren etc all had far larger crowds than Biden pre Covid. Let's remember how badly Biden got trounced till SC and basically got gifted the nomination.

 

And yes agreed with this... that's exactly why I'm saying it's negating each other, except Trump is an incumbent and they always have a major advantage. If you realize nearly all of Republicans are voting for Trump you'll realize who has the advantage. The Democrats are in trouble w the Progressive party who are far more likely to not vote/go 3rd party than any "Never Trumpers/RINO's or whatever it's called" BASED ON 2016 DATA. 

It's not the same race, so the point isn't the same. Biden isn't Clinton. You have the right to not believe polls, that's fair. However, you can't claim to "know" that it's the same, when the election hasn't even happened yet.

RNC data? Please, find something not hyper-partisan to cite then we'll talk. The people that are listening to a two hour speech from Trump are likely already voting for him. I'm not sure that that point is disputed. Not sure why it matters. 

People still had to vote, by the way. Did Klob/Pete vacate the path? Sure. But people could still vote for Bernie/Warren/Bloomberg on Super Tuesday if they wished. They didn't.

You're forgetting one major group of people, and that is independents. Also, maybe citing 4 year old data isn't the best thing when entirely new events have happened in the past 4 years. COVID scrambled everything, so nothing is for sure this time. There also is no "Progressives' Party" and you have no data to back up that they will go third party more often than RINO's. If you're referencing the 2016 election, that was again with Hillary Clinton, not with Joe Biden. 

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

It's not the same race, so the point isn't the same. Biden isn't Clinton. You have the right to not believe polls, that's fair. However, you can't claim to "know" that it's the same, when the election hasn't even happened yet.

RNC data? Please, find something not hyper-partisan to cite then we'll talk. The people that are listening to a two hour speech from Trump are likely already voting for him. I'm not sure that that point is disputed. Not sure why it matters. 

People still had to vote, by the way. Did Klob/Pete vacate the path? Sure. But people could still vote for Bernie/Warren/Bloomberg on Super Tuesday if they wished. They didn't.

You're forgetting one major group of people, and that is independents. Also, maybe citing 4 year old data isn't the best thing when entirely new events have happened in the past 4 years. COVID scrambled everything, so nothing is for sure this time. There also is no "Progressives' Party" and you have no data to back up that they will go third party more often than RINO's. If you're referencing the 2016 election, that was again with Hillary Clinton, not with Joe Biden. 

Same candidate, same bias, same polls, same media. The fact that you've already admitted IF Trump wins you won't believe polls again (I think it was you, if it wasn't was a different poster here) says everything. And yes I don't "know" it but I am extremely confident based on the past 2016 data we have. 

 

You talk about finding something, "not hyper-partisan" and reference these flawed and biased polls?? Come on man. The RNC Data is NUMBERS not "opinion polls". 

The underlined is proving MY EXACT POINT THANK YOU. Had Warren dropped out on Super Tuesday... BERNIE TAKES ALL HER VOTES. That makes a critical difference in the race. Thank you for proving my point!!

 

And the fact that you totally disregard ANY 2016 data just bc Biden is running and not Clinton is where we fundamentally disagree. The 2016 data is FACT not based in biased polls. We SAW already what happened and where voters went, I'm not referencing polls or opinion polls from 2016, I'm referencing actual numbers and results. You think it's totally irrelevant, I find it to be extremely relevant there's the big difference. 

 

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

Same candidate, same bias, same polls, same media. The fact that you've already admitted IF Trump wins you won't believe polls again (I think it was you, if it wasn't was a different poster here) says everything. And yes I don't "know" it but I am extremely confident based on the past 2016 data we have. 

 

It's literally not the same candidates you can't reference one without referencing the other. Again, polls could be completely correct this time, and what would you say? 

 

1 minute ago, PoliticalPundit said:

You talk about finding something, "not hyper-partisan" and reference these flawed and biased polls?? Come on man. The RNC Data is NUMBERS not "opinion polls". 

 

The RNC is literally one of the main beneficiaries of saying there were more independents there. If you won't say that that's flawed, then you're definitely incorrect. RNC Data could be skewed to help the party, they have no obligation to post unbiased numbers. They actually have a lot at stake to post flawed ones that help their side. 

 

2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

The underlined is proving MY EXACT POINT THANK YOU. Had Warren dropped out on Super Tuesday... BERNIE TAKES ALL HER VOTES. That makes a critical difference in the race. Thank you for proving my point!!

 

As a Warren supporter, she had every right to remain in the race. She was her own candidate running her own campaign. She had no obligation to Bernie, Biden, or anybody else to support them or to drop out to help them. Bernie wouldn't have taken all of her votes, either. Their platforms were markedly different. You're simply wrong there too.

 

3 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

And the fact that you totally disregard ANY 2016 data just bc Biden is running and not Clinton is where we fundamentally disagree. The 2016 data is FACT not based in biased polls. We SAW already what happened and where voters went, I'm not referencing polls or opinion polls from 2016, I'm referencing actual numbers and results. You think it's totally irrelevant, I find it to be extremely relevant there's the big difference. 

 

I don't disregard any data from 2016. I do think that it shouldn't be the SOLE indicator, which is what you are basing it off of. You treat anything since 2016 as irrelevant, which fails to factor in 4 years of a Trump presidency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

It's literally not the same candidates you can't reference one without referencing the other. Again, polls could be completely correct this time, and what would you say? 

 

The RNC is literally one of the main beneficiaries of saying there were more independents there. If you won't say that that's flawed, then you're definitely incorrect. RNC Data could be skewed to help the party, they have no obligation to post unbiased numbers. They actually have a lot at stake to post flawed ones that help their side. 

 

As a Warren supporter, she had every right to remain in the race. She was her own candidate running her own campaign. She had no obligation to Bernie, Biden, or anybody else to support them or to drop out to help them. Bernie wouldn't have taken all of her votes, either. Their platforms were markedly different. You're simply wrong there too.

 

I don't disregard any data from 2016. I do think that it shouldn't be the SOLE indicator, which is what you are basing it off of. You treat anything since 2016 as irrelevant, which fails to factor in 4 years of a Trump presidency.

Point 1: I'm saying the Trump factor is the biggest factor out of anything. If Romney, Pence, Cruz, Cotton etc was running it'd be different. People do not feel safe in public supporting Trump, that's bigger than any factor of Biden/Clinton likability or whatever. If polls are 100% accurate then I'm wrong! But if Trump let's say loses by .. IDK a close vote and not these 8-10% my point still stands. He could very well lose in an extremely close vote. 

2: I'd agree with the RNC being as "flawed" as these polls you cite which have already proven to be extraordinary inaccurate. Can you reference 2016 points made by the RNC numbers wise that were proven to be biased or does that negate your point about 2016 not mattering whatsoever? 

3: Warren had every right to be in the race, I'm just saying she 100% took a lot of votes away from Bernie. And you're simply wrong when they had extremely similar platforms IN COMPARISON to the other candidates who were available. IN COMPARISON to the only other viable candidate, Joe Biden. 

4: I'm not saying it's the sole indicator, I'm also referencing polls recently in terms of trends and margins. What parts of 2016 data would you regard that, since it appears you don't trust anything that was seen in the 2016 results? 

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

Point 1: I'm saying the Trump factor is the biggest factor out of anything. If Romney, Pence, Cruz, Cotton etc was running it'd be different. People do not feel safe in public supporting Trump, that's bigger than any factor of Biden/Clinton likability or whatever. If polls are 100% accurate then I'm wrong! But if Trump let's say loses by .. IDK a close vote and not these 8-10% my point still stands. He could very well lose in an extremely close vote. 

 

Fair, I disagree, but fair.

 

1 minute ago, PoliticalPundit said:

2: I'd agree with the RNC being as "flawed" as these polls you cite which have already proven to be extraordinary inaccurate. Can you reference 2016 points made by the RNC numbers wise that were proven to be biased or does that negate your point about 2016 not mattering whatsoever? 

 

Really? Very inaccurate? Find some evidence and prove that poll on crowds is inaccurate. Trump can still win and the point be correct. It's just unlikely anybody cares about rallies when they vote, is my point. 

 

2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

3: Warren had every right to be in the race, I'm just saying she 100% took a lot of votes away from Bernie. And you're simply wrong when they had extremely similar platforms IN COMPARISON to the other candidates who were available. IN COMPARISON to the only other viable candidate, Joe Biden. 

 

That's wrong. That is just dead wrong and I'm not going to allow you to say that she took 100%. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/no-warren-didnt-rob-bernie-of-the-nomination.html It'd take a hell of a margin of error to make a 43-36 deficit or a 47-46 deficit into 100-0. That's just wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

4: I'm not saying it's the sole indicator, I'm also referencing polls recently in terms of trends and margins. What parts of 2016 data would you regard that, since it appears you don't trust anything that was seen in the 2016 results? 

You're putting words in my mouth, and as long as you do that, I'm not going to discuss that with you. I said before I trust 2016's results, but things have changed since 2016 that will affect the results in 2020. You aren't referencing any polls, I haven't seen a single one linked or cited this entire conversation. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Fair, I disagree, but fair.

 

Really? Very inaccurate? Find some evidence and prove that poll on crowds is inaccurate. Trump can still win and the point be correct. It's just unlikely anybody cares about rallies when they vote, is my point. 

 

That's wrong. That is just dead wrong and I'm not going to allow you to say that she took 100%. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/no-warren-didnt-rob-bernie-of-the-nomination.html It'd take a hell of a margin of error to make a 43-36 deficit or a 47-46 deficit into 100-0. That's just wrong.

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and as long as you do that, I'm not going to discuss that with you. I said before I trust 2016's results, but things have changed since 2016 that will affect the results in 2020. You aren't referencing any polls, I haven't seen a single one linked or cited this entire conversation. 

I think you're wasting your time and endangering your blood pressure with this one, @Hestia11.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Fair, I disagree, but fair.

 

Really? Very inaccurate? Find some evidence and prove that poll on crowds is inaccurate. Trump can still win and the point be correct. It's just unlikely anybody cares about rallies when they vote, is my point. 

 

That's wrong. That is just dead wrong and I'm not going to allow you to say that she took 100%. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/no-warren-didnt-rob-bernie-of-the-nomination.html It'd take a hell of a margin of error to make a 43-36 deficit or a 47-46 deficit into 100-0. That's just wrong.

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and as long as you do that, I'm not going to discuss that with you. I said before I trust 2016's results, but things have changed since 2016 that will affect the results in 2020. You aren't referencing any polls, I haven't seen a single one linked or cited this entire conversation. 

1. Ok

2. Im talking very inaccurate in regards to 2016 polls and opinion polls. Clearly we disagree on the effect of 2016 polls will have on 2020. And I asked first :) What RNC Data in 2016 about registration, crowd numbers was inaccurate? My point being rallies = known votes bc actually people SHOW UP in comparison to phone polls which requires 0 effort other than hanging up the phone, lying, etc.. 

3. By 100% I mean the certainty she took votes away from Bernie, not that she took 100% of the ENTIRE VOTE away from Bernie. And you referencing NY magazine . even a 7% point swing for Bernie would be a major difference in terms of margin of result. The larger point being a LOT OF Factors other than the People voting affected Biden winning (Obama, Pete, Amy, Warren etc). I could still reference the same points about polling in 2016 if for example Obama was running, but the points about why Biden is not a strong candidate line up w data from the 2020 Democratic primaries, NOT for example the 08 primaries where it was clear Obama won it fair and square (in fact dealing with multiple factors against him, like Bernie did in 2016).

4. What words am I putting in your mouth? I simply asked "What parts of 2016 data would you look at to reference 2020? Would you like me to reference 2020 polls or 2016 polls? I've already posted multiple times virtually every day in these threads polling regarding Michigan, Florida, PA, NC etc... 

 

If you want me to post "enthusiasm polls" or "do you support Trump on COVID" I won't because I don't believe in that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some polling data I referenced from yesterday @Hestia11. Counter? 

 

This article gives me a lot of hope for Trump's chances @admin_270https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/28/what-to-know-election-today/#comments-wrapper

 

--

In Florida, for instance, the Democratic edge in early votes has shrunk — with 41 percent registered Democrats, compared with 37.5 percent Republicans. That’s down from a 51-29 Democratic edge two weeks ago. The gap between the two parties in raw votes has also shrunk, from nearly 470,000 votes in very early mail ballots, to 384,000 votes in all early ballots two weeks ago, to 246,000 now.

In North Carolina, the Democrats’ advantage is still 39-31 but is down from 51-18 two weeks ago as in-person early voting has surged.


Nevada is also a question mark for Democrats right now. As the Nevada Independent’s Jon Ralston writes, they are still running slightly ahead of the early-voting advantage they had over Republicans at this point in 2016, when Hillary Clinton carried the state by around 2½ points. But the advantage appears to be narrowing slightly, and they aren’t necessarily on track to match the advantage they gleaned from early voting in 2016. These numbers also matter more than in most states, because Nevada’s vote is often overwhelmingly cast early — 770,000 of the state’s 1.1 million votes in 2016 came in before Election Day.

Black turnout lags a bit

Another area in which the numbers could perhaps be better for Democrats is early turnout among Black voters.

In Georgia, they currently make up about 29 percent of the early vote, compared with 32 percent of the final total vote in 2016 and nearly 34 percent in 2018, when a Black Democrat, Stacey Abrams, nearly won the state’s gubernatorial race.

In North Carolina, they currently make up 20 percent of the early vote, while they were 23 percent of the electorate in 2016.

Part of this may simply be because Black voters are less likely to vote early, and the deficits could be made up on Election Day. But in North Carolina, for instance, the 20 percent share of Black voters in the early vote is shy of their 22 percent share in the 2018 early vote.

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

Here is some polling data I referenced from yesterday @Hestia11. Counter? 

 

 

This article gives me a lot of hope for Trump's chances @admin_270https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/28/what-to-know-election-today/#comments-wrapper

 

--

In Florida, for instance, the Democratic edge in early votes has shrunk — with 41 percent registered Democrats, compared with 37.5 percent Republicans. That’s down from a 51-29 Democratic edge two weeks ago. The gap between the two parties in raw votes has also shrunk, from nearly 470,000 votes in very early mail ballots, to 384,000 votes in all early ballots two weeks ago, to 246,000 now.

In North Carolina, the Democrats’ advantage is still 39-31 but is down from 51-18 two weeks ago as in-person early voting has surged.


Nevada is also a question mark for Democrats right now. As the Nevada Independent’s Jon Ralston writes, they are still running slightly ahead of the early-voting advantage they had over Republicans at this point in 2016, when Hillary Clinton carried the state by around 2½ points. But the advantage appears to be narrowing slightly, and they aren’t necessarily on track to match the advantage they gleaned from early voting in 2016. These numbers also matter more than in most states, because Nevada’s vote is often overwhelmingly cast early — 770,000 of the state’s 1.1 million votes in 2016 came in before Election Day.

Black turnout lags a bit

Another area in which the numbers could perhaps be better for Democrats is early turnout among Black voters.

In Georgia, they currently make up about 29 percent of the early vote, compared with 32 percent of the final total vote in 2016 and nearly 34 percent in 2018, when a Black Democrat, Stacey Abrams, nearly won the state’s gubernatorial race.

In North Carolina, they currently make up 20 percent of the early vote, while they were 23 percent of the electorate in 2016.

Part of this may simply be because Black voters are less likely to vote early, and the deficits could be made up on Election Day. But in North Carolina, for instance, the 20 percent share of Black voters in the early vote is shy of their 22 percent share in the 2018 early vote.

Nevada: Dems were underpolled in 16 and 18. Ended up winning both times in toss up environments. 

Florida: Florida GOP is showing their prowess at getting their votes out there. Nevada Dems are similar to this (the machine built by Harry Reid). Dems should rightfully be concerned. However, could also mean both early vote and election day results will be close by party ID versus some other states.

Black Turnout: Black voters are remarkably similar to GOP in how they distrust mail in. Likely because of voter suppression as it has been. Ive also seen some articles where older black turnout is fairly high (specifically GA). Young voters could be prime election day turnout people because of relative success against COVID. 

 

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

Nevada: Dems were underpolled in 16 and 18. Ended up winning both times in toss up environments. 

Florida: Florida GOP is showing their prowess at getting their votes out there. Nevada Dems are similar to this (the machine built by Harry Reid). Dems should rightfully be concerned. However, could also mean both early vote and election day results will be close by party ID versus some other states.

Black Turnout: Black voters are remarkably similar to GOP in how they distrust mail in. Likely because of voter suppression as it has been. Ive also seen some articles where older black turnout is fairly high (specifically GA). Young voters could be prime election day turnout people because of relative success against COVID. 

 

Nevada haven't been following too much.

You think African Americans will be overwhelmingly for Biden? My biggest prediction is that African American males are gonna really turn out for Trump (or significant lack of turnout for Biden.. either works) . 

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

Nevada haven't been following too much.

You think African Americans will be overwhelmingly for Biden? My biggest prediction is that African American males are gonna really turn out for Trump (or significant lack of turnout for Biden.. either works) . 

Yup. I dont see anything that's changed significantly for Trump since 16 that helps him in that field. Could be wrong but I'm doubtful.

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...