A possible insight into trump's attitude and behaviour when the polls close.
Yes, I know, this has been speculated about but now appears to have substance to it.
https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e…
Broken link (404)?
Should be? https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html
<div class="bbp-reply-content p-0">
I think it’s established that he’s not morally, financially or politically sound.
Nor for that matter is he economically, ecumenically or ecologically sound..
colournoise - weird; mine was a direct copy'n'paste from the Axios website but thanks for putting up a working link.
Jesus ****ing Christ!!! Tonight's Simpsons is not even trying to straddle the fence. Amazing stuff.
eddiebaby
Full Member
Jesus **** Christ!!! Tonight’s Simpsons is not even trying to straddle the fence. Amazing stuff.
Missed it. I'll have to go looksie.👍
Pollster that predicted 2016 for Trump says he will win again. Warning, this could be complete BS.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/10/31/the-outlier-pollster-who-called-2016-for-trump-says-hell-win-again.cnn
It's an interesting one, Trafalgar group are outlier pollsters, use relatively low quality polling methods like recorded questionnaires, only canvas mobiles. Their polling this last few weeks has consistently favoured Trump by a few points (sometimes more) over the others (apart from maybe Rasmussen, but they've been less bullish)
It's a tough one, he could just have got lucky last time. Lest we forget Trump won the electoral college by the skin of his teeth last time, this time polls are significantly more in Biden's favour so that a repeat of the polling discrepancies from 16 still sees him win.
I'm going to call it that this guy stumbled upon an anomaly last time, but history won't repeat itself
Thing is, established pollsters depend on getting it right. Pollsters/forecasters who want to make a name for themselves depend on getting it right AND having it be noteworthy that they got it right. Being the company that called it right for Trump twice would be a brammer of a CV, and they don't really have that much to lose by getting it right once and wrong once.
That's probably more the case with orgs like Trafalgar, whose methods are, well, more open to interpretation. If they want a "Trump will win" poll result they can certainly craft it without it being eyeopening. Whereas again for more established/bigger pollsters, a change in methodology that secures a change in result is also generally noticable.
Another place you see more of a Trump lean is the surprisingly effective "how will your neighbours vote" question. It's obviously massively open to biases and assumptions, but, it's one of the questions that actually works pretty well in a surprising amount of situations. Ask someone how they'll vote and weirdly, they'll often lie- shy tory syndrome. But few people have any reason to lie when you ask directly about their neighbour, they just might not be right.
Mmm. You know he's just pulling a silly face, right? It's not like that's some involuntary thing like his usual face-spasms, or like he's mocking a disabled person or something, you know, the usual trump stuff- he's just hamming up for the crowd.
He looks ridiculous, but why is it news?
Yes, President Trump might grab your cat but at least he is sound
He looks ridiculous, but why is it news?
Because there's a pandemic on and the President is clowning around showing that he's unfit for his office.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1323134403623616513
https://twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/1323098735027515392
Thing is, established pollsters depend on getting it right. Pollsters/forecasters who want to make a name for themselves depend on getting it right AND having it be noteworthy that they got it right. Being the company that called it right for Trump twice would be a brammer of a CV, and they don’t really have that much to lose by getting it right once and wrong once.
That’s probably more the case with orgs like Trafalgar, whose methods are, well, more open to interpretation. If they want a “Trump will win” poll result they can certainly craft it without it being eyeopening. Whereas again for more established/bigger pollsters, a change in methodology that secures a change in result is also generally noticable.
Agreed. Perhaps they were indeed more onto the 'non-college educated white voters' thing than anyone else, particularly in the rust belt. Hence their call. But the others are all over this now. As you say they've not got anything to lose and could easily be gaming their surveys for a false positive.
Covered some stuff around polls and NCEWVs on the other thread. I'll post it here too, interesting and as far as I can see, short if outright fraud pretty much writes Trump off..
And here it is. Can't see how he can win given he's lost tonnes of support from the very demographic that go him elected last time..
Huge poll from Morning Consult just dropped. Canvassed 14,500 likely voters (most polls have a sample size between 600 and 1500). This means it has a margin of error of +/- 1% (as opposed to the normal +/- of 3-4%). So very accurate.
Puts Biden on 52% to Trump’s 44%. So 8% lead.
Which tallies with the last 6 national polls prior to this one, which average at 7.85% lead for Biden.
Turnout this year is going to be very high. Some saying as high as 150million.
If we say 140million to be safe, 52% gives Biden 73million votes, Trump has 61.5. So an additional 11.5 million votes for Biden.
In 2016 Clinton beat Trump by just under 3million votes and he just managed to scrape through the electoral college.
This time Biden has an additional 8.5 million votes over and above what Clinton had.
Critically though, the electoral college doesn’t work on a pure majority, and in theory Trump can win again using the same base that won it for him. Namely white voters and specifically non college educated white voters.
However, in order to do this he needs a properly convoluted route to win, most likely by taking Texas and Florida and Georgia (two too close to call and one within margin of error, with Biden ahead by 3 points in Florida and .2% in Georgia, and Trump ahead by .7% in Texas) as well as taking enough from the rust belt states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and Iowa). Biden is ahead by 8% in Minnesota and Wisconsin and by 5% in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Nevertheless if we accept that Minnesota and Wisconsin are too far out for the Orange baboon, then he needs to win Michigan and Pennsylvania (despite being 5 points down) as well as Ohio (.7% up and Iowa (2% up). In Texas he’s 1.3% ahead, albeit the latest large scale poll (Morning consult again with margin of +/- 1%) shows a dead heat. Georgia is essentially all square, and Florida Biden is up 3%.
So Trump needs to win a bunch of states, all of which he is either behind in (in two states by more than 5%, above the standard margin of error) or essentially all square, other than Ohio and Iowa, both of which are well within the margin.
So doable, but very, very difficult.
However, where it gets really interesting is HOW he won in 2016, or more accurately WHO won it for him.
In 2016 Trump smashed the non-college educated white voters, winning 67% of a demographic that makes up approx 44% of the electorate. And crucially more than 50% of the electorate in the rust belt. Clinton got a paltry 28%.
Polls nationally show that Trump’s base in this area has shrunk considerably, from 67% to 55%. Whilst Biden’s has grown to 44%. This means that Trump loses approx 8million votes (41m to 33m) whilst Biden gains 10m (17m to 27m).
More importantly in key rust belt states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump’s gone from 62% to 52% Michigan and from 64% to 52% in Pennsylvania. In the same states Biden goes from 31% to 45% and 32% to 39%.
So you have a picture whereby Trump has been haemorrhaging support nationally within the constituency that got him elected, and to the same extent within the core states that swung it for him and that he will need to carry this time to have any chance. Based on current polling he cannot win without at least one of Michigan or Pennsylvania, and probably both given that to only need one he would then have to win all of Florida, North Carolina and Arizona, all of which he is 2-3% behind in.
In other words, unless he pulls an absolutely enormous rabbit out of a very, very large hat, he is boogered!
Compare to how every single year the Mail runs stories saying that the UK is in for an arctic winter. They quote some official sounding 'weather institute' or something. What seems to be the case is that these people are looking at one indicator (say, positive North Atlantic Oscillation) that is correlated to a cold winter to some degree or another (but even a stronger correlation is not anywhere near enough to base a forecast on). But the Mail does not care, because the snowmageddon headlines SELL PAPERS and that is all they care about. And weather forecasting is inaccurate, so no-one cares come March if the winter was cold or not because forecasting. Then it happens again a few times each year.
I'm guessing something similar is happening with polls. If you say that Trump's going to win, you'll get loads of attention and hits on your site or whatever. If you say he's not, you're just another pollster of thousands.
Jonathan Pie isn't quite so confident and makes the salient (and typically sweary) observation that smugly discounting Trump's chances and attacking anyone that supports him is exactly how we got here in the first place:
thols2
Free MemberBecause there’s a pandemic on and the President is clowning around showing that he’s unfit for his office.
Nah. The video you posted, that shows unfitness for office. Playing around for a crowd? That's nothing at all.
Watched news footage of him last night. For someone who plays so much golf you'd think that he would have a better swing.
I think his swing has been done to death in the election thread
Oh dear. What a shame.
I wonder if she has a book deal organised yet?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-news-live-twitter-melania-biden-b1718658.html
Christ, the Indy has gone downhill hasn’t it? No better than click bait these day
Not sure reading and writing is her strong point.
Watched news footage of him last night. For someone who plays so much golf you’d think that he would have a better swing.
I believe he's a 9 handicapper, but tells folks hes off 3. Pretty much the reverse of most golfers I know.
Darn. I love that woman.
Great seeing all the pushing the hand away moments together.
eddie look up there ^^ 😉
Sneaky edit. Sorry mate.
🙂
News to me,but not surprising.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54871695
Donald Trump was the first US president in more than 100 years not to have a pet.
Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Biden on winning the election, so Trump unfollowed him on Twitter.
Sums him up I suppose.
Donald Trump was the first US president in more than 100 years not to have a pet.
He has one of those long haired guinea pigs grafted on to his head. Does that not count?
Donald Trump was the first US president in more than 100 years not to have a pet.
He has a petted lip.
Does that not count?
He has a petted lip.
Does that not count?
Maybe Melania is (not for much longer) his idea of a pet?
thols2
Free MemberSuperSpreaderMan strikes again.
Did you notice Matt Gaetz denying he'd had coronavirus because "he only tested positive for the antibodies". Mind you that's the same Matt Gaetz that didn't turn up to an impeachment hearing meeting which he was supposed to attend, specifically so that he could storm in halfway through and tell all his supporters what a disgrace it was that there weren't any Republicans in it, so he's always been a wee bit unclear on cause and effect.
From FB/IG - sweary bits edited
[img] 
[/img]
Unbelievably he does seem to be sulking. I wonder if this is going to go on until January?
Christ, the Indy has gone downhill hasn’t it? No better than click bait these day
https://twitter.com/lyman_brian/status/1326509967692730368
Incredible Sulk to give a speech momentarily, should be good...
Isn't about Corona tonight? Anywhere streaming it? Can't see it on CNN.
