FiveThirtyEight just launched their election forecast today. Biden has a 71% chance of winning which

[George50]

You have colleagues posting that literally all the violent protestors in Kenosha were right-wingers planted by racist organizations. And apparently, many of them were disguised to be black.

Maybe this umbrella guy was planted by some wingnut organization, or maybe the tip the cops got was false.

But who cares? Nearly all the violent protestors were acting on behalf of BLM.

As far as Biden condoning the violence, it's too little too late.

He literally allowed BLM to run his entire four day Marxist convention. Which undoubtedly inspired much of this violence.

His VP pick helped bail violent protestors out of jail during the George Floyd riots.

“Violent protestors” is an oxymoron. As Biden said:

“Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. ... Violence will not bring change. It will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way,”

Biden acknowledges there are scumbags on the left and the right. Trump will only acknowledge the scumbags on the left. He actually defends and praises scumbags on the right who are attempting to stir up trouble and commit violent acts thus encouraging more to do so. In my book that makes Trump just another scumbag.

Yes, Harris helped with a bail fund. In America people are innocent until proven guilty. The justice system determines if bail would be granted or even required for release, not Harris. Most were released without bail anyway.

BLM running the Marxist convention? You’ve lost your mind and are beyond hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ReubenSherr]

Yes, Harris helped with a bail fund. In America people are innocent until proven guilty. The justice system determines if bail would be granted or even required for release, not Harris. Most were released without bail anyway.

Sounds like you are sympathizing with violent protestors.

 

[ReubenSherr]

BLM running the Marxist convention? You’ve lost your mind and are beyond hope.

Did I hallucinate the "Rise Up" music juxtaposed with images glorifying aggressive protest? Throughout all four nights?

 

[George50]

Sounds like you are sympathizing with violent protestors.

It sounds like you don’t believe that Black Lives deserve due process.

Judges determine whether bail will be set or not. That is part of our due process justice system. It’s up to them to determine whether people should be released or not depending on the circumstances in each individual case.

Again as Biden said. Violence is not protesting. You are confusing protesting and violence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[George50]

Did I hallucinate the "Rise Up" music juxtaposed with images glorifying aggressive protest? Throughout all four nights?

If you think that acknowledging that Black Lives Matter is Marxist then there is something wrong with you. Also if you think that just because it was acknowledged means that BLM runs the Democratic Party then you are delusional.

Racism is an important issue that needs to be addressed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dcsports]

Trump still has a 29% chance of winning.


The worst baseball team can occasionally beat the best.

Make sure you vote.

lol - This is more of a Pirates / National's match-up. No 'best' involved.

 

[JasperL]

This is a valid opinion, but it is one pollster's opinion, regarding how to measure the historical accuracy of various polling firms. Whether to weight presidential elections more than congressional races in Idaho, for example. Or whether to weight more recent elections over elections from decades ago, when the firm's polling methodology may have been different.

A different pollster, such as Rasmussen, could put up a website where Rasmussen is weighted 3 times over everyone else, since it most accurately predicted the last Presidential race with similar circumstances. And the last election where Trump was a candidate.

Liberal news outlets (and liberal posters) shouldn't be using Nate Silver's averaging methods to publish the size of Biden's lead. It's not an average, using 538 to cite an "average" is extremely misleading.

Especially when one poster types "Biden is up by an average of 3 points in Florida," and the next poster replies, "That's not what 538 says."

Why shouldn't they use 538's analysis? There's no inherent reason why a simple average of good and crap polling is better or more useful than one that weights polls differently based on their methodology and historical accuracy.

If you prefer a simple average, that's fine. You can find that many places. If you just trust Rasmussen, ignore every other poll. But there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing with you and using 538 as their trusted source. We can look at his methods and decide for ourselves whether it's a compelling way to evaluate polls.

My own view is no one should trust Rasmussen, at all. So what? Do you care? I doubt it.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Why shouldn't they use 538's analysis? There's no inherent reason why a simple average of good and crap polling is better or more useful than one that weights polls differently based on their methodology and historical accuracy.

If you prefer a simple average, that's fine. You can find that many places. If you just trust Rasmussen, ignore every other poll. But there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing with you and using 538 as their trusted source. We can look at his methods and decide for ourselves whether it's a compelling way to evaluate polls.

My own view is no one should trust Rasmussen, at all. So what? Do you care? I doubt it.

There’s nothing wrong with using 538’s analysis, but posting, or citing in a left wing journal, Biden’s lead according to 538, and claiming it is an average of polls, is fraudulent.

There are many ways to measure historical accuracy. For example, firms that called the Trump Clinton race accurately should be weighted over firms that called a random race in Idaho accurately.

Nate Silver is not the ultimate authority on polling, he is one pollster with one opinion.

 

[upsideguy]

This is a valid opinion, but it is one pollster's opinion, regarding how to measure the historical accuracy of various polling firms. Whether to weight presidential elections more than congressional races in Idaho, for example. Or whether to weight more recent elections over elections from decades ago, when the firm's polling methodology may have been different.

A different pollster, such as Rasmussen, could put up a website where Rasmussen is weighted 3 times over everyone else, since it most accurately predicted the last Presidential race with similar circumstances. And the last election where Trump was a candidate.

Liberal news outlets (and liberal posters) shouldn't be using Nate Silver's averaging methods to publish the size of Biden's lead. It's not an average, using 538 to cite an "average" is extremely misleading.

Especially when one poster types "Biden is up by an average of 3 points in Florida," and the next poster replies, "That's not what 538 says."

Over the years Nate Silver's methodology has been exceptionally accurate.


He successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
He successfully called the outcomes in 50 of the 50 states in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.

In the 2016 election, his gave Trump much more of a possibility (about 30%) of winning the election than any similar polling aggregation site.

The Prediction – How Nate Silver Does It | GreenBook

 

[JasperL]

There’s nothing wrong with using 538’s analysis, but posting, or citing in a left wing journal, Biden’s lead according to 538, and claiming it is an average of polls, is fraudulent.

Who determined that this is "fraudulent?" You? Why do I care what you think is fraudulent, since you are a MAGA, and if it shows Trump in a light other than the most favorable, you'll reject it?

And it's a weighted average of polls. Why is that inherently inferior to a simple average and why is weighting an average a "fraud?" It's one man's method. Any simple average that doesn't include every single poll on the planet is subjective, because they determine what polls are 'good enough' to track. Using opinion to decide what polls are in the simple average is every bit as subjective as including many more polls (like 538 does) but weighting them.

There are many ways to measure historical accuracy. For example, firms that called the Trump Clinton race accurately should be weighted over firms that called a random race in Idaho accurately.

Should be according to you. If you want, start your own service, then whatever you want is how it will be done.

Nate Silver is not the ultimate authority on polling, he is one pollster with one opinion.

Correct!

Well, he's not a pollster, but someone who analyses what other pollsters have done, which is different, but I think I know what you meant.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I’ve given up on these predictions, you would think 2016 would still be in recent memory for these people.

They cannot win without trying to get trump supporters not to go vote. So they say Biden is way ahead.

 

[Casca XV]

View attachment 67293938

Why, because you said? I'll pass.

 

[Casca XV]

Since I don’t listen to Rush’s propaganda I have no idea what you are talking about. Did he happen to predict that Trump would encourage people to vote twice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Vote twice" claim is a proven lie. Try to keep up.

 

[George50]

"Vote twice" claim is a proven lie. Try to keep up.

People can’t vote twice because the computers will catch them. Here’s what Trump said:

“On your ballots, if you get the unsolicited ballots, send it in and then go make sure it counted, and then if it doesn’t tabulate, you vote. You just vote. And then if they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn’t be doing, they’ll see you voted and so it won’t count. So, send it in early, and then go and vote. And if it’s not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is gonna count.”

If people take Trump’s advice and drop their ballot in the mail then go down and vote soon after it is going to look like they are trying to vote twice even though that may not be their intention. That’s because there is an excellent chance their mail in ballot will not be in the system yet.

So what are the states supposed to do with this? They normally would follow up on people who try to vote twice but with Trump making it standard procedure it will create chaos and make it impossible to find the people who are actually trying to commit fraud.

Trump says a lot of really stupid things but this must be right up there on top of the asinine things he’s ever said.

Why people put up with and defend this lunatic’s antics is beyond me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ReubenSherr]

And it's a weighted average of polls. Why is that inherently inferior to a simple average and why is weighting an average a "fraud?" It's one man's method.

There's nothing wrong with citing a weighted average, as long as the media outlet is clear that they are citing a weighted average, using a weighting system determined by one particular pollster.

Liberal media outlets are citing 538 left and right, with articles all over Google, Apple News, etc., simply citing Biden's 538 leads and acting is if they are poll averages. This is what is fraudulent. On the part of the liberal outlets publicizing 538 numbers like they are straight averages of polls.

I get the feeling that if a right-leaning site were doing this, you all would be having a fit.

 

[Puigb]

???

The Hill has Biden down from +9 to +6
Emerson has Biden down from +4 to +2
Quinnipiac has Biden down from +15 to +10
USA Today has Biden down from +12 to +7
USC has Biden down from +11 to +7
Ipsos has Biden down from +7 to +5
Suffolk is down to +5

Rasmussen is still at +4, it bounces back and forth weekly

Sounds like you’re reading the liberal analyses that come up on Google and Apple News

First of all, that Hill poll is not the same poll they do weekly, or bi weekly, and you know it. Nice try though.

Second, nobody expected Biden to constantly be ahead by 15, or even 10. That's not realistic in today's political environment.

What is reality, is he maintains a consistent 7-8 point lead in most polls, and is polling at or around 50% in almost all of them, even including many of the state polls. And this is with much less undecideds than four years ago.

 

[ReubenSherr]

First of all, that Hill poll is not the same poll they do weekly, or bi weekly, and you know it. Nice try though.

Second, nobody expected Biden to constantly be ahead by 15, or even 10. That's not realistic in today's political environment.

What is reality, is he maintains a consistent 7-8 point lead in most polls, and is polling at or around 50% in almost all of them, even including many of the state polls. And this is with much less undecideds than four years ago.

The topic, though, was whether Trump got a bounce out of the convention.

Out of the polls released since the close of the RNC,

Harris has Biden down +10 to +6.
Emerson has Biden down +4 to +2.
The Hill has Biden down +9 to +6.
Quinnipiac has Biden down +15 to +10.
USA Today has Biden down +12 to +7.
Ipsos has Biden down +7 to +5

Several other polls have movement in the other direction. But most of those have Biden with slimmer leads.

 

[Puigb]

The topic, though, was whether Trump got a bounce out of the convention.

Out of the polls released since the close of the RNC,

Harris has Biden down +10 to +6.
Emerson has Biden down +4 to +2.
The Hill has Biden down +9 to +6.
Quinnipiac has Biden down +15 to +10.
USA Today has Biden down +12 to +7.
Ipsos has Biden down +7 to +5

Several other polls have movement in the other direction. But most of those have Biden with slimmer leads.

So, was it a bounce from the convention, or is the race slightly tightening because no way any candidate is winning by 10-15 points nationally?

 

[JasperL]

There's nothing wrong with citing a weighted average, as long as the media outlet is clear that they are citing a weighted average, using a weighting system determined by one particular pollster.

Liberal media outlets are citing 538 left and right, with articles all over Google, Apple News, etc., simply citing Biden's 538 leads and acting is if they are poll averages. This is what is fraudulent. On the part of the liberal outlets publicizing 538 numbers like they are straight averages of polls.

I get the feeling that if a right-leaning site were doing this, you all would be having a fit.

Yes, you provide no links, no examples, and contend it's fraud to use a weighted average, but OK to use a simple average! MAGA!!