• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

IBD Shows Trump's Support At New High

W_Heisenberg said:
This isn't true. Silver is both averaging the polls, publishing the averages in each state, and also making predictions based on those averages.
Click to expand...
As you all know, Silver weights certain polls up, and others down, mostly based on their history of predicting Congressional races.

538 is not an average. It is Silver’s own personal formula for predicting the election results.

And keep in mind that four years ago, he gave Hillary a 72% chance of winning on Election Day.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I'm sure at some point someone will say "But 538 and Nate Silver were wrong in 2016!", and ignore that they actually gave Trump higher probability than most and predicted he had a 1/3 chance to win.
Click to expand...
Trafalgar called the 2016 race accurately. So, for the most part, did Rasmussen.

Silver was way off.
 
Threegoofs said:
Read this and learn something about polling, Mr Cherry Picker.

Click to expand...

You all sure are putting Nate Silver up on a pretty high pedestal.

One, he is viciously anti-Trump, and has co-written many anti-Trump articles.

And two, he was way off in 2016.

Most importantly, this thread is about IBD’s prediction, not Silver’s.
 
ReubenSherr said:
As you all know, Silver weights certain polls up, and others down, mostly based on their history of predicting Congressional races.
Click to expand...

That's okay.

538 is not an average. It is Silver’s own personal formula for predicting the election results.
Click to expand...

Silver is very up-front with his methodology, and how he weights the polls, and how he develops his average.

You are welcome to disbelieve the truth that is staring you in the face: Trump is a loser who is going to lose, big time.

It's OVER for him. Biden has more than double the money as Trump. Biden's lead in all the swing states is stable. 40 million Americans have already voted. It's baked in at this point. Biden will win. The Democrats will take the Senate. Trump will lose. Trump supporters will lose.

And keep in mind that four years ago, he gave Hillary a 72% chance of winning on Election Day.
Click to expand...

A 72% chance of winning isn't a 100% chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
You all sure are putting Nate Silver up on a pretty high pedestal.

One, he is viciously anti-Trump, and has co-written many anti-Trump articles.
Click to expand...

I don't trust anyone who isn't viciously anti-Trump. Trump is a piece of crap.

Anyone who supports Trump is an idiot and a jerk.

And two, he was way off in 2016.

Most importantly, this thread is about IBD’s prediction, not Silver’s.
Click to expand...

Silver isn't a pollster. He analyzes the polls.

The polls did not account for the fact that non-educated and stupid white voters would support Trump in such huge numbers.

They did not separate educated and uneducated people in that voting bloc.

Garbage in Garbage out.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I don't trust anyone who isn't viciously anti-Trump. Trump is a piece of crap.

Anyone who supports Trump is an idiot and a jerk.



Silver isn't a pollster. He analyzes the polls.

The polls did not account for the fact that non-educated and stupid white voters would support Trump in such huge numbers.

They did not separate educated and uneducated people in that voting bloc.

Garbage in Garbage out.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is, in terms of this thread, IBD called the 2016 race correctly, and Silver did not.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Most importantly, this thread is about IBD’s prediction, not Silver’s.
Click to expand...

The thread's about whatever we make it about. Right now, it's about how no one who believes in democracy could support that dick.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Bottom line is, in terms of this thread, IBD called the 2016 race correctly, and Silver did not.
Click to expand...
There's as good a chance that prognosticators will undershoot Biden's support as undershoot Trump's support this year.

In fact, having been burned in 2016, I'd say it's more likely that polls are overcorrecting and thus showing more support for Trump than actually exists.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Bottom line is, in terms of this thread, IBD called the 2016 race correctly, and Silver did not.
Click to expand...

This is such nonsense. You are so desperate. Grasping at any straw you can find because Trump is being absolutely destroyed in the polls.

A tracking poll at the national level gauging the popular vote is not calling the "race correctly" because we don't select Presidents based on the popular vote.

Trump is a loser who is going to lose...bigly.
 
ReubenSherr said:
I can't speak for all Trump supporters, but I believe trends in the polls, not necessarily the raw numbers.

In other words, the fact that IBD has Trump's support at a "new high."
Click to expand...

That's not how a trend works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
ReubenSherr said:
Bottom line is, in terms of this thread, IBD called the 2016 race correctly, and Silver did not.
Click to expand...

Silver did not "call the race" at all, and was not incorrect. He gave Trump like a 30% chance of winning.
 
What are his numbers on RT? Probably stellar!
 
ReubenSherr said:
You all sure are putting Nate Silver up on a pretty high pedestal.

One, he is viciously anti-Trump, and has co-written many anti-Trump articles.

And two, he was way off in 2016.

Most importantly, this thread is about IBD’s prediction, not Silver’s.
Click to expand...
Its not an argument by authority, its an argument using reason.

You dont want to face reason, so you pretend its a Nate Silver opinion.

Youre really bad at this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
ReubenSherr said:
Trafalgar called the 2016 race accurately. So, for the most part, did Rasmussen.

Silver was way off.
Click to expand...

He wasn't way off. You're just under the impression Silver was saying "Hillary Clinton will definitely win," which is laughably false.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Bottom line is, in terms of this thread, IBD called the 2016 race correctly, and Silver did not.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is a sample of 1 is useless. Calling 1 race correctly is a sample of 1.
 
ReubenSherr said:
As you all know, Silver weights certain polls up, and others down, mostly based on their history of predicting Congressional races.

538 is not an average. It is Silver’s own personal formula for predicting the election results.

And keep in mind that four years ago, he gave Hillary a 72% chance of winning on Election Day.
Click to expand...

You realize that a 72% chance of winning, means that there is a 28% chance of not winning, right?
 
George50 said:
Bottom line is a sample of 1 is useless. Calling 1 race correctly is a sample of 1.
Click to expand...
A sample of one presidential race, where Trump was a candidate, is arguably more accurate than a sample of 50 Congressional races. In predicting a second race in which Trump is a candidate.

Rasmussen is now showing Biden +3 nationally, so the IBD poll is no longer an outlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom