I can see it as well. Frankly for anyone that is the age that Trump and Biden are “what will they be like mentally in 4 years” is a fair question and concern. My grandma is 94 and sharp as hell. She can easily keep up with any conversation. I have an uncle who is 72 and each time I see him he struggles more and more cognitively. It’s an odd thing but at those higher ages it’s simply a risk. Possible that Biden or Trump even in a year are different than today.
For me personally the answer is Trump is completely off his rocker today. Will Biden be there or worse in 4? Maybe. But give me the guy who has to get there (or even is working there) over the one who’s already nuts today.
Of course the dems win, it’s more dems represented. But this is the same poll that several news outlets are basing their conclusions on. I am just illustrating that this is how the polls are conducted and why I tend not to trust people’s conclusions. You can tell just by the demographic info, that the poll is going to skew left. I am going to edit it a bit and see if anybody else wants to play. I want to see if anybody is willing to offer numbers. Then later I will post the actual poll so folks can review it.
Every time somebody talks about “polls” I try to find the poll. Articles used to link to the poll most of the time, now most of the time, they don’t. Gee, I wonder why? Because maybe when we see how the poll was conducted, we smell bullshit immediately. I still hunt the actual poll down and 90% of the time the demographics favor the left.
I am not say, one or the other is going to win. I really just don’t know. But the polls are fucked up.
Guess the poll! This is for anybody who wants to hazard a guess…
So I have a presidential poll for 3 swing states. What I am giving you is the demographic information of the poll and you have to guess who wins and by how much. You can give a guess for just president and guess for all or some of the categories.
This isn’t polling yall, this is yall trying to guess how the polls played out, just knowing only the polling demographics. Afterwards, I will link to the actual poll and you can see how you did…
So the poll demographics are such:
The area covered is Pennsylvania 792 (33%), Michigan 792 (33%) and Wisconsin 792 (33%).
Break down by gender is 1224 (51%) female and 1176 (49%) male.
Categories: Presidential Race (obviously), Presidential Approval, Corona, Economy, Direction of country, Healthcare, SCOTUS, Abortion.
This is a standard political poll. It asks about the President and some normal issues. The challenge is to guess, only based on the information provided on how the poll skewed on the Presidential race and other political issues.
You can pick as many or as few categories (listed above) to guess on, but President is the main one.
Your job is to guess who wins and by how much just based on this info. Later I will post the poll to see who was the closest to reality.
Every four years Pat comes out to remind us that he has zero ideas how polls work. I wonder why I can find the way pretty much every reputable pollster did their poll and he can’t? This almost makes me want to go back and make a greatest hits of Pat saying bizarre stuff about polls.
I think two more weeks of polling and you would have seen Trump’s chances of winning much more reflected. District level polling was already showing warning signs.
The undecideds in the polling was also an incredible number. If I lead you by 5 but 23% of people are undecided that lead isn’t just potentially weak and near MOE but you could be crushing me when people make up their mind.
It’s all just a snapshot of what a group of people who may change their mind and may not vote think on a certain day anyways. It’s the best we have to judge what’s going to happen and the overall track record in modern polling is pretty solid. But it will never be perfect.
This really bears repeating because it’s very much underrepresented by non-pollsters when we talk about what made 2016 “wrong”. We usually think of undecideds breaking more or less along the proportions of the decided voters, but that has several underlying assumptions that may not be valid.
And, most importantly, it ignores that people making up their minds are liable to change them.
You NEVER want a fat band of grey area in your experiment, whether that’s a poll or a bench test.
Trump with tren induced paranoia. That’ll be fun to watch. We’ll have some weird Alex Jones hybrid.
“You call them peaceful protests. But I watched the footage and it’s tough to watch. And many, many people have told me they are, in fact, riots. Decent, hardworking people. And they’re tired of them. THEY’RE KILLING BABIES! THEY’RE KILLING BABIES!”
I think there is ultimately going to be less Democrat turn out than in 2016. Then you had the first woman at the top of a major party ticket. A ton of people voted just to vote for that. Just like a ton of people voted for Obama just because he was black. Joe has NOTHING to motivate anyone to vote FOR him. Everything is a vote against Trump. I just don’t think that will ultimately be enough.
That’s a tough question - it probably will come out in the wash honestly. 50 years of hypocrisy and lip service on either side of the aisle this time around. Some JoJo voters are voting based on policy, but some are voting just because either “main” option this election will perpetuate the same issues we’ve had for the last 50 years. No guarantee the Libertarian (or any other) party would fix it, but they deserve a chance after the repeated fuckery we’ve been subjected to.
I think if the US were to move to rank choice voting, that a Libertarian would stand a chance. I would probably have them as my #2, and I am guessing many people would have them as #2.
I have heard this argument a lot (with the red and blue map). I don’t think it adds up because the blue areas have a lot more people in them. That huge area that is Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming have the same amount of people as LA.
Why should a bunch of land grant the people that live on that land a lot more voting power?
