Who thinks Trump will win?

Igotadose wrote: »

Turn up the heat and shut the window.

if you think he'll win, take the Boards challenge - fill in the electoral map, tell us what your numbers are and how you chose the swing states.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/electoral-college-interactive-maps

Nah. Couldnt be arsed.

I would rather wait for the actual votes to be tallied up rather than getting worked up over speculative polls.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Worth a couple of hundred quid punt if you believe this to be the case!

Not a gambler.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Cody montana wrote: »

Think you have the coronavirus.

That or the OH ripped the dovet all to themselves.

partyguinness wrote: »

Nah. Couldnt be arsed.

I would rather wait for the actual votes to be tallied up rather than getting worked up over speculative polls.

Well is you prediction based on a feeling or do you have quantifiable evidence to get to this prediction

Call Me Jimmy

Biden did well enough, he had some bad moments, oil, fracking, a short-circuit or two, but it wasn't a disaster. I think on a subconscious level if things like body language and demeanour mean anything maybe an american public won't elect someone so weak and deflated looking.

He has had over 5 days off except going out for ice-cream and now he can't use the debate prep as an excuse. The laptop story isn't going away in fact it is gaining momentum. It likely won't have anything definitive before election day but it won't just go away now, more media will have to cover it but they might hold the line until after election day.

Bass Reeves

duploelabs wrote: »

Well is you prediction based on a feeling or do you have quantifiable evidence to get to this prediction

Elections can be as much about feelings as quantifiable evidence. In 2016 few expected Trump to win. He did not even expect to win himself FFS ðŸ˜…. You can say the same about Brexit and a few other elections across the world. Polling has proved an inexact science especially with more right wing voters who often do not engage. Therefore I would not dismiss feelings over science.

However this time I suspect Trump goose is cooked. Most pollster's, journalists and commentators are half looking for a GOOJC in case he pulls off a spectacular.

However there is a few changes compared to 2016. Trump is the encumbent therefore voters will be.more likely to let there true intentions be known to pollster's. Pollster's have tried to allow for the 2016 factor in there polls. Trump was running away in the polls pre COVID up near 60% and his popularity has slid since. The gap compared to 2016 is greater at this stage of the campaign and Trump was gathering momentum. His coverage even on liberals station in 2016 while not positive he was the news story. Hillary was totally disliked by a huge porportion of centrist Americans compared to her husband Bill. Even liberals disliked her policies.

Trump has been static in the polls and no momentum has gathered, his rallies are no longer dominating news coverage in the states or across the world. In 2016 if I was a middle American I could have imagined myself and would have voted for Trump. This time I thinking if I was an a middle American and pops or grandma had lost there life to COVID would I vote for Trump or Biden. I think I be voting Biden. Those blue collar workers or former workers who have lost friends or relatives to COVID will not vote for Trump this time.

duploelabs wrote: »

Well is you prediction based on a feeling or do you have quantifiable evidence to get to this prediction

"quantifiable evidence" and "prediction" in the same sentence sounds a little strained don't you think?

But I will humour you. Here is a very simple one- Trump is the incumbent. Statistically the incumbent usually wins. Not always of course but certainly more often than not.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump mentioning coyotes has unbelievably driven some blue check accounts mad :P

https://twitter.com/sincerelyohhsay/status/1319514675302830081

:pac:

Just goes to show how feckless Trumps remarks were, you have to be well versed in immigration terminology to understand what he said and most Americans simply aren’t clued in to it.

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

Where did I mention masturbation?

He also claims I implied it which is categorically untrue.

Overheal wrote: »

He also claims I implied it which is categorically untrue.

Wait??? Pete is lying?? Well colour me shocked

partyguinness wrote: »

"quantifiable evidence" and "prediction" in the same sentence sounds a little strained don't you think?

But I will humour you. Here is a very simple one- Trump is the incumbent. Statistically the incumbent usually wins. Not always of course but certainly more often than not.

So how many electoral votes do you predict he gets? A number, not 'enough to win.' 271? 300? 400? 537?

partyguinness wrote: »

"quantifiable evidence" and "prediction" in the same sentence sounds a little strained don't you think?

But I will humour you. Here is a very simple one- Trump is the incumbent. Statistically the incumbent usually wins. Not always of course but certainly more often than not.

Funnily enough people make predictions based on evidence and facts otherwise they're called 'guesses'.
There has never been an incumbent doing so badly in the polls as trump is doing now at this late in the race to turn it around. That is a basic fact, you should get acquainted with them

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You can believe they exist just like you can believe the polls are wrong. We will soon find out...

That's just doublespeak. So, what was it 70% on the day or within the margin of error of 2% or 3%. Is the 70% the electoral college and 3% the popular vote? They made some big changes to the models, indicates to me that there were big errors in the models. Why then change the models so drastically if they were within the margin of error. It's all doublespeak. As it turned out, the polls at the root of all those projections in 2016 were misleading at best, and flat-out wrong at worst.

So the only thing I really got from you was, you don't really know either.

OS_Head wrote: »

That's just doublespeak. So, what was it 70% on the day or within the margin of error of 2% or 3%. Is the 70% the electoral college and 3% the popular vote? They made some big changes to the models, indicates to me that there were big errors in the models. Why then change the models so drastically if they were within the margin of error. It's all doublespeak. As it turned out, the polls at the root of all those projections in 2016 were misleading at best, and flat-out wrong at worst.

So the only thing I really got from you was, you don't really know either.

Aaaand.... in 2018, the polls were mostly right and there was a blue wave in the House. So, we're 2 years since then, with everything objectively worse in America. I challenge you to fill in the Electoral map with your prediction of how it will go. https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/electoral-college-interactive-maps

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

Wait??? Pete is lying?? Well colour me shocked

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e474aep7zo5imyb8v6bmhe5hvry21n3kd7u18agclmz&rid=giphy.gif

duploelabs wrote: »

Funnily enough people make predictions based on evidence and facts otherwise they're called 'guesses'.
There has never been an incumbent doing so badly in the polls as trump is doing now at this late in the race to turn it around. That is a basic fact, you should get acquainted with them

Most incumbents win. Is that not a fact?

Igotadose wrote: »

Aaaand.... in 2018, the polls were mostly right and there was a blue wave in the House. So, we're 2 years since then, with everything objectively worse in America. I challenge you to fill in the Electoral map with your prediction of how it will go. https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/electoral-college-interactive-maps

I would but to tell the truth I don't know which way it will go. There are way too many things different about this election than all the elections in the past 50 years.

If Trump wins, there will be bloodshed and probably people getting killed because of riots. I don't want that. On the other hand, if he loses, and it will probably come down to a few states deciding it. Then I don't fancy their economy to do well over the next decade, but the Dems will look for and find a war or two to help boost their economy. So, I'd advise anyone to start learning Chinese now.

partyguinness wrote: »

Most incumbents win. Is that not a fact?

Adams
Burren
Polk
Pierce
Buchanan
Hayes
Harrison
Taft
Hoover
Carter
GHW Bush

All would like a word

duploelabs wrote: »

Adams
Burren
Polk
Pierce
Buchanan
Hayes
Harrison
Taft
Hoover
Carter
GHW Bush

All would like a word

The last 3 all had one thing in common: Terrible economies.

FWIW, out of 45, 11 incumbents losing indeed means most incumbents win. You really have to screw up badly to lose reelection.

The Nal

duploelabs wrote: »

Adams
Burren
Polk
Pierce
Buchanan
Hayes
Harrison
Taft
Hoover
Carter
GHW Bush

All would like a word

10 from 45 presidents and 7 of them were from two centuries ago. So 3 presidents in the last 100 years.

Its 50/50 as far as I can see this year. Polls, bookies etc all guessing.

The Nal wrote: »

10 from 45 presidents and 7 of them were from two centuries ago. So 3 presidents in the last 100 years.

Its 50/50 as far as I can see this year. Polls, bookies etc all guessing.

As I said, no incumbent has been doing this badly in the polls and this late in the race to turn it around and win. Please disprove me if you can

duploelabs wrote: »

Adams
Burren
Polk
Pierce
Buchanan
Hayes
Harrison
Taft
Hoover
Carter
GHW Bush

All would like a word

Now, when I said that most incumbents get reelected, what part of the word "most" did you not understand? I never said anywhere that 'all' incumbants get elected.

Of the 45 Presidents who have held office, only ten presidents have failed to win re-election for a second term, when they have attempted to. One US president, John F Kennedy was assassinated before he could run for re-election.

My earlier post states:

"Statistically the incumbent usually wins. Not always of course but certainly more often than not."

That is a circa 78% success rate for an incumbent. Is this enough fact for you?

Your response is an utter fail.

duploelabs wrote: »

Adams
Carter
GHW Bush

All would like a word

Whatever about Bush and the anomaly of Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote to sway the outcome of the election. Carter probably would have gotten re-elected were it not for how the Iran hostage crisis unfolded. You could make a case for the Covid pandemic being the big anomalous thing that causes Trump to lose this time around.

partyguinness wrote: »

Of the 45 Presidents who have held office, only ten presidents have failed to win re-election for a second term, when they have attempted to.

One US presidents, John F Kennedy was assassinated before he could run for re-election.

That is a 78% success rate for an incumbent. Now, when I said that most incumbents get elected, what part of the word "most" did you not understand?

There's 11, not ten. As I said, have you seen an incumbent do this badly before and be able to turn it around?

Eric Cartman

https://www.facebook.com/153080620724/posts/10165673901650725/?vh=e&d=n

Joe asked him to put the tape on his website...

ohnonotgmail

OS_Head wrote: »

I would but to tell the truth I don't know which way it will go. There are way too many things different about this election than all the elections in the past 50 years.

If Trump wins, there will be bloodshed and probably people getting killed because of riots. I don't want that. On the other hand, if he loses, and it will probably come down to a few states deciding it. Then I don't fancy their economy to do well over the next decade, but the Dems will look for and find a war or two to help boost their economy. So, I'd advise anyone to start learning Chinese now.

wow, the election might come down to a few states deciding it? Please share us more of your great insights.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/153080620724/posts/10165673901650725/?vh=e&d=n

Joe asked him to put the tape on his website...

He obviously forgot he said that. I would never accuse him of lying.

Translate that as, he's either going old and senile or he's a liar.

partyguinness wrote: »

Now, when I said that most incumbents get reelected, what part of the word "most" did you not understand? I never said anywhere that 'all' incumbants get elected.

Of the 45 Presidents who have held office, only ten presidents have failed to win re-election for a second term, when they have attempted to. One US president, John F Kennedy was assassinated before he could run for re-election.

My earlier post states:

"Statistically the incumbent usually wins. Not always of course but certainly more often than not."

That is a circa 78% success rate for an incumbent. Is this enough fact for you?

Your response is an utter fail.

11 out of 45 is 75.4%.

Again ill ask the same question. Has an incumbent being doing this badly in the polls at this stage and turned it around?