Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

1…283284286288289…306

Comments

  • #8552
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    enno99 wrote: »
    But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
    but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
    The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

    I'm sorry, but this is such a dumb post. I think it's fair to call it that as you seem to be wilfully ignoring reality rather than it being unintentional ignorance.

    High quality polls have well-chosen samples that are representative of the demographics of the district, state, or country they're polling. They are well calibrated to accurately reflect the opinions of the population. And they all signal a margin of error to indicate the uncertainties of this scientific process.

    Why you think this is worth comparing to a livestream audience is completely beyond me.


  • #8553
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Overheal wrote: »
    Sure in 2016 I was there in Greenville SC when Bernie filled a stadium. Doesn't mean the state became a Communist regime, either.

    Bernie a communist

    A joint effort by former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to unify Democrats around Biden's candidacy has produced a 110-page policy wish list to recommend to the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency?t=1603895510231

    Wonder how much influence he will have over Biden


  • #8554
    McFly85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,595 ✭✭✭McFly85


    enno99 wrote: »
    But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
    but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
    The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

    Yes. Polls are statistically managed to take information from a broad range of the electorate to try and generate a representative figure.

    600k views on a livestream can’t be used to prove anything.


  • #8555
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but this is such a dumb post. I think it's fair to call it that as you seem to be wilfully ignoring reality rather than it being unintentional ignorance.

    High quality polls have well-chosen samples that are representative of the demographics of the district, state, or country they're polling. They are well calibrated to accurately reflect the opinions of the population. And they all signal a margin of error to indicate the uncertainties of this scientific process.

    Why you think this is worth comparing to a livestream audience is completely beyond me.

    How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:


  • #8556
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,643 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    enno99 wrote: »
    How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

    within the margin of error.


  • Advertisement
  • #8557
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,428 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Graham wrote: »
    within the margin of error.
    This has been mentioned so so many times at this stage.
    Plus poll companies have changed their practices to account for the so called shy trump voters


  • #8558
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    enno99 wrote: »
    How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

    They did pretty well actually — the final polling average on 538 in 2016 had Clinton ahead by 3.7% in the popular vote. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Margin of error in these things is usually around 3%, so that's a tiny error in the grand scheme of things.

    On average in the 2016 in critical swing states like PA, WI, and MI, the polling averages were off by less 3%.

    Let's look at the current state of these races in 2020:
    * WI — Biden ahead by 8.3%
    * PA — Biden ahead by 5.1%
    * MI — Biden ahead by 7.4%

    Even if the polls were off by the same amount and direction as in 2016, Biden still wins all three states.

    Of course, there's absolutely no guarantee that a polling error this year would favour Trump. In 2012, the polls underestimated Obama by about 3% nationally too. Here's a handy reminder from the New York Times:

    530916.png


  • #8559
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Not to mention that when you look at the state polls for Michigan, Wisconsin, and largely for Pennsylvania, Biden's lead generally exceeds the MoE - rather narrower when it comes to North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa, but then all those are states that the Dems would only win if they're already over 270.


  • #8560
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Democrats smell blood in Texas:

    https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20


  • #8561
    DK224
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭DK224


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Democrats smell blood in Texas:

    https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20
    Biden to win Texas still available at 11/4!


  • Advertisement
  • #8562
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Democrats smell blood in Texas:

    https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20

    I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...


  • #8563
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,771 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    enno99 wrote: »
    How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:
    Graham wrote: »
    within the margin of error.

    ##Mod Note##

    No one liners please.


  • #8564
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,794 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Some low quality posts have been deleted. A user has been banned and another carded. Please post constructively, civilly and do not dump links here. Thanks.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #8565
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...

    It's probably more about the down-ballot at this stage, but it also puts Trump's campaign on the defensive in a supposedly safe red state.

    538's polling average has ticked down to +8.5 Biden this morning, although the incoming polls are still in the 8-11 point range.

    The forecast was also briefly up to 89-11 but has gone back to 88-12 now. I'd wonder if they'd be reluctant to ever upgrade Biden to "Strongly Favoured"


  • #8566
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...

    Apparently, another complaint was that they hadn't invested enough in Spanish-language advertising in Texas, but that this has changed in recent weeks.


  • #8567
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    MJohnston wrote: »
    It's probably more about the down-ballot at this stage, but it also puts Trump's campaign on the defensive in a supposedly safe red state.

    538's polling average has ticked down to +8.5 Biden this morning, although the incoming polls are still in the 8-11 point range.

    The forecast was also briefly up to 89-11 but has gone back to 88-12 now. I'd wonder if they'd be reluctant to ever upgrade Biden to "Strongly Favoured"

    The economist is up to 96% after the removal of some partisan polls. https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president


  • #8568
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    DK224 wrote: »
    Biden to win Texas still available at 11/4!

    I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

    EDIT: I just put a tenner on Trump. So, if he does win TX, it'll pay for the bottle of Black Bush I'll need to drown my sorrows...


  • #8569
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,598 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

    For Texas?!


  • #8570
    DK224
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭DK224


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8
    You'll get the 11/4 on Biden winning Texas on BetFred


  • #8571
    accensi0n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭accensi0n


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

    EDIT: I just put a tenner on Trump. So, if he does win TX, it'll pay for the bottle of Black Bush I'll need to drown my sorrows...

    Were you reading it backwards?


  • Advertisement
  • #8572
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    accensi0n wrote: »
    Were you reading it backwards?

    I think Tom is looking at the outright odds there.


  • #8573
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    For Texas?!

    Ooops! I misread that! No, those odds were on the presidency!


  • #8574
    DK224
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭DK224


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Ooops! I misread that! No, those odds were on the presidency!
    So now it's official Tom has backed Trump for President!!


  • #8575
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.


  • #8576
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    droidus wrote: »
    Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.

    538 say 96% chance Biden wins popular vote, 94% gets above 50% of vote, 28% he wins by double digits.


  • #8577
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,074 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    droidus wrote: »
    Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.

    Does that mean you win 1e for every 7e you bet?

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • #8578
    0gac3yjefb5sv7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,947 ✭✭✭0gac3yjefb5sv7


    droidus wrote: »
    The economist is up to 96% after the removal of some partisan polls. https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    How accurate was this in 2016?

    Will we likely have a winner by Wed morning or is it possible we have to wait for all postal votes to come in?


  • #8579
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    enno99 wrote: »
    But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
    but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
    The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

    Yes. Polls are chosen to be a selection of the population. A trump rally is fairly obviously biased towards certain segments of the population.

    A rally and a poll are two very different things and should not be compared.


  • #8580
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,649 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Correct and despite the Democrats having a healthy majority in the house , the GOP actually lead 26-24 in a state by state count.

    So the dozens of Democrat House reps from California are worthless here , they get 1 vote , exactly the same as Liz Chaney does as the sole House rep from Wyoming.

    Would Liz vote for Trump though?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • #8581
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,288 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    MattS1 wrote: »
    How accurate was this in 2016?

    For projections like 'likelihood to win %', there isn't really an accuracy issue that you can look in the past and call out unless they've said someone is 100% going to win and didn't.

    Like a team being behind and pulling off a late comeback, it doesn't change that they were unlikely to win at a point in time.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement