US Presidential Election 2020

MJohnston · 28-10-2020 03:35PM

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.

enno99 · 28-10-2020 03:36PM

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

McFly85 · 28-10-2020 03:36PM

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.

enno99 · 28-10-2020 03:37PM

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:

Graham · 28-10-2020 03:38PM

enno99 wrote: »

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

within the margin of error.

gmisk · 28-10-2020 03:46PM

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

MJohnston · 28-10-2020 03:50PM

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:

An Ciarraioch · 28-10-2020 03:57PM

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.

MJohnston · 28-10-2020 04:03PM

Democrats smell blood in Texas:

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

DK224 · 28-10-2020 04:04PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Democrats smell blood in Texas:

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

Biden to win Texas still available at 11/4!

TomOnBoard · 28-10-2020 04:09PM

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...

Quin_Dub · 28-10-2020 04:13PM

enno99 wrote: »

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

Graham wrote: »

within the margin of error.

##Mod Note##

No one liners please.

ancapailldorcha · 28-10-2020 04:14PM

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.

MJohnston · 28-10-2020 04:22PM

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"

An Ciarraioch · 28-10-2020 04:22PM

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.

droidus · 28-10-2020 04:28PM

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

TomOnBoard · 28-10-2020 04:30PM

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...

LuckyLloyd · 28-10-2020 04:32PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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

For Texas?!

DK224 · 28-10-2020 04:32PM

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

accensi0n · 28-10-2020 04:38PM

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?

BonnieSituation · 28-10-2020 04:40PM

accensi0n wrote: »

Were you reading it backwards?

I think Tom is looking at the outright odds there.

TomOnBoard · 28-10-2020 04:59PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For Texas?!

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

DK224 · 28-10-2020 05:00PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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

So now it's official Tom has backed Trump for President!!

droidus · 28-10-2020 05:01PM

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

Zubeneschamali · 28-10-2020 05:07PM

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.

everlast75 · 28-10-2020 05:10PM

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?

0gac3yjefb5sv7 · 28-10-2020 05:13PM

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?

Christy42 · 28-10-2020 05:23PM

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.

Brian? · 28-10-2020 05:28PM

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?

Foxtrol · 28-10-2020 05:36PM

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.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments