|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 1, 2020 20:30:14 GMT -8
As we approach Tuesday and the hostilities around the country unfortunately escalate, I think it's important for those who may not fully understand the process of the election itself...so a mini-disclaimer here..
First, we're probably not likely to know the winner on Tuesday. Different states have different procedures, dates and deadlines. We may have a direction, but probably not a concrete answer.
Second, if Trump does indeed win, it doesn't mean the polls were wrong. Polls don't capture complete pictures and measure ideas of tendencies, not actual tendencies themselves. There were a record number of undecided voters in 2016 (dubbed "double haters" because they disliked both candidates) - Those went to Trump by a 20 point margin.
Third, I know it's been contentious on the board going back and forth with those on the other side of the spectrum. This election may be the moat critical in our lifetimes, simply because of the polar divide this nation currently faces. Whatever happens, pray for calm, peace and unity.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Nov 1, 2020 23:14:55 GMT -8
Those are good sentiments, especially #3.
It is difficult however to accept the implication by the left that “if Trump wins....rioting will happen.” Most Americans resent being extorted in this manner. We also do not appreciate attacks on our police.
To me it’s obvious the “polls” are skewed. If their inaccuracies approach or surpass 2016, the liberal activists who publish this rubbish should be run out of business, although truth be told it probably promotes complacency among Dem voters, helping Trump by instilling urgency in the GOP.
Finally, the USA needs to get back to normalcy. Whoever is elected will have vaccinations and effective therapeutics to help us achieve this. There have been many industries (hospitality, travel, entertainment etc) which have been crippled by the shutdowns, whoever wins needs to take steps to make things right.
Pray for social tranquility.....riots are unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 9:25:38 GMT -8
Those are good sentiments, especially #3. It is difficult however to accept the implication by the left that “if Trump wins....rioting will happen.” Most Americans resent being extorted in this manner. We also do not appreciate attacks on our police. To me it’s obvious the “polls” are skewed. If their inaccuracies approach or surpass 2016, the liberal activists who publish this rubbish should be run out of business, although truth be told it probably promotes complacency among Dem voters, helping Trump by instilling urgency in the GOP. Finally, the USA needs to get back to normalcy. Whoever is elected will have vaccinations and effective therapeutics to help us achieve this. There have been many industries (hospitality, travel, entertainment etc) which have been crippled by the shutdowns, whoever wins needs to take steps to make things right. Pray for social tranquility.....riots are unacceptable. I don't agree with the second point. Again, polls don't cast votes, people do. Polls don't capture certainty, they capture thoughts and perhaps some intentions. Rasmussen, the most pro-Trump poll in existence, had Biden ahead in Pennsylvania by 3%, but only ahead nationally by 1%. You're still relying on smaller samples of people and the inherent volatility of human nature to change their mind in a binary process. Regarding 2016, on this exact day, Trump's final forecast to win was 28.7%, which is not insignificant. He captured a large portion of undecided voters and carried states well within the margin of error of the polls. Trump needs a large voting error (on paper) to win in 2020, much larger than 2016. But even 10% is not insignificant, it's possible. Plus, he has the advantage of being the incumbent, which absolutely matters. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Nov 2, 2020 11:28:08 GMT -8
The only poll that matters is the one which happens tomorrow. Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Michigan will decide the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 12:00:38 GMT -8
The only poll that matters is the one which happens tomorrow. Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Michigan will decide the election. Along with a couple of others, yes. I don't think a winner will be declared though. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 14:30:19 GMT -8
I'm all in on 1 and 3, but I have a problem with 2. A LOT of people were saying all throughout this election period, that you CAN rely on the polls and what they are saying in the moment.
I said to you and many others that you can't rely on these polls, and I reminded you and others of last year when the Dems got over confident. But, you and others said that you CAN rely on them and they were legit. So, I'm calling out only those that said you CAN rely on the polls and what they say, if they turn out to be false.
We'll see how it plays out, and if they are indeed correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 14:40:37 GMT -8
I'm all in on 1 and 3, but I have a problem with 2. A LOT of people were saying all throughout this election period, that you CAN rely on the polls and what they are saying in the moment. I said to you and many others that you can't rely on these polls, and I reminded you and others of last year when the Dems got over confident. But, you and others said that you CAN rely on them and they were legit. So, I'm calling out only those that said you CAN rely on the polls and what they say, if they turn out to be false. We'll see how it plays out, and if they are indeed correct. Sigh. The problem isn't with the polls, John. As I explained already. The problem is with the conventional understanding of what polls MEASURE and how they are READ. Your entire premise is largely based on 2016, which has very few parallels to 2020. It's flawed and faulty, based off statistical outliers and anomalies that don't exist in this cycle. If Trump wins, that does not invalidate the polls in the slightest. Even with the largest samples, you're talking roughly 1,500 voters (likely/registered). If Biden is favored by 3 or 4 percent in a poll, that doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win a damn thing, if the margin of error is above the deficit. The Electoral College does not vote in coordination with the polling system, either. Here's a great informational thread on this subject - Which counters your thought process. Polls measure preferences, they don't capture tabulated votes. The fact is, every statistical model gives Trump a chance to win, but he's a decided underdog without the massive undecided voters. Meanwhile, remember those "double haters" that went to Trump by a massive margin? They are decidedly on the other side in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 14:50:29 GMT -8
I'm all in on 1 and 3, but I have a problem with 2. A LOT of people were saying all throughout this election period, that you CAN rely on the polls and what they are saying in the moment. I said to you and many others that you can't rely on these polls, and I reminded you and others of last year when the Dems got over confident. But, you and others said that you CAN rely on them and they were legit. So, I'm calling out only those that said you CAN rely on the polls and what they say, if they turn out to be false. We'll see how it plays out, and if they are indeed correct. Sigh. The problem isn't with the polls, John. As I explained already. The problem is with the conventional understanding of what polls MEASURE and how they are READ. Your entire premise is largely based on 2016, which has very few parallels to 2020. It's flawed and faulty, based off statistical outliers and anomalies that don't exist in this cycle. If Trump wins, that does not invalidate the polls in the slightest. Even with the largest samples, you're talking roughly 1,500 voters (likely/registered). If Biden is favored by 3 or 4 percent in a poll, that doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win a damn thing, if the margin of error is above the deficit. The Electoral College does not vote in coordination with the polling system, either. Here's a great informational thread on this subject - Which counters your thought process. Polls measure preferences, they don't capture tabulated votes. The fact is, every statistical model gives Trump a chance to win, but he's a decided underdog without the massive undecided voters. Meanwhile, remember those "double haters" that went to Trump by a massive margin? They are decidedly on the other side in 2020. I understand that, but I can go back and find the posts where you said that you can rely on the polls at the time after I said that you can't. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 15:02:21 GMT -8
Sigh. The problem isn't with the polls, John. As I explained already. The problem is with the conventional understanding of what polls MEASURE and how they are READ. Your entire premise is largely based on 2016, which has very few parallels to 2020. It's flawed and faulty, based off statistical outliers and anomalies that don't exist in this cycle. If Trump wins, that does not invalidate the polls in the slightest. Even with the largest samples, you're talking roughly 1,500 voters (likely/registered). If Biden is favored by 3 or 4 percent in a poll, that doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win a damn thing, if the margin of error is above the deficit. The Electoral College does not vote in coordination with the polling system, either. Here's a great informational thread on this subject - Which counters your thought process. Polls measure preferences, they don't capture tabulated votes. The fact is, every statistical model gives Trump a chance to win, but he's a decided underdog without the massive undecided voters. Meanwhile, remember those "double haters" that went to Trump by a massive margin? They are decidedly on the other side in 2020. I understand that, but I can go back and find the posts where you said that you can rely on the polls at the time after I said that you can't. I don't care what you do - But your argument lacks insight as to what you're trying to prove. Biden clearly leads nationally. Does that mean he will win? Not necessarily. But saying the polls are unreliable is silly, they don't measure what you think they do. I'm choosing to believe in the statistical models like 538 which indicate not a lot of movement in the last few weeks. Your argument is "2016" which has very little to do with 2020. If you looked at the data, Hilary's lead was shrinking at this point...Biden's has either widened or stayed relatively static. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 15:11:06 GMT -8
I understand that, but I can go back and find the posts where you said that you can rely on the polls at the time after I said that you can't. I don't care what you do - But your argument lacks insight as to what you're trying to prove. Biden clearly leads nationally. Does that mean he will win? Not necessarily. But saying the polls are unreliable is silly, they don't measure what you think they do. I'm choosing to believe in the statistical models like 538 which indicate not a lot of movement in the last few weeks. Your argument is "2016" which has very little to do with 2020. You'd make a good politician. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 15:17:47 GMT -8
I don't care what you do - But your argument lacks insight as to what you're trying to prove. Biden clearly leads nationally. Does that mean he will win? Not necessarily. But saying the polls are unreliable is silly, they don't measure what you think they do. I'm choosing to believe in the statistical models like 538 which indicate not a lot of movement in the last few weeks. Your argument is "2016" which has very little to do with 2020. You'd make a good politician. No thanks. But I do know what I'm talking about what it comes to statistics (it's literally one of my jobs) whereas you're just saying the polls are wrong without really any evidence to back that up. Even if Trump wins, that does not mean the polls were wrong. Poll quality? Source? Sample size? Polls don't capture votes, as mentioned. They characterize tendencies and intentions, which is a pretty large difference. I expect Biden to win, barring foreign interference, voter suppression, SCOTUS intervention or anything of that sort. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 18:56:59 GMT -8
You'd make a good politician. No thanks. But I do know what I'm talking about what it comes to statistics (it's literally one of my jobs) whereas you're just saying the polls are wrong without really any evidence to back that up. Even if Trump wins, that does not mean the polls were wrong. Poll quality? Source? Sample size? Polls don't capture votes, as mentioned. They characterize tendencies and intentions, which is a pretty large difference. I expect Biden to win, barring foreign interference, voter suppression, SCOTUS intervention or anything of that sort. Then why did you say, in the past, that the polls are reliable? By the way, I'm not saying the polls are wrong. I just don't know. We'll find out on election day, but they were certainly wrong in 2016. Basically, you and others in previous posts were saying that the polls that were out at the time with Biden leading were credible. Now you're putting a disclaimer out there? Hmmmmm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 19:10:06 GMT -8
No thanks. But I do know what I'm talking about what it comes to statistics (it's literally one of my jobs) whereas you're just saying the polls are wrong without really any evidence to back that up. Even if Trump wins, that does not mean the polls were wrong. Poll quality? Source? Sample size? Polls don't capture votes, as mentioned. They characterize tendencies and intentions, which is a pretty large difference. I expect Biden to win, barring foreign interference, voter suppression, SCOTUS intervention or anything of that sort. Then why did you say, in the past, that the polls are reliable? By the way, I'm not saying the polls are wrong. I just don't know. We'll find out on election day, but they were certainly wrong in 2016. Basically, you and others in previous posts were saying that the polls that were out at the time with Biden leading were credible. Now you're putting a disclaimer out there? Hmmmmm This isn't hard to grasp. The high-quality polls are reliable sources for what they provide. They don't hand over the keys to the White House, though. Polls have margin of error built into them, as the thread I posted indicates. With a lot of the swing states being within the margin of error. That thread will explain all of this. It's very good, interesting information on what polls are really about. And no, the polls were not wrong in 2016. Your comprehension of them is. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 19:23:21 GMT -8
Then why did you say, in the past, that the polls are reliable? By the way, I'm not saying the polls are wrong. I just don't know. We'll find out on election day, but they were certainly wrong in 2016. Basically, you and others in previous posts were saying that the polls that were out at the time with Biden leading were credible. Now you're putting a disclaimer out there? Hmmmmm This isn't hard to grasp. The high-quality polls are reliable sources for what they provide. They don't hand over the keys to the White House, though. Polls have margin of error built into them, as the thread I posted indicates. With a lot of the swing states being within the margin of error. That thread will explain all of this. It's very good, interesting information on what polls are really about. And no, the polls were not wrong in 2016. Your comprehension of them is. You had said that Biden's lead in the polls at the time were credible, and have been saying recently that Trump has only a few more days in the office. But, now you're giving all the reasons why they're not, and agreeing with me when I have always said that they are not credible. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have said in the past that the polls with Biden leading are credible and now you're back tracking. Why didn't you at the time, say Biden is leading in the polls, but we can't go by that because of x y and z like you're doing now? It just seems as though you're putting a disclaimer on the polls now, because you sense that they're wrong and you've been touting them in the past. This is what's actually not difficult to grasp. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 20:06:13 GMT -8
This isn't hard to grasp. The high-quality polls are reliable sources for what they provide. They don't hand over the keys to the White House, though. Polls have margin of error built into them, as the thread I posted indicates. With a lot of the swing states being within the margin of error. That thread will explain all of this. It's very good, interesting information on what polls are really about. And no, the polls were not wrong in 2016. Your comprehension of them is. You had said that Biden's lead in the polls at the time were credible, and have been saying recently that Trump has only a few more days in the office. But, now you're giving all the reasons why they're not, and agreeing with me when I have always said that they are not credible. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have said in the past that the polls with Biden leading are credible and now you're back tracking. Why didn't you at the time, say Biden is leading in the polls, but we can't go by that because of x y and z like you're doing now? It just seems as though you're putting a disclaimer on the polls now, because you sense that they're wrong and you've been touting them in the past. This is what's actually not difficult to grasp. I can't explain this to someone who won't do the slightest bit of work to understand the point I'm making. Read the thread, it explains what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:43:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 21:47:03 GMT -8
Funny, I can find results that have Trump heavily favored as well. Anybody can find anything they want in their favor if they just look. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:50:28 GMT -8
Funny, I can find results that have Trump heavily favored as well. Anybody can find anything they want in their favor if they just look. No, you can't...unless you're posting a state poll from Arkansas or Oklahoma or something. No national poll has Trump ahead, no model has him heavily favored. Once again, you're not picking this up very well. Rasmussen is the most Trump-centric poll in existence....It had Biden 48/47 48 hours ago. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:53:11 GMT -8
Frank Luntz is a GOP pollster.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2020 22:15:04 GMT -8
Funny, I can find results that have Trump heavily favored as well. Anybody can find anything they want in their favor if they just look. No, you can't...unless you're posting a state poll from Arkansas or Oklahoma or something. No national poll has Trump ahead, no model has him heavily favored. Once again, you're not picking this up very well. Rasmussen is the most Trump-centric poll in existence....It had Biden 48/47 48 hours ago. I don't care about the National polls, I only care about the electoral and I believe Rasmussen has Trump winning |
|
