Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

JimmyV

Biden

Never not weird. 

The Juggler

Biden

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

The Juggler

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

The Juggler

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance. 

The Juggler

Biden

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

static111

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

I’m in the same boat as you Hugh.  I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance  up until at least a year after the election.  I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough.   I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.

static111

Biden

The Juggler said:

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”.  Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.

josevolution

The Juggler said:

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

Agreed!

The Juggler

Biden

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”.  Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.

That's...what I meant by "baggage."

The Juggler

Biden

static111 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

I’m in the same boat as you Hugh.  I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance  up until at least a year after the election.  I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough.   I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.

30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance. 


PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal. 

mickeyrat

Biden

wasted pages.  98 days now.

static111

Biden

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”.  Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.

That's...what I meant by "baggage."

Yeah I got that.  I think Benghazi is an unbridgeable gap no matter how capable the candidate, or how much of a mountain that whole mole hill was made to be.

The Juggler

Biden

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.

Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”.  Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.

That's...what I meant by "baggage."

Yeah I got that.  I think Benghazi is an unbridgeable gap no matter how capable the candidate, or how much of a mountain that whole mole hill was made to be.

I wouldn't go that far. I actually think the spy gate nonsense Trump whines about would be a bigger deal with her. 

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance. 

yeah, i'm aware of what you posted. that's not what i was referring to, obviously. 

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

I’m in the same boat as you Hugh.  I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance  up until at least a year after the election.  I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough.   I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.

30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance. 


PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal. 

i really don't know what your problem is. we all get it. the polling was mostly correct. WE FUCKING KNOW THAT. what you aren't .listening to is the SOURCES I WAS LISTENING TO GAVE TRUMP LITERALLY ABOUT 5% CHANCE. i was obviously listening to the wrong sources, you were listening to the right ones. my polling sources game was pretty shitty in 2016. GET IT?

not sure why you keep beating this dead fucking horse. 

benjs

static111 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

I’m in the same boat as you Hugh.  I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance  up until at least a year after the election.  I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough.   I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.

I think it has to do with modern society's need to distill everything down to a soundbite.

An analytics news site like 538 will explain the 'how' of a prediction. Namely, the margin of error of state-level polls is aggregated to convey a national statistic, based on the number of EC seats allocated to each state. When they do this aggregation, the data + error potential will come out with a range from worst-case to best-case. Where those summed up numbers sit relative to the 'win/loss' line, establishes the probability of victory, but it's absolutely a product of how the individual states perform, and whether the error margin tips the scale in favour or away. From what I recall, all state-level predictions were quite accurate (i.e. outcomes within the data + error potential range in most cases). 

This paints a very different picture of the reality than the way the media portrayed this - with one data value (i.e. the probability of a national victory) to convey all of this detail. Like most soundbites, it does a piss-poor job of that. That's no fault of a news consumer - it's more a byproduct of the media's pivoted primary purpose of entertainment (where it used to be information). 

Gern Blansten

Biden

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Here's some more Nate Silver for you since you love him so much

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

I've never seen anything convincing about voting irregularities in WI/PA/MI in 2016.  My first thought was that the fucking Russians hacked voting machines or something.  All they needed to do was move about 38K Clinton votes to tRump and the election ended up like it did.

The Comey effect made sense...and that is what Nate Silver hung his hat on.  The polls just didn't have time to react to that bullshit.

Gern Blansten

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Never not weird. 

lol

It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not. 

either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win. 

Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.

i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that. 

I’m in the same boat as you Hugh.  I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance  up until at least a year after the election.  I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough.   I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.

30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance. 


PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal. 

i really don't know what your problem is. we all get it. the polling was mostly correct. WE FUCKING KNOW THAT. what you aren't .listening to is the SOURCES I WAS LISTENING TO GAVE TRUMP LITERALLY ABOUT 5% CHANCE. i was obviously listening to the wrong sources, you were listening to the right ones. my polling sources game was pretty shitty in 2016. GET IT?

not sure why you keep beating this dead fucking horse. 

I remember periods of time where tRump had a very low chance of being elected according to the 538 forecast.  Those were usually after fucked up things he did or said (the "grab them by the pussy" tape, a new lawsuit for sexual assault, etc.) but he always bounced back.