Nate Silver 538

Lerxst1992

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

I’d say it’s court stacking, similar but different.

Lerxst1992

To get a true estimate of undecideds (The major difference between 2016 and 20), pollsters would need to know who is showing up by demographic and total voter turnout, which are stats they always seemed to be surprised by after elections.

otherwise, I’ll just leave this here in light of all the very pro Biden polling this week,

Jearlpam0925

I mean it's been pro-Biden polling since like April.

I think this is to get caught up in one poll and ingest data in a way to fit a certain story. Again, I come back to 538 because they put all the polls through the meat grinder. Silver, by Election Day Eve, had Clinton at 3.9 in PA, 5.3 in WI, 4.2 in MI, 0.6 in FL for margin of popular vote win - those all are within or very close to the MOE. Plus, there was a 3rd party candidate on the ballot that got a sizable chunk of the electorate. That's not the case this time. So we'll have to wait to Election Day Eve. Biden is well outside of the MOE in all those states, sans FL. If that is still like that at the same time on November 2nd then this thing's over.

Only thing that could possibly save Trump right now is a massive, massive covid relief spending bill and it looks like he's too stupid to do that.

Lerxst1992

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

Gern Blansten

Lerxst1992 said:

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

I'm pretty sure that 538 addressed those differences in their formula.

cincybearcat

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

Jearlpam0925

Lerxst1992 said:

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

But I think they are - if anything that tells me the overall models have been refined and improved. If the leads/margins are less it could be because they are more accurate. Which makes sense, too, because if this dipshit handled everything, since like February, 10% better I think he'd win.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

she must have been nervous. she wasn't able to think on her feet very well. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

she must have been nervous. she wasn't able to think on her feet very well. 

agreed...and again, why isn't there a prepared answer for this?  They knew it was coming.

dignin

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

Pretty sure she did bring up Republicans court packing. Not the Handmaid specifically though.

MayDay10

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

There is also those 3000 Federal Judges that Trump always brags about pushing through.  


As far as court-packing.  Im all for it.  If we are going to play a yo-yo game of opinionated judges who are basically highly educated political operatives... a 9-judge panel with lifetime appointments is silly and dangerous.  You get a fool like Trump in there (losing the pop vote) and by the stroke of luck and circumstance, he gets to sit 3 young-ish judges for life.  

With more, the effects of that kind of thing will be diminished.  There will be more points of view.  Someone like Ginsburg wont feel a desperate need to hang on to her death bed.  

I like the idea of 18-year appointments too.  That is plenty.  That would also give the public tangible targets for election choices.  

Lerxst1992

MayDay10 said:

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

There is also those 3000 Federal Judges that Trump always brags about pushing through.  


As far as court-packing.  Im all for it.  If we are going to play a yo-yo game of opinionated judges who are basically highly educated political operatives... a 9-judge panel with lifetime appointments is silly and dangerous.  You get a fool like Trump in there (losing the pop vote) and by the stroke of luck and circumstance, he gets to sit 3 young-ish judges for life.  

With more, the effects of that kind of thing will be diminished.  There will be more points of view.  Someone like Ginsburg wont feel a desperate need to hang on to her death bed.  

I like the idea of 18-year appointments too.  That is plenty.  That would also give the public tangible targets for election choices.  

I agree on the 18 year terms. If every 2 years a justice must retire, each presidential term would have two appointments, and these rule manipulation games we get now would not lead to a 6-3 stacked court like the one we are about to have.

But this will only occur if there is a constitutional amendment, which is never happening in the current climate.

Which is why I support Dems packing the Court. This could get the Rs to the table to negotiate on Court term limits.

In the interim, we desperately need DC statehood with 51 votes. Those 2 seats in the senate would be critically important and the DC residents deserve representation in the Senate and a voice on the Court.

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

MayDay10 said:

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

There is also those 3000 Federal Judges that Trump always brags about pushing through.  


As far as court-packing.  Im all for it.  If we are going to play a yo-yo game of opinionated judges who are basically highly educated political operatives... a 9-judge panel with lifetime appointments is silly and dangerous.  You get a fool like Trump in there (losing the pop vote) and by the stroke of luck and circumstance, he gets to sit 3 young-ish judges for life.  

With more, the effects of that kind of thing will be diminished.  There will be more points of view.  Someone like Ginsburg wont feel a desperate need to hang on to her death bed.  

I like the idea of 18-year appointments too.  That is plenty.  That would also give the public tangible targets for election choices.  

I agree on the 18 year terms. If every 2 years a justice must retire, each presidential term would have two appointments, and these rule manipulation games we get now would not lead to a 6-3 stacked court like the one we are about to have.

But this will only occur if there is a constitutional amendment, which is never happening in the current climate.

Which is why I support Dems packing the Court. This could get the Rs to the table to negotiate on Court term limits.

In the interim, we desperately need DC statehood with 51 votes. Those 2 seats in the senate would be critically important and the DC residents deserve representation in the Senate and a voice on the Court.

what is the reason DC isn't a state in the first place? we don't learn this in canadian schools (at least not mine). i just read a short article on it and it really doesn't seem to make much sense to me

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

MayDay10 said:

cincybearcat said:

static111 said:

How is not allowing Obama a nominee and then railroading in the haindmaids tale not court packing?

Ding ding ding.

i cannot believe ,la didn’t say this!

There is also those 3000 Federal Judges that Trump always brags about pushing through.  


As far as court-packing.  Im all for it.  If we are going to play a yo-yo game of opinionated judges who are basically highly educated political operatives... a 9-judge panel with lifetime appointments is silly and dangerous.  You get a fool like Trump in there (losing the pop vote) and by the stroke of luck and circumstance, he gets to sit 3 young-ish judges for life.  

With more, the effects of that kind of thing will be diminished.  There will be more points of view.  Someone like Ginsburg wont feel a desperate need to hang on to her death bed.  

I like the idea of 18-year appointments too.  That is plenty.  That would also give the public tangible targets for election choices.  

I agree on the 18 year terms. If every 2 years a justice must retire, each presidential term would have two appointments, and these rule manipulation games we get now would not lead to a 6-3 stacked court like the one we are about to have.

But this will only occur if there is a constitutional amendment, which is never happening in the current climate.

Which is why I support Dems packing the Court. This could get the Rs to the table to negotiate on Court term limits.

In the interim, we desperately need DC statehood with 51 votes. Those 2 seats in the senate would be critically important and the DC residents deserve representation in the Senate and a voice on the Court.

what is the reason DC isn't a state in the first place? we don't learn this in canadian schools (at least not mine). i just read a short article on it and it really doesn't seem to make much sense to me

Browse the Constitution Annotated

Article I 

Section 8
• Clause 17

• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

  
  

  
  

  .....

  Since the constitution says not to exceed ten square miles, it is widely believed they could draw a much smaller district around the white housing, congress and court and allow DC to become a state where most of the popular lives.

Lerxst1992

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

But I think they are - if anything that tells me the overall models have been refined and improved. If the leads/margins are less it could be because they are more accurate. Which makes sense, too, because if this dipshit handled everything, since like February, 10% better I think he'd win.

I am reading on the 538 subreddit many commenters believe most pollsters are not asking about education. If that’s true, it emboldens my skepticism of the accuracy of state polling. NCWs are trumps secret sauce, the reason pollsters embarrassed themselves in 2016, and without even asking the question, there is no way to project if they are accurately sampling.

Also, trump had quite a few decent polls Friday and early Saturday posted on RCP. For example, today a local GA pollster has Perdue leading with 47% in the senate race And the same poll has trump at 49%. 

So with all the absurd crap trump has gone thru in the last 2 weeks, trump is running stronger than the senior republican senator of Georgia in the same poll. I’d pay attention to that. GA is supposed to be the next red state to turn purple, and trump is polling better than the senior senator.

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

But I think they are - if anything that tells me the overall models have been refined and improved. If the leads/margins are less it could be because they are more accurate. Which makes sense, too, because if this dipshit handled everything, since like February, 10% better I think he'd win.

I am reading on the 538 subreddit many commenters believe most pollsters are not asking about education. If that’s true, it emboldens my skepticism of the accuracy of state polling. NCWs are trumps secret sauce, the reason pollsters embarrassed themselves in 2016, and without even asking the question, there is no way to project if they are accurately sampling.

Also, trump had quite a few decent polls Friday and early Saturday posted on RCP. For example, today a local GA pollster has Perdue leading with 47% in the senate race And the same poll has trump at 49%. 

So with all the absurd crap trump has gone thru in the last 2 weeks, trump is running stronger than the senior republican senator of Georgia in the same poll. I’d pay attention to that. GA is supposed to be the next red state to turn purple, and trump is polling better than the senior senator.

Saw a guy from Pew explain some of this but then he said Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat was down amongst NCW and seniors, particularly seniors. He’s down 27 points with seniors and that’s based on polling from last week. He carried them by 7% in 2016. And we all know that seniors vote. Basically the Pew guy said the only demo Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat had an advantage over Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden was White, repub men. For what that’s worth. 344 EV for Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden.

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2020/08/18/a-resource-for-state-preelection-polling/

Halifax2TheMax

The table in this article is chock full of data but it doesn’t represent what I heard. The graphic they used that I was referencing was a side by side blue/red bar graph comparison of 2016 and last week. The length and thickness of the blue in almost every demo this time around was significant. But I can’t seem to find it.


https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/09/amid-campaign-turmoil-biden-holds-wide-leads-on-coronavirus-unifying-the-country/

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

I posted the aggregate RCP swing state polling comparing 2016 to now. In MI WI PA, Clinton had bigger leads than Biden.

I am not saying Biden is likely to lose, but it seems pollsters and 538 may not be hedging against their ability to accurately project turnout and demographics.

But I think they are - if anything that tells me the overall models have been refined and improved. If the leads/margins are less it could be because they are more accurate. Which makes sense, too, because if this dipshit handled everything, since like February, 10% better I think he'd win.

I am reading on the 538 subreddit many commenters believe most pollsters are not asking about education. If that’s true, it emboldens my skepticism of the accuracy of state polling. NCWs are trumps secret sauce, the reason pollsters embarrassed themselves in 2016, and without even asking the question, there is no way to project if they are accurately sampling.

Also, trump had quite a few decent polls Friday and early Saturday posted on RCP. For example, today a local GA pollster has Perdue leading with 47% in the senate race And the same poll has trump at 49%. 

So with all the absurd crap trump has gone thru in the last 2 weeks, trump is running stronger than the senior republican senator of Georgia in the same poll. I’d pay attention to that. GA is supposed to be the next red state to turn purple, and trump is polling better than the senior senator.

GA and TX are still dreams.  They will float back to where they should be, but with smaller margins.  

Jearlpam0925

Yeah I mean Arizona is that state, not GA. I'd even say TX is closer than GA, but both are pipe dreams this year I think. I'd be slightly shocked if AZ doesn't flip.

Halifax2TheMax

From Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden’s text. He’s fighting like he’s down 13.

Biden-Harris HQ: You need to see Joe's recent polling in battleground states:

AZ: +4 points

FL: +3 points

MI: +6 points

NC: +2 points

PA: +9 points

Joe and Kamala are depending on your support NOW to keep up the momentum in this final month of the campaign. Rush a donation today to help get out the vote in these crucial final weeks: http://m.txtjoe.co/eq/7v7mh6