Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit.
Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls.
i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though.
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit.
Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls.
i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though.
And has been for 20, plus years. I used to watch it during the 2000 election season. The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so). Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit.
Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls.
i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though.
And has been for 20, plus years. I used to watch it during the 2000 election season. The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so). Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.
I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit.
Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls.
i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though.
And has been for 20, plus years. I used to watch it during the 2000 election season. The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so). Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.
I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
Yeah, I think Alan Colmes got tired of being verbally abused every night and just left. That was the end of any semblance of objectivity prime time.
I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font. That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font. That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font. That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves. They are a sponsor for a professional polling company. Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.
Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls
” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves. They are a sponsor for a professional polling company. Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.
Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls
” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently.
Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too.
Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?
i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not.
Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves. They are a sponsor for a professional polling company. Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.
Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls
” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently.
For those scoring at home, Fox is +1.4 Dem.
According to Gallup, the average percent of people in this country who identify as Democrat is around +4% since the Corona Virus kicked into high gear in April (the latest one is +1 Dem). Scroll down further and you'll see Independents also lean more left. So, yeah...no surprise that Fox has a high rating. Thanks for bringing this up, Lerx:
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
what?
Russ, is our goal to politely discuss the election or to have a safe space for Biden? Cook says a 1% NCW shift, just outside trumps estimated 2016 performance, could move 50 electoral votes. That appears to be interesting, but I guess there are other priorities here.
I posted interesting topics regarding demo splits according to Cook Political, and also how the House decides contested elections, and Pelosi could override a Gore like Court decision and manipulate article I ala McConnell. No interest on this forum I guess.
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
what?
Simple math.
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick
I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...
Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.
what?
Simple math.
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick
I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
Participation trophy? I thought was were talking about Nate.
The math is straightforward .75(.5)(2)=x where x = Biden's chance of winning. If Nate had any sense or shame or credibility, he would apply this time tested equation.
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.
Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.
He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.
I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.
Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.
Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.
He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.
I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.
He doesn't know shit about getting new voters in that demo. Putin on the ritz does though.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
And has been for 20, plus years. I used to watch it during the 2000 election season. The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so). Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
According to Gallup, the average percent of people in this country who identify as Democrat is around +4% since the Corona Virus kicked into high gear in April (the latest one is +1 Dem). Scroll down further and you'll see Independents also lean more left. So, yeah...no surprise that Fox has a high rating. Thanks for bringing this up, Lerx:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer
what?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The math is straightforward .75(.5)(2)=x where x = Biden's chance of winning. If Nate had any sense or shame or credibility, he would apply this time tested equation.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©