Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

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 said:

show previous quotes

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 said:

show previous quotes

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. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

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.

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!

static111 said:

show previous quotes

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. 

The Juggler said:

show previous quotes

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 said:

show previous quotes

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. 

static111 said:

show previous quotes

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). 

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

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.