Suv666
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2016
- Messages
- 9,035
cost of living is so fecked in US at the moment, irrespective of who’s the president right now or for what reasons, shit’s expensive and the incumbent will face some heat over it.
cost of living is so fecked in US at the moment, irrespective of who’s the president right now or for what reasons, shit’s expensive and the incumbent will face some heat over it.
Katie Johnson says Trump and Epstein raped her in the summer of 1994 when she was just 13 years old
Can someone explain why this image is not on every billboard in MI, PA, WI, AZ, GA, NV and NC right now?
The Dems play too nice.
Wasn’t that clip from like, 2 months ago?How is it breaking if she's asking if he'll vote for Joe Biden?
Yeah, Emily Shugerman (Daily Beast) is the only journalist to get a phone interview with 'Katie Johnson'. Years on, she now thinks that it was a right-wing ploy to make journalists latch on to the story, run with it, then pull the rug and reveal that Katie Johnson doesn't exist. All the other journalists I've read think it was more straightforward and that Steve Baer set it up as a personal vendetta against Trump. It's a genuinely wild story if you read into it. It'd make for an interesting investigative podcast or doc.The link you provide has a Vox article linked that suggests she doesn’t exist?
Johnson had a team of supporters behind her—a motley crew that included anti-abortion conservative donor Steve Baer and a man who calls himself “Al Taylor,” a mysterious foul-mouthed ex-producer of The Jerry Springer Show, the two unified by one common passion: a blinding hatred for Donald Trump.
For a time, it seemed like a perfect marriage between a #NeverTrump Republican with money to spend, a penniless woman and her handler who allegedly had the ammunition to sink the Republican nominee.
But in less than a month, the strange alliance has ended.
Baer and Taylor, both eccentric in their own right, have turned on each other in a war of escalating all-caps emails. Baer now claims he is withholding additional financial support for Johnson. He and Taylor are threatening to sue one another. And Baer’s antics—which include delivering an unpixelated tape, of a woman he claims to be Katie Johnson, to GOP presidential hopefuls and House Speaker Paul Ryan—allegedly brought the FBI and the police to his door.
Far from derailing the Trump train, Katie Johnson and her supporters seem to be in an out-of-control clown car whose wheels just came off.
Wasn’t that clip from like, 2 months ago?
If you are only into polling averages, then there’s nothing to be gained from following 538 since other averages exist and they were all off in 16, 20 and 22. Polls got 16 wrong, they compensated by weighting by education, got a pretty good 18 result, then off in 20 as well, compensated by inflating R lean and taking more R based pollsters and got a horrendous 22 when they predicted a ‘red wave’ and got a trickle instead.
The logical reasoning here isn’t ‘polls underestimated Trump and they always will so we should just automatically deduct however much point from past discrepancies to guesstimate the real number’. If we are doing that with other current averages like DDHQ/The Hill, RCP as well as 538 then Trump is winning 350+ EVs, which doesn’t jive with reality when his campaign pulled out of NH today and only spending to get a narrow 270-268 win (PA + NC + GA). The lesson from past polling errors is that polls in general are becoming a lot less reliable due to response bias, struggle to reach low propensity voters as well as accounting for them, and bad faith actors providing bad data due to partisanship. In that environment, hard data like actual results from primaries, specials, ballot initiatives etc become more valuable in predicting trends and they are pretty good for Democrats.
Also, 2 polling errors in presidential don’t make ‘historical statistics’, that’s not how stats work. I get being apprehensive in this case, because the risk is enormous, but we don’t go about life fearing the worst that can possibly happen will repeat itself ad infinitum in every single scenario and the same applies for political forecast.
Good post. Polls are notoriously unreliable. The only truly accurate data sets are from exit polls, i.e., after they vote they generally tell the truth about their vote.If you are only into polling averages, then there’s nothing to be gained from following 538 since other averages exist and they were all off in 16, 20 and 22. Polls got 16 wrong, they compensated by weighting by education, got a pretty good 18 result, then off in 20 as well, compensated by inflating R lean and taking more R based pollsters and got a horrendous 22 when they predicted a ‘red wave’ and got a trickle instead.
The logical reasoning here isn’t ‘polls underestimated Trump and they always will so we should just automatically deduct however much point from past discrepancies to guesstimate the real number’. If we are doing that with other current averages like DDHQ/The Hill, RCP as well as 538 then Trump is winning 350+ EVs, which doesn’t jive with reality when his campaign pulled out of NH today and only spending to get a narrow 270-268 win (PA + NC + GA). The lesson from past polling errors is that polls in general are becoming a lot less reliable due to response bias, struggle to reach low propensity voters as well as accounting for them, and bad faith actors providing bad data due to partisanship. In that environment, hard data like actual results from primaries, specials, ballot initiatives etc become more valuable in predicting trends and they are pretty good for Democrats.
Also, 2 polling errors in presidential don’t make ‘historical statistics’, that’s not how stats work. I get being apprehensive in this case, because the risk is enormous, but we don’t go about life fearing the worst that can possibly happen will repeat itself ad infinitum in every single scenario and the same applies for political forecast.
Good post. Polls are notoriously unreliable. The only truly accurate data sets are from exit polls, i.e., after they vote they generally tell the truth about their vote.
For what it's worth, I have not seen a Democratic ground game like this one since Obama. They are not making the same mistakes HRC made. Trump is getting more and more desperate, as the Arlington stunt demonstrated, and his flip-flopping on abortion and recreational marijuana and IVF also attest. He's throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick and no one will remember what he promised.
Meanwhile, we still have the Sept. 18 sentencing to look forward to. That should bear some interesting fruit.
According to Nate Silver, Harris gained 1.5 points last week in Georgia. But, she also lost 1.3 in Michigan and 0.9 points in North Carolina.
I have a hard time believing that. Sorry, Nate.
I don’t believe that. Nor do I believe that she gained in GA, FL and TX, according to Silver while losing in others.She dropped in every single swing state except GA last week.
I don’t believe that. Nor do I believe that she gained in GA, FL and TX, according to Silver while losing in others.
Why would she gain in these states but not in others? Why drop 2 points in AZ but gain in TX?
That’s why a weekly change is not good. Do a four-week moving average or something like that.Because the polling averages fluctuate from day to day. Some days she gains in them, others she doesn't.
That’s why a weekly change is not good. Do a four-week moving average or something like that.
For me, the race has always been 50-50.That wouldn’t work in a condensed election cycle where early voting starts in a couple weeks and campaigns are constantly deploying new resources and strategies in swing states. Best to roll with the polls and evaluate daily trends. Harris’ initial surge has clearly lost steam and Trump has managed to claw back some of his losses which renders the race completely even at the moment.
5 points swing in Trump favour in 2020 - OMG it’s baked in now, polls will always be off that wayI guess I ended posting it again
Notoriously unreliable?
Clinton vs Trump
3.9 vs 2.1
Biden vs Trump
8.4 vs 4.5
Some BG states
Michigan: 2.8 vs 7.9 (Biden)
Pennsylvania: 1.2 vs 4.7 (Biden)
Nevada: 2.4 vs 5.3 (Biden)
Arizona: 0.4 vs 2.6 (Biden)
Georgia: 0.3 vs 1.2 (Biden)
Wisconsin: 0.6 vs 8.4 (Biden)
2022
Midterms
The house had many individual races. But the popular vote poll was 4.0 (R) vs 2.8 (R) reality
Most of these polls (I remember that is a huge mix and not the most prestigious) are in between of 0. to 3. something. Hardly broken IMO
Governor
Nevada: 1.7 (R) vs 1.5 (R)
Arizona: 2.2 (R) vs 0.7 (D)
Georgia: 8.2 (R) vs 6.5 (R)
Pennsylvania: 9.8 (D) vs 14.8 (D)
Wisconsin: 0.4 (R) vs 3.3 (D)
Michigan: 5.8 (D) vs 10.6 (D)
Senate
Nevada: 0.2 (R) vs 0.8 (D)
Arizona: 2.2 (D) vs 4.9 (D)
Georgia: 1.2 (R) vs 2.8 (D)
Pennsylvania: 1 (R) vs 4.9 (D)
Wisconsin: 4.8 (R) vs 1.0 (R)
Michigan: No race
Pennsylvania had 5.0 governor and 5.9 in Senate difference
Michigan 4.8
Considering that that the typical margin of error is 3%. It varies depends on the sample, Most of these numbers are inside these and id not 1-2% over. Hardly notoriously unreliable. And on the presidential Popular vote and BG states were underestimating Trump
I doubt that in 2-4 years, things has changed so much to have a radical change on polls vs election day, so going against the cold numbers, is, as I said, wishful thinking
One would assume that polling has been adjusted to reflect this…Not liking the polls to be honest. Biden's lead over Trump at this stage in 2020 was bigger and he only narrowly beat Trump. Trump is the favourite unless Harris can increase her lead by November.
One would assume that polling has been adjusted to reflect this…
I’m also not sure trump will get the same turn out as last time. Republicans were energised due to covid, blm etc but I have reservations they’ll turn out… I have zero doubt the dems will turn out.
You would have thought so.you'd think the fundamental difference between Pence and Trump would be on the issue of whether Pence should have been hanged by the mob on Jan 6.
Isn't it still the undecided/independent/swing voters who will decide this? And taking Biden out of the mix means that Trump's insanity will be the bigget factor for them on average?Harris’ initial surge has clearly lost steam and Trump has managed to claw back some of his losses which renders the race completely even at the moment.
Isn't it still the undecided/independent/swing voters who will decide this? And taking Biden out of the mix means that Trump's insanity will be the bigget factor for them on average?
Or is that just wishful thinking?
5 points swing in Trump favour in 2020 - OMG it’s baked in now, polls will always be off that way
5 points swing in D favour in 2022 - totally not out of the ordinary at all, just (almost double) the typical polling error.
You see the problem with your analysis here? Does it not bother you one bit that Midwestern polling swung an average of 10 points in the other direction in 2022 due to a deluge of right wing polls or polls from pollsters of dubious quality? And Congressional election forecast were horrendously off, a R+2.8 electorate shouldn’t yield a change of 9 seats gained, when the average for Democratic control is D+2. Most election forecasters were predicting a 30-40 seats gain for GOP, example:
https://www.270towin.com/2022-house-election/crystal-ball-2022-house-forecast
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2-election-forecast/house/
Not sure how I feel about Lex having him on, and certainly blown away by how ridiculous the questions are, but hey at least Trump is putting himself out there: https://pca.st/podcast/78c58610-9061-0136-7b92-27f978dac4db
Answers as you expect, except he for the first time I've heard says he lost the 2020 election by a whisker. Kinda shocked.
Edit: oh wait he's now on immigration and voter fraud. Also 100% he thinks that asylum seekers come from mental asylums, as he's going on about that now.
How anyone can listen to this husk of a human and vote for him....wow. you can tell he genuinely doesn't understand nuanced questions but plows ahead with so the gusto of an expert.
They predicted 30-40 seats changes with that 4%, at the actual congressional district level they got it horrendously wrong, it doesn’t reflect the new voting behaviour where Ds held or pick up seats in suburban districts with ex-GOP demographics like professionals/high income/high education swung to them.I don't know what to do with your first link, to be honest, but on your second link, it says a prediction of 4% for R and ended with 2.8%. just 1.2% error well insight the margin of error 3%
I don't understand what you say about the 10 points swing. The numbers that I posted from many elections. Nationals, midterms, governors and senates in swing states do, at worse 5% (i think while most of them are below 3%.
The polls are compared from the average to the reality. not from polls from 2020 to polls of 2022 because the intention of vote changes. And as far as it shows, the average polls compared to the reality of its elections shows a decent accuracy. And with that premises and that Kamala should win the Popular Vote by 2-4%, it is not enough for now
How did Trump regain the upper hand or at least upended Harris's steam?
Trump's ceiling is at 45%, thus he can't win more voters. His campaigning over the last weeks was weak. Low energy, full of dumb insults, usual whining. On top the Arlington gaffe, flip flopping on abortion. On the hand Harris made no major mistakes.
So how could he turn the momentum into his favor again. Honestly I don't get it.
Especially, in Germany every says it only depends on Harris to motivate her base enough as over 50% will never vote for the orange clown. She just needs to get them to vote and Trump is done and dusted.
As an observation, the last time PA, MI and WI went to different candidates was in 1988. Their 44 electoral votes are very likely the kingmaker.
If they are effectively 226-219 with 7 toss ups as 270towin shows, Harris needs the Rust Belt and nothing more; and Trump wins with the Rust Belt plus one additional state. Only if the Rust Belt gets divided (which hasn't happened in 36 years) the other states become decisive.
They predicted 30-40 seats changes with that 4%, at the actual congressional district level they got it horrendously wrong, it doesn’t reflect the new voting behaviour where Ds held or pick up seats in suburban districts with ex-GOP demographics like professionals/high income/high education swung to them.
The 10 points swing is a direct comparison between the polling errors of 20 vs 22. Sun Belt polling is and has been largely accurate (with the notable exception of AZ Sen having Lake up). Midwest polling is hot trash and the main reason for this ‘Trump beats the polls’ phenomenon. From your own post:
WI: off by 7.8 for R/2020, off by 3.7 for D/2022, net swing 11.5
MI: off by 5.1 for R/2020, off by 4.8 for D/2022, net swing 9.9
PA: off by 3.4 for R/2020, off by 5.9 for D/2022, net swing 9.3
‘Trump wasn’t on the ballot’ doesn’t explain the discrepancy, because he wasn’t in 2018 and pollsters had a stellar year that election. So when a change that big happens, you can’t pick 2020 presidential results that favored Republicans, while dismissing 2022 results that favored Democrats, when a polling error of similar magnitude happened in both direction. The fact of the matter is, while national polling/generic ballot is still relatively accurate, Midwestern battleground states polling has been a mess for a long while and we can’t say ‘any error will favor Trump’ based on empirical evidence. It’s not a cope, it’s not ‘gut feeling’ or ‘wishful thinking’, it’s a fact.
There’s always the danger of herding.There seems to be less difference between RCP and 538 this time around, compared to 2020, at least in some of the battleground states.
The models getting results that are more close to each other should be a good sign, though obviously we can't know right now.