herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 981
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 5, 2024 2:58:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you could handle the sample bias of older-right being happy to talk to you and younger-left being impossible to find. They probably won't respond to emails, social media polls or messages, door to door or street canvassers.
You could weight the results a bit if say, 75% were older and 25% were younger, but you've got nothing to work with with 100% older and 0% younger.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 5, 2024 8:59:14 GMT -5
What are the polls looking like over there? I was under the impression it was depressingly close? Polls are misleading for two reasons:
1) There's a significant problem with sample bias because younger generations don't have landlines, don't respond to calls from unknown numbers, and are probably going to hang up instantly even if you somehow get through to them. And because younger generations skew left it means the polls are drawing from a data set that is more conservative than the general population. We saw this in 2022 with the midterms, polls were consistently showing a larger republican victory and then on election day they just barely managed to get the house by sheer gerrymandering effectiveness. So it's very likely that if polling data is showing Trump and Biden evenly matched the actual opinion among voters is 5-10% in favor of Biden.
2) It's still early in the election cycle. The most intense campaigning hasn't started yet and the post-debate drop for Biden is likely to turn around as Trump continues to accumulate bad news and Biden continues to quietly run the country without incident. There's always a lot of variability in polling this early and things won't start to settle down for another couple of months.
So yeah, it is depressing that Biden isn't winning 90-10 and on track for a 50 state landslide but the best interpretation of what we're seeing is that Biden is still favored to win. And it makes sense, Biden already beat Trump and nothing has really changed since 2020. Biden is still not a perfect candidate, Trump is still a horrifyingly bad candidate held up by his rabid cultist followers. It's not like anyone who has been paying attention at all for the past eight years is likely to go from supporting Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024. But there does seem to be a steady trend of people bailing on Trump and the demographic shift is against him.
I think the flipside to this was that in 2016 polling massively undercounted conservatives. Hell, one CNN anchor, two weeks before the election, predicted Hillary Clinton to get more than 400 electoral votes. In an era of ever increasing political divide I wouldn't be surprised if many conservatives are going to be even more closeted. Also, the newest batch of voters, although still left-leaning, are less left than in the last election, so the gains there will be less than expected. And according to polls Trump is doing better with Blacks and Hispanics than ever, while Biden is losing them. Biden losing a cornerstone of his voting block has to be concerning. Even 64% of Hispanics are supporting better border security.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 5, 2024 9:32:43 GMT -5
However, Trump and Republicans in congress are against better border security while Biden is President...
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jul 5, 2024 13:06:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you could handle the sample bias of older-right being happy to talk to you and younger-left being impossible to find. They probably won't respond to emails, social media polls or messages, door to door or street canvassers. You could weight the results a bit if say, 75% were older and 25% were younger, but you've got nothing to work with with 100% older and 0% younger. Polling is certainly getting harder and harder (and voters are becoming more and more fickle in most of the global north so it's harder and harder to use previous data in calculations) but it is not impossible to speak to younger people, especially in person - just need different methods for different demographics (as has always been the case). UK polling remains very strong for overall results - with more complicated systems, albeit with much smaller numbers to model.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 5, 2024 13:43:49 GMT -5
However, Trump and Republicans in congress are against better border security while Biden is President... The proposals Democrats have put out in the last couple years didn't really do much to secure the border, and arguably would make it worse. Giving extra fundi g to programs that are essentially catch and release only increases loopholes for entry. Add into that it limits the Executive branch in it's authority to regulate the border.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 5, 2024 14:03:42 GMT -5
It was a bi-partisan agreement that was torpedoed at Trump's command that was supported by the border patrol and was actually effective regardless about the post-hoc lies told about it.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jul 5, 2024 21:32:06 GMT -5
The whole post-debate "Replace Biden" is clearly the modern Swiftboat Veterans or But Her Emails attack from Republicans. I mean, the main places I see talking about it and pushing it are the right-wing media like WSJ and Washington Post, who are then picked up by other media in order to look "Moderate". Why do people keep falling for these garbage takes?
Biden will not be replaced.
Trump has to flip 3 (or more depending on which ones) states to beat Biden, more likely 4 of them. Tell me which ones he is realistically going to flip?
- Michigan? Not likely. They just had a Dem Tri-fecta. - Wisconsin? Not likely. Had recent big Democratic wins at the state supreme court level. - Arizona? Not likely. They are really sick of Kari Lake and her ilk, and the R party there is in shambles. - Georgia? Maybe, it is historically Red and only squeaked by some Dems in the last set of elections BUT also had a big Dem upset at the HOuse level recently. - Nevada? Possibly. The data looks like the Las Vegas firewall maybe crumbling. - Pennsylvania? Doesn't look that likely with big Blue firewalls in the cities. - Virginia? Getting bluer everyday. - Minnesota? Still leans heavily Blue in the Metro areas. One o the few places Trump did not win the primary in 2016 so he does not have strong support there even in 2016.
If Georgia and Nevada flip, it is still not enough for Trump to win. He needs Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and one other state to flip.
Then, on the other side, if Biden flips a single state from Trump he is pretty safely going to win. - Ohio? Pretty solidly Republican last time BUT recently had big wins for ballot issues about abortion that favors Dems. - Florida? Not likely, but abortion is directly on the ballot this time, and that seems to drive Dem voters more than Republican ones to the polls. - One of the Carolinas? Not bloody likely as their state houses are doing everything they can to keep that from happening. - Texas? LOL.... no. Keep dreaming everyone.
I feel like Trump has lost more voters than gained since 2020, and the Republicans know it. That is why they are pulling out all the stops to convince everyone that this election is a Trump Fait Accompli in order to keep the Dems at home, and divide and conquer them with the Gaza, Anti-Semitism, and Replace movements. They are trying to mobilize "new voters" who usually do not bother to vote, which they successfully did in 2016 and 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 5, 2024 23:25:14 GMT -5
- One of the Carolinas? Not bloody likely as their state houses are doing everything they can to keep that from happening. I don't think NC is impossible. Gerrymandering doesn't work in a presidential election and between the legislature's hard-right turn and the absolutely abhorrent candidate they're running for governor there's a lot of state-level opposition adding to the "anyone but Trump" vote. And this is a state Trump only won by a narrow margin in 2020.
Because unlike those other attacks it isn't a garbage take. The reality is Biden is a poor candidate and the biggest risk with this election is that too many people aren't motivated enough to vote not-Trump when they don't have a candidate they actually like. I don't think based on what we know now that replacing him is necessarily the right call but people with all the private information need to be thinking very carefully about whether the debate incident is a one-time mistake or if it's merely the first in an increasing trend of mental lapses that will seriously damage confidence in Biden. How fast is his mental decline getting worse? How much has been covered up so far? Can his public appearances be successfully managed? None of us know the answers to those questions but party leadership needs to be very confident in theirs.
Also, consider the very likely chance that Biden is unable to serve his full term. If he dies in office or has to resign then Harris becomes president but a new vice president needs to be approved by congress, which means if the republicans control either house they can shut the whole thing down. The speaker of the house (currently a raving lunatic almost as bad as Trump) would be next in line if anything happens to Harris and the democrats would lose the tiebreaker vote in the senate. OTOH if he steps down before the election Harris runs a conventional campaign with a VP selected as normal.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 6, 2024 1:24:09 GMT -5
I think the flipside to this was that in 2016 polling massively undercounted conservatives. Hell, one CNN anchor, two weeks before the election, predicted Hillary Clinton to get more than 400 electoral votes. That was less about under-counting conservatives and more about the mistake of treating each state as an independent event instead of a set of linked events which would likely shift together. In gaming terms what they did was assume it was a low probability that you would roll 6s on all five D6s, and that even if one D6 turns out to have 6s on half its faces it's still unlikely that all four of the others would roll 6s. What they forgot about was that the D6s all came from the same manufacturing lot so if one of them has extra 6s the other four probably do too and the chance of rolling all 6s is quite a bit higher.
Had they evaluated things correctly on that point it would have been clear that Clinton was favored to win but not by such a huge margin that a Trump victory was beyond belief (IIRC it was about a 30% chance).
Doubt it. Trump's whole thing is being as loud as possible and I don't see any reason why conservatives would be more likely to hide their beliefs than liberals.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 6, 2024 2:49:12 GMT -5
Its very easy to account for closeted conservatives, they just identify themselves as 'moderates'.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jul 6, 2024 7:39:12 GMT -5
Doubt it. Trump's whole thing is being as loud as possible and I don't see any reason why conservatives would be more likely to hide their beliefs than liberals. [/div][/quote] There is a vast literature on this in UK contexts (the 'Shy Tory Factor') but some explorations of it in regards to Trump. General consensus seems to be that it wasn't actually a polling bias issue amongst Trump supporters in 2016, but the social conditions that create it in the UK may sometimes apply in more general Republican contexts - on other hand, the US Overton window is radically to the right of the UK - even today when the UK has been lurching right for three decades - so it might manifest very differently or not at all. Coppock, A. 2017. Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment. Statistics, Politics and Policy. 8:1 Thies, C. F. 2023. Shy Trumpers and Live Callers: An Analysis of The US 2020 Polls. Journal of Political Science and Public Opinion. 1:104
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 10, 2024 13:48:19 GMT -5
What are the polls looking like over there? I was under the impression it was depressingly close? Polls are misleading for two reasons:
1) There's a significant problem with sample bias because younger generations don't have landlines, don't respond to calls from unknown numbers, and are probably going to hang up instantly even if you somehow get through to them. And because younger generations skew left it means the polls are drawing from a data set that is more conservative than the general population. We saw this in 2022 with the midterms, polls were consistently showing a larger republican victory and then on election day they just barely managed to get the house by sheer gerrymandering effectiveness. So it's very likely that if polling data is showing Trump and Biden evenly matched the actual opinion among voters is 5-10% in favor of Biden.
2) It's still early in the election cycle. The most intense campaigning hasn't started yet and the post-debate drop for Biden is likely to turn around as Trump continues to accumulate bad news and Biden continues to quietly run the country without incident. There's always a lot of variability in polling this early and things won't start to settle down for another couple of months.
So yeah, it is depressing that Biden isn't winning 90-10 and on track for a 50 state landslide but the best interpretation of what we're seeing is that Biden is still favored to win. And it makes sense, Biden already beat Trump and nothing has really changed since 2020. Biden is still not a perfect candidate, Trump is still a horrifyingly bad candidate held up by his rabid cultist followers. It's not like anyone who has been paying attention at all for the past eight years is likely to go from supporting Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024. But there does seem to be a steady trend of people bailing on Trump and the demographic shift is against him.
This tracks. Every election is different. People try to take what happened in previous elections and assumes it's the current conventional wisdom. Take for example... RCP poll average on this day in prior campaigns: 2020: Biden +9.0 2016: Clinton +4.7 2012: Obama +2.5 2008: Obama +4.2 2004: Kerry +2.0 Trump right now is leading Biden +3.3 head to head. That's a +12.3 swing from 2020 at this time. Does it matter? Maybe... maybe not. November election is a lifetime away and anything can change. In a 5-way race Trump is at +4.8, a hair better than Clinton in 2016 (which she lost in a squeaker). The interesting thing, is that for the first time in 24 years that a GOP nominee has led after the July 4th holiday, going into the convention. It's interesting but likely meaningless... again, every elections is different. It’ll be interesting to see what the polls are at post GOP/DNC conventions. I think, at this point, Democrat's best chance is for Biden to step down and Harris to become President, and the candidate for 2024. It's the only pragmatic solution, I think, as the current Biden/Harris re-election warchest is about 100 million and existing campaign infrastructure is only for Biden or Harris (if Joe steps down). Any other Democrat candidate would have to start over from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 10, 2024 13:52:48 GMT -5
Big surprise you're still the dumbshit I know you to be.
Out of curiosity, have you started reading your own sources yet or do you still link things that unabashedly make fun of you as support for claims you make? Asking because it's the second dumbest thing I've ever seen someone try to get away with on a forum.
The dumbest thing here is channeling My Cousin Vinny saying "everything that guy just said is bullshit", without actually rebutting it. Out of curiosity, why do you prostitute your credibility so cheaply by taking skyth side all the time?
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 10, 2024 14:16:09 GMT -5
You've long shown that you don't argue in good faith. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you post your normal bull after you've been proven wrong so many times but come back with the same discredited bull later.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 10, 2024 20:53:50 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, have you started reading your own sources yet or do you still link things that unabashedly make fun of you as support for claims you make? Asking because it's the second dumbest thing I've ever seen someone try to get away with on a forum.
The dumbest thing here is channeling My Cousin Vinny saying "everything that guy just said is bullshit", without actually rebutting it. Out of curiosity, why do you prostitute your credibility so cheaply by taking skyth side all the time? Because making childish nicknames for people (which you'll remember I've called out in the past) isn't nearly as bad as misrepresenting sources, and in this case because I didn't see that he made yet another childish nickname (which he shouldn't have), my brain just auto-corrected the text as "whembly". One is inane and adds nothing to the conversation, the other is at best destructive and at worst actively malicious and it is my belief that you have a habit of not actually reading what you post, demonstrating that you don't particularly care whether you can actually back your claims up or not. Ultimately, it simply made me pissed that you, of all people, would denigrate somebody as dumb when the sort of errors you've made, whether intentional or not, would kill my career if I'd made them in an official context. You'll also note that while "you're wrong!" isn't much of a rebuttal simply asserting that it's the democrats' fault because of "lawfare" doesn't actually leave any other room to debate because you're not backing the statement up. You're simply dropping a conservative talking point as fact in a context where you know people aren't going to agree with you without creating any possibility of actually engaging with the point; the discussion was perfectly civil up until you decided to pull the equivalent of shitting on someone's carpet. For the record, the dumbest thing I've ever seen someone post on a forum was funnily enough also on this forum by who I assume was one of grey's many alter egos when he tried to call me a pedophile by quoting one half of a post I'd made while leaving the other half out, as if everyone couldn't just see what the original post said. That one's so horrendously stupid that nothing else comes close and I really hope nothing ever tops it.
|
|