Quote:

---

The presidential race is in many ways just getting started. On Tuesday, we got Joe Biden's VP pick (Sen. Kamala Harris), the Democratic National Convention is next week, and the Republican National Convention soon after. So while it's clear that Biden is comfortably ahead of Trump right now nationally and in most battleground states the forecast shows Trump with a meaningful chance of winning because there's still plenty of time for the race to tighten.
But wait! Should you even trust the polls? Hillary Clinton led in the polls in 2016, right? Yes. But Clinton had only a small advantage in most surveys Trump's win was well within the range of normal polling error.
As elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley wrote last week, Biden's lead over Trump has already topped Clinton's post-convention peak. Biden also enjoys more overall support than Clinton. In other words, there's a genuine difference between Biden's position now and Clinton's four years ago.

---

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

None of this really matters till October. We could be in World War IV by then.

Another thing to look out for is the Democratic-MSM cabal using the virus angle again.

But what Kamala's pick does signal is that the Dems are making no attempt to go outside their safety zone. It appears may be punting for going for HIll seats, not to mention focusing on 2022 and 2024. They will probably try to avoid having Biden speak, and what speaking done, will be by Kamala. They are going to see if their surrogates media can demonize and lie enough about events and Trump to win it for them by using the `right track/wrong track' "pyschological" matrix Tucker outlined. Wherein people sometimes foolishly vote for change to the very forces causing all chaos to start with, because they want change from the present.

No reason for anyone to go vote for Joe/Blow...it's in the bag! Stay home. Stay safe.

titan said:

---

None of this really matters till October. We could be in World War IV by then.

---

NO NO NO NO

The lizard people are coming out mid October, are you not reading the newsletter?????

Rapier108 said:

---

"Small advantage" in the polls for Hillary? Talk about bull*****

Most polls had her up 10-15 points throughout the summer and into the fall.

---

Please cite your research.

Vegas odds have it down to about 55/45 in favor of Biden, which is virtually a dead heat with almost 3 months to go

If the stick market is over 3,300 and unemployment continues to drop below 10% and there remains optimism that covid vaccine is coming soon, then I see a Trump winning

TAMU1990 said:

---

I don't understand how anyone can look at what's happening in democratic cities and blame it in the other guy. Defies all logic. Yes, I know there are stupid people out there but even those with marginal awareness know what is causing these problems (liberal white people).

---

That's true in general, and is why it probably won't work. Its amazing the 1-to-1 correspondence they have allowed of Democrat Governors, and Democrat mayors enabling all the problems. Notice that the protest in Austin, even though a liberal city, was treated differently, with comparatively massive LE display and enforcement.

Keep in mind - Harris is bringing some huge endorsements and will "do what it takes."

If people were logical then we would not have placed a person into the highest public office in the land that doesn't have experience holding public office (and it does show). There were other options for the party. Just say'n.

Rapier108 said:

---

Vader Was Framed said:

---

Quote:

---

All of this is to say that even if Clinton's lead over Trump doesn't shrink anymore, Trump might still win. He would need only a normal-sized polling error. Of course, that error would need to be in his favor, and there's nothing inherent about polling errors that says they must aid the trailing candidate. Ronald Reagan's defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, for instance, is often described as an upset. But that's not the case the polls had Reagan winning. They did, however, vastly underestimate how much he would win by. The same thing could happen this year; Clinton could win and do even better than the pre-election polls are saying she will. That's why our model assigns a higher chance to a Clinton landslide than other models do (ours also shows Trump with a better chance of winning).

---

-Nov 4, 2016

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

---

Piss poor try, but you're not even good at trolling.

My comment was not about November 4, 2016, but about polls during the summer and early falls of 2016.

Learn to read.

---

And your comment was still from a faulty memory. A handful of polls had Clinton in double digits, mostly clustering around *****gate.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

TAMU1990 said:

---

I don't understand how anyone can look at what's happening in democratic cities and blame it in the other guy. Defies all logic. Yes, I know there are stupid people out there but even those with marginal awareness know what is causing these problems (liberal white people).

---

It's because those places are full of liberal white people.

The polls continue to narrow.

Joe has an entusiasm problem that people continue to ignore. The polls cannot predict turnout and about 10% of respondents did not even vote in 2016.

So while it's clear that Biden is comfortably ahead of Trump

Absolute hogwash.

Ha ha, anyone that believes that should invest in beachfront property in Arizona.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

If people were logical then we would not have placed a person into the highest public office in the land that doesn't have experience holding public office (and it does show). There were other options for the party. Just say'n.

---

That certainly fit "just present' Obama before elected.

And No, there were no other options for the party that could win. Kasich spoiled Cruz's chances to do better.

Florida, NC, Penn, AZ

Does anybody believe Biden has those in the bag? Trump can sweep those states just as well as Biden.

Also, Trump's victory was not a landslide in 2016. EC wise, yes, but the huge difference was made up of a relatively small number of voters in several states. He won by trading down the blue wall in the Midwest, but he's needs to keep it to win again. I hope he does, but it is far from a done deal.

if they simulated the election 40000 times why only show us 100 points? Why not show the entire scatter plot?

What are the polls going to say after Biden embarrasses himself in all 3 debates......

The amazing thing is that either side still talks about a `landslide'. Those are surely extinct since the 20th Century. Probably for the same reason a landslide was no longer possible in the middle of the 19th Century.