The confidence on both sides is wild

15,733 Views | 190 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by singapore_sling
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gigemJTH12 said:


Random Twitter person citing Reddit.

Yeah, that's completely reliable.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Spudman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
West Texas Lawyer said:

Rush was theorizing today that a large contingent of the early votes across the country are actually Trump voters who are back lashing against the last 4 years of dem/media BS.
Solid theory - I pray he is correct.

From my personal perspective - myself, wife, parents, in-laws and close friends (All R's and voting Trump) have all early voted for the first time ever.
BullSprig07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
West Texas Lawyer said:

Rush was theorizing today that a large contingent of the early votes across the country are actually Trump voters who are back lashing against the last 4 years of dem/media BS.
I fit this description exactly. Didn't even vote for Trump in 2016. My backlash is specifically against the last 10 months of BS.
David_Puddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jet Black said:

In the heights too, and I've seen 2 Trump signs total.

Yeah, I see this too (certainly not 40 to 1) but I don't see any Trump signs. Harris is blue, but most people in the Heights are not putting out signs, particularly because of the lack of zoning & fear of their property getting vandalized. All of my friends in the Heights are voting Trump and not 1 has a sign anywhere.
aginresearch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow! The arrogance. There are plenty of us who are little more sophisticated than just totaling up election day votes in a state and calling it a day. Perhaps some people should be a little more circumspect before casting aspersions on people in regards to how they interpret information.

We have a whole thread dedicated to the early vote in Florida. Many of us are keenly aware of the early vote numbers and where they stand. We are able to make some educated guesses where the vote stands at this time. I know that comes as a shock to some people but many of us do have degrees and are able to take complex data sources and draw conclusions.

So in conclusion Wasserman is a hack and joke.
fightingfarmer09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BullSprig07 said:

West Texas Lawyer said:

Rush was theorizing today that a large contingent of the early votes across the country are actually Trump voters who are back lashing against the last 4 years of dem/media BS.
I fit this description exactly. Didn't even vote for Trump in 2016. My backlash is specifically against the last 10 months of BS.


Non Trump voter in 2016.

Voted first week of early voting.

Just so pissed about being lied to.
BoerneAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spudman said:

West Texas Lawyer said:

Rush was theorizing today that a large contingent of the early votes across the country are actually Trump voters who are back lashing against the last 4 years of dem/media BS.
Solid theory - I pray he is correct.

From my personal perspective - myself, wife, parents, in-laws and close friends (All R's and voting Trump) have all early voted for the first time ever.
Wouldn't that be a bad thing for the current path to victory being sold by Republicans?

Meaning: Try not to lose early voting by too much and then have the 'red wave' on election day.

If those early vote swells are actually the Trump voters being budgeted for election day...that's a problem.
texaglurkerguy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PJYoung said:

John The Savage said:

The problem is the state polls weren't "wildly wrong" last time. Almost all the states were within the margin of error.

This is what so many people are ignoring.

The Trump victory last time was understandable from a polling perspective. He had to have everything go just right and it did. Almost all of the close states flipped to him. It was crazy unlikely but it happened. The overall popular vote was close to what was forecast.

This time the #s aren't nearly as close.
The "polls are wrong" crowd seem to treat polls like a prediction with a binary outcome: a candidate either wins or loses. And because the polls (and by this I mean a few state polls) failed to anticipate a Trump win in 2016 that means they were "wrong" and therefore will be "wrong" again (i.e. predict the wrong winner). But polls aren't simply "wrong" or "right", they span a whole statistical spectrum of accuracy in their ability to forecast election outcomes. Two polls can both be wrong, but one can be more wrong than the other.

The reasons for the "wrong" state polls in 2016 are pretty well understood, and in hindsight even make sense. The polling in this election is fundamentally different than it was in the 2016 race, for reasons that make Trump's victory even less likely (but not impossible). But if your understanding of how polls work boils down to "guess who wins," then you probably don't get the nuance.
hopheadAg09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm thinking far more registered democrats are voting the other party than visa versa.

I know that if down the road a democrat candidate comes along that I like better than the republican, I'm not going to go through the pain in the ass of changing my registration. I'll just simply vote for the democrat.

I'm too logical to be able to comprehend the majority of our country voting based on the sole fact that the incumbent hurts their feelers.

You don't fire a coach that's winning championships because he's brash and you don't like his aggressive tweets.
Central Committee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some people also ignore the fact that polls are used by the political parties, one in particular, for political purposes rather than to accurately predict an outcome. Most of these polls are tied to leftist and left leaning media outlets and political operatives trying to elicit a specific reaction from voters.

To be highly suspicious of polls from CNN and NBC is simply using critical thinking and logic. Because perhaps, many polls are intentionally wrong.
We may not always get what we want. We may not always get what we need. Just so we don't get what we deserve.
Spudman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoerneAg11 said:

Spudman said:

West Texas Lawyer said:

Rush was theorizing today that a large contingent of the early votes across the country are actually Trump voters who are back lashing against the last 4 years of dem/media BS.
Solid theory - I pray he is correct.

From my personal perspective - myself, wife, parents, in-laws and close friends (All R's and voting Trump) have all early voted for the first time ever.
Wouldn't that be a bad thing for the current path to victory being sold by Republicans?

Meaning: Try not to lose early voting by too much and then have the 'red wave' on election day.

If those early vote swells are actually the Trump voters being budgeted for election day...that's a problem.
You make a valid point.

Not necessarily a counter point - but maybe there's more Rep. enthusiasm creating both early voting with traditional "day of" voting being only slightly marginalized.

I guess we will learn a lot next week once this all gets broken down with analytics.

4stringAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just a question on the Wasserman tweet: how many of those upper midwest states are allowing votes to be counted after election day? I know PA is. Is WI, MI, MN, etc allowing for that?
singapore_sling
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Love all of the people here trumpeting the conspiracy theories about mail in voting, and how democrats will steal the election. Show us any evidence of fraud in 2016? Didn't Trump form a committee on this that came up with no evidence?

Mail in voting has been done in states for years. There is very little fraud. I'm also going to laugh when Biden wins states where almost the entire state apparatus is controlled by the GOP.
singapore_sling
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh just to add: I put my money where my mouth is. I have over $2.5k riding on various election scenarios. I urge those of you who think the polls are fake and there will be a Trump landslide to do the same.
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I look forward to you reporting your winnings on election day.
singapore_sling
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cheetah01 said:

I look forward to you reporting your winnings on election day.
It might take a day or two, but that's fine with me. I have a small trump hedge for insurance purposes. My bets mostly revolve around margins of the wins--much more dislocation in those markets.

For instance, my hedge on trump is that if he somehow pulls it out he'll win with very small electoral college margins (10-29).

Most of the money is on Biden outright, Trump losing the popular vote, and the margin in texas being between 0-5% for the GOP or 0-2% for the dems.

I also have some plays on Biden's margin of electoral college victory--spread among him winning by anywhere from 60 to 260 in the EC.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.