America is so fucked. A bold experiment in democracy and law is coming to an end.
I have said before the social media is the worst invention since the atomic bomb, and I do mean that. I not sure that social media and democracy are compatible, I coming round to the view that you can have one or the other but not both.
They are but it makes politics far more tribal not just in the US but here too, though if you follow the right people you can still get breaking news and some informative analysis and information on twitter
I don't think that's true. I follow mostly very sensible people and serious news sources, and frankly I think they are also dumbing down and becoming more sensationalist in order to get attention amongst the hundreds of millions of screeching eejits. The instant reaction, low information, and short messages of social media are all detrimental to informing people and promoting good discussion. Actors with good intent on a bad platform do not counterweight the millions of people trying to cause trouble. Wrestling pigs does not work.
Maybe but there are still plenty of statistics, graphs and news information sources shared by journalists on twitter you would not have known about before
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
The point was about the bubble thinking that Clinton was more popular than Trump such that her victory was a sure thing.
As it turned out she wasn't popular enough to win the electoral college - which is where it counts.
The ELECTORAL KINDERGARTEN (as it should be called!) is just an unfair, outdated, crappy means for the popular vote LOSER to STEAL the White House!
Sad!
It's the United States of America, not the American Union.
The founding fathers designed the electoral college so that the President would command a weighted majority of all the states taken together rather than just stacking up votes in certain places to achieve a national "popular" win, but at the risk of splintering the states apart as a consequence.
Rather than quibbling about the fact Hillary squeaked the popular vote by barely 2% they'd do better to ask why she didn't appeal across the country.
Ooh mustn't question the founding fathers. Nobody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together gives a toss if the electoral college system was inscribed on stone tablets by god almighty, it's still shite.
Besides, your story about the motivation of the creators of the electoral college is wrong.
Your alternative is to change the US Constitution.
Remind me how that's done?
Remind me of how your comment has any relevance whatsoever to what I wrote?
You falsely invoke the bloody founding fathers to defend the indefensible, and now you want to change the subject.
No. You've said the ECV system is shite and everyone agrees.
Unfortunately for you it's part of the US Constitution - and you seem to think you know a lot about it - so I'm sure you won't mind reminding us what's required to change it.
Over 400 migrants landed today.. almost 10% of the record for the whole year.
Utterly insane.
I don't know how it can possibly be stopped except for immediate deportation, that's how the Aussies dealt with it. But I don't think that would be a goer here.
I think, IIRC, Cyclefree's idea of flying them to a holding camp in the Falklands would be pretty popular.
I missed Cyclefree suggesting that, I'm very surprised she's the last person I'd expect to say that. But yes it'd work.
It was an off the wall and not entirely serious suggestion made to test what it is migrants claim to want ie if it is to be in British territory with the opportunity to work, why not send them to bits of territory away from the mainland (the IoM would do too) while asylum claims are processed.
I doubt it would work.
I have no solution.
I am feeling pissed off as thought was getting better but now feeling worse and will have to try and get GP appt tomorrow or go back to hospital. Bugger!
See, you need to be careful posting that tongue in cheek stuff.
I'm doing that Corbynism podcast btw. Very good. Thanks for the recommendation.
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
I'm not a fan of tax rises but does Boris have a better idea for raising cash ?
Economic growth.
We should be having tax cuts not tax rises to spur on an economic recovery.
Unlike in 2010 we have gone into this crash without a structural deficit. That there is a major deficit now is a symptom of the recession, not a symptom of a structural deficit that needs sorting out.
Get the economy growing again, cut targetted taxes to incentivise growth and the deficit will close. If its not after 2-3 years and is still big then then we would need to look at closing the deficit. You don't do that during the recession!
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
The point was about the bubble thinking that Clinton was more popular than Trump such that her victory was a sure thing.
As it turned out she wasn't popular enough to win the electoral college - which is where it counts.
The ELECTORAL KINDERGARTEN (as it should be called!) is just an unfair, outdated, crappy means for the popular vote LOSER to STEAL the White House!
Sad!
It's the United States of America, not the American Union.
The founding fathers designed the electoral college so that the President would command a weighted majority of all the states taken together rather than just stacking up votes in certain places to achieve a national "popular" win, but at the risk of splintering the states apart as a consequence.
Rather than quibbling about the fact Hillary squeaked the popular vote by barely 2% they'd do better to ask why she didn't appeal across the country.
Ooh mustn't question the founding fathers. Nobody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together gives a toss if the electoral college system was inscribed on stone tablets by god almighty, it's still shite.
Besides, your story about the motivation of the creators of the electoral college is wrong.
Your alternative is to change the US Constitution.
Remind me how that's done?
Remind me of how your comment has any relevance whatsoever to what I wrote?
You falsely invoke the bloody founding fathers to defend the indefensible, and now you want to change the subject.
No. You've said the ECV system is shite and everyone agrees.
Unfortunately for you it's part of the US Constitution - and you seem to think you know a lot about it - so I'm sure you won't mind reminding us what's required to change it.
If you think that the electoral college is a terrible system with absolutely no justification, and that it is unlikely to change any time soon, then we are in complete agreement.
It just sounded to me like you were trying to defend it with pompous crap about the founding fathers.
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
I couldn't help but notice how few MPs were back at their workplace at lunchtime for PMQs.
Perhaps they should lead by example and travel to their offices in Westminster, travelling by tube.
Most MPs are back at Westminster but obviously social distancing means they cannot all be at PMQs at once now, the civil service has a far higher level of WFH full time
So if all the MPs can't all fit safely in their workplace, what example does that make for other workplaces, or schools for that matter?
Over 400 migrants landed today.. almost 10% of the record for the whole year.
Utterly insane.
I don't know how it can possibly be stopped except for immediate deportation, that's how the Aussies dealt with it. But I don't think that would be a goer here.
I think, IIRC, Cyclefree's idea of flying them to a holding camp in the Falklands would be pretty popular.
I missed Cyclefree suggesting that, I'm very surprised she's the last person I'd expect to say that. But yes it'd work.
It was an off the wall and not entirely serious suggestion made to test what it is migrants claim to want ie if it is to be in British territory with the opportunity to work, why not send them to bits of territory away from the mainland (the IoM would do too) while asylum claims are processed.
I doubt it would work.
I have no solution.
I am feeling pissed off as thought was getting better but now feeling worse and will have to try and get GP appt tomorrow or go back to hospital. Bugger!
See, you need to be careful posting that tongue in cheek stuff.
I'm doing that Corbynism podcast btw. Very good. Thanks for the recommendation.
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
I note that while Hillary managed to win the PV by 3% yet lose the EV, that is historically very unusual. Al Gore was the last to win the PV yet lose the EV, but that was a much closer affair, with the infamous Florida hanging chads swinging it. Gore was 0.5% ahead on the PV. Other than that it is a long way back.
Maybe the votes have shifted so that it is a more frequent occurance, but maybe normality will return. Biden is much more acceptable to Blue collar America.
Winning the PV but losing the EC is unusual ... and yet it's happened to the Democrats in 40% of the Presidential elections so far this century.
If it happens again this time, the rate will be 50% (!)
Having said that, the above polls look very Biden-friendly indeed. Only two of the ten represent a big shift in Trump's favour, and in only one of them is an EC loss a serious danger.
Pathetic LOSERS have "won" the Presidential election in our great, GREAT Republic FIVE times!
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
The point was about the bubble thinking that Clinton was more popular than Trump such that her victory was a sure thing.
As it turned out she wasn't popular enough to win the electoral college - which is where it counts.
The ELECTORAL KINDERGARTEN (as it should be called!) is just an unfair, outdated, crappy means for the popular vote LOSER to STEAL the White House!
Sad!
It's the United States of America, not the American Union.
The founding fathers designed the electoral college so that the President would command a weighted majority of all the states taken together rather than just stacking up votes in certain places to achieve a national "popular" win, but at the risk of splintering the states apart as a consequence.
Rather than quibbling about the fact Hillary squeaked the popular vote by barely 2% they'd do better to ask why she didn't appeal across the country.
Ooh mustn't question the founding fathers. Nobody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together gives a toss if the electoral college system was inscribed on stone tablets by god almighty, it's still shite.
Besides, your story about the motivation of the creators of the electoral college is wrong.
Your alternative is to change the US Constitution.
Remind me how that's done?
Remind me of how your comment has any relevance whatsoever to what I wrote?
You falsely invoke the bloody founding fathers to defend the indefensible, and now you want to change the subject.
No. You've said the ECV system is shite and everyone agrees.
Unfortunately for you it's part of the US Constitution - and you seem to think you know a lot about it - so I'm sure you won't mind reminding us what's required to change it.
If you think that the electoral college is a terrible system with absolutely no justification, and that it is unlikely to change any time soon, then we are in complete agreement.
It just sounded to me like you were trying to defend it with pompous crap about the founding fathers.
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
Turnout changes at election time.
Excluding a parties candidate from the election is reprehensible.
I couldn't help but notice how few MPs were back at their workplace at lunchtime for PMQs.
Perhaps they should lead by example and travel to their offices in Westminster, travelling by tube.
Most MPs are back at Westminster but obviously social distancing means they cannot all be at PMQs at once now, the civil service has a far higher level of WFH full time
So if all the MPs can't all fit safely in their workplace, what example does that make for other workplaces, or schools for that matter?
It says they should be going into work at least some of the time even with part time WFH as they cannot all go into the office at one time or due to limits to class sizes in order to maintain social distancing
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
First, laws do what they say they do, not what they are "designed for." Secondly the ICC is not some kind of ultra virtuous superhero outfit; its very existence is of questionable value since it rules out a peaceful retirement for criminal despots, which may satisfy the thirst for vengeance but actually deprives the despot's victims of their best hope of respite from him. And it's extremely racist; it usually only prosecutes Africans. As the US never signed up to it in the first place it is under no obligation to recognise its judicial pretensions whatever.
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
Turnout changes at election time.
Excluding a parties candidate from the election is reprehensible.
If you can't make top 2 when the other party's vote is split I'm not really seeing the issue.
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
I think you're right, as far as it goes, but those states are a relatively small proportion of the population of this huge bunch of states, so it probably suggest a Biden lead in the really marginal ones of only just under 5%. Given that it does include states like GA which as you pointed out has been recently seen as Trump-leaning, it's probably much in line with the other polling, showing Biden consistently but not massively ahead.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
Trump won this basket of states 48.05 - 46.92 last time round.
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
I think you're right, as far as it goes, but those states are a relatively small proportion of the population of this huge bunch of states, so it probably suggest a Biden lead in the really marginal ones of only just under 5%. Given that it does include states like GA which as you pointed out has been recently seen as Trump-leaning, it's probably much in line with the other polling, showing Biden consistently but not massively ahead.
I think that is true Nick, it probably suggests Biden is at c. 3% in the key swung states
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
Trump won this basket of states 48.05 - 46.92 last time round.
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
I get it.
When there is gerrymandering by your favoured party it’s entirely reasonable
When your opponents request identification as part of the vote validation process it’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Let anyone who wants to stand in the election do so. Then the voters get to choose.
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
Turnout changes at election time.
Excluding a parties candidate from the election is reprehensible.
If you can't make top 2 when the other party's vote is split I'm not really seeing the issue.
It is a two stage election.
Its not really a two stage election, it doesn't even happen at election time. Look at the turnout at the 2018 election - nearly double on election day than it was for the primary.
Now normally I'm a big fan of saying for elections "if you don't vote, you don't get to complain" but if you're excluding people from the elections before election day that's not the same thing.
What is the general view on how good this is for Biden? Personal view - and I realise I may be accused of bias - is that it is not great considering there are a few states that are considered as "safe bankers" for the Democrats (NM, VA, CO, possibly NV)
Trump won this basket of states 48.05 - 46.92 last time round.
Interesting. So that would imply a 3% swing then would it not? Which on a uniform swing basis would be an 8% Biden lead nationally?
Doesn't seem like Biden is particularly polling poorly in swing states then on this evidence?
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
When you saw the HoC for e.g. big Brexit votes I'm not 100% convinced all the MPs could fit in safely *before* the need for social distancing.
There's no maybe about it, they definitely couldn't fit in safely as there's not enough seats and I don't think all of those without seats could fit in the chamber standing anyway.
Politico analyst (Stephanie Murray) being interviewed on R4
- Markey was the darling of the left wing because of the Green New Deal - AOC played a hugely influential role in the primary through her endorsement of Markey
I'm not a fan of tax rises but does Boris have a better idea for raising cash ?
Economic growth.
We should be having tax cuts not tax rises to spur on an economic recovery.
Unlike in 2010 we have gone into this crash without a structural deficit. That there is a major deficit now is a symptom of the recession, not a symptom of a structural deficit that needs sorting out.
Get the economy growing again, cut targetted taxes to incentivise growth and the deficit will close. If its not after 2-3 years and is still big then then we would need to look at closing the deficit. You don't do that during the recession!
'Incentivise growth' That's an old fiction. Targetted tax cuts might encourage growth by giving people more money to spend but most people do not decide how hard or productively they work based on the levels of taxation; they are not 'incentivised' to grow the economy by having a penny taken off the basic income tax rate.
Putting the top income tax rate up to 50%, reducing pension contribution relief*, harmonising NI for self-employed and pensioners, increasing IHT, introducing a wealth tax... None of these things will de-incentivise growth, except to the extent they take money out of circulation.
Spending and benefit cuts strangle growth, as Cameron and Osborne found, because the money 'saved' is money that would otherwise have been pumped straight back into the economy.
Those (me included) sitting on significant wealth assets need to be tapped up this time.
(*I would vote for any of these apart from reducing pension contribution relief, which I think is short-sighted.)
The issue with the jungle primary is that it is run in JUNE and the election is in NOVEMBER
Low turn out, heavily marketed to Democrat party members, little salience among the non politically active, overseas voters unable to participate.
This is very different to eg the French system, which I don’t particularly like (because it ends up with non real choices like Le Pen vs AN Other) but is not an attempt to gerrymander the system
Do Republicans become more popular as the year ages?
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
I get it.
When there is gerrymandering by your favoured party it’s entirely reasonable
When your opponents request identification as part of the vote validation process it’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Let anyone who wants to stand in the election do so. Then the voters get to choose.
Policies for real Americans - not special interest pressure groups. They should try that.
When the voters of Massachusetts choose to stick with the same Senator they've had for the last two decades, it shows how the Democrats have changed...
What?
Markey won the primary because of AOC's endorsement and the far left backing him, the Republicans will now exploit that against him in November in the general election and Trump will also now use it to show how the Democrats have their own Momentum like group gaining control Biden will not be able to hold back.
Plus Markey has only been a Senator since 2013
You're right, he was a Representative before that. The point is that he's been an elected Democratic Representative for the State of Massachusetts since 1976.
That's forty four years.
Claiming that the Democrats have changed because they've picked an incumbent who has represented them in Congress for close to half a century is... not the greatest argument.
Kennedy was leading the polls until AOC endorsed Markey, then the left all swung behind him and he took the lead and held on to win the Democratic nomination.
That is the point, last night was less Markey's victory than a victory for AOC and the twitterati far left over moderates within the Democratic Party
It was a victory for an incumbent with a very long and largely moderate record in Congress. You can claim it is a victory for AOC if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence that her 'endorsement' made a jot of difference.
(Indeed, of the 17 candidates endorsed in House Primaries by the left wing loonies of AOC, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Bernie Sanders, would you like to guess how many won?)
The evidence is clear, in February Kennedy was on 39% with progressives to 36% for Markey, after AOC agreed to appear in Markey ads from July Markey led by 40% to 38% as better representing progressives. Markey then just grew it from there
Amongst Democratic primary voters Markey won the college educated left comfortably while Kennedy won the working class
None of that in any way proves that AOC had even the slightest impact on the vote.
Let me quote your own words back to you "from July Markey led by 40% to 38% as better representing progressives".
You can claim that as a stunning victory for progressives in... in... in keeping a popular incumbent Senator with a moderate voting record. But you have offered up so far the sum total of zero, zilch and nada evidence for it.
The main reason he won those groups was his support from AOC and the far left, that is what Trump was going on about and that is what the GOP will hammer home in Massachussetts and nationwide until November, the Trojan horse that is Biden and Markey with the far left inside just waiting to pounce as soon as the Democrats get into power
"The main reason he won those groups was his support from AOC and the far left"
AOC had an execrable primary season where almost every candidate she chose to back lost.
So, it might be that the voters of Massachussets decided to buck the trend of the voters of TX28, OH03, NY9, NY3, IL11 and AZ1, and vote for an AOC recommended candidate. Or it might be that AOC attempted to maintain relevance and jump on board a bandwagon by backing a moderate Democrat who had represented his State for 44 years.
The slightly dodgy part of the American voting process is the fact that postal votes are accepted long after polling day as long as they were posted on election day itself. In this country postal votes have to be received by 10pm on election day.
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
First, laws do what they say they do, not what they are "designed for." Secondly the ICC is not some kind of ultra virtuous superhero outfit; its very existence is of questionable value since it rules out a peaceful retirement for criminal despots, which may satisfy the thirst for vengeance but actually deprives the despot's victims of their best hope of respite from him. And it's extremely racist; it usually only prosecutes Africans. As the US never signed up to it in the first place it is under no obligation to recognise its judicial pretensions whatever.
Milosevic, Mladic and various other Serbian criminals prosecuted by the court are not Africans.
Unless there is evidence that this person is a war criminal or terrorist there is no basis for putting her on a sanctions list.
The Trump’s beef with the court is not that it is “racist” but that it has the temerity to suggest that Americans are not ipso facto incapable of committing crimes and that if there is evidence that they do they too should be subject to investigation, trial and punishment. But as we know Trump does not think that laws should apply to him or America.
I'm not a fan of tax rises but does Boris have a better idea for raising cash ?
Economic growth.
We should be having tax cuts not tax rises to spur on an economic recovery.
Unlike in 2010 we have gone into this crash without a structural deficit. That there is a major deficit now is a symptom of the recession, not a symptom of a structural deficit that needs sorting out.
Get the economy growing again, cut targetted taxes to incentivise growth and the deficit will close. If its not after 2-3 years and is still big then then we would need to look at closing the deficit. You don't do that during the recession!
'Incentivise growth' That's an old fiction. Targetted tax cuts might encourage growth by giving people more money to spend but most people do not decide how hard or productively they work based on the levels of taxation; they are not 'incentivised' to grow the economy by having a penny taken off the basic income tax rate.
Putting the top income tax rate up to 50%, reducing pension contribution relief*, harmonising NI for self-employed and pensioners, increasing IHT, introducing a wealth tax... None of these things will de-incentivise growth, except to the extent they take money out of circulation.
Spending and benefit cuts strangle growth, as Cameron and Osborne found, because the money 'saved' is money that would otherwise have been pumped straight back into the economy.
Those (me included) sitting on significant wealth assets need to be tapped up this time.
(*I would vote for any of these apart from reducing pension contribution relief, which I think is short-sighted.)
Cameron and Osborne found no such thing, which is why the UK grew faster than almost any other developed country in the past decade. The UK consistently grew faster than the European Union did on average, just how much faster did you expect us to be growing when we were already growing faster than our peers?
Targeted tax cuts absolutely do allow growth to happen faster and the key to getting out of this recession if we find many businesses that lack customers post-COVID going out of business will be to have people invest in the future. That will ensure more jobs get created, we can get back to full employment and the deficit then will close since there isn't a structural deficit this time unlike last time.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence.
I think this is a very important point. Sure, there will be occasions where it is obvious, but also plenty of time where if they appear to know what's going on it's more luck than anything else.
And then years are spent 'learning the lessons' of the last fight, with the inevitable consequence that you risk not learning the lessons of the current fight (and probably don't really learn anything about the last one either).
Politico analyst (Stephanie Murray) being interviewed on R4
- Markey was the darling of the left wing because of the Green New Deal - AOC played a hugely influential role in the primary through her endorsement of Markey
Markey may be the more left wing of the candidates, but he was also a vocal supporter of Biden's 1994 policing bill which is absolutely hated by BLM and the left. He's also decidedly moderate on health care.
The slightly dodgy part of the American voting process is the fact that postal votes are accepted long after polling day as long as they were posted on election day itself. In this country postal votes have to be received by 10pm on election day.
They have to be postmarked by election day don't they though?
I think the issue is that in this country you can post a letter and it will get to your destination the next day or the day after typically, whereas the USPS doesn't operate to the same standards.
Not content with attacking the American judiciary now Trump's administration is sanctioning ICC Prosecutors using laws designed for war criminals and terrorists.
First, laws do what they say they do, not what they are "designed for." Secondly the ICC is not some kind of ultra virtuous superhero outfit; its very existence is of questionable value since it rules out a peaceful retirement for criminal despots, which may satisfy the thirst for vengeance but actually deprives the despot's victims of their best hope of respite from him. And it's extremely racist; it usually only prosecutes Africans. As the US never signed up to it in the first place it is under no obligation to recognise its judicial pretensions whatever.
I don't doubt there are issues with the court, however do those issues justify the particular measure applied by Trump here, and if so why? I've not seen the case for the defence here, but it looks ill.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
When the voters of Massachusetts choose to stick with the same Senator they've had for the last two decades, it shows how the Democrats have changed...
What?
Markey won the primary because of AOC's endorsement and the far left backing him, the Republicans will now exploit that against him in November in the general election and Trump will also now use it to show how the Democrats have their own Momentum like group gaining control Biden will not be able to hold back.
Plus Markey has only been a Senator since 2013
You're right, he was a Representative before that. The point is that he's been an elected Democratic Representative for the State of Massachusetts since 1976.
That's forty four years.
Claiming that the Democrats have changed because they've picked an incumbent who has represented them in Congress for close to half a century is... not the greatest argument.
Kennedy was leading the polls until AOC endorsed Markey, then the left all swung behind him and he took the lead and held on to win the Democratic nomination.
That is the point, last night was less Markey's victory than a victory for AOC and the twitterati far left over moderates within the Democratic Party
Your use of "far left" is laughable.
Mind you, the Venn diagram of the set of PB Tories who say Biden is a lacklustre candidate and demand that the Dems address the white working class, and the set of PB Tories who had aneurysms at the thought of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination this time or last time is a thing of beauty.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
“When we talk about hidden voters, what we’re talking about is the social-desirability bias, and that is when people basically tell a live-caller what they think will get them judged least harshly,” says Cahaly. “Some races have that, some races don’t.” Cahaly points to the Florida 2018 gubernatorial race as an example. Democrats had branded Republican Ron DeSantis as a racist, and all pollsters, except Trafalgar, showed Democrat Andrew Gillum with a lead in the days before the election. DeSantis won the election by 0.4 points.
“In 2020, the presidential question has social-desirability bias,” says Cahaly. He tries to capture the views of “hidden voters” in several ways. “I start with a voter file that has everything from occupation to incomes to education levels to voting history to likely religion,” says Cahaly. “We give people multiple ways to participate in our polls,” he adds. “We do live calls, we do automated calls, we do texts, we do emails, we do other digital platforms.” Cahaly tries to get a sample of at least 1,000 respondents in any statewide poll: “Big samples are better samples.”
He thinks a lot of pollsters for media outlets simply ask too many questions — if a pollster is asking 30 questions, “you end up with people who really care too much about politics,” says Cahaly. Trafalgar’s surveys ask “no more than nine [questions] and [take] less than three minutes to complete.”
When the voters of Massachusetts choose to stick with the same Senator they've had for the last two decades, it shows how the Democrats have changed...
What?
Markey won the primary because of AOC's endorsement and the far left backing him, the Republicans will now exploit that against him in November in the general election and Trump will also now use it to show how the Democrats have their own Momentum like group gaining control Biden will not be able to hold back.
Plus Markey has only been a Senator since 2013
You're right, he was a Representative before that. The point is that he's been an elected Democratic Representative for the State of Massachusetts since 1976.
That's forty four years.
Claiming that the Democrats have changed because they've picked an incumbent who has represented them in Congress for close to half a century is... not the greatest argument.
Kennedy was leading the polls until AOC endorsed Markey, then the left all swung behind him and he took the lead and held on to win the Democratic nomination.
That is the point, last night was less Markey's victory than a victory for AOC and the twitterati far left over moderates within the Democratic Party
Your use of "far left" is laughable.
Mind you, the Venn diagram of the set of PB Tories who say Biden is a lacklustre candidate and demand that the Dems address the white working class, and the set of PB Tories who had aneurysms at the thought of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination this time or last time is a thing of beauty.
Biden is a better candidate for the Democrats than Sanders, if Sanders was the nominee Trump would probably be ahead now after his convention
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
“When we talk about hidden voters, what we’re talking about is the social-desirability bias, and that is when people basically tell a live-caller what they think will get them judged least harshly,” says Cahaly. “Some races have that, some races don’t.” Cahaly points to the Florida 2018 gubernatorial race as an example. Democrats had branded Republican Ron DeSantis as a racist, and all pollsters, except Trafalgar, showed Democrat Andrew Gillum with a lead in the days before the election. DeSantis won the election by 0.4 points.
“In 2020, the presidential question has social-desirability bias,” says Cahaly. He tries to capture the views of “hidden voters” in several ways. “I start with a voter file that has everything from occupation to incomes to education levels to voting history to likely religion,” says Cahaly. “We give people multiple ways to participate in our polls,” he adds. “We do live calls, we do automated calls, we do texts, we do emails, we do other digital platforms.” Cahaly tries to get a sample of at least 1,000 respondents in any statewide poll: “Big samples are better samples.”
He thinks a lot of pollsters for media outlets simply ask too many questions — if a pollster is asking 30 questions, “you end up with people who really care too much about politics,” says Cahaly. Trafalgar’s surveys ask “no more than nine [questions] and [take] less than three minutes to complete.”
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
“When we talk about hidden voters, what we’re talking about is the social-desirability bias, and that is when people basically tell a live-caller what they think will get them judged least harshly,” says Cahaly. “Some races have that, some races don’t.” Cahaly points to the Florida 2018 gubernatorial race as an example. Democrats had branded Republican Ron DeSantis as a racist, and all pollsters, except Trafalgar, showed Democrat Andrew Gillum with a lead in the days before the election. DeSantis won the election by 0.4 points.
“In 2020, the presidential question has social-desirability bias,” says Cahaly. He tries to capture the views of “hidden voters” in several ways. “I start with a voter file that has everything from occupation to incomes to education levels to voting history to likely religion,” says Cahaly. “We give people multiple ways to participate in our polls,” he adds. “We do live calls, we do automated calls, we do texts, we do emails, we do other digital platforms.” Cahaly tries to get a sample of at least 1,000 respondents in any statewide poll: “Big samples are better samples.”
He thinks a lot of pollsters for media outlets simply ask too many questions — if a pollster is asking 30 questions, “you end up with people who really care too much about politics,” says Cahaly. Trafalgar’s surveys ask “no more than nine [questions] and [take] less than three minutes to complete.”
Yes, I've linked to that article myself, about why we shouldn't ignore Trafalgar.
But let me turn it around. Trafalgar didn't do very well in 2018, where they applied these same weightings.
Now, it could be that 2020 is just like 2016. Or it could be that it's more like 2018.
The difference between 2016 and 2018 though was Trump was not on the ballot, many Trump voters in 2016 stayed home in 2018. The question is if they will turn out for him again in 2020 and whether other pollsters are capturing them or missing them unlike Trafalgar
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
When the voters of Massachusetts choose to stick with the same Senator they've had for the last two decades, it shows how the Democrats have changed...
What?
Markey won the primary because of AOC's endorsement and the far left backing him, the Republicans will now exploit that against him in November in the general election and Trump will also now use it to show how the Democrats have their own Momentum like group gaining control Biden will not be able to hold back.
Plus Markey has only been a Senator since 2013
You're right, he was a Representative before that. The point is that he's been an elected Democratic Representative for the State of Massachusetts since 1976.
That's forty four years.
Claiming that the Democrats have changed because they've picked an incumbent who has represented them in Congress for close to half a century is... not the greatest argument.
Kennedy was leading the polls until AOC endorsed Markey, then the left all swung behind him and he took the lead and held on to win the Democratic nomination.
That is the point, last night was less Markey's victory than a victory for AOC and the twitterati far left over moderates within the Democratic Party
Your use of "far left" is laughable.
Mind you, the Venn diagram of the set of PB Tories who say Biden is a lacklustre candidate and demand that the Dems address the white working class, and the set of PB Tories who had aneurysms at the thought of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination this time or last time is a thing of beauty.
Bernie Sanders is beloved by students and young people who've never had to pay taxes or balance bills. Not the working class. Just like Corbyn.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely.
My impression is two less than outstanding candidates and an America split down the middle culturally and ideologically and that will be reflected in the result in my view
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
“When we talk about hidden voters, what we’re talking about is the social-desirability bias, and that is when people basically tell a live-caller what they think will get them judged least harshly,” says Cahaly. “Some races have that, some races don’t.” Cahaly points to the Florida 2018 gubernatorial race as an example. Democrats had branded Republican Ron DeSantis as a racist, and all pollsters, except Trafalgar, showed Democrat Andrew Gillum with a lead in the days before the election. DeSantis won the election by 0.4 points.
“In 2020, the presidential question has social-desirability bias,” says Cahaly. He tries to capture the views of “hidden voters” in several ways. “I start with a voter file that has everything from occupation to incomes to education levels to voting history to likely religion,” says Cahaly. “We give people multiple ways to participate in our polls,” he adds. “We do live calls, we do automated calls, we do texts, we do emails, we do other digital platforms.” Cahaly tries to get a sample of at least 1,000 respondents in any statewide poll: “Big samples are better samples.”
He thinks a lot of pollsters for media outlets simply ask too many questions — if a pollster is asking 30 questions, “you end up with people who really care too much about politics,” says Cahaly. Trafalgar’s surveys ask “no more than nine [questions] and [take] less than three minutes to complete.”
Yes, I've linked to that article myself, about why we shouldn't ignore Trafalgar.
But let me turn it around. Trafalgar didn't do very well in 2018, where they applied these same weightings.
Now, it could be that 2020 is just like 2016. Or it could be that it's more like 2018.
The difference between 2016 and 2018 though was Trump was not on the ballot, many Trump voters in 2016 stayed home in 2018. The question is if they will turn out for him again in 2020 and whether other pollsters are capturing them or missing them unlike Trafalgar
Sure. But take Wisconsin. If Trump doesn't lose a single vote, but Biden gets all the votes that Tammy Baldwin got (and it would be staggering if he didn't do better than the midterm Senatorial candidate), then the Dems win the state.
You can't cast aside evidence that doesn't fit your narrative. (Well, I mean you obviously can. But you shouldn't.)
Politico analyst (Stephanie Murray) being interviewed on R4
- Markey was the darling of the left wing because of the Green New Deal - AOC played a hugely influential role in the primary through her endorsement of Markey
Markey may be the more left wing of the candidates, but he was also a vocal supporter of Biden's 1994 policing bill which is absolutely hated by BLM and the left. He's also decidedly moderate on health care.
Long term supporter of clean energy - which as an issue is somewhat orthogonal to left/right politics anyway.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
They had a good 2016.
In 2018, they polled five states. They got Michigan and Montana right, but they got Florida, Arizona and Nevada all wrong.
They got Florida right too in 2018 in terms of the winner
We discussed this earlier today, Trafalgar were the worst of all the pollsters in Florida.
In terms of the winner two pollsters got it spot on by saying "tie" which is what it was if you round which is what pollsters do. Trafalgar were miles out.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely
We'll see. To give HYUFD credit he's put his money where his mouth is and we have a bet riding on this. We'll see soon enough one way or another.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely
Looking on from afar, that doesn't add up. A tie is 269, seats over that on one side have to be matched by exactly the same number under if they apply either way.
So no more than 275 (+6) over implies no fewer than 263 (-6) under, whereas you say 260.
Alternatively, no fewer than 260 under implies no more than 278 over, whereas you say only 275.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely
Looking on from afar, that doesn't add up. A tie is 269, seats over that on one side have to be matched by exactly the same number under if they apply either way.
So no more than 275 (+6) over implies no fewer than 263 (-6) under, whereas you say 260.
Alternatively, no fewer than 260 under implies no more than 278 over, whereas you say only 275.
OK, 263 to 275 for either candidate then if you really want to pin me down.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
They had a good 2016.
In 2018, they polled five states. They got Michigan and Montana right, but they got Florida, Arizona and Nevada all wrong.
Their model seems to be similar to Rasmussen: consistently overstate the GOP in (say) all their polls, then wait for a race with a polling error and claim credit/publicity for being "right", knowing the other 90% races they got completely wrong will be ignored.
Very interesting article on Portland protests - going into detail on why Portland. I was not aware of much of this - and it is interesting to read protesters saying they're protesting against Portland PD and not Trump.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
I'm off to bed @rcs1000 but I wanted to answer you before I went.
Re the past track records, in a way that proves my point. The Clinton campaign was getting plenty of warnings from the unions in the rust belt states (and the likes of Michael Moore) that Trump posed a big threat but it was ignored because the data geeks at her HQ said that couldn't be right given the data they had. That proved to be a costly mistake.
Re why the polls aren't moving, to be honest I don't know but a clue may lie in the National Review article. Admitting you are a Trump voter is arguably more perilous now than in 2016 (think about the comments here), especially given the BLM riots. As the quote I posted earlier from a reluctant Trump supporter said, you are assumed to be a bigot and / or homophobic. Who wants to admit that,
I will make one final point. I was an Analyst in the City for a fair while (avoids brickbats). My best, calls were when I stepped out of the models and asked the question "does this feel right?". It didn't always work but most times it did, often when it was anti-consensual. This feels like one of these times.
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely
Looking on from afar, that doesn't add up. A tie is 269, seats over that on one side have to be matched by exactly the same number under if they apply either way.
So no more than 275 (+6) over implies no fewer than 263 (-6) under, whereas you say 260.
Alternatively, no fewer than 260 under implies no more than 278 over, whereas you say only 275.
OK, 263 to 275 for either candidate then if you really want to pin me down.
That is my prediction
538 has it being that narrow at 2% chance, and one of those is a tie !
I've been talking to friends in the US and they all say the same thing, Biden leads the polls but the feeling on the ground is that Trump has the momentum because he's been gifted a stronger hand by the riots and the Dems lack of condemnation of their own side and the very blatant media bias. This is among all likely Dem voters as well.
The CNN graphic of "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of burning buildings has become a recruiting tool for Trump among middle class suburban whites, it's team Trump saying "we told you, they'll lie to your face and expect you to accept it" and it's working for them among parents of my friends who were previously in the Dem column.
That's the narrative, and it's one that - for example - Conrad Black and Andrew Sullivan have both written about in the last two weeks.
But I'm a numbers rather than a narrative kind of guy. Let's see if voters are actually changing.
One problem with the polls last time was that in order to make the samples balanced, they compromised on randomness, which meant they failed to pick up on important movements.
A lot is being made of people overcompensating for the 2016 shock by overstating Trump's chances but I'm beginning to wonder whether a closer analogy is 2017 with Biden as May with regards to the polls.
As @MaxPB has pointed out, plus others such as Andrew Sullivan and Conrad Black, people do not like the violence and the fear it is coming to a town near you and it is starting to become a major issue. @rcs1000 pointed out Republican registrations in Florida are running ahead of the Democrats but my understanding is the Republicans have eroded the Democrat's lead since 2016 in PA as well, which also bodes ill for Biden.
More to the point, both the campaign's actions and what is being seen on the ground doesn't seem to match the polls. Trump has just opened an office in Minnesota and he has visited New Hampshire.
Trump is repeatedly banging the drum linking Biden with the violence and Biden is now running adverts condemning the violence. This is where the NY Times states about the adverts:
"The Biden campaign said the ad would air nationally on cable television and in local markets in nine battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
That doesn't sound like a campaign that is confident it is high single digits ahead.
Ultimately, though, Biden's national polling numbers aren't changing.
Pundits and stories and narrative have very little predictive power compared to hard numbers.
The problem I have is whether the data we are getting from these polls is clean.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
I think the idea the campaigns have any idea what's going on is not backed by the evidence. Hillary had no idea she was losing in the rust belt. Trump and his advisors thought they had lost. Nigel Farage conceded defeat immediately after EU Referendum polls closed.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
Trafalgar is rated as a C- pollster by FiveThirtyEight with an average polling error of 5.8 points. Best ignored
Yes ignore the only pollster who predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 if you wish but don't come crying to me on election night if you are wrong
What’s your latest prediction for the election?
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
It is not fence sitting when I say it will be between 260-275 votes either way.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely
Looking on from afar, that doesn't add up. A tie is 269, seats over that on one side have to be matched by exactly the same number under if they apply either way.
So no more than 275 (+6) over implies no fewer than 263 (-6) under, whereas you say 260.
Alternatively, no fewer than 260 under implies no more than 278 over, whereas you say only 275.
OK, 263 to 275 for either candidate then if you really want to pin me down.
That is my prediction
At this point, if I limited myself to a spread of 12 to match yours, I would predict Biden getting between 279 and 291.
McSally will do considerably worse than Trump, IMHO. She's a weak candidate who got rightly bested by Sistema in 2018, and it was foolish of Ducey to appoint someone who had just got her ass kicked. Mark Kelly, on the other hand, is moderate and personable and has a great backstory. I can see a lot of Trump-Kelly voters.
Comments
Unfortunately for you it's part of the US Constitution - and you seem to think you know a lot about it - so I'm sure you won't mind reminding us what's required to change it.
I'm doing that Corbynism podcast btw. Very good. Thanks for the recommendation.
https://twitter.com/MDParadis/status/1301160865094340611
So clearly a move by the Trump campaign to win back the military vote, if extremely cynical
We should be having tax cuts not tax rises to spur on an economic recovery.
Unlike in 2010 we have gone into this crash without a structural deficit. That there is a major deficit now is a symptom of the recession, not a symptom of a structural deficit that needs sorting out.
Get the economy growing again, cut targetted taxes to incentivise growth and the deficit will close. If its not after 2-3 years and is still big then then we would need to look at closing the deficit. You don't do that during the recession!
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1301262355385516033
It just sounded to me like you were trying to defend it with pompous crap about the founding fathers.
Maybe they should have policies that summer voters approve of.
But in twatter world any change in taxes is a 'raid' which provokes 'fury'.
If you want to restore demand then jacking up prices is an odd place to start.
Excluding a parties candidate from the election is reprehensible.
This is because they are a load of shite.
Hiden? Is this a new attempt at a nickname?
It is a two stage election.
If I am dealing with a set of financial numbers on which to make a forecast, I can assume they are clean in that they have been audited, subject to oversight etc.
That is not the case here. As many on here have pointed out, US polling methodology is not as audited as in the UK. More concerning is that the polls are seen as both sides to push their positions so they become used as a political football and used as to rally the troops so it is entirely possible you are getting self-selected samples.
Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, both parties will have continual internal polling going on which is why I am a great believer in looking at their actions as that demonstrates their "true" view.
When there is gerrymandering by your favoured party it’s entirely reasonable
When your opponents request identification as part of the vote validation process it’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Let anyone who wants to stand in the election do so. Then the voters get to choose.
Now normally I'm a big fan of saying for elections "if you don't vote, you don't get to complain" but if you're excluding people from the elections before election day that's not the same thing.
Doesn't seem like Biden is particularly polling poorly in swing states then on this evidence?
Politico analyst (Stephanie Murray) being interviewed on R4
- Markey was the darling of the left wing because of the Green New Deal
- AOC played a hugely influential role in the primary through her endorsement of Markey
Putting the top income tax rate up to 50%, reducing pension contribution relief*, harmonising NI for self-employed and pensioners, increasing IHT, introducing a wealth tax... None of these things will de-incentivise growth, except to the extent they take money out of circulation.
Spending and benefit cuts strangle growth, as Cameron and Osborne found, because the money 'saved' is money that would otherwise have been pumped straight back into the economy.
Those (me included) sitting on significant wealth assets need to be tapped up this time.
(*I would vote for any of these apart from reducing pension contribution relief, which I think is short-sighted.)
Be like Schwarzenegger.
AOC had an execrable primary season where almost every candidate she chose to back lost.
So, it might be that the voters of Massachussets decided to buck the trend of the voters of TX28, OH03, NY9, NY3, IL11 and AZ1, and vote for an AOC recommended candidate. Or it might be that AOC attempted to maintain relevance and jump on board a bandwagon by backing a moderate Democrat who had represented his State for 44 years.
Unless there is evidence that this person is a war criminal or terrorist there is no basis for putting her on a sanctions list.
The Trump’s beef with the court is not that it is “racist” but that it has the temerity to suggest that Americans are not ipso facto incapable of committing crimes and that if there is evidence that they do they too should be subject to investigation, trial and punishment. But as we know Trump does not think that laws should apply to him or America.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1301273157773471744?s=09
Targeted tax cuts absolutely do allow growth to happen faster and the key to getting out of this recession if we find many businesses that lack customers post-COVID going out of business will be to have people invest in the future. That will ensure more jobs get created, we can get back to full employment and the deficit then will close since there isn't a structural deficit this time unlike last time.
Your polling methodology point is a good one. It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that there are shy Trump supporters, who are not being picked up.
The issue for the President is that (on current polls) there needs to be an unprecedented level of polling error.
And there's one last issue. Why isn't Biden's share moving? If the riots were having an effect, he should still see his share move. Because changes in opinions should be picked up, even if the overall totals are wrong. And we're not seeing any meaningful move in the Biden total.
And then years are spent 'learning the lessons' of the last fight, with the inevitable consequence that you risk not learning the lessons of the current fight (and probably don't really learn anything about the last one either).
I think the issue is that in this country you can post a letter and it will get to your destination the next day or the day after typically, whereas the USPS doesn't operate to the same standards.
They might be wrong.
If they posted their crosstabs they would be a lot easier to analyse.
Nevertheless, their simple "error rate" - i.e. the average amount they were wrong for Dem and Republican candidates - in 2018 was not great, at 5.6 percent.
Mind you, the Venn diagram of the set of PB Tories who say Biden is a lacklustre candidate and demand that the Dems address the white working class, and the set of PB Tories who had aneurysms at the thought of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination this time or last time is a thing of beauty.
“When we talk about hidden voters, what we’re talking about is the social-desirability bias, and that is when people basically tell a live-caller what they think will get them judged least harshly,” says Cahaly. “Some races have that, some races don’t.” Cahaly points to the Florida 2018 gubernatorial race as an example. Democrats had branded Republican Ron DeSantis as a racist, and all pollsters, except Trafalgar, showed Democrat Andrew Gillum with a lead in the days before the election. DeSantis won the election by 0.4 points.
“In 2020, the presidential question has social-desirability bias,” says Cahaly. He tries to capture the views of “hidden voters” in several ways. “I start with a voter file that has everything from occupation to incomes to education levels to voting history to likely religion,” says Cahaly. “We give people multiple ways to participate in our polls,” he adds. “We do live calls, we do automated calls, we do texts, we do emails, we do other digital platforms.” Cahaly tries to get a sample of at least 1,000 respondents in any statewide poll: “Big samples are better samples.”
He thinks a lot of pollsters for media outlets simply ask too many questions — if a pollster is asking 30 questions, “you end up with people who really care too much about politics,” says Cahaly. Trafalgar’s surveys ask “no more than nine [questions] and [take] less than three minutes to complete.”
Trafalgar is not a broken clock that gets rewarded for always pointing toward GOP victories. For example, it showed Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow leading by nine points in its final poll of Michigan in 2018; Stabenow defeated Republican John James by six points.'
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/the-pollster-who-thinks-trump-is-winning-in-wisconsin-and-michigan/
But let me turn it around. Trafalgar didn't do very well in 2018, where they applied these same weightings.
Now, it could be that 2020 is just like 2016. Or it could be that it's more like 2018.
I'm assuming that was pre-COVID? Hopefully we can all get back to scenes like that before too long.
Still fence-sitting so you are certain you can claim you were right?
In 2018, they polled five states. They got Michigan and Montana right, but they got Florida, Arizona and Nevada all wrong.
If Biden wins with a landslide obviously I will have been miles out and if Trump won comfortably that would also be the case even if less likely.
My impression is two less than outstanding candidates and an America split down the middle culturally and ideologically and that will be reflected in the result in my view
You can't cast aside evidence that doesn't fit your narrative. (Well, I mean you obviously can. But you shouldn't.)
In terms of the winner two pollsters got it spot on by saying "tie" which is what it was if you round which is what pollsters do. Trafalgar were miles out.
So no more than 275 (+6) over implies no fewer than 263 (-6) under, whereas you say 260.
Alternatively, no fewer than 260 under implies no more than 278 over, whereas you say only 275.
That is my prediction
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53996159
Re the past track records, in a way that proves my point. The Clinton campaign was getting plenty of warnings from the unions in the rust belt states (and the likes of Michael Moore) that Trump posed a big threat but it was ignored because the data geeks at her HQ said that couldn't be right given the data they had. That proved to be a costly mistake.
Re why the polls aren't moving, to be honest I don't know but a clue may lie in the National Review article. Admitting you are a Trump voter is arguably more perilous now than in 2016 (think about the comments here), especially given the BLM riots. As the quote I posted earlier from a reluctant Trump supporter said, you are assumed to be a bigot and / or homophobic. Who wants to admit that,
I will make one final point. I was an Analyst in the City for a fair while (avoids brickbats). My best, calls were when I stepped out of the models and asked the question "does this feel right?". It didn't always work but most times it did, often when it was anti-consensual. This feels like one of these times.
https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1301279215250108416?s=21
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1301280020682412034