Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling continues to look solid for Biden

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 5 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling continues to look solid for Biden

The latest WH2020 average from RealClearPolitics is above and shows it getting back to what it was before the Republican convention. According to the latest RCP calculation Trump is 7% behind nationally.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Go Joe!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,968
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    It will always amuses me that on PB I have been accused of being a far right Tory and a lefty.

    At least no one has accused you of being anything sensible?
    Worst of all, HYUFD went through a phase of calling me a Lib Dem.
    Well you are a LD now, you voted LD at the last general election
    If you are going to condemn people as lost to the Tories if they have ever voted for anyone else that excludes a large number of supporters and plenty of MPs, particular ones who likely voted for the Brexit party at the Euros.

    You don't believe in redemption? You believe only the pure are able to be a part of your tribe?

    How very Corbynista of you.
    There is a difference between a protest vote for a party at local and European elections and still voting for that party at a general election, though obviously I would prefer you to vote Tory at all elections
    Well that is good news - everyone, feel free to vote non-Tory outside of GEs.

    On topic, currently looks good for Biden, but I don't think anyone will make the mistake of thinking it a shoe in this time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    The interesting thing is Trump is winning more Hillary 2016 voters than Biden is winning Trump 2016 voters.

    91% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for the President with 7% voting for Biden, 88% of Hillary 2016 voters are voting for Biden with 9% having switched to back Trump.

    Biden only leads because of third party voters in 2016 who back Biden by 59% to just 18% for Trump

    However if they go back to voting third party then Biden is in trouble

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 1,429
    FPT
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.

    Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -

    Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?

    It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
    I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.

    So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.

    I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
    You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
    Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
    We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
    Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
    Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.

    We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.

    The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
    You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.

    Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.

    7% reduction in education spend per child
    7% larger class sizes
    No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern.
    Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.

    Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
    Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -

    What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?

    I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.

    But is this enough?

    It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
    The way you sort schools and education, is to concentrate on the failing schools and the disadvantaged pupils. Level up.

    You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
    One thing councils could do straight away that I would like to see is a volunteer mentor scheme. You sign up as a volunteer and pupils can ask to be included at their schools. Your task is to be available to help with homework, advice, just to listen and encourage. Would give libraries a use in the modern age. Now my offspring has flown the nest I would be quite happy to give a few hours a week to help out.

    Also a scheme for redundant hardware to be donated. I have several laptops I have outgrown that can still do things like browse the web and office apps.

    Also issuing data only sims. My supplier for mobile does 8gb of data for 10£ thats 520 a year per child and I am sure councils could negotiate that down and only supplied to the disadvantaged. 8gb is more than enough for school work in normal times though maybe not the current distant learning.

    There are three things that could be done straight away at little cost that would help the disadvantaged that want to learn a hell of a lot more than banning private schools



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    It will always amuses me that on PB I have been accused of being a far right Tory and a lefty.

    At least no one has accused you of being anything sensible?
    Worst of all, HYUFD went through a phase of calling me a Lib Dem.
    Well you are a LD now, you voted LD at the last general election
    If you are going to condemn people as lost to the Tories if they have ever voted for anyone else that excludes a large number of supporters and plenty of MPs, particular ones who likely voted for the Brexit party at the Euros.

    You don't believe in redemption? You believe only the pure are able to be a part of your tribe?

    How very Corbynista of you.
    There is a difference between a protest vote for a party at local and European elections and still voting for that party at a general election, though obviously I would prefer you to vote Tory at all elections
    Well that is good news - everyone, feel free to vote non-Tory outside of GEs.

    On topic, currently looks good for Biden, but I don't think anyone will make the mistake of thinking it a shoe in this time.
    No don't feel free but in Epping for example half the councillors are LD and the Brexit Party won the European elections here but the seat is overwhelmingly Tory at general elections
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198
    HYUFD said:

    The interesting thing is Trump is winning more Hillary 2016 voters than Biden is winning Trump 2016 voters.

    91% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for the President with 7% voting for Biden, 88% of Hillary 2016 voters are voting for Biden with 9% having switched to back Trump.

    Biden only leads because of third party voters in 2016 who back Biden by 59% to just 18% for Trump

    However if they go back to voting third party then Biden is in trouble

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions

    Are you sure you are backing Biden?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579
    FPT
    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    The interesting thing is Trump is winning more Hillary 2016 voters than Biden is winning Trump 2016 voters.

    91% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for the President with 7% voting for Biden, 88% of Hillary 2016 voters are voting for Biden with 9% having switched to back Trump.

    Biden only leads because of third party voters in 2016 who back Biden by 59% to just 18% for Trump

    However if they go back to voting third party then Biden is in trouble

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions

    Are you sure you are backing Biden?
    I am not American so no I am not backing Biden, I only back parties in countries I can vote in however that does not stop me commenting on it.

    I may vote for Biden if I was American (though I would have voted for Trump over Sanders) but I also would have voted for Hillary in 2016 so am not in the demographic Biden needs to win anyway given it is Trump 2016 and third party voters and voters who stayed home last time he needs to win over in the swing states
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The interesting thing is Trump is winning more Hillary 2016 voters than Biden is winning Trump 2016 voters.

    91% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for the President with 7% voting for Biden, 88% of Hillary 2016 voters are voting for Biden with 9% having switched to back Trump.

    Biden only leads because of third party voters in 2016 who back Biden by 59% to just 18% for Trump

    However if they go back to voting third party then Biden is in trouble

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions

    Are you sure you are backing Biden?
    I am not American so no I am not backing Biden, I only back parties in countries I can vote in however that does not stop me commenting on it.

    I may vote for Biden if I was American (though I would have voted for Trump over Sanders) but I also would have voted for Hillary in 2016 so am not in the demographic Biden needs to win anyway given it is Trump 2016 and third party voters he needs to win over in the swing states
    And non-voters. Many voters who backed Obama/Biden didn't turn out in 2016.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 1,429
    For all those telling us how awful the uk is for not wanting migrants crossing the channel in small boats and how we should be more humane like eu countries

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/ship-rescued-migrants-eu-sea-tanker-malta-european
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,970
    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
  • "My main bet is now laying Trump which covers me if something happened to Biden and Kamala Harris became the flag-carrier."

    There's also the possibility that something might happen to Trump. (E.g. either on the current military story or something else, what if he insists and insists that he didn't do something, asks "what kind of animal would do that?" etc. - as he has done with this story - and then a tape or clip appears that proves unambiguously that he did do it? A Republican who isn't Trump might still run away with this. Mike Pence is at 390. The others are all at 1000.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
  • malcolmg22malcolmg22 Posts: 185
    Baroness Davidson
    She'll take the money, the title, but not the name. Why not? Because she doesn't want people to remember that she became a baroness for selling SCO a bogey in 2014&for leading us down the path ever since. U turn after u turn&never once in SCO's best interest.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Biden's senior campaign staff are the Obama battleground staff.

    These are not Robby Mook-style idiots.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,284
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,970
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    My point was more that Moore is hystericising out of his butt. I am enjoying righties saying Biden should be listening more to socialist Sanders supporter and strong backer of BLM Michael Moore tho'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
  • Sandpit said:


    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided

    Isn't Moore's argument just a version of the Corbynist "focus on the core vote and driving up turnout among low turnout groups"?

    Clinton suffered both from low turnout among Democrats and Trump hoovering up a very good share of independents. You can't pull off a strategy of trying to rectify both those things, and Sanders argued in the primaries Democrats should target turnout even if it meant losing some independents, whereas Biden said he'd go after the independents even if it meant some Democrats stayed at home. He is doing what he was selected to do in the primaries and said he'd do.

    On balance, while Biden has flaws as a candidate, I think he's pursuing essentially the correct strategy. Yes Rick Snyder is a fairly controversial figure in Michigan and I am sure some people in Flint will be upset. But Snyder won two gubenatorial elections as a Republican in Michigan by appealing to the same independents who Biden is targeting.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
    Given the final RCP average had Clinton 3.6% ahead in Michigan and no other poll had a Trump lead or even a Clinton lead of less than 4% in Michigan (and Fox had Hillary up to 9% ahead days before polling day in the state) Trafalgar Group were still closer than the average to the result, even though Pennsylvania was the state they got spot on

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html
  • I see the degenerate pervert Kyle Walker has been sent off.

    He's brought more shame on England.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579
    edited September 5

    Sandpit said:


    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided

    Isn't Moore's argument just a version of the Corbynist "focus on the core vote and driving up turnout among low turnout groups"?

    Clinton suffered both from low turnout among Democrats and Trump hoovering up a very good share of independents. You can't pull off a strategy of trying to rectify both those things, and Sanders argued in the primaries Democrats should target turnout even if it meant losing some independents, whereas Biden said he'd go after the independents even if it meant some Democrats stayed at home. He is doing what he was selected to do in the primaries and said he'd do.

    On balance, while Biden has flaws as a candidate, I think he's pursuing essentially the correct strategy. Yes Rick Snyder is a fairly controversial figure in Michigan and I am sure some people in Flint will be upset. But Snyder won two gubenatorial elections as a Republican in Michigan by appealing to the same independents who Biden is targeting.
    My concern is that the Dems think “polls give us an 11% lead in Michigan, we don’t need to campaign or spend any money there ‘cos it’s in the bag”, which is exactly the same mistake they made four years ago.
  • Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,001
    edited September 5
    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 84,159
    edited September 5
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:


    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided

    Isn't Moore's argument just a version of the Corbynist "focus on the core vote and driving up turnout among low turnout groups"?

    Clinton suffered both from low turnout among Democrats and Trump hoovering up a very good share of independents. You can't pull off a strategy of trying to rectify both those things, and Sanders argued in the primaries Democrats should target turnout even if it meant losing some independents, whereas Biden said he'd go after the independents even if it meant some Democrats stayed at home. He is doing what he was selected to do in the primaries and said he'd do.

    On balance, while Biden has flaws as a candidate, I think he's pursuing essentially the correct strategy. Yes Rick Snyder is a fairly controversial figure in Michigan and I am sure some people in Flint will be upset. But Snyder won two gubenatorial elections as a Republican in Michigan by appealing to the same independents who Biden is targeting.
    My concern is that the Dems think “polls give us an 11% lead in Michigan, we don’t need to campaign or spend any money there ‘cos it’s in the bag”, which is exactly the same mistake they made four years ago.
    I know someone who is working for Biden's campaign.

    Says they are anything but complacent.

    The entire DNC has been burned by 2016, plus and I mean PLUS, they aren't making any of Hillary's campaigning mistakes.

    If the polls show Biden losing/slipping in key states, they won't hide it, they'll be out there campaigning.

    Also, they are working by Michael Corleone's maxim on your enemies.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke

    See also Franck Ribery and Karim Benzema
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,970
    I believe there was a bit of Q branding floating about amongst this lot. More than one virus stinking out the place..

  • tlg86 said:

    Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke

    See also Franck Ribery and Karim Benzema
    Didn't they deny that/the charges were dropped?

    Toure and Walker admitted their lack of moral hygiene.
  • I see the degenerate pervert Kyle Walker has been sent off.

    He's brought more shame on England.

    I didn't think England were playing today. Is he a batsman or a bowler?

    😉
  • I believe there was a bit of Q branding floating about amongst this lot. More than one virus stinking out the place..

    A friend of mine is a social media manager for a pretty large newspaper.

    She says the comments on Facebook/Twitter under their pages is littered with people with the 'Q' as their profile pics spamming the comments with #SaveOurChildren
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    tlg86 said:

    Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke

    See also Franck Ribery and Karim Benzema
    Didn't they deny that/the charges were dropped?

    Toure and Walker admitted their lack of moral hygiene.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20111119-football-ribery-prostitute-minor-case-benzema-france-paris-justice
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke

    See also Franck Ribery and Karim Benzema
    Didn't they deny that/the charges were dropped?

    Toure and Walker admitted their lack of moral hygiene.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20111119-football-ribery-prostitute-minor-case-benzema-france-paris-justice
    Blimey.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    edited September 5

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Crikey, what is is it about Manchester City that turns footballers into degenerates?

    The former Manchester City player Yaya Touré has been dropped from playing in Unicef’s annual charity football match after reportedly posting a pornographic video in a WhatsApp group with other players and offering to hire sex workers for them.

    Touré will no longer take part in the event after complaints were made about messages he sent to a group with fellow players in the children’s charity event. He reportedly posted a video showing a naked woman in a bath and offered to hire 19 sex workers for his teammates.

    Sources told the Sun, which first reported the news, that a string of complaints were made about Touré to Soccer Aid, Unicef’s annual charity football game between former stars, and he faced criticism at a hotel on Friday morning during a breakfast with other players before the game on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/05/yaya-toure-dropped-from-charity-match-after-inappropriate-joke

    See also Franck Ribery and Karim Benzema
    Didn't they deny that/the charges were dropped?

    Toure and Walker admitted their lack of moral hygiene.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20111119-football-ribery-prostitute-minor-case-benzema-france-paris-justice
    Blimey.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/franck-ribery-sex-scandal-teenage-217910

    Hardly a surprise that the French 2010 World Cup campaign was a bit of a disaster!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    But Moore has a media profile. So he wants to very loudly warn that Biden will lose and be proved right. If it happens he'll look such a sage and so in touch with the plebs. Sorry, with the white working class of America. That's his game.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    Good to see Daniel Levy wants to do the right thing when it comes to getting fans back to football...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/05/tottenham-working-plans-open-4000-seats-highest-paying-fans/
  • Harsh penalty.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579
    edited September 5

    I believe there was a bit of Q branding floating about amongst this lot. More than one virus stinking out the place..

    A friend of mine is a social media manager for a pretty large newspaper.

    She says the comments on Facebook/Twitter under their pages is littered with people with the 'Q' as their profile pics spamming the comments with #SaveOurChildren
    Facebook in particular seem to be seriously worried, that an inconclusive election result on the night is going to result in a lot of extremist groups using their site to organise and incite violence.
    https://politics.slashdot.org/story/20/09/04/1754206/zuckerberg-warns-of-post-election-violence

    (and that no matter who wins in the end, there will be cross-party support for taking Facebook down a peg or two. That’s what really keeps Zuckerberg up at night).
  • I believe there was a bit of Q branding floating about amongst this lot. More than one virus stinking out the place..

    A friend of mine is a social media manager for a pretty large newspaper.

    She says the comments on Facebook/Twitter under their pages is littered with people with the 'Q' as their profile pics spamming the comments with #SaveOurChildren
    Biden had the right response about Q yesterday.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 84,159
    edited September 5
    tlg86 said:

    Good to see Daniel Levy wants to do the right thing when it comes to getting fans back to football...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/05/tottenham-working-plans-open-4000-seats-highest-paying-fans/

    As someone who is a part of the prawn sandwich brigade I'm expecting that to happen at a lot of clubs.

    Who are you going to want to see if you've got limited capacity, the plebs who pay £40 a ticket/season ticket holder, or those of us who pay north of £300 a match?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678

    "My main bet is now laying Trump which covers me if something happened to Biden and Kamala Harris became the flag-carrier."

    There's also the possibility that something might happen to Trump. (E.g. either on the current military story or something else, what if he insists and insists that he didn't do something, asks "what kind of animal would do that?" etc. - as he has done with this story - and then a tape or clip appears that proves unambiguously that he did do it? A Republican who isn't Trump might still run away with this. Mike Pence is at 390. The others are all at 1000.

    I don't think there's time to put another Republican on the ticket. Don't forget candidates have already been filed in pretty much all states, and early voting has even begun.

    The only scenario I could see that is even "possible" is for Trump to step down due to medical issues (or a truly horrendous scandal) and Pence to ascend to the Presidency.
  • Harsh penalty.

    And again.
  • Harsh penalty.

    Are they using VAR?
  • Harsh penalty.

    Are they using VAR?
    Nope, the lack of VAR denied England an early goal.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    tlg86 said:

    Good to see Daniel Levy wants to do the right thing when it comes to getting fans back to football...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/05/tottenham-working-plans-open-4000-seats-highest-paying-fans/

    As someone who is a part of the prawn sandwich brigade I'm expecting that to happen a lot of clubs.

    Who are you going to want to see if you've got limited capacity, the plebs who pay £40 a ticket/season ticket holder, or those of us who pay north of £300 a match?
    You mean you don't stand on the Kop?

    Arsenal are doing the right thing, although they are insisting that season ticket holders pay a down payment on their 2020-21 season ticket to get access to the ballot (I'm not bothering with it as I don't think it will be much fun).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
    Yes. You tell him.

    So, not to divert, but on PT the scores on the doors for our Moderates Panel (which you insisted on) opining on whether Labour 2015 was a moderate offering is 4-1 for Yes.

    Should we call that now as Yes? Or do you want to wait for another 7 opinions from other moderates to get the full 12?

    (ps: forgot lady g and nick p as non-moderates).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 40,726
    edited September 5
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
    Yes. You tell him.

    So, not to divert, but on PT the scores on the doors for our Moderates Panel (which you insisted on) opining on whether Labour 2015 was a moderate offering is 4-1 for Yes.

    Should we call that now as Yes? Or do you want to wait for another 7 opinions from other moderates to get the full 12?

    (ps: forgot lady g and nick p as non-moderates).
    I never insisted upon a panel nor did I agree to 12.

    If you want a panel you need to have it be impartial: anyone who voted for it would have to recuse themselves.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    I would imagine the entire Biden campaign is utterly scarred by 2016.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,968
    Sandpit said:

    I believe there was a bit of Q branding floating about amongst this lot. More than one virus stinking out the place..

    A friend of mine is a social media manager for a pretty large newspaper.

    She says the comments on Facebook/Twitter under their pages is littered with people with the 'Q' as their profile pics spamming the comments with #SaveOurChildren
    Facebook in particular seem to be seriously worried, that an inconclusive election result on the night is going to result in a lot of extremist groups using their site to organise and incite violence.
    https://politics.slashdot.org/story/20/09/04/1754206/zuckerberg-warns-of-post-election-violence

    (and that no matter who wins in the end, there will be cross-party support for taking Facebook down a peg or two. That’s what really keeps Zuckerberg up at night).
    But late for them to worry now about the negative potential of their business. It's not like they wouldn't have been warned.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good to see Daniel Levy wants to do the right thing when it comes to getting fans back to football...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/05/tottenham-working-plans-open-4000-seats-highest-paying-fans/

    As someone who is a part of the prawn sandwich brigade I'm expecting that to happen a lot of clubs.

    Who are you going to want to see if you've got limited capacity, the plebs who pay £40 a ticket/season ticket holder, or those of us who pay north of £300 a match?
    You mean you don't stand on the Kop?

    Arsenal are doing the right thing, although they are insisting that season ticket holders pay a down payment on their 2020-21 season ticket to get access to the ballot (I'm not bothering with it as I don't think it will be much fun).
    The only time I've ever sat/stood in the Kop was during an England match in 2002.

    Normally I'm in the Main Stand, occasionally I used to get tickets in the Centenary Stand which is now the Sir Kenny Dalglish Stand.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    Sure.

    But if we're going on "who was closest to the actual result" in 2016, then it wasn't Trafalgar (who were about seventh - and overstated Trump in all the battleground states, even if they got the result correct), it was:

    - Bloomberg
    - USC
    - IBD/TIPP

    These three had Clinton national PV leads in 1-2% lead, against the 2% achieved.

    Bloomberg has the race as 52-42
    USC has it as 51-42
    and
    IBD/TIPP has it as 49-41

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,357
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brussels-accused-of-derailing-talks-by-seeking-uk-law-veto-97nkts8xg

    A good rundown of why the UK and EU don't agree on the LPF. As I've said many, many times - it's not state aid that's causing the issue, as it's written the EU could use it to veto (by ECJ arbitration) any regulation or law they believe undercuts them.

    The government will never agree to it and I'm 100% sure that we will no deal if the EU insists on this kind of LPF mechanism. No sovereign nation could ever agree to it, we may as well hand over budgetary and regulatory powers to Brussels if it is included. If the Tory party agrees to have it under pressure then they're going to get voted out and a new government will get in and rescind the trade agreement and go to no deal.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    I would imagine the entire Biden campaign is utterly scarred by 2016.
    My main mistake in 2016 was assuming that the 08/12 Obama team was involved in a significant way.

    They were not, really, really not. They used an entirely different data team. Clinton was determined to win 'her' way.

    This time I have been vastly more inquisitive as to who is running the campaign.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    HYUFD said:
    Trying to get back to generic statements and off of the specifics. First smart thing Trump has done in days now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    Sure.

    But if we're going on "who was closest to the actual result" in 2016, then it wasn't Trafalgar (who were about seventh - and overstated Trump in all the battleground states, even if they got the result correct), it was:

    - Bloomberg
    - USC
    - IBD/TIPP

    These three had Clinton national PV leads in 1-2% lead, against the 2% achieved.

    Bloomberg has the race as 52-42
    USC has it as 51-42
    and
    IBD/TIPP has it as 49-41

    US elections are determined by the electoral college and votes in battleground states, the popular vote is a moral victory but otherwise irrelevant to determining the President.

    So Trafalgar were closest to the EC margin and therefore the winner.

    Plus Rasmussen had a 2% Clinton lead in 2016 and now have a 4% Biden lead even on the popular vote
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    Part of the Clinton's campaign idiocy was paying attention to public polling. The Obama campaign paid little heed to public polls and only used their internal polling to drive decisions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,357
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    Part of the Clinton's campaign idiocy was paying attention to public polling. The Obama campaign paid little heed to public polls and only used their internal polling to drive decisions.
    Yes, and a lot of focus groups with swing voters in swing states. As always elections based on any FPTP is about winning a small percentage of voters in key districts and areas.

    Clinton seemed to think a large national polling lead would be enough. I think Biden will now do just about enough because of the veterans issue, but it's still going to be tight in swing states.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    I would imagine the entire Biden campaign is utterly scarred by 2016.
    Just like Tories in 2019 after 2017.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988, the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:
    Trying to get back to generic statements and off of the specifics. First smart thing Trump has done in days now.
    Comes over as desperate to me. Whinging like a baby. Scrabbling around for new nicknames.

    It reeks of Loser. It reeks of somebody who pretty much knows the game is up.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    It’s up to the Democrat strategists, but if I was them I wouldn’t be looking at polls like the one above with smug complacency - that’s what did for Hilary last time. I’d be putting massive efforts into places like Michigan.
    I would imagine the entire Biden campaign is utterly scarred by 2016.
    Just like Tories in 2019 after 2017.
    Survation were closest in 2017 and by 2019 had a big Tory lead in their final poll of over 10%.

    Trafalgar were closest in 2016 but still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988, the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
    Or it just has a pro-GOP house effect which led it to be right in 2016 on a state (but not national) level, but wrong in 2018.

    If you're going to argue that what they've done is develop a methodology that is more sensitive to what is really going on, ignoring 2018 polls is just dumb.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988
    , the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
    Citation needed. Your are acting like the Dems has a 50 pt lead in those states prior to 2016.

    And you still haven't explained why Trump was such a mega draw when the GOP congressional candidates outperformed him in 2016.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
    Yes. You tell him.

    So, not to divert, but on PT the scores on the doors for our Moderates Panel (which you insisted on) opining on whether Labour 2015 was a moderate offering is 4-1 for Yes.

    Should we call that now as Yes? Or do you want to wait for another 7 opinions from other moderates to get the full 12?

    (ps: forgot lady g and nick p as non-moderates).
    I never insisted upon a panel nor did I agree to 12.

    If you want a panel you need to have it be impartial: anyone who voted for it would have to recuse themselves.
    Ok, so we should call it. Sensible decision. All are sick and tired of it.

    Labour's 2015 offering WAS - per an independent panel of PB Moderates - moderate.

    Back to Biden vs the ghastly Trump ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5
    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    Hillary won the popular vote anyway and she also would have seemed to win the EC comfortably too if you read every pollster bar Trafalgar
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,403
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    They also overestimated Trump by 2% in Michigan though, though that is within margin of error at least unlike Florida and no other pollster did well in Michigan.

    Pennsylvania was the one result they got right.
    Yes. You tell him.

    So, not to divert, but on PT the scores on the doors for our Moderates Panel (which you insisted on) opining on whether Labour 2015 was a moderate offering is 4-1 for Yes.

    Should we call that now as Yes? Or do you want to wait for another 7 opinions from other moderates to get the full 12?

    (ps: forgot lady g and nick p as non-moderates).
    I never insisted upon a panel nor did I agree to 12.

    If you want a panel you need to have it be impartial: anyone who voted for it would have to recuse themselves.
    Ok, so we should call it. Sensible decision. All are sick and tired of it.

    Labour's 2015 offering WAS - per an independent panel of PB Moderates - moderate.

    Back to Biden vs the ghastly Trump ...
    A bit Trumpian to call the result when only 40% of the votes have been counted, no?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    Yup. And I also called the Con landslide. So that's the smarties, me and you, and we say TOAST. :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988
    , the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
    Citation needed. Your are acting like the Dems has a 50 pt lead in those states prior to 2016.

    And you still haven't explained why Trump was such a mega draw when the GOP congressional candidates outperformed him in 2016.
    No citation needed, Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan since the 1980s. He also got the highest number of votes for any Republican candidate in Pennsylvania since 1988.

    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    Hillary won the popular vote anyway and she also would have seemed to win the EC comfortably too if you read every pollster bar Trafalgar
    Yes. They were.

    But at a certain national polling lead, it requires heroic levels of vote dis-correlation for Biden not to win.

    I think that level is somewhere between three and four percent.

    If the national polls remain where they are, Biden will walk it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    edited September 5
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988
    , the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
    Citation needed. Your are acting like the Dems has a 50 pt lead in those states prior to 2016.

    And you still haven't explained why Trump was such a mega draw when the GOP congressional candidates outperformed him in 2016.
    No citation needed, Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan since the 1980s. He also got the highest number of votes for any Republican candidate in Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988.

    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot
    Trump got 1 or 2 percentage points more than Romney in those states. This wasn't some mass movement.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,351
    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    I didn't think it would be close last December either. The writing was on the wall the night the ComRes poll only Johnson of the Conservative leadership candidates winning an overall majority and pulling the bulk of the Brexit Party vote to the Conservatives.

    Had Hunt or Javid prevailed rather than Johnson, Farage and the Brexit Party would have continued polling strongly in the high teens/low twenties making a GE impossible for the Conservatives - indeed, the question would have been whether there would have been defections from the Conservatives to the Brexit party.

    As for this year's Presidential election, the Democrats in 2020 are going to be like Labour in 1997 and it may be that in concentrating on the marginal states they might miss winning more unlikely targets but I'm doubtful.

    The question for me is the point at which the Trump vote will begin to realise the game is up and melt away leading to a bigger Biden win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:
    Those running the Dem campaign really need to start paying attention to people like Michael Moore. He was right in 2016, and he’s still right in 2020.

    He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided
    Listen to Mikey!





    5th Sep.
    Michigan: Biden 52%, Trump 41%
    Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
    Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
    Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
    We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.

    In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).

    That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.

    Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
    All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.

    Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
    No completely irrelevant.

    You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988
    , the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).

    They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
    Citation needed. Your are acting like the Dems has a 50 pt lead in those states prior to 2016.

    And you still haven't explained why Trump was such a mega draw when the GOP congressional candidates outperformed him in 2016.
    No citation needed, Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan since the 1980s. He also got the highest number of votes for any Republican candidate in Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988.

    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot
    Trump got 1 or 2 percentage points more than Romney in those states. This wasn't some mass movement.
    And as I posted at the beginning of this thread he is holding almost all those voters and even making a slight net gain from Biden in terms of 2016 Hillary voters.

    Biden is only ahead due to 2016 third party voters switching to him but they can switch back
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,380
    I'm not sure quite why John Maccain has been canonised in the way he appears to have been. I did not wish the man ill, but warm and fuzzy he was not.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372
    HYUFD said:



    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot

    Trump wasn't on the ballot in 2018! They can't perform worse than someone not in the ballot.

    Your arguement makes no sense. Trump was massively popular in 2016, so popular that more people voted for GOP congressional candidates than voted for Trump.

    That doesn't make sense.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,380

    Baroness Davidson
    She'll take the money, the title, but not the name. Why not? Because she doesn't want people to remember that she became a baroness for selling SCO a bogey in 2014&for leading us down the path ever since. U turn after u turn&never once in SCO's best interest.

    Did you get banned Malc? Nice choice of number - 22 is my favourite!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    rcs1000 said:

    "My main bet is now laying Trump which covers me if something happened to Biden and Kamala Harris became the flag-carrier."

    There's also the possibility that something might happen to Trump. (E.g. either on the current military story or something else, what if he insists and insists that he didn't do something, asks "what kind of animal would do that?" etc. - as he has done with this story - and then a tape or clip appears that proves unambiguously that he did do it? A Republican who isn't Trump might still run away with this. Mike Pence is at 390. The others are all at 1000.

    I don't think there's time to put another Republican on the ticket. Don't forget candidates have already been filed in pretty much all states, and early voting has even begun.

    The only scenario I could see that is even "possible" is for Trump to step down due to medical issues (or a truly horrendous scandal) and Pence to ascend to the Presidency.
    What if they switched to another Trump though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    I didn't think it would be close last December either. The writing was on the wall the night the ComRes poll only Johnson of the Conservative leadership candidates winning an overall majority and pulling the bulk of the Brexit Party vote to the Conservatives.

    Had Hunt or Javid prevailed rather than Johnson, Farage and the Brexit Party would have continued polling strongly in the high teens/low twenties making a GE impossible for the Conservatives - indeed, the question would have been whether there would have been defections from the Conservatives to the Brexit party.

    As for this year's Presidential election, the Democrats in 2020 are going to be like Labour in 1997 and it may be that in concentrating on the marginal states they might miss winning more unlikely targets but I'm doubtful.

    The question for me is the point at which the Trump vote will begin to realise the game is up and melt away leading to a bigger Biden win.
    Yet in 2019 Survation were showing a big Tory lead in their final poll unlike their neck and neck final 2017 poll.

    Trafalgar Group were the only pollster who correctly predicted the EC win for Trump in 2016 and their 2020 state polls are still showing a Trump EC win
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
    But it’s possible to flip ten heads in a row.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:



    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot

    Trump wasn't on the ballot in 2018! They can't perform worse than someone not in the ballot.

    Your arguement makes no sense. Trump was massively popular in 2016, so popular that more people voted for GOP congressional candidates than voted for Trump.

    That doesn't make sense.
    They voted for Trump then down ballot for the GOP though with little enthusiasm while the GOP congressional candidates also got the traditional GOP vote a few of whom voted for Hillary or Johnson for president, in 2018 without as many Trump voters the traditional GOP vote was not enough and they did worse than Trump in 2016
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
    But it’s possible to flip ten heads in a row.

    Yes, and it requires you to be either very patient or very lucky.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,357
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
    But it’s possible to flip ten heads in a row.

    Yes, and it requires you to be either very patient or very lucky.
    Isn't that the Corbyn electoral strategy? They almost were in 2017.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,659
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
    But it’s possible to flip ten heads in a row.

    Yes, and it requires you to be either very patient or very lucky.
    It took him around 10 hours if I recall correctly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In 2019, I was rubbished for saying I didn't think it would be close, and that the Tories would win a big majority.

    Based on current polls (and they may of course change between now and November 3rd), I would say the same about the US Presidential election.

    If the polls given Biden a seven point lead the night before, it's not going to be 270-268 or anything like that, it's going to be at a 100 vote Electoral College margin.

    Current forecast (with the proviso that polls change) big Biden win.

    I didn't think it would be close last December either. The writing was on the wall the night the ComRes poll only Johnson of the Conservative leadership candidates winning an overall majority and pulling the bulk of the Brexit Party vote to the Conservatives.

    Had Hunt or Javid prevailed rather than Johnson, Farage and the Brexit Party would have continued polling strongly in the high teens/low twenties making a GE impossible for the Conservatives - indeed, the question would have been whether there would have been defections from the Conservatives to the Brexit party.

    As for this year's Presidential election, the Democrats in 2020 are going to be like Labour in 1997 and it may be that in concentrating on the marginal states they might miss winning more unlikely targets but I'm doubtful.

    The question for me is the point at which the Trump vote will begin to realise the game is up and melt away leading to a bigger Biden win.
    Yet in 2019 Survation were showing a big Tory lead in their final poll unlike their neck and neck final 2017 poll.

    Trafalgar Group were the only pollster who correctly predicted the EC win for Trump in 2016 and their 2020 state polls are still showing a Trump EC win
    Trafalgar have Biden picking up Pennsylvania but otherwise unchanged from 2016 in their latest polling
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,659

    I'm not sure quite why John Maccain has been canonised in the way he appears to have been. I did not wish the man ill, but warm and fuzzy he was not.

    It's the comparison - war hero McCain vs draft dodger Trump.
  • HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:



    GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot

    Trump wasn't on the ballot in 2018! They can't perform worse than someone not in the ballot.

    Your arguement makes no sense. Trump was massively popular in 2016, so popular that more people voted for GOP congressional candidates than voted for Trump.

    That doesn't make sense.
    They voted for Trump then down ballot for the GOP though with little enthusiasm while the GOP also got the traditional GOP vote a few of whom voted for Hillary, in 2018 without as many Trump voters the traditional GOP vote was not enough and they did worse than Trump in 2016
    Alistair's point, which you haven't answered, is that Republicans won the popular vote in the House elections in 2016 by 1.1% at the same time Trump was losing by 2.1%.

    So there were more people passing on Trump but voting GOP in other contests on the ballot than the other way around.

    Your point that turnout was lower in 2018 is utterly facile - it always is in midterm elections, not just when Trump is the President.

    Given your liking for cherry picking, here's one for you. More people in Wisconsin voted for Romney in his defeat in 2012 than Trump in his great triumph in 2016. It doesn't really mean all that much - but it illustrates Clinton was poor at driving turnout in an important state, and that Trump wasn't quite engaging a whole new electorate in the way you assert.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,380

    I'm not sure quite why John Maccain has been canonised in the way he appears to have been. I did not wish the man ill, but warm and fuzzy he was not.

    It's the comparison - war hero McCain vs draft dodger Trump.
    I believe there's some controversy surrounding Mccain's war record.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,351
    HYUFD said:


    Yet in 2019 Survation were showing a big Tory lead in their final poll unlike their neck and neck final 2017 poll.

    Trafalgar Group were the only pollster who correctly predicted the EC win for Trump in 2016 and their 2020 state polls are still showing a Trump EC win

    The whole essence of your argument seems to be because Trafalgar got aspects of the election right in 2016 they are going to get it right in 2020.

    Maybe - they don't publish their crosstabs so we don't know about their sampling and methodology. As has also been pointed out, not everybody views Trafalgar (and presumably Rasmussen) as favourably and Trafalgar's record isn't uniformly strong. As has been noted, they have a curious tendency for overstating the Republican vote (well, there's a thing).

    The other factor is the much diminished number of undecided voters compared to this stage in 2016. Most people have mostly decided as witnessed by another pollster giving a Trump lead in a marginal State:

    https://surveyresearch-ecu.reportablenews.com/pr/ecu-poll-of-likely-voters-in-north-carolina-trump-leads-biden-by-two-points-tillis-and-cunningham-tied-cooper-leads-forest-by-ten-points-other-statewide-races-competitive

    As for last December, I'd argue Opinium were better than Survation and Mori not that bad. In the last 2-3 days every pollster bar Panelbase had an 11-13 % Conservative lead so the pollsters basically got it right.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 5

    I'm not sure quite why John Maccain has been canonised in the way he appears to have been. I did not wish the man ill, but warm and fuzzy he was not.

    It's the comparison - war hero McCain vs draft dodger Trump.
    John McCain was a decent man like Bob Dole or John Kerry, all war heroes but all election losers unlike the more charismatic draft dodgers Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Donald Trump.

    Biden's Vietnam record also looks a bit dodgy
    https://www.insidesources.com/joe-bidens-draft-record-looks-a-lot-like-donald-trumps-do-democrats-care/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,579

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.

    Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.

    There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).

    In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
    In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:

    1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?

    Answer: obviously yes

    2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?

    Answer: probably yes

    The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.

    Let's turn it around:

    1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?

    Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.

    2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?

    Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.

    To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.

    If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.

    But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
    I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.

    It is depressingly plausible
    Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.

    But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
    But it’s possible to flip ten heads in a row.

    Yes, and it requires you to be either very patient or very lucky.
    It took him around 10 hours if I recall correctly.
    Yes, the trick is that you’re watching the last minute of more than nine and a half hours of tape. It had never been recorded before, and Derren Brown is the sort of madman who would sit in a studio tossing a coin into a bowl for a whole damn day!
This discussion has been closed.