Trump Biden Polls

73,593 Views | 810 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Civilized
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cthepack said:

You said Trump wins 1 out of every 6 similar elections. That is not the case. If election 1 to 5 happens and Trump has not won the way you put it he would win election number 6. That is not true. Each election trump has a 1 in 6 chance of winning. He does not win 1 out of every 6, he has a 1 in 6 chance to win each similar election.

"One out of every six" is a figure of speech meaning 16%, not a literal indication that I think every six-election sample set breaks down 5 for Biden and 1 for Trump.

I figured maybe me saying "if you run the race a million times" I'd made it clear I was referring to a sufficiently large sample.
SupplyChainPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sierrawolf said:

I think there's a lot of Trump voters who choose to withhold that information from pollsters and social media. These days it seems like you are automatically a racist, homophobe, etc. if you even have the slightest conservative leanings.


Yep. They throw the "racist" accusation around slot. But they really ramp it up during election years. This year, they've reached a fevered pitch.
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Cthepack said:

You said Trump wins 1 out of every 6 similar elections. That is not the case. If election 1 to 5 happens and Trump has not won the way you put it he would win election number 6. That is not true. Each election trump has a 1 in 6 chance of winning. He does not win 1 out of every 6, he has a 1 in 6 chance to win each similar election.

"One out of every six" is a figure of speech meaning 16%, not a literal indication that I think every six-election sample set breaks down 5 for Biden and 1 for Trump.

I figured maybe me saying "if you run the race a million times" I'd made it clear I was referring to a sufficiently large sample.
Has nothing to do with sample size. One out of every six is just wrong. Per your numbers Trump has a 1 in 6 chance to win the election. He will have a 1 in 6 chance to win each "similar election" It does not mean he will win 1 out of every 6 similar elections. You brought up the percentages of HC having a 30% chance to lose in 2016. That does not mean she will lose 3 out of 10 similar elections. It means she has a 30% chance to lose each similar election.
Mormad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll never forget in '16 when my lib buddy who's in politics tried to teach all of us on FB how the EC worked and showed how Trump could NEVER win. I chuckled when he won. Now my buddy SWEARS there is "a tsunami coming." I guess we'll see. I think he and his ilk are doing Trump's job for him. The way i see it, if our Chancellor wanted to get us all fired up about NC State and mobilize us, he could do an ok job at getting the most ardent fans' support by campaigning. But, let the tar holes call us dumb farmers that couldn't get in unc, and we'll ALL get behind our school and join the fray.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mormad said:

I'll never forget in '16 when my lib buddy who's in politics tried to teach all of us on FB how the EC worked and showed how Trump could NEVER win. I chuckled when he won. Now my buddy SWEARS there is "a tsunami coming." I guess we'll see. I think he and his ilk are doing Trump's job for him. The way i see it, if our Chancellor wanted to get us all fired up about NC State and mobilize us, he could do an ok job at getting the most ardent fans' support by campaigning. But, let the tar holes call us dumb farmers that couldn't get in unc, and we'll ALL get behind our school and join the fray.


Hahaha! Well put!
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here they are talking about re-educating Trump supporters and arresting Trump supporters. ACB has done nothing but be nominated for the Supreme Court by Trump and this is what is said.

Democrats need to clean their house before the reckoning comes.

Mormad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blowhard spawn of Satan making my point for me. Perfect. Example.
Mormad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, and I'll never forget him congratulating me on "having a thought." Sht, I've never seen such lemming to the sea buzz word using complete horse sht no thought having idiocy as I've seen lately. It is almost as ironic as the self proclaimed tolerance. I mean, does a single person really think that drivel from olbermann was that of a thinking man??? I'm a conservative who wishes it were anybody but Trump, but come on, man!
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cthepack said:

Civilized said:

Cthepack said:

You said Trump wins 1 out of every 6 similar elections. That is not the case. If election 1 to 5 happens and Trump has not won the way you put it he would win election number 6. That is not true. Each election trump has a 1 in 6 chance of winning. He does not win 1 out of every 6, he has a 1 in 6 chance to win each similar election.

"One out of every six" is a figure of speech meaning 16%, not a literal indication that I think every six-election sample set breaks down 5 for Biden and 1 for Trump.

I figured maybe me saying "if you run the race a million times" I'd made it clear I was referring to a sufficiently large sample.
Has nothing to do with sample size. One out of every six is just wrong. Per your numbers Trump has a 1 in 6 chance to win the election. He will have a 1 in 6 chance to win each "similar election" It does not mean he will win 1 out of every 6 similar elections. You brought up the percentages of HC having a 30% chance to lose in 2016. That does not mean she will lose 3 out of 10 similar elections. It means she has a 30% chance to lose each similar election.

If you give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters, what is the probability that one of them will type out the Declaration of Independence?
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Cthepack said:

Civilized said:

Cthepack said:

You said Trump wins 1 out of every 6 similar elections. That is not the case. If election 1 to 5 happens and Trump has not won the way you put it he would win election number 6. That is not true. Each election trump has a 1 in 6 chance of winning. He does not win 1 out of every 6, he has a 1 in 6 chance to win each similar election.

"One out of every six" is a figure of speech meaning 16%, not a literal indication that I think every six-election sample set breaks down 5 for Biden and 1 for Trump.

I figured maybe me saying "if you run the race a million times" I'd made it clear I was referring to a sufficiently large sample.
Has nothing to do with sample size. One out of every six is just wrong. Per your numbers Trump has a 1 in 6 chance to win the election. He will have a 1 in 6 chance to win each "similar election" It does not mean he will win 1 out of every 6 similar elections. You brought up the percentages of HC having a 30% chance to lose in 2016. That does not mean she will lose 3 out of 10 similar elections. It means she has a 30% chance to lose each similar election.

If you give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters, what is the probability that one of them will type out the Declaration of Independence?
I do hope you did not get a technical degree from NC State.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Answer the question smart guy.
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Answer the question smart guy.
I answered it at a level the question deserved to be answered.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cthepack said:

Civilized said:

Answer the question smart guy.
I answered it at a level the question deserved to be answered.

I don't even know what that means, what you're arguing, or why you're being a pedant about this.

We all know that if there's a 50% probability of a coin flip landing on heads, and the first flip is heads, there isn't a 100% certainty the next flip lands tails.

But if you flip a coin a million times, the coin will land on heads and tails in a proportion that approaches 50% each. If you flip the coin infinite times it will be exactly 50/50.

If you make a predictive model, you run the simulation tens or hundreds of thousands of times. That model exercise for this election currently indicates that Biden wins 84% of the those simulations and Trump wins 16% of them.

So if you run a million simulations, how many will Trump win?

Steve Williams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Could be wrong but it seems like I remember last go around, the media said it looked like such a certainty that Hillary would win that a lot of folks (dems) didn't even bother to go vote. So, why would they go down the same path again (for those that say the polls are being spun)? Wouldn't it be more in their interest to spin it that it's really, really close?
Ripper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Cthepack said:

Civilized said:

Answer the question smart guy.
I answered it at a level the question deserved to be answered.

I don't even know what that means, what you're arguing, or why you're being a pedant about this.

We all know that if there's a 50% probability of a coin flip landing on heads, and the first flip is heads, there isn't a 100% certainty the next flip lands tails.

But if you flip a coin a million times, the coin will land on heads and tails in a proportion that approaches 50% each. If you flip the coin infinite times it will be exactly 50/50.

If you make a predictive model, you run the simulation tens or hundreds of thousands of times. That model exercise for this election currently indicates that Biden wins 84% of the those simulations and Trump wins 16% of them.

So if you run a million simulations, how many will Trump win?


Bogus inputs into the model makes the probabilities/results inaccurate.
Ripper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Williams said:

Could be wrong but it seems like I remember last go around, the media said it looked like such a certainty that Hillary would win that a lot of folks (dems) didn't even bother to go vote. So, why would they go down the same path again (for those that say the polls are being spun)? Wouldn't it be more in their interest to spin it that it's really, really close?
They believe suppression polls are the way to go.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sure, trash in, trash out.

But what inputs are bogus?

How do you know they're bogus?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ripper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Sure, trash in, trash out.

But what inputs are bogus?

How do you know they're bogus?
Many polls are not representative of the larger population. Over sampling of Democrats. Fudging the Republican sampling. Using registered voters vs likely voters. Questions that are leading. The media and the political/government industry leans left and are corrupt (media related pollsters).

If Biden has huge leads in the battleground states in the last week or days prior to the election, I'll believe it. The pollsters usually play it more straight in the final days of an election. What I mean is they sample a truer representation of the voting public in their final polls before the election.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Williams said:

Could be wrong but it seems like I remember last go around, the media said it looked like such a certainty that Hillary would win that a lot of folks (dems) didn't even bother to go vote. So, why would they go down the same path again (for those that say the polls are being spun)? Wouldn't it be more in their interest to spin it that it's really, really close?


In the 2018 election there were 138,847,000 folks who went out and votes, in 2012 there were 129,235,000 folks who went out and voted.

55.5% of folks who were eligible to vote turned out to vote. In 2012 only 54.9% of people who were eligible voted. There have only been 2 times since 1968 that the eligible voter turnout percentage was higher that it was the last election cycle.

It wouldn't surprise me to see it at about the same as last time, but I don't think you gonna pull 57-58% of eligible voters out.

From a voting standpoint there are only about 7-8 states that matter at all. For instance there are 21 million registered voters in California. If every single one of those 21 million come out and vote it really doesn't mean a hill of beans outside of the 55 electoral college votes that california has. I don't look at the national polls and I don't pay attention to any poll that comes from a state that isn't a swing state. What's the use? It doesn't matter how high the turnout is in those states, it's still the same amount of electoral college votes.
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Williams said:

Could be wrong but it seems like I remember last go around, the media said it looked like such a certainty that Hillary would win that a lot of folks (dems) didn't even bother to go vote. So, why would they go down the same path again (for those that say the polls are being spun)? Wouldn't it be more in their interest to spin it that it's really, really close?
I agree and I just don't see Trump having enough support this time around to pull off the victory.

I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him just to try and keep Harris out but just don't think the numbers are there for him barring some huge October surprise.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DrummerboyWolf said:

bigeric said:

If we have any Constitutional scholars on here, will one kindly point me to the relevant part that
1. conveys a right to not have your feelings hurt, and/or
2. requires likeability to be part of the President's job description.
That is the new 28th amendment that the Democrats will illegally pass if they get into power. It's all part of their "Utopian Plan!
Democrats will never try and pass an amendment to the constitution. They don't need to as the rag is outdated and get this: the constitution is unconstitutional!

Actually, they will need 75% of the States to ratify an amendment. That's not in their favor.
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

DrummerboyWolf said:

bigeric said:

If we have any Constitutional scholars on here, will one kindly point me to the relevant part that
1. conveys a right to not have your feelings hurt, and/or
2. requires likeability to be part of the President's job description.
That is the new 28th amendment that the Democrats will illegally pass if they get into power. It's all part of their "Utopian Plan!
Democrats will never try and pass an amendment to the constitution. They don't need to as the rag is outdated and get this: the constitution is unconstitutional!

Actually, they will need 75% of the States to ratify an amendment. That's not in their favor.
This is what I dont get about the "abolish the electoral college" crowd. Even for smaller blue/purple states (Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, etc.) are ever going to agree to give up their say? You would have to get 38 states to agree to that. Itll never happen
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FlossyDFlynt said:

caryking said:

DrummerboyWolf said:

bigeric said:

If we have any Constitutional scholars on here, will one kindly point me to the relevant part that
1. conveys a right to not have your feelings hurt, and/or
2. requires likeability to be part of the President's job description.
That is the new 28th amendment that the Democrats will illegally pass if they get into power. It's all part of their "Utopian Plan!
Democrats will never try and pass an amendment to the constitution. They don't need to as the rag is outdated and get this: the constitution is unconstitutional!

Actually, they will need 75% of the States to ratify an amendment. That's not in their favor.
This is what I dont get about the "abolish the electoral college" crowd. Even for smaller blue/purple states (Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, etc.) are ever going to agree to give up their say? You would have to get 38 states to agree to that. Itll never happen
It astounds me the amount of people who are willing to vote against their own self interest...

Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ripper said:

Civilized said:

Sure, trash in, trash out.

But what inputs are bogus?

How do you know they're bogus?
Many polls are not representative of the larger population. Over sampling of Democrats. Fudging the Republican sampling. Using registered voters vs likely voters. Questions that are leading. The media and the political/government industry leans left and are corrupt (media related pollsters).

If Biden has huge leads in the battleground states in the last week or days prior to the election, I'll believe it. The pollsters usually play it more straight in the final days of an election. What I mean is they sample a truer representation of the voting public in their final polls before the election.

You're making up causes for a problem that doesn't exist because you don't like what the polls are telling you about Trump's chances, and because it fits your crooked MSM narrative.

Poll averages have no consistent partisan bias.

Democrats were convinced of the same with W back in '04, and they were wrong then too. Most years the actual election result is within 2% of the polling average, and the partisan bias (whether the poll average was left or right of the actual result) is roughly equal over time, as expected.

This sort of thing is calculable, you know. If you want to prove your alleged point, go back over time and compare poll average prognostications to actual outcomes.

I'll save you the time and trouble though, they definitely don't show what you're hoping they do.
Mormad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Times are so different now. And we're changing at an exponential rate. Hard to compare this election and these polls to any previous and expect it to follow old trends. It may do so, but i won't be surprised if it doesn't. Weird times.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mormad said:

Times are so different now. And we're changing at an exponential rate. Hard to compare this election and these polls to any previous and expect it to follow old trends. It may do so, but i won't be surprised if it doesn't. Weird times.

This sounds a lot like the electoral equivalent of "Kids these days!!"
Mormad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. It is exactly that!
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Ripper said:

Civilized said:

Sure, trash in, trash out.

But what inputs are bogus?

How do you know they're bogus?
Many polls are not representative of the larger population. Over sampling of Democrats. Fudging the Republican sampling. Using registered voters vs likely voters. Questions that are leading. The media and the political/government industry leans left and are corrupt (media related pollsters).

If Biden has huge leads in the battleground states in the last week or days prior to the election, I'll believe it. The pollsters usually play it more straight in the final days of an election. What I mean is they sample a truer representation of the voting public in their final polls before the election.

You're making up causes for a problem that doesn't exist because you don't like what the polls are telling you about Trump's chances, and because it fits your crooked MSM narrative.

Poll averages have no consistent partisan bias.

Democrats were convinced of the same with W back in '04, and they were wrong then too. Most years the actual election result is within 2% of the polling average, and the partisan bias (whether the poll average was left or right of the actual result) is roughly equal over time, as expected.

This sort of thing is calculable, you know. If you want to prove your alleged point, go back over time and compare poll average prognostications to actual outcomes.

I'll save you the time and trouble though, they definitely don't show what you're hoping they do.



Yeah polls are rated by the aggregators with all of this criteria. Polls that have poor sampling or leading questions have lower ratings and have less effect on the model. National polls have very little weight compared to state specific polls.

Models were significantly updated after 2016 as well. The 2020 model for 538 run against 2016 data shows a much more even race.

The other thing about these models is they all want to be right so they can make more money the next cycle. Overrepresenting Democrat support doesn't help them make money. Yes Nate Silver is a liberal, but he's also a super need statistician who wants his model to be as accurate as possible

SupplyChainPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That sounds just like the argument, "nobody would ever cheat with their vote because it's such a serious crime".

Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep. People respond to incentives and disincentives.

Pollsters would be eating sweet fruit from a poisonous tree if they forsook their professional reputation and future potential business to help prop up a particular candidate due to their personal bias.

Unlike the media, pollsters get paid to be accurate not partisan. Those incentives are reversed (unhealthily) for the MSM.

Most importantly, it's unclear how exactly propping up a particular candidate helps anyone, including the candidate. Like Steve or somebody said earlier, propping someone up could actually have the opposite effect of giving voters false security their candidate was comfortably ahead which would have a cooling effect on voter turnout.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SupplyChainPack said:

That sounds just like the argument, "nobody would ever cheat with their vote because it's such a serious crime".

The argument with crime and punishment is never "nobody would ever" commit a crime due to the associated punishment if caught.

It's to appropriately disincentivize certain behaviors so that their frequency is reduced below a tolerable threshold.

Somebody, somewhere is going to break whatever law you make no matter what the punishment is.
SupplyChainPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?




packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SupplyChainPack said:








Impossible. 538 tells us Biden is leading in Arizona.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/arizona/
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The polls showing Biden "winning by double digits" are COMPLETELY FAKE. Just like they were in 2016, when the phony communist Establishment media "polls" were saying that Hillary would win in a landslide. The "polls" put out by the far Left Establishment media are PROPAGANDA meant to sway voters, and demoralize the right-wing.

Real polling and real metrics (people at rallies, etc) show that Trump will win. Read this excellent article:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/wayne-root-fake-poll-alert-proof-biden-not-winning/

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.