Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

Carfacemandog

RIGOLO wrote: »

So now their latest claim is that the unqualified Presidents children are doing cocaine and getting corrupt patents in China whilst his father sways US Foreign Policy and cheats on his wife with prostitutes, as well as selling access to himself and his office to foreign businesspeople to sway that same foreign policy, and then they claim its irrelevant.

Edited to reflect your satirical levels of hypocrisy and how blatantly transparent it is that you're well aware of that.

The indisputable fact is you don't care even remotely about any of this as an ethical concern, not one tiny bit, and simply want to push your agenda, stir the pot and ultimately, garner some attention for yourself.

You're not fooling anyone, at this point likely not even yourself.

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I'm disappointed in the 13% for Trump.

You really don't know Irish people then.
That poll is so fake, if it was true Trump would have somewhere between 25-30% sadly.

Brian?

biko wrote: »

Biden's rallies are different, the attendees can all fit in one bus.
They says it's for covid, is it though?
Could Biden fill a stadium?

Give over. Biden doesn't hold rallies. He has some events with donors, like any responsible adult would in a pandemic.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

You do realise the polls were wrong in 2016? how did that happen I wonder...

They weren't. For the millionth time

Professor Moriarty

Brian? wrote: »

Give over. Biden doesn't hold rallies. He has some events with donors, like any responsible adult would in a pandemic.

Yes but Trump fills stadiums and Biden doesn't. So there.

Brian?

biko wrote: »

What is Biden's limit for attendees?

The number of people the invites is the limit.

He invites only as many people as can maintain strict social distancing at a venue.

Is this hard to accept that someone can be so responsible?

eagle eye

Brian? wrote:

They weren't. For the millionth time

They were wrong.

Cody montana

Dow Jones down 800 points.

namloc1980

Cody montana wrote: »

Dow Jones down 800 points.

Trump always takes credit for the stocks going up but never takes the heat when they go down. Bad timing for Donald.

hometruths

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

jesus not this again. how many times do you need this explained to you?

mcmoustache wrote: »

It has been explained to you multiple times that the polls were within their margins of error in 2016.

Do you really not remember things or is the difference between polling data and probabilistic projections just to complicated for you to understand?

I am fascinated how suddenly the 2016 polls are deemed to have been correct - i.e within the margin of error.

Polls are used to forecast the result. If the polls lead every single expert to forecast a Clinton win, clearly there was something wrong with the polling.

Four years on everybody seems to have forgotten that:

a) pre election nobody was saying hang on, account for the margin of error

and

b) post election nobody was saying in fairness, the polls were accurate, they were within the the margin of error.

The few pollsters/analysts that said Trump might have a chance were dismissed as cranks or biased.

Take a look at what CNN were saying:

How were the polls so wrong?

America witnessed one of the most unexpected outcomes ever in a presidential election with the victory of Donald Trump. Virtually all the polls had forecast a Clinton victory, as did forecasters including Wang...
...Yes, last night's election was totally unexpected news. This failure of polling was the largest in a presidential election year in decades. Donald Trump exceeded his polls against Hillary Clinton by about 4 percentage points.

The pollsters professional body, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, admitted they got it wrong:

The polls clearly got it wrong this time and Donald J. Trump is the projected winner in the Electoral College. Although Clinton may actually win the popular vote, her margin is much lower than the 3 to 4 percent lead the polls indicated. And many of the state polls overestimated the level of support for Clinton.

There is much speculation today about what led to these errors and already the chorus of concerns about a “crisis in polling” have emerged as headlines on news and social media sites. As final results continue to be tabulated it would be inappropriate for us to participate in conjecture.

To criticise somebody's intelligence for stating the polls got it wrong in 2016 is utterly moronic.

I don't get it. What is the problem admitting the polls were rubbish in 2016?

km991148

schmittel wrote: »

Low betting limit? And then some. I was about to lump on and then I read the small print. Not quite what it seems at first glance. i.e the bookies are not stupid enough to offer 50/1 on Trump.

yep - I know that's what I said - its promotional - but still funny :pac:

But even to offer a quid on it is telling..

Free 50 quid there tho surely?

km991148

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/22/politics/donald-trump-testing-slow-down-response/index.html

km991148 wrote: »

Trump fans - without referencing Biden the dems or the economy, can you explain that logic on it's own merits? I mean I don't want to hear that no lockdown is good for the economy or get into that - purely why having no tests during a pandemic is good?

You can test and ignore the problem or open up and accept the death rate or whatever - but NO testing AT ALL? This has got to be a wind up?

There is exactly ONE person in the entire country that policy can benefit.

Anyone?

Kermit.de.frog

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes but Trump fills stadiums and Biden doesn't. So there.

MAGA heads are like "do you know my leader is really strong? Have you seen his rallies? He cries, he cries like a little b!tch..."

That's what they like about him. It's so sad.

yourdeadwright

He's going to pull it off again isn't he,

It's funny because no matter who wins nothing will change for your average American nothing ever does,

duploelabs

yourdeadwright wrote: »

He's going to pull it off again isn't he,

It's funny because no matter who wins nothing will change for your average American nothing ever does,

1. No he's not

2. try saying that to someone of colour or trying to immigrate there

hometruths

km991148 wrote: »

yep - I know that's what I said - its promotional - but still funny :pac:

But even to offer a quid on it is telling..

Free 50 quid there tho surely?

I wouldn't go that far! And even if you did win they pay out in free bets, not 50 quid cash.

If it was a genuine bet at 50/1 I'd happily risk a few hundred quid. Obviously it is not free money but those odds would be too good to resist.

RugbyLad11

duploelabs wrote: »

1. No he's not

2. try saying that to someone of colour or trying to immigrate there

Someone of color?

You does realize the Trump's support from African Americans has grown since 201?

Also he is loved by the lationos in Florida etc

duploelabs

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

Someone of color?

You does realize the Trump's support from African Americans has grown since 201?

Also he is loved by the lationos in Florida etc

Care to furnish some independent sources to verify your claim?

ollkiller

At this stage we need to have a training day on what a margin of error is. It's not hard to fathom btw, but to some here it obviously is. We have have basic arithmetic as well if that helps but if you can't comprehend how a margin of error works then basic arithmetic might be beyond you as well.

timsey tiger

schmittel wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far! And even if you did win they pay out in free bets, not 50 quid cash.

If it was a genuine bet at 50/1 I'd happily risk a few hundred quid. Obviously it is not free money but those odds would be too good to resist.

Only if your prior had trump at better than 50:1. At this stage it is hard to see that, if you are any way informed.

Chris_Heilong

Brian? wrote: »

They weren't. For the millionth time

All the Biden Boys seem to be saying this now so I assum it is all coming from one source, who is the source? From my perspective it said Clinton would win, she did not win so they were wrong. Hopefully there wont be a link to an article doing mental gymnastics to try and excuse this by saying something like well they were almost right so they were not wrong...

gmisk

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

Someone of color?

You does realize the Trump's support from African Americans has grown since 201?

Also he is loved by the lationos in Florida etc

There was one pollster which showed his support has grown among african americans (withing a suspiciously short amount of time) that was all I could find, plus it was from an incredibly low base. Do you have any other links?

Anything to back up the latinos claim? What numbers? He polls well with a certain section of latino men but poorly with women is my understanding

Kermit.de.frog

Trump has had the WH say he ended the Covid 19 pandemic apparently despite the fact of record new cases and surging deaths across the US.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1321465044673138688

As if people don't notice the warnings from their own states. That's the high regard they hold for their voters "they're dumb asses so we're just going make everything up and they'll swallow"

I don't think they will.

Ardillaun

gmisk wrote: »

Anything to back up the latinos claim? What numbers? He polls well with a certain section of latino men but poorly with women is my understanding

Latinos for Trump is a real thing and Dems have dropped the ball here

A portion of the 32 million Latinos eligible to vote in 2020 either come from or have ties to countries with socialist governments. But that isn't the only reason Biden's portrayal as a socialist resonates with some Latino voters.

According to a recent report, critical Latino voters in battleground states Texas, Florida and Arizona, have been the targets of a massive disinformation campaign using tools like Facebook and WhatsApp.

"The fear mongering and the social-labelling has worked," Miami-based Democratic strategist Evelyn Perez-Verdia told Ormiston.

Perez-Verdia, who is Colombian-American, has been helping fight off this disinformation campaign aimed at Latinos, which included a video suggesting a militia march for Trump.

"That's a message to the Latinos — 'these militiamen are helping us against the communists that you see on the streets … You escaped violent countries. Now, if you don't vote for Donald Trump, they're going to come to your house. And they're going to destroy you,'" she explained.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-magazine-for-october-25-2020-1.5774281/to-understand-latino-voters-journalist-recommends-exploring-group-s-checkered-history-with-both-dems-and-gop-1.5774292

duploelabs

Ardillaun wrote: »

Latinos for Trump is a real thing and Dems have dropped the ball here

That's not really backing up a claim, figures/polling/etc?

hometruths

timsey tiger wrote: »

Only if your prior had trump at better than 50:1. At this stage it is hard to see that, if you are any way informed.

I am informing myself a little more each day, and every day my opinion grows stronger that Trumps odds are way better than 50/1.

osarusan

If i remember the recent polls correctly, Trump had support from 30% of Latinos, up from 28% in 2016, and Romney had been at 27% in 2012.

An improvement, but still losing 7 of every 10 votes.

But in some states, especially Florida, which has a lot of Cuban-Americans, it will definitely be higher.

Phoebas

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

Also he is loved by the lationos in Florida etc

Nope. They prefer Biden

Biden holds a narrower lead over Trump (54% vs. 37%) among Latino registered voters in nine “battleground” states – Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Ardillaun

duploelabs wrote: »

That's not really backing up a claim, figures/polling/etc?

I’m not here to boost Trump but some of the figures are good for him:

Mr. Trump’s support has proved resilient in the Sun Belt, bolstered by perhaps the single most surprising demographic trend of the cycle: his gains among nonwhite voters.

In recent national polls, Mr. Biden leads by 42 points among nonwhite voters. That is a lot, but it is about nine points worse than Mrs. Clinton’s lead in the final 2016 surveys.

New York Times/Siena College surveys suggest that the president’s gains are particularly significant among Hispanic voters. Mr. Biden holds only an 84-7 lead among Hispanic voters who said they backed Mrs. Clinton four years ago, compared with a 93-2 lead among Black voters and a 94-3 lead among white voters.

Mr. Biden has lost almost exactly as much ground among nonwhite voters as he has gained among white voters, but because white voters vastly outnumber nonwhite voters in the most important battleground states, the trade-off favors him.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/28/us/trump-biden-election#the-elections-big-twist-the-racial-gap-between-republicans-and-democrats-is-shrinking

Overall, it looks good for Biden. There still are too many unknowns for my liking.

Quin_Dub

osarusan wrote: »

If i remember the recent polls correctly, Trump had support from 30% of Latinos, up from 28% in 2016, and Romney had been at 27% in 2012.

An improvement, but still losing 7 of every 10 votes.

But in some states, especially Florida, which has a lot of Cuban-Americans, it will definitely be higher.

It's the same as his numbers among the Black voters , he has a marginal improvement but still massively underwater with them.

So , yes , his numbers have improved , but not by much and from an appallingly low starting point.

On the flip side , his numbers among older voters , Suburban voters and College Educated Whites have dropped sharply.

The tiny increases in the Latino vote doesn't offset that.

Florida is and always will be very close , the ~5% of the Latino vote that identifies as Cuban are unlikely to be the difference one way or the other.

Every vote counts though.