Biden leads Trump by 12 points nationally among likely voters - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Tie Dye Samurai]

On 9/9/2020 at 10:00 AM, Damual Travesty said:

The African American vote will come out for him, the hispanic vote will come out for him, feeble attempts to cut into his base are just that - feeble.  It's Trump all the way and GOP sweep in both houses. You read it here!

More like when we read it we all laughed at it here...(especially the part about how the Hispanics and African Americans are gonna rally around Trump...*queue The 3 Stooges theme*)

[ChristianBlessing]

On 9/9/2020 at 5:41 AM, Orton Rd said:

12 points lead, about the same as Hillary then ????

On September 10, 2016 the Washington Post-ABC News national polling of likely voters gave Clintona 5% advantage.

[candide]

16 minutes ago, ChristianBlessing said:

On September 10, 2016 the Washington Post-ABC News national polling of likely voters gave Clintona 5% advantage.

Right! She ended up with only a 2% advantage at the election (3% less than expected).

Let's assume the same happens with Biden. 12%-3%=9% advantage. ????

[TopDeadSenter]

29 minutes ago, ChristianBlessing said:

On September 10, 2016 the Washington Post-ABC News national polling of likely voters gave Clintona 5% advantage.

Interesting. In October of the same year the Washington Post claimed "Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero". Which is how most of us here will remember the MSM narrative and total failure of polls and newsreaders to gauge the public sentiment with any accuracy. Nothing has been learned in the last 4 years I see, as these Biden polls are just as flawed IMO.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Interesting. In October of the same year the Washington Post claimed "Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero". Which is how most of us here will remember the MSM narrative and total failure of polls and newsreaders to gauge the public sentiment with any accuracy. Nothing has been learned in the last 4 years I see, as these Biden polls are just as flawed IMO.

The October rating possibly was correct if not for Comey's letter in late October. Don't forget Clinton still received three million more votes than trump.

 

The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[forehandplus]

18 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Interesting. In October of the same year the Washington Post claimed "Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero". Which is how most of us here will remember the MSM narrative and total failure of polls and newsreaders to gauge the public sentiment with any accuracy. Nothing has been learned in the last 4 years I see, as these Biden polls are just as flawed IMO.

The Washington Post claimed no such thing. It was the judgement of a shared opinion column in the Washington Post.  And that column appeared before James Comey announced the resumption of the Clinton investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-chances-of-winning-are-approaching-zero/

[Damual Travesty]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It is not "very likely". It is a view pushed by Trump supporters, based on nothing much.

While not a fan of Harris (and the same goes for Biden), I still think she would be a better choice than Trump, or for that matter, Pence.

May I politely ask why? Which policy of initiatives foreign or domestic do you support from this pair?

[Damual Travesty]

1 hour ago, forehandplus said:

The Washington Post claimed no such thing. It was the judgement of a shared opinion column in the Washington Post.  And that column appeared before James Comey announced the resumption of the Clinton investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-chances-of-winning-are-approaching-zero/

I think it's fair to say the Washington post selects the opinion pieces they post.

[polpott]

Just now, Damual Travesty said:

I think it's fair to say the Washington post selects the opinion pieces they post.

Unlike the New York Post of course. 

[Damual Travesty]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

The October rating possibly was correct if not for Comey's letter in late October. Don't forget Clinton still received three million more votes than trump.

 

The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Someone else's opinions are not facts even if they do come with a link that creates an illusion of importance.

[Damual Travesty]

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

Unlike the New York Post of course. 

Your comment makes the point that a Newspapers perhaps are not unbiased. I would agree. Does this rebut my original argument of bias being reflected in chosen opinion pieces? No it does not.

[Damual Travesty]

2 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

More like when we read it we all laughed at it here...(especially the part about how the Hispanics and African Americans are gonna rally around Trump...*queue The 3 Stooges theme*)

We can revisit this comment after the election.

[Damual Travesty]

2 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

I swear I could hear the theme to The 3 Stooges as I read this total piece of Fox News dictated excrement. Fix your remote control dude and find the other 1000 channels on your satellite dish. 

What I write is not excrement. You should be banned for saying that. No one dictates my opinions to me either. I do not have Fox news on any of my channel unfortunately.  Again you should be banned for describing another posters words as excrement.

[polpott]

9 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

We can revisit this comment after the election.

I doubt that you'll show your face on this forum after the election. 12 points and counting.

[Damual Travesty]

18 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

The misogyny of many of the posts from Donald's supporters is palpable and quite telling.

 

As to be expected...

As a Conservative who supports Donald Trump I think that being a woman should not be a qualification for being Vice President or President. I think that a qualified woman should hold that job on every qualification OTHER then her sex. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind as a leader who held her position for every reason OTHER then being a woman. For a man to say he is going to pick only a woman as his running mate, based primarily on the qualification of her being a woman, is in my mind no greater example of misogyny.  How condescending is that to women? I mean really? To announce in advance "I will only pick a woman" as if a woman cannot qualify without such an announcement being made?

[Damual Travesty]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

I doubt that you'll show your face on this forum after the election. 12 points and counting.

If you say so, but I am not putting much credence in any polls. I don't trust the pollsters and I don't trust the people who are responding. I think could be a lot of lying going on about who people are voting for - party affiliation - issues etc.  Hard to factor lying in a poll.

[polpott]

5 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

As a Conservative who supports Donald Trump I think that being a woman should not be a qualification for being Vice President or President. I think that a qualified woman should hold that job on every qualification OTHER then her sex. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind as a leader who held her position for every reason OTHER then being a woman. For a man to say he is going to pick only a woman as his running mate, based primarily on the qualification of her being a woman, is in my mind no greater example of misogyny.  How condescending is that to women? I mean really? To announce in advance "I will only pick a woman" as if a woman cannot qualify without such an announcement being made?

I only pick women too. What does that make me? Kamala Harris No:1 totty. Who wouldn't pick her? I suppose you'd prefer Pete Buttigieg. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by polpott

[Damual Travesty]

2 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

More like when we read it we all laughed at it here...(especially the part about how the Hispanics and African Americans are gonna rally around Trump...*queue The 3 Stooges theme*)

Well I think its really hard to quantify this. I would not trust any polls on the matter, even polls that seem to show that Donald J Trump is gaining significantly amongst Hispanics and Black voters, but I do see far more conservative voices on TV and especially on YouTube then I have ever seen before. I get a substantial portion of my conservative analysis from them. This is a fact and not imaginary. How much they are having an effect on other black Americans and Hispanics remains to be seen. I would be surprised, however, if there is no gain at all. Enough to seal a win? Hard to say. There are also black conservatives running for office in greater numbers.  Go ahead queue the 3 stooges theme for the third time in your response.  I love them.

[Damual Travesty]

13 minutes ago, polpott said:

I only pick women too. What does that make me? Kamala Harris No:1 totty. Who wouldn't pick her? I suppose you'd prefer Pete Buttigieg. 

I am not sure what point you are making here. We were talking about perceived misogyny showing up in the replies posted by Trump supporters.  As for your only picking women, it seems you have turned this toward sexuality as opposed to gender as in male or female as a candidate for President or Vice President. Then you bring up Pete Buttigieg evidently to make a claim that for some reason I must be inclined to either like homosexuals over women for VP, or that perhaps I am a homosexual for not preferring women as a candidate? You are a bit hard to follow.

 

To bring you back on point, I simply made a claim that a woman should qualify for high office based on all of their qualifications that do not include their gender. Wouldn't you find this to be a rather benign point not even worthy of rebuttal?

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Damual Travesty
clarity

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I am not sure what point you are making here. We were talking about perceived misogyny showing up the replies posted by Trump supporters.  As for your only picking women, it seems you have turned this toward sexuality as opposed to gender as in male or female as a candidate for President or Vice President. Then you bring up Pete Buttigieg evidently to make a claim that for some reason I must be inclined to either like homosexuals over women for VP, or that perhaps I am a homosexual for not preferring women as a candidate? You are a bit hard to follow.

 

To bring you back on point, I simply made a claim that a woman should qualify for high office based on all of their qualifications that do not include their gender. Wouldn't you find this to be a rather benign point not even worthy of rebuttal?

 

 

Could you imagine the uproar and backlash had joe said publicly that he was only interested in a man for running mate. But somehow it's OK to only seek a female for running mate. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 

[forehandplus]

24 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

If you say so, but I am not putting much credence in any polls. I don't trust the pollsters and I don't trust the people who are responding. I think could be a lot of lying going on about who people are voting for - party affiliation - issues etc.  Hard to factor lying in a poll.

There's a huge amount of evidence about the accuracy of polling. The problem is that people tend to focus on who won or who lost. The germane consideration is how accurate the poll was. Which is a better poll: One that predicts a victory for a candidate by 15 points and she only wins by 2 or one that predicts her losing by 2 and she wins by 2. In fact, aggregates of polling by fivethirty eight have proved to be remarkably accurate.

[forehandplus]

53 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I think it's fair to say the Washington Post selects the opinion pieces they post.

I know it's obviously false to say that the Washington post selects the opinion pieces they post. 

Here are the titles of some pieces from Marc Thiessen a regular columnist:

If Trump lied, so did Fauci

Trump spent the first night of his convention making his appeal to Black voters. It was an outstanding start.

Kamala Harris a moderate? Not even close. Welcome to the leftist Trojan horse operation.

Here's more from him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/marc-a-thiessen/

The post hosts several other regular conservative columnists as well.

[polpott]

5 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

There's a huge amount of evidence about the accuracy of polling. The problem is that people tend to focus on who won or who lost. The germane consideration is how accurate the poll was. Which is a better poll: One that predicts a victory for a candidate by 15 points and she only wins by 2 or one that predicts her losing by 2 and she wins by 2. In fact, aggregates of polling by fivethirty eight have proved to be remarkably accurate.

The best polls are the ones that agree with you.

[Berkshire]

30 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

If you say so, but I am not putting much credence in any polls. I don't trust the pollsters and I don't trust the people who are responding. I think could be a lot of lying going on about who people are voting for - party affiliation - issues etc.  Hard to factor lying in a poll.

Ok, let's forget the polls for a second and look at reality.  Election reality.  Do you remember the 2018 midterms?  That was an early referendum on Trump.  What happened?  The Republicans got demolished.  The Dems won back the House and by a wide margin.  So what has happened since 2018? 

 

Well we've got the COVID and Trump's bungling of that.  The economy in tatters.  Millions unemployed.  Budget deficit at record highs.  Thousands of dead people.  Then there's the racial divisions and protest in the streets.  Has Trump helped to calm that down?  Big chunks of the military turning against him.  Republican defections right and left.  And then there are the books.  Woodward, Cohen...heck, Trump's own niece!  Positive revelations?  Ummm, no.   

 

But Biden won't have a cakewalk.  Trump has some built-in advantages.  First is the power of the incumbency.  Trump will use his Presidency in unprecedented ways to try and rig the election.  He's got the right wing media in his back pocket.  And of course, the Russians will return to help with the misinformation.  So yes, the polls may not see that.  But if the polls are always wrong, Trump wouldn't be sweating bullets and in full desperation mode. 

[Damual Travesty]

20 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

There's a huge amount of evidence about the accuracy of polling. The problem is that people tend to focus on who won or who lost. The germane consideration is how accurate the poll was. Which is a better poll: One that predicts a victory for a candidate by 15 points and she only wins by 2 or one that predicts her losing by 2 and she wins by 2. In fact, aggregates of polling by fivethirty eight have proved to be remarkably accurate.

Please explain to me how lying of respondents is measured? And if polls were accurate we would not need to vote. The perception of pollsters in the eyes of the public (from unbiased impartial observers to biased political affiliates) has changed in an era which is marked by extreme polarity.

[Mama Noodle]

It’ll be interesting if Trump wins again. Pollsters (and the people who tout them) are gonna have to come to terms with the fact that maybe, just maybe, they’re doing something wrong. 

[Damual Travesty]

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Ok, let's forget the polls for a second and look at reality.  Election reality.  Do you remember the 2018 midterms?  That was an early referendum on Trump.  What happened?  The Republicans got demolished.  The Dems won back the House and by a wide margin.  So what has happened since 2018? 

 

Well we've got the COVID and Trump's bungling of that.  The economy in tatters.  Millions unemployed.  Budget deficit at record highs.  Thousands of dead people.  Then there's the racial divisions and protest in the streets.  Has Trump helped to calm that down?  Big chunks of the military turning against him.  Republican defections right and left.  And then there are the books.  Woodward, Cohen...heck, Trump's own niece!  Positive revelations?  Ummm, no.   

 

But Biden won't have a cakewalk.  Trump has some built-in advantages.  First is the power of the incumbency.  Trump will use his Presidency in unprecedented ways to try and rig the election.  He's got the right wing media in his back pocket.  And of course, the Russians will return to help with the misinformation.  So yes, the polls may not see that.  But if the polls are always wrong, Trump wouldn't be sweating bullets and in full desperation mode. 

My original point, again, I don't put much credence in polls - one way or the other - at best they are a snapshot of a moment in time - prone to rapidly change - at worst - they are no longer accurate at all due to public simply not telling the truth when questioned. Something which is not easily measured. I will wait until after the election to find out who wins.

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Damual Travesty said:

Please explain to me how lying of respondents is measured?

Same way as lying of presidents is measured. Trump is ahead by a mile.

[forehandplus]

4 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

IF the post does not select the opinion posts of their paper. Tell me who does?

So by your logic, Marc Thiessen, a vociferous supporter of Trump, also speaks for the Washington Post. As does Henry Olsen, George Will, etc.

To most of us, it's obvious that if you want to find out where the Washington Post stands on the issues, you read their editorials.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Interesting. In October of the same year the Washington Post claimed "Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero". Which is how most of us here will remember the MSM narrative and total failure of polls and newsreaders to gauge the public sentiment with any accuracy. Nothing has been learned in the last 4 years I see, as these Biden polls are just as flawed IMO.

 

You do not speak for "most of us". At best, you speak for a segment of Trump supporters, itself being a minority. There was no "total failure" of polls, but rather a failure to analyze or to convey the meaning of results. That you do not understand how polls works, what they can or cannot predict and under which conditions does not mean the polls failed.