Poll showing Trump up 10 points over Biden for 2024 election criticized

[Social Media]

 

 

A Washington Post-ABC poll showed results that diverge from most other surveys, and even the pollers made a caveat

 

A new Washington Post-ABC poll showing Joe Biden trailing his presidential predecessor Donald Trump by 10 percentage points was excoriated by leading political pollster Larry Sabato.

Noting that the pollsters themselves cautioned that their survey was an outlier, Sabato – the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia – called the decision to release it “ridiculous”.

 

“Ignore the Washington Post–ABC poll,” Sabato wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “How could you even publish a poll so absurd on its face? Will be a lingering embarrassment for you.” He added: “Just plain embarrassing – for them.”

 

The New York Times’ chief political analyst Nate Cohn also criticized the poll that said Trump was ahead of Biden in the 2024 White House race.

Referring to a Post-ABC poll in May that found Trump was up seven percentage points on Biden, which was similarly inconsistent with most polling, Cohn wrote on X: “It’s really really hard to release outlying poll results, so you’ve got to give credit to ABC/Post here, but I do have a fairly major quibble with ABC/Post here: if you release consecutive ‘outlying’ poll results … you don’t get to dismiss your results.

“If it happens twice in a row in the same race, it’s clear that this is the result of some element of your approach, and you either need to decide you’re good with it and defend it or you need to go home.”

 

FULL STORY

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Deez]

Better print a few million more "Mail In" ballots

[Presnock]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

 

A Washington Post-ABC poll showed results that diverge from most other surveys, and even the pollers made a caveat

 

A new Washington Post-ABC poll showing Joe Biden trailing his presidential predecessor Donald Trump by 10 percentage points was excoriated by leading political pollster Larry Sabato.

Noting that the pollsters themselves cautioned that their survey was an outlier, Sabato – the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia – called the decision to release it “ridiculous”.

 

“Ignore the Washington Post–ABC poll,” Sabato wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “How could you even publish a poll so absurd on its face? Will be a lingering embarrassment for you.” He added: “Just plain embarrassing – for them.”

 

The New York Times’ chief political analyst Nate Cohn also criticized the poll that said Trump was ahead of Biden in the 2024 White House race.

Referring to a Post-ABC poll in May that found Trump was up seven percentage points on Biden, which was similarly inconsistent with most polling, Cohn wrote on X: “It’s really really hard to release outlying poll results, so you’ve got to give credit to ABC/Post here, but I do have a fairly major quibble with ABC/Post here: if you release consecutive ‘outlying’ poll results … you don’t get to dismiss your results.

“If it happens twice in a row in the same race, it’s clear that this is the result of some element of your approach, and you either need to decide you’re good with it and defend it or you need to go home.”

 

FULL STORY

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Yeah, most of the polls that I have read always amaze me that they get such a response from readers in that most polls done by valid reporters actually give the reader the number of people interviewed and the numbers are about a thousand to 1500 people and they write about a national election? of hundreds of millions of people.  For their polls, the reporter just has to go to a local district where the preponderance of voters are of the same candidate/party so that the results are definitely skewed and can be skewed in any way that the reporter can get an "exclusive" report!.  My experience and just look at what Trump did in 2020, he thought he would win by a landslide due to "polling" but then, it seems many people from his own party were not choosing between Trump and Hillary this time so they opted for the lesser of two "evils" in my opinion only of course.  But Trump had alluded to this happening long before the election even took place as he obviously knew too many of his party didn't think he was qualified to be the prez for an additional 4 years.  My opinion too of course and one can just ignore it or agree.

 

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Yeah, most of the polls that I have read always amaze me that they get such a response from readers in that most polls done by valid reporters actually give the reader the number of people interviewed and the numbers are about a thousand to 1500 people and they write about a national election? of hundreds of millions of people.  For their polls, the reporter just has to go to a local district where the preponderance of voters are of the same candidate/party so that the results are definitely skewed and can be skewed in any way that the reporter can get an "exclusive" report!.  My experience and just look at what Trump did in 2020, he thought he would win by a landslide due to "polling" but then, it seems many people from his own party were not choosing between Trump and Hillary this time so they opted for the lesser of two "evils" in my opinion only of course.  But Trump had alluded to this happening long before the election even took place as he obviously knew too many of his party didn't think he was qualified to be the prez for an additional 4 years.  My opinion too of course and one can just ignore it or agree.

 

There can be variations between different polls, as the margin of error (to make it simple) is usually 5%. However, the current trend if or the average of all polls is that Trump is currently around 1% above Biden.

https://www.racetothewh.com/president/polls

[Scott Tracy]

We really take notice of polling data? Does it really affect the way people vote? 

 

2 scenarios: Candidate 1 is 20 points ahead, so voters don't need to vote. Candidate 1 will win without our votes....

candidate 1 is ahead by 20 points. Us voting for candidate 2 will make no difference....

 

Polling. Good grief.

 

 

 

[candide]

41 minutes ago, Deez said:

Better print a few million more "Mail In" ballots

Better drink the blood of a few kids in the basement of a pizzeria which has no basement, in order to get young again!

[HappyExpat57]

Yeah, and the polls had Hilldog beating 45 before he became 45 by about 90%. So much for polls.

[Purdey]

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Deez said:

Better print a few million more "Mail In" ballots

The Republicans plan to encourage their voters to use mail in ballots in 2024. 

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Presnock said:

Yeah, most of the polls that I have read always amaze me that they get such a response from readers in that most polls done by valid reporters actually give the reader the number of people interviewed and the numbers are about a thousand to 1500 people and they write about a national election? of hundreds of millions of people.  For their polls, the reporter just has to go to a local district where the preponderance of voters are of the same candidate/party so that the results are definitely skewed and can be skewed in any way that the reporter can get an "exclusive" report!.  My experience and just look at what Trump did in 2020, he thought he would win by a landslide due to "polling" but then, it seems many people from his own party were not choosing between Trump and Hillary this time so they opted for the lesser of two "evils" in my opinion only of course.  But Trump had alluded to this happening long before the election even took place as he obviously knew too many of his party didn't think he was qualified to be the prez for an additional 4 years.  My opinion too of course and one can just ignore it or agree.

 

Polling doesn't work that way.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

Correct.

The POTUS election is not determined by popular vote, unlike State and Local elections. Do ehat's your point?

Unless a State prorates electoral votes between candidates based on popular vote (and some States do), it's winner takes all based on a simple majority vote. Landslide State votes for POTUS beyond say 51% for a candidate are essentially wasted.

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, Deez said:

Better print a few million more "Mail In" ballots

I will be using a mail in ballot. Problem with my vote?

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college given today's tech and the ability to count votes on the day.  Used to be, it took weeks to gather up the votes and pony express them where they needed to be...

 

But you play the game according to the rules.  Same with football.  If touchdowns were only worth 2 points and an extra point kick was worth 7 points, teams would change the way they play.  Good teams with good coaching would still win.

 

If the popular vote count was decisive, campaigns would be run very differently.  Good candidates with good strategy will still win.

 

[travelerjim]

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

She lost the Electoral College vote... Which elects the President 

[Tug]

Wayyy to early in the race,it’s an outlier,trump is in serious legal jeopardy,he may well be in prison before Election Day,he’s obviously a fraud and the majority of Americans have more sense.

[Isaan sailor]

Better naturalise those millions of illegals now,  And no wonder they want the most recent arrivals to remain in Texas.

[Tropposurfer]

If, if there's any numerical truth in this poll, then just how much more messed up could a nation be than to consider a madman like Trump as a viable steward of the nation? 

[Tropposurfer]

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

Yeah what a total laughingstock the American electoral/voting system is.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Tropposurfer

[Tropposurfer]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Correct.

The POTUS election is not determined by popular vote, unlike State and Local elections. Do ehat's your point?

Unless a State prorates electoral votes between candidates based on popular vote (and some States do), it's winner takes all based on a simple majority vote. Landslide State votes for POTUS beyond say 51% for a candidate are essentially wasted.

Not too bad a synopsis of why the American electoral system is a primer example of the antithesis of democracy in action ... total joke.

[newnative]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The Republicans plan to encourage their voters to use mail in ballots in 2024. 

Darn!  I was hoping they would be breathtakingly stupid once again!

[Cardinalblue1958]

Biden will pull a Truman..

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Not too bad a synopsis of why the American electoral system is a primer example of the antithesis of democracy in action ... total joke.

"Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true." History.com , "Why was the Electoral College Created?"

 

The Convention delegates "thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power."

 

The nation obviously moved in a different direction over time through what I would blame in part to fascist corporate domination of the US political system and unrestrained social media. America's democratic political success over time has been its failure.

 

[impulse]

15 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

We really take notice of polling data? Does it really affect the way people vote? 

It does affect where donor money is aimed.  In that regard, it does affect the vote, though not directly.

 

[impulse]

14 hours ago, Purdey said:

I remember that Hillary had 3 million more votes than the Orange One, but that didn't count.

Just saw a video from last week, Hillary still claiming she won the 2016 election.  Russian collusion and all...  

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by impulse

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Just saw a video from last week, Hillary still claiming she won the 2016 election.  Russian collusion and all...  

 

Got a link to that? 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

[Hanaguma]

13 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Yeah what a total laughingstock the American electoral/voting system is.

Really? There are a number of countries in which winning the popular vote (either a majority or plurality) is no guarantee of becoming the government.  Canada 2021- the Conservatives got more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals had a plurality of seats in Parliament and formed a government. Same in 2019. 

[Purdey]

17 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Correct.

The POTUS election is not determined by popular vote, unlike State and Local elections. Do ehat's your point?

Unless a State prorates electoral votes between candidates based on popular vote (and some States do), it's winner takes all based on a simple majority vote. Landslide State votes for POTUS beyond say 51% for a candidate are essentially wasted.

My point was that the voters are disenfranchised in that they can elect Hilary with a majority of votes but their votes count for nothing.

You may have read about the rampant gerrymandering taking place which is often meant to ensure colored, poor people and even Democrats cannot win a majority in the state. With one man one vote, redistricting would have no effect on the result. 

The majority vote part is still rigged against the majority of people. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Purdey

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Really? There are a number of countries in which winning the popular vote (either a majority or plurality) is no guarantee of becoming the government.  Canada 2021- the Conservatives got more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals had a plurality of seats in Parliament and formed a government. Same in 2019. 

Then it will be an unfair election that do not properly represent the voices of the citizens like in USA. To Canada credit, Trudeau promised to reform the election system. Any chance the GOP will go along with constitutional reform of the electoral college system? 

[impulse]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got a link to that? 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

Fox News.  Look it up.

I'm not going to give the link because I relish the thought of you having to wallow around in the Fox mud.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by impulse

[impulse]

18 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

I will be using a mail in ballot. Problem with my vote?

Living overseas has always been a legitimate reason to get a mail-in ballot.  Being dead, living at the address of a vacant field, and being in a nursing home unable to even open your eyes or respond to a voice, hasn't.   Until recently.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by impulse