7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Warren had her DNA test in 2012.She apologised around three months after her test results were released in 2019 for causing any angst, hardly a federal crime such as trump who has lied and cheated countless times- as I said a storm in a tea cup, like nearly all BS stirred by trump , then amplified to the nth degree by MAGA. For those interested factcheck info..

Yes, and the MSM doesn't amplify and try to sensationalise every little thing trump says into something its not. The Taylor swift thread is a prime example.

At the end of the day Warren tried to use it for political gain, no, she dodmt benefit because Trump called her out, it a bit like Kamala using Indian or black when it suits votes

4 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Ted sounds illiterate 

 

When you can’t win the debate you can always resort to plan B.   Which is engaging in Ad hominem attacks. 

Just now, luckymitchell said:

Yes, and the MSM doesn't amplify and try to sensationalise every little thing trump says into something its not. The Taylor swift thread is a prime example.

At the end of the day Warren tried to use it for political gain, no, she dodmt benefit because Trump called her out, it a bit like Kamala using Indian or black when it suits votes

I don’t watch any of those CNN , Msmbc , Twitter , they are all voting Trump , look how much money they make off Division 

5 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Ted sounds illiterate 

Most Trumpets seem to be that way.

 

IIRC there was a study published that said the average IQ of Trump supporters was 3 or 4 points below the national average.

1 minute ago, TedG said:

 

When you can’t win the debate you can always resort to plan B.   Which is engaging in Ad hominem attacks. 

You sound butt hurt, Dude it’s going to be a Bad year and next 12 years at least  , if your party  doesn’t stop disrespecting Woman 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

When you can’t win the debate you can always resort to plan B.   Which is engaging in Ad hominem attacks. 

Personal attacks is all they have. They got nothing else.

Just now, Lacessit said:

Most Trumpets seem to be that way.

 

IIRC there was a study published that said the average IQ of Trump supporters was 3 or 4 points below the national average.

 

Link to the study? 

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Most Trumpets seem to be that way.

 

IIRC there was a study published that said the average IQ of Trump supporters was 3 or 4 points below the national average.

Only 3 or 4 points?

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Most Trumpets seem to be that way.

 

IIRC there was a study published that said the average IQ of Trump supporters was 3 or 4 points below the national average.

Well Trump switched parties because of it , The Cult is easy to be lead by a Fool

, I mean how many times did he repeat that remark 

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

You sound butt hurt, Dude it’s going to be a Bad year and next 12 years at least  , if your party  doesn’t stop disrespecting Woman 

 

FFS, if the Dems control the government, it's going to be a bad year for everyone involved.   We just had to deal with JoeFlation.    

8 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Link to the study? 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081

 

GOP people score higher (as you would expect)

 

 

1 minute ago, rudi49jr said:

Only 3 or 4 points?

As they drag the national average down with their scores, it may actually be 6-8.

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081

 

GOP people score higher

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/politiqs/

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

Personal attacks is all they have. They got nothing else.

We have Facts , we don’t react to a Raging Cult Leader , you should really think of denouncing your Citizenship , I don’t see you enjoying you political party for next 24 years .  

Just now, Lacessit said:

As they drag the national average down with their scores, it may actually be 6-8.

 

Let's see if you can produce a high-IQ post.   

1 minute ago, TedG said:

 

 

 

 

As you would expect. 

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

We have Facts , we don’t react to a Raging Cult Leader , you should really think of denouncing your Citizenship , I don’t see you enjoying you political party for next 24 years .  

You make up your own facts. 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

 

FFS, if the Dems control the government, it's going to be a bad year for everyone involved.   We just had to deal with JoeFlation.    

You don’t blame Putin and Trump , Stopping Bi Partisanship Bill  on The Wall , Trump is the enabler 

Just now, TedG said:

 

Let's see if you can produce a high-IQ post.   

You have posted one liners all day are you Delusional 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

You make up your own facts. 

Like I said you have added nothing to the conversation 

Just now, TedG said:

You make up your own facts. 

They can't talk inflation or unemployment. So it is "cult" nonsense.

 

 

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

You have posted one liners all day are you Delusional 

 

How do your posts differ? 

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

Like I said you have added nothing to the conversation 

 

You know I'm getting the best out of you. 

5 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Personal attacks is all they have. They got nothing else.

I think you'll find Trump is the gold medalist for personal attacks. His handlers are trying to get him to policy, but he returns to ad hominem like a dog returning to its vomit.

2 minutes ago, maesariang said:

As you would expect. 

I can type too , where your source 

Just now, TedG said:

 

You know I'm getting the best out of you. 

I fear you have trouble spelling Ted 5555, I’m debating a monkey 

Just now, Lacessit said:

I think you'll find Trump is the gold medalist for personal attacks. His handlers are trying to get him to policy, but he returns to ad hominem like a dog returning to its vomit.

The Dems spent 3 days attacking Trump. They have no good policies.

8 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

 

 

 

Clueless if you believe this 

23 minutes ago, maesariang said:

The Dems spent 3 days attacking Trump. They have no good policies.

3 days 10 years you mean , he’s a Traitor and Grifter , all he cares about is staying out of Jail 

29 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I've seen you make this point before but I don't get it. If you ask a 1000 people - you will get Democrat, Republican, Other, Undecided, - the ratio will change over time changing the results. I don't disagree that polling is tricky - and mistakes have and will be made - but I don't see why a change in those ratios in say a swing state is not somewhat of a guide to who will win because  - your point - undecided's are not reflected in polls. 

 

First of all there is a  risk that a perfectly random sample of a given size may not reflect the characteristics of the population as a whole (known as “sampling error”). In fact, the group of people who participate in any given survey are virtually never an idealised random sub-set of the population that will actually turn out to vote. Instead, they can differ from the eventual mix in important ways, which collectively are known as “non-sampling error”.

 

Then polls are subject to the vagaries of voter turnout. Polls conducted among all adults will include the views of people who are ineligible or not registered to vote. Those limited to registered voters treat all respondents in this group as if they had an equal probability of showing up to vote, which they surely do not. And those that seek to filter out respondents unlikely to vote, or that grant more weight to the views of people who are more likely to show up, can get such calculations wrong. Although no two surveys are identical, ones that use a similar approach to predicting turnout are more likely to wind up with errors of a similar size and direction than are ones that handle it differently. In statistical terms, each of these different methods of turnout projection can produce a “bias”, which is likely to contaminate the results of all the pollsters that use it in a similar way.

 

The group of people pollsters can reach by using live telephone interviewers may have different voting intentions than those they can reach by automated phone calls, or via the internet. Individual pollsters may make methodological choices, such as weighting schemes, that consistently lead to more or less favourable results for a particular political party.

 

Ahead of time, it is impossible to know the direction or size of the bias that each of these characteristics may introduce.

 

Voters who have a soft but consistent preference for one of the two major parties often say they are undecided or planning to vote for a third party. This makes polls in the first half of the year a surprisingly weak predictor of final results. For example, in June 1988, George H.W. Bush trailed Michael Dukakis by 12 percentage points in polling averages (he went on to win by eight). Exactly four years later, Mr Bush led Bill Clinton by ten percentage points, and wound up losing by seven.

 

In more recent years, polling errors have been a bit smaller—but they can still be substantial. In 2000 Mr Bush’s son George W. saw his ten-point lead over Al Gore in the popular vote turn into a deficit during the final three months of the campaign. It took the Electoral College and a disputed 537-vote victory in Florida to save his presidential bid. And notoriously, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by around eight points in June, August and even October of 2016, before she barely squeaked out a two-point edge in the popular vote.

 

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president/how-this-works

 

Ultimately, some people who claim to be undecided are not, they favour one or the other party. Some who claim they will vote for one or the other, do not, or are not eligible to vote.

 

The key point is however that undecided voters in the swing states will determine the election, which is not about who gets the most votes, Clinton got the most votes and lost, because of the way the US electoral system works.

 

Undecided voters do change over time, and polls cannot accurately predict how they will vote. Reality, ultimately, is more complex than science and mathematics will be able to model. We saw this with corona, and we saw it with past polling efforts.