|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
We can all agree that the polls at this point are just fun to talk about more than they are real indicators of the future.
We will know a lot more by the end of the second debate probably for who the dems put up.
|
On June 13 2019 02:30 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2019 01:44 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 01:00 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2019 00:55 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:30 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win.
I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win.
And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. And if you remove every state that voted for Trump Clinton won in a landslide. The idea that you can just remove the first and fourth largest states in the union and then draw results from that.... its just weird. I think you're missing the point? Republicans concede those states and it's winner take all, their expected delegates from there is 0, so they don't even campaign there. So if they lose by 10,000 or 10,000,000 they still get the 0 they expected and Democrats celebrating the moral victory of it is music to Republican ears. So can we take out Texas? and all the south? Can you divulge a shred of recognition that those two states function for Democratic popular vote wins more than any state or pair of states that the Republicans win? I say this just to see if IgnE's point can be understood at any level, before whatabouting to different metrics. I mean I get it, but do you realize that when you go 'if you discard millions of Americans votes, you change the outcome!' people might think its silly? You're missing the rub of the question. Can you concede that a national poll shedding light on the share of popular vote expected may be overly influenced by high margins in two states? Like, a static 3% or 5% mark for popular vote goals might just mean higher percentages in two states that would be won anyways, and not really hurt Trump's chances of winning again in the same manner as last time? I gather that was IgnE's point originally. It COULD be a larger margin in NY and CA, but if you take it with the combination of trump being underwater in the majority of states (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/) you start to see that a 8-13% national bump is still really really bad news for trump and probably not skewed by over polling in CA and NY. So yeah, I get IgnE point, I just don't think its a good one is what I am saying
Ok, I understand we do agree on that.
I wouldn't rely on supplementing a likely voters poll with presidential approval ratings. Trump did a terrific job of winning states where he was polling deep in the unfavorable scores, and worse than his opponent. It's the battleground states likely voters that will really supplement national polls.
|
On June 13 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 02:30 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2019 01:44 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 01:00 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2019 00:55 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:30 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. And if you remove every state that voted for Trump Clinton won in a landslide. The idea that you can just remove the first and fourth largest states in the union and then draw results from that.... its just weird. I think you're missing the point? Republicans concede those states and it's winner take all, their expected delegates from there is 0, so they don't even campaign there. So if they lose by 10,000 or 10,000,000 they still get the 0 they expected and Democrats celebrating the moral victory of it is music to Republican ears. So can we take out Texas? and all the south? Can you divulge a shred of recognition that those two states function for Democratic popular vote wins more than any state or pair of states that the Republicans win? I say this just to see if IgnE's point can be understood at any level, before whatabouting to different metrics. I mean I get it, but do you realize that when you go 'if you discard millions of Americans votes, you change the outcome!' people might think its silly? You're missing the rub of the question. Can you concede that a national poll shedding light on the share of popular vote expected may be overly influenced by high margins in two states? Like, a static 3% or 5% mark for popular vote goals might just mean higher percentages in two states that would be won anyways, and not really hurt Trump's chances of winning again in the same manner as last time? I gather that was IgnE's point originally. It COULD be a larger margin in NY and CA, but if you take it with the combination of trump being underwater in the majority of states (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/) you start to see that a 8-13% national bump is still really really bad news for trump and probably not skewed by over polling in CA and NY. So yeah, I get IgnE point, I just don't think its a good one is what I am saying Ok, I understand we do agree on that. I wouldn't rely on supplementing a likely voters poll with presidential approval ratings. Trump did a terrific job of winning states where he was polling deep in the unfavorable scores, and worse than his opponent. It's the battleground states likely voters that will really supplement national polls.
I agree that trump can out perform his bad numbers. But he wont have the luxury of running against someone who, if not for himself, would have been the most unfavorable person to run for president.
But this probably all comes down to the economy. We have more months in a row like last one on the job numbers, hes done. He gets more 300k + job months, he probably wins
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him. https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1138504022158204929 Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win. I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win. And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. surprise, if you remove almost a 5th of the US population the results of an election change! ... Seriously, that's your argument?
um no, that’s not the argument tout court. i was pointing out that with the US electoral system when 1/5th of the population is so heavily polarized in one direction, you can pretty much ignore them as long as you eke out a 50.1% in the remaining 4/5
|
On June 13 2019 01:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:55 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:30 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him. https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1138504022158204929 Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win. I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win. And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. And if you remove every state that voted for Trump Clinton won in a landslide. The idea that you can just remove the first and fourth largest states in the union and then draw results from that.... its just weird. I think you're missing the point? Republicans concede those states and it's winner take all, their expected delegates from there is 0, so they don't even campaign there. So if they lose by 10,000 or 10,000,000 they still get the 0 they expected and Democrats celebrating the moral victory of it is music to Republican ears. So can we take out Texas? and all the south? Typically this is what we do when we reduce the map to "toss ups", which is where popular vote margins might matter. On June 13 2019 00:57 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2019 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:49 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 00:30 IyMoon wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win.
I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win.
And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. And if you remove every state that voted for Trump Clinton won in a landslide. The idea that you can just remove the first and fourth largest states in the union and then draw results from that.... its just weird. I think you're missing the point? Republicans concede those states and it's winner take all, their expected delegates from there is 0, so they don't even campaign there. So if they lose by 10,000 or 10,000,000 they still get the 0 they expected and Democrats celebrating the moral victory of it is music to Republican ears. and Democrats concede the ones they'll never win. This isn't new stuff. Which is why it would be comparably silly for Republicans to point to a large popular vote margin in Texas (2004) for Republicans as a confidence booster going into 2008 But not silly for them to point to a large popular vote margin nationally with the expectation that there will be some states that go in a landslide to both but overall being way more popular is better than not being way more popular. That's what I think is being pointed out? That it's not really "nationally" as much as it can be accounted for by 2 states Republicans have no ambitions to change the vote total in. Yes but the thing being pointed out doesn't make sense. If you assume that the Democrats have a margin in those 2 states alone and the rest are 50:50 then sure, they're only guaranteed to win two states. But the Democrats have a margin in some and the Republicans have a margin in others. You can't justify excluding California without also justifying excluding Texas.
texas is purple now thanks to beto
|
At that point, let's go a dig up of all the vote tallies by state, invalidate all but the loser's total in a state and the losers total + 1 for the winner, and reconvene to discuss our findings if we're going to play this silly game.
|
On June 13 2019 04:01 Gahlo wrote:
At that point, let's go a dig up of all the vote tallies by state, invalidate all but the loser's total in a state and the losers total + 1 for the winner, and reconvene to discuss our findings if we're going to play this silly game.
the question was “what is realistically possible” and i was suggesting that it’s realistically possible to have a very evenly split country in 46 states and an overwhelming majority in four such that your “national” polling gives you more than a 5% margin, and yet still lose.
you can argue about whether the red south will always be so red or whatever, i don’t care, my point is that this idea that interstate polarization has limits that prevent illusory “national margins” of more than a couple percentage points is not necessarily true. it might happen to be the case that deep red states offset the deep blue states but that is not a universal truth. there is a significant probability, given immigration pressures and the dying off of the baby boomers that states like texas could turn purple in the next decade
|
|
|
United States44275 Posts
On June 13 2019 03:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him. https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1138504022158204929 Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win. I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win. And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. surprise, if you remove almost a 5th of the US population the results of an election change! ... Seriously, that's your argument? um no, that’s not the argument tout court. i was pointing out that with the US electoral system when 1/5th of the population is so heavily polarized in one direction, you can pretty much ignore them as long as you eke out a 50.1% in the remaining 4/5
Only if you assume all other states are 51/49. You’re right that votes over the threshold to win are wasted but you’re wrong to assume that wasted votes only go one way. That’s the issue.
|
no, you are wrong to assume that wasted votes will always/usually split evenly
|
On June 13 2019 03:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On June 13 2019 00:26 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2019 23:48 IyMoon wrote:On June 12 2019 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him. https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1138504022158204929 Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win. I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win. And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win? Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that Depends what you mean by “realistically.” But consider that Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Clinton won California by 4.2 million votes and won New York by 1.6 million, which is a net 5.8 million advantage in those two states. In other words if you remove NY and CA Trump won the popular vote by 3 million. surprise, if you remove almost a 5th of the US population the results of an election change! ... Seriously, that's your argument? um no, that’s not the argument tout court. i was pointing out that with the US electoral system when 1/5th of the population is so heavily polarized in one direction, you can pretty much ignore them as long as you eke out a 50.1% in the remaining 4/5 1/5 is heavily polarised in one direction?
What about the other direction?
|
that’s an empirical question isn’t it?
but since donald trump won 48 states by a margin of 3 million votes ...
|
you know, it was you guys who 18 months were saying how stupid the electoral system is. why are we fighting about this?
|
On June 13 2019 04:25 IgnE wrote:
you know, it was you guys who 18 months were saying how stupid the electoral system is. why are we fighting about this? Because your making stupid statements.
No one would dispute it if you say that only a small portion of the US population actually matter, those in swing states.
But you didn't say that.
You said that the election result would be different if you ignore 1/5 of the population of the US. Duh
Stop making stupid statements and people don't feel the need to point out to you how your statements are stupid.
|
no youre stupid
very productive
even if you find it obvious, i dont think i made a point that is exceedingly obvious. i find the consideration of new york and california separately to be very interesting.
but, if we started banning people for making posts that some people find obvious there wouldnt be a thread. dont throw stones when you live in a glass mansion
|
Also I think at this point in 2015 Clinton was up like 15 points on average in polling. It's useless right now. The Democrats haven't even had their primary yet. There is zero voting until Feb of next year.
edit: trump hadn't announced as of today 2015, but I cant find what I'm looking for on mobile. She was up by double digits at one early point though.
|
On June 13 2019 04:47 Introvert wrote:
Also I think at this point in 2015 Clinton was up like 15 points on average in polling. It's useless right now. The Democrats haven't even had their primary yet. There is zero voting until Feb of next year.
It’s only something to talk about among front runners, but it’s life and death for the bottom thirty percent of candidates. Polling and donor counts gets them a spot in the debates. It’s strange to think a spiritual guru has it clinched and elected senators and governors might miss.
|
On June 13 2019 04:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 04:47 Introvert wrote:
Also I think at this point in 2015 Clinton was up like 15 points on average in polling. It's useless right now. The Democrats haven't even had their primary yet. There is zero voting until Feb of next year. It’s only something to talk about among front runners, but it’s life and death for the bottom thirty percent of candidates. Polling and donor counts gets them a spot in the debates. It’s strange to think a spiritual guru has it clinched and elected senators and governors might miss.
This is the correct way of looking at it. All of the Democrat candidates who are polling at 0% and 1% need to be concerned about the polling at this stage. For everyone else, it doesn't really matter too much yet except that the sooner that they show an upward trend the easier it will be to raise money. The real goal is to be among the top 8-10 candidates to ensure placement on the main debate stage when the debates begin.
EDIT: And the national election polls mean absolutely dick right now.
|
On June 13 2019 04:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 04:47 Introvert wrote:
Also I think at this point in 2015 Clinton was up like 15 points on average in polling. It's useless right now. The Democrats haven't even had their primary yet. There is zero voting until Feb of next year. It’s only something to talk about among front runners, but it’s life and death for the bottom thirty percent of candidates. Polling and donor counts gets them a spot in the debates. It’s strange to think a spiritual guru has it clinched and elected senators and governors might miss. Because US elections are less and less about policy and experience and more about persona.
But your right, the polling is very important for candidate funding at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
