EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4502
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9190 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25116 Posts
On November 03 2024 03:53 oBlade wrote: Not everything on the planet is an argument. Many things are simple questions or statements. Does your posting history remotely reflect this? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21661 Posts
On November 03 2024 06:40 Sent. wrote: This thread heavily weights left, especially with the non-Americans here. Absolutely not a representative group.Would it be a good idea to have a teamliquid forum user poll here or in a separate election thread, maybe today or tomorrow? We used to have polls like that in the past. I think there were some issues with bots, fake accounts or something like that so the final results looked sketchy, but the first wave of votes looked believable to me. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9190 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
Either way. Trying to gather any kind of useful poll on how Americans voted on this site would be pretty impossible. | ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
Like I said, everything is pointing to a reverse 2016. In races that don't matter like Ohio's presidential, polling for Trump has been pretty soft at best. In races that matter, everyone is herding giving actual coin flip results. Both Nates have commented on the shitty polling lately, a lot of them could technically be correct at the end of the day but the statistical posibility of putting coin flip and coin flip polling results means that most are taking a mulligans. Its all pretty useless with the lack of funding from academic instiutions and news outlets, we're not getting a lot of polls and not a lot of diversity in polls especially in local races. Obviously Ann Selzer could be wildly wrong but she does good work, absolutely does not herd, and is probably the only pollster in Iowa who actually gets people to respond to her. She's the one that highlighted prior to the 2020 election that Biden's 2020 polling margins would be a mirage. Even if she's wrong by 5 points, that's still a really freaking awful Trump result for Iowa as that's still a 7 point swing vs 2020. Legitmately speechless at both the polling result and the sheer balls to publish a result like that. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
I hope Ann Selzer is right, but I can't possibly believe it until I see it. That sounds just too crazy to me. We have about 72 hours to go, and we're going to see every prediction and permutation possible across social media. | ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
On November 03 2024 08:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Her prediction is leading to a lot of people extrapolating across the entire electoral college and thinking that Harris will sweep almost the entire country - an enormous landslide that even includes Texas and Florida flipping blue. I hope Ann Selzer is right, but I can't possibly believe it until I see it. That sounds just too crazy to me. We have about 72 hours to go, and we're going to see every prediction and permutation possible across social media. That's obviously not going to happen because what happens in the Midwest doesn't happen in the Sunbelt. What happens in Florida doesn't happen anywhere else between Rick Scott actually being good at politics (notice how quick he was at gettng ahead of Tony Hinchcock showing everyone why he has no career outside of the Rogan safe space bubble) and the FDP being MIA. A lot of races are being kept local like the Texas senate race. But even if she's wrong by 10 points, that just means Trump basically matches 2020. That's how much she'd have to be wrong for the Trump to have a merely OK result. Its a bigger predictor of sentiment in the Midwest - her main claim to fame was suggesting Dem margins in the Rust Belt were mirages in both 2016 and 2020 prior to the actual election when many other pollsters weren't doing that. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On November 03 2024 08:17 frontgarden2222 wrote: https://twitter.com/MattKleinOnline/status/1852849716788084910 Like I said, everything is pointing to a reverse 2016. In races that don't matter like Ohio's presidential, polling for Trump has been pretty soft at best. In races that matter, everyone is herding giving actual coin flip results. Both Nates have commented on the shitty polling lately, a lot of them could technically be correct at the end of the day but the statistical posibility of putting coin flip and coin flip polling results means that most are taking a mulligans. Its all pretty useless with the lack of funding from academic instiutions and news outlets, we're not getting a lot of polls and not a lot of diversity in polls especially in local races. Obviously Ann Selzer could be wildly wrong but she does good work, absolutely does not herd, and is probably the only pollster in Iowa who actually gets people to respond to her. She's the one that highlighted prior to the 2020 election that Biden's 2020 polling margins would be a mirage. Even if she's wrong by 5 points, that's still a really freaking awful Trump result for Iowa as that's still a 7 point swing vs 2020. Legitmately speechless at both the polling result and the sheer balls to publish a result like that. I will disagree with the claim that this feels like a reverse 2016 because from what i have seen in early voting compilations on youtube black turnout is lower than last election and that bloc usually heavily favours democrats. This is Georgia : https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/10/29/poll-shows-initial-turnout-among-black-voters-georgia-is-low/ ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) - A recent poll from Landmark Communications shows initial turnout among Black voters is much lower than in past years. On Oct. 24, 2022, there were 25,000 more Democrats than Republicans voting early in Georgia. On the same day this year, there were 103,000 more Republicans than Democrats voting early. Pollster Mark Rountree suggests lower Democrat early voting turnout is a significant drop-off in early voting in the Black community by 22% compared to 2020. Rountree said it’s one of the biggest surprises of early polling data so far. “I don’t think anybody saw this lack of passion among African American voters, given that this is a candidate who self-describes as Black,” said Rountree. As to the Iowa poll you posted it says in all voters under 35 Harris leads by 2%, but she leads by 12% in voters over 55 which seems pretty strange to me.It should be the other way around.For Trump to be up 8% 35-54 and then Harris up 12% in 55+ suggests there is something off with her sampling in the 55+ bracket. | ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
You also cannot extrapolate Midwestern voting trends with Sunbelt volting trends. What happens in Arizona does not happen in Michigan. What happens in Georgia does not happen in Pennsylvania. And even if Ann Selzer is off by 10 points, that means Trump is just at 2020 margins. Not 2016 but 2020. She's proven again and again that she knows Iowa and can actually get people in Iowa to respond to her, there's no reason to believe she's actually off by high double digits. She predicted just about every race in Iowa accurately, the only real miss that was outside of MOE was her 2018 Governor's race and even that wasn't that far outside the MOE. If Trump wins, its because of inflation. Parties all around the world who have campaigned on inflation have been turfing out every incumbent party regardless of the political affiliation of said party. Trump should be crushing Harris but nothing is indicating that because his campaign isn't actually running a coherent message on decreasing inflation and bringing back US manufacturing - they're not targetting blue collar workers like in 2016. The main Trump ads have been nothing but a loop of anti-trans ads airing during every major sport event occuring right now. Its literally reverse 2016 - Trump's campaign is doing the Clinton 2016 campaign of campaigning on the most stupid shit. Even if I hated trans people, persecuting them does fuck all to my material conditions. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
| ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
Selzer has technically one stinker within the last decade that even that was only 1.5 points outside the MOE. The rest of her poll results for major races have been home runs. Even if Selzer has a real stinker that is off by 10 points, Trump would only match 2020. You're betting on a stinker so bad that its off by mid double digit points? She was just on MSNBC talking about the poll. Her claim is Trump support is stable, Harris support is up amongst independents. That tracks in a lot of Midwest states where polling in races that absolutely don't matter show tepid support for Trump. Kansas at Trump +5, Ohio at Trump +3. As for your claim that I made regarding Biden, Biden was absolutely punted by state and local Democrats. For like an entire year many politicans like Jacky Rosen in Nevada were trying to not run along side him (which is said in response to you). Organizing groups like the Sunrise Movement and the Movement Voter Project had warning signs of dwindling donations and support from the base. Without the support of your fundraising infrastructure and your base, you can't win. That's the point I made, I don't see how any of this was untrue. Yes, obviously Biden left when Pelosi and Co told him he has no support from anyone but they enacted the will of the base. I even at the time pointed out that the Democratic base overwhelmingly thought Biden was too old to run. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10478 Posts
| ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
On November 03 2024 11:09 BlackJack wrote: Do the polls take into account the difference in voting from 2016 to 2024? Early voting and mail-in ballots are ubiquitous now. Increased turnout should help D more than it helps R so all these measures to make voting even easier should make it much more difficult for R to win the election. I’ve had Harris to win the entire time and much of my reasoning is based on this. They basically are. Polls in general are making the assumption that higher turnout = higher engagement of low propensity voters = higher support for Trump. Which is the assumption I would actually be making too considering Trump's been on a circuit trying to turn out younger less politically engaged men in the vein of Adin Ross, Sneako, the Paul Brothers. You know, guys who typically would never bother voting but would 100% vote Republican if push comes to shove. The Registered Voter results tend to show alright Harris leads, the Likely Voter results show much more narrow Harris leads or narrow Trump leads. The problem with recent polling is that so many of them are near useless because there's no way the polling results are consistently 49%/51% either way. Again, the two Nates have noted that polls are definitely herding for whatever reason. Selzer poll, which is absolutely not herding, indicates that Trump's Republican support is marginally softer than previous years and independents are generally breaking for Harris for a multitude of reasons. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
On November 03 2024 11:09 BlackJack wrote: Do the polls take into account the difference in voting from 2016 to 2024? Early voting and mail-in ballots are ubiquitous now. Increased turnout should help D more than it helps R so all these measures to make voting even easier should make it much more difficult for R to win the election. I’ve had Harris to win the entire time and much of my reasoning is based on this. I agree with you that increased turnout tends to favor Democrats. Do you think that concept may be a little less impactful (or slightly confounded) when comparing 2020 to 2024, since Trump was so insistent on his supporters not voting early or absentee last time (only on Election Day), which may have artificially lowered his own voters' turnout in 2020, but this time he's telling Republicans to vote however they can? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On November 03 2024 11:03 frontgarden2222 wrote: No you absolutely cannot, especially when it comes to early voting data. That's how the Dems consistently get fucked by their hispanic outreach because they literally don't understand that a Puerto Rican living in Texas does not respond the same as a Puerto Rican in Florida while Republicans absolutely do. Selzer has technically one stinker within the last decade that even that was only 1.5 points outside the MOE. The rest of her poll results for major races have been home runs. Even if Selzer has a real stinker that is off by 10 points, Trump would only match 2020. You're betting on a stinker so bad that its off by mid double digit points? She was just on MSNBC talking about the poll. Her claim is Trump support is stable, Harris support is up amongst independents. That tracks in a lot of Midwest states where polling in races that absolutely don't matter show tepid support for Trump. Kansas at Trump +5, Ohio at Trump +3. As for your claim that I made regarding Biden, Biden was absolutely punted by state and local Democrats. For like an entire year many politicans like Jacky Rosen in Nevada were trying to not run along side him (which is said in response to you). Organizing groups like the Sunrise Movement and the Movement Voter Project had warning signs of dwindling donations and support from the base. Without the support of your fundraising infrastructure and your base, you can't win. That's the point I made, I don't see how any of this was untrue. Yes, obviously Biden left when Pelosi and Co told him he has no support from anyone but they enacted the will of the base. I even at the time pointed out that the Democratic base overwhelmingly thought Biden was too old to run. You absolutely can, if PR are moving right in one area they probably are somewhere else too. Looking at past data we also know this is true when we look at 2020 for instance. Biden improved just enough with white working class men. This was a shift everywhere. It's all relative to different baseline (white voters in Cali are more Dem than in Georgia) but movement happens across the entire country. I know crosstab diving is dangerous, but many pollsters this go around are trying to take into account recalled vote to help weight their results, she meanwhile has a sample that was + Biden. I don't know, but I seriously doubt Kamala wins Iowa, and it's literally one poll. Once Biden is gone, we'll find out more about how Biden went out. Your rosy story that it was the grassroots (democracy in action!) that made him quit and not the politicians and big donors will most likely be wrong though. *** On November 03 2024 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree with you that increased turnout tends to favor Democrats. Do you think that concept may be a little less impactful (or slightly confounded) when comparing 2020 to 2024, since Trump was so insistent on his supporters not voting early or absentee last time (only on Election Day), which may have artificially lowered his own voters' turnout in 2020, but this time he's telling Republicans to vote however they can? This is becoming less and less true, as the coalitions are moving around. The problems dems are having right now is that black turnout appears to be down across the country (again, more evidence that you can infer how things are going in one place from another place). But it is true that reps are turning out more of their 4/4 voters to vote early this time. But they are also turning out more of their infrequent voters so far. Nothing is over, but I think in places like Iowa (since we are talking about it) Reps are effectively tied in the early vote returns. that's never happened in Iowa. Edit: not to mention Republican registrations gains across the country, but esp in swing states. Has to be worrying (but again it's not over!) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21661 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
edit: Also to say I've had several close family members including my dad suffer devastating and or fatal strokes so I give this guy a lot of credit for where he's at after what he's been through. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25116 Posts
| ||
|
SEB2610
59 Posts
| ||
| ||
