|
On November 04 2020 12:16 Stratos_speAr wrote: Dems just flipped a house seat in Missouri with a notably progressive candidate.
I'm happy libertarian Nick Freitas walloped Spanberger in VA.
|
Yeah if Trump wins Ohio by that margin then much of the rust belt may be in play. Chris Christie was predicting 1-2% win in Ohio for Trump earlier.
|
Lol, Virginia is up to 54% reporting and Trump still has a (shrinking, but sizeable) lead in a state that Biden is marked as the winner in.
|
Arizona does both early and same day. Biden wining big. There is not a lot of vote left out there.
|
On November 04 2020 12:22 LegalLord wrote: Lol, Virginia is up to 54% reporting and Trump still has a (shrinking, but sizeable) lead in a state that Biden is marked as the winner in.
The numbers in Rhode Island are also confusing.
|
|
|
Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
|
If Trump wins tomorrow, I will not be going to work. Portland where I live, will be Riotstormfest 200020.
|
Republicans take back Jones' Senate seat in Alabama and Democrats look like they're going to take McSally's seat in Arizona. Those were the three "most likely" flips in the Senate.
|
|
|
On November 04 2020 12:25 Husyelt wrote: If Trump wins tomorrow, I will not be going to work. Portland where I live, will be Riotstormfest 200020.
Gonna walk to work just like normal. Nobody going to shoot you lol.
|
remember , final NYT winsconsin poll had biden leading by 17 points. Right now, Trump is 51% there with 33% votes in.
|
On November 04 2020 12:24 Mohdoo wrote: Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
That question has been asked a lot.
We also don't actually know what polls have specifically been inaccurate.
Most people have been making extremely hyperbolic claims based on models all giving Biden a roughly 90% chance to win and think that all the polls showed the same thing.
We need to see how most states actually turn out before just saying that all polls failed.
|
On November 04 2020 12:26 Batmankills wrote: remember , final NYT winsconsin poll had biden leading by 17 points. Right now, Trump is 51% there with 33% votes in.
Several Wisconsin metro areas will be reporting their votes very late.
|
The House is projected to hold for Democrats at least. But I think they're shedding more seats than expected.
|
On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:17 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:04 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:01 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 11:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 11:52 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 11:50 Starlightsun wrote:On November 04 2020 11:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Trump is way too competitive...
Four years of this awful administration, Biden who is not 'uniquely hated' like Clinton, a white house that infected itself with a disease just weeks ago, because of their pure cognitive ignorance, yet still we have to calculate pathways to win and Trump is over performing in several places.
It truly is outrageous. On the flipside, in Florida, 40% of people said they were better off than 4 years ago. Only 20% said they were worse off. This is despite a massive pandemic. At the end of the day, people care if their life is better. Trump has delivered on that front. Except 40% of Floridians are literally wrong. I'm glad you know their life situation better then they do. At the end of the day, the economy is what wins elections. It's been amazing under Trump. You often hear about how China grows GDP 6% a year, yet the US stock market has matched them in total return the past decade, a significant part of which was the past four years. Europe, during this same period? Less than 1/4th the return. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Trump promised growth of 4%, 5%, or maybe even 6% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/16/trump_were_going_to_see_economy_growth_of_4_5_and_maybe_6_percent.htmlbut per his own government's figures delivered growth of about 2.5%/year. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=surveyWhat you've done here is confused the economy and the stock market. I'm saying that despite the economy growing slower, his corporate tax cuts and pro-business policies allowed US corporations to match the valuation as in China. That's great, especially compared to the rest of the world. I think you're confused. Let's say you work on a farm. In year 1 the farm produces 100 units of grain. In year 2 the farm produces 102 grain. That's 2% growth in the output of the farm. What you're trying to argue is that how much grain the farm produces isn't what matters, what actually matters is how much a speculator would pay to buy the farm. But there's two issues with that. Firstly, you don't own the farm, you just work there, it doesn't make any difference to you how much the speculator thinks it's worth on a given day. And secondly, the only thing that matters at the farm is how much food it produces. An idea of how much it's worth will go up and down daily but will never feed a single person.
If the farm is publicly traded, I can own it. With the rise of indexing the average person will probably own it in their 401k.
Second, valuation is not purely speculation. Oftentimes there's competitive advantages that push a company above their peers. It's also a proxy to sentiment - the average investor agrees the USA is doing very, very well right now.
|
On November 04 2020 12:24 Mohdoo wrote: Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
As the wise sage Joe Rogan sais: "Only morons answer polls."
|
300k is <10% of the vote, so if Trump has a lead of 250k or more at ~80%, it wont really matter.
|
United States43989 Posts
Trump needs to win 5/8ths of the outstanding votes in Arizona to win the state. It's unlikely.
|
On November 04 2020 12:24 Mohdoo wrote: Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
There's a whooole lot of reasons. I would recommend you look up some of the articles people have written after the 2016 election for example.
I think the number one reason is that for any sort of statistical model, you want a uniform sampling across demographics with a [i]large[/i sample size. However, polls have a super lacklustre response rate among the general population. Therefore, for people who answer polls, there is a strong selection bias already inherent. The goal of pollsters is to get rid of this bias with some model, but this is super hard.
Some republicans have put forward the "silent" Trump supporter theory -- that Trump supporters hesitate to say they support Trump out loud in fear of backlash but vote for him "silently". Some people argue that this is just a hypothesis and carries no weight, I personally do not know.
Certain demographics can be hard to reach, etc etc etc. Tons of reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|