|
On November 04 2020 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
Pollsters have been grappling with the very same question for a while now (well before 2016). Short answer is that a lot of the historic methods for gathering poll results are proving to be less representative than they used to be for reasons that can't be summarized in a single paragraph of text.
|
The reality is that the polls and "chances to win" can't be measured for accuracy within a practical degree so they are basically technically always right while too frequently practically wrong.
|
On November 04 2020 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Question, why are polls not accurate? I seriously think this question doesn’t get enough credit
The usual answer is that getting representative sample is very difficult. People answer their phones differently across different demographics, there is strong self-selection for online polling etc. In UK it was young men that was the hardest to reach, they may have to weight individual responses by 1.2 or 1.5 just to make the sample match the population even superficially
|
|
|
On November 04 2020 12:27 PhoenixVoid wrote:
The House is projected to hold for Democrats at least. But I think they're shedding more seats than expected.
Dems getting beat up in VA re: House seats. I like to watch the channel I am most opposed to and CNN are all still rationalizing what they're seeing lol. I told you guys Trump was easily going to win OH. He's way way out-performing even what I thought he was going to do in all these states. It's looking very badly for D's. I don't see them winning the Presidency or getting majority in the Senate and they're going to lose House margin. Woof.
|
I thought PA counted mail in ballots last? I can't imagine we actually know how PA is going to go so early
|
United States44205 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:28 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote: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.
You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities.
But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash.
That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it. He ran on a promise of more bread and now he's claiming that more expensive farms is basically the same thing.
|
I don't think we'll be able to go to bed tonight knowing what the result of the election is going to be. The deciding states are all too close to call and expecting protracted vote tallying.
|
United States10530 Posts
From the NYT: "Trip Gabriel, in Butler County, Pa. 1m ago
The early exit polls of Arizona show voters over 65 prefer Biden by 5 percentage points. In other words, this is not your grandparents’ Arizona, full of conservative retirees."
Exit polls being in favor of Biden is great news since exit polls show the people who vote in person. Biden might be able to flip Arizona.
|
On November 04 2020 12:32 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think we'll be able to go to bed tonight knowing what the result of the election is going to be. The deciding states are all too close to call and expecting protracted vote tallying.
As well as legal challenges from both parties prepared in advance.
Arizona looks positive for Dems still though.
|
On November 04 2020 12:32 FlaShFTW wrote:
From the NYT: "Trip Gabriel, in Butler County, Pa. 1m ago
The early exit polls of Arizona show voters over 65 prefer Biden by 5 percentage points. In other words, this is not your grandparents’ Arizona, full of conservative retirees."
Exit polls being in favor of Biden is great news since exit polls show the people who vote in person. Biden might be able to flip Arizona.
If Biden wins AZ and Trump wins MN I'll be happy with that, 94% of votes in minneapolis already counted.
|
NC is probably not getting called tonight. A lot of the big blue cities still have a lot of vote out. Enough that biden could take it.
|
United States5013 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
The reality is that the polls and "chances to win" can't be measured for accuracy within a practical degree so they are basically technically always right while too frequently practically wrong.
Right, there are a lot of people trying to have it both ways. just check the thread since the summer months lol.
|
United States10530 Posts
There is a chance where Biden wins Nevada, Arizona, NE-2, and can still lose PA to just get to 270. Would be a hell of a way to win but that's looking more and more like a path Biden has to go through.
|
On November 04 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:28 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote: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. You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities. But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash. That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it.
I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket.
|
On November 04 2020 12:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:32 FlaShFTW wrote:
From the NYT: "Trip Gabriel, in Butler County, Pa. 1m ago
The early exit polls of Arizona show voters over 65 prefer Biden by 5 percentage points. In other words, this is not your grandparents’ Arizona, full of conservative retirees."
Exit polls being in favor of Biden is great news since exit polls show the people who vote in person. Biden might be able to flip Arizona. If Biden wins AZ and Trump wins MN I'll be happy with that, 94% of votes in minneapolis already counted.
Trump can lose AZ and still win. He's going to keep WI, MI, and PA I expect, and he's much more competitive in VA than I ever thought he would be.
|
On November 04 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:
NC is probably not getting called tonight. A lot of the big blue cities still have a lot of vote out. Enough that biden could take it.
They also count a lot of mail ballots very late.
|
United States10530 Posts
Minnesota Nicollet County was +3 trump in 2016, now its 90% reporting and +3 Biden. I think Biden can hold onto Minnesota. He also gained 7 points from Clinton's result in 2016 as well.
|
On November 04 2020 12:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2020 12:32 FlaShFTW wrote:
From the NYT: "Trip Gabriel, in Butler County, Pa. 1m ago
The early exit polls of Arizona show voters over 65 prefer Biden by 5 percentage points. In other words, this is not your grandparents’ Arizona, full of conservative retirees."
Exit polls being in favor of Biden is great news since exit polls show the people who vote in person. Biden might be able to flip Arizona. If Biden wins AZ and Trump wins MN I'll be happy with that, 94% of votes in minneapolis already counted. Trump can lose AZ and still win. He's going to keep WI, MI, and PA I expect, and he's much more competitive in VA than I ever thought he would be.
Honestly if they're counting mail ins first in NH i think he wins NH as well.
|
United States44205 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:35 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:28 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities. But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash. That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it. I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket.
But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
