Question re: Democratic Perspective - Trump free thread

[KCfromNC]

Not in the swing states, which is what you referenced.

You do realize that different answers to different questions are different, correct?

 

[hislegacy]

W

 

[hislegacy]

U

 

[KCfromNC]

I realize you would like it to be.... I quoted your statements and gave you direct answers to them - and I was very specific. My apologies if you are uncomfortable with that.

I have to say, I don't read that apology as sincere. Anyone else?

I'll note for all the rhetoric that there's no actual attempt to address Biden's current polling numbers. I mean, even ignoring the person who can't be named in this thread, they do show an interesting pattern.

And by address, I don't mean bringing up right-wing mythology about the 2016 polls.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am still not - but you are sure bringing it up a lot.

A number of people are, you included. It shows how bad a premise it was to try and discuss whether a candidate might win an election in a two party system while at the same time prohibiting talk of the other candidate. When even the OP can't actually follow the rules set out it shows that it wasn't a serious attempt.

 

[rambot]

No chance of you actually answering the question - is there?

Here, I will simplify it:

What has changed that makes you believe they are any more accurate now, after they failed you last time?

KC is trying to be respectful of the OP but you keep challenging him on it. So I'll just say it.

What has changed?
Trump's poor performance has informed voters even moreso as to his capacity as president and they are making decisions based on that. They have CONSISTENTLY shown low support for the man.....for 4 years. That is a LOT of data to consider which could be used to inform our current understanding of polling numbers.

Does it make sense to base HOPE on poll numbers? Definitely not. But is there a reason to dismiss them altogether? Definitely not.

 

[hislegacy]

From the polling numbers, it looks like he will do better than Clinton in several battleground states. I wonder why.

There is the statement: Pretty clear

What has changed that makes you believe they are any more accurate now, after they failed you last time?

Here is the question - pretty plain also. Looking for what has changed in the polling that makes you think they are more accurate.

11 answers to this query and not one addresses the question. Very telling IMHO.

 

[jacks]

Here's the simple answer, the polls were almost all wrong in 2016 and may very well be wrong now. Polling is not a foolproof predictor.

 

[hislegacy]

,

 

[rambot]

Thank you for actually addressing the question for KC. I happen to agree with what I put into bold.

Too bad others do not follow your lead - could have saved a whole lot of asking.

MAybe but to be fair, you CLEARLY stated in your OP you wanted to avoid Trump. Don't hold it against him for respecting you.
And perhaps I'm not sure you should thank me either for going against your wishes in the OP.

I was just hoping to avoid watching a tiresome 20 post back and forth where he was actually trying to be respectful.

 

[rambot]

Here's the simple answer, the polls were almost all wrong in 2016 and may very well be wrong now. Polling is not a foolproof predictor.

In fact, many, many polls were right. The only polls that were wrong were the ones that explicitly asked if Trump would win the electoral college.

I recognize popular voting (you know, the ACTUAL majority) isn't as important as a majority of people whose positions were created so that the unwashed, uneducated masses wouldn't be DIRECTLY responsible for electing a president.

 

[rambot]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Ok. So he LITERALLY told you EXACTLY his motivations. SEVERAL times.
It was obvious enough for ME to jump in and cut your discussion off.


And yet you don't believe him.


You don't have enough respect for the guy that you can't just accept his own reasoning in his OWN head.

Geez. This is the second time in a week I've seen (opted to take the label out...)...."people", instead of just listening and believing someone who he/she disagreed with, choose to create some illusionary reasoning for that person to disagree. Not the content of that disagreement but the MOTIVATION for it. As IF you can read people's minds. As IF you need to actively create your own reality when it is being TOLD to you.

Come on people. We should be better than this!

 

[hislegacy]

From your link:

You read that right. Polls of the November 2016 presidential election were about as accurate as polls of presidential elections have been on average since 1972.....

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons for concern. National polls were pretty good in the 2016 presidential election, but state-level polling was fairly poor (although still within the “normal” range of accuracy). Polls of the 2016 presidential primaries were sometimes way off the mark. And in many recent elections, the polls were statistically biased in one direction or another — there was a statistical bias toward Democrats in 2016, for instance.
​

13th and final time:

What has changed that makes you believe they are any more accurate now, after they failed you last time?

​

​

 

[KCfromNC]

From your link:

You read that right. Polls of the November 2016 presidential election were about as accurate as polls of presidential elections have been on average since 1972.....

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons for concern. National polls were pretty good in the 2016 presidential election, but state-level polling was fairly poor (although still within the “normal” range of accuracy). Polls of the 2016 presidential primaries were sometimes way off the mark. And in many recent elections, the polls were statistically biased in one direction or another — there was a statistical bias toward Democrats in 2016, for instance.
​

13th and final time:

​

I can't help but notice you seem to be very interested in talking about polls from 4+ years ago instead of polls of the candidate asked about in the OP. I can get that it might be uncomfortable to talk about polling which shows Biden ahead of the guy we're forbidden from talking about by 6 in Michigan or 5 in Florida, given that the margin of error is lower than that. Same with looking into others which show a close race in NC or Georgia, indicating a statistically significant shift since 2016. So I understand the desire to fall back on the familiar "polls aren't accurate" talking point to gain a bit of comfort.

But that kinda ignores how polls actually work. It isn't like they're random, just that they all have sampling error associated with them. When the race is close, as in 2016, that matters. But at some point, the lead gets bigger and it doesn't matter if the candidate wins by 3% or 9%, they're still in the lead in that state.

So, was there anything in particular you want to talk about from recent state polls, or are we just going to go with the fairy tale that polls should totally be ignored?

 

[hislegacy]

E

 

[KCfromNC]

Pssst - I quoted your link.

Have a great day, after 13 times, I doubt seriously 14 will work -

You're also quoting a post which exposes a deep misunderstanding of statistics underlying your question, but neither of them have seemed to make much headway into fixing the problem.

 

[gaara4158]

As Biden is indeed the least different from Trump both in personality and ideology of all the Democratic candidates that were running, that should tell us something about the difference between what the majority of Democrat voters really want and what the majority of those candidates were trying to give them.

Not necessarily. People vote for candidates based on any number of factors, and campaign promises are just one of them. Progressive policies like publicized healthcare, higher education, and climate justice poll incredibly well among Democrats, but ultimately they voted for Biden who opposes most of that. It seems they value a candidate less frightening to their right-leaning counterparts in the hopes to capture more of the conservative vote than they do a real shot at meaningful change.

 

[yougottabekidding]

****Not about Trump - ****

In 2016 the Democratic Party presented "the best qualified" Candidate for the Presidency. She was very well qualified, backed by more than 1 Billion dollars in campaign funds, had the blessing of the DNC high command and the full endorsement of the former President. Yet she lost.

Many commentators (opposition), said that she would be a continuation of the Obama policies, some calling it his third term. That combined with an uprising in the general populace wanting a change from the same style politics as the former eight years rose steadily.

Some have ventured to say that the election was more a vote against Hillary and per politics, than it was for her opponent.

Here is the question I'd like to get some feedback from:

IF, please note 'if' - the election results were influenced by a large number of voters who were voting against the candidate and the administration policies, what do they think will happen when they run the former vice president, who was an architect to some of those very same policies? Would that not be a detriment? Isn't that a reason why the people supporting Bernie felt so strongly?

Are they making a mistake?

****Not about Trump - **** Can I please ask the mods to help keep this thread on subject.

Interesting thought - One could say that the Party is caught in a series of thought processes that really will not allow change from their doctrine. Perhaps that is why the alt-Left is becoming so powerful.

 

[yougottabekidding]

You're also quoting a post which exposes a deep misunderstanding of statistics underlying your question, but neither of them have seemed to make much headway into fixing the problem.

So why not just answer the question?

 

[KCfromNC]

So why not just answer the question?

I did - see post 74. Even if the polls are about as accurate as they've been over the past 30-40 years, the lead in polling that Biden has exceeds the uncertainty. It's a notable shift from 2016 and it seems meaningful.

As does the polling showing a significant numbers of voters have already made up their mind, along with one of the primary characteristics they're looking for in a candidate is "Not named Donald Trump".