Maybe. Have to think about that and whether anything positive comes from that.MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:49 amI would agree.
Vinny, why don't you tell us who here you think is a die-hard Trump fan and then let them respond?
Vinny
Maybe. Have to think about that and whether anything positive comes from that.MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:49 amI would agree.
Vinny, why don't you tell us who here you think is a die-hard Trump fan and then let them respond?
Biden isn't going to get the Bernie baby votes anyway.MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 7:00 pmThis has been mentioned before on this board. I just don't see how HRC can be the nominee when she didn't participate in the primaries. Same for Cuomo. Please explain how this can be rationalized without, say, Bernie or Warren supporters' heads exploding.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:37 pm
I predict that Biden won't be the nominee. The most likely way they will fix it is to pick someone else at the convention.
Anyone want to guess who it's going to be? Hint: initials are HRC.
I think (and hope) Trump will win in November also. Not because I'm a huge Trump supporter, but just because Democrats big government ideas are stupid. And yeah the identity politics is infuriating.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:55 amThat is excellent.Simonjester wrote: polling
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... polls.html
I'm still predicting Trump, and Republicans in general, win in a landslide in November, if nothing else goes seriously wrong before then.
Trump seems to me to be itching to start up his Cold War with China again... his aggressive actions against China and other countries have been very unpopular in aggregate for his entire presidency, and starting that non-sense back up again could prove to be a very bitter icing to top the COVID-19 cake.stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:09 pmI think (and hope) Trump will win in November also. Not because I'm a huge Trump supporter, but just because Democrats big government ideas are stupid. And yeah the identity politics is infuriating.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:55 amThat is excellent.Simonjester wrote: polling
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... polls.html
I'm still predicting Trump, and Republicans in general, win in a landslide in November, if nothing else goes seriously wrong before then.
However, your statement above, Libertarian666, made me laugh. "If nothing else goes seriously wrong"? What else could go more seriously wrong than this COVID-19 nightmare?
Unpopular with the general public in aggregate, as I stated in the original post. Trump's approval ratings were the worst during the times he was most aggressive with China and other countries. You can also look at how the stock market behaved during those times as to another clue that the general public did not like the policy. Obviously, the minority which is Trump's core like it, but the majority finds Trump's stance on China and trade in general as very unpopular. There is a reason why Trump capitulated and put the trade war on pause last year before the election year started up. He knew that if he kept it up it would cost him the election. So he has tried to put it on the back burner until he inevitably starts it back up after the election if he wins. But he seems like he just can't help himself. My biggest fear with Trump is that if he does get re-elected we will wind up not just in a trade-war with China, but in a real war with them. Globalization and inter-dependence ensures peace. If we sever these ties, there's nothing to stop both sides from devolving into physical war, especially with how aggressive Trump's speech and actions are. He is poking the bear every chance he gets.
Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:33 pm Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?
If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?
vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?
https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1
The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes
I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?
Vinny
On a quick Bing search I could find no evidence of that.Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:47 pmvnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?
https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1
The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes
I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?
Vinny
Nixon?
That's definitely a thing. I know a number of people quietly planning to vote for Trump (and here in Manhattan, no less) but who would never admit it publicly - because they want to keep their social status and jobs/clients. Many of them are not in the classic Trump demographic, e.g. a retired woman with a state pension and liberal social views, a young gay hairstylist, the local neighborhood dog walker/cat sitter.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 7:04 pmI'm sure that 4 years of nonstop demonizing of Trump and anyone who supports him by the lamestream media wouldn't make anyone leery of admitting that they are planning to vote for him.Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:33 pm Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?
If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?
Except it was an Opinion piece in the New York Times. Not an article written by someone on their staff. And, it did cite plenty of survey results from a survey independent from the New York Times.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:26 amYou should have mentioned that this was from The New York Times. They will say or do anything to stop Trump from being re-elected.vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?
https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1
The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes
I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?
Vinny
If a NYT article said there were 50 states, I would confirm that with a more reliable source.
Even a recent CNN poll shows Trump crushing Biden in the battleground states: https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/sta ... 0289727490.
If CNN says he's way ahead, you can count on his being at least that far ahead. As CNN is also extremely biased against Trump, any good news they report for him is something they just can't figure out how to ignore.
This was an exact sample of one?sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am
I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.
Vinny, last I checked there were 50 states. If you're trying to counter what I said above please make a relevant argument?vnatale wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:23 amThis was an exact sample of one?sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am
I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.
And, this one could have been an outlier?
In other words, if we had ten similar elections then, maybe, it would have averaged out to half the states going each way.
Vinny
Yes, 50 states but still a sample of one of what occurred on the average with those 50 states.sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:28 amVinny, last I checked there were 50 states. If you're trying to counter what I said above please make a relevant argument?vnatale wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:23 amThis was an exact sample of one?sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am
I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.
And, this one could have been an outlier?
In other words, if we had ten similar elections then, maybe, it would have averaged out to half the states going each way.
Vinny
I know that.
I look at it as being similar to a baseball player's season with a lot of randomness. If a player hits .300 over 500 at bats that does not mean that for each of the ten slices of 50 at bats that compose that 500 at bat season he hits .300 on the nose for all those slices. Without doing any research on this, I'm guessing there could have been a 50 at bat slice where he hit .450 and another one where he hit .150. He was the same intrinsic .300 hitter for all the slices but those outlier slices are just the way the probabilities played out for those disparate outcome slices.sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 5:05 pm Did you ever take a probability class Vinnie?
Flip a fair coin 10 times and tell me what the chances are of all of them coming up heads.
But hey, it's just one session of coin flipping so that doesn't count right?
Unless you are saying that an event with a probability on the order of 0.01% (i.e 1/1024, which is the answer to the above question) is a completely expected result that in no way should indicate that anything is wrong?
Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.
I wouldn't hold my breath.sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 5:05 pm Did you ever take a probability class Vinnie?
Flip a fair coin 10 times and tell me what the chances are of all of them coming up heads.
But hey, it's just one session of coin flipping so that doesn't count right?
Unless you are saying that an event with a probability on the order of 0.01% (i.e 1/1024, which is the answer to the above question) is a completely expected result that in no way should indicate that anything is wrong?
Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.