Election 2020 - Page 174 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#15111943
@Beren, I would say that the way the polls are narrowing means that Trump is not losing the marketing war, in spite of the MSM(D)’s efforts. Part of the problem with their attempts to censor him is that the attempt are themselves news, and get people’s attention.

Not that Trump doesn’t give the MSM(D) plenty of ammunition with his own unforced errors and regularly getting down in the gutter, it’s one of the reasons I didn’t and won’t vote for him. But it’s also pretty much standard practice for Populist politicians, from Andrew Jackson on up, and actually one of their strengths with their base. And, like Trump, it doesn’t stop voters on the fringes from looking at their promises, looking at their opponents, and holding their noses and voting for him. Which is why I won’t be surprised if Trump actually gets at least a plurality if not a majority this time. (Of course, I also won’t be surprised if he gets a minority of the vote in both the popular vote and the all-important Electoral College—all it would take is the wrong gaffe too close to the election, and while Biden is at least as likely to make said gaffe if not more so, we all know which the MSM(D) would jump all over.)
User avatar
By Drlee
#15111975
I find it odd that Doug keeps referring to Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and the Washington Times and MSM(D). No doubt he thinks it is cute but it is simply inaccurate. IT is, as is most of what he posts, simply Trump talking points. Then he tells us he will not vote for Trump. Sure he won't.
User avatar
By Beren
#15111988
Doug64 wrote:@Beren, I would say that the way the polls are narrowing means that Trump is not losing the marketing war

In my opinion Trump's numbers have been improving for a while mostly because they've been fluctuating in the long term and they reached an absolute minimum at 40.1 on Jul 15 and they've been bouncing back since then, however, I'd expect them to stop at 44 or never reach 46 in case they breach 44.

Image
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15111996
Beren wrote:In my opinion Trump's numbers have been improving for a while mostly because they've been fluctuating in the long term and they reached an absolute minimum at 40.1 on Jul 15 and they've been bouncing back since then, however, I'd expect them to stop at 44 or never reach 46 in case they breach 44.

Image


To be honest, i am not sure. Looks like a standard statistical swing within the margin of error. If you know python then here you go

import numpy as np

n = 1500
p = 0.6

var = np.sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)
y = 3*var + p
print(y-p)


Basically under the worst conditions the swing of 3 Sigma with 1500 questioned is 3.8% or lets round it to 4 for simplisity. Meaning that under bad conditions a lead of 50 to 41 can turn in to 46 to 45 under the worst possible outcome or close to it. Just on a long distance it will still go back to 50 to 41 on average. This kinda also implies that the best outcome is 54 to 37 which we have never seen. Meaning that Bidens average has always been lower and that chart displays variance from very low time frames.

So under this conditions the gap between Biden and Trump has always been around 48 to 44%. Something along those lines.
By wat0n
#15112004
JohnRawls wrote:To be honest, i am not sure. Looks like a standard statistical swing within the margin of error. If you know python then here you go



Basically under the worst conditions the swing of 3 Sigma with 1500 questioned is 3.8% or lets round it to 4 for simplisity. Meaning that under bad conditions a lead of 50 to 41 can turn in to 46 to 45 under the worst possible outcome or close to it. Just on a long distance it will still go back to 50 to 41 on average. This kinda also implies that the best outcome is 54 to 37 which we have never seen. Meaning that Bidens average has always been lower and that chart displays variance from very low time frames.

So under this conditions the gap between Biden and Trump has always been around 48 to 44%. Something along those lines.


Broadly correct, although since it seems to be a poll aggregator (an average of many polls) the standard error should be lower. I think 538's visualization is better since it considers the uncertainty involved and carries other adjustments out.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15112014
Won't it be fun when the New York Attorney General indites Trump on felony charges before the election? I wonder how Ms. Pence will do.
By Istanbuller
#15112015
I find "Biden beats Trump on popular vote" claims inaccurate. It is nothing more than a pure fantasy.

Donald Trump's political and economic views are mostly close to Democrats. He is very likely to get liberal votes any time he wants. It is what he did in 2016 in battleground states. Get real, people. Election is not about Trump vs Anti-Trumpists.
By Istanbuller
#15112017
JohnRawls wrote:To be honest, i am not sure. Looks like a standard statistical swing within the margin of error. If you know python then here you go



Basically under the worst conditions the swing of 3 Sigma with 1500 questioned is 3.8% or lets round it to 4 for simplisity. Meaning that under bad conditions a lead of 50 to 41 can turn in to 46 to 45 under the worst possible outcome or close to it. Just on a long distance it will still go back to 50 to 41 on average. This kinda also implies that the best outcome is 54 to 37 which we have never seen. Meaning that Bidens average has always been lower and that chart displays variance from very low time frames.

So under this conditions the gap between Biden and Trump has always been around 48 to 44%. Something along those lines.

I am sure it is %50 to %41 or any other result favor Biden if you consider survey is taken in university campuses with heavily socialist and liberal influence. But the election is not about political views of university students. Your guessing and calculation is very mistaken.

Population and sampling is an important issue which can lead to wrong assumptions. Statistics 101.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15112021
Istanbuller wrote:I am sure it is %50 to %41 or any other result favor Biden if you consider survey is taken in university campuses with heavily socialist and liberal influence. But the election is not about political views of university students. Your guessing and calculation is very mistaken.

Population and sampling is an important issue which can lead to wrong assumptions. Statistics 101.


Sure, but most statistic polls are randomised heavily and include either likely voters or registered voters. So unless somebody wants to heavily rig it then its fine. There are standards and good practices that people usually follow. Most polls say the same thing, Biden is in the lead heavily. It is weird to think that all of them are rigged. Like literally 0 polls showed Trump in the lead in the general race for the last 3-4 months. :hmm:
By Istanbuller
#15112029
JohnRawls wrote:Sure, but most statistic polls are randomised heavily and include either likely voters or registered voters. So unless somebody wants to heavily rig it then its fine. There are standards and good practices that people usually follow. Most polls say the same thing, Biden is in the lead heavily. It is weird to think that all of them are rigged. Like literally 0 polls showed Trump in the lead in the general race for the last 3-4 months. :hmm:

No. Most polls are conducted at university campuses or urban areas. It is very likely that sampling is very poorly done. That is why almost all polls in 2016 was wrong.
By wat0n
#15112030
Istanbuller wrote:No. Most polls are conducted at university campuses or urban areas. It is very likely that sampling is very poorly done. That is why almost all polls in 2016 was wrong.


They weren't all that wrong. They did call the popular vote out, Trump was elected due to the electoral college after all.

But more importantly, they were massively misinterpreted. When people were saying Hillary had 70% probability of winning, they were saying the probability she would get more votes than Trump was 70%, right? But this is misleading, because it conveys a more certain result than there really was. One way to notice this is to look at the percentage of the vote for each. Here Hillary had something like 48% and Trump had something like 46%... And most polls had a margin of error greater than 2%. This can still then be translated as saying that the polls estimate that the probability Hillary would get more votes was 70% using the typical normal distribution and a reasonable estimate of the variances, but this 70% figure has its own associated confidence interval (since it's also an estimate and thus random), which was not reported. Even worse, this was only a statement about popular rather than electoral votes, since it's very expensive to field polls that are representative at both the national and State/Territory levels (let alone County level). A good estimate of the electoral votes for each candidate is possible but would need a large and expensive survey, and even then it would require a lot of adjustments since many people don't like to answer polls.

The truth is that the polls weren't strongly calling the election for anyone in 2016. And they aren't doing so now either, that 8% or so difference between Trump and Biden may probably be quite imprecisely estimated. They are an OK guide but they are far from a definitive statement.

Even worse, with the pandemic raging, I also find it extremely hard to predict voter participation this time around. This adds even more uncertainty than usual.
Last edited by wat0n on 08 Aug 2020 02:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15112033
So tonight Trump held a "press conference" from his Bedminster Country Club where he had been playing golf. Never mind that people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, he surrounded himself with a very wealthy audience, so he would have a cheering session, and said....I don't know because I would not watch it. Neither would some of the major networks. They did not cover what is a completely miss times campaign event. There is footage of the audience being handed masks and laughing as they put them on.

This is beyond incredible. It is "let them eat cake". Three months ago the dems passed a relief bill. The republican have done nothing under the leadership of Moscow Mitch. Now they are just fine knowing that they are playing for an audience of very stupid people.

The Republican strategy is racism, do nothing, blame democrats and try to keep people from voting. It will probably work.

He Godstud. How are things in Thighland? You did hear Trump call it Thighland? That was no big deal. Everyone misspeaks. Particularly people who are unfamiliar with reading. But what is unusual is that his entire staff jumped in to deny it happened.

The truth is that polls weren't strongly calling the election for anyone.


Why are we worried about polls when we have one of the parties trying to make votes not count?
By Istanbuller
#15112034
wat0n wrote:They weren't all that wrong. They did call the popular vote out, Trump was elected due to the electoral college after all.

But more importantly, they were massively misinterpreted. When people were saying Hillary had 70% probability of winning, they were saying the probability she would get more votes than Trump was 70%, right? But this is misleading, because it conveys a more certain result than there really was. One way to notice this is to look at the percentage of the vote for each. Here Hillary had something like 48% and Trump had something like 46%... And most polls had a margin of error greater than 2%. This can then be translated as saying that the polls estimate that the probability Hillary would get more votes was 70% using the typical normal distribution, but this 70% figure has its own associated confidence interval which was not reported. Even worse, this was only a statement about popular rather than electoral votes, since it's very expensive to field polls that are representative at both the national and State/Territory levels (let alone County level). A good estimate of the electoral votes for each candidate is possible but would need a large and expensive survey.

The truth is that polls weren't strongly calling the election for anyone.

They said Clinton had %95 chance of winning the election. Most polls predicted Clinton was going to have a double digit lead.

Now polls predict a narrow lead by Biden. Maybe we should understand this as Trump is going to win the popular vote this time.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15112046
“Every hero,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson a century before the Obese Donald was born, “becomes a bore at last.”

:lol:
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15112082
jimjam wrote:“Every hero,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson a century before the Obese Donald was born, “becomes a boor at last.”

:lol:

Fixed it for you, @jimjam. ;)
User avatar
By jimjam
#15112155
Obese Donald has just undercut the funding for the USPS, dramatically.

The result is a service that is being set up to be overwhelmed by the volume of voting.

This will require more days to sort, quantify, and validate results.

It will also provide a window of time for whomever is trying to subvert democracy and sway the election his way to overwhelm the system and create chaos.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15112158
Drlee wrote:So tonight Trump held a "press conference" from his Bedminster Country Club where he had been playing golf. Never mind that people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, he surrounded himself with a very wealthy audience, so he would have a cheering session, and said....I don't know because I would not watch it. Neither would some of the major networks. They did not cover what is a completely miss times campaign event. There is footage of the audience being handed masks and laughing as they put them on.



You are clearly not a conservative. Conservatives have a predilection for country clubs and high end stuff. Woke people are totally different.
Here are some conservative men and women:
Image
Image


Here are woke men and women, your type:
Image
Image
Image

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
By Doug64
#15112162
@jimjam Here’s what I can find about what’s happening at the USPS, from last Thursday. I don’t see anything in there (or anywhere else, for that matter) about Trump cutting current USPS funding:

Postal Service loses $2.2B in 3 months as virus woes persist

    The U.S. Postal Service says it lost $2.2 billion in the three months that ended in June as the beleaguered agency - hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic - piles up financial losses that officials warn could top $20 billion over two years.

    But the new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, disputed reports that his agency is slowing down election mail or any other mail and said it has “ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on time” for the November presidential contest, when a significant increase in mail-in ballots is expected.

    Still, DeJoy offered a gloomy picture of the 630,000-employee agency Friday in his first public remarks since taking the top job in June.

    “Our financial position is dire, stemming from substantial declines in mail volume, a broken business model and a management strategy that has not adequately addressed these issues,” DeJoy told the postal board of governors at a meeting Friday.

    “Without dramatic change, there is no end in sight,” DeJoy said.

    While package deliveries to homebound Americans were up more than 50%, that was offset by continued declines in first-class and business mail, even as costs increased significantly to pay for personal protective equipment and replace workers who got sick or chose to stay home in fear of the virus, DeJoy said.

    Without an intervention from Congress, the agency faces an impending cash flow crisis, he said. The Postal Service is seeking an infusion of at least $10 billion to cover operating losses as well as regulatory changes that would undo a congressional requirement that the agency pre-fund billions of dollars in retiree health benefits.

    The agency is doing its part, said DeJoy, a Republican fundraiser and former supply chain executive who took command of the agency June 15. DeJoy, 63, of North Carolina, is a major donor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. He is the first postmaster general in nearly two decades who is not a career postal employee.

    In his first month on the job, DeJoy said, he directed the agency to vigorously “focus on the ingrained inefficiencies in our operations,” including by applying strict limits on overtime.

    “By running our operations on time and on schedule, and by not incurring unnecessary overtime or other costs, we will enhance our ability to be sustainable and … continue to provide high-quality, affordable service,” DeJoy said.

    While not acknowledging widespread complaints by members of Congress about delivery delays nationwide, DeJoy said the agency will “aggressively monitor and quickly address service issues.”

    DeJoy’s remarks came as lawmakers from both parties called on the Postal Service to immediately reverse operational changes that are causing delays in deliveries across the country just as big volume increases are expected for mail-in election voting.

    Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that changes imposed by DeJoy “threaten the timely delivery of mail - including medicines for seniors, paychecks for workers and absentee ballots for voters - that is essential to millions of Americans.”

    In his remarks to the postal board of governors, DeJoy called election mail handling “a robust and proven process.″

    While there will “likely be an unprecedented increase in election mail volume due to the pandemic, the Postal Service has ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on time in accordance with our delivery standards, and we will do so,″ DeJoy said. “However … we cannot correct the errors of (state and local) election boards if they fail to deploy processes that take our normal processing and delivery standards into account.″

    Later Friday, DeJoy released another memo detailing changes that reshuffle dozens of officials on his executive leadership team. The former chief operating officer, David Williams, was moved to lead logistics and processing operations, while Kevin McAdams, vice president of delivery and retail operations, was removed from leadership.

    DeJoy said the changes - which also include a management hiring freeze - would improve efficiency and “align functions based on core business operations.”

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee, said DeJoy should not be instituting such major changes during “the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic with a national election around the corner.” Maloney, who has called DeJoy to testify before her committee next month, demanded he ”halt these changes now.”

    DeJoy ran into similar resistance at a closed-door meeting Wednesday with Schumer and Pelosi. Schumer called it “a heated discussion” and said Democrats told DeJoy that “elections are sacred.” They urged him not to impose cutbacks “at a time when all ballots count,″ Schumer said.

    In separate letters, two Montana Republicans, Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte, also urged the Postal Service to reverse the July directive, which eliminates overtime for hundreds of thousands of postal workers and mandates that mail be kept until the next day if distribution centers are running late.

    And 84 House members - including four Republicans - signed yet another letter blasting the changes and urging an immediate reversal. “It is vital that the Postal Service does not reduce mail delivery hours, which could harm rural communities, seniors, small businesses and millions of Americans who rely on the mail for critical letters and packages,” the House members wrote.

    The flurry of letters came as the top Democrat on a Senate panel that oversees the Postal Service launched an investigation into the operational changes. Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said DeJoy has failed to provide answers about the service delays, despite repeated requests.

    Democrats have pushed for $10 billion for the Postal Service in talks with Republicans on a huge COVID-19 response bill. The figure is down from a $25 billion plan in a House-passed coronavirus measure. Key Republicans whose rural constituents are especially reliant on the post office support the idea.

    Trump, a vocal critic of the Postal Service, contended Wednesday that “the Post Office doesn’t have enough time” to handle a significant increase in mail-in ballots. “I mean you’re talking about millions of votes. .. It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen.″
By Pants-of-dog
#15112168
I can understand why Trump is refusing to provide pandemic relief funding to the USPS before November.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15112193
Julian658 wrote:You are clearly not a conservative. Conservatives have a predilection for country clubs and high end stuff. Woke people are totally different.
Here are some conservative men and women:
Image
Image


Here are woke men and women, your type:
Image
Image
Image

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?


Very moronic. You are clearly unable to form your own opinions and must have them injected into your brain on a daily basis by the likes of Rush Limberg. Get a life man. Here are the 2 basic types of so called "conservatives". Which are you: the dumb guys or the "special people" :lol: ?


Image

Image
  • 1
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 219

I'd imagine that once the US is less of a threat t[…]

First 2020 Debate Thread

Pretty soon, @JohnRawls will be calling on Amer[…]

What is intelligence?

It would also be useful to examine Evald Ilyenkov'[…]

What is Fascism

France decided to go nuclear. Near 100% of th[…]