Moderator: coldharvest
Ozymandias wrote:The Guardian article is pretty clear on their methodology: "Each day, the Guardian’s poll tracker takes a rolling 14-day average of the polls in eight swing states." So are all the underlying polls not exactly a reliable source? Or is the methodology in how the Guardian are interpreting these underlying polls problematic? It seems that you agree with the Guardian's interpretation that "We must caution that the polls – particularly some swing state polls – severely under counted Trump supporters in 2016. We are not certain, despite assurances, that they they have corrected this. Additionally, they may be over-counting Democratic support (more people may say they will vote for Biden than actually turn out). We present the latest polls with those caveats to be borne in mind."
Ozymandias wrote:Lots of excitement at the moment about the potential for Texas to turn into a blue state for first time since 1976, given the early voter turnout, and how close it's been in the polls recently. Losing Texas would be a disaster for Trump's reelection chances.
I'm not sure all this early turnout is necessarily a guaranteed good thing for Biden, although the Trump team's efforts to obstruct the postal vote implies they think it is...
We're seeing very high rates (above 24% in PA, MI, WI, FL, TX, AZ, NC, GA) of new voters who did not vote in 2016 turning out for early voting in this election. This, combined with a likely new record in terms of overall turnout, is probably bad news for voter modeling. Also, mail-in ballots are being rejected at very low rates.
Exciting times!
Ozymandias wrote:Lots of excitement at the moment about the potential for Texas to turn into a blue state for first time since 1976, given the early voter turnout, and how close it's been in the polls recently. Losing Texas would be a disaster for Trump's reelection chances.
I'm not sure all this early turnout is necessarily a guaranteed good thing for Biden, although the Trump team's efforts to obstruct the postal vote implies they think it is...
We're seeing very high rates (above 24% in PA, MI, WI, FL, TX, AZ, NC, GA) of new voters who did not vote in 2016 turning out for early voting in this election. This, combined with a likely new record in terms of overall turnout, is probably bad news for voter modeling. Also, mail-in ballots are being rejected at very low rates.
Exciting times!
ROB wrote:Certainty is indicative of stupidity.
Dabbi wrote:I think all the failed predictions here need to be printed out and eaten by the people that make them after they prove wrong
Kurt wrote:ROB wrote:Certainty is indicative of stupidity.
Or actually knowing stuff...but for the most part you are correct.
My political predictions are mostly stupid though.
I predicted Obama when he entered the race at a dinner table in the UK and was told that the US was too racist to elect a black man (this was at a Conservative dinner table). I was told he would never be nominated even, but if he was he would lose.
I also predicted there would only be one political party and differences in foreign and domestic policy would be represented by competing "Think Tanks" ( I was wrong but I think it was a decent guess in some ways)
Dabbi wrote:I think all the failed predictions here need to be printed out and eaten by the people that make them after they prove wrong
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests