2020 Election MEGAthread

[hobart]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

regale us with John Kerry's accolades.

Holding my breath.

I thought about not responding and letting natural selection work, but you'll just open your mouth once you pass out.

How about being a Senator?

Oh, and I am not a fan of John Kerry. But to suggest he's not qualified is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Morton Jr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good point

How much did joe make in the swamp again anyone know?

At least trump worked for his money and after a mueller investigation and multiple audits, is a free man !

Can biden say the same?

You don't seem to know what many of the words you're using mean.

When you get $400MM from Daddy, most under the table, that doesn't mean you "worked" for it.

Audits have nothing to do with freedom. And the Mueller investigation clearly indicated that the special prosecutor wasn't wanting to test rather or not a sitting President could be indicted -- and this is not a bad thing for precedent.

Swamp also doesn't mean qualified professional/public servant with a breadth of relevant knowledge, though Trump surely has drained those.

Running business after business into the ground is not "making" money in the way most people think of it.

[Hrothgar]

Lol @ Tpar ref

[Castle2.0]

Hobart, you're a terrible debater.

• You are pointing to national average which doesn't address my point. My point was that the STATE polls were off by large margins. For example, Ohio was off by 6% on AVERAGE - that means across all the polls. Some people had it at 7, 8, 9% Hillary. National average doesn't mean crap - we have what we call an 'electoral college', heard of that?
• You ignore the links I post totally refuting your below statement. So I'll just repost for posterity's sake.

Originally Posted by Hobart

And there was no significant modeling that gave Trump only a 1-10 shot before the 2016 election.

Originally Posted by Castle2.0

Originally Posted by CNN
Hillary Clinton's odds of winning the presidency rose from 78% last week to 91% Monday before Election Day, according to CNN's Political Prediction Market.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/polit...ump/index.html
Date: Nov 7, 2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-forecast.html
Date: Nov 8, 2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by 538
Hillary 87.3% Donald 12.6%
Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
Date: October 19, 2016

/dunk - go learn to debate

[Castle2.0]

Oh btw...

Say her name! Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett!

Black Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas swears in Female Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barret. Woot!

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh btw...

Say her name! Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett!

Black Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas swears in Female Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barret. Woot!

ayy good for her!

Democrats frothing for Court packing like FDR in a woopty skirt.

[imperiouskitten]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump is losing Texas right now

You guys are nuts thinking he wins the election. Everyone sane thinks he’s a buffoon

Get your heads out of your asses. Trump wasn’t ross Perot and he didn’t fix the very real problems we face. Back to the drawing board

put simply, I don't believe he's really losing Texas. I remember the 2016 polls. This is not an endorsement of the shitbird retard who got probably 500k Americans killed because he thought he'd get an electoral advantage out of keeping his base cheerful to go outside to the polls.

[Jibartik]

I got a friend in TX that says he has 10k people coming through his little restaurant every month, sounds to me like it will stay red lol

[Castle2.0]

Here is an an academic paper draft manuscript about this topic. Apolitical and unbiased.

"Public Election Polls are 95% Confident but only 60% Accurate"

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we investigate the calibration of public election polls. We present a definition of poll accuracy based on whether the poll’s margin of error spans the true election outcome. Most polls provide a 95% confidence interval along with the poll results, we sought to find whether their accuracy is as high as their confidence levels claim. Furthermore, we also wanted to see how this accuracy evolves over time as polls are conducted closer to the actual election. We find that even a week away from the election, polls claiming 95% confidence are only accurate 60% of the time. Moreover, we conclude that these polls would in fact need margins of error twice their reported width in order to be truly 95% confident. This provides a unique insight into the adjustment polls need over time and quantifies the systemic error polls contain beyond what the traditional statistics captures.

CONCLUSION
...
Our findings highlight the need for those communicating the results of election polls to adjust downward the level of confidence they claim, or to adjust upward the size of the reported confidence interval. If they wish to report well-calibrated confidence intervals, pollsters or reporters ought to report substantially wider confidence intervals. Current practice, which reports confidence intervals assuming that the only source of error is sampling error, overestimates the accuracy of polls.
...

Source: https://psyarxiv.com/rj643/ -- worth a read - only 2 pages, if you don't understanding polling, margin of error, confidence levels, etc. this is a good start to jump right into it.
Authors: Don Moore (Decision researcher at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business) and Aditya Kotak (Quantitative Trading Strats Analyst @ Goldman Sachs)

tl;dr

Either

1. Change their methods so their polls WORK, and keep a high confidence interval (95%) and low margin of error
2. Adjust their confidence interval DOWN so we know how unreliable the poll is
3. Adjust their margin of error UP so we know their poll might be "right", but not super meaningful because the range of outcomes is so wide

2 & 3 don't help us get more accurate information about how people will vote. And (most) pollsters haven't changed their methods.

The 2016 STATE POLLS were OUTSIDE the margin of error in many instances, and sometimes by a multiple of the margin of error. The polls were... WRONG

[FatherSioux]

500k deaths because trump...real rich.

[imperiouskitten]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

500k deaths because trump...real rich.

zero leadership. if you're content with how it was handled you're unfixable.