Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump cultists are going to be in for a big surprise in November 2018 and again in 2020. Trump is beloved by his base but outside his core supporters he isn't as popular as most think he is.
I don't expect the GOP to win any of those states in the senate. If they can snag one, great. But its not something I expect.
That's the deal with polls. You expect, I expect, and the guy over there in the corner expects.
But any politician that depends on expectations is on thin ice. All expectations are quickly dashed in our political system. When the biggest endeavor in most folk's lives is undertaken in such a risky thing as politics, relying on expectations isn't enough for a wise person. They must know with more certainty how they're doing because a lot of money and effort are being expended.
Expectations can fool a person. Statistics are often hard to decipher, but they don't often lie. More often than not, they are mis-interpeted or haven't been put to their best use. A real through poll may contain some elements of expectation, as it's a part of an election, but expectations can be quantified by statistics.
That's why polling exists and won't ever go away. It's like science or building jet airplanes; there are always unknowns, but with every new poll, some of the unknowns get quantified. The next model is better than the last.
Modern polling is nothing at all as primitive now as it was when Dewey was the expected winner in 1948. By 2020, the things that were overlooked in 2016 won't be overlooked again. 4 years of polling will have corrected that fault.
Yay, more Dems! Maybe we can go back to freeing Terrorists who return to kill us again. Maybe these Dems could fulfill Obama's promise of the $2500 a year O-care was supposed to save us.
Do you really still believe in polls, after the hillary debacle?
All of the polls had her leading by comfortable margins right up until the last moments of vote counting.
Many of us didn't have much faith in the polls before the last election, and we certainly have no faith in them now!
You know, those polls could have been totally on the money w/o Russian interference...
That's the deal with polls. You expect, I expect, and the guy over there in the corner expects.
But any politician that depends on expectations is on thin ice. All expectations are quickly dashed in our political system. When the biggest endeavor in most folk's lives is undertaken in such a risky thing as politics, relying on expectations isn't enough for a wise person. They must know with more certainty how they're doing because a lot of money and effort are being expended.
Expectations can fool a person. Statistics are often hard to decipher, but they don't often lie. More often than not, they are mis-interpeted or haven't been put to their best use. A real through poll may contain some elements of expectation, as it's a part of an election, but expectations can be quantified by statistics.
That's why polling exists and won't ever go away. It's like science or building jet airplanes; there are always unknowns, but with every new poll, some of the unknowns get quantified. The next model is better than the last.
Modern polling is nothing at all as primitive now as it was when Dewey was the expected winner in 1948. By 2020, the things that were overlooked in 2016 won't be overlooked again. 4 years of polling will have corrected that fault.
I don't think you have to worry about those women coasting on polls' ether thinking they have a cushion
Heck--one even had a baby -- they go the distance to get a win...
If you remember, Trump predicted he would compete in New York and Connecticut, so if you are playing the predictions game, no one actually batting 1000 here.
I honestly have never understood people posting comments like yours. Predictions are based on historical trends, Donald Trump won PA by 1%, it isnt like you saw some massive swing coming where he won by 20 points.
If you remember, Trump predicted he would compete in New York and Connecticut, so if you are playing the predictions game, no one actually batting 1000 here.
I honestly have never understood people posting comments like yours. Predictions are based on historical trends, Donald Trump won PA by 1%, it isnt like you saw some massive swing coming where he won by 20 points.
Oh, but I'll take Trump's predictions over any Dem'sin 2016. His batting average was far superior to most of the "players."
Midwestern Senate Democrats are leading their GOP rivals by double-digits in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to new polls by NBC/Marist.
Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Tina Smith of Minnesota all lead their Republican opponents by significant margins in the polls.
What debacle? The night before the election the national polls showed Hillary up by 2 or 3 points. She "won" the popular vote by 2.1 points or nearly 3 million votes. The national polls were very accurate. State polls are not as frequent or as consistent as the national polls; that's why they didn't predict the Electoral College vote correctly.
No they are not accurate at all and it makes no difference whether she won the popular vote, she lost the election. If you see the states she was projected to win and did not you would realize what so many others are saying. Not everyone lives in over the top liberal CA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.