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.
Forget the polls. Nothing talks louder than money.
Fellow Trumpers, I have a question for you: who's racking up donations and running ads in reach states, VERSUS pulling ads in key battleground states that are do or die?
Forget the polls. Nothing talks louder than money.
Fellow Trumpers, I have a question for you: who's racking up donations and running ads in reach states, VERSUS pulling ads in key battleground states that are do or die?
BINGO!!!! You beat me to it Although I'm waiting for a response along the lines of............that's Soros and Bloomberg money funding Biden. Biden is outraising and outspending Trump on ads.
All you need to look at to see how much trouble the repubs are in for the WH and Senate is look at SC. Graham is begging for donations on radio and tv while his democratic opponent is shattering records for donations.
Sorry, in the current climate there isn’t a media outlet that would show a poll with Trump up 10.
They refuse to even point out any negatives about Biden/Harris, and there are many.
It's called a hypothetical, and it was used to make a point. None of you can actually show that polling is wrong, or that it has historically been wrong, so you just trash or ignore them.
It is not the job of polls to highlight positives and negatives with candidates. They are not part of presidential campaigns.
BINGO!!!! You beat me to it Although I'm waiting for a response along the lines of............that's Soros and Bloomberg money funding Biden. Biden is outraising and outspending Trump on ads.
All you need to look at to see how much trouble the repubs are in for the WH and Senate is look at SC. Graham is begging for donations on radio and tv while his democratic opponent is shattering records for donations.
I am not holding my breath waiting for a rebuttal, but the only one I've seen so far has been: Trump is just saving up until right before the election. Or something. Which is REALLY dumb, considering just how many people have already voted...
And you keep ignoring my other main point, the assumption that people who don't respond to polls are similar to people who do.
Point 1: I posted The Economist polling where they shifted 2 points to Trump based on this assumption. I started an entire thread on it because I thought it was so interesting.
They clearly agree that all people who don’t respond are not the same. I’m agreeing that this is a valid point. What I am arguing against is your assertion that this is fundamentally corrupting all polling and it is not being adjusted for.
Point 2: Oversampling is corrected by weighting the undersampled group more heavily. This doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to follow, but Republicans love the “oversampling” headline without understanding the process.
I am not holding my breath waiting for a rebuttal, but the only one I've seen so far has been: Trump is just saving up until right before the election. Or something. Which is REALLY dumb, considering just how many people have already voted...
Democrats have more money. Big money people are behind the Democrats. Kind of defeats the left's theme that the corporate interests own the Republicans.
Hillary outspent Trump 1.2 billion to 500 million. And she lost.
Point 1: I posted The Economist polling where they shifted 2 points to Trump based on this assumption. I started an entire thread on it because I thought it was so interesting.
They clearly agree that all people who don’t respond are not the same. I’m agreeing that this is a valid point. What I am arguing is your assertion that this is fundamentally corrupting all polling and it is not being adjusted for.
Point 2: Oversampling is corrected by weighting the undersampled group more heavily. This doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to follow, but Republicans love the “oversampling” headline without understanding the process.
Nobody else is adjusting. And any adjustment is purely a guess. Nobody knows what that number is.
They aren't all adjusting. And the adjustment is, again, based on assumptions that may or may not be valid.
And the biggest advantages for Biden is on polls looking at all voters, not just likely voters.
Democrats have more money. Big money people are behind the Democrats. Kind of defeats the left's theme that the corporate interests own the Republicans.
Hillary outspent Trump 1.2 billion to 500 million. And she lost.
Biden will shatter that 1.2 billion number.
How is Trump going to compete in key swing states by pulling ads? Was he pulling them in 2016 around this time?
Nobody else is adjusting. And any adjustment is purely a guess. Nobody knows what that number is.
They aren't all adjusting. And the adjustment is, again, based on assumptions that may or may not be valid.
And the biggest advantages for Biden is on polls looking at all voters, not just likely voters.
By definition, a model is based on assumptions. That’s how models work. If there were no assumptions it would not be a model, it would be telling the future. As far as I know, nobody has cracked that code yet.
This is where I get sad about cynicism prevailing over knowledge.
I’ve been fortunate to study under some of the sharpest finance professors in the world. They are typically filthy rich because of investments made based on their models. These models are populated with assumptions.
Models are not perfect. People should understand their limitations, but should also not throw them away because they either don’t like what they are saying or don’t understand them.
How is Trump going to compete in key swing states by pulling ads? Was he pulling them in 2016 around this time?
In 2016, Hillary didn't go to Michigan until the last moment. She never went to Wisconsin. Guiliani was saying Trump had a good chance in Pennsylvania and Michigan and a shot at Wisconsin. Only one poll showed Trump winning Pennsylvania and Michigan. No poll ever showed Trump winning Wisconsin. The weekend before the election Trump people were asking Brit Hume why the media was still talking about North Carolina. They believed they had it in the bag. Hume assumed they didn't know what they were talking about.
Trump had good people working for him in 2016. He knew where to go and where to spend money. Hillary outspent him by almost 2.5 times and lost. It isn't all about money. Money helps, but its not everything.
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.
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.
Although I'm waiting for a response along the lines of............that's Soros and Bloomberg money funding Biden. Biden is outraising and outspending Trump on ads. 
By definition, a model is based on assumptions. That’s how models work. If there were no assumptions it would not be a model, it would be telling the future. As far as I know, nobody has cracked that code yet. 
