[boy3365]

Originally Posted by BNBR

Even Politico reports the exact opposite of what Kyle is saying:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...mocrats-432135

"Florida Republicans are pouring out of the trenches.

After weeks of Democrats outvoting them by mail, Republican voters stormed early voting precincts in person this week, taking large bites out of their opponents’ historic lead in pre-Election Day ballots."

I didn't read the story, but in the other political post by Corrie, I noted that regardless of how many registered Democrats or Republicans are turning out to vote early or have returned mail-in ballots, there are still enough NPA voters who have done the same to make predictions about the results based on party turnout meaningless.

[grad_student200]

Originally Posted by logybogy

Florida's role for Biden is to suck Trump's time and resources from the states he really needs to win (at least 1 of PA, WI, MI). Biden can win the election by reclaiming the historic blue wall states and leaving the map the same from 2016. If Trump loses FL, his chances are essentially over so it's an advantageous position for Biden. It's why Bloomberg put $100M into FL. They want Trump distracted by having to win FL while they solidify the Rust Belt states. It's trench warfare.

I think Trump may replicate his 2016 map and hold FL, OH, NC, IA, GA, TX, AZ.

But winning one of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to get him over the 270 is going to be tough in this current environment. I can easily see Trump getting to the 240's/250's and making it really close in the electoral college but 270 is a tough nut to crack. Everything aligned perfectly in 2016 and he still barely won the 3 rust belt states by 80,000 votes. Also, there has been demographic changes. A large chunk of Trump's 2016 voters in the rust belt have died and/or moved to Florida or other retirement destinations. Way more than his 80,000 vote margin.

Trump is actually further behind than shown because many pollsters "overcorrected" to avoid a repeat of 2016 when most pollsters thought Trump would lose. So, the "overcorrection" was done very aggressively to the point where it went too far - an overfit. The models are generally underestimating the true gap.

I say this from the view of data science. I am actually a moderate Republican (extremely moderate - lol). But I don't think this is a good year for Republicans to hold the presidency and senate. I believe that was a major factor in pushing the Barrett nomiation for SCOTUS. If they were going to lose, they wanted to save face by at least having a Republican presence in the highest court of the land. Ironically, the judges voted in by conservatives often become somewhat liberal in unexpected ways once they reach that bench. Again, I am just pointing out the historical data.

The Republicans will be back - probably sometime in the mid to late 2020s. It depends on how the "Blue Wave" holds out in the next term.

[southernnaturelover]

Originally Posted by BNBR

Ah, yes. No substance. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

And now you think "my generation" will just move on? I'm possibly younger than you. And what do you think is going to happen? The USA goes Democrat hard-core for the next couple of centuries? Your naivety and ignorance is kind of funny, very child like.

Of course, I won't expect you to actually provide evidence that Trump is a racist, homophobic, woman hating, white supremacist monster who wants to fill our rivers and streams with garbage. You see, people like you can't back up anything. The reason being, because it's not true. But the fact that you believe it all anyways just proves how ignorant you are, despite your confidence.

Isn't it funny how the far leftists assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an old fart ready to go into the nursing home? Hate to break it to them, but there are a LOT of us gen-Xer's and millennials who are Trump supporters.

[boy3365]

Originally Posted by grad_student200

Trump is actually further behind than shown because many pollsters "overcorrected" to avoid a repeat of 2016 when most pollsters thought Trump would lose. So, the "overcorrection" was done very aggressively to the point where it went too far - an overfit. The models are generally underestimating the true gap.

I say this from the view of data science. I am actually a moderate Republican (extremely moderate - lol). But I don't think this is a good year for Republicans to hold the presidency and senate. I believe that was a major factor in pushing the Barrett nomiation for SCOTUS. If they were going to lose, they wanted to save face by at least having a Republican presence in the highest court of the land. Ironically, the judges voted in by conservatives often become somewhat liberal in unexpected ways once they reach that bench. Again, I am just pointing out the historical data.

The Republicans will be back - probably sometime in the mid to late 2020s. It depends on how the "Blue Wave" holds out in the next term.

There's an article in Politico about "shy Trump" voters, and the two pollsters who predicted that Trump wasn't as behind as it seemed in 2016 are sounding a warning again. I hope these two guys are wrong lol.

[EscAlaMike]

My predictions:

REASONABLE:
Trump will win every state he won in '16 plus Minnesota.

A LITTLE WILD:
And my wild prediction is that he will win EITHER (not both) New York or New Jersey

CRAZY:
and maybe even Oregon.

[k350]

Originally Posted by grad_student200

Trump is actually further behind than shown because many pollsters "overcorrected" to avoid a repeat of 2016 when most pollsters thought Trump would lose. So, the "overcorrection" was done very aggressively to the point where it went too far - an overfit. The models are generally underestimating the true gap.

I say this from the view of data science. I am actually a moderate Republican (extremely moderate - lol). But I don't think this is a good year for Republicans to hold the presidency and senate. I believe that was a major factor in pushing the Barrett nomiation for SCOTUS. If they were going to lose, they wanted to save face by at least having a Republican presence in the highest court of the land. Ironically, the judges voted in by conservatives often become somewhat liberal in unexpected ways once they reach that bench. Again, I am just pointing out the historical data.

The Republicans will be back - probably sometime in the mid to late 2020s. It depends on how the "Blue Wave" holds out in the next term.

Please explain in actual stat/math terms, what "overcorrected" is, what does it consist of?

You say it from a view of "data science", yet you provide zero data nor science.

[k350]

Originally Posted by grad_student200

Trump is actually further behind than shown because many pollsters "overcorrected" to avoid a repeat of 2016 when most pollsters thought Trump would lose. So, the "overcorrection" was done very aggressively to the point where it went too far - an overfit. The models are generally underestimating the true gap.

I say this from the view of data science. I am actually a moderate Republican (extremely moderate - lol). But I don't think this is a good year for Republicans to hold the presidency and senate. I believe that was a major factor in pushing the Barrett nomiation for SCOTUS. If they were going to lose, they wanted to save face by at least having a Republican presence in the highest court of the land. Ironically, the judges voted in by conservatives often become somewhat liberal in unexpected ways once they reach that bench. Again, I am just pointing out the historical data.

The Republicans will be back - probably sometime in the mid to late 2020s. It depends on how the "Blue Wave" holds out in the next term.

Ok, lets revisit this one, lol.

[boy3365]

With the polls, I wonder how they select their respondents.

I've NEVER received a poll call before. Do they call cell phones or only landlines? When they say "likely voters," how are they determining what an early voter is? Are they able to predict who actually shows up? If they keep records of the names of the "likely voters" they called, to do they go through the public records and check if their "likely voters" actually voted?

Just me thinking out loud.

[BNBR]

Originally Posted by boy3365

There's an article in Politico about "shy Trump" voters, and the two pollsters who predicted that Trump wasn't as behind as it seemed in 2016 are sounding a warning again. I hope these two guys are wrong lol.

Regardless of who wins, these guys were absolutely spot on. The polls have been horribly wrong when it comes to Trump and this election was no different. The polls predicted, essentially, a landslide.

[boy3365]

Originally Posted by BNBR

Regardless of who wins, these guys were absolutely spot on. The polls have been horribly wrong when it comes to Trump and this election was no different. The polls predicted, essentially, a landslide.

I didn’t read it, but Vox or one of the other more liberal publications had pretty much a response article called “The Silent Biden” voter. Interestingly, I can’t find it to post here.

Lol. I don’t know what to think of the polling situation.