Someone convince me this is wrong...

[codflyer]

Explain how this works. Some anonymous person conducting a phone poll hears you are voting for Trump and then what - calls your neighbors and tells them? Puts your information in the ANTIFA database for future attack? 🤔

There are numerous people on the left, and not just fringe wackos, that actively say that Trump supporters need to be rooted out and ejected from society. They need to have their businesses boycotted. They need to be made into pariahs on social media and shunned by their neighbors. Sometimes it is coming from "news anchors" in the organizations conducting the polls. Many of the people running these polls are highly partisan, and who knows what sort of security responses have. A nut job intern in Pennsylvania just sent out screenshots of voter rolls yesterday and bragged about knowing how people voted. There is zero reason to trust anyone in the media or any campaign at this point.

 

[torbee]

There are numerous people on the left, and not just fringe wackos, that actively say that Trump supporters need to be rooted out and ejected from society. They need to have their businesses boycotted. They need to be made into pariahs on social media and shunned by their neighbors. Sometimes it is coming from "news anchors" in the organizations conducting the polls. Many of the people running these polls are highly partisan, and who knows what sort of security responses have. A nut job intern in Pennsylvania just sent out screenshots of voter rolls yesterday and bragged about knowing how people voted. There is zero reason to trust anyone in the media or any campaign at this point.

So you are paranoid. This tracks.

 

[IAHawk2011]

The polls are wrong.... I don't know how else to tell you.

If you understood how they actually arrive at the numbers they produce you will be shocked.

Look at the numbers of people who have actually voted early... in Florida specifically, more Rep have voted than Dem. Now it is possible that people voted across the lines for which they are registered.

Some polls have Biden up 6%

Early vote data suggests Independents are breaking for Biden at a 60% clip, opposed to 24% for Trump. Additionally, only 4% of registered Dems are voting for Trump, whereas 13% of Republicans are voting for Biden. Voter registration numbers don’t tell the whole story.

 

[torbee]

Early vote data suggests Independents are breaking for Biden at a 60% clip, opposed to 24% for Trump. Additionally, only 4% of registered Dems are voting for Trump, whereas 13% of Republicans are voting for Biden. Voter registration numbers don’t tell the whole story.

View embedded media

There is a fairly decent chance that the 2020 polls are actually inaccurate the opposite way they were in 2016. That is they are undercounting the number of people who normally don’t vote that have seen the idiocy of the last 4 years and are coming out to vote against Trump. He is wildly unpopular among the public at large.

 

[coloradonoles]

Election Analysis Exclusive: Here is What Will Happen on Nov. 3

Who is going to win? That is the question everyone is asking.

t.co

Take a chance and read another point of view. He covers a bunch of ideas thrown around in this thread.

 

[HawkInDC]

Early vote data suggests Independents are breaking for Biden at a 60% clip, opposed to 24% for Trump. Additionally, only 4% of registered Dems are voting for Trump, whereas 13% of Republicans are voting for Biden. Voter registration numbers don’t tell the whole story.

View embedded media

Who the heck are the other 16% of independents voting for?

 

[TheCainer]

I think this is the BEST Biden can hope for.

If that map should hold with the exception of Arizona flipping, we will be going overtime.

Heaven help us.

 

[sober_teacher]

If that map should hold with the exception of Arizona flipping, we will be going overtime.

Heaven help us.

I just don't get that conclusion by @coloradonoles that this map is the best possible for Biden. He has all but 3 of the battleground states going towards Trump, despite the fact that Biden leads, if narrowly in some, in almost all of them.

 

[torbee]

Election Analysis Exclusive: Here is What Will Happen on Nov. 3

Who is going to win? That is the question everyone is asking.

t.co

Take a chance and read another point of view. He covers a bunch of ideas thrown around in this thread.

Read it. Has some interesting theses.

But here are things from the article that are wrong:

Most media polling is not scientific, and “national media polls” are completely useless. If we’ve learned anything since 2016, it’s that public polling is all over the place.

This is not true. Having worked for 3 large media companies in both print and broadcast, they all employ professional polling firms that do scientific polling. In addition, public polling in 2020 is not “all over the place.” It has been remarkably stable, as it was in 2018, when it was dead-on accurate.

The Trafalgar Group is one of the only polling firms that picked Trump to win in 2016. They are also a complete innovator, disruptor, and outlier in polling methodology — and now they are releasing some of their polls publicly

Trafalgar got the 2016 presidential election right. Good for them. In 2018, they are 11 points off the gubernatorial race in their own home state of Texas. They lean heavy Republican, so naturally Trump’s surprise upset in 2016 went their way. Their overall record is quite poor compared to other public polling outfits.

The “Shy Trump Voter,” on the other hand, was a proven fact in 2016. Spectrum News recently defined the “Shy Trump Voter”: “A recent online study that found Republicans and independents are twice as likely as Democrats to admit to withholding their true preference to public opinion pollsters about who they will vote for in the presidential election is reviving claims of the “shy Trump voter.”


Debunked: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/16/us/politics/trump-polls.amp.html?0p19G=0232

According to our data, the Hunter Biden story has had a big effect on voters. The left-wing and mainstream media’s attempt at suppressing this story has created a reverse-effect on some undecided and low-propensity voters (who believe Joe Biden will bring honor and decency to the Oval Office). These voters are now digging into the story (social media platforms that banned the story have created more desire to learn what happened). This “nothing to see here” story will factor into the final vote

This is where this article gets dumb. This is pure, ridiculous, wishful thinking. Most CONSERVATIVE pundits agree this fictional story is doing zero to gin up ANY new, non-Trump hardcore supporters.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I think this is the BEST Biden can hope for.

While it is plausible I tend to think that this map is literally Trump's only route to victory.

He's slightly behind in PA, NC, FL, and AZ but not so far that it makes this map impossible.

 

[codflyer]

So you are paranoid. This tracks.

You are better than this.

 

[torbee]

Another of Trump’s 2016 coalition abandoning him- joining seniors and suburban women:

 

[torbee]

You are better than this.

What is this other than paranoia:

There is zero reason to trust anyone in the media or any campaign at this point.

 

[codflyer]

What is this other than paranoia:

There is zero reason to trust anyone in the media or any campaign at this point.

You asked what people are thinking who wouldn't answer a pollster at all, or be truthful with pollsters who call them. I gave an answer. Why would a Trump supporter have any reason to trust or cooperate with a campaign pollster or anyone in the media right now? They see them as conpletely hostile to them. And there is no shortage of public behavior to fuel that view point. You can't even keep yourself from making a passive-aggressive swipe at me trying to answer a question that you asked.

 

[torbee]

You asked what people are thinking who wouldn't answer a pollster at all, or be truthful with pollsters who call them. I gave an answer. Why would a Trump supporter have any reason to trust or cooperate with a campaign pollster or anyone in the media right now? They see them as conpletely hostile to them. And there is no shortage of public behavior to fuel that view point. You can't even keep yourself from making a passive-aggressive swipe at me trying to answer a question that you asked.

All I’m saying is if you can trust NO ONE in media or political campaigns (literally tens of thousands of people) you are paranoid. Period.

And that isn’t passive-aggressive or even aggressive-aggressive. You are literally paranoid that no one involved in a campaign and no one in the entire media can be trusted. You really cannot be more paranoid than that.

 

[BigDelHawk]

I agree with you about the pandering to NY, FL, CA and TX comment (believe it or not - I don't want the EC abolished altogether), however, even in Iowa, Nebraska, MN, Wisconsin you have people who's vote basically isn't being tallied either (because of the "winner take all" method, which changed in the Thomas Jefferson days ... originally, the EC was setup more like Maine and Nebraska). The EC needs to be updated to allow for more granular counting (not winner take all).

Government doesn't work when the MAJORITY of the people don't want the leaders that are in place, that isn't rocket science ... this time around, even if Trump somehow rigs the system (via voter suppression or the courts or both), he will likely lose the popular vote by ~10million. That isn't how democracy is supposed to work.

That would be the same as abolishing it.

 

[coloradonoles]

All I’m saying is if you can trust NO ONE in media or political campaigns (literally tens of thousands of people) you are paranoid. Period.

And that isn’t passive-aggressive or even aggressive-aggressive. You are literally paranoid that no one involved in a campaign and no one in the entire media can be trusted. You really cannot be more paranoid than that.

You are a wordsmith, correct?

What do you think paranoia means?

To help you out...

Paranoia:

suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

I would contend there is more than ample justification of the media not being fair or honest. That does not have to meet your ridiculous and arbitrary statement of EVERY, NO ONE or the ENTIRE persons can be trusted.

 

[BigDelHawk]

Early vote data suggests Independents are breaking for Biden at a 60% clip, opposed to 24% for Trump. Additionally, only 4% of registered Dems are voting for Trump, whereas 13% of Republicans are voting for Biden. Voter registration numbers don’t tell the whole story.

View embedded media

This was to be expected. Early voters were the Trump haters. They could not wait to have their vote counted. The older folks who are going to turn this election typically vote on election day.

 

[ICWestfan]

Wisky goes red again.

 

[BigDelHawk]

All I’m saying is if you can trust NO ONE in media or political campaigns (literally tens of thousands of people) you are paranoid. Period.

And that isn’t passive-aggressive or even aggressive-aggressive. You are literally paranoid that no one involved in a campaign and no one in the entire media can be trusted. You really cannot be more paranoid than that.

IDK, literally tens of thousands of people who donated to Republican campaigns had their tax returns audited while Obama was in office. He literally sent the IRS after them. That alone makes him one of the shittiest Presidents in History.

IRS targeting controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

JFC, it {the EC} is supposed to allow all States have input into who is choosen as President. Otherwise, they will all just pander to NY, FL, CA, TX and send pork there. **** the needs of the flyover States.

Actually, my understanding (which Finance85 will correct, if I'm wrong) is that the EC was put into place to keep the ignorant populists from electing a complete moron into the office of President. They were meant to act as a fail-safe / guardrail in case the voting population did something really stupid.

 

[torbee]

IDK, literally tens of thousands of people who donated to Republican campaigns had their tax returns audited while Obama was in office. He literally sent the IRS after them. That alone makes him one of the shittiest Presidents in History.

IRS targeting controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Except they didn’t. According to the FBI:

In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting"

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's Inspector Generalfound that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

 

[artradley]

Election Analysis Exclusive: Here is What Will Happen on Nov. 3

Who is going to win? That is the question everyone is asking.

t.co

Take a chance and read another point of view. He covers a bunch of ideas thrown around in this thread.

That was a waste of time. It was nothing but idle speculation, with a completely unfounded claim that most national polls are not scientific. Nonsense.

Do you realize the polls were off by about 1.5% last year? Your whole argument is built con a false premise - that polls are inaccurate.

The true statement is that polls have a margin of error, and it’s up to each of us to acknowledge that when digesting the numbers.

 

[coloradonoles]

Wisky goes red again.

I think Michigan does too... I just couldn't bring myself to include it.

 

[ConvenientParking]

IIRC the IRS thing started before Obama came into office and ended up targeting mainly conservative groups because that's who was most active at the time (different types of Tea Party orgs basically).

 

[torbee]

IIRC the IRS thing started before Obama came into office and ended up targeting mainly conservative groups because that's who was most active at the time (different types of Tea Party orgs basically).

In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting"

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's Inspector Generalfound that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberalkeywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

 

[BigDelHawk]

Except they didn’t. According to the FBI:

In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting"

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's Inspector Generalfound that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

There is Comey again, protecting his Democratic overlords. Plus the fact of the matter is they targeted donors to Republican Groups, 4 to one vs. Democrats. All about the selection criteria.

So yeah, the inspector general was technically correct, but the game was stacked against Republicans.

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

IDK, literally tens of thousands of people who donated to Republican campaigns had their tax returns audited while Obama was in office. He literally sent the IRS after them. That alone makes him one of the shittiest Presidents in History.

IRS targeting controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not the case. the IRS went after new 501C4 organizations (not the donors) that popped up during the campaign, prior to the election. Here's why:

United States federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from having to pay federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements".[6] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.[7]

 

[torbee]

There is Comey again, protecting his Democratic overlords. Plus the fact of the matter is they targeted donors to Republican Groups, 4 to one vs. Democrats. All about the selection criteria.

So yeah, the inspector general was technically correct, but the game was stacked against Republicans.

And the 2017 IG’s report? From the Trump-appointed IG? 🤔

 

[j0nnyhb_Prime]

That would be the same as abolishing it.

Doesn't have to be the same as abolishing it ... can create a hybrid system.

 

[BigDelHawk]

Not the case. the IRS went after new 501C4 organizations (not the donors) that popped up during the campaign, prior to the election. Here's why:

United States federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from having to pay federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements".[6] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.[7]

Bullshit, read the entire Wikipedia file. Make your own decision.

The above comment is just Cherry Picking around the truth.

Read it.

 

[BigDelHawk]

And the 2017 IG’s report? From the Trump-appointed IG? 🤔

And the IRS settlement? What was correct?

 

[coloradonoles]

That was a waste of time. It was nothing but idle speculation, with a completely unfounded claim that most national polls are not scientific. Nonsense.

Do you realize the polls were off by about 1.5% last year? Your whole argument is built con a false premise - that polls are inaccurate.

The true statement is that polls have a margin of error, and it’s up to each of us to acknowledge that when digesting the numbers.

You just have confirmation bias. If you had clicked on any of the links where he summarized his stances you would see how he came to his conclusions.

Is he 100% right about everything??? most likely not. But he touched on alot of the issues that have been dismissed in this thread.

Not every poll is the same. You can quite literally make any poll say anything you want. You just can't believe anyone has nefarious intentions... I am not that naive.

 

[torbee]

You just have confirmation bias. If you had clicked on any of the links where he summarized his stances you would see how he came to his conclusions.

Is he 100% right about everything??? most likely not. But he touched on alot of the issues that have been dismissed in this thread.

Not every poll is the same. You can quite literally make any poll say anything you want. You just can't believe anyone has nefarious intentions... I am not that naive.

What is interesting to me, though, is that 90 percent of the polls this election season have been aligned. But you say the outlier poll is the “truth.”

So which of those polls sounds like the one that was made to “say anything it wants.” 🤔

 

[artradley]

You just have confirmation bias. If you had clicked on any of the links where he summarized his stances you would see how he came to his conclusions.

Is he 100% right about everything??? most likely not. But he touched on alot of the issues that have been dismissed in this thread.

Not every poll is the same. You can quite literally make any poll say anything you want. You just can't believe anyone has nefarious intentions... I am not that naive.

Let's try this. His entire article was explaining why polls are inaccurate, when in fact polls are accurate. And his more important claim - that most national polls are not scientific, is flat false.

It's like a long, long article explaining how we know the earth is flat. I don't need to follow any links to discover whatever truths he thinks he has uncovered. The earth ain't flat.

Right now the national polls show Biden has a 7.9% lead. How far off do you think they will be?

 

[torbee]

Let's try this. His entire article was explaining why polls are inaccurate, when in fact polls are accurate. And his more important claim - that most national polls are not scientific, is flat false.

It's like a long, long article explaining how we know the earth is flat. I don't need to follow any links to discover whatever truths he thinks he has uncovered. The earth ain't flat.

Right now the national polls show Biden has a 7.9% lead. How far off do you think they will be?

The nice thing about this particular argument on HROT is it will be definitively answered.

Just like the one @Whiskeydeltadeltatango and I had.

And just like in that one - math, science and common sense appear to be on my side, whereas those with the countering view are going with their gut and against conventional wisdom.

Gotta say, I like my chances of being 2-0. 🙂

 

[codflyer]

All I’m saying is if you can trust NO ONE in media or political campaigns (literally tens of thousands of people) you are paranoid. Period.

And that isn’t passive-aggressive or even aggressive-aggressive. You are literally paranoid that no one involved in a campaign and no one in the entire media can be trusted. You really cannot be more paranoid than that.

You asked why someone might not answer a pollster. I said why I think they might do that. Then you called me paranoid. Are we detecting why someone might not want to engage in these conversations? With friends, family, pollsters, reporters, etc?

Out of curiosity though, who in the media would you point to as someone that you think is trustworthy and non-partisan?

 

[torbee]

You asked why someone might not answer a pollster. I said why I think they might do that. Then you called me paranoid. Are we detecting why someone might not want to engage in these conversations? With friends, family, pollsters, reporters, etc?

Out of curiosity though, who in the media would you point to as someone that you think is trustworthy and non-partisan?

Wall Street Journal, Economist, Associated Press, Reuters are all pretty straight-down-the-middle outfits.

And biggies like The NY Times and WaPo - while somewhat left-leaning - continue to do an excellent job on the “horse race” aspect of the campaign season.

 

[codflyer]

And the 2017 IG’s report? From the Trump-appointed IG? 🤔

And the 2017 IG’s report? From the Trump-appointed IG? 🤔

The one where he said:

"We found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names2 or policy positions3 instead of indications of significant potential political campaign intervention. After the IRS responded to the findings in the draft report but prior to the issuance of our final report, the Director, Exempt Organizations, appeared at an American Bar Association meeting on May 10, 2013, and stated that the IRS’s use of organization names in the title for the selection of advocacy cases was “…incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” We issued the final report on May 14, 2013,4 and concluded that ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued."

Also, the report was conducted by Michael E. McKenney, the Deputy IG at Treasury...and he is not a Trump appointed official.

 

[IAHawk2011]

This was to be expected. Early voters were the Trump haters. They could not wait to have their vote counted. The older folks who are going to turn this election typically vote on election day.

Older folks? The most recent Fox poll is +19 in favor of the Dems amongst seniors when compared to 2016.