Re: US
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:37 pm
They print and post up what they believe will get the most clicks / sales.Apachebulldog wrote:Yeah and a lot of them all left leaning rags and have one common denominator all anti Trump.
Since 2015 i would say almost all MSM have been anti Trump the establishment do not like the OUTSIDER.
No it won't.DOC wrote:'November 3rd will tell all."
True.
In Australia we will have the race that stops a nation whilst in the US they will vote for or against a racist running a nation.
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The polls have Biden leading
The same polls that predicted Hilary would win.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The polls have Biden leading
The same polls that predicted Hilary would win.
woodublieve12 wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The polls have Biden leading
The same polls that predicted Hilary would win.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
RB wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The polls have Biden leading
The same polls that predicted Hilary would win.
There are a few points to make here regarding polling:
1. The result of the election in many respects reflected the polling - i.e. Hillary winning the popular vote by 2-3%. Although the Electoral College determines the presidency, it was not unreasonable to presume that it would reflect the popular vote - it had only failed to do so once since the 19th century.
2. Trump's Electoral College win was within the margin of error for most pollsters. FiveThirtyEight, won of the most respected polling aggregators, gave Trump a 30% chance of winning on election day, and was at pains to stress in the weeks prior that a Trump victory remained a distinct possibility.
3. Trump's vote was remarkably efficient - i.e. won the narrow contests and didn't waste votes in safe states. Of course, this could happen again, but the Democrats have had four years to study the 2016 campaign and work out what went wrong, and how they can do better next time in terms of focusing on the right states. I'll admit though that this is beyond the control of pollsters.
4. To the extent that there was a polling error, it seems that the major contributor was insufficient state-based rather than national polls, and the failure to weigh education in making predictions. These issues have both been largely resolved.
5. Biden's lead in polls at this time was far greater than Hillary's.
Point number 5 could prove decisive. Although it may narrow between now and the election (which would matter less than usual as there is far more early voting this time around), there are fewer 'late deciders' this time around. Trump won those voters comfortably four years ago.
I would definitely not write off Trump, but comparing polling now with polling four years ago is like comparing apples with oranges.
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:If his VP was the nominee then they have a bigger chance of winning IMO.
Agree to a degree. But if they played it right she could win. Gives the voters 2 distinct differences. If she aint gonna win cos of her skin, put in a male at her ageBooney wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:If his VP was the nominee then they have a bigger chance of winning IMO.
There is, in reality, no chance the American public vote a woman of colour into the Oval Office.
Thing is, they're too stupid to work out she'll end up there as soon as Joe gets in and steps aside.
Jimmy_041 wrote:I'll say it again:
The Electoral College system was instituted to stop California and New York always picking the President
The popular vote is meaningless.