okaydo said:
BearForce2 said:
heartofthebear said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:
It's still kind of insane that this debate is even happening. I wouldn't want anyone else in a room with Pence, who was knowingly exposed to infected people in recent weeks.
Aren't they both being continually tested?
Can we trust anything coming out of this White House?
Can we trust anything coming from the media?
You're the one spewing Fox news talking points on a daily basis.
You're confused.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/08/poll-56-percent-americans-better-trump-four-years-ago/
Poll: 56% Americans Say They Are Better Off Now Under Trump Than Four Years Ago Under Obama-Biden
Gallup is really good at polling (well off) Americans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx
BTW, this is what happens when you polling doesn't get the representative turn out in your polls of actual voters. Romney's staff said he went to bed the night before the election being told by both internal and independent pollsters he would win the election. The pollsters assumed for some reason that the black turn out would go back to "normal levels" after Obama's first term. They were very wrong.
Similar thing for Clinton vs Trump. From the New York Times:
At least three key types of error have emerged as likely contributors to the pro-Clinton bias in pre-election surveys. Undecided voters broke for Mr. Trump in the final day of the race, or in the voting booth (may add: those afraid to admit they favored Trump). Turnout among Mr. Trump's supporters was somewhat higher than expected (my add: they blew who would vote at what levels of turn out like in Romney's case). And state polls, in particular, understated Mr. Trump's support in the decisive Rust Belt region, in part because those surveys did not adjust for the educational composition of the electorate a key to the 2016 race (again, my add: they blew who would vote at what levels of turnout like in Romney's case).
I expect the black turn out to be significant in this race, and largely undercounted in the polls currently. You would assume pollsters, particularly in state polls, would also now realize that there is incredible bias in who responds to polls. The tendency for better-educated white female voters to respond to surveys in greater numbers has been true for a long time, and becoming even more pronounced, if you believe The NY Times. The Times says that is where pollsters blew the Clinton election (and Romney election as well) but not properly weighting their results. Polling is not science, but an art where assumptions are made and can be wrong. But with so many people actually voting early, you should be able to minimize this risk factor.
Looking back at 2016, a post election survey by Pew Research, and another by Global Strategy Group, a Democratic firm, re-contacted people who had taken their polls before the election. They found that undecided and minor-party voters broke for Mr. Trump by a considerable margin far more than usual. Similarly, the exit polls found that late-deciding voters supported Mr. Trump by a considerable margin in several critical states. These three results imply that late movement boosted Trump that could not be detected by polls. There's nothing pollsters can do, for example, if undecided voters break for one candidate in the final hours. Given that many more voters will vote early in this election, this is less likely to be a factor.
So my expectation is that current battle ground state polls are more accurate today, the in prior elections, and that also there will be far less undecided shortly before the election date.
