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.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

******* fly on pence's head.

---

All those times someone said "I wish I was a fly on the wall..." Well it came true for someone.
The plan was to ride on his head into a room where he could be a fly on the wall.
But yeah, he died of toxic poisoning due to proximity to Pence's brainwaves.

okaydo said:

---

---

Flies are attracted to decaying matter.

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

OMG. That is outstandingly precious!!

---

The question is, was the fly wearing a mask?

Big C said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Tonight's big winner and possibly the next VP of the US is clear:

---

Just my luck, a classic two minutes in US political debate history and I'm in my car, listening on the radio (couldn't hear any buzzing, btw). After I heard about it, I played the video for my little kids, who suddenly found interest in these debates.

The tables and floor of the SNL writers' room are already covered with drool, I guarantee it. So many possibilities...

---

SNL already had a field day last Saturday and it will be hard to top it. But I expect them to equal it and I will be watching.

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

If Donald Trump tells us to take the vaccine I won't take it. Hey, I'm lying, don't interrupt me, Hey, I don't have a rebuttal but if you don't mind letting me finish, ok? Can we can have a conversation here, ok?

She hasn't answered questions up till now. She didn't answer questions at the debate.

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

Can BearFarce do better than this intern?

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.

The thing about polls is that none of them can possibly get a true sample of the whole electorate -- there are just too many people. The more reputable scientific pollsters will then try to "weight" the sample they got based on key factors that are known to drive the vote in similar directions (gender, race, education level, age, etc.). In general they are basing this weighting on what they have seen in the past in a given state, district, etc. Of course the actual turnout can be different for a variety of reasons, which is why they have a margin of error.

The polls in 2016 were actually not significantly outside the margin of error, it's just that the "error" was on the leading edge of benefiting Trump (about +2 in his direction) and that had major consequences in the Midwestern swing states that were within that error. As WIAF notes, one of the major factors was that lower-education voters (who normally don't turn out at high levels) came out unexpectedly strong for Trump. If anything, you would expect the error to go the other way this time as pollsters over-correct for the previous swing. But of course it could still go either way.

The thing is that Biden's lead is much bigger than Clinton's. The same 2-point error, if applied to an election happening today, would still result in him winning the election. He's up by 4 to 7 points in the tipping-point states. He's also close to or above 50% in many of these states, which Hillary never was (guess what: if you're over 50% then it doesn't matter how much ground your opponent makes up, you still win). As WIAF also notes, there were a lot of undecided voters in 2016. Not very many this time. Trump would need a historically large polling error to win with numbers like this. It's not impossible! There is still time! But it's not looking good for him.

Also, if you were paying attention to polling analysis like Nate Silver's, it was clear that Obama had the edge in 2012 over Romney, because he was actually polling better in the swing states than he was nationally. The opposite is true in 2016 and now, but for now Biden's lead is big enough that the difference doesn't matter.

sycasey said:

---

Trump would need a historically large polling error to win with numbers like this. It's not impossible! There is still time! But it's not looking good for him.

---

Or historically large voter suppression. They are filing lawsuits to make it harder to vote everywhere they can and have help from people like Greg Abbott. If there were equal access to voting across the entire electorate, I'm confident that we would see Biden win by 10+ points and garner 350+ votes in the EC. The only question left is how successful Republican anti-democratic efforts are.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Trump would need a historically large polling error to win with numbers like this. It's not impossible! There is still time! But it's not looking good for him.

---

Or historically large voter suppression. They are filing lawsuits to make it harder to vote everywhere they can and have help from people like Greg Abbott. If there were equal access to voting across the entire electorate, I'm confident that we would see Biden win by 10+ points and garner 350+ votes in the EC. The only question left is how successful Republican anti-democratic efforts are.

---

I suppose. Though again, this would have to be pretty big, across multiple states, to erase Biden's current lead.

BearChemist said:

---

Can BearFarce do better than this intern?

---

Perhaps team Trump sent this out to fellow GOP'ers with a suggestion. She copied and pasted one line too many (the first line).