Hope for trump

[justme]

Though the latest national poll has all four of the top tier democrats beating trump, (warren, harris, biden, and sanders) trump does lead buttigieg by two points. So if the entire top tier somehow implodes then trump may be at least within the margin of error on beating one of the remainders.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Lizzy60]

First of all, the polls are rigged. Second, the media is controlled by the left, and so they happily report whatever they are told, in this case that the Dems will beat Trump. Third, it's way too early to predict an election over a year away. Fourth, they are putting out this misinformation to try to influence voters, not to report honest information.

Remember how the Mainstream Media Hacks had the Hildebeast with a 96% chance of winning the election ON ELECTION DAY?!?!? If that was so far wrong, how can anyone look at any poll today and give it a second thought?

[justme]

First of all, the polls are rigged. Second, the media is controlled by the left, and so they happily report whatever they are told, in this case that the Dems will beat Trump. Third, it's way too early to predict an election over a year away. Fourth, they are putting out this misinformation to try to influence voters, not to report honest information.

Remember how the Mainstream Media Hacks had the Hildebeast with a 96% chance of winning the election ON ELECTION DAY?!?!? If that was so far wrong, how can anyone look at any poll today and give it a second thought?

Some good points. It is true that some polls may be rigged or designed as a "push" poll or "suppression" poll as you state. That is why one of the major things we try to teach our students in critical reasoning courses about statistics is to "consider the source". When done right, and many are, a poll can be very worthwhile. There are different places to look at the quality of polling services. One such source is https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/. It gives data on the historical accuracy of various polls. Note that some of the most accurate polling services are university based such as Quinnipiac University. There are many things to watch out for when evaluating a poll. A good guide for this is https://www.crf-usa.org/election-centra ... polls.html. But when a poll is done right there is a 95% chance that the true value lies within the interval consisting of the reported value plus or minus the margin of error. This is referred to as a 95% confidence interval. Now as you and many others may point out there are of course problems with getting perfect results when dealing with human subjects and their opinions. But it is interesting to note that the accuracy rates of the major polling services is around 85 %. Not bad.

I do wonder about the 96% chance of winning that you quote. Do you have a source for that? I would love to look closer. I can think of some of the factors involved. The data does show that in the final days the average of polls had clinton leading by 3.3 whereas she only won the popular vote by 2.1.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5952.html

In summary there is a legitimate science behind polling and some of us will follow them with interest.

[endlessQuestions]

It was the New York Times, but I think they had it at 92%.

[Lizzy60]

What Google pulls up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=newspap ... ent=safari

One in particular:

https://www.thewrap.com/every-poll-that ... ald-trump/

YouTube also has some fun compilations of MM meltdown on election night. From sure victory to wretched defeat in just a few minutes (edited, of course). Remember how they all quit reporting results for over an hour, as they hoped the news would turn their way? Better than a blockbuster movie, IMHO.

I don't believe "science" in this particular case.

[simpleton]

All and all though, really, what difference does it make. Our country is still going to hell in a handbasket. Really, it does not matter who gets in. Everybody likes to bash on Obama and Clinton, but what did Bush and company do to our country and constitution. In other words our morality, as a nation, wait we have no morality. It's still free falling inspite of whoever is president.
I haven't cared for any of the President's since way before even my time. They all have "givin power to the beast". But so has the Congress and the Senate.

[Chip]

Part of loving lies more than truth is gleefully quoting phony polls that are designed to embolden the wicked and demoralize the righteous.

This has nothing to do with science or education. It has to do with evil being made to look legitimate and persuasive.

[justme]

Part of loving lies more than truth is gleefully quoting phony polls that are designed to embolden the wicked and demoralize the righteous.

This has nothing to do with science or education. It has to do with evil being made to look legitimate and persuasive.

Actually it has everything to do with science and education. True there may be "some" polls that are intentionally misleading or that are done in an unscientific manner. Some people may refer to this as "phony". I would say unscientific. But an educated person should be able to critically analyze the reports they are reading and weed out such "phony" reports. Instead we concentrate on the scientific reports.

Looking at the science has nothing to do with "wicked", "evil" or "demoralize the righteous". That frankly is naive and uneducated. And since education is one of the core principals of our religion (the glory of God is intelligence DC 93:36) I will continue to study the science and apply it in life and teach it to others. Of course some will reject it, but isn't that rejecting the glory of God and wouldn't that be "evil".

[justme]

What Google pulls up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=newspap ... ent=safari

One in particular:

https://www.thewrap.com/every-poll-that ... ald-trump/

YouTube also has some fun compilations of MM meltdown on election night. From sure victory to wretched defeat in just a few minutes (edited, of course). Remember how they all quit reporting results for over an hour, as they hoped the news would turn their way? Better than a blockbuster movie, IMHO.

I don't believe "science" in this particular case.

Thank you for the sources. I am reading and pondering them and will try to summarize in a post.

And actually I do believe the science in this case as always. Note that they did not say scientifically that there was zero percent chance, just a small chance, and thus could still happen and it did.

[skmo]

Though the latest national poll has all four of the top tier democrats beating trump...

Looking at polls to predict a winner is like having little tone deaf Johnny in a singing contest against Luciano Pavarotti, Kiri Te Kanawa, and Freddie Mercury, and then asking little Johnny's mom who the best one is.

[abijah]

Polls will probly shift when a democrat nominee is chosen. Like it matters anyway.

Meanwhile Trump fights for his country while democrats, like Pelosi in Central America, fight for theirs.

And those who wouldn’t have their birthright sold on their behalf see what is happening.

I would choose Trump over socialism any day, modern democrats are crazy. Socialism is antithetical to the blessing given by God that if we are righteous we will prosper in this consecrated land. Covenant promises develop into unfulfilled develop into curses.

And democrats have become more brazen in their devotion to the socialist left.

[Fiannan]

Last year there was a forum participant who was always dissing on Trump and praising Romney. Have not seem him around lately. Kinda miss him.

[Fiannan]

Polls will probly shift when a democrat nominee is chosen. Like it matters anyway.

Informed and active participants in the political process (and that includes those who use the internet to sway public opinion) are a small minority of both the left and right. Most people out there do not live politics and only take an interest when the elections near. Most people however do know where Trump stands but all they see in regards to the Democrats is elderly Uncle Joe, elderly grampa-looking Bernie Sanders, and Liz Warren, etc. Most people have no clue how left-wing these candidates are but will find out next year. That is when their popularity in polls will decrease.

In addition, the Democrats have a problem. While the Republican base is united they have to corral environmentalists who think childbirth should be discouraged, rich Hollywood psychopaths, labor unions, ethnic groups who often have socially conservative political stands, psychopathic trans-nationalist corporations who care nothing for "human resources" and elderly voters who grew up when there were only two genders. The Democrats then have to prove they are in line with one group, but do their best to conceal their intents from another. This is why Republicans still win even though the media hates them. It is just too hard for them to lie and trick so many groups.

[David13]

Last year there was a forum participant who was always dissing on Trump and praising Romney. Have not seem him around lately. Kinda miss him.

I don't miss him/her at all and there are others here, too.

And he/she may even have been (paid to?) be reincarnated here in a 'kinder gentler' format.
dc

[Fiannan]

And he/she may even have been (paid to?) be reincarnated here in a 'kinder gentler' format.
dc

Given that some thought as well.

[gkearney]

Last year there was a forum participant who was always dissing on Trump and praising Romney. Have not seem him around lately. Kinda miss him.

I don't miss him/her at all and there are others here, too.

And he/she may even have been (paid to?) be reincarnated here in a 'kinder gentler' format.
dc

You mean I can get paid for being a liberal on this forum? Where do I sign up?

[gkearney]

Sigh...National pools mean nothing at all when it comes to electing a president. The only polling data worth looking at come from a handful of upper midwestern states that Trump carried in the 2016 and which he must hold in 2020. If he can't hold every single state he won in 2016 he will lose in 2020 for the simple fact that there are no Democratic states, those which voted for Clinton in 2016, which are realistically in play for him. He's in a tight spot any way you look at it.

The Electoral College is a strange beast. Consider this. Trump could win all the states he won in 2016 by a massive majority say plus +80% except he loses a couple of states by a slim margin to the Democrats. At the same time the Democratic candidate carries all of Clinton's states bu only by the slimmest of majorities say 1%. Under this scenario Trump loses the presidency even with the vast majority of voters voting for him.

How is that possible you ask? Because of the way the electors in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) are proportioned. It's a winner take all system. It doesn't matter if you win a state by 80% or 1% if you win that state you get ALL the electors from that state. This is what is going to make Trumps reelection a relly hard task and if Biden is the nominee, and if he were to pick Sanders as his running mate, arguably the two strongest candidates at the disposal of the Democrats, it going to be very, very hard for Trump to hold all his states and he simply has no margin to pick up states to replace them.

Another common error made when looking at presidential elections is to look at a map of counties in the United States.



Just look at all that red (Republican) you say why Trump must be fantastically popular you say. Except for one fact, real estate doesn't vote.

An example of this is found in Maine. Maine is one of only two states that proportions its electors by congressional district. Each state has one elector for each congressional district and two electors, call senatorial electors.That gives Maine four electors in all. Looking at the map you would think that Trump won the state of Maine, just look at that red. But in the actual election Trump got 1 elector and Clinton 3. Why? Because the two senatorial electors are given to the candidate that carries the state as a whole and while the first congressional district is physically big it has roughly the same number of voters as the second district which runs along the southern coastal regions which voted democratic along with three counties in the first district as well. This combined with the fact that in many of those red counties the margins in favour of Trump was slim, Franklin and Kennebec particularly so means that Trup lost the state of Maine as a whole and so the senatorial electors went to Clinton. Now this system of proportional electors is better than giving all the electors to one candiade regardless of the margins it still demonstrates that real estate really doesn't matter here.

All this combined with the "winer takes all" nature of the Electoral College proportionment means that Trump might well find himself in the same place that Hillary Clinton did in 2016, winning the popular vote but losing the election because of the inability to hold onto just a couple of states by the narrowest of margins. If this happens watch Trump trow a complete fit about the "crooked Electoral Congress" the institution that got him elected in the first place.

Trump has a steep hill to climb in 2020 he may well be reelected but it will be a substantial challenge and he has no room at all for error.

[justme]

Sigh...National pools mean nothing at all when it comes to electing a president. The only polling data worth looking at come from a handful of upper midwestern states that Trump carried in the 2016 and which he must hold in 2020. If he can't hold every single state he won in 2016 he will lose in 2020 for the simple fact that there are no Democratic states, those which voted for Clinton in 2016, which are realistically in play for him. He's in a tight spot any way you look at it.

The Electoral College is a strange beast. Consider this. Trump could win all the states he won in 2016 by a massive majority say plus +80% except he loses a couple of states by a slim margin to the Democrats. At the same time the Democratic candidate carries all of Clinton's states bu only by the slimmest of majorities say 1%. Under this scenario Trump loses the presidency even with the vast majority of voters voting for him.

How is that possible you ask? Because of the way the electors in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) are proportioned. It's a winner take all system. It doesn't matter if you win a state by 80% or 1% if you win that state you get ALL the electors from that state. This is what is going to make Trumps reelection a relly hard task and if Biden is the nominee, and if he were to pick Sanders as his running mate, arguably the two strongest candidates at the disposal of the Democrats, it going to be very, very hard for Trump to hold all his states and he simply has no margin to pick up states to replace them.

Another common error made when looking at presidential elections is to look at a map of counties in the United States.



Just look at all that red (Republican) you say why Trump must be fantastically popular you say. Except for one fact, real estate doesn't vote.

An example of this is found in Maine. Maine is one of only two states that proportions its electors by congressional district. Each state has one elector for each congressional district and two electors, call senatorial electors.That gives Maine four electors in all. Looking at the map you would think that Trump won the state of Maine, just look at that red. But in the actual election Trump got 1 elector and Clinton 3. Why? Because the two senatorial electors are given to the candidate that carries the state as a whole and while the first congressional district is physically big it has roughly the same number of voters as the second district which runs along the southern coastal regions which voted democratic along with three counties in the first district as well. This combined with the fact that in many of those red counties the margins in favour of Trump was slim, Franklin and Kennebec particularly so means that Trup lost the state of Maine as a whole and so the senatorial electors went to Clinton. Now this system of proportional electors is better than giving all the electors to one candiade regardless of the margins it still demonstrates that real estate really doesn't matter here.

All this combined with the "winer takes all" nature of the Electoral College proportionment means that Trump might well find himself in the same place that Hillary Clinton did in 2016, winning the popular vote but losing the election because of the inability to hold onto just a couple of states by the narrowest of margins. If this happens watch Trump trow a complete fit about the "crooked Electoral Congress" the institution that got him elected in the first place.

Trump has a steep hill to climb in 2020 he may well be reelected but it will be a substantial challenge and he has no room at all for error.

Very nice analysis. Thank you. I like and agree with the final summary sentence. National polls is one but only one measure of what is happening but you point out well their limitation in our current system.

If you look closely at the three states that swung the election in 2016 the razor sharp margin is mind boggling. The idea that he will do it again given the polls in those specific states is very slim.

[righteousrepublic]

Sigh...National pools mean nothing at all when it comes to electing a president. The only polling data worth looking at come from a handful of upper midwestern states that Trump carried in the 2016 and which he must hold in 2020. If he can't hold every single state he won in 2016 he will lose in 2020 for the simple fact that there are no Democratic states, those which voted for Clinton in 2016, which are realistically in play for him. He's in a tight spot any way you look at it.

The Electoral College is a strange beast. Consider this. Trump could win all the states he won in 2016 by a massive majority say plus +80% except he loses a couple of states by a slim margin to the Democrats. At the same time the Democratic candidate carries all of Clinton's states bu only by the slimmest of majorities say 1%. Under this scenario Trump loses the presidency even with the vast majority of voters voting for him.

How is that possible you ask? Because of the way the electors in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) are proportioned. It's a winner take all system. It doesn't matter if you win a state by 80% or 1% if you win that state you get ALL the electors from that state. This is what is going to make Trumps reelection a relly hard task and if Biden is the nominee, and if he were to pick Sanders as his running mate, arguably the two strongest candidates at the disposal of the Democrats, it going to be very, very hard for Trump to hold all his states and he simply has no margin to pick up states to replace them.

Another common error made when looking at presidential elections is to look at a map of counties in the United States.



Just look at all that red (Republican) you say why Trump must be fantastically popular you say. Except for one fact, real estate doesn't vote.

An example of this is found in Maine. Maine is one of only two states that proportions its electors by congressional district. Each state has one elector for each congressional district and two electors, call senatorial electors.That gives Maine four electors in all. Looking at the map you would think that Trump won the state of Maine, just look at that red. But in the actual election Trump got 1 elector and Clinton 3. Why? Because the two senatorial electors are given to the candidate that carries the state as a whole and while the first congressional district is physically big it has roughly the same number of voters as the second district which runs along the southern coastal regions which voted democratic along with three counties in the first district as well. This combined with the fact that in many of those red counties the margins in favour of Trump was slim, Franklin and Kennebec particularly so means that Trup lost the state of Maine as a whole and so the senatorial electors went to Clinton. Now this system of proportional electors is better than giving all the electors to one candiade regardless of the margins it still demonstrates that real estate really doesn't matter here.

All this combined with the "winer takes all" nature of the Electoral College proportionment means that Trump might well find himself in the same place that Hillary Clinton did in 2016, winning the popular vote but losing the election because of the inability to hold onto just a couple of states by the narrowest of margins. If this happens watch Trump trow a complete fit about the "crooked Electoral Congress" the institution that got him elected in the first place.

Trump has a steep hill to climb in 2020 he may well be reelected but it will be a substantial challenge and he has no room at all for error.

You best understand that about 15 states have signed a pack to discontinue the electoral college. It may not happen due to the fact that they need at least 270 electoral college votes to win.

From: https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon ... elections/
That agreement wouldn’t kick in until enough states sign on to tally at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to win the presidency.

With Oregon joining up, the compact will include 196 electoral votes, according to the national group pushing the bill.
.................................................................................................................................................................
If the compack goes thru, all polls will mean absolutely nothing. And with the Dumbocraps wanting votes from illegal aliens they could win the popular vote rather easily.

And this could very well be the end of our republic. (A mass of Americans think we have a democracy, but they are wrong.)

[simpleton]

Part of loving lies more than truth is gleefully quoting phony polls that are designed to embolden the wicked and demoralize the righteous.

This has nothing to do with science or education. It has to do with evil being made to look legitimate and persuasive.

Actually it has everything to do with science and education. True there may be "some" polls that are intentionally misleading or that are done in an unscientific manner. Some people may refer to this as "phony". I would say unscientific. But an educated person should be able to critically analyze the reports they are reading and weed out such "phony" reports. Instead we concentrate on the scientific reports.

Looking at the science has nothing to do with "wicked", "evil" or "demoralize the righteous". That frankly is naive and uneducated. And since education is one of the core principals of our religion (the glory of God is intelligence DC 93:36) I will continue to study the science and apply it in life and teach it to others. Of course some will reject it, but isn't that rejecting the glory of God and wouldn't that be "evil".

Public education will most likely take most of us to hell... just look around. What you see are the direct results of our public education system.
And also, the good book says that " the learning of man is foolishness". And then there is science, or rather today's BS science. Or the BS conclusions that hold sway in the scientific world. Or to get to the roots of it, the belief of so called scientists, (or rather unbelief) that there is a God. And so because of that unbelief they come up with the most ridiculous pathetic ideas and spread them around in our public education system as if they were gospel truth.
God, through Joseph revealed more in a minute than these so-called scientists, that the world loves to extol, have learned in a lifetime. The worldly system has even gone out of it's way to bury truth.
I am all about "education" also but I am absolutely against the education system today that we all send our kids to, that directly and intentionally teaches them against God....
Brigham and Joseph were all about learning and gaining knowledge, but they were dead set against free public education.
But I will say that inspite of it all, since the restoration of the Gospel, many many scientific truths have been givin to men. The problem is the devil takes charge and twists it around to suit his diabolical means through corrupt, greedy, proud men.

[captainfearnot]

First of all, the polls are rigged. Second, the media is controlled by the left, and so they happily report whatever they are told, in this case that the Dems will beat Trump. Third, it's way too early to predict an election over a year away. Fourth, they are putting out this misinformation to try to influence voters, not to report honest information.

Remember how the Mainstream Media Hacks had the Hildebeast with a 96% chance of winning the election ON ELECTION DAY?!?!? If that was so far wrong, how can anyone look at any poll today and give it a second thought?

New York Times had 85%. Nate Silver had 71.4%.

But even if the prediction was 96%, how do you know it was wrong? Things with 4% probability do happen. How do we know Trump's election wasn't just such an occurrence?

To drive this point home, the NYT compared Hillary's chance of losing to an NFL kicker missing a 37-yard field goal, and then linked to videos of NFL kickers missing 37-yard field goals. Almost as if they wanted to remind people that regardless of the odds, either outcome was still very possible.

BTW, here's the NYT yet again reminding us that Trump has a very real chance at reelection despite the current poll numbers. Those liberal media hacks.

[larsenb]

First of all, the polls are rigged. Second, the media is controlled by the left, and so they happily report whatever they are told, in this case that the Dems will beat Trump. Third, it's way too early to predict an election over a year away. Fourth, they are putting out this misinformation to try to influence voters, not to report honest information.

Remember how the Mainstream Media Hacks had the Hildebeast with a 96% chance of winning the election ON ELECTION DAY?!?!? If that was so far wrong, how can anyone look at any poll today and give it a second thought?

Liz, good summation of reality.

[mahalanobis]

I think Trump is in trouble. To be clear: there are things I like about him; I'm no Trump-hater.

It's just that the stars aligned for him in 2016: He lucked out by running against the worst candidate in the history of the world. The media was so arrogantly over-confident that they lulled the D voters into a false sense of security. Plus Russia helped him. ... Okay, okay, just joking about that last point lol.

This time, the Democrats will have the opposite of a false sense of security. It will be: "those racist boogeymen gonna-getcha!" and "our 'democracy' is at stake" and "this is the most important election of our lifetime".

The thing Trump has in his favor is the economy and full employment. That would be huge for a conventional incumbent, but this is Trump. Facts and results will get ignored and this will come down to a battle of personally. That is, unless the economy tanks, then it will be all about the economy and Trump will be finished in a landslide defeat.

I hope he wins. I don't like his crass gutter personality, but I like that he has kept us out of new wars. I like that he's made enemies with all the right people and that he's not afraid to go toe-to-toe with them.

[gkearney]

I think Trump is in trouble. To be clear: there are things I like about him; I'm no Trump-hater.

It's just that the stars aligned for him in 2016: He lucked out by running against the worst candidate in the history of the world. The media was so arrogantly over-confident that they lulled the D voters into a false sense of security. Plus Russia helped him. ... Okay, okay, just joking about that last point lol.

This time, the Democrats will have the opposite of a false sense of security. It will be: "those racist boogeymen gonna-getcha!" and "our 'democracy' is at stake" and "this is the most important election of our lifetime".

The thing Trump has in his favor is the economy and full employment. That would be huge for a conventional incumbent, but this is Trump. Facts and results will get ignored and this will come down to a battle of personally. That is, unless the economy tanks, then it will be all about the economy and Trump will be finished in a landslide defeat.

I hope he wins. I don't like his crass gutter personality, but I like that he has kept us out of new wars. I like that he's made enemies with all the right people and that he's not afraid to go toe-to-toe with them.

Your right Hillary Clinton was just about the worst possible candidate the Democratic Party could have selected. Had they chosen Sanders the outcome would have gone the other way but as it was there were people with an almost pathological hate for her and she just was carrying around too much baggage. All that is not likely to be repeated this time with Biden and or Sanders. People don’t have that kind of visceral hatred of either of those men. As I have said everything must break Trumps way, any misstep, any hiccup in the economy any miscalculation on a hot button issue like gun control in either direction and he loses. This time the Democrats will come out loaded for bear.

[justme]

Part of loving lies more than truth is gleefully quoting phony polls that are designed to embolden the wicked and demoralize the righteous.

This has nothing to do with science or education. It has to do with evil being made to look legitimate and persuasive.

Actually it has everything to do with science and education. True there may be "some" polls that are intentionally misleading or that are done in an unscientific manner. Some people may refer to this as "phony". I would say unscientific. But an educated person should be able to critically analyze the reports they are reading and weed out such "phony" reports. Instead we concentrate on the scientific reports.

Looking at the science has nothing to do with "wicked", "evil" or "demoralize the righteous". That frankly is naive and uneducated. And since education is one of the core principals of our religion (the glory of God is intelligence DC 93:36) I will continue to study the science and apply it in life and teach it to others. Of course some will reject it, but isn't that rejecting the glory of God and wouldn't that be "evil".

Public education will most likely take most of us to hell... just look around. What you see are the direct results of our public education system.
And also, the good book says that " the learning of man is foolishness". And then there is science, or rather today's BS science. Or the BS conclusions that hold sway in the scientific world. Or to get to the roots of it, the belief of so called scientists, (or rather unbelief) that there is a God. And so because of that unbelief they come up with the most ridiculous pathetic ideas and spread them around in our public education system as if they were gospel truth.
God, through Joseph revealed more in a minute than these so-called scientists, that the world loves to extol, have learned in a lifetime. The worldly system has even gone out of it's way to bury truth.
I am all about "education" also but I am absolutely against the education system today that we all send our kids to, that directly and intentionally teaches them against God....
Brigham and Joseph were all about learning and gaining knowledge, but they were dead set against free public education.
But I will say that inspite of it all, since the restoration of the Gospel, many many scientific truths have been givin to men. The problem is the devil takes charge and twists it around to suit his diabolical means through corrupt, greedy, proud men.

I'm sorry. I thought we were on a LDS forum. You know the church whose budget for higher education is second only to the building fund. I do not recognize your anti-learning diatribe as being relevant to the church I grew up with.