SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Electoral College
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1730291222

Message started by WebsterMark on 10/30/24 at 05:27:02

Title: Electoral College
Post by WebsterMark on 10/30/24 at 05:27:02

Based on RealClearPolitics poll which is an average of maybe 10 different polls, they show as of today Trump with 297. That’s based on a slight lead in several battleground states such as Pennsylvania. Take those out and they’re showing Trump at 219, Harris at 214 with 104 to close to call, but in those, 88 leaning Trump.

The thing I’m shocked about is the Republican turnout in early voting is far larger than expected.

Myself, I’m still am unsure which way this is going to go, but the fact most of the battleground states are leaning Trump tells me he’s the better bet right now.

Title: Re: Electoral College
Post by Eegore on 10/30/24 at 05:41:41

Realclearpolitics also predicted Clinton by a landslide in 2016. They use the most ideal averaging system, but we've seen how that can go.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2016_president/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Considering they are averaging, they rely on the accuracy of some pretty poor polling. But what else can we use? It's all guesswork, and even after votes are counted people are going to say it's wrong.

This is an opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is.

Title: Re: Electoral College
Post by JOG on 10/30/24 at 07:09:07

Realclearpolitics also predicted Clinton by a landslide in 2016. They

I'm not even going to try to unpack the errors in understanding going on there.
I'll do a quick outline.

That was an attempt to create the perception she was ahead. Even Donna Brazeal Said after the big trip, hitting the towns,She has No Support. The polls were Bullschitt to create the illusion, so the Cheat wouldn't be obvious. They underestimated Trump's support, and didn't dial in enough cheat. Unlike the people here,they learned. And Dialed it Up in 20.

RCP isn't necessarily a participant in trying to create a false perception. If they use corrupted data, the outcome is corrupted.

Title: Re: Electoral College
Post by Eegore on 10/30/24 at 07:38:56

RCP still uses the same methods as 2016. So if their method was impacted before, it can be impacted now. I have seen no indication they can reliable mitigate any of the strategies used to manipulate polls. So using them today is not really any different than using them in 2016.

This is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is.

Title: Re: Electoral College
Post by WebsterMark on 10/30/24 at 07:59:13

5E6B78607B7C786B7D190 wrote:

I don’t think it was an attempt to create the impression she was ahead, I think they discovered their methodology was flawed.

Are some polls corrupted by purposeful bias? Are some polls corrupted by unconscious bias? Yes, absolutely but that’s the value of averaging.

Many legitimate pollsters were shocked at how deep Trump’s support in blue collar workers was.

Title: Re: Electoral College
Post by JOG on 10/30/24 at 09:15:18

The Reported polls were Bullschitt. She never Had that level of support. Ask Donna Brazeal.
If you were following the primaries you Watched them steal it from Bernie. I was in the shop,listening almost every day. Results came in,he had more votes, she was awarded more delegates. I watched it happen.