Politics Thread

[Caf]

This. He would likely fail a college-level debate class, but in our current political climate he's pretty darn good. Hillary was one of the most seasoned political operators to run for office in a long time and he tore her to pieces in those settings. He did that without any kind of record to run on. He'll have 3+ years of pretty positive data on his side this time around. I think he'll push uncle joe to his breaking point...

I want to be clear I'm not blaming this on Trump, but that positive data is getting worse quickly. 2 weeks ago I was saying he was a lock for reelection. It's becoming more fluid. Lots of time, but these next few weeks and months will be vital.

[Lamont Sanford]

And I guess Xville must be one of those "alternative facts-science deniers" Trump supporters.

There you go again with the name calling. I thought you Libs were better than that?!?

[X-man]

No I just think the phrase scientific poll is hilarious. Not really a trump supporter, not a hater either. The two we are going to have to choose from is yet again awful. Senile man number one or senile man number two. Great. I guess it's better than whackadoodle sanders

Why? do you also believe that scientific sampling is also "hilarious"? Do you know that all the government data (e.g. the CPI, the unemployment rate, etc.) are based on "scientific sampling"? Does that mean that all of those numbers are also "hilarious"?

[Xville]

Why? do you also believe that scientific sampling is also "hilarious"? Do you know that all the government data (e.g. the CPI, the unemployment rate, etc.) are based on "scientific sampling"? Does that mean that all of those numbers are also "hilarious"?

No I think scientific polling is hilarious. I didnt say anything about the numbers themselves so you may want to stop jumping to conclusions.

[X-man]

No I think scientific polling is hilarious. I didnt say anything about the numbers themselves so you may want to stop jumping to conclusions.

So you believe the polling numbers, but just don't believe the methodology that produced them??? That makes no sense.

[Smails]

Revisionist history, again, from those that love the Trumpster.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/su...-performances/

That would certainly explain her landslide victory that the same polling bodies produced in the run up to the election. And for the record Lloyd, I don't love the Tumpster and I'm surprised someone as open minded as your self would jump to conclusions based on my debate opinion. For shame...be better.

[scoscox]

That would certainly explain her landslide victory that the same polling bodies produced in the run up to the election. And for the record Lloyd, I don't love the Tumpster and I'm surprised someone as open minded as your self would jump to conclusions based on my debate opinion. For shame...be better.

Yea, these are the same places that told us she was up 20% in the popular vote and had a 99% chance of winning. Hard to trust them, but it’s also beside the point. Trump crushed the republican primary completely. He destroyed all of them. The republican debates from 2016 are all time blowouts. He definitely fell off in the general against Hillary and was honestly much easier on her than he was on the Republicans.

[Lloyd Braun]

I would have to look it up but I recall the last national polls done prior to the election being fairly close to the popular vote nationally. The state polls (Electoral) are typically less accurate for many reasons, most notably being less sample size and more bias in those polling (less scientific). Most of polls in the article I linked however are well respected national polls that all campaigns use.
And Smails- I didn’t quote you directly just made a general statement, as there was recent “debate” (ha) on this in other platforms after Trump responded to the Fox News commentator who said Trump won in spite of poor debate performance.

[UCGRAD4X]

I agree science data gathering is important and useful as done correctly. Unfortunately so many are not. Questions asked in a way that will most likely confirm their premise. Sampling errors either over-sample certain population or consider who is most likely to reply to such a poll. Conflating correlation with causation and even faulty statistical analysis. I'm not, by any means, saying that most of them are questionable, maybe there are, but that is not the point. Enough of them are that people who do not have the time or understanding of potential polling biases, acceptable methodology, double blind, peer reviewing (although this is too often done by those who are in the same 'club' and may or may not have reasons other than strictly scientific for giving the thumbs up to certain research) etc. Who does?

I certainly think it is reasonable to be skeptical of conclusion. I taught my college students to always be skeptical and some things that make the information more or less reasonable and able to be replicated and applicable.

[GoMuskies]

Are we really going to hold political primaries tomorrow? Really?!?