What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Handyman said:
I trust that as much as I trust any media member saying the WGA strike is close to ending.
Click to expand...


ostrich-man-his-head-sand-138335911.jpg
 
53-38% 18-35 for Trump means he wins the Electoral College 538-0. I’m not sure Russia can even rig that efficiently.
Looking through the data, immediately noticed they admitted to asking voters horse-race questions about the candidates prior to asking which candidate they preferred. That’s a no-no, but instead of admitting it added a variable, they said it made no sense to ask about candidate preference first this far out from the election because the issues “were more germane.” Yeah? Based on what? There is, however, plenty of evidence that people are primed to vote in one direction, or at the very least, decline to voice candidate preference, after being barraged with negative news about a candidate, as the poll creators admitted they did with Biden. Post the poll for clicks and comments, I suppose.
 
psych said:
53-38% 18-35 for Trump means he wins the Electoral College 538-0. I’m not sure Russia can even rig that efficiently.
Looking through the data, immediately noticed they admitted to asking voters horse-race questions about the candidates prior to asking which candidate they preferred. That’s a no-no, but instead of admitting it added a variable, they said it made no sense to ask about candidate preference first this far out from the election because the issues “were more germane.” Yeah? Based on what? There is, however, plenty of evidence that people are primed to vote in one direction, or at the very least, decline to voice candidate preference, after being barraged with negative news about a candidate, as the poll creators admitted they did with Biden. Post the poll for clicks and comments, I suppose.
Click to expand...

They asked the same age-related questions to respondents about DJT (78) as they did about Magoo (82), so that's not it.

If there's any hanky-panky going on with this poll's results, methinks DNC HQ is looking to ramp up their efforts to get Magoo not to run, since this isn't the only recent poll to show the momentum is now clearly with DJT. So what to do, on top of the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris polling, is to juice the numbers a wee bit to push the gap well outside the margin of error (AND most importantly, the margin of cheating), giving the DNC no choice but to "convince" Magoo he needs to bow out. The tricky part then becomes, how do we then skate past the sitting VP and move on to an electable alternative - which I'm not sure currently exists?? Recall, there was a reason the DNC propped up Magoo in 2020, because alternatives like Bernie, Buttigieg, Klobuchar etc. were also viewed as unelectable, just like VP Harris was then/still is now.

This is a problem entirely of the DNC's own making, and driving the economy into a ditch after it all hasn't helped.

Not to mention the asinine immigration "policy", which hurts your blue collar base worse than anyone else.

Fire up the "Gavin Newsom 2024" war wagon, it's about to be your only remaining choice ...
 
So 53% of people aged 18 to 35 answered their land line and said yes to giving a few minutes of their time to a political poll said they would vote Trump.

How many younger Millenials and elder Zoomers do you know who:
a) have a land line and
b) answer their phone to an unknown caller?

Christ, I, as an Elder Millenial don't answer my phone for some people I *know*. I kept my number when I moved to Illinois just for the fact it's an out of town area code which makes people second guess calling me*.

They're basically telling on themselves that they called rural areas.



*Side story, as a benefit of having the area code I do still, I once had a delivery from a business in my home area code send me my order upgraded FedEx overnight priority (for free). I called to place the order 20 minutes before the store closed, and it was on my porch the next morning faster than if I had drove up to buy it and drive home.
 
I don't know a single millennial that owns a non-mobile phone. Not one. Even my pseudo-luddite friends don't have landlines. How the fuck are they calling themselves reputable and still not doing mobile? Even 538 flagged that as important.
 
Kepler said:
Eye roll.

538 is one of the best sites for aggregating and analyzing polls. They got 2016 more right than any other aggregator. Please give this tired horse a rest. You hate Nate, we get it. But 538 is more than Nate.
Click to expand...

Eh. I don't hate him. I've just never seen someone hook up a CPAP to their as_s so they could huff their own farts more efficiently.

Nate is dead. 538 has nothing to do with him anymore and G. Elliot Morris will bring that site back to its glory days.
 
aparch said:
So 53% of people aged 18 to 35 answered their land line and said yes to giving a few minutes of their time to a political poll said they would vote Trump.

How many younger Millenials and elder Zoomers do you know who:
a) have a land line and
b) answer their phone to an unknown caller?

Christ, I, as an Elder Millenial don't answer my phone for some people I *know*. I kept my number when I moved to Illinois just for the fact it's an out of town area code which makes people second guess calling me*.

They're basically telling on themselves that they called rural areas.



*Side story, as a benefit of having the area code I do still, I once had a delivery from a business in my home area code send me my order upgraded FedEx overnight priority (for free). I called to place the order 20 minutes before the store closed, and it was on my porch the next morning faster than if I had drove up to buy it and drive home.
Click to expand...

They used mobile phones, according to the methodology. If they call 1,000 people, 335 or so of them will answer on mobile phones, per their methodology. Their sample for this extremely flawed poll was 1,006 adults, so around 337 or so of those reached answered on mobile phones.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Eh. I don't hate him. I've just never seen someone hook up a CPAP to their as_s so they could huff their own farts more efficiently.

Nate is dead. 538 has nothing to do with him anymore and G. Elliot Morris will bring that site back to its glory days.
Click to expand...

Is the other Nate (Cohen) still there I liked him and the chick who apparently has no name.
 
psych said:
They used mobile phones, according to the methodology. If they call 1,000 people, 335 or so of them will answer on mobile phones, per their methodology. Their sample for this extremely flawed poll was 1,006 adults, so around 337 or so of those reached answered on mobile phones.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.
 
National polls are garbage in any year, but they're particularly bad this far out. I stole this from elsewhere on the web, but a 1983 article:
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/04/u...n-in-poll.html
Reagan 44%
Mondale 43%

John Glenn 46%
Reagan 40%


And at this time in 2007, it looked like Rudy had a solid edge on Hillary.




The only thing crap like this does is give more ammunition to chuck and the other chuds when their guy loses to whine about stolen elections.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I thought he went to the upshot or NYT. Both Nates are fine. They just need to be aware of their expertise and blind spots.
Click to expand...

I really liked Silver so his dumb statements struck me as out of character. When he doubled down on them I was confused and felt betrayed (because I identified with him as a career I could quite easily have had myself -- same interests, same background, I just lacked the confidence to invest my future in it, rather stupidly.)

His worldview is to be evidence-driven and rational and not draw false conclusions or make statements that are unsupported. So. What the f-ck, Nate?!

To me, this was a serious reminder of the perils of being in a celebrity bubble. Even somebody very smart, explicitly trained to allow for cognitive biases, and self-selected to study that field so clearly already oriented towards awareness, yet STILL falling victim to his own fart-huffing.

Similar to celebrity males being almost inevitably serially unfaithful, I intuit that we cannot judge unless we are in their shoes. The environment of celebrity is a different mode of existence than we have. The air is different. If 99% of people make an error in such circumstances that means it is the circumstances, not a question of character.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top