2020 Presidential Election

[varwoche]

Not necessarily. "Internal" polls could be conducted by an outside firm under a proprietary contract.

Correct. Thats probably the norm. Also, I think these polls sometimes ask questions the "real" polls don't ask.

 

[acbytesla]

Most Trump supporters are used to being lied about. After a while the insults and false accusations become like water off a duck's back. Most importantly the insulter must be an American for it to even count in the first place.

Yet there are many who may label me as a "Racist" or "stupid" etc, which I'm not and I'm perfectly fine knowing the person providing those labels is without doubt, a liar.

I can't say whether or not a Trump supporter is actually racist, ignorant, stupid or merely selfish. But I can say conclusively they are at least one of the four. Some even touch all of the bases.

 

[Bob001]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/wh...wTeMdI73IljE5xLkOQAk_L31lnbIBmh9Jnn5CJDt9Esvk

Pick a state, any state and read about why we need voter ID. Personally, I don't like anyone placing their thumb on the scale. Anything that prevents election fraud is a good thing.

BTW, whom do you think does not have an ID in the US? Curious.

There is no ID fraud to prevent. What specific examples can you find of someone risking a felony conviction to vote in somebody else's name? When has that happened?

And as has been pointed out to you, the voter ID laws are written to require specific, limited kinds of ID. For example, if your driver's license or passport expired the day before the election, it won't be accepted, even though it's all you need to get a new one. The forms of ID that many people use daily -- like work IDs, college IDs, social services card etc. -- won't be accepted to vote. And many of the states that imposed voter ID restrictions just coincidentally cut back on the locations and hours of the DMV offices that you need to go to to get an approved ID. Voting is a basic right; every effort should be made to make it easier, not harder.

A new study from researchers Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi, and Lindsay Nielson at the University of California San Diego is one of the first to analyze certified votes across all states after the implementation of voter laws in multiple elections, and it found just that kind of racially discriminatory impact.

Specifically, they found “that strict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, Blacks, and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general elections.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/

Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.

Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.

Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.

The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.

Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

And:

Blocking ballots, intimidating voters, spreading misinformation — undermining democracy is at the heart of Trump’s 2020 campaign

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...020-voter-suppression-consent-decree-1028988/

And:
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/09/18/voter-suppression-then-and-now/

 

[acbytesla]

Most Trump supporters are used to being lied about.

To. You're used to being lied to.

Well said!

 

[kookbreaker]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/wh...wTeMdI73IljE5xLkOQAk_L31lnbIBmh9Jnn5CJDt9Esvk

Pick a state, any state and read about why we need voter ID. Personally, I don't like anyone placing their thumb on the scale. Anything that prevents election fraud is a good thing.

BTW, whom do you think does not have an ID in the US? Curious.

Pick a debunking, any debunking:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/heritage-fraud-database-assessment

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...tions-database-undermines-claims-recent-voter

The last one is a breakdown of the claims of voter fraud and how overreaching the claims go. One case went back to 1948 (since which some 3 billion votes have been cast just in Federal elections), another was from 1972. The lion's share of the cases wouldn't have even been stopped by Voter ID laws. Almost a 1/4 of the cases involve intimidation or altering of the votes, which again voter ID laws do nothing to prevent.

But then again, it never really was about actual voter fraud prevention for you, was it?

 

[dudalb]

Notice how our Resident Trump Cult member does not even mention the Covid Virus.
Oh, excuse me. Last week he said that he beleives Trump knows more about the virus then all those experts and scientests...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/business/economy-election-blue-wave-goldman-sachs/index.html

LMAO and here's more Goldman-Sachs prediction from 2016:

https://www.financialexpress.com/wo...ory-more-likely-as-gold-holds-decline/441069/

https://www.afr.com/markets/us-election-goldman-sachs-tips-hillary-clinton-win-20161103-gsgq8g

You do know Goldman-Sachs is known for their support of the Left? Why should anyone believe Democrat control of the White House will make the economy improve faster than the Trump economy will? Prior to Covid the US had the strongest economy it has ever had.

I also remember stock market predictions made by the Left in 2016 that if Trump won, the markets would crash. Those predictions turned out to be as false as the Democrats making them. I suppose they made me money, so in fact I should thank them for providing the panic that made me money but I just can't bring myself to it.

Here's a quick tip: Just prior to the election if Biden's numbers are up the stock market will decline. Pick up some bargains and then resell after Trump wins the election. You'll thank me later.

 

[quadraginta]

Didn't he already put Rudy in charge of contesting the election via the courts?

Yes. Please put Rudy in charge

His unrivaled competence is sure to prevail.

 

[quadraginta]

If Trump loses the most likely thing to be crushed will be your 401K as most investors will immediately liquidate their stocks and move the proceeds to Gold and Silver. But hey you never know I could be wrong this time (for the first time).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/business/economy-election-blue-wave-goldman-sachs/index.html

Bah! Goldman-Sachs and Moody's. A bunch of SJW tree-hugging leebrals.

They'd say anything to sabotage Trump's brilliant economic policies.

If you don't get your investment advice from Fox and OAN you're sure to be penniless in no time at all.

 

[Bob001]

If Trump loses the most likely thing to be crushed will be your 401K as most investors will immediately liquidate their stocks and move the proceeds to Gold and Silver. But hey you never know I could be wrong this time (for the first time).

Where does this crazy sh-- come from? You might recall that after the last Democratic administration saved the economy from a new Great Depression caused largely by Repub negligence, the stock market nearly tripled over eight years. And who was the VP during that administration? Think about it; we'll get back to you.

 

[acbytesla]

LMAO and here's more Goldman-Sachs prediction from 2016:

https://www.financialexpress.com/wo...ory-more-likely-as-gold-holds-decline/441069/

https://www.afr.com/markets/us-election-goldman-sachs-tips-hillary-clinton-win-20161103-gsgq8g

You do know Goldman-Sachs is known for their support of the Left? Why should anyone believe Democrat control of the White House will make the economy improve faster than the Trump economy will? Prior to Covid the US had the strongest economy it has ever had.

I also remember stock market predictions made by the Left in 2016 that if Trump won, the markets would crash. Those predictions turned out to be as false as the Democrats making them. I suppose they made me money, so in fact I should thank them for providing the panic that made me money but I just can't bring myself to it.

Here's a quick tip: Just prior to the election if Biden's numbers are up the stock market will decline. Pick up some bargains and then resell after Trump wins the election. You'll thank me later.

You do know that's full of ****** See Steve Mnuchin. Secretary of the Treasury under Trump
Mnuchin graduated from Yale in 1985 and started working for Goldman Sachs, where his father had been employed since 1957.[10][24] Mnuchin started in the mortgage department, and became a partner at Goldman in 1994.[12][25] Until he left the company in 2002, Mnuchin held the following positions as a partner:[26][27]

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There is no ID fraud to prevent. What specific examples can you find of someone risking a felony conviction to vote in somebody else's name? When has that happened?

And as has been pointed out to you, the voter ID laws are written to require specific, limited kinds of ID. For example, if your driver's license or passport expired the day before the election, it won't be accepted, even though it's all you need to get a new one. The forms of ID that many people use daily -- like work IDs, college IDs, social services card etc. -- won't be accepted to vote. And many of the states that imposed voter ID restrictions just coincidentally cut back on the locations and hours of the DMV offices that you need to go to to get an approved ID. Voting is a basic right; every effort should be made to make it easier, not harder.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/



https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

And:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...020-voter-suppression-consent-decree-1028988/

And:
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/09/18/voter-suppression-then-and-now/

Bob, you didn't open the link I provided in the last post. There are literally hundreds of cases (I haven't actually counted the #) of voter fraud listed. Please look at it this time and if you need a specific case cited of voter ID fraud, just pick one from the many in the link and we can discuss it at length.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/wh...wTeMdI73IljE5xLkOQAk_L31lnbIBmh9Jnn5CJDt9Esvk



Again I ask whom in the US does not have an ID? For that matter whom does not have a State or Federal Government issued ID? You even need an ID to have electricity here. Whom doesn't have electricity? Water?? Utilities?

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought we were discussing exit polls?

Right. It applies to exit polls, or to pre-election polls. The sample that you take has to be representative of the actual population. Picking any old 1,000 voters at random is not likely to match the actual electorate, so you'll have a biased sample if you do that. In years past, that meant pollsters would pick a certain number from certain precincts, based on previous years' voting patterns, so that they can get a good estimate.

My previous, specific, post was about the problem of using only election day exit polls for your projections. In years past, that was a small problem, because only 1 or 2 percent of the people voted absentee.

This year, there's a huge number who will vote early or absentee. 25 million have already voted, and the election is still more than two weeks away. It's easily possible that more than 1/3 of the votes will be cast before election day. There has already been 25 million votes cast, compared to 135 million total votes cast in 2016.

Democrats really are more likely to vote absentee/early/insert your state's method for voting before election day here. So, if you only poll election day voters, as in a traditional exit poll, your sample skews Republican. The pollsters have to take that into account somehow, but to do so they need estimates of how to find the people who voted the different methods. It's a hard problem.

And what keeps me up at night, figuratively for now, but by November 2 perhaps literally, is that I know that more mistakes are made with absentee votes than in person votes, which means more ballots will be rejected this year, and that sample will skew Democratic, even without any Republican cheating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regrettably, that reporting came from the Biden campaign.

It's always a safe bet to say that. But the question I have from your post is, who are these campaign insiders and where/when did they say it? What were they using as a measure: EC votes, total votes, chance of winning, or?

I'm just curious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Correct. Thats probably the norm. Also, I think these polls sometimes ask questions the "real" polls don't ask.

Or they are push polls.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You do know that's full of ****** See Steve Mnuchin. Secretary of the Treasury under Trump
Mnuchin graduated from Yale in 1985 and started working for Goldman Sachs, where his father had been employed since 1957.[10][24] Mnuchin started in the mortgage department, and became a partner at Goldman in 1994.[12][25] Until he left the company in 2002, Mnuchin held the following positions as a partner:[26][27]

How does that change the fact that they're Left leaning? The support of the Clinton campaign in 2016 and the paid speaking engagements prior to that certainly says much more. Now with the recent article once again during an election and once again supporting the views of the Democrat candidate as the best hope for our economy. You lost this one right out of the gate.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'll go a bit further. The biggest reason people are lying about their chosen candidate is likely due to being called or thought of as "Racist" or "stupid" if they support a Republican candidate. Even though it is a ridiculous charge against 99.9% of voters, the Left's insistent use of terms like "Racist" and the like of other derogatory terms used about Trump voters has created a situation where polls absolutely cannot work accurately anymore. Now pollsters try to come out with new questions that address this. "Who do you think your neighbor will vote for?" As if they also seem to believe most people have the intellect of a Chimp. The system for polling is indeed broken and will remain so until the Left stops the petty personal attacks against Trump voters. forever. There's no need for me to try and convince you that what I'm telling you is true, simply look at the posts within this very forum.

I provided what I think is the actual situation in the modified quote above. (Some people would say "FTFY", but I rarely use that, because it isn't so much "fixed" as it is inserting my own opinion.) Your comments above do point to one reason polls get skewed. Certainly in 2016, there's documented evidence that occurred.

Prior to the age of cell phones, it was documented that there was another cause of poll skewing. There was always a "gender gap", with women tending to vote more Democratic. However, polls were conducted by phone, and if the woman of the house answered, she didn't want to say out loud, "I'm voting for Dukakis", when her husband was listening. With cell phones that changed a bit, because it was more likely the person on the phone was not in a place where her family would hear. Well, that, and she was less likely to care what her husband thought.

So, it isn't exactly a new problem, that people tell pollsters something other than the truth. However, the various reasons for it have gotten worse, making it harder and harder to get a good poll.

 

[Bob001]

Bob, you didn't open the link I provided in the last post. There are literally hundreds of cases (I haven't actually counted the #) of voter fraud listed. Please look at it this time and if you need a specific case cited of voter ID fraud, just pick one from the many in the link and we can discuss it at length.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/wh...wTeMdI73IljE5xLkOQAk_L31lnbIBmh9Jnn5CJDt9Esvk

Again I ask whom in the US does not have an ID? For that matter whom does not have a State or Federal Government issued ID? You even need an ID to have electricity here. Whom doesn't have electricity? Water?? Utilities?

How many of those cases of alleged voter fraud would have been prevented by voter ID laws? That's the question here: How often do people try to vote in other people's names? Too tiny to count. And your link to 1100 cases doesn't include details. In particular, it doesn't include dates: 1100 cases during the last election? Or during the last 20 years? But the page does link to a larger database: the California page goes back to 1993. The Florida page goes back to 1992. How many votes have been cast in the U.S. since 1992?
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/#choose-a-state

In fact, the database allows you to search specifically for "impersonation fraud at polls." For the biggest states (I didn't check them all), the number of cases is zero.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=CA&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24493

And it's been explained repeatedly that as many as 11 percent of Americans do not have the specific, limited current state ID that voter ID laws require. And many of them are likely to have limited resources.

 

[Firestone]

Biden campaign advises caution, again, even as national polls favor the Democrat.

In a memo that will be sent to supporters on Saturday, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, stressed that polls can be faulty or imprecise — as they were in 2016 — and warned of only narrow advantages in a number of key states. It is a message that appears designed to keep Democratic supporters focused and engaged in the last days of the race despite national attention on Mr. Trump’s challenges, and to motivate Biden backers to turn out and continue donating.

“While we see robust leads at the national level, in the states we’re counting on to carry us to victory like Arizona and North Carolina we’re only up by three points,” she wrote, according to the memo obtained by The New York Times. “We also know that even the best polling can be wrong, and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical states we are functionally tied — and that we need to campaign like we’re trailing.”

A number of polls have shown Mr. Biden with a more comfortable lead, but Ms. O’Malley Dillon cited polling averages.

“This race is far closer than some of the punditry we’re seeing on Twitter and on TV would suggest,” she wrote. “In the key battleground states where this election will be decided, we remain neck and neck with Donald Trump.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/1...ain-even-as-national-polls-favor-the-democrat

While I get this messaging by the campaign, the punditry this year is very different from 2016. Almost no one considers a Trump victory impossible. In 2016, almost no one considered it possible.

 

[Tero]

Looks like there will be a debate.

https://www.newsweek.com/will-there...t-trump-bidens-planned-third-face-off-1539588

what is the point? They pretty much covered all, except for Giuliani's fabricated Hunter Biden laptop.