It’s starting
-
Not sure I understand the chart. What are the first two columns meaning?
-
@jon-nyc Sorry, I was. not more clear.
"Electoral College Probability" and "Popular Vote Probability"
Is the the % that they believe their final Electoral College Votes and Popular Vote are correct?
-
The betting markets shifted back to Trump, yesterday.
-
The betting markets shifted back to Trump, yesterday.
@LuFins-Dad said in It’s starting:
The betting markets shifted back to Trump, yesterday.
Please ask him to keep his mouth shut.
Not one word.
-
It’s the
Crank RealignmentRFK Jr endorsement.Let’s remember RFK was at 20% some months ago and 2% last week. By Election Day he should be a 6pt drag.
@jon-nyc said in It’s starting:
It’s the
Crank RealignmentRFK Jr endorsement.Let’s remember RFK was at 20% some months ago and 2% last week. By Election Day he should be a 6pt drag.
Your girl has already peaked, Jon. You know it.
-
Who knows?
After her one interview, Kamala-lama-ding-dong may not do another. If she can keep the electorate from figuring out how goofy she is and the MSM keeps up the coronation music, all she has to do is survive the debate.
By that time, early voting starts and the Big Blue Machine kicks in. Throw in a jail sentence by Bragg's Boy and who knows what can happen?
-
Silver’s pissing a lot of people off…
-
-
Another silver polll, just sayin….
@bachophile said in It’s starting:
Another silver polll, just sayin….
Not a poll, a model based on all the polls and statistical data. And that model and statistician was the only one that gave Trump anything over 5%, Silver was the lone voice that started going on TV and warning that the pundits were wrong, and that Trump was starting to gain momentum and posed a significant chance of winning. He got laughed at and insulted by The NY Times and WaPo.
That model you point to doesn’t diminish my point or confidence, but actually reinforces it.
-
I think the heavy interest with opinion polls is quite interesting psychologically. What does it matter who is "winning" in a two-party system where there is no real justification for tactical voting? Do people really change their preferred candidate based on the fact that they don't want to be on the losing team?
-
I think the heavy interest with opinion polls is quite interesting psychologically. What does it matter who is "winning" in a two-party system where there is no real justification for tactical voting? Do people really change their preferred candidate based on the fact that they don't want to be on the losing team?
@Doctor-Phibes said in It’s starting:
I think the heavy interest with opinion polls is quite interesting psychologically. What does it matter who is "winning" in a two-party system where there is no real justification for tactical voting? Do people really change their preferred candidate based on the fact that they don't want to be on the losing team?
No, but they change their donation intentions… If it’s a close race, donors might go a little higher. If it’s trending downwards, they might either substantially increase or substantially decrease their donations.
-
Plus, I live with the belief that people are idiots. Individuals can be quite intelligent, but put them in groups and they immediately become less intelligent. The bigger the group, the dumber they get.
The Brad
