quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Mellman remarks as such. He believes Trump still has a 25% chance of winning.

I'm wondering how many Democratic strategists are going to warn the voters to not rule Trump out?



They did that with Bernie: "Go vote or Bernie loses." And they simply didn't show up at the polls. This is the same problem with Biden: just lack of enthusiasm. I think it was also Mellman that said that black voters will not necessarily vote for Trump, they just won't show up at the polls for Biden.


Black vote + Latino vote can make or break this election for either candidate.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Have you ever looked in the mirror?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur
I think unfortunately we might see challenges to the election results either way.

If Biden wins some will blame voter fraud, etc.

If Trump wins some will blame covid and russia.

So if Trump wins I hope voter turnout is comparable to 2016 so people can't blame covid.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Never really followed The Mellman Group. But 25% chance doesn't seem like a crazy number at this point in time. Could go up or down as we're still months away.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Apparently, Mark Mellman is working with Biden's election campaign. So he's at least providing "Biden for President" with information that will help him get elected.

Edit - To put that number into context, Hillary was projected to win with over 95% confidence.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
*yawn*

You and your butt buddies pooty and bashy are far more of a snowflake than I'll ever be.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur
Did u see this:

Trump Has 91 Percent Chance of Winning Reelection: Political Science Professor

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd have to dig into his polling methods. He may be over-sampling Trump-supporters.


Are his respondents representative of:

1. Likely voters
2. Likely voters by age with appropriate sample distribution across the age brackets that also matches up against likely voters (if you over-sample those "darn" 45-85 likely voters for a particular geography, you'll obviously over-sample for Trump support - the sample should be representative of the population).
3. Controlling for working, young, and busy.
4. Controlling for the Bradley Effect.


If he did all 4 of those, used multiple sampling methods, and also used multiple sampling sources (#3), yeah, he'd be correct.

Of course, ensuring he based those results on the electoral college and not the popular vote.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd have to dig into his polling methods. He may be over-sampling Trump-supporters.


Are his respondents representative of:

1. Likely voters
2. Likely voters by age with appropriate sample distribution across the age brackets that also matches up against likely voters (if you over-sample those "darn" 45-85 likely voters for a particular geography, you'll obviously over-sample for Trump support - the sample should be representative of the population).
3. Controlling for working, young, and busy.
4. Controlling for the Bradley Effect.


If he did all 4 of those, used multiple sampling methods, and also used multiple sampling sources (#3), yeah, he'd be correct.

Of course, ensuring he based those results on the electoral college and not the popular vote.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
You've said Trump has a "100%" chance of winning in Nov. So how can this 91% chance also be correct?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
You've said Trump has a "100%" chance of winning in Nov. So how can this 91% chance also be correct?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm too stupid to understand your point.

What does the first thing, which is unrelated to the sampling methodology, have to do with the second thing, which is an actual scientific poll that may have questionable sampling methods?


Or did you not read my post at all where I laid out everything that would be required to make that 91% figure correct?