Reply With Quote
Nobody gave a crap about it.
The 2012 debate was important too. Biden’s “now you’re Jack Kennedy?!” comment was classic.
Nobody gave a crap about it.
The VP Debate was on October 4. Doesn't look like it impacted Trump positively, if at all. I would lean towards no one gave a crap.
The VP Debate was on October 4. Doesn't look like it impacted Trump positively, if at all. I would lean towards no one gave a crap.
you're really going to go to the polls after she got beat with the polls showing her winning handily?
If Trump loses there will be no peaceful transition of power.. The FBI will have to bust into the Oval Office, and shackle him so he doesn't launch Nukes..
polls had her winning nationally by 3 points, she won by about 2. polls reflect the popular vote
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html
Vanilla Joe even stole det one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senato...o_Jack_Kennedy
Yes, I'm going to go to the polls if we're looking for data supporting how a VP debate affected public opinion.
It certainly beats your anecdote.
This thread on November 4, 2020.
All threads are going to be a lot of fun in election night
yet proved to be fairly accurate at the end, eh?
Creative word wrangling there to suggest that all polls only consider national popular vote.
On the first point, the autopsy found that 13% of voters in Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania — three states Trump won narrowly over Clinton and helped catapult him to an unlikely victory — decided on their presidential choice in the final week of the election. Overwhelmingly, those voters broke for Trump: In Wisconsin, they chose Trump over Clinton by a 30-point margin. In Florida and Pennsylvania, the margin was 17 percentage points.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7399671.html
A survey from the Princeton Election Consortium has found that Hillary Clinton has a 99 per cent chance of winning the election over Donald Trump.
Three days before the election, Ms Clinton has a projected 312 electoral votes, compared to 226 for Mr Trump. A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win.
The probability statistic was found by the university’s statistical Bayesian model.
The developer of the model, neuro and data scientist Princeton professor Sam Wang, correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2012.
Other polls were less bullish on a Clinton victory. FiveThirtyEight said the likelihood Ms Clinton would win was 65 per cent, while the New York Times upshot said there was a 85 per cent chance.
So who are you trying to gas light here Philo in suggesting the polls weren't that wrong? Did I invent the narrative of the polls being wrong in 2016?
I never mentioned points. I said 'win handily". She lost. It's a game of electoral votes, not popular votes. Stop moving the in' goalposts to suit your "ya-but"s.
You cannot show VP debate results in your poll.
national polls do, which are the ones most frequently cited
They always try to make it close at the end to avoid the egg on their face.
That doesn't change that they made up submission polls the rest the time to control the narrative.
Oh a caveat.
So how can you track the effect the VP debate has on the election without a "with and without the VP debate" chart?
As Trump grew and Clinton fell, why isn't any of that being associated with the VP debate, at all? It had to happen on that day?
doesn't look very close here...
maybe some races are closer than others...
- national polls reflect the national popular vote
- princeton election consortium was way off. good for them
- 65% or even 85% aren't guarantees
if i said i have a 17% chance of rolling a 6, and then i roll a 6, does that mean i was wrong?
You can't show them in your anecdote, yet it was enough to be like "Nuh uh, DUMBASS, the VP Debate was totally important cuz people were saying DURRRR."
As I recall, no one gave a about the VP debate, no one watched it, and it had no impact on popular opinion or the results of the election. But that's just my anecdote. So yours is cancelled out and we're left with polls.
Unless you have better data. (You don't.)
The exception that proves the rule. They were really desperate for Obama.doesn't look very close here...
maybe some races are closer than others...
who is "they" and i would assume you would have called those same people desperate for clinton, particularly against trump
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
