Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Countryfox

Also in the news

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Because the betting is a prediction of what people think will happen in 2 months time whereas the polls are a snapshot of public opinion right now, which may or may not be accurate. I think Nate Silver retweeted a guy the other day who said it's either a Biden landslide or very close, there's little in between the two and the betting markets are siding with it being pretty close.

I'd be interested to know why you think it might not be accurate, Kopf? Is it because of the time lag between events and polling so betting markets respond faster to such events? Or because there's sampling errors of some kind that haven't been accounted for? Or because the polls are saying who people would vote for *right now* and two months is a very long time in politics? Or something else?

 

FWIW I think the electoral college could be a fair bit closer than people are thinking, but given the information we have right now and no bead on future events that might cause a dramatic shift, I'm not sure what's causing people to think there *will* be that kind of shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes. I suppose it's a reasonable stance to think, for example:

- Biden's ahead in the polls (assuming they're accurate) but Trump's going to come back because his "law and order" agenda will win over waverers or mobilise his base, or because you're convinced that the Biden vote may have lower turnout (due to lack of motivation, practical difficulties or active suppression) or because you believe that Trump will win the TV debates against Biden.....just to take a few examples. 

All fair points - but as above, I don't see just how any of those things cause the shift that people think they will, not based on the information we have (other than the voter suppression, but that would open a monumental can of worms on its own). I could be wrong and who knows, though.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All fair points - but as above, I don't see just how any of those things cause the shift that people think they will, not based on the information we have (other than the voter suppression, but that would open a monumental can of worms on its own). I could be wrong and who knows, though.

 

But the shift needed for Trump to win the electoral college isn't so big, is it?

As I understand it, although the polls give Biden a national lead of 8-9%, Trump only needs to turn round about 4 states where he trails by 4-5% to get re-elected?

 

I recognise that there are fewer undecided voters this time. But there could still be various reasons why such a comparatively small shift (slightly larger than polling margin of error?) could happen.....it's not so very unlikely, surely?

 

Of course, there could be a shift in the other direction if, for example, the Covid problem gets worse or Trump commits some new idiocy to alienate people. Then Biden might even win states like Texas and Georgia.

 

The bit that puzzles me, though, is why betting markets had Biden as clear favourite even a month ago, but now have it 50-50......what has changed their expectations in the course of a month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

But the shift needed for Trump to win the electoral college isn't so big, is it?

As I understand it, although the polls give Biden a national lead of 8-9%, Trump only needs to turn round about 4 states where he trails by 4-5% to get re-elected?

 

I recognise that there are fewer undecided voters this time. But there could still be various reasons why such a comparatively small shift (slightly larger than polling margin of error?) could happen.....it's not so very unlikely, surely?

 

Of course, there could be a shift in the other direction if, for example, the Covid problem gets worse or Trump commits some new idiocy to alienate people. Then Biden might even win states like Texas and Georgia.

 

The bit that puzzles me, though, is why betting markets had Biden as clear favourite even a month ago, but now have it 50-50......what has changed their expectations in the course of a month?

Let's check the numbers:

 

Well, he needs to turn round 4 states, as you say - Penn, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina. Latest poll averages for those states: North Carolina is Biden +0.6, Florida is Biden +3.3, Arizona is Biden +5.0, and Penn is Biden +4.2. So yes, you're pretty much on the money.

 

However, the tricky part is that Trump has to take all four of those while simultaneously not losing someplace like, say Georgia. It's one of those situations where one or two of those events happening isn't surprising, but multiple of them happening in the same way would be - like flipping a coin and calling it correctly four times running, for instance (and given all of those states are almost coin flips I don't think it's that bad an analogy).

 

Of course, this is reliant on polling data remaining the same from now until election day, which you mention as being not certain at all - that's true. However, as per above I simply don't see what factor will affect such a shift - to clarify, the "law and order" bollix is playing to the gallery that will already vote for him and if it wasn't we'd know through polling info already, the Dem base is now acutely aware of what Trump is and as such they will turn out in higher rates (particularly the black vote) than four years ago, and barring a monumental gaffe from Biden or a stellar performance from Trump I'm not sure what the TV debates will tell us that we don't know already, in this age of instant access to candidates and their policy.

 

There's certainly some other possible stuff that could shift the balance in Trumps favour in the time we have left, but in its absence I think it best to work with the data that we have.

 

And as per above, my own take is that the betting markets follow the current zeitgeist and the money, and the law and order "talk" led to a bounce in betting on Trump from people who thought it might affect the polls more than it has and from people who then followed them in looking for an easy make. Not sure there's more to it than that, but who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'd be interested to know why you think it might not be accurate, Kopf? Is it because of the time lag between events and polling so betting markets respond faster to such events? Or because there's sampling errors of some kind that haven't been accounted for? Or because the polls are saying who people would vote for *right now* and two months is a very long time in politics? Or something else?

 

FWIW I think the electoral college could be a fair bit closer than people are thinking, but given the information we have right now and no bead on future events that might cause a dramatic shift, I'm not sure what's causing people to think there *will* be that kind of shift.

The polls are a snapshot of revealed public opinion right now and not a representation of how people will act on the day in 2 months time. But yeah there can be any number of issues with polls at present, we've seen often enough them getting it wrong and that whilst public opinion in 2 months time will be a function of now, it's liable to alter, particularly as the campaign intensifies. All that you can be sure of with polling is that it tells you what your sample is thinking on the day they were asked, of course the volume of polls that are pretty agreeable with each other suggests they're broadly accurate assuming no widely systemic issues. I don't think any of us really think betting markets are gonna be more accurate than polling?

 

Even with money at stake, people will largely look for what they want to look for.  I believe I read the recent move on Betfair for Trump came from 4 x £10000 bets on Trump, that could just be somebody having a hunch, maybe Mystic Meg told them, maybe they've uncovered some info others are missing, maybe they have their own polling that's showing something different, maybe they have a model that puts too much emphasis on economic growth and so has gone erroneous because have covid, maybe they've seen the Emmerson College poll that's Biden +4 and decided that with margin of error there's huge expected value in Trump. Given you can't see how there will be a dramatic shift, go put 100k on Biden and watch the market return a bit closer to where you think it should be. Tbf Trump's back on a steady drift anyway.

 

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

However, the tricky part is that Trump has to take all four of those while simultaneously not losing someplace like, say Georgia. It's one of those situations where one or two of those events happening isn't surprising, but multiple of them happening in the same way would be - like flipping a coin and calling it correctly four times running, for instance (and given all of those states are almost coin flips I don't think it's that bad an analogy).

Coin flips are independent events, the outcomes in those states are not. If he gets the swing necessary to take one of the three (discounting NC) it becomes far more likely he gets them all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Let's check the numbers:

 

Well, he needs to turn round 4 states, as you say - Penn, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina. Latest poll averages for those states: North Carolina is Biden +0.6, Florida is Biden +3.3, Arizona is Biden +5.0, and Penn is Biden +4.2. So yes, you're pretty much on the money.

 

However, the tricky part is that Trump has to take all four of those while simultaneously not losing someplace like, say Georgia. It's one of those situations where one or two of those events happening isn't surprising, but multiple of them happening in the same way would be - like flipping a coin and calling it correctly four times running, for instance (and given all of those states are almost coin flips I don't think it's that bad an analogy).

 

Of course, this is reliant on polling data remaining the same from now until election day, which you mention as being not certain at all - that's true. However, as per above I simply don't see what factor will affect such a shift - to clarify, the "law and order" bollix is playing to the gallery that will already vote for him and if it wasn't we'd know through polling info already, the Dem base is now acutely aware of what Trump is and as such they will turn out in higher rates (particularly the black vote) than four years ago, and barring a monumental gaffe from Biden or a stellar performance from Trump I'm not sure what the TV debates will tell us that we don't know already, in this age of instant access to candidates and their policy.

 

There's certainly some other possible stuff that could shift the balance in Trumps favour in the time we have left, but in its absence I think it best to work with the data that we have.

 

And as per above, my own take is that the betting markets follow the current zeitgeist and the money, and the law and order "talk" led to a bounce in betting on Trump from people who thought it might affect the polls more than it has and from people who then followed them in looking for an easy make. Not sure there's more to it than that, but who knows?

 

I hope you're right to apparently see a turnaround as such long odds, Mac, I really do. I'm certainly not predicting that it will happen, it just seems that it wouldn't take an earthquake for a 4-5% lead to become 0% (or 9%).

That is presumably one reason why FiveThirtyEight currently gives Trump a 31% chance of winning....

 

I can't accept your coin-flip analogy. I appreciate that there are all sorts of demographic/socioeconomic/racial differences between the states you mention, so swing might vary.

But if Trump gained 5% in one state, it would make it significantly likelier that he'd do so in other states (not all, not equally, but still improves his odds....).

If we applied your analogy to the 2019 UK election, it would mean saying that the Tories had to win a coin-flip in Bolsover AND Blyth AND Ipswich AND Stoke AND Bridgend.....No, once one domino fell, others became more likely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

The polls are a snapshot of revealed public opinion right now and not a representation of how people will act on the day in 2 months time. But yeah there can be any number of issues with polls at present, we've seen often enough them getting it wrong and that whilst public opinion in 2 months time will be a function of now, it's liable to alter, particularly as the campaign intensifies. All that you can be sure of with polling is that it tells you what your sample is thinking on the day they were asked, of course the volume of polls that are pretty agreeable with each other suggests they're broadly accurate assuming no widely systemic issues. I don't think any of us really think betting markets are gonna be more accurate than polling?

 

Even with money at stake, people will largely look for what they want to look for.  I believe I read the recent move on Betfair for Trump came from 4 x £10000 bets on Trump, that could just be somebody having a hunch, maybe Mystic Meg told them, maybe they've uncovered some info others are missing, maybe they have their own polling that's showing something different, maybe they have a model that puts too much emphasis on economic growth and so has gone erroneous because have covid, maybe they've seen the Emmerson College poll that's Biden +4 and decided that with margin of error there's huge expected value in Trump. Given you can't see how there will be a dramatic shift, go put 100k on Biden and watch the market return a bit closer to where you think it should be. Tbf Trump's back on a steady drift anyway.

 

 

I didn't know that about the bets being put on Trump, interesting - that would certainly have an effect on the landscape. I wish I had 100k that I wouldn't mind committing to (some) chance to put on Biden seeing as IMO it's such a massively +EV bet right now, but as you say Trumps starting to drift again there too.

 

Speaking personally I've no reason to think the polls are flawed in any systemic or fatal fashion so I'm inclined to believe them, so I also think that those folks going for Trump in the betting markets are sticking their necks out on a -EV bet (unless the odds of an event that reduces the polling data to 50/50 by election day is nearly 100% or the odds of an event that actually swings it conclusively in Trumps favour is itself 50/50), but more power to their elbow, I guess.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Coin flips are independent events, the outcomes in those states are not. If he gets the swing necessary to take one of the three (discounting NC) it becomes far more likely he gets them all. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I hope you're right to apparently see a turnaround as such long odds, Mac, I really do. I'm certainly not predicting that it will happen, it just seems that it wouldn't take an earthquake for a 4-5% lead to become 0% (or 9%).

That is presumably one reason why FiveThirtyEight currently gives Trump a 31% chance of winning....

 

I can't accept your coin-flip analogy. I appreciate that there are all sorts of demographic/socioeconomic/racial differences between the states you mention, so swing might vary.

But if Trump gained 5% in one state, it would make it significantly likelier that he'd do so in other states (not all, not equally, but still improves his odds....).

If we applied your analogy to the 2019 UK election, it would mean saying that the Tories had to win a coin-flip in Bolsover AND Blyth AND Ipswich AND Stoke AND Bridgend.....No, once one domino fell, others became more likely.

 

I should have covered this in the previous post, but I was making the analogy on the assumption that the polls do not change between now and Election Day. Of course, that's a monumental assumption and of course if something does happen to change poll numbers in one state, it will likely change them in others too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Trump will win it before and I still do. The Democratic party's representatives (Kamala Harris and Joe Biden) lack integrity and honest solidarity(so does Trump, but his personality will shadow his weakness and illuminate his foe's). Not long ago, Kamala Harris was grilling Biden and now they seem like best friends?

 

If people think trump is closing the gap, wait until the presidential debate. Trump will eat his opponents alive and his numbers will skyrocket. His followers love him and his policies for the most part, a thing that the Democrats lack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by the fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the fox said:

I thought Trump will win it before and I still do. The Democratic party's representatives (Kamala Harris and Joe Biden) lack integrity and honest solidarity(so does Trump, but his personality will shadow his weakness and illuminate his foe's). Not long ago, Kamala Harris was grilling Biden and now they seem like best friends?

 

If people think trump is closing the gap, wait until the presidential debate. Trump will eat his opponents alive and his numbers will skyrocket. His followers love him and his policies for the most part, a thing that the Democrats lack.

 

 

 

You're not wrong about Biden and Harris (there being nothing wrong with making alliances with former rivals notwithstanding), But...

 

Why exactly will the debates showcase anything we don't already know in a way that will cause the seismic shift you speak of? 20 years ago the two candidates battling it out on the TV might have given a lot of people new insight as they were seeing exactly who they were against each other for the first time. Now, in this era of global instant connectivity for most everyone, lots of people will have seen what Biden and Trump are like head-to-head already via their interactions on various platforms.

 

And his followers can love him all they like, the reason he won last time was because a lot of Dem supporters stayed at home - are we really about to see that again?

 

I don't mean to come after you personally here mon ami, but this is what I was referring to above that frustrates me - folks posting an idea that Trump is going is going to win based either on a hunch (not that there's anything wrong with that) or on ideas that have already been accounted for and addressed. I'm totally open to the idea of hearing why Trump might close the gap, but I'd like to hear something pretty damn credible backing it up too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You're not wrong about Biden and Harris (there being nothing wrong with making alliances with former rivals notwithstanding), But...

 

Why exactly will the debates showcase anything we don't already know in a way that will cause the seismic shift you speak of? 20 years ago the two candidates battling it out on the TV might have given a lot of people new insight as they were seeing exactly who they were against each other for the first time. Now, in this era of global instant connectivity for most everyone, lots of people will have seen what Biden and Trump are like head-to-head already via their interactions on various platforms.

 

And his followers can love him all they like, the reason he won last time was because a lot of Dem supporters stayed at home - are we really about to see that again?

 

I don't mean to come after you personally here mon ami, but this is what I was referring to above that frustrates me - folks posting an idea that Trump is going is going to win based either on a hunch (not that there's anything wrong with that) or on ideas that have already been accounted for and addressed. I'm totally open to the idea of hearing why Trump might close the gap, but I'd like to hear something pretty damn credible backing it up too.

I know it's not personal, man (I have no horse in the race so it's hard for me to take it personally even if I tried lol).

 

It's hunch, I'm not denying that. But a hunch effected by many deciding factors, including a sizeable number from the silent majority leaning towards a safe option (and I use the term "safe" very loosely here) and Trump being ruthless in debates.

 

 

I think the debate is where Trump does his best. He won it in 2016 against much worse odds. (There were even memes about how the media was pushing the narrative of Donald having no chance and the polls having him losing) Most of the data and information are on the internet, but a person can't downplay the showmanship of a person like Trump. In a debate, I don't see how a person like Biden can matchup favourably against him. Admittedly, I can't quantify what I said. So it stays merely an opinion based on a hunch.

 

Trump is a rare exception. Maybe if his opponent didn't have questions about his health, Trump would face a hard challenge. Now Trump can drive the narrative about Biden not being fit to lead the country. And Trump will milk it. 1 side is loyal to the democratic party, and the other to the Republicans. And for the people who want a safe choice and are in the middle, I think a lot of them will lean towards Trump. Donald said some outrageous things and still won it in 2016, now he only has to convince the people that he's more fit to be president than Biden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the fox said:

I know it's not personal, man (I have no horse in the race so it's hard for me to take it personally even if I tried lol).

 

It's hunch, I'm not denying that. But a hunch effected by many deciding factors, including a sizeable number from the silent majority leaning towards a safe option (and I use the term "safe" very loosely here) and Trump being ruthless in debates.

 

 

I think the debate is where Trump does his best. He won it in 2016 against much worse odds. (There were even memes about how the media was pushing the narrative of Donald having no chance and the polls having him losing) Most of the data and information are on the internet, but a person can't downplay the showmanship of a person like Trump. In a debate, I don't see how a person like Biden can matchup favourably against him. Admittedly, I can't quantify what I said. So it stays merely an opinion based on a hunch.

 

Trump is a rare exception. Maybe if his opponent didn't have questions about his health, Trump would face a hard challenge. Now Trump can drive the narrative about Biden not being fit to lead the country. And Trump will milk it. 1 side is loyal to the democratic party, and the other to the Republicans. And for the people who want a safe choice and are in the middle, I think a lot of them will lean towards Trump. Donald said some outrageous things and still won it in 2016, now he only has to convince the people that he's more fit to be president than Biden.

 

 

 

That's fair enough. Personally I've seen enough evidence to imply that such a "silent majority" looking for a safe choice doesn't exist in nearly as big a number as folks think it does - there's precious few fencesitters these days, Trump has done that much. And if there are, there's nothing to suggest that they'd go for Trump over Biden anyway.

 

There's a million reasons why 2020 is different from 2016, and I'm not sure why people are treating it as so similar.

 

WRT the debates, I still don't think it will shift public opinion in the way it would have long ago or in the way needed for Trump simply because people have had five years to see Trumps extravagant act and now everyone knows about it and has made up their mind one way or another about it.

 

So I guess we disagree pretty much entirely, but so it goes. Only time is going to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by letting their democratic States burn with riots, looting and uncontrolled law and order. They are trying to push a narrative that its all caused by a decisive and racist president, yet he's offering to sort out the mess by deploying the national guard which is being rejected. In the meantime, Obama is tweeting support for the rioters and biden is ceding to their demands.

 

The residents who elected democratic representatives don't have any confidence in the way their States are being run and certainly won't vote for a party that takes a knee for the likes of BLM.

 

Trump isn't doing anything to win. Biden is doing everything required to lose.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, simFox said:

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by letting their democratic States burn with riots, looting and uncontrolled law and order. They are trying to push a narrative that its all caused by a decisive and racist president, yet he's offering to sort out the mess by deploying the national guard which is being rejected. In the meantime, Obama is tweeting support for the rioters and biden is ceding to their demands.

 

The residents who elected democratic representatives don't have any confidence in the way their States are being run and certainly won't vote for a party that takes a knee for the likes of BLM.

 

Trump isn't doing anything to win. Biden is doing everything required to lose.

If all or even any of this were true, we would see a corresponding change in polling data to corroborate it, seeing as this issue has been bubbling for a while now.

 

Are we seeing such a change? Or is the polling methodology somehow compromised for some reason?

 

Edit: some poll based corroboration of my own : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-message-isnt-resonating-with-most-americans/
 

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If all or even any of this were true, we would see a corresponding change in polling data to corroborate it, seeing as this issue has been bubbling for a while now.

 

Are we seeing such a change? Or is the polling methodology somehow compromised for some reason?

 

Edit: some poll based corroboration of my own : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-message-isnt-resonating-with-most-americans/
 

I love that quote "mostly peaceful"

 

Yep, OJ Simpson was "mostly peaceful" right before he murdered his wife. Ted Bundy was "mostly peaceful" except for when he was strangling someone, but for the best part of the day, he was indeed "mostly peaceful". 😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, simFox said:

I love that quote "mostly peaceful"

 

Yep, OJ Simpson was "mostly peaceful" right before he murdered his wife. Ted Bundy was "mostly peaceful" except for when he was strangling someone, but for the best part of the day, he was indeed "mostly peaceful". 😂😂😂

...is there a critique of the poll data and analysis itself (to say nothing of the other polls within the article) forthcoming here, or are we just focusing on the language used in one poll that is in fact inconsequential to the information it has provided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...is there a critique of the poll data and analysis itself (to say nothing of the other polls within the article) forthcoming here, or are we just focusing on the language used in one poll that is in fact inconsequential to the information it has provided?

You know as well as I do, a poll is only as good as the people undertaking it, as such I rarely take any notice of them.

 

When the editorial makes note of such observations as "mostly peaceful" they are clearly recognising the driving issue, but conveniently neglecting the impact of it. 

 

The biggest mistakes people make are usually undertaken within a minute timeframe. Mostly peaceful might appease your view, but it doesn't fool me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your news sources are main stream then you will get one side of the story not the truth, if you rely on social media you will get a feed tgat reflects you views. Facebook youtude etc are attempting to silence centre right voices prior to the election according to those in the centr right (some would say extreme) but i think the left is trying to hood wink the world that centre politics is much farther to the left than it is. We saw it here. I would love the premier league to reconsider the BLM banners and replace them with one that all side of the political spectrum can get behind kick it out. The is no place in the modern world for racism, but promoting a Marxism is decisive in itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

If your news sources are main stream then you will get one side of the story not the truth, if you rely on social media you will get a feed tgat reflects you views. Facebook youtude etc are attempting to silence centre right voices prior to the election according to those in the centr right (some would say extreme) but i think the left is trying to hood wink the world that centre politics is much farther to the left than it is. We saw it here. I would love the premier league to reconsider the BLM banners and replace them with one that all side of the political spectrum can get behind kick it out. The is no place in the modern world for racism, but promoting a Marxism is decisive in itself.

A shining example to the world of ignorance is Lewis Hamilton. I'm a die hard F1 fan, and every driver on the grid wears a T-shirt that's says no to racism, yet Hamilton heads the lineup with a proudly displayed Black Lives Matter T-Shirt.

 

I think Hamilton will be a G.O.A.T and rightly so, but he's naive and misled, which he will also be remembered for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, simFox said:

You know as well as I do, a poll is only as good as the people undertaking it, as such I rarely take any notice of them.

 

When the editorial makes note of such observations as "mostly peaceful" they are clearly recognising the driving issue, but conveniently neglecting the impact of it. 

 

The biggest mistakes people make are usually undertaken within a minute timeframe. Mostly peaceful might appease your view, but it doesn't fool me.

Of course the first line is correct - however, these are multiple polls all showing broadly the same thing. If they are all in fact suspect I'd be interesting in knowing why - is the implication here that they're all biased?

 

The editorial was using the term "mostly peaceful" as the poll used it for one part of their investigation, nothing more - let's not be disingenuous and attempt a poisoned well fallacy merely from that here.

 

If there's solid evidence that fivethirtyeight are presenting this polling data in anywhere approaching a misleading manner, it would be interesting to know why and how. Simply saying "I don't trust it because reasons" is nothing more than unverifiable opinion - however there does seem to be rather a lot of that on the subject of Trump in this thread of late.

 

3 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

If your news sources are main stream then you will get one side of the story not the truth, if you rely on social media you will get a feed tgat reflects you views. Facebook youtude etc are attempting to silence centre right voices prior to the election according to those in the centr right (some would say extreme) but i think the left is trying to hood wink the world that centre politics is much farther to the left than it is. We saw it here. I would love the premier league to reconsider the BLM banners and replace them with one that all side of the political spectrum can get behind kick it out. The is no place in the modern world for racism, but promoting a Marxism is decisive in itself.

Again, this requires evidence, or just qualifying opinion as merely opinion rather than writing it as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Again, this requires evidence, or just qualifying opinion as merely opinion rather than writing it as fact.

Which bit that the mainstream media gives one side of a story or facebook is censoring the right or the left wants us to believe the centre is more to the left than it is or that marxism is decisive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Which bit that the mainstream media gives one side of a story or facebook is censoring the right or the left wants us to believe the centre is more to the left than it is or that marxism is decisive?

Well...all of them.

 

I understand however that such things are bloody difficult to actually prove because sources that don't have a vested interest either way are difficult to find and so you don't have to do it. Apologies, but this thread has irked me of late with so many people overlooking (reasonably) hard data that suggests one thing in favour of another for which they have nothing more than a hunch, and (this is the important part) the two viewpoints then being given equal validity.

 

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, of course, but perhaps not their own facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course the first line is correct - however, these are multiple polls all showing broadly the same thing. If they are all in fact suspect I'd be interesting in knowing why - is the implication here that they're all biased?

 

The editorial was using the term "mostly peaceful" as the poll used it for one part of their investigation, nothing more - let's not be disingenuous and attempt a poisoned well fallacy merely from that here.

 

If there's solid evidence that fivethirtyeight are presenting this polling data in anywhere approaching a misleading manner, it would be interesting to know why and how. Simply saying "I don't trust it because reasons" is nothing more than unverifiable opinion - however there does seem to be rather a lot of that on the subject of Trump in this thread of late.

 

Again, this requires evidence, or just qualifying opinion as merely opinion rather than writing it as fact.

You argue a point against someone that is equally applied to your own. I have no idea about whether a poll is rigged or not and neither do you, but if you want to use them as case to argue whether one side is winning or losing then go ahead, I have no evidence to suggest otherwise and neither do you.

 

We are both espousing opinion, but don't think for one minute the data you present supports your own.

 

The only poll I have ever taken notice of, is the general election exit poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, simFox said:

The only poll I have ever taken notice of, is the general election exit poll.

It is the most accurate and the only poll that counts. I heard that pizza hut once change the line from would you like a desert to which dessert would you like and sales increased this well may be an urban myrh in the hospitality trade but shows how rewording a question could lead to differong answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, simFox said:

You argue a point against someone that is equally applied to your own. I have no idea about whether a poll is rigged or not and neither do you, but if you want to use them as case to argue whether one side is winning or losing then go ahead, I have no evidence to suggest otherwise and neither do you.

 

We are both espousing opinion, but don't think for one minute the data you present supports your own.

 

The only poll I have ever taken notice of, is the general election exit poll.

I think that the data I have presented wholly supports the viewpoint that Trumps "law and order" rhetoric is not affecting Americans in the way that would cause them to vote for him - and the numbers and source stand by themselves in terms of validity and the burden of proof is on someone looking to invalidate them. In the same way that collected data and the interpretation thereof stands by itself when it comes to climate change, cosmic expansion theory and the efficacy of thoroughly tested vaccines. And such viewpoints are, by virtue of the rigour of investigation that has gone into them, more valid in terms of fact than those that don't have such data analysis backing them. That's the basis of the scientific method of empiricism, after all.

 

But if you wish to disregard such hard data and pursue your own viewpoint based on less, then that is of course your prerogative.

 

NB. With respect to the US election polling itself, I guess I'll simply make the point that political campaigns in the US spend vast amounts of money on accurate polling figures because they know how important it is to success - and as such it's probably best for the companies they contract to to get it right at least most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I think that the data I have presented wholly supports the viewpoint that Trumps "law and order" rhetoric is not affecting Americans in the way that would cause them to vote for him - and the numbers and source stand by themselves in terms of validity and the burden of proof is on someone looking to invalidate them. In the same way that collected data and the interpretation thereof stands by itself when it comes to climate change, cosmic expansion theory and the efficacy of thoroughly tested vaccines. And such viewpoints are, by virtue of the rigour of investigation that has gone into them, more valid in terms of fact than those that don't have such data analysis backing them. That's the basis of the scientific method of empiricism, after all.

 

But if you wish to disregard such hard data and pursue your own viewpoint based on less, then that is of course your prerogative.

 

NB. With respect to the US election polling itself, I guess I'll simply make the point that political campaigns in the US spend vast amounts of money on accurate polling figures because they know how important it is to success - and as such it's probably best for the companies they contract to to get it right at least most of the time.

The digested and excreted remains of a male cows subsistence is commonly referred to as bullshit.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...