The Donald Trump thread

Deepdiver

Hummingbird
Gold Member
High Expectations: Why Trump Will Defeat Biden:

Trump is not nearly as far behind as the polls indicate. Some of the skewing in the polls and the impact on Trump’s chances is described in this article by Brian Freeman in Newsmax from July 19:

“Media polls are deliberately underplaying Republican voters by as much as 9% to give the false impression that President Donald Trump is well behind in the race for the November election, Trump pollster John McLaughlin said on Sunday. …

‘The media is polling [all] adults. Not likely voters. If you poll likely voters, like Rasmussen did, where you use a model of actual voter turnout, Republicans, who vote over 90% for Trump, will be one-third of the poll. They were 33% in the exit polls in 2016. When you do [all] adults, there aren’t as many Republicans because any adult in the United States could even mean… non-citizens could be in that poll because they’re randomly calling cell phones and landlines.’

“McLaughlin emphasized that when the polls do that, which he insisted they are doing on purpose, ‘you just cut Donald Trump‘s vote total by 8 to 9 points. So, of course you’re saying we’re getting blown out,’ adding that ‘It’s the same thing that happened four years ago. Four years ago all these polls that said that Donald Trump couldn’t win.’ ”

Another factor in evaluating polls is coming to grips with the fact that people don’t always tell pollsters their real views or won’t participate in polls at all, which can skew results. An article in Townhall by Loyd Pettegrew from January 20, 2020 expands on this concept:

“Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent’s true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all.”

As applied to the current election, Pettegrew’s point is that voters know “Trump” is an unpopular answer for many, so they will say “Biden” in reply to a pollster question even though they intend to vote for Trump.

When the polls are adjusted for factors such as skew in selecting polling subjects, self-selection by those who do not participate in polls, and the social pressure to deny you are voting for Trump even when he’s your first choice, it appears the election is much closer than the polls indicate. This does not mean Trump will win, but it does mean that counting Trump out of the race is a huge mistake.

The Expected Trump Vote
That said, there is some highly persuasive scientific research on polling that says Trump will win. This research requires a good grounding in statistics and integral calculus to fully absorb, but we’ll explain it here in plain English. Here goes:

Since the 1940s, pollsters have asked the question, “If the election were held today, who would you vote for?” This is the so-called horse race question, and the answer gets all the headlines and publicity. But, the pollsters also ask another question: “Regardless of who you plan to vote for, who do you think will win the upcoming election?”

The first question (“who would you vote for?”) is called the voter intention question. The second question (“who do you think will win?”) is called the voter expectation question.

Just as the voter intention question receives huge publicity, the voter expectation question gets very little attention. After all, if you know whom someone is voting for, who cares what that person thinks about how others will vote?

It turns out ignoring the expectation question is a huge mistake. Over hundreds of elections for many decades, the answer to the expectation question is far more accurate in predicting outcomes than the answer to the intention question.

The reason for this is a bit counterintuitive, but here’s why it’s true: When you answer the intention question, you are a sample size of one. If 1,300 people are asked the intention question, the sample size is 1,300 people. In normal polling, 1,300 is about how many respondents you need to get a fairly accurate poll. The margin of error for such a poll is about plus or minus 3%.

I’ve done polling for presidential campaigns and I know how expensive and difficult it is to get 1,300 people to answer a series of detailed questions. Many polls use smaller sample sizes, some as small as a few hundred respondents. A smaller sample size increases the margin of error.

Now, think about the answer to the voter expectation question. You’re not just asking the voter about her intentions. You’re asking about their expectation based on the likely actions of everyone they know. This social network includes family members, neighbors, co-workers and even total strangers with whom one might chat about politics.

Suddenly, when you ask one person about their expectations, the sample size increases from one person to 20, 50, 100, or even more people based on the size of their social network.

And, here’s the key insight: The expectation question includes the intention of the individual answering the question. In other words, when you ask the expectation question, you’re getting an answer to the intention question and much more.

In the language of statisticians, the answer to the expectation question is information rich. With the expectation question, you’re effectively expanding the sample size from one person to, say, fifty people. If your base sample is 1,300 respondents and the average social network of each participant is fifty people, then the sample size on the expectation question is 65,000 people. This much larger sample size means a much smaller margin of error and a much more accurate forecast.

This analysis is not just a hypothesis. Its validity is borne out by decades of hard data. If you’re interested, the two leading papers that back this up are Accuracy of Vote Expectation Surveys in Forecasting Elections (2014) by Andreas Garefe, and Forecasting Elections: Voter Intentions versus Expectations (2012) by David Rothschild and Justin Wolfers.

Of course, in most cases the intention question and the expectation question will forecast the same winner even if the expectation question has a better forecasting record overall.

That makes sense. In a landslide election like Lyndon Johnson in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1984, the winner in the individual question and the winner in the expectation question will be the same.

Where it gets interesting is when one candidate is leading the polls in the intention question, but the opposition candidate is leading in the expectation question. In effect, a poll respondent is saying, “I’m voting for A, but I expect B to win.” What happens then?

The data is unambiguous. Here’s what economists Rothschild and Wolfers said in their paper: “In the 77 cases in which the intention and expectation question predict different candidates, the expectation question picks the winner 60 times, while the intention question only picked the winner 17 times. That is, 78% of the time that these two approaches disagree, the expectation data was correct.”

Guess what?

That’s exactly where we are today. The average response to the intention question shows Biden with a 49.3% to 40.7% lead over Trump. But, the average response to the expectation question shows Trump with a 55% to 45% lead over Biden.

The research shows the expectation question has the right forecast 78% of the time when the two polls disagree. Putting this data together and using the best available science shows that Trump is the favorite to beat Biden according to the latest polls.

You won’t hear that forecast from CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times. You just read it in Strategic Intelligence. We don’t play favorites, but we do stick to the best available science. According to the best science, Trump will win.
 

Neo

Pelican
Gold Member
High Expectations: Why Trump Will Defeat Biden:

Trump is not nearly as far behind as the polls indicate. Some of the skewing in the polls and the impact on Trump’s chances is described in this article by Brian Freeman in Newsmax from July 19:

“Media polls are deliberately underplaying Republican voters by as much as 9% to give the false impression that President Donald Trump is well behind in the race for the November election, Trump pollster John McLaughlin said on Sunday. …

‘The media is polling [all] adults. Not likely voters. If you poll likely voters, like Rasmussen did, where you use a model of actual voter turnout, Republicans, who vote over 90% for Trump, will be one-third of the poll. They were 33% in the exit polls in 2016. When you do [all] adults, there aren’t as many Republicans because any adult in the United States could even mean… non-citizens could be in that poll because they’re randomly calling cell phones and landlines.’

“McLaughlin emphasized that when the polls do that, which he insisted they are doing on purpose, ‘you just cut Donald Trump‘s vote total by 8 to 9 points. So, of course you’re saying we’re getting blown out,’ adding that ‘It’s the same thing that happened four years ago. Four years ago all these polls that said that Donald Trump couldn’t win.’ ”

Another factor in evaluating polls is coming to grips with the fact that people don’t always tell pollsters their real views or won’t participate in polls at all, which can skew results. An article in Townhall by Loyd Pettegrew from January 20, 2020 expands on this concept:

“Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent’s true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all.”

As applied to the current election, Pettegrew’s point is that voters know “Trump” is an unpopular answer for many, so they will say “Biden” in reply to a pollster question even though they intend to vote for Trump.

When the polls are adjusted for factors such as skew in selecting polling subjects, self-selection by those who do not participate in polls, and the social pressure to deny you are voting for Trump even when he’s your first choice, it appears the election is much closer than the polls indicate. This does not mean Trump will win, but it does mean that counting Trump out of the race is a huge mistake.

The Expected Trump Vote
That said, there is some highly persuasive scientific research on polling that says Trump will win. This research requires a good grounding in statistics and integral calculus to fully absorb, but we’ll explain it here in plain English. Here goes:

Since the 1940s, pollsters have asked the question, “If the election were held today, who would you vote for?” This is the so-called horse race question, and the answer gets all the headlines and publicity. But, the pollsters also ask another question: “Regardless of who you plan to vote for, who do you think will win the upcoming election?”

The first question (“who would you vote for?”) is called the voter intention question. The second question (“who do you think will win?”) is called the voter expectation question.

Just as the voter intention question receives huge publicity, the voter expectation question gets very little attention. After all, if you know whom someone is voting for, who cares what that person thinks about how others will vote?

It turns out ignoring the expectation question is a huge mistake. Over hundreds of elections for many decades, the answer to the expectation question is far more accurate in predicting outcomes than the answer to the intention question.

The reason for this is a bit counterintuitive, but here’s why it’s true: When you answer the intention question, you are a sample size of one. If 1,300 people are asked the intention question, the sample size is 1,300 people. In normal polling, 1,300 is about how many respondents you need to get a fairly accurate poll. The margin of error for such a poll is about plus or minus 3%.

I’ve done polling for presidential campaigns and I know how expensive and difficult it is to get 1,300 people to answer a series of detailed questions. Many polls use smaller sample sizes, some as small as a few hundred respondents. A smaller sample size increases the margin of error.

Now, think about the answer to the voter expectation question. You’re not just asking the voter about her intentions. You’re asking about their expectation based on the likely actions of everyone they know. This social network includes family members, neighbors, co-workers and even total strangers with whom one might chat about politics.

Suddenly, when you ask one person about their expectations, the sample size increases from one person to 20, 50, 100, or even more people based on the size of their social network.

And, here’s the key insight: The expectation question includes the intention of the individual answering the question. In other words, when you ask the expectation question, you’re getting an answer to the intention question and much more.

In the language of statisticians, the answer to the expectation question is information rich. With the expectation question, you’re effectively expanding the sample size from one person to, say, fifty people. If your base sample is 1,300 respondents and the average social network of each participant is fifty people, then the sample size on the expectation question is 65,000 people. This much larger sample size means a much smaller margin of error and a much more accurate forecast.

This analysis is not just a hypothesis. Its validity is borne out by decades of hard data. If you’re interested, the two leading papers that back this up are Accuracy of Vote Expectation Surveys in Forecasting Elections (2014) by Andreas Garefe, and Forecasting Elections: Voter Intentions versus Expectations (2012) by David Rothschild and Justin Wolfers.

Of course, in most cases the intention question and the expectation question will forecast the same winner even if the expectation question has a better forecasting record overall.

That makes sense. In a landslide election like Lyndon Johnson in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1984, the winner in the individual question and the winner in the expectation question will be the same.

Where it gets interesting is when one candidate is leading the polls in the intention question, but the opposition candidate is leading in the expectation question. In effect, a poll respondent is saying, “I’m voting for A, but I expect B to win.” What happens then?

The data is unambiguous. Here’s what economists Rothschild and Wolfers said in their paper: “In the 77 cases in which the intention and expectation question predict different candidates, the expectation question picks the winner 60 times, while the intention question only picked the winner 17 times. That is, 78% of the time that these two approaches disagree, the expectation data was correct.”

Guess what?

That’s exactly where we are today. The average response to the intention question shows Biden with a 49.3% to 40.7% lead over Trump. But, the average response to the expectation question shows Trump with a 55% to 45% lead over Biden.

The research shows the expectation question has the right forecast 78% of the time when the two polls disagree. Putting this data together and using the best available science shows that Trump is the favorite to beat Biden according to the latest polls.

You won’t hear that forecast from CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times. You just read it in Strategic Intelligence. We don’t play favorites, but we do stick to the best available science. According to the best science, Trump will win.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Trump's primary vote tallies are really high.


So forget the polls, when people actually went out to vote they voted strongly for him and they really didn't have to.
 

rpg

Ostrich
As I said elsewhere, I think the best outcome for Heritage America at this point would be for Trump to win and then for the Heritage states to immediately begin strengthening their internal identities away from the union.
Liberals have set up a parallel cuckfederacy in blue strongholds. This needs to be exposed, humiliated and used to put the fear in red state voters. They can't let it tip toward the point of no return. We may be too late.
 

rpg

Ostrich
If he wants to delay the election, they will fight the delay.
Delayed or not delayed there will be no confidence in the results. The masses have been whipped into a delirium and all it will take is a triggering event to blow things up to epic proportions. I would say just move the voting booths outside under tents to keep people calm. Mail in votes or internet voting will not be accepted as legit whether Trump wins or loses.
 

Zenta

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Delayed or not delayed there will be no confidence in the results. The masses have been whipped into a delirium and all it will take is a triggering event to blow things up to epic proportions. I would say just move the voting booths outside under tents to keep people calm. Mail in votes or internet voting will not be accepted as legit whether Trump wins or loses.
The real reality of it, we have a true sh*tstorm coming in November no matter who takes the crown.
 

Blade Runner

Woodpecker
The other thing to keep in mind is that Trump's primary vote tallies are really high.


So forget the polls, when people actually went out to vote they voted strongly for him and they really didn't have to.

Yes, this is the basis behind Norpoth's model, which predicts Trump 91%.
 

placer

Woodpecker
You don't delay the election.
Well, changing the election date requires an act of congress, as per federal law passed back in 1845. Even if congress did delay the presidential election after January 20, 2021, as per the 20th Amendment of the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi (the speaker of the house) would become president on January 20.

There’s a reason why even staunch conservatives like Steven G. Calabresi oppose changing the election date.
 

CynicalContrarian

Peacock
Gold Member
I've been busy with work, so I've barely heard or looked at the particulars of this election date change thing.

Yet, when I saw one comment about it. This is the first thing that came to mind :

 

dicknixon72

Kingfisher
SITREP - President Trump is visiting my neck of the woods today and broadcasting a Wuhan Flu/Hurricane briefing today from a country club in Belleair, FL. Got a nice view of his motorcade driving through town. Lots of supporters on one section of street. Photos and video coming soon. Never saw anything like that for Obama or Bush Jr when they came to the area. Lots of organic hidden support polling doesn't reflect if you ask me. It was hot - 92 deg F, index in the 110s with a heat advisory PLUS rush hour traffic. Despite all that, likely thousands of people lining his motorcade route from Tampa Intl Airport to the beach.

As he passed, the second Cadillac - his - slowed and drove as close as permitted to the curb and you could see him through the (shockingly untinted) rear quarter glass waving and smiling at everyone.

I understand a lot of the black pill almost malaise going around the forum, especially in light of the current state of affairs in the country and the seeming tractionless actions and Trumps inaugural agenda. I can say that on some fronts he's made progress, others not so much, others sadly none at all. I understand, too, this is the unfortunate reality of our two-term election cycle - you are forced to spend your first 4 years building enough consensus while maintaining enough direction and momentum to win your second 4 years where impactful change is made.

I hope this is the plan. The 900D Chess if you will.

I feel it is.

I remain, as always, dedicated, patriotic, and hopeful to the cause while also making personal and professional preparations for the worst case scenario.

In whatever ways you wish to view it, Donald Trump is right now America's last hope.

#Trump2020
 

Blade Runner

Woodpecker
SITREP - President Trump is visiting my neck of the woods today and broadcasting a Wuhan Flu/Hurricane briefing today from a country club in Belleair, FL. Got a nice view of his motorcade driving through town. Lots of supporters on one section of street. Photos and video coming soon. Never saw anything like that for Obama or Bush Jr when they came to the area. Lots of organic hidden support polling doesn't reflect if you ask me. It was hot - 92 deg F, index in the 110s with a heat advisory PLUS rush hour traffic. Despite all that, likely thousands of people lining his motorcade route from Tampa Intl Airport to the beach.

As he passed, the second Cadillac - his - slowed and drove as close as permitted to the curb and you could see him through the (shockingly untinted) rear quarter glass waving and smiling at everyone.

I understand a lot of the black pill almost malaise going around the forum, especially in light of the current state of affairs in the country and the seeming tractionless actions and Trumps inaugural agenda. I can say that on some fronts he's made progress, others not so much, others sadly none at all. I understand, too, this is the unfortunate reality of our two-term election cycle - you are forced to spend your first 4 years building enough consensus while maintaining enough direction and momentum to win your second 4 years where impactful change is made.

I hope this is the plan. The 900D Chess if you will.

I feel it is.

I remain, as always, dedicated, patriotic, and hopeful to the cause while also making personal and professional preparations for the worst case scenario.

In whatever ways you wish to view it, Donald Trump is right now America's last hope.

#Trump2020
I hope it is more than a breather, as I have said. Trust me I want all of us to be doing this with him next term

 

CynicalContrarian

Peacock
Gold Member
Heh.
The hell...?

Emphasis added :

Senate Democrats press Postal Service on delivery complaints. People have been complaining about this on Free Republic, and an insider spilled the skinny. It turns out the Postal Service is near bankruptcy, so the new Postmaster tried cutting out overtime and hiring temps to handle periodic overflow. The way it had worked was at the end of the day, everyone who worked at the Post Office went in the back, and they all got overtime as they all set about clearing all mail from that day. The Post Master wanted to end that and have temps handle periodic surges and buildups. But every day 5-10% of the mail wasn’t cleared, and that got added to 5-10% from the next day, and they had trouble finding temps, and all of a sudden people weren’t getting their mail. Now it looks like the Postmaster intends to try and keep the overtime, but eliminate Post Offices to cut costs, and that is freaking out Democrats because just as they need this system stable for vote-by-mail, it is all fucked up, and getting worse.

 
Top