Wouldn't that suggest the number for Biden might actually be lower?
No, because despite all of their years of campaigning to win over moderate Republicans, that number never increases. This is the point. It's a waste of time and effort that also has the blowback effect of reducing the enthusiasm levels from segments within their own party.
No, my contention is that those that "say" they will vote for Biden is lower than those that actually vote for Biden. I recall that polling in 2016 may not have been accurate, because people were unwilling to "say" they would vote for Trump, but in fact did vote for Trump in higher numbers. This is the same group of so called moderate Rebublicans.
I guess we will see if the number never increases. Don't know. I just don't think the blowback will be that great. This is not the election to stay on the sidelines, for obvious reasons. That, and I think you overestimate the progressive segment of the Dems and underestimate the more center leaning Dems.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
No, my contention is that those that "say" they will vote for Biden is lower than those that actually vote for Biden. I recall that polling in 2016 may not have been accurate, because people were unwilling to "say" they would vote for Trump, but in fact did vote for Trump in higher numbers. This is the same group of so called moderate Rebublicans.
I guess we will see if the number never increases. Don't know. I just don't think the blowback will be that great. This is not the election to stay on the sidelines, for obvious reasons. That, and I think you overestimate the progressive segment of the Dems and underestimate the more center leaning Dems.
People need to stop saying that polling was inaccurate in 2016. It was not. The national level polls were extremely close. The national polls predicted a narrow Clinton victory. And that’s... exactly what happened: a narrow Clinton victory in the national popular vote.
In the swing states that gave Trump the electoral college there was not much high quality polling close to Election Day. In most of those cases it’s not that the polls were unusually inaccurate; there just wasn’t as much data as you would like but the level of error was no more than usual.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
No, my contention is that those that "say" they will vote for Biden is lower than those that actually vote for Biden. I recall that polling in 2016 may not have been accurate, because people were unwilling to "say" they would vote for Trump, but in fact did vote for Trump in higher numbers. This is the same group of so called moderate Rebublicans.
I guess we will see if the number never increases. Don't know. I just don't think the blowback will be that great. This is not the election to stay on the sidelines, for obvious reasons. That, and I think you overestimate the progressive segment of the Dems and underestimate the more center leaning Dems.
I can't remember there ever being a "shy Democrat" polling error.
Before people freak out, this is more of a comment on strategy than it is on Biden. I really do not understand why Democrats continue to chase the mythical "moderate Republican" vote they seem to think exists and is just there for the taking. The strategy has been producing diminishing returns for almost two decades now.
I'm not sure I'd put a ton of faith in Beau's views of what the average moderate conservative will flip for (or not). Poor people having better access to semi-automatic weapons doesn't strike me as the issue that will make or break a Biden landslide. And this chap has a bit of a dubious history.
Also if Biden comes off an assault weapon ban he will loose a lot more liberal votes, even ground could be a grandfather clause of some sort and mag restrictions.
I'm not sure I'd put a ton of faith in Beau's views of what the average moderate conservative will flip for (or not). Poor people having better access to semi-automatic weapons doesn't strike me as the issue that will make or break a Biden landslide. And this chap has a bit of a dubious history.
Still, it was at least a novel take.
I think his point was that the legislation needs some tweaks/improvements (to make it less unappealing to working class people in swing states), not that it needs to be thrown out completely.
Generally speaking, of course some action needs to be taken to reduce the frequency & severity of future mass shootings. If you disagree with that, you probably were firmly in Trump's support base anyhow.
I'm not sure I'd put a ton of faith in Beau's views of what the average moderate conservative will flip for (or not). Poor people having better access to semi-automatic weapons doesn't strike me as the issue that will make or break a Biden landslide. And this chap has a bit of a dubious history.
Still, it was at least a novel take.
That's a real good take. Man, Canadians just don't understand American culture and the attachment to their guns. They will put up with a lot, but talk about restriction of guns is just a no-go zone for a lot of people, especially conservatives. I'm one of those issues voters that would think twice on a gun ban. It's not a big enough issue to make me switch my vote, but if enough issues continue to stack up on the other side of the ledger, I would change my vote. If this is the one issue that is the difference maker, then you delay the bill until after the mid-term. Make it an issue for 2024 by ramming it through in 2022. The most important thing here is defeating Trump and defeating him in with big numbers. Send the message that as a country we reject this extreme RW ideology and send all of those cretins Trump has enabled scurring back under the rocks from which they came. If that takes status quo on gun legislation, that's a win. Focus on healthcare, taxation, and repairing our tattered reputation abroad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Also if Biden comes off an assault weapon ban he will loose a lot more liberal votes, even ground could be a grandfather clause of some sort and mag restrictions.
No they won't. Who are these liberals going to vote for? Trump? If they are stupid enough to throw their support behind a third party candidate they deserve the government they get. They will not make the same mistake they did last election, not after the #### show we've seen for the past four years. There will be a lot of nose holding this election and liberals better get used to that idea. Biden has to reach across to the moderate Republicans and earn their votes or this divide in the nation will just continue to fester.
Grandfather clauses are not the solution IMO. It makes policing that virtually impossible. If you're going to ban something, just ban it already. To me, the proper solution is to allow the weapons, but place taxes on them and make the ammunition so expensive that people will think twice about the weapons they purchase. Place such punitive taxes on certain weapons and calibers of ammunition that it encourages people to move to bolt action weapons. Make .223/5.56 $10 a round and people will move to a less expensive platform. Problem solved. And yes, this works. I used to shoot .338 Lapua but it became cost prohibitive to shoot. Every round down range was blowing $6 out the barrel. So I switched to .308 and now I'm only blowing a buck and a quarter. Still expensive when you compare it to .223/5.56 which you can get for 25-35 cents a round. Economics of shooting a particular round can make people switch platforms.
This is what Republicans are using to appeal to women.
So many lies and just an abhorent perspective.
Some background on this wonderful warrior for women's rights. Ladies, you don't deserve the vote. Only your husband should be casting the vote for your household, because Jesus says so.
