10-16-2020, 10:49 AM
|
#6581
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashpoint
California has a ballot measure to allow 17 year olds to vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...endment_(2020)
Hope it passes. Hope it spreads to other states. Most teens don’t vote, but I’d rather have 17 year olds given the chance to move the country forward rather than almost anyone over 80.
That’s probably ageist of me, but seniors tend to be conservative, religious, and as a consequence anti-choice, anti-civil rights, and generally not in the liberal progressive camp - even though most won’t live to see the consequences of their votes.
|
Wow, not sure what orifice this was pulled from, maybe based on an Alberta view, certainly not what I see or hear from my age group! Most seniors prefer a left leaning or centrist government to right, in Conservative Alberta that is likely different, but slowly changing.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 10:50 AM
|
#6582
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Lost in the town hall stuff last night was the Iowa Senate debate. Theresa Greenfield (D) was asked the break even point for a bushel of corn this week. She nailed the question. Joni Ernst was asked for soybeans. She completely failed miserably at answering the question and then blamed it on not hearing the question properly.
I hope Greenfield wins Iowa.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vegasbound For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 10:54 AM
|
#6583
|
That Crazy Guy at the Bus Stop
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Springfield Penitentiary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Wow, not sure what orifice this was pulled from, maybe based on an Alberta view, certainly not what I see or hear from my age group! Most seniors prefer a left leaning or centrist government to right, in Conservative Alberta that is likely different, but slowly changing.
|
Anecdotal but I used to work with a lot of seniors. MarchHare's claim was 100% true in my experiences. This would've been around 2015-2018 in a wealthy neighborhood in Calgary. I can't imagine their views have changed much. But as that age group shifts and the bigots die off and more liberal people get older, I guess it could be slowly changing.
Although I've noticed that most people I know have gotten far more conservative as they've gotten into old age so it also seems like it might be growing too.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 10:56 AM
|
#6584
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Wow, not sure what orifice this was pulled from, maybe based on an Alberta view, certainly not what I see or hear from my age group! Most seniors prefer a left leaning or centrist government to right, in Conservative Alberta that is likely different, but slowly changing.
|
Uhhh yeah, the polls/stats everywhere pretty much back the original claim up (at least in Canada, the U.S., and the UK). Conservative parties would never get a sniff at forming governments if it weren't for seniors.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 10:56 AM
|
#6585
|
Truculent!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Wow, not sure what orifice this was pulled from, maybe based on an Alberta view, certainly not what I see or hear from my age group! Most seniors prefer a left leaning or centrist government to right, in Conservative Alberta that is likely different, but slowly changing.
|
My senior aged mother was a long long time Alberta Conservative party supporter.
No longer. UCP has pushed her and many of her friends away from the party.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
It's the Law of E=NG. If there was an Edmonton on Mars, it would stink like Uranus.
|
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 10:58 AM
|
#6586
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Anecdotal but I used to work with a lot of seniors. MarchHare's claim was 100% true in my experiences. This would've been around 2015-2018 in a wealthy neighborhood in Calgary. I can't imagine their views have changed much. But as that age group shifts and the bigots die off and more liberal people get older, I guess it could be slowly changing.
Although I've noticed that most people I know have gotten far more conservative as they've gotten into old age so it also seems like it might be growing too.
|
Thats what I said...
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:00 AM
|
#6587
|
It's not easy being green!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes to Vancouver Island
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Although I've noticed that most people I know have gotten far more conservative as they've gotten into old age so it also seems like it might be growing too.
|
Maybe it's because my parents have moved to BC, but they've gone full to the left and I love it. My parents never talked about how they voted, but they never voted for Rob Anders, I know that. I would have viewed them both as centrists.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:00 AM
|
#6588
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chilliwack, B.C
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Uhhh yeah, the polls/stats everywhere pretty much back the original claim up (at least in Canada, the U.S., and the UK). Conservative parties would never get a sniff at forming governments if it weren't for seniors.
|
I live around many 20 30 40 50 somethings that vote conservative, yet in the same area I know many seniors that vote left, including my grandma in law who is 95. Depends a lot where you live and the culture in the community.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:01 AM
|
#6589
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
My issue with polls, is that the only ones who respond to them are ones which would hit a mindset, and they try to portray a narrative. They are biased in nature of how they are conducted. Since most polls are generally media controlled and most media is left wing, the results tend to be heavily slanted.
A reminder of how 2016 was looking around this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
538 has flipped Ohio and Iowa to Clinton.
Landslide territory.
|
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
Oct 17 2016 had Clinton winning at 88.1%
People are really betting way too much on the polls and I feel like Trump could win and be a shock to everyone...again...to anyone who doesn't realize that large demographic of the population isn't on reddit or on forums and online posters don't necessarily take the time to vote.
Trump wasn't supposed to win in 2016, yet he did.
Last edited by Firebot; 10-16-2020 at 11:03 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:11 AM
|
#6590
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryred
I live around many 20 30 40 50 somethings that vote conservative, yet in the same area I know many seniors that vote left, including my grandma in law who is 95. Depends a lot where you live and the culture in the community.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
|
I didn't say "all seniors vote conservative," but there are far more conservative voters among seniors than younger people.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ting-behavior/
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:13 AM
|
#6591
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
My issue with polls, is that the only ones who respond to them are ones which would hit a mindset, and they try to portray a narrative. They are biased in nature of how they are conducted. Since most polls are generally media controlled and most media is left wing, the results tend to be heavily slanted.
A reminder of how 2016 was looking around this time.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
Oct 17 2016 had Clinton winning at 88.1%
People are really betting way too much on the polls and I feel like Trump could win and be a shock to everyone...again...to anyone who doesn't realize that large demographic of the population isn't on reddit or on forums and online posters don't necessarily take the time to vote.
Trump wasn't supposed to win in 2016, yet he did.
|
This has been explained ad nauseum but we'll try again. The polls were largely bang-on at the national level in 2016. It was at the state level where Trump outperformed his polls, but it was also still within the MoE. He outperformed his polls by about 2% at the state level. Even if he outperforms them by that level again this year, it's still a landslide loss.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:14 AM
|
#6592
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Anecdotal but I used to work with a lot of seniors. MarchHare's claim was 100% true in my experiences. This would've been around 2015-2018 in a wealthy neighborhood in Calgary. I can't imagine their views have changed much. But as that age group shifts and the bigots die off and more liberal people get older, I guess it could be slowly changing.
Although I've noticed that most people I know have gotten far more conservative as they've gotten into old age so it also seems like it might be growing too.
|
Huh? Do you mean Flashpoint's claim?
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:27 AM
|
#6593
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
This has been explained ad nauseum but we'll try again. The polls were largely bang-on at the national level in 2016. It was at the state level where Trump outperformed his polls, but it was also still within the MoE. He outperformed his polls by about 2% at the state level. Even if he outperforms them by that level again this year, it's still a landslide loss.
|
The polls had Clintons chances of winning Michigan at 78.9%, Wisconsin at 83.5%, Pennsylvania at 77% even by the day of the election
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
And on the point of margin of error, that's wrong too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...s-wrong-2017-5
Quote:
Reminiscing on what went wrong just days after the November election, Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, a firm that conducts a number of state polls, told Business Insider "polls might not be capable of predicting elections."
Murray's final Pennsylvania poll showed Clinton with a 4-point lead with a 4.9-point margin of error, which still was not big enough to capture the margin — 1.2 points — by which Trump would win the state.
|
Quote:
His theory for what happened at the time: "Non-response among a major core of Trump voters."
|
Again, polls are garbage because they only show what it wants to show and using outdated techniques that cater to a specific demographic versus the whole spectrum.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...crush-wildrose
Quote:
'We were wrong': Alberta Election pollsters red-faced as Tories crush Wildrose
|
Last edited by Firebot; 10-16-2020 at 11:30 AM.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 11:31 AM
|
#6594
|
Ben
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: God's Country (aka Cape Breton Island)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
My issue with polls, is that the only ones who respond to them are ones which would hit a mindset, and they try to portray a narrative. They are biased in nature of how they are conducted. Since most polls are generally media controlled and most media is left wing, the results tend to be heavily slanted.
A reminder of how 2016 was looking around this time.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
Oct 17 2016 had Clinton winning at 88.1%
People are really betting way too much on the polls and I feel like Trump could win and be a shock to everyone...again...to anyone who doesn't realize that large demographic of the population isn't on reddit or on forums and online posters don't necessarily take the time to vote.
Trump wasn't supposed to win in 2016, yet he did.
|
That poll projects Clinton to have 48.5% of the vote. She received 48.2% of the vote.
The poll had Trump at 44.9% of the vote. He ended up with 46.1%.
It was within 0.3% for Clinton and 1.2% for Trump.
The poll was bang on accurate.
Looking at the state level. Pennsylvania for example, 538 had Clinton polled at 48.9%, Trump at 45.2%. Clinton actually received 47.5% of the vote (1.4% difference) and Trump 48.2% (a variance of 3%).
I don't see a margin of error listed, but a quick search shows CNN's latest poll has a margin of error of 4%.
It wasn't the polls that were wrong, it was the analysis of the numbers.
__________________
"Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:01 PM
|
#6595
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Looking at the state level. Pennsylvania for example, 538 had Clinton polled at 48.9%, Trump at 45.2%. Clinton actually received 47.5% of the vote (1.4% difference) and Trump 48.2% (a variance of 3%).
I don't see a margin of error listed, but a quick search shows CNN's latest poll has a margin of error of 4%.
|
That's a margin of 4.4% percent...that would be above CNN's margin of error for instance.
Again when your margins of errors are so high, and you can't even meet them, what's the point of the polls, when just a 2% shift in popular vote can shift an election completely? You can't predict that a candidate has an 80% change of winning in multiple swing states, and then to be wrong on all of them and pretend to show that the polls still work.
That's why I am stating, polls are meaningless and less accurate each year due to the lack of good data and the choice in how the polling method happens. Obviously pollsters want to explain why these polls are still accuratea and correct, because the premise of accurate polls is how they make money and build a reputation.
I know I have never been polled in my life, have any of you? And I vote every year at every level.
I don't fit the pollster narrative.
Last edited by Firebot; 10-16-2020 at 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:06 PM
|
#6596
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
The two biggest differences in polling between 2016 and this year are the fact there are far fewer undecideds, and that Biden has consistently been at or over 50% whereas Hillary rarely got there. And people actually like or at least respect Biden. Hillary only avoided the least liked candidate in history because Trump was more disliked.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 10-16-2020 at 12:11 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:07 PM
|
#6597
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Vancouver
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:26 PM
|
#6598
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
That's a margin of 4.4% percent...that would be above CNN's margin of error for instance.
Again when your margins of errors are so high, and you can't even meet them, what's the point of the polls, when just a 2% shift in popular vote can shift an election completely? You can't predict that a candidate has an 80% change of winning in multiple swing states, and then to be wrong on all of them and pretend to show that the polls still work.
That's why I am stating, polls are meaningless and less accurate each year due to the lack of good data and the choice in how the polling method happens. Obviously pollsters want to explain why these polls are still accuratea and correct, because the premise of accurate polls is how they make money and build a reputation.
I know I have never been polled in my life, have any of you? And I vote every year at every level.
I don't fit the pollster narrative.
|
Yes you can, the states aren’t independent events they are heavily correlated. It is very unlikely you Win Florida but don’t win Pennsylvania. Those would be very unlikely outcomes.
Remember that an 80% chance means that 1 in 5 times the underdog wins. That’s a lot. Flip a coin twice and get two heads, Trump wins. (That’s 75% rather than 80%). That isn’t meaningless it provides you a good idea of what’s likely to happen.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:41 PM
|
#6599
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Yes you can, the states aren’t independent events they are heavily correlated. It is very unlikely you Win Florida but don’t win Pennsylvania. Those would be very unlikely outcomes.
Remember that an 80% chance means that 1 in 5 times the underdog wins. That’s a lot. Flip a coin twice and get two heads, Trump wins. (That’s 75% rather than 80%). That isn’t meaningless it provides you a good idea of what’s likely to happen.
|
I think that was the big mistake in 2016 though. The thought was was if Clinton was up a certain % nationally, then it is very unlikely she would lose traditional blue states like WI/MI/PA. But Trump's unique popularity in those states bucked that trend and broke the models.
There's a lot of evidence those 3 states are safe this time around including the 2018 election results.
|
|
|
10-16-2020, 12:45 PM
|
#6600
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
This has been explained ad nauseum but we'll try again. The polls were largely bang-on at the national level in 2016. It was at the state level where Trump outperformed his polls, but it was also still within the MoE. He outperformed his polls by about 2% at the state level. Even if he outperforms them by that level again this year, it's still a landslide loss.
|
Also polls can't accurately predict voter turnout.
"Who will you vote for"
"Will you vote"
Does that person actually vote?
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 AM.
|
|