Ouch Marty. You guys are gonna have to cheat extra hard this time.

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1...T2nEQ&s=19

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

I think this was it.

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidenti...ion-polls/

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

---

Marty loves poles..

---

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/stat...Gfe0A&s=19

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

It's not a poll.  It's a probability of winning the electoral college and it's from Nate Silver's model.

www.natesilver.net

If it was a poll, that'd be a landslide, but it's a probability and it's very very close. He's saying if the election was run in 9 parallel universes with the same measurables, Trump would win in 5 of them and Harris would win in 4 of them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Those aren't polls but I think he takes averages and then creates odds and represents it as % chance. So the vote % may not be huge but if it is solid and unchanged, the higher the winning % will be.

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

Polls are now required to share that info. It's why all the MSM polls are being laughed at. They are all oversampling democrats and previous Biden voters. The %s keep increasing with each poll as they can't hide the real numbers.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

Nate Silver's model attempts to aggregate multiple polls and figure out the most likely result in each state.  There are definitely polls like you describe where they fail to get a "representative sample" as they say, but Nate Silver claims he can aggregate multiple polls to truly get a good sample.

But he has never claimed to predict a winner.  He's like a weatherman, he's only giving probabilities.  In 2016, his final model gave Hillary a 66% chance of winning.  People got really mad at him and called him a fool when Trump won instead, but all he said was, the election would be like shuffling a black card with two red cards.  Draw a random card.  If it's black, Trump won. Right now he's saying the deck has five black cards and four red.  Trump is more likely to win.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

The problem with political polling data is that 52 to 48 is still a toss of the dice. It's not predictive in that it guarantees who would win or not. It's simply attempting to point out the odds. Nobody on this forum would bet the house on a sports game where the odds were 52-48. It's close. They have ways to account for oversampling, but I don't think that's the reason people don't trust the polls.

Polling isn't reliable because the American public is fickle. It's been almost no time since the Trump assassination and everyone's forgotten about it. It's been just over 2 months since Kamala netted the lowest VP rating of all time, and now everyone on the left thinks she's amazing. More often than not, the polling data is reliable, but the American public is not. It also doesn't understand polling. Polling is also used by MSM pundits to emphasize political positions. Polling, in and of itself, is almost never "untrue."

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

It's not a poll.  It's a probability of winning the electoral college and it's from Nate Silver's model.

www.natesilver.net

If it was a poll, that'd be a landslide, but it's a probability and it's very very close. He's saying if the election was run in 9 parallel universes with the same measurables, Trump would win in 5 of them and Harris would win in 4 of them.

Where did I say it was a poll? I don't see this information on his site anywhere.

---

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

The problem with political polling data is that 52 to 48 is still a toss of the dice. It's not predictive in that it guarantees who would win or not. It's simply attempting to point out the odds. Nobody on this forum would bet the house on a sports game where the odds were 52-48. It's close. They have ways to account for oversampling, but I don't think that's the reason people don't trust the polls.

Polling isn't reliable because the American public is fickle. It's been almost no time since the Trump assassination and everyone's forgotten about it. It's been just over 2 months since Kamala netted the lowest VP rating of all time, and now everyone on the left thinks she's amazing. More often than not, the polling data is reliable, but the American public is not. It also doesn't understand polling. Polling is also used by MSM pundits to emphasize political positions. Polling, in and of itself, is almost never "untrue."

---

It's not a poll.  It's a probability of winning the electoral college and it's from Nate Silver's model.

www.natesilver.net

If it was a poll, that'd be a landslide, but it's a probability and it's very very close. He's saying if the election was run in 9 parallel universes with the same measurables, Trump would win in 5 of them and Harris would win in 4 of them.

Where did I say it was a poll? I don't see this information on his site anywhere.

Fickleness is one.  Also, polls presume the polled person is answering truthfully.  I’ve never been polled, but I’ve given thought to the idea of answering the questions opposite of what I actually believe or intend should I be given the opportunity to do so.  You can just call me Chaosmeister.

---

I'm going to need a link to that.

---

I don't see anywhere on his site or twitter that reflects those numbers.

Polls mean squat.  I learned that the hard way when I was foreign to politics and watched the Hillary/Trump Election.  I was watching all these "expert" and "professional" pollsters all swearing that Hillary was easily going to take the win. They all had this smug arrogance about them with all the polls showing HIllary would win.  They learned a hard lesson not to trust the polls that night.

Most of the polls do not tell you "who" they are polling.  Prime example,  IF an "expert" interviewed 100,000 people and had data that Harris was going to easily win, that would be on the front page of the NY times and all over ABC/CNN/MSNBC and every other news outlet .  The part that same pollster may have left out is he did the poll in California, or the North east, or somewhere crazy liberal.  My point being is outside of clear labeled national polls you cannot trust them.

Agree.  I could poll 10,000 people in the heart of inner city Jackson, Mississippi and release a poll showing Kamala is leading MS 78% vs 22% for Trump.

---

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status...EV83w&s=19

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Dude is so much better than Vance at the Attack Dog role. Not that he should've been the pick or anything, but dadgum he talks the message better than pretty much anyone else on either side.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Dude is so much better than Vance at the Attack Dog role. Not that he should've been the pick or anything, but dadgum he talks the message better than pretty much anyone else on either side.

You don't need petty insults to wipe the floor with Harris.  That's something Trump simply isn't bright enough to learn.  Not that he could ever approach this level of eloquence, even on his best day ever, but he just can't/won't refrain from the personal attacks that undermine his message and alienate so many.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Dude is so much better than Vance at the Attack Dog role. Not that he should've been the pick or anything, but dadgum he talks the message better than pretty much anyone else on either side.

He's grown on me. Docked him a few points because of the Obama Speech ordeal and maybe some links to Soros throwing money at him during his start-up, etc.

However, he seems well, says the right things, as long as he doesn't do anything stupid over the next few years he may very well have my vote in 2028 if he's on the ballot. 

Would have also preferred him to Vance. If Trump's goal was to draw in new faces and new voters from a minority standpoint and strategy? Vivek would have been his better bet. 

He's gone after Nikki Haley and a number of other folks from his party as well. There's a lot to like about this guy.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Dude is so much better than Vance at the Attack Dog role. Not that he should've been the pick or anything, but dadgum he talks the message better than pretty much anyone else on either side.

You don't need petty insults to wipe the floor with Harris.  That's something Trump simply isn't bright enough to learn.  Not that he could ever approach this level of eloquence, even on his best day ever, but he just can't/won't refrain from the personal attacks that undermine his message and alienate so many.

Exactly right.  Vivek did a good job on this hit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You don't need petty insults to wipe the floor with Harris.  That's something Trump simply isn't bright enough to learn.  Not that he could ever approach this level of eloquence, even on his best day ever, but he just can't/won't refrain from the personal attacks that undermine his message and alienate so many.

Exactly right.  Vivek did a good job on this hit.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just because one person's way of saying it rolls off the tongue better or sounds better inside your soft ears doesn't change the fact that something is exactly what it is. 

I can go on a tangent, but, George Carlin pretty much sums it up best in this little snippet, the perversion of words, soft language, cry me a river:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZAo_dUbh9s

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Dude is so much better than Vance at the Attack Dog role. Not that he should've been the pick or anything, but dadgum he talks the message better than pretty much anyone else on either side.

You don't need petty insults to wipe the floor with Harris.  That's something Trump simply isn't bright enough to learn.  Not that he could ever approach this level of eloquence, even on his best day ever, but he just can't/won't refrain from the personal attacks that undermine his message and alienate so many.

Mark me down for the insults.. Those pieces of [BLEEP] earned them.

---

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status...EV83w&s=19

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I changed parties to vote for Vivek in the primary.  Alas the decision was made before Florida got to vote.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.