2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[gmr548 16,463]

The numbers aren't down this year.  GR Horn's interpretation is (unsurprisingly) misleading.  The article is about convention viewership numbers on the big 3 traditional networks being down.  If you add in people watching online and on cable news, the numbers watching are up.  According to GR Horn's article, 47.5 M watched this year.   36.4 M watched last time.

So not only was his original line of thought stupid af, the actual underlying numbers were too bc GR Horn. I should've known better.

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Maybe you should follow sources who are more honest than Cernovich then, if you're going to rely on someone else's one sentence interpretation of an article.

The tweet and headline was by The Hill. What’s their perceived leaning?  I don’t recall them being right wing. 

[Gil Bang 25,865]

On 8/18/2020 at 4:23 PM, formermav43 said:

I think Wulaw is pretty much right, hyperbole notwithstanding. His guiding principle is his own vainglory. I don’t believe Donald Trump is a racist. He’s much worse: he realized he could grab power by pandering to racists. But he’d throw them over in a heartbeat if it was better for him.

if you don't think he's a racist, you are either dumb, or not paying attention.  He has a long history of racism. 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Joe Biden could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and I’m still voting for him

This is the correct answer 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

9 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Finally some polling on the 2016 non-voter (52-32 for Biden). This is the USC poll that had Trump winning in '16. 11 point lead for Biden.

 

Yep. 
the outliers cnn poll was garbage. Who would have thought?  
Maybe CNN has the same morons running their polling as Gallup. When their last 4 polls go 16/5/14/4 or some such nonsense like that- over a short term timeline- you should probably just say- go home- you’re drunk. 

[cactusflinthead 27,593]

49 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The tweet and headline was by The Hill. What’s their perceived leaning?  I don’t recall them being right wing. 

Of course you don't recall. They are widely known as right leaning. 

 

5 hours ago, GRHorn said:

This will be interesting to follow for comparison sake vs RNC. Has to be considered a measure of enthusiasm right?

 

In the vast shitshow of bad takes I deem this one of the worst. 

Nobody gives a flying fuck about the conventions. 

I have watched exactly zero minutes of it. I have seen quotes and reactions. That's sufficient. Conventions are the political equivalent of awards shows. I'm not watching that shit either. 

You do realize Cernovich is on par with Alex Jones right?

I know you're unaware of The Hill having a rightist lean, but I would have expected you to avoid bad actors. 

Oh well. Have a neg.

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

What I take from that is 32% of people who didn't vote in 2016 are looking at our current situation and saying, "yeah, you know what?  Dotard has it all figured out!  Gotta make sure I vote this time!"
WTF

4 percent of Clinton voters too.

I want to meet that person in real life. Never mind- I don’t upon consideration. What an odd stance that would be to take. 

[Huckleberry 32,685]

52 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I want to meet that person in real life. Never mind- I don’t upon consideration. What an odd stance that would be to take. 

A hard to understand position polling at 4% screams "people bullshitting the pollster" to me.

[TexEx15 17,444]

Slow. Clap.

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

A hard to understand position polling at 4% screams "people bullshitting the pollster" to me.

Maybe. I just chalk it up to people are strange and goofy animals. I think 10 or 15 percent is common in most elections so being “only” 4% is unusually low, but it feels like it should be almost 0%. 

[Huckleberry 32,685]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Maybe. I just chalk it up to people are strange and goofy animals. I think 10 or 15 percent is common in most elections so being “only” 4% is unusually low, but it feels like it should be almost 0%. 

4% is basically a standard MOE. And if the actual population approaches zero then any error will of course overstate reality. 4% seems explainable by people lying, being drunk, and/or misunderstanding one or more of the questions.

For positions where a more significant portion of the population holds that view you're going to get mistakes both ways. Some people who hold that view lie, are drunk, or misunderstand and say they don't. But also some people who don't hold that view lie, are drunk, or misunderstand and say they do. But at the extremes near 0% and 100% the mistakes can only go one way.

Basically it seems to me that if you polled 1000 people you'd only get 96% responding in the affirmative that they're alive.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

4% is basically a standard MOE. And if the actual population approaches zero then any error will of course overstate reality. 4% seems explainable by people lying, being drunk, and/or misunderstanding one or more of the questions.

For positions where a more significant portion of the population holds that view you're going to get mistakes both ways. Some people who hold that view lie, are drunk, or misunderstand and say they don't. But also some people who don't hold that view lie, are drunk, or misunderstand and say they do. But at the extremes near 0% and 100% the mistakes can only go one way.

Basically it seems to me that if you polled 1000 people you'd only get 96% responding in the affirmative that they're alive.

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it in thy way- I hadn’t ever conceptualized or thought about MOE on extreme ends of polling like that, but it does sound plausible. 

[Huckleberry 32,685]

Well don't get me wrong, that's not really what MOE attempts to explain. MOE is more about how well your sample represents the total population.

Probably shouldn't have drawn that direct comparison, but it got the point across and it's late, so whatevs. It's more polling mistakes than what is statistically considered "polling error" but the concept of mistakes on the extreme ends stays the same.

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well don't get me wrong, that's not really what MOE attempts to explain. MOE is more about how well your sample represents the total population.

Probably shouldn't have drawn that direct comparison, but it got the point across and it's late, so whatevs. It's more polling mistakes than what is statistically considered "polling error" but the concept of mistakes on the extreme ends stays the same.

I got it. It’s a good explanation I think- it at least sounds plausible. 

[TexLonghorn 5,587]

[TexLonghorn 5,587]

[Fudge Nuggets 19,118]

3 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

He's lost Diamond and Silk?  I guess demon sperm doctor "checks the boxes" instead.

[Anastasis 23,375]

4 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

 

 

If HCQ is included in the drinking game somebody will die. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

People may have moved on to hand sanitizer and oleander cocktails. Keep up.

[Anastasis 23,375]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

People may have moved on to hand sanitizer and oleander cocktails.

That’s fake news. Demon sperm doc gonna cum through. 

[Guest Lobo]

Didn't the mypillow guy reveal that he did crack for 20 years before inventing a pillow that he claimed cured various medical ailments?  Not judging him as a person, but yeah---kinda judging his qualifications to give medical advice.  And the creepy guy in unmarked van mustache is not helping.  

[Anastasis 23,375]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Didn't the mypillow guy reveal that he did crack for 20 years before inventing a pillow that he claimed cured various medical ailments?  Not judging him as a person, but yeah---kinda judging his qualifications to give medical advice.  And the creepy guy in unmarked van mustache is not helping.  

Duck Dynasty guy must have already been booked?

[Dnaguy 11,740]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That’s fake news. Demon sperm doc gonna cum through. 

That’s a load of bs and you know it.

[Anastasis 23,375]

3 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

That’s a load of bs and you know it.

I went to go see who else was speaking and am disappointed to learn that Stella Immanuel is not actually on the speakers list. 

[Dnaguy 11,740]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I went to go see who else was speaking and am disappointed to learn that Stella Immanuel is not actually on the speakers list. 

She had some spunk, though didn’t she?

But yes, she would have left a stain on the convention.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

She had some spunk, though didn’t she?

I didn't realize she was British. I guess Cameroon was a UK colony at one point.  And apparently she took the speaking spot of Senator Milt?  

[gmr548 16,463]

I mean, you know it, but when you see it all in one image it really hits you how batshit the GOP.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

One of the listed speakers is Andrew Pollack, the father of Meadow. His daughter was killed in the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting in Florida. He is a proponent of increased school security, specifically bulletproof glass, metal detectors, checkpoints, marshalls, etc. Abby Johnson, the anti choice activist is also going to speak.

[Guest Lobo]

If you include both recreational and prescription drugs, it's amazing to think that Kid Rock is probably the cleanest person on that list. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Wait hold the fuck up. The racist gun couple is actually literally speaking at the RNC? No way. I saw a couple people say this up thread and thought they were joking. 

That's amazing.

[6th Street 6,340]

Truly the party of uneducated hicks

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,134]

15 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

hahaha, seriously, that was blatantly either 1) dishonest, or 2) extremely stupid

How about 3) Completely factual

The article to me highlights that more and more people are getting their information from other sources than the "Big 3" networks. Their reach is smaller than ever.

[Anastasis 23,375]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Wait hold the fuck up. The racist gun couple is actually literally speaking at the RNC? No way. I saw a couple people say this up thread and thought they were joking. 

That's amazing.

That one does actually appear to be real. 

[SydneyCarton 47,809]

17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

One of the listed speakers is Andrew Pollack, the father of Meadow. His daughter was killed in the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting in Florida. He is a proponent of increased school security, specifically bulletproof glass, metal detectors, checkpoints, marshalls, etc. Abby Johnson, the anti choice activist is also going to speak.

That sounds really expensive. Not sure I can see how the party of fiscal responsibility that also happens to hate public education can really support that kind of thing..

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

Here's the list from Ballotpedia:

Abby Johnson (the anti choice advocate)

Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa)

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)

Patricia and Mark McCloskey (St. Louis Mansion Militia)

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem

Vice President Mike Pence

Andrew Pollack (School Security Dad)

Nick Sandmann

Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) (Not Scott Baio)

President Donald Trump

First Lady Melania Trump

 

[SydneyCarton 47,809]

Lol. Really have to prop up Ernst. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

37 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

How about 3) Completely factual

The article to me highlights that more and more people are getting their information from other sources than the "Big 3" networks. Their reach is smaller than ever.

You think it is completely factual that "broadcast ratings being down 48%" has to be a "measure of enthusiasm right" when the article illustrates that total viewership is actually up? I don't think anyone had an issue with the actual article, but with the strained conclusion that was drawn from it (enthusiasm for Biden is down).

[Chuckie Finster 22,583]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That one does actually appear to be real. 

Covington Catholic kid as well.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

36 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Here's the list from Ballotpedia:

Abby Johnson (the anti choice advocate)

Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa)

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)

Patricia and Mark McCloskey (St. Louis Mansion Militia)

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem

Vice President Mike Pence

Andrew Pollack (School Security Dad)

Nick Sandmann

Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) (Not Scott Baio)

President Donald Trump

First Lady Melania Trump

 

A Who's Who of republican leaders for sure. I'm more surprised they don't have Hannity/Rush/Tucker as key note speakers and why they aren't having the last Republican President and First Lady speaking? 

[The Dog 43,771]

12 hours ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

 

80s or late 70s isn't elder statesman/woman, it's at or above American life expectancy. Well past the cognitive peak.

Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi... they're all one step above zombies. Not sure it's fair to call young people dipshits for pointing that out and being disappointed. Hopefully watching this shit show is a wake-up call and we look back at 2016-20 as the years where the current under 40s really assert themselves in politics.

All that said, still a no brainer to vote D right now.

 

 

 

I'm just pointing out that this is an outlier wrt the presidential candidates instead of it being a systemic problem as was being alleged in the tweet.

Wasn't calling this person a dipshit at all but rather calling out something I thought was misleading. These guys are DEFINITELY older than what we normally see in presidential elections.

However, I think the average age of the electorate would have been a better measure - saying the average age of all Americans isn't really relevant considering it includes people under 18 who won't be eligible to vote. In spite of my best efforts at the googles this morning this is the best thing I could find that shows a breakdown of this year's electorate. :

and here's the link to the related article with a bunch of other voter demographic crap if you want to go down that rabbit hole: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

Edited August 20, 2020 by The Dog

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,134]

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You think it is completely factual that "broadcast ratings being down 48%" has to be a "measure of enthusiasm right" when the article illustrates that total viewership is actually up? I don't think anyone had an issue with the actual article, but with the strained conclusion that was drawn from it (enthusiasm for Biden is down).

He said when comparing to Republican Convention. If RNC shows 60% drop over main networks you don't think that shows a lower level of enthusiasm?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,667]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I'm just pointing out that this is an outlier wrt the presidential candidates. Wasn't calling this person a dipshit at all.

However, I think the average age of the electorate would have been a better measure - saying the average age of all Americans isn't really relevant considering it includes people under 18 who won't be eligible to vote. In spite of my best efforts at the googles this morning this is the best thing I could find that shows a breakdown of this year's electorate. :

and here's the link to the related article with a bunch of other voter demographic crap if you want to go down that rabbit hole: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

this sort of chart has been my branch to sanity the last four years.  watching the olds die and the young get a bigger slice as their voting rates are going up is where i place all my confidence.

[Dnaguy 11,740]

9 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I'm just pointing out that this is an outlier wrt the presidential candidates instead of it being a systemic problem as was being alleged in the tweet.

Wasn't calling this person a dipshit at all but rather calling out something I thought was misleading. These guys are DEFINITELY older than what we normally see in presidential elections.

However, I think the average age of the electorate would have been a better measure - saying the average age of all Americans isn't really relevant considering it includes people under 18 who won't be eligible to vote. In spite of my best efforts at the googles this morning this is the best thing I could find that shows a breakdown of this year's electorate. :

and here's the link to the related article with a bunch of other voter demographic crap if you want to go down that rabbit hole: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

This is from 2017 census data.

i wonder if the increased deaths to silent and bommer gens has moved the milineals into #1.....

[The Dog 43,771]

Just now, Dnaguy said:

This is from 2017 census data.

i wonder if the increased deaths to silent and bommer gens has moved the milineals into #1.....

Likely occurred this year:

[Dbeasy 14,953]

Duck Dynasty guy must have already been booked?

I met him. Yes he’s a tool.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

13 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

He said when comparing to Republican Convention. If RNC shows 60% drop over main networks you don't think that shows a lower level of enthusiasm?

No. As you said, more people are getting their news from other sources. I don't see the relevance in limiting it to "main networks." And, I question whether viewership is any sort of proxy for enthusiasm.

That said, you know damn well that the intent of the tweet and post was imply that enthusiasm for Biden was lower than for Clinton in 2016. It was a stupid and incorrect post, which the author already admitted was made in haste without reading the article. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

16 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

He said when comparing to Republican Convention. If RNC shows 60% drop over main networks you don't think that shows a lower level of enthusiasm?

Not if they have an over 100% increase in viewership online.  The numbers show more people watched the Dem convention this year than last time.  Less people watched it on the big 3 networks, but there was an increase in cable viewership, and a huge increase in online viewership, which only makes sense in the age of Roku, Firesticks, smart TVs, etc.  Especially in a party that skews younger.  I'm not sure why you think the fact that viewers of the Democratic convention changed the medium from which they watched it has any relationship to enthusiasm.

[lemonlime 5,503]

JFC on the Trump ads.  Just saw an ad on Wapo.com, and this is disgusting.  Even more disgusting is that this is apparently working for a large portion of the electorate.  The tagline is "The Radical Leftist Takeover of Joe Biden is Complete." And the tagline is printed over Biden, so he can't be seen, but clearly shows Harris who is standing next to him, laughing, against a backdrop of a fire with "protestors" standing in front of it.

[Foosters 17,691]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

JFC on the Trump ads.  Just saw an ad on Wapo.com, and this is disgusting.  Even more disgusting is that this is apparently working for a large portion of the electorate.  The tagline is "The Radical Leftist Takeover of Joe Biden is Complete." And the tagline is printed over Biden, so he can't be seen, but clearly shows Harris who is standing next to him, laughing, against a backdrop of a fire with "protestors" standing in front of it.

Link?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,667]

5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Link?

trumpapprovalrating.com