Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

polling

The fundamental mathematical tenet on which all polling is based is the selection of a random sample. If a sample is random then the results should be relatively accurate within the MoE. One possibility why in the past two major polling efforts for the general election, has been a failure, is the possibility political polarization has skewed the sampling, and thus inherently introduced bias or or to say another way, inaccurate results.

When the mathematics fail ... I use my spidey sense

That's a little too close to Trump using his gut instead of expert advice!

But I'm not really talking about asking a sample of those folks why they didn't vote, thus introducing selection errors. I meant asking all of them. You are not going to get some large consensus. You are going to get a bunch of reasons. The big problem would be people rationalizing some reason when the real reason is just sloth or apathy.

It seems the polls were pretty accurate with Biden's percentage. He's be around 49-51% since May. Perhaps a day or two over or a day or two under. It's Trump's numbers that were wrong. Since May he's basically been between 41-44% then boom, he receives 48%. I never seen that coming.

Now I have heard a lot of talk that Trump supporters weren't admitting to the pollsters they were supporting him. Maybe that comes into play.

FYI, the Democrats won their 218th seat in the house, clinching control. Current count is 218-201 with 16 still pending or to be called. Old House was 236 Democrats, 198 Republican, 1 Libertarian. Also North Carolina senate race went to the GOP Tillis making that count 50-48 GOP. Pending the two Georgia runoff seats. Old Senate count was 53-47 Republican.

Polls aren’t accurate.

I didn’t vote out of personal conscience. I won’t be part of a charade.
I work my ass off outside the corporate sponsored facade of electoral politics.

I’m not alone. The reactionary olds continue to throw scorn at the demands of the young while becoming occupied with political revenge fantasies of their vanquished political foes.
Face book posts are a hot mess of this as it is here.

With so many things that ought to be getting addressed the food fight will not stop between these types. They’ll be throwing food at each other while the whole show goes over the cliff that’s in every direction.

During a global pandemic, the Geriatric factions showered their donors with gold, refuse healthcare for its citizenry, forced its labor capitol back to work in unsafe conditions, have done nothing to further provision citizens for fear of giving the other side in the cafeteria a political point.

One sides a bonafide overt death cult, the other side is simply its covert shadow.

Vote!

Yes, you could.

People are shopping. There may be a realignment happening, though it would be a populist one and that means one party having to give up it's donor class, somewhat.

It's interesting that the Dems who lost in swing states were against M4A, GND both. Those that hung on were for it.

If Republicans were smart, they have an opening to cement a future for themselves, IMO.

Seeing some speculation of AOC leaving the Dem party. If so, good for her. All will be forgiven, I'm guessing.

Being non-affiliated, I really don't care what either party does or how they go about adjusting or realignment. My advice since independents are growing and the major parties losing folks, at least per the percentages.

I'd see what I could do to regain those who once were a member of the party. This goes for both major parties. Most who left both parties tend to lean toward them in their voting habits unless they angry at the party they left.

Now I look at these things more from a political strategist eyes. How to win elections, how to achieve the possible political goals without over doing it to where you make these non-affiliated folks angry and toss you out of office come the next election. There are certain issues where most Americans are for, concentrate on those first and leave the divisive issues alone for a later day.

Or if not left alone, go slowly with small steps as not to make folks angry or take too many out of their comfort zone. What could Obama have accomplished if he left the divisive ACA alone, he had good majorities in both chambers. Immigration Reform, easily done, Making DACA permanent legislation, yes. Legislation on the environment, government reform, tax reform, race relation, education and more all could have been approached and probably have passed.

But Obama and the Democrats were stuck on the ACA during his first two years with basically no time to take on other issues. Then during Obama's last 6 years he and the Democrats were too busy defending the ACA to try to get anything else accomplished.

Old beans, I know. There was a reason for the Democrats control of the house for 40 straight years and 58 out of 62. They took their time in pushing thing that were divisive. Only when they were sure most Americans would accept it or that it was needed, did they dive in and get it passed.

More than a bit misleading.

Since 1981 the Democrats have had control of both houses for only 12 years, and of those years had a sympathetic president for only 4 years. So perhaps you can explain how any party can accomplish anything without compromise or complete control of government. Of course in the old days the parties would compromise, but not today. So the only example of almost equal quality would be the 4 years in the last 25.

I think people are delusional to think believe, rationalize, or in any other manner conclude Republicans would be willing to compromise on anything. You may say but so also the Democrats. And I would respond consider the issues. If the issues are BS, I would agree but I rather suspect when you analyze the issues they are pressing and more than important both for the American people and for national security. Republicans ignoring the issues is not a solution.