Trump told aides to deny internal polling showed him trailing Biden

[Linc]

We're talking Texas here. Nationally, here:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Nationally the polls said Hillary would win the popular vote by three points, she won it by two. Well withing the margin of error of plus or minus three points. Electoral college, the polls gave Hillary 203 electoral votes to Trump's 164 with 171 in the tossup category.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

So basically the polls were calling the race a tossup. Popular vote with the margin of error meant a tie to Hillary being 6 points a head. She won the popular by two points. Electoral college wise, the polls called it a tossup.

This was supposed to be in response to your post #80.

Democratic turnout in 2010, 2014, and 2016 was pathetic, along with short coattails for Obama in 2012. gops have a tremendous advantage in state legislatures that will rewrite the 99 state maps and 43 federal maps. This includes PA, OH, MI, IA, WI, GA, FL, AZ, TX and so many more. Sound familiar?!

Repubs are currently shoring up their base with what I call their JAGGGID approach — Judges, Abortion, Guns, God, Gays, Immigration and Deregulation. Keep an eye on so-called digital genius Brad Parscale. He’s running the re-election and currently after six Clinton states, especially MN and VA.

All 43 House seats flipped by Democrats in 2018 were in swing CDs, immediately making them in play in 2020. House gop ‘motions to recommit’ are making them take tough votes. The only 3 seats flipped by the gop are solid, and there are many more Dem seats other than the 43 that are swingy. Pelosi knows this, so it’s one day at a time with her, trump and the House investigations.

Inside elections and others have ratings for the Senate, House, and Governor. They’re worth looking at. I haven’t broken down ballotpedia for state legislatures yet, though they’re ‘one’ of the real prizes, for remapping.

All 9 gop Senate flips in 2014 are obviously up for re-election. I’d say Ernst is safe. DEMs are cutting each other up in CO. Indys and Dems have always split against Collins. Tillis is probably in trouble if Dems have a good candidate.

As for Dem seats, we’ll see who runs against Jones. The gop has a good candidate in Michigan. Overall, all the oxygen is being sucked up by the potus election, with little attention to issues DEMs won on in 2018. At this point, McConnell is still by far the most powerful man in this nation, behind the scenes.

 

[Perotista]

Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump | FiveThirtyEight

538's predictions on election day gave Trump about a 1-in-4 chance of winning. Those are not insurmountable odds.

Yeah, Nate was in the ball park. I think he gave 30% chance of winning. Your link was 24 Oct 2016. Yet, Nate was derided by the rest of the media for giving Trump a 30% chance. Forecasting isn't an exact science. Turnout can thrown a monkey wrench in the best modeled predictions.

What I find most interesting is in Nov 2016 the democrats had a six point advantage in the total electorate. But turnout, those who actually voted, that six point advantage shrunk to three. The Republicans, although the smaller party, had the higher percentage in turnout. If both parties had the same percentage of turnout, the Democrats maintained their six point advantage, Hillary would have been president today. But she failed to inspire her base. Chalk her loss up to her ho hum campaign and lack of turnout of her larger base of voters.

 

[Trump]

That's apples to oranges, pundits, forecasters to polls. I remember Nate Silver of 538 gave Trump a 30% chance of winning, the rest of media jumped on him and laughed they butts off. Actually giving Trump a chance, who the heck does Nate think he is.

I think what happened was those pundits, prognosticators didn't pay any attention to the late polls. Trafalgar on 7 Nov had Pennsylvania tied, Trump up by one in Michigan. Perhaps they didn't want to hear or read what the late polls had to say? Which way the trend was going in the final week of the campaign. We don't know.

The polls were off more in 2012, they were showing basically a tie, Obama won by 4.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Yet we never hear about 2012 and how the polls got it wrong or were outside the margin of error.

70% chance of winning election thats been going on for 2 years and getting wrong...was a HUGE upset according to MSM....50-50 is a toss up...not 70-30.

what a great night ..Hillary....what a loser!

 

[Perotista]

70% chance of winning election thats been going on for 2 years and getting wrong...was a HUGE upset according to MSM....50-50 is a toss up...not 70-30.

what a great night ..Hillary....what a loser!

I'm not a pundit or political prognosticator. When I looked at the final RCP polling average, Hillary up by 3, I concluded she would win the popular vote. Which indeed she did. Looking at the electoral college map with 171 electoral votes in the tossup column, it becomes a pick and choose which states a pundit or prognosticator is going to place each into what column.

Bottom line, the polls didn't get it wrong, the MSM forecasters, prognosticators, pundits did. I don't think they even bothered to look at the final couple of days of polls. Perhaps they didn't like what they showed.

 

[Trump]

I'm not a pundit or political prognosticator. When I looked at the final RCP polling average, Hillary up by 3, I concluded she would win the popular vote. Which indeed she did. Looking at the electoral college map with 171 electoral votes in the tossup column, it becomes a pick and choose which states a pundit or prognosticator is going to place each into what column.

Bottom line, the polls didn't get it wrong, the MSM forecasters, prognosticators, pundits did. I don't think they even bothered to look at the final couple of days of polls. Perhaps they didn't like what they showed.

thats my point...now people are using spot polls to make point that Biden is best candidate to defeat Trump....its unreliable is my point. Its early and few are even paying attention

 

[Irwin Corey]

70% chance of winning election thats been going on for 2 years and getting wrong...was a HUGE upset according to MSM....50-50 is a toss up...not 70-30.

what a great night ..Hillary....what a loser!

She lost site of the fundamental factor; ALL VOTES MATTER. She and her organization failed to get out the vote and paid the price.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Trump told aides to deny internal polling showed him trailing Biden

His own polls show Trump is trailing Joe Biden in key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Is there anything that this fat orange pig doesn't lie about?

Related: Trump busted for telling aides to lie about his lousy poll numbers

Being behind in the polls makes me look weak! Never admit we're behind in the polls! We're gonna win, and win BIG! That's what you say! Every day!

But sir .. the polls ...

I don't give a damn what the polls say! You tell 'em we're gonna win! Every single day you tell 'em we're gonna win! Got that? Now get the hell out of here!

 

[Perotista]

thats my point...now people are using spot polls to make point that Biden is best candidate to defeat Trump....its unreliable is my point. Its early and few are even paying attention

I've said polls this far out mean little. But the fact Biden is leading Trump in Texas is eye popping. For that reason alone talking about it is justified. I don't think Biden will be the democratic nominee. It's all about name recognition at this point. Having said that, Texas stands out, also so too does Massachusetts. Biden is leading Warren in Warren's home state for the Democratic nomination 22-10.

Biden leading Warren among Democratic voters in Mass., poll finds - The Boston Globe

Both are big stories. How relevant to 2020, the Mass poll has more relevancy than the Texas poll due to the Mass Democratic Primary is closer than the General election. Both polls are a surprise. I should say totally unexpected. So we talk about them.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

70% chance of winning election thats been going on for 2 years and getting wrong...was a HUGE upset according to MSM....50-50 is a toss up...not 70-30.

A 70% chance of something happening means that there's 100% chance of that something happening.
If the something does not happen, then chance of it happening must have actually been 0%, not 70%, yes?

I hope that lets you see how whether or not something comes to pass is an inadequate way of evaluating the predicted chances of it happening.

It's a little meta, but I think it comes across.

 

[Trump]

I've said polls this far out mean little. But the fact Biden is leading Trump in Texas is eye popping. For that reason alone talking about it is justified. I don't think Biden will be the democratic nominee. It's all about name recognition at this point. Having said that, Texas stands out, also so too does Massachusetts. Biden is leading Warren in Warren's home state for the Democratic nomination 22-10.

Biden leading Warren among Democratic voters in Mass., poll finds - The Boston Globe

Both are big stories. How relevant to 2020, the Mass poll has more relevancy than the Texas poll due to the Mass Democratic Primary is closer than the General election. Both polls are a surprise. I should say totally unexpected. So we talk about them.

I get it.......after all the MSM hysteria over Hillary losing excuse me if I don't trust the hysterical MSM when they print stories based on polls +1 year out.

I'm pulling for Benie after what Hillary did to him....think debates would be more interesting

 

[Amelia]

Of course, it's all a big deflection to be arguing about the accuracy of polls. We who aren't committed to defending the POS-in-chief can plausibly make our case of course about the polls in 2016, because the polls weren't that far off considering all which was going on during and after the polling occurred, but that's immaterial.

The material point here is that Trump told his people to lie about the polls.

 

[Anagram]

MSM told us right up to polls closing and even shortly after Hillary was gonna win...Trump didn't have a chance. Now Monday morning QB'ing we hear Polls were close and within margin of error....somebodies not being truthful imo.

Wisconsin Michigan PA ....Media was not covering the story if they new it was close

I won’t disagree the media narrative was that Clinton would win easily. But I disagree that’s what the polls said.

 

[Linc]

I've said polls this far out mean little. But the fact Biden is leading Trump in Texas is eye popping. For that reason alone talking about it is justified. I don't think Biden will be the democratic nominee. It's all about name recognition at this point. Having said that, Texas stands out, also so too does Massachusetts. Biden is leading Warren in Warren's home state for the Democratic nomination 22-10.

Biden leading Warren among Democratic voters in Mass., poll finds - The Boston Globe

Both are big stories. How relevant to 2020, the Mass poll has more relevancy than the Texas poll due to the Mass Democratic Primary is closer than the General election. Both polls are a surprise. I should say totally unexpected. So we talk about them.

IF ... Biden wins the nomination ... yes we’re way too far out for that assumption ... who will Biden take for his VP candidate? Remember when ... Reagan took ‘voodoo economics’ GHWB ... that sure consolidated the gop. Carter was never able to use ‘voodoo economics’, after Kennedy divided the Democratic Party.

Which Democratic candidate checks off enough boxes to help Biden, since Democrats have far more boxes to check off? At this point, I’d say it’s Warren. Her criticisms of Biden have been nuanced and professional, not burning any bridges. Her grasp of the issues is as good as any.

The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2019 is still my number one for all the details of the elections.

I’ll be in Iowa in a few days. I’ll let you know what I get out of the Des Moines Register, more liberal, and the Cedar Rapids Gazette, more conservative. USNPL

 

[Casper]

did you read the title? neck n neck with Hillary leading...geez

I read beyond the title, unlike yourself, did you know that all polls have a plus or minus of 4 points, if one is only leading by one point it is neck and neck and as we saw the poll was incorrect.

 

[Perotista]

I get it.......after all the MSM hysteria over Hillary losing excuse me if I don't trust the hysterical MSM when they print stories based on polls +1 year out.

I'm pulling for Benie after what Hillary did to him....think debates would be more interesting

The fact is everything had to line up perfectly. The earth, moon, sun, the planets and even the galaxies all had to a line. I've stated numerous times that Hillary, herself caused her own demise. She was lazy, she had no enthusiasm, a complete inept campaign strategy, she came across as aloof and elitist, over all her ho humness rubbed into her supporters. Many never bothered to come out and vote.

Trump was energetic, full of enthusiasm, that rubbed off on his supporters to a point where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. A lot of Hillary's would even go to the polls.`2016 was a unique election. I doubt we ever have another quite like it.

 

[Trump]

I read beyond the title, unlike yourself, did you know that all polls have a plus or minus of 4 points, if one is only leading by one point it is neck and neck and as we saw the poll was incorrect.

and some in the media ran with the theory Hillary had a chance to defeat Trump in Texas...have a great day:2wave:

 

[Trump]

The fact is everything had to line up perfectly. The earth, moon, sun, the planets and even the galaxies all had to a line. I've stated numerous times that Hillary, herself caused her own demise. She was lazy, she had no enthusiasm, a complete inept campaign strategy, she came across as aloof and elitist, over all her ho humness rubbed into her supporters. Many never bothered to come out and vote.

Trump was energetic, full of enthusiasm, that rubbed off on his supporters to a point where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. A lot of Hillary's would even go to the polls.`2016 was a unique election. I doubt we ever have another quite like it.

Hillary was bad candidate but don't forget Dems claim to have numbers and claim to be able to get out their vote...I don't believe myth. Hillary's ground game was to be the best and Trumps the worst ...and yet

people energized with Trump and it showed....Hillary was a complete dude on all stage. Trump worked twice as hard on the trail...Joe's gonna have a hard time keeping up with Trump visuals also....stadiums vs gyms won't cut it this time round with media IMO

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yeah and there were polls showing Clinton ahead of Trump in Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.


But hey, you've got a creepy 76 year old white guy who will energize the youth and minorities so you can start celebrating early.

one creepy old white guy running against another, and anything can happen.

 

[Perotista]

IF ... Biden wins the nomination ... yes we’re way too far out for that assumption ... who will Biden take for his VP candidate? Remember when ... Reagan took ‘voodoo economics’ GHWB ... that sure consolidated the gop. Carter was never able to use ‘voodoo economics’, after Kennedy divided the Democratic Party.

Which Democratic candidate checks off enough boxes to help Biden, since Democrats have far more boxes to check off? At this point, I’d say it’s Warren. Her criticisms of Biden have been nuanced and professional, not burning any bridges. Her grasp of the issues is as good as any.

The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2019 is still my number one for all the details of the elections.

I’ll be in Iowa in a few days. I’ll let you know what I get out of the Des Moines Register, more liberal, and the Cedar Rapids Gazette, more conservative. USNPL

I don't know. With Biden I would say someone much younger. With the younger candidates, I would suggest Sherrod Brown of Ohio. I'm not too keen on a Delaware/Massachusetts ticket. I would suggest someone not from the Northeast. Buttigieg, O' Rourke, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar are names that pop into my head.

I don't think Biden will get the nomination.

 

[Linc]

I don't know. With Biden I would say someone much younger. With the younger candidates, I would suggest Sherrod Brown of Ohio. I'm not too keen on a Delaware/Massachusetts ticket. I would suggest someone not from the Northeast. Buttigieg, O' Rourke, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar are names that pop into my head.

I don't think Biden will get the nomination.

National polls mean nothing to me. I don’t even look at them. trump is attacking Biden and back on the stump because of his own polling in those 17 individual states. repubs are focused on the Electoral College, as Dems should be.

Brown should have been the VP candidate in 2016. It was stupid to worry about his Senate seat.

Yet we all know Clinton would have been impeached in 2017, and mcconnell would have frozen government until she resigned. We’d still have 8 SCOTUS Justices, and no Appellate or District Justices would have been approved. DEMs would not have won the House either.

This is the same mcconnell that would not allow the bipartisan Russia report to be released in September 2016. We’ll see how his Creator judges him.

Have you ever seen a potus election that has been relitigated ad nauseum as the 2016 election?

 

[dobieg]

one creepy old white guy running against another, and anything can happen.

Sure.

But our side gets all excited about our creepy old white guys. Will your side?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Sure.

But our side gets all excited about our creepy old white guys. Will your side?

I dunno... as long as the current creepy old white guy is defeated in the next election, that's the main thing at this point.

 

[dobieg]

I dunno... as long as the current creepy old white guy is defeated in the next election, that's the main thing at this point.

lol

It is pretty amusing how badly we each want 'our' creepy old white guy to defeat the other guy's creepy old white guy.


Ahhh,...politics of today.

 

[ecofarm]

lol

It is pretty amusing how badly we each want 'our' creepy old white guy to defeat the other guy's creepy old white guy.


Ahhh,...politics of today.

You think they're all the same?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The report is that Trump told them to lie.
Lying is different than ignoring.
Leastways, it used to be.
:shrug:

The only lie is that those polls are Trumps. Trump is not doing polls. He is right. To hell with those polls. Maintain a positive attitude and focus on winning otherwise you will end up like Hillary. A day late and a dollar short.