Who do you think's going to win the US presidential election?

[Admiral Yi]

Anecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism. 

[Admiral Yi]

Possible exception for Bernie Sanders.  I noticed, but did not view, a YT clip of him "blasting the Democrats" over something or other.

[Barrister]

Anecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism. 

Yeah it's very different than 2016/2017.  No pussy-hat wearing protests.  Just "aw fuck here we go again".

[Valmy]

Possible exception for Bernie Sanders.  I noticed, but did not view, a YT clip of him "blasting the Democrats" over something or other.

I watched his "blasting"...seemed pretty constructive and tame. Not exactly the rant of righteous hysteria that was advertised.

[Valmy]

Anecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism. 

Yeah it's very different than 2016/2017.  No pussy-hat wearing protests.  Just "aw fuck here we go again".

I think back in the day they figured Trump and his kind just needed to be exposed and everybody would wise up.

I think it is dawning on the leftists that, in fact, people are fine with Trump and who he is and what he does.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

[frunk]

I think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

I think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

I don't understand what you're saying.  Something about the voting split that only affected Iowa?

[Barrister]

I think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

I think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

So the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

So the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

In that case, the Selzer poll was even worse than those "fancy" polls in that it would suffer more from the phenomenon of getting the pulse of people willing to answer unknown phone calls.  I think we have reached a point where random or semi-random phone polling just isn't as representative of the population as its boosters and executors think it is.

[Valmy]

So the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

In that case, the Selzer poll was even worse than those "fancy" polls in that it would suffer more from the phenomenon of getting the pulse of people willing to answer unknown phone calls.  I think we have reached a point where random or semi-random phone polling just isn't as representative of the population as its boosters and executors think it is.

The Selzer poll had a long recent history of being shockingly accurate, that is why it generated attention. But that could have just been a coincidence, after all it is not a poll that is taken often and is only of Iowa.