SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Who will win the 2020 US Presidential Election?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Who will win the 2020 US Presidential Election? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=245801)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro (Post 2699614)

How can you possibly believe polls?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...his-isnt-2016/

But to be fair I took this data from a Washington Post article that was unfavorable to Trumps campaign.

I still think Obama did something wrong while in office and will come out before the election sinking VP Biden with him.

Plus Trump really is sick and he might get a boost tonight with the VP debate.

Seed thought Harris is the one running for POTUS :o

I'm quietly confident tonight's debate will be a lot more civil than the one last week.

It is important to understand what a poll and the associated statistics are. It is an estimate (guess) of what a larger population will do based on a sampling of what a smaller population did (or say they will do).

Nothing more, nothing less. Despite the number of decimal points, it is still an estimate. An estimate that is "usually" pretty good.

There are a lot of assumptions when it comes to calculating probabilities based on these types of statistics.

People also need to understand probabilities derived from polls. Probabilities are, of course, different than statistics.

Assume that a probability calculation states that there is a 99% chance that candidate A will win and a 1% chance that candidate B will win.

After the election candidate B won.

Were the polls and the probability derived from those polls wrong?

No. They were not wrong. There was a 1% chance that candidate B would win and that 1% occurred.

Now, if a hundred elections were conducted, one would expect the outcome that Candidate A would win close to 99 times and Candidate B would win close to 1 time.

On the average over many elections, Candidate A will win almost all the time and Candidate B will lose almost all the time. Probabilities work better over large attempts as the results will "average" out.

However, we don't have a hundred elections. We have 1. Even if Candidate B has a 0.00000000001% chance of winning, it is possible that in one election candidate B wins. Unlikely, but not impossible.

If Candidate B wins, the probability calculations were accurate.

If Candidate A wins, the probability calculations were accurate.

Only if the probability calculations indicated that candidate B has 0% chance of winning, would the calculations be wrong if candidate B actually wins.

That's the problem with using probability to "predict" the outcome of a single event such as an election. Long shots can still come in first. People do win lotteries.

This can lead some people to believe that the States/probabilities were somehow wrong. Having an outcome that one disagrees with does not mean that the calculations were wrong. Disappointment does not equal error.

So if a properly conducted poll indicates that the estimation on the larger population is:

75% Candidate A
25% Candidate B

Don't count out Candidate B. That candidate can still win.

All that can be derived from this is that it is more likely that an individual not part of the sample population will most likely vote for Candidate A than for Candidate B.

BTW, don't confuse this with a claim that Candidate A has a 75% chance of winning. More information is needed to calculate an accurate probability.

Polling and the stats/probabilities generated can be hard to understand because it can become complicated. If you read the methodology for a poll (and you should not accept any polling information without understanding the methodologies used) it can make your head hurt.

There is a reason why politicians and the news media likes polls -- They are easy to misinterpret and misunderstand. Each uses them to their advantage.

For the purpose of an election, polls are mildly entertaining at best. But no one should be basing their vote on a poll. :nope:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2699644)

I'm quietly confident tonight's debate will be a lot more civil than the one last week.

...only 'cause they'll have a moderator with your vast :subsim:-honed acumen, oversight, and no Bovinated Scatology tolerated ethic from meglomaniacs this time!:D

Found this funny when you consider what flies are attracted to and especially if you are spouting it :)

Check out this short clip at 03:00

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54459078

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54459544

Quote:

President Donald Trump has refused to take part in a virtual TV debate with his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Earlier the commission deciding the 15 October Miami debate's format said it would have to take place remotely.

It made the decision after Mr Trump was treated for Covid-19. He has no current symptoms but the White House is tackling a cluster of positive tests.

Mr Trump said the move to virtual was to "protect" his rival. Mr Biden's campaign said he would participate.

The Democrat's campaign said he "looks forward to speaking directly to the American people".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54465139

I think it a tad cheeky when you consider he is supposed to be the only one infected.

Also a clear indication of some of his past exploits/behaviour when he thinks he can call all the shots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2699770)

I think it a tad cheeky when you consider he is supposed to be the only one infected.

Also a clear indication of some of his past exploits/behaviour when he thinks he can call all the shots.

Trump will not take part because Joe Biden will be fed answers. The first debate Biden was advised no ear pieces will be used. I believe he was checked for one before the debate started. A virtual debate? Hell, the could use a teleprompter off set for Joe to read answers to questions he probably will receive before the debate. We have seen this in the past. I'm sorry, Biden is not all together there. It is evident with his jibberish from time to time. No questions from the press. Hiding in his basement bunker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/us-wahl/article217436798/USA-Der-wahre-Grund-warum-Trump-sich-dem-TV-Duell-verweigert.html

Donald Trump likes to portray himself as a macho who fearlessly takes over leadership. But now he's pinching. After his catastrophic performance in the TV duel eight days ago, which caused him to fall further in the polls, he has canceled his participation in the upcoming debate with Joe Biden, which was to be organized in town hall format with questions from the audience.

Trump justified the cancellation with the decision of the organizers to allow the debates to take place virtually via video switch. There are good reasons for this. After all, nobody knows whether the President, who is sick with Corona, may still be contagious at the debate next week. And after Trump's personal doctor lied several times in the past few days about the state of health of the president, there is hardly any trust in the corona tests that the White House wanted to prove before the debate. The fact that the president refuses to use a virtual format even after his illness shows once again how little he has learned from the events of the past few days. And how little he cares about the health of others who might come into contact with him.

In an interview with the TV broadcaster "Fox Business", Trump also gave insights into why he is actually backing down: Because he is afraid that he will use his aggressive bullying tactics from the last TV duel, with which he largely prevented a substantive debate, can no longer apply. "That's not what a debate is about," Trump criticized the virtual format. “You sit behind a computer and discuss. That's ridiculous, and they'll cut you off whenever they want. "

That makes it clear what this cancellation is really about: Trump wanted to violently violate the agreed rules of debate in the second duel as well as in the first and fears that the moderator will turn off the microphone for him if he is assaulted again. Finally, the Debate Commission had announced “additional structures” “to ensure a proper discussion”.

So the president is pinching because it would make it harder for him to break the rules. It's like a notorious foul player complaining that the referee brought yellow and red cards onto the field this time around.

This shows in concentrated form the understanding of norms that have characterized Trump's entire term in office, according to which rules apply to everyone else. But only not for the president himself.

Unable. Cowardly. Insidious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 2699806)

The first debate Biden was advised no ear pieces will be used. I believe he was checked for one before the debate started.

Trump's campaign claims that Biden's team reneged on their agreement to this just before the debate. Don't know if that's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from Sky's article

Trump justified the cancellation with the decision of the organizers to allow the debates to take place virtually via video switch. There are good reasons for this. After all, nobody knows whether the President, who is sick with Corona, may still be contagious at the debate next week. And after Trump's personal doctor lied several times in the past few days about the state of health of the president, there is hardly any trust in the corona tests that the White House wanted to prove before the debate.

I think there is more truth to this fact that Trump is still sick even though he feels good. They say the same treatment would cost the average American citizen 100k, but I sure wouldn't mind some free meds to combat the problem that he is offering.

I'm sitting here right now with flue like symptoms, but I'm sure it's just a cold and not Covid-19.

Looking forward to Trump getting better and making a come back for the third debate scheduled for October 22nd will be the third and final presidential debate at
Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2699814)

Unable. Cowardly. Insidious.

Another baseless article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 2699845)

Another baseless article.

https://i2.wp.com/www.braintank.ch/w...47%2C219&ssl=1

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/09/p...020/index.html

He is just absurd now.

And he abuses and accuses gold star families of having infected him. Well, "shamelessness" finds new depths of meaning whenever he opens his mouth.

"My infection was a blessing from God!"

.................................................. ........................................"If you see his recent polls, he's really right!"

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/s...format1007.jpg

Does anyone know the latest stats in the forthcoming election? Is Biden still seven points ahead?

National polls as of today range from 9 to 16 points for Biden, depending on what poll you ask.