The election is practically over, if you have money to spare, bet it on Biden

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Trump is the last Republican; however, he still has 50% chance imo. Check out Red Eagle Politics on YT he shows how much of the polling is BS and much early voting analysis is misleading

[–]WaltzRoommate 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's not hard to say words when faced with data, especially to an audience who wants the data to be wrong. What's hard is to fight data with data and I've never seen one of these "Don't believe the polls" guys do that.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://youtu.be/hwWMdOpZS_E

[–]WaltzRoommate 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I only briefly skimmed in on double speed, but isn't his model using 2016 primary results?

I agree that 2016 Trump would beat Biden. However, it's critical to account for the fact that Trump has been a bigger letdown than virtually any other president, in terms of central promises broken.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

but isn't his model using 2016 primary results?

No, it's the 2020 primary results.

However, it's critical to account for the fact that Trump has been a bigger letdown than virtually any other president, in terms of central promises broken.

That's only with us. His conservative boomer base is still strong.

[–]WaltzRoommate 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it's the 2020 primary results.

I was working so I barely watched. Can you rehash his reasoning for me, because doing that for an incumbent inherently sounds fishy.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He looked at primary performances for every presidential election since 1912, and his model has been accurate 25 out of 27 times. The 2 times he got it wrong was for 1960 and 2000, which were both dubious elections. He's confident Trump will win because no sitting president has ever had a better performance in the primaries. I really think you should try to watch the video I linked in full. He's definitively a smart guy.