T**** is your 2024 Republican candidate - OWN IT!

Smedley said:

both your points make little/no sense

1. You’ve made your odd antipathy for swing voters very clear but saying that “they are, by definition and actions, uninvolved in politics” has zero basis in reality and zero relevance to what we’re talking about.

2. Yes even after 8 years of trump overload in the news, there are still undecided people, and many of these people will be voting (deciding) on Election Day. So why couldn’t a debate make them decide as much as any other reason between now and then. By your logic, undecideds would stay undecided and not vote.

DB can speak for himself, but I’d argue that there is no nuanced choice here.

I think you know that I tack more centrist, like you, but c’mon…

It is very difficult to comprehend anyone being “undecided” at this point.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

tjohn said:

Well, if Biden had command of the language like, say, Winston Churchill, or even close, he could filet Trump.

Hillary Clinton did quite well in the debates and we know how that turned out.

It's virtually impossible to effectively counter a firehose of bull **** and craziness in a debate format. 

It would be great if someone could go toe to toe with TFG and cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the unseeing undecided voters. But it's really not likely. Or maybe not even possible.

it’s true you can’t effectively counter a firehouse of bs in a debate, but you don’t need to. Go in with a few key points — say, the big lie, the broken promises of his presidency, and some of the legal stuff - and hammer away. Get in a good zinger or two that gets played and replayed on cable news, and you’re golden. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t sway even just a few swing voters in swing states, which could be the difference in a close election.  

Another unfortunate aspect of Biden declining to debate is that it will highlight the #1 concern of voters which is that he’s too old. And don’t think trump won’t hammer that which gives him control of the narrative.

you're assuming

1. that enough swing voters to make a difference will actually watch the debate. ignoring that they are, by definition and actions, uninvolved in politics.

2. that there is something that can be said at this late date, after 8 years of endless coverage of Trump's words and behaviors, that will turn on a light bulb in people's heads and turn them against him.

both assumptions simply ignore reality

both your points make little/no sense

1. You’ve made your odd antipathy for swing voters very clear but saying that “they are, by definition and actions, uninvolved in politics” has zero basis in reality and zero relevance to what we’re talking about.

2. Yes even after 8 years of trump overload in the news, there are still undecided people, and many of these people will be voting (deciding) on Election Day. So why couldn’t a debate make them decide as much as any other reason between now and then. By your logic, undecideds would stay undecided and not vote.

your problem is that you insist on believing that undecideds think the way you do. or the way that most voters do.

they obviously don't. you, nor I, can possibly fathom the mindset that is involved in not being able to decide between Biden and Trump in the year 2023. All I know, and I've said this many times, is that these voters are clearly unreachable by normal campaigning. Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

And of course they're uninvolved. how can you possibly make the argument that they aren't?

It's one thing to be undecided between Romney and Obama. That is
quasi-understandable.

(Originally put this in the wrong thread. Sorry)

Again, a somewhat silly question (I guess): I watch a lot of news clips, and news commentaries as well as read news fairly widely. Fairly newly retired, and it’s excruciatingly hot/humid and wet - what else is there to do? So I’m very confused: what on earth was that rant about putting his pants about??? Let alone the magnets, and the stuttering (ableist ijit)…

jimmurphy said:

Smedley said:

both your points make little/no sense

1. You’ve made your odd antipathy for swing voters very clear but saying that “they are, by definition and actions, uninvolved in politics” has zero basis in reality and zero relevance to what we’re talking about.

2. Yes even after 8 years of trump overload in the news, there are still undecided people, and many of these people will be voting (deciding) on Election Day. So why couldn’t a debate make them decide as much as any other reason between now and then. By your logic, undecideds would stay undecided and not vote.

DB can speak for himself, but I’d argue that there is no nuanced choice here.

I think you know that I tack more centrist, like you, but c’mon…

It is very difficult to comprehend anyone being “undecided” at this point.

Maybe, but the way I look at it, in 2020 Biden beat Trump in the swing states, generally speaking, by somewhere between a few tens of thousands votes, to a few percentage points.

In the current polls, Trump is beating Biden in the swing states, generally speaking, by a few percentage points.  

The "swing", pun intended, represents voters who changed teams between 2020 and today. Why would one believe these voters, who voted for Biden in 2020 but favor Trump today, are fixed in their current allegiance?

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

One thing to keep in mind is that the electorate is not the same every four years. People become voting age, or die, or move states, and all of this can shift the way specific areas vote since it's not literally exactly the same people voting as before. Some swings are voters changing their minds, but some change is because we're looking at different voters.

PVW said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the electorate is not the same every four years. People become voting age, or die, or move states, and all of this can shift the way specific areas vote since it's not literally exactly the same people voting as before. Some swings are voters changing their minds, but some change is because we're looking at different voters.

this is true for some undecideds, but you can't be a swing voter unless you've voted before, so not sure of your point.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

good. you're finally getting it.

drummerboy said:

 not sure of your point.

Swing states != Swing voters

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

good. you're finally getting it.

Seriously, you think they do eeny meeny miny moe or something? 

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the electorate is not the same every four years. People become voting age, or die, or move states, and all of this can shift the way specific areas vote since it's not literally exactly the same people voting as before. Some swings are voters changing their minds, but some change is because we're looking at different voters.

this is true for some undecideds, but you can't be a swing voter unless you've voted before, so not sure of your point.

all this is speculation about what's in the polling at this time. And most polls this far out are of registered voters. Not likely voters, and certainly not actual 2020 voters.

so looking at Trump being "ahead" now in swing states he lost in 2020 is comparing apples and oranges.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

good. you're finally getting it.

Seriously, you think they do eeny meeny miny moe or something? 

I suspect a lot of them decide based on the most recent thing they hear, which can come from any source, reliable or not.

how many voters do you think in 2016 heard something in the last week about "Hillary's emails" and voted for Trump? Or voted for Stein or Johnson? Or stayed home? Unfortunately a lot of people don't pay that much attention to what's really going on in the campaign, and what the candidates really stand for. And before they go to the polls they glom onto whatever information is circulating at the moment. That's why so much effort is spent on turning out the base, and not as much seeking out the low-information "swing voters."

Smedley said:

Maybe, but the way I look at it, in 2020 Biden beat Trump in the swing states, generally speaking, by somewhere between a few tens of thousands votes, to a few percentage points.

In the current polls, Trump is beating Biden in the swing states, generally speaking, by a few percentage points.

The "swing", pun intended, represents voters who changed teams between 2020 and today. Why would one believe these voters, who voted for Biden in 2020 but favor Trump today, are fixed in their current allegiance?

Unless Trump’s percentage in state polls is higher than his 2020 results in those states, nobody had to change teams. And then there are the margins of polling error, which could also account for a “swing” from the tangible 2020 margins.

[Cross-posted with ml1.]

joanne said:

(Originally put this in the wrong thread. Sorry)

Ohio is ensnaring you.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

good. you're finally getting it.

Seriously, you think they do eeny meeny miny moe or something? 

what do you think they do? take a long considered look at each candidate's positions?

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

 not sure of your point.

Swing states != Swing voters

still not sure of your point.

Smedley said:

Maybe, but the way I look at it, in 2020 Biden beat Trump in the swing states, generally speaking, by somewhere between a few tens of thousands votes, to a few percentage points.

In the current polls, Trump is beating Biden in the swing states, generally speaking, by a few percentage points.  

The "swing", pun intended, represents voters who changed teams between 2020 and today. Why would one believe these voters, who voted for Biden in 2020 but favor Trump today, are fixed in their current allegiance?

Amplifying PVW's point on the electorate, the individual voters don't necessarily swing. The entire state could swing because of turnout, enthusiasm or lack thereof. 

jimmurphy said:

Amplifying PVW's point on the electorate, the individual voters don't necessarily swing. The entire state could swing because of turnout, enthusiasm or lack thereof.

Amplifying my own earlier comment, I acknowledge that voters who have changed teams since 2020 do exist. But, yeah, attributing Trump’s polling leads to them seems like a questionable assumption.

We used to have a significant amount of swingers in maplewood some years back…

DaveSchmidt said:

jimmurphy said:

Amplifying PVW's point on the electorate, the individual voters don't necessarily swing. The entire state could swing because of turnout, enthusiasm or lack thereof.

Amplifying my own earlier comment, I acknowledge that voters who have changed teams since 2020 do exist. But, yeah, attributing Trump’s polling leads to them seems like a questionable assumption.

Biden won AZ, MI, GA, NV, PA in 2020. As of last month, Biden was losing to Trump in the polls in those states. 

IMO the primary reason for this is that some voters in those states have changed their minds since 2020. That certainly jibes with the decline in Biden's approval rating since 2020. It's not rocket science. 

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Smedley said:

Biden won AZ, MI, GA, NV, PA in 2020. As of last month, Biden was losing to Trump in the polls in those states. 

IMO the primary reason for this is that some voters in those states have changed their minds since 2020. That certainly jibes with the decline in Biden's approval rating since 2020. It's not rocket science. 

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

as I also said, these differences could be because they are surveys of all registered voters, and not just the ones who turned out in '20.

sometimes the simplest explanation is that it's apples and oranges.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Who they eventually decide to vote for is essentially random.

Uh...okay.

good. you're finally getting it.

Seriously, you think they do eeny meeny miny moe or something? 

I suspect a lot of them decide based on the most recent thing they hear, which can come from any source, reliable or not.

how many voters do you think in 2016 heard something in the last week about "Hillary's emails" and voted for Trump? Or voted for Stein or Johnson? Or stayed home? Unfortunately a lot of people don't pay that much attention to what's really going on in the campaign, and what the candidates really stand for. And before they go to the polls they glom onto whatever information is circulating at the moment. That's why so much effort is spent on turning out the base, and not as much seeking out the low-information "swing voters."

Agree 100%. Which is why debates can be important. An effective debate performance vs Trump would most likely include some sound bites that get traction in the media. So to your "before they go to the polls they glom onto whatever information is circulating at the moment" point, that whatever information might just be a recollection of debate coverage. 

At any rate, for the Dems' sake I hope Biden is ahead or at least even in the polls by Labor Day, otherwise skipping the debates will be a mighty peculiar look. Will be like a football team taking a knee while down by two points with two minutes left.

Smedley said:

Biden won AZ, MI, GA, NV, PA in 2020. As of last month, Biden was losing to Trump in the polls in those states. 

IMO the primary reason for this is that some voters in those states have changed their minds since 2020. That certainly jibes with the decline in Biden's approval rating since 2020. It's not rocket science. 

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Well, this is where my point about swing states not being equivalent to swing voters becomes relevant.

If the reason for these poll results is attributable, as you propose, to individual voters swinging for Biden to Trump, that suggests one set of strategies for the Biden administration. If it's due to Biden voters not actually switching to Trump, but moving toward a "not voting" position, that suggests a different one. If it's due to the entrance of young voters who were ineligible in 2020, and who have not expressed a commitment to Biden, that suggests other strategies. And so forth.

It matters why, exactly, a given voting district is swinging.

I'd note that the likelihood that people who voted for Biden are now going to vote for Trump is, to my mind, the least likely of all the possible scenarios. Disengagement -- by previous Biden supporters, habitual non-voters, and new voters who would likely vote Biden if they can be convinced to vote -- strikes me as the most likely.

And, as ml1 noted, it's important to note that these polls each have their own model of who they think the electorate is, which will likely change over time (eg going from "registered" voters to models of "likely" voters as we approach the election) and which might be more, or less, accurate.

tl;dr -- people switching from Biden to Trump is probably among the last people to worry about.

Smedley said:

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Or, like he said, registered vs. likely. Or there’s my choice: not playing the attribution game to begin with.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Or, like he said, registered vs. likely. Or there’s my choice: not playing the attribution game to begin with.

the sample sizes in those state polls aren't particularly large either.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Or, like he said, registered vs. likely. Or there’s my choice: not playing the attribution game to begin with.

If you seek to poke holes in someone else's attribution, you're in the game.  

PVW said:

Well, this is where my point about swing states not being equivalent to swing voters becomes relevant.

If the reason for these poll results is attributable, as you propose, to individual voters swinging for Biden to Trump, that suggests one set of strategies for the Biden administration. If it's due to Biden voters not actually switching to Trump, but moving toward a "not voting" position, that suggests a different one. If it's due to the entrance of young voters who were ineligible in 2020, and who have not expressed a commitment to Biden, that suggests other strategies. And so forth.

It matters why, exactly, a given voting district is swinging.

I'd note that the likelihood that people who voted for Biden are now going to vote for Trump is, to my mind, the least likely of all the possible scenarios. Disengagement -- by previous Biden supporters, habitual non-voters, and new voters who would likely vote Biden if they can be convinced to vote -- strikes me as the most likely.

And, as ml1 noted, it's important to note that these polls each have their own model of who they think the electorate is, which will likely change over time (eg going from "registered" voters to models of "likely" voters as we approach the election) and which might be more, or less, accurate.

tl;dr -- people switching from Biden to Trump is probably among the last people to worry about.

I also question how many people are paying much attention to the campaign at this point. How many voters actually know the extreme positions Trump is staking out in his rallies? They may think they know Donald Trump, but he's not the same guy he was four years ago or eight years ago, as bad as he was then. 

Do we really think a majority of voters are on board with the overt fascism Trump is espousing? Or that they don't care?

I'm concerned that people are ok with Trump's extremism, but at this point I can't be cynical enough to actually believe the majority are going to vote for it.

Smedley said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

If you think my belief is a questionable assumption, so be it. Seems a lot more questionable to attribute it to statistical noise, or sampling error, or randomness or whatever. 

As ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is often the truth.  

Or, like he said, registered vs. likely. Or there’s my choice: not playing the attribution game to begin with.

If you seek to poke holes in someone else's attribution, you're in the game.  

if you are going to insist on attributing the poll results to mainly one cause when there are other probable causes, people are going to poke holes.

I just can't wrap my ahead around the fact that 25% of voters are undecided. 25 effing %. With two candidates who are the most diametrically different in anyone's lifetime.

We're in the dumbest timeline.

Smedley said:

Agree 100%. Which is why debates can be important. An effective debate performance vs Trump would most likely include some sound bites that get traction in the media. So to your "before they go to the polls they glom onto whatever information is circulating at the moment" point, that whatever information might just be a recollection of debate coverage. 

Maybe Biden can call Trump a “sick f*ck”, as he practically did last week. That would be memorable.