Swing Voters In Michigan Focus Group Say They Are Voting For Trump

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Personally, I think it doesn't mean much of anything.

Willful blindness on your part doesn't create the reality you want.

Your math is irrelevant, for the reasons that I have already described. It's simply not how elections work...

It's exactly how elections work. People decide who they will vote for and then they vote. If they decide they won't vote for the person they voted for in a previous election then that candidate will not get their vote this time. Pretty simple stuff here. People vote based on who they support or don't support. Their ballot doesn't automatically change to a different candidate because you support that candidate and they don't.

Continued number manufacturing. Still not how elections work.

You are solely looking at the "swing voters" that Trump will be losing while completely ignoring the "swing voters" that Trump will be GAINING.

Since there is no evidence of that happening how do you think it will occur?

... and your hypothetical is completely irrelevant because there is never an instance of "if nothing else changes" with regard to elections.

Statistically, things often don't change from election to elections. The majority of people support the same person or party they did previously.

True, but plenty of Hilary voters have surely died as well (even within that particular age group, let alone all other age groups).

Statistically, more Trump supporters will have since Trump carried the age group by 53-44. That means that 18% more Trump supporters will likely have died compared to Clinton supporters. When the margin of victory is less than .1% that 18% difference in deaths can make a huge difference. Michigan has seen 370,000 deaths since November of 2016. If we assume only half of them are over 65 and both supporters are as likely to die that means 18,000 more Trump supporters have died in a state Trump only won by 11,000.

There are plenty of new young voters who like Trump.

Willful blindness doesn't create reality. in the 18-34 age group, Trump is trailing Biden by almost 10 pionts.

We have no idea what the turnout will be. It hasn't happened yet.

We do have past elections to use as a guide.

Not at all... All of those things are just made-up nonsense...


Good, then I'll keep encouraging it. Less Democrat votes that way...

And there you go again. Science and math are just made up nonsense. Keep thinking that and you better not go see a doctor that believes in science.

[BartenderElite]

It's really not that sane to vote Trump.

I personally think that his "leadership" during COVID is the absolute worst crisis leadership I have ever seen. You couldn't script it any worse.

Can anyone make the case that I'm wrong on that, and show me how well he has handled COVID?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Biden cannot sit for a Chris Wallace interview or take anything more the scripted questions
Then he hustles back into the basement

Trump can't sit for an interview with anyone other than Fox News then he hustles back to tweeting or the golf course.

I have seen multiple interviews of Biden in the last few months. Just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean everyone else does.
Some of the interviews by Biden in the last 3 months:
Biden on MSNBC
Biden on CNBC
Biden on several local stations
Biden on Zoom interview with multiple reporters.
Biden on CBS
Biden on CNN

Let me know when Trump has sat for an interview with any of those station and their reporters.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

November is going to be harsh for you; have you scheduled your mental health professional for November 4th. Lord knows you are going to need one along with an enema.

Hello Poopiehead. I see you still haven't been willing to put actual money on the election. I offered to bet you $1000 on it a couple of months ago. You ran and hid. Shouldn't you go hide again?

You are all mouth, poopiehead. Nothing but mouth. Poopiehead, the mouthie guy that has no integrity (or money it seems.)

[CFM]

It's really not that sane to vote Trump.

I personally think that his "leadership" during COVID is the absolute worst crisis leadership I have ever seen. You couldn't script it any worse.

Can anyone make the case that I'm wrong on that, and show me how well he has handled COVID?

Says one of many that thought voting Obama because he thought skin color was a qualification was a good idea.

You're absolutely wrong because you haven't proven you're anything but another forum n-l.

[moon]

Swing Voters In Michigan Focus Group Say They Are Voting For Trump

All 38 of them ?

[gfm7175]

Polls tend to be scientific.

Polls are not science. Mantra 10 (word redefinition fallacy)

I wonder why you think science is absolutely meaningless.

I don't. Mantra 30 (bogus position assignment)

Perhaps you don't understand how margins of error work.

Mantra 12 (accusation of deficient education).
Mantra 17 (inversion fallacy / projection).

A margin of error is calculated from the declared/justified variance. Since polls do not declare/justify any variance, their stated "margin of error" value is meaningless.

I am sure you don't understand how statistics work.

Mantra 12.
Mantra 17.

You do know that statistical & probability mathematics are both incapable of prediction (due to the importation of random numbers), right?

Polls use the same kind of math that Trump wants to use to count "illegal aliens" in the US. If polls don't work in your opinion than then you must oppose Trump on his apportionment scheme.

Excluding illegal aliens from the census has nothing to do with the (non)validity of polling.

Illegal aliens shouldn't be counted in the census. The census is a tally of all LEGAL RESIDENTS in the USA... An illegal alien is NOT a legal resident. Sorry SOTC...

[PostmodernProphet]

You might want to look up the word "incumbent".

and you might want to look up some tutorials on how to win a presidential election.......

[gfm7175]

Willful blindness on your part doesn't create the reality you want.

I've already told you why polls are meaningless.

It's exactly how elections work. People decide who they will vote for and then they vote. If they decide they won't vote for the person they voted for in a previous election then that candidate will not get their vote this time. Pretty simple stuff here. People vote based on who they support or don't support. Their ballot doesn't automatically change to a different candidate because you support that candidate and they don't.

Mantra 15c (goalpost shifting fallacy). We were specifically talking about your "if nothing changes" hypothetical... That hypothetical is not how elections work. Your math about it is irrelevant.

Since there is no evidence of that happening how do you think it will occur?

Mantras 2, 28... (feigning ignorance, argument from ignorance fallacy)

Statistically, things often don't change from election to elections. The majority of people support the same person or party they did previously.

Many things change from election to election. No election is the same.

Statistically, more Trump supporters will have since Trump carried the age group by 53-44. That means that 18% more Trump supporters will likely have died compared to Clinton supporters. When the margin of victory is less than .1% that 18% difference in deaths can make a huge difference. Michigan has seen 370,000 deaths since November of 2016. If we assume only half of them are over 65 and both supporters are as likely to die that means 18,000 more Trump supporters have died in a state Trump only won by 11,000.

More made up numbers... Continued ignoring of deaths from other age groups, continued ignoring of people not being "locked in" to a particular party/candidate, continued ignoring of additional voters, etc. etc...

Willful blindness doesn't create reality. in the 18-34 age group, Trump is trailing Biden by almost 10 pionts.

Polls are meaningless. People lie... people change their minds.

We do have past elections to use as a guide.

Past elections are not current elections.

And there you go again. Science and math are just made up nonsense. Keep thinking that and you better not go see a doctor that believes in science.

YOU are the one making up nonsense about math/science/history/logic/etc... This is your issue, not mine.

[gfm7175]

It's really not that sane to vote Trump.

I personally think that his "leadership" during COVID is the absolute worst crisis leadership I have ever seen. You couldn't script it any worse.

Can anyone make the case that I'm wrong on that, and show me how well he has handled COVID?

The burden is yours. If you think that Trump has done a bad job regarding COVID, then you need to present your case...

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Polls are not science. Mantra 10 (word redefinition fallacy)

Deflection your part doesn't mean polls are not scientific.

I don't. Mantra 30 (bogus position assignment)

More deflection since you just got done claiming that scientific polling isn't science. Now you are claiming you believe in science. It seems you don't really believe in science. You only accept the science that supports your viewpoint.

Mantra 12 (accusation of deficient education).
Mantra 17 (inversion fallacy / projection).

Deflection.

A margin of error is calculated from the declared/justified variance. Since polls do not declare/justify any variance, their stated "margin of error" value is meaningless.

The margin of error is in the math of statistics. The statistical calculation is based on a random sample compared to the population in general. The margin of error is a mathematical calculation based on science and math and has been shown to be reasonably accurate to the margin declared. It doesn't attempt to be more accurate than stated. Your claim here is only more proof you you denying science you don't agree with and shows your denial of denying science is clearly not factual.

Mantra 12.
Mantra 17.

Deflection on your part.

You do know that statistical & probability mathematics are both incapable of prediction (due to the importation of random numbers), right?

Another fine example of you claiming science isn't really science. Since polling isn't a prediction but instead is a statistical calculation based on randomly selected data your statement is meaningless in this case. For statistics to work it requires random selection. If we follow your argument then there can be no claim of any undocumented persons in the US since all claims about how many there are in the US are based solely on statistical calculations. Since you seem to think that statistics can't be used to predict or count how many undocumented persons are in this country then the only way to do a census is to actually count people and since there is no question about citizenship you either have to assume everyone is a citizen or no one is a citizen. Perhaps you can tell us how many undocumented persons are in the US exactly. Failure to provide an exact number would be you failing to meet the standards you are setting for statistical polling.

Excluding illegal aliens from the census has nothing to do with the (non)validity of polling.

It has everything to do with it since it is done the same way polling is done using the exact same statistical methods. You don't get to claim statistics can be used to count persons in one instance but not in the other.

Illegal aliens shouldn't be counted in the census. The census is a tally of all LEGAL RESIDENTS in the USA... An illegal alien is NOT a legal resident. Sorry SOTC...

I'll stick with the US Constitution on this. AG Barr today admitted that according to the Constitution they should be counted when asked in hearings before Congress. I think he knows a little more than you do about the law and Constitution.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

My quote -

This may be the first time in modern history where the challenger raises more money than the incumbent President.

You changing the topic because you can't argue with the accuracy of my statement -

and you might want to look up some tutorials on how to win a presidential election.......

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've already told you why polls are meaningless.


Mantra 15c (goalpost shifting fallacy). We were specifically talking about your "if nothing changes" hypothetical... That hypothetical is not how elections work. Your math about it is irrelevant.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen.
I state "if nothing else changes"
You state "But other things will change"
Then you accuse ME of moving the goalposts?



[quot

Mantras 2, 28... (feigning ignorance, argument from ignorance fallacy)


Many things change from election to election. No election is the same.

More goalpost moving on your part.

More made up numbers... Continued ignoring of deaths from other age groups, continued ignoring of people not being "locked in" to a particular party/candidate, continued ignoring of additional voters, etc. etc...

ROFLMAO.. So I should be paying attention to your nonexistent facts about who might be voting for Trump? You claim my numbers are made up but have not presented any numbers that are not made up. I do have to admire your "You are wrong because I say so" argument. Care to provide a single supporting fact to bolster your ipse dixit nonsense?

Polls are meaningless. People lie... people change their minds.

Polls are a snapshot of a period of time. people can change their minds but that is usually evident in changes in polling over time. Changes such as Biden being up by 5 changing to Biden being up by 8. It seems people may be changing their minds just like you say they can. It also means they could change back. I have never said they couldn't.

Past elections are not current elections.

Today is not tomorrow. However we can make many predictions about what might happen tomorrow based on today.

YOU are the one making up nonsense about math/science/history/logic/etc... This is your issue, not mine.

Still waiting for actual numbers from you that can be used in a mathematical formula. Since statistical sampling of a population is nonsense, please tell us how you calculate the number of undocumented persons in the US.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen.

[gfm7175]

Since you are committing so many mantras, I'll just link you to the mantra list for reference:

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/th...ed-mantra-list

Deflection your part doesn't mean polls are not scientific.

Calling out a logical fallacy that you committed is not "deflection"...
Mantras 8, 17, 23b, 25c3, 38a

More deflection since you just got done claiming that scientific polling isn't science. Now you are claiming you believe in science. It seems you don't really believe in science. You only accept the science that supports your viewpoint.

Mantras 8, 10, 20, 23b, 25c3, 30

Deflection.

Mantra 8

The margin of error is in the math of statistics. The statistical calculation is based on a random sample compared to the population in general. The margin of error is a mathematical calculation based on science and math and has been shown to be reasonably accurate to the margin declared. It doesn't attempt to be more accurate than stated. Your claim here is only more proof you you denying science you don't agree with and shows your denial of denying science is clearly not factual.

Mantra 16a.

Deflection on your part.

Mantra 8.

Another fine example of you claiming science isn't really science. Since polling isn't a prediction but instead is a statistical calculation based on randomly selected data your statement is meaningless in this case. For statistics to work it requires random selection. If we follow your argument then there can be no claim of any undocumented persons in the US since all claims about how many there are in the US are based solely on statistical calculations. Since you seem to think that statistics can't be used to predict or count how many undocumented persons are in this country then the only way to do a census is to actually count people and since there is no question about citizenship you either have to assume everyone is a citizen or no one is a citizen. Perhaps you can tell us how many undocumented persons are in the US exactly. Failure to provide an exact number would be you failing to meet the standards you are setting for statistical polling.

Mantras 10, 16b,

It has everything to do with it since it is done the same way polling is done using the exact same statistical methods. You don't get to claim statistics can be used to count persons in one instance but not in the other.

Mantra 16b

I'll stick with the US Constitution on this. AG Barr today admitted that according to the Constitution they should be counted when asked in hearings before Congress. I think he knows a little more than you do about the law and Constitution.

Mantras 4f, 4h, 39b


Since your responses have been reduced down to pure mantras, I think we're done here...

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Since you are committing so many mantras, I'll just link you to the mantra list for reference:

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/th...ed-mantra-list


Calling out a logical fallacy that you committed is not "deflection"...

Actually, it is deflection. Calling out a fallacy requires that you state why the fallacy exists. Accusing someone of a fallacy and not stating why they committed that fallacy with evidence to support your claim is deflection. You have deflected from the topic at hand by accusing the other person of something in order to not discuss the topic.

Mantras 8, 17, 23b, 25c3, 38a


Mantras 8, 10, 20, 23b, 25c3, 30

More deflection. See Above for explanation.

Mantra 8

This one is TOO FUNNY... 8) Logic Redefinition Fallacy
a) "official" list of fallacies.
Who is the one that is using their "official list of fallacies?"

Mantra 16a.

You accuse me of word salad for discussing the mathematical standards? That would be deflection on your part and since you want to discuss your list, it would be violations of 2 - I have to assume you are pretending to not understand statistics, 10a - You are fixated on the semantics of calling everything a fallacy rather than discussing the actual topic, 11. You are copping out by not answering anything I said, 16, Your accusation of "fallacy" has nothing to do with my statement and you didn't say why it it relevant, 25n Denial of probability math when you claim statistics can't be used in polling. 26. Irrelevant Obsession with using a list to simply cite numbers while not explaining any relevance. 39. Invalid proof as you are simply claiming I am wrong but offer no real explanation of how I am wrong and have presented no mathematical support for your claim. And we shouldn't forget 8a "official" list of fallacies.

Mantra 8.


Mantras 10, 16b,


Mantra 16b


Mantras 4f, 4h, 39b


Since your responses have been reduced down to pure mantras, I think we're done here...

Since you can't discus the topic but can only deflect by making baseless allegations from a list without providing any support how or why I have violated your 8) Logic Redefinition Fallacy
a) "official" list of fallacies it seems you have resorted to repeatedly abusing 8a in simply citing this list over and over.

But of course, your 'we're done here' would appear to violate 7 of your "official" list. So no need to continue to discuss a topic that you weren't discussing anyway.