Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Turnout for the general election is going to be insane.

I witnessed a long line for the Maryland primary last week as I dropped my mail-in vote in the drop box at he library where people were wrapped around the building to vote.

And this is with all but Biden having dropped out. No senators this year in m,y state.

It was just the primary for the House seat plus judges and delegates who no one likely knew.

People were waiting for hours in heat and some in rain in Georgia for their primary yesterday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/messy-georgia-primary-raises-alarms-for-november-as-ossoff-edges-closer-to-clinching-senate-nomination

The November 3rd election will be all out.

No issue with turnout.

The issue will be with accommodating all that want to vote.

L L wrote:

Turnout for the general election is going to be insane.

I witnessed a long line for the Maryland primary last week as I dropped my mail-in vote in the drop box at he library where people were wrapped around the building to vote.

And this is with all but Biden having dropped out. No senators this year in m,y state.

It was just the primary for the House seat plus judges and delegates who no one likely knew.

People were waiting for hours in heat and some in rain in Georgia for their primary yesterday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/messy-georgia-primary-raises-alarms-for-november-as-ossoff-edges-closer-to-clinching-senate-nomination

The November 3rd election will be all out.

No issue with turnout.

The issue will be with accommodating all that want to vote.

Esp in the swing state big cities where this is a large African American population.

Milwaukee, Phila, Detroit, Atlanta, Mpls.

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

Turnout for the general election is going to be insane.

I witnessed a long line for the Maryland primary last week as I dropped my mail-in vote in the drop box at he library where people were wrapped around the building to vote.

And this is with all but Biden having dropped out. No senators this year in m,y state.

It was just the primary for the House seat plus judges and delegates who no one likely knew.

People were waiting for hours in heat and some in rain in Georgia for their primary yesterday.

The November 3rd election will be all out.

No issue with turnout.

The issue will be with accommodating all that want to vote.

Esp in the swing state big cities where this is a large African American population.

Milwaukee, Phila, Detroit, Atlanta, Mpls.

A few weeks back I read somewhere (NY Times?) that the parties were using primaries as a dry run for their "get out the vote" ground games, particularly in potential swing states. It will be informative to see statistics for participation and participation by party in these races as an indicator of voter motivation levels.

agip wrote:

Yeah, about that... wrote:

Aaaand The Gap now stands at 13.6 percentage points. Approval is dropping steadily in recent days but I truly think it'll stay north of 40%. As multiple people have observed (in this thread and elsewhere), the election will hinge on turnout: If President Trump gets all of His People to vote, he should win. Rather easily, at least in the Electoral College, IMO.

Meanwhile voting in Georgia was a real horrorshow, and GOPers are completely unmotivated to fix the situation.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

if the polls stay like they are now, it's not going to hinge on turnout...Trump's turkey would be thoroughly cooked. If the election were held today it would be a thumping of historic proportions.

But usually these things mean-revert as we get closer and Trump will probably close the gap.

I’m curious how strong the mean reversion will be since Biden is not new to the WH. He’s been there and served as VP for 8 years, very hard to argue he doesn’t belong. Trump is going to have to do some pretty corrupt stuff to close that gap significantly.

Trollminator wrote:

agip wrote:

if the polls stay like they are now, it's not going to hinge on turnout...Trump's turkey would be thoroughly cooked. If the election were held today it would be a thumping of historic proportions.

But usually these things mean-revert as we get closer and Trump will probably close the gap.

I’m curious how strong the mean reversion will be since Biden is not new to the WH. He’s been there and served as VP for 8 years, very hard to argue he doesn’t belong. Trump is going to have to do some pretty corrupt stuff to close that gap significantly.

there will be mean-reversion...the Trump campaign hasn't even started yet. Wedge issues work - they start talking about abortion and guns every day and they'll get back a few points pretty quickly. They use that stuff because it works.

Plus the dems will mess this up, no doubt. The left wing will do something seriously stupid and Biden will make another gaffe.

On the topic of turnout for the Georgia primary:

According to Ryan Anderson, who operates the data tabulation website GeorgiaVotes.com, 62% of voters who cast in-person and absentee ballots as of last Friday didn’t participate in 2016 primaries.

New voters are often angry voters. They make incumbents nervous.

But by far, the biggest contributor to the heated electoral climate was the fact that Tuesday’s balloting was a lawyered-up sequel to the 2018 contest in which Republican Brian Kemp beat Democrat Stacey Abrams by 54,723 votes out of nearly 4 million cast.

Needless to say, as secretary of state, Kemp was also in charge of that election.

The June 9 primary was the first statewide election since Fair Fight Action, the voting rights group set up by Abrams, filed a massive, top-to-bottom challenge to Georgia’s voting system in federal court.

Trollminator wrote:

agip wrote:

if the polls stay like they are now, it's not going to hinge on turnout...Trump's turkey would be thoroughly cooked. If the election were held today it would be a thumping of historic proportions.

But usually these things mean-revert as we get closer and Trump will probably close the gap.

I’m curious how strong the mean reversion will be since Biden is not new to the WH.

This seems like a mistake. Mean reversion is a financial concept wherein stock prices tend to return to a moving average (with heavy underlying assumptions that the underlying movement is a random walk). Regression to the mean is another concept that basically just means linear regression.

Either way, I doubt that momentum in polls is a random walk so I'm not sure I would count on a quantifiable "mean reversion."

Racket wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I’m curious how strong the mean reversion will be since Biden is not new to the WH.

This seems like a mistake. Mean reversion is a financial concept wherein stock prices tend to return to a moving average (with heavy underlying assumptions that the underlying movement is a random walk). Regression to the mean is another concept that basically just means linear regression.

Either way, I doubt that momentum in polls is a random walk so I'm not sure I would count on a quantifiable "mean reversion."

I think the mean to be reverted to is the usual 2-4% win by the D or R in a two-candidate election.

obama v mcain is the exception - that was a 7 point blowout.

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

This seems like a mistake. Mean reversion is a financial concept wherein stock prices tend to return to a moving average (with heavy underlying assumptions that the underlying movement is a random walk). Regression to the mean is another concept that basically just means linear regression.

Either way, I doubt that momentum in polls is a random walk so I'm not sure I would count on a quantifiable "mean reversion."

I think the mean to be reverted to is the usual 2-4% win by the D or R in a two-candidate election.

obama v mcain is the exception - that was a 7 point blowout.

Quick google search turned up this :

Looks like it might be one of those things polling experts can't agree on

Racket wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I’m curious how strong the mean reversion will be since Biden is not new to the WH.

This seems like a mistake. Mean reversion is a financial concept wherein stock prices tend to return to a moving average (with heavy underlying assumptions that the underlying movement is a random walk). Regression to the mean is another concept that basically just means linear regression.

Either way, I doubt that momentum in polls is a random walk so I'm not sure I would count on a quantifiable "mean reversion."

It's a simple concept and not a mistake to try to apply it to non-financial areas. It is above all a statistical concept. I'm not saying it's reliable for polling, but it's a broadly observed and common behavior. Wherever you have math, you can apply statistical concepts such as mean reversion.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

I think the mean to be reverted to is the usual 2-4% win by the D or R in a two-candidate election.

obama v mcain is the exception - that was a 7 point blowout.

Quick google search turned up this :

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2010/10/22/politics_is_not/

Looks like it might be one of those things polling experts can't agree on

It all boils down to the underlying drivers. If I start out as a trump supporter there may be things throughout his term that bother me. So if you ask me at any point how strongly I support him my answer may shift slightly, but I will generally still support him as a republican. Leading to election with both sides fiercely pushing their policies and ideas, it's more probable that I go back to my safe starting position which is what led me to vote for him. I'd say it's very reasonable to consider mean reversion, as another statistical tool when analyzing polling data.

Trollminator wrote:

It all boils down to the underlying drivers. If I start out as a trump supporter there may be things throughout his term that bother me. So if you ask me at any point how strongly I support him my answer may shift slightly, but I will generally still support him as a republican. Leading to election with both sides fiercely pushing their policies and ideas, it's more probable that I go back to my safe starting position which is what led me to vote for him. I'd say it's very reasonable to consider mean reversion, as another statistical tool when analyzing polling data.

It boils down to the drivers, but there are multiple drivers. Obama beat McCain by a large margin not because McCain was a bad candidate or even because of Sarah Palin. He beat McCain by a large margin because the economy cratered in the last 6 months of the Bush administration.

Similarly, Trump is in deep trouble if the economy and employment picture is still in rough shape come November and that largely comes down to COVID which is unlikely to go away as an economic driver in that time period.

Trollminator wrote:

Wherever you have math, you can apply statistical concepts such as mean reversion.

Please take my advice, as someone with a PhD in math, that you should probably not repeat that line every again lol.

Anyways, you apparently can apply mean reversion (go figure) but it seems like a fundamental argument between polls having momentum versus random walks. If you accept that polls aren't random walks then mean reversion applies. Seems reasonable enough

This seems to be informative:

democrats hate police wrote:

Democrats hate police!!!!

They glorify criminals.

Trump landslide victory!!!!

Patriotic Americans reject the democrat pandering to the criminal community.

Democrats lose again!!!

News flash: Your boy is fully part of the "criminal community." Open your brain and admit it.

Supporting that POS doesn't "get back" at the liberals. It just hurts the country you no doubt claim to love so much.

Signed,

Life-Long Conservative

Monkeys typing wrote:

Similarly, Trump is in deep trouble if the economy and employment picture is still in rough shape come November and that largely comes down to COVID which is unlikely to go away as an economic driver in that time period.

I agree he's in rough shape if the economy bombs (as any president would be) but I don't think that's as much of a certainty as many seem to claim.

Monkeys typing wrote:

From the article linked by "itsbaddude_", this result is worth emphasizing:

Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to think scientists should have an active role in science policy matters. Indeed, most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (73%) hold this position, compared with 43% of Republicans and GOP leaners.

It's clearly true that much of policy relevant science is complex which is precisely why more deference should be given to those with specific expertise and why the stark difference in the major parties is so stunning. It's no small matter that Trump as the face of the Republican party contradicts his own experts virtually every day and something like 40% of the population loves him for it.

No one has elected those "scientists" and no one can vote them out. How can we hold them accountable? American people did not elect Fauci or Birx. We elected President Trump! That's why we should trust him.

Racket wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Wherever you have math, you can apply statistical concepts such as mean reversion.

Please take my advice, as someone with a PhD in math, that you should probably not repeat that line every again lol.

Anyways, you apparently can apply mean reversion (go figure) but it seems like a fundamental argument between polls having momentum versus random walks. If you accept that polls aren't random walks then mean reversion applies. Seems reasonable enough

This seems to be informative:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/psq_4021.pdf

I should have replaced the word math with "numbers/data". Sorry to offend your superior credentials.