SPEED senile Joe gets AL Bore's endorement...WTF does Ol'Joe say to him?? Please decipher for us!!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We’ve Got Some Early Trump vs. Biden Swing State Polling

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...state-polling/

As we've both discussed, it's way early to be putting stock in these polls, but in this article I got rather skeptical of the reporting or accuracy when the first swing state North Carolina listed Biden at 47%, Trump at 48%, but gave D +1.0.

Not sure how they got there except for wishful statistical errors in calculations. How many more were there?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

As we've both discussed, it's way early to be putting stock in these polls, but in this article I got rather skeptical of the reporting or accuracy when the first swing state North Carolina listed Biden at 47%, Trump at 48%, but gave D +1.0.

Not sure how they got there except for wishful statistical errors in calculations. How many more were there?

Since you are one of the more common-sense guys on this forum I have a question for you (or anyone else who would like to weigh in):

Trump continues to make comments similar to this:

"The United States Treasury has taken in MANY billions of dollars from the Tariffs we are charging China and other countries that have not treated us fairly," Trump tweeted.


Last week during the coronavirus updates he at least twice got on his soap box and made the same claim that the U.S. has taken in billions of dollars from China due to the tariffs.

It's been a while since I took an economic course but here is my understanding of how the tariffs work. If Trump puts a 25% tariff on certain goods made in China companies in the U.S. that want to sell those goods purchase them and pay the additional taxes imposed by the tariffs. And usually those increased costs paid by the importers are passed on to consumers.

From the same article as the quote above:

It is true that the Treasury Department collected $6.2 billion in tariff revenue in October, double the amount that was generated during the same month in 2017.

But Trump's celebration is misguided because US importers and American consumers are the ones effectively paying for the tariffs.

Would you please explain this to me?

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Since you are one of the more common-sense guys on this forum I have a question for you (or anyone else who would like to weigh in):

Trump continues to make comments similar to this:

"The United States Treasury has taken in MANY billions of dollars from the Tariffs we are charging China and other countries that have not treated us fairly," Trump tweeted.


Last week during the coronavirus updates he at least twice got on his soap box and made the same claim that the U.S. has taken in billions of dollars from China due to the tariffs.

It's been a while since I took an economic course but here is my understanding of how the tariffs work. If Trump puts a 25% tariff on certain goods made in China companies in the U.S. that want to sell those goods purchase them and pay the additional taxes imposed by the tariffs. And usually those increased costs paid by the importers are passed on to consumers.

From the same article as the quote above:

It is true that the Treasury Department collected $6.2 billion in tariff revenue in October, double the amount that was generated during the same month in 2017.

But Trump's celebration is misguided because US importers and American consumers are the ones effectively paying for the tariffs.

Would you please explain this to me?

I don't quite understand what that has to do with the 5-3-8 piece that apparently has errors in it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

As we've both discussed, it's way early to be putting stock in these polls, but in this article I got rather skeptical of the reporting or accuracy when the first swing state North Carolina listed Biden at 47%, Trump at 48%, but gave D +1.0.

Not sure how they got there except for wishful statistical errors in calculations. How many more were there?

I wouldn't discount everything in the article based on 1 possible incorrect number.

Here is RealClearPolitics summary of NC polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...hCarolina.html

I agree with you on polls 6 months before election but I also say Trump follows these polls very closely and they impact his reelection strategy to quite a degree.

What I learned in the 2016 polls is to focus on the swing from one poll to the next, especially when done by the same polling company. In the RCP polls, 3 have been done in NC recently, The first had Trump +7, then Biden +1 and then Biden +5. Meaningful? I don't know but I'd rather seen things trending upwards than downwards.

There was an article in the Washington Post today (yes, I know the source is debatable) which I am not able to access but the title is "Trump is angry about his poll numbers. And he has very good reason to be."

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I don't quite understand what that has to do with the 5-3-8 piece that apparently has errors in it.

I addressed that in a separate post. An "error" yes. "Errors" probably not.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I wouldn't discount everything in the article based on 1 possible incorrect number.

Here is RealClearPolitics summary of NC polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...hCarolina.html

I agree with you on polls 6 months before election but I also say Trump follows these polls very closely and they impact his reelection strategy to quite a degree.

What I learned in the 2016 polls is to focus on the swing from one poll to the next, especially when done by the same polling company. In the RCP polls, 3 have been done in NC recently, The first had Trump +7, then Biden +1 and then Biden +5. Meaningful? I don't know but I'd rather seen things trending upwards than downwards.

There was an article in the Washington Post today (yes, I know the source is debatable) which I am not able to access but the title is "Trump is angry about his poll numbers. And he has very good reason to be."

Of course any politician is going to track polls and react to them with the plan to make them meaningless by the election if they are not in their favor, or increase them if they are in their favor. Trump did a very good job of that with Hillary in 2016. I don't see why I should believe he won't attempt the same now. Your own Trump +7, Biden +1, Biden +5 is a perfect example of how meaningless any single poll or trend is at this point in any predictive manner.

At this point in 2016, Trump was only just securing the nomination and Hillary was still a month or more away. Then Hillary led by fairly wide margins until October as voters actually got serious about the election and even largely led by the margin of error on election day.

Based on what I'm seeing with waning enthusiasm of the Dems for Biden for 2020, I'm thinking we will be in for a close election but am not discounting Trump in the least to pull it off again.

I saw somewhere, I'll have to find it again that of Democrat voters supporting Biden right now only something like 25% are very enthusiastic. Not good coming out of the primaries.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Of course any politician is going to track polls and react to them with the plan to make them meaningless by the election if they are not in their favor, or increase them if they are in their favor. Trump did a very good job of that with Hillary in 2016. I don't see why I should believe he won't attempt the same now. Your own Trump +7, Biden +1, Biden +5 is a perfect example of how meaningless any single poll or trend is at this point in any predictive manner.

At this point in 2016, Trump was only just securing the nomination and Hillary was still a month or more away. Then Hillary led by fairly wide margins until October as voters actually got serious about the election and even largely led by the margin of error on election day.

Based on what I'm seeing with waning enthusiasm of the Dems for Biden for 2020, I'm thinking we will be in for a close election but am not discounting Trump in the least to pull it off again.

I saw somewhere, I'll have to find it again that of Democrat voters supporting Biden right now only something like 25% are very enthusiastic. Not good coming out of the primaries.

I too saw the poll asking about the level of enthusiasm towards Trump and Biden. Trump's level was about double that of Biden. That has never been an issue. In 2016 Clinton had a 36% enthusiasm rate just before the election. It is difficult to raise your level of enthusiasm when you are stuck in your house. And even with the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, there is no indications it is hurting him to the extreme, or even slightly.

Since you've been following my posts you know I am not discounting Trump at all as to his ability to win again in November. Biden must win 3 states Clinton lost in 2016, or win Florida and one other. Not easy. Trump has a solid cash lead at the current time and is already using it in battleground states.

The difference between 2016 and 2020 are many but in my opinion the main difference is Trump now has a track record on which he has to run and many view his track record since January 2017 to be less than "great", a word Trump loves to use. 3rd quarter economic indicators (GDP, consumer confidence, unemployment rate, industrial production) will be released just prior to election day. If they show an economic recovery is underway after what will be a disastrous 2nd quarter, Trump will be helped immensely. If not, many may hold him accountable.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I too saw the poll asking about the level of enthusiasm towards Trump and Biden. Trump's level was about double that of Biden. That has never been an issue. In 2016 Clinton had a 36% enthusiasm rate just before the election. It is difficult to raise your level of enthusiasm when you are stuck in your house. And even with the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, there is no indications it is hurting him to the extreme, or even slightly.

Since you've been following my posts you know I am not discounting Trump at all as to his ability to win again in November. Biden must win 3 states Clinton lost in 2016, or win Florida and one other. Not easy. Trump has a solid cash lead at the current time and is already using it in battleground states.

The difference between 2016 and 2020 are many but in my opinion the main difference is Trump now has a track record on which he has to run and many view his track record since January 2017 to be less than "great", a word Trump loves to use. 3rd quarter economic indicators (GDP, consumer confidence, unemployment rate, industrial production) will be released just prior to election day. If they show an economic recovery is underway after what will be a disastrous 2nd quarter, Trump will be helped immensely. If not, many may hold him accountable.

I agree with much of what you say, especially the state of the economy come election time. That is going to be the key issue discussed.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

...Would you please explain this to me?

Did you pay 25% for those items in the store?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

...The difference between 2016 and 2020 are many but in my opinion the main difference is Trump now has a track record on which he has to run ...

I recall Old Sleepy Joe having a 40 year track record to run on. Gonna be a lot of tapes to play back. The Larry King Live call in show comes to mind.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Did you pay 25% for those items in the store?

It is a "hidden" tax. No one knows unless they know the price of the good before the tariff tax took affect and after it took affect. It is estimated that the tariffs on goods coming into this country from China cost the average family of 4 between $750 and $1000 a year. And based on the following article, that estimate could be low.

Trump Tariffs Will Soon Cost U.S. Families Thousands of Dollars A Year

The ever-escalating tariffs on Chinese goods are producing increased costs for American consumers. “On an annual basis, when adding the tariffs in effect and the tariffs set to go into effect by the end of 2019, the costs of the tariffs to consumers will be $259.2 billion. That is, the tariffs will cost the average household $2,031 per year, and will be recurring so long as the tariffs stay in effect,” according to a new National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#51e2fc255b4b

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I recall Old Sleepy Joe having a 40 year track record to run on. Gonna be a lot of tapes to play back. The Larry King Live call in show comes to mind.

The track record of Senators and Governors and House members rarely come into play in presidential elections. Maybe some votes on major issues. Stick with the lack of enthusiasm for Biden and you've got a better argument.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I wouldn't discount everything in the article based on 1 possible incorrect number.

Here is RealClearPolitics summary of NC polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...hCarolina.html

I agree with you on polls 6 months before election but I also say Trump follows these polls very closely and they impact his reelection strategy to quite a degree.

What I learned in the 2016 polls is to focus on the swing from one poll to the next, especially when done by the same polling company. In the RCP polls, 3 have been done in NC recently, The first had Trump +7, then Biden +1 and then Biden +5. Meaningful? I don't know but I'd rather seen things trending upwards than downwards.

There was an article in the Washington Post today (yes, I know the source is debatable) which I am not able to access but the title is "Trump is angry about his poll numbers. And he has very good reason to be."

+1

Good post SpeedRacer. It's better to be in front of the incumbent instead of behind. Biden has an excellent chance to get to 270 electoral college votes.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

+1

Good post SpeedRacer. It's better to be in front of the incumbent instead of behind. Biden has an excellent chance to get to 270 electoral college votes.

Of course it's better to be in front than behind.

But it's way to early to determine Biden's chances at electoral votes at this point.

Hillary had an excellent chance at 270 right up to and including election day, but Trump proved the stronger candidate.

[Jacuzzme]

3rd quarter economic indicators (GDP, consumer confidence, unemployment rate, industrial production) will be released just prior to election day. If they show an economic recovery is underway after what will be a disastrous 2nd quarter, Trump will be helped immensely. If not, many may hold him accountable.

Precisely the reason why democrats want to stretch out the Corona farce as long as possible.