2016 polls (RCP average, last one before the vote) had Clinton +3.2 nationwide.

Vote ended up +2.1 for Clinton nationwide.

Polls predicted the vote fairly well actually in 2016. It's the translation of polls into Electoral College results that was messy, especially in the estimate phase. Only 538 iirc grasped the fact that Trump had decent chances of winning even while losing the "national vote" by a considerable margin, most other aggregators gave HRC 99%+ chance of winning, but that mistake wasn't caused by polls being wrong, rather by aggregators being bad at their job.

thanks

I do not support Biden's student loan forgiveness , border policies , no plan to deal with the Fentanyl crisis a border issue, He wins on abortion but losses on protecting women's rights, weak on crime , no plan for the deficit , Has us in 3 conflicts and no plan to get out of them, cognitive decline not up for the job

Saying that Trump is a lock is nonsense as well as there is still 9 months to bring down interest rates and affordability.
Its all about 6-7 states

All I hear is Trump will end democracy yet its the Dems trying everything to make sure no labels is on the ticket and if ever the democratic party needed a primary its now

If no labels could get a great candidate like Mathew McConaughy or Admiral McCraven they would have a shot .

Most polling organizations had Clinton winning 90%+ of the time just before the election took place.

538.com had Clinton winning about 70% of the time. 538 looked at all state polls (done by other organizations) and averaged them out.

There was one polling group that had Trump winning in purple states and I think their name was Trafalgar. I don't know if they thought Trump would win the election but my guess is they did.

In Purple states like Florida, NC, Michigan, PA, NH, Nevada most polls had Clinton winning by 2% to 3%. By election day I think Florida had already twisted for Trump by 1%.

But the key factor in polls in 2016 is that Clinton was never predicted to win any of the close states by more than 50% of the vote. So there were many undecided voters.

In 2020 Biden had over 50% in all of the purple states basically except Florida and NC.

In both 2016 and 2020 the polls were similarly wrong in that they underpredicted Trump's %. Biden still did get over 50% in most of the purple states but won them by much closer margins than had been predicted.

My guess in 2024 is that Trump will not get more votes than predicted as before because of Roe v Wade and also that he was basically found guilty of raping a woman. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime in the US and while I don't think they will vote for Biden if they are Republicans or conservative independents, they might just not vote at all.

I also think that Biden will poll less than 50% in most purple states so it will be a toss up.

The one thing going for Biden right now is that for Registered voters Trump is ahead of Biden in all close states. But for likely voters Biden is roughly even.

What will matter also is how many close states will have Abortion rights bills on the ballot.

I keep going back and forth on whether Trump being the clear nominee this early will benefit him or do more harm than good. I feel like in 2016 he gained momentum, and that carried through to the general. Also, the media fawned over him because they knew he was ratings gold, and they're definitely doing that less now. Plus as others have said he's more of a known commodity now, although there too I'm on the fence as to whether that's a net positive or net negative.

He's being careful not to put himself into situations which could do him more harm than good, e.g., no debates. But with the spotlight squarely on him this early as the de facto nominee, plus his track record, it could work against him. Then again, his blueprint to winning has always been to get 45% of voters to adore him, even if every last one of the others abhors him. And those 45% are so entrenched it might not matter what he does, the extent of his legal entanglements, or anything else.

These things all having been said, I do think the general will ultimately hinge on whether there are third party candidates and from whom they syphon more votes, as even a 2-5% share will tilt the scales in the key states.

Initially I thought there was a language barrier. It’s giving Charlie at the white board vibes.

washoe, what impact do you think the stroud boys will have on the upcoming election?

max is 6k but you can have it moved up if you contact them

For the very few people who make less than minimum wage and who would keep their jobs with bump in MW it is a good thing, but for an overwhelming majority of the US population (90%?) the increase is a bad thing.

The problem with your theory that raising MW at the local level is a net positive is that to pay those higher rates we are 1) artificially raising the prices of every single good and service people buy AND we are 2) taking money out of the hands of the most productive people in our society and giving it to those who are less productive which is a long-term drag on economic growth.

I do agree that like most other laws MW is best left to more local governments than the federal government.

there is no language barrier, Im a us university grad.
you just dont like or get what I say and that would be your problem or deficit. the only thing there is, is a difference in intelligence.
like it or not, I beat you in every discipline.

there is no contest as it would be unfair.
it would be like muhammad ali vs joe biden in a ring,
judging by the way she sounds.

Speaking of betting there is a market for the sex of the next US president elected and female is $0.09.

I know a majority of that 9 cents is if biden throws in the towel and a woman wins the dem nomination, but surely at least one of those cents is accounting for trump transitioning on election day so he can rub it in the face of the libs that he is the first female elected president, right?

From this, you infer that rappers as a group support Trump? I don't even know what to say.

The main idea is that there is a selection effect at the local level which can't be generalized at the national level. So when Seattle increases the MW to a significantly higher number than fairly close locations, the most ambitiout people from elsewhere , although low skilled, try to land a job there. So when the "same job" is paid 15 vs 12 / hour, at close distance, you aren't in effect actually paying the same people more to do the same thing, you are paying better people more to do some things better, because most people apply for the 15$/hour , employer can choose the best among them , and the rest apply to the 12$/hour. So the cleaning lady where it pays more is a better cleaning lady (roughly, at least a bit at the margin). And the free market would have possibly reached the same outcome but with actually more friction in some cases: imagine you are the better cleaning lady, the one which in the same hours cleans more and better, how do you convince your employer in a rich city to pay you more than minimum ? it isn't automatic and you incur in higher costs in that place until you do, so perhaps you don't even try.

Meanwhile whatever job can be moved at low cost will be moved where min wages are lower (maybe a distribution center if it applies, or whatever else you can think of that has a lot of minwage jobs concentrated in a place), again reducing the negatives compared to what would happen with a blanket nationwide increase.

I am not saying that the above mechanism necessarily produces better aggregate outcomes, i am just saying that the aggregate damage which might still exist is far far lower than what it would be with nationwide increases that can easily destroy a lot of jobs and/or just increase prices for consumers.

rococo, Im just giving you an insight.
If you knew the black music and hip hop scene and you would know.
you asking these questions tells me you are not familar at all
with this scene. I tell you because I know. they might not say it publicly bc they dont want to cause problems, but they are with kanye ynd vanilla a lot. watch the last video I posted, the business insider titled "rappers like trump" thats where your trump votes come from a lot.
youre welcome..

yeah, only you have the two participants mixed up

washoe, forget about the rappers, there's like 5 of them, we need to consider the stroud boys, who are far greater in number

You sure do, buddy

You think Vanilla Ice is relevant to the contemporary rap industry, but I'm the one who is out of touch?

I dislike the stround boys riots just as much as I dislike
the blm riots. these are radical lunatics, nothing else.

Great Interview with Vanilla Ice

his views are pretty much representive for the rap industry, yes.
blacks dont fogive biden and his policies which took thousands if not millions african american fathers out of their families. they also dont like racist comments of biden like "obama is the only clean black guy "

washoe is true blue wears his heart on his sleeve. yall just haters.