LogFAQs > #946668910

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Election 2020 Statistics and Discussion
Corrik7 11/03/20 4:08:12 PM #199:	red sox 777 posted... Okay, I feel like I'm being deceived by people. Trump won independents in Florida by 4 points in 2016. Yeah, it would be darn hard for him to do better than 2016 if he was at -10 instead of +4 with 25% of the electorate. Nate Silver says that the polling on NPA is all over the place, so unless someone has a good reason to project NPAs at +10 for Biden, I'm going to have to assume that there's no real reason to expect that. If we give Biden +4 with NPAs (still 8 points better than 2016), the R turnout advantage should be large enough now already to win. Most polls had independents at +20 for biden just about. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:946668910] in Election 2... [t:78796615]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Okay, I feel like I'm being deceived by people. Trump won independents in Florida by 4 points in 2016. Yeah, it would be darn hard for him to do better than 2016 if he was at -10 instead of +4 with 25% of the electorate. Nate Silver says that the polling on NPA is all over the place, so unless someone has a good reason to project NPAs at +10 for Biden, I'm going to have to assume that there's no real reason to expect that. If we give Biden +4 with NPAs (still 8 points better than 2016), the R turnout advantage should be large enough now already to win.</quote>Most polls had independents at +20 for biden just about. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1