In 2016, Hillary's Election Day morning polls averaged 7% inflation in her support.
On the assumption that this inflation is very likely to be even worse for Quid Pro Joe, I slashed 7% support from his totals, gave 6% to Trump, and threw away the odd 1%.
I also took the undecided totals and gave those to Trump.
My baseline polls were taken from Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections, which takes an average of the 3 most recent polls in each state. It reflects the current publicly available suppression polls.
Needless to say, this method produced some surprising results. Is it too optimistic? What factors did I fail to consider? I'm eager to hear criticism of all kinds. Except the faggoty kind, obviously.
Play up trump in trump-heavy states to reduce trump turnout
Play down trump in biden-heavy and/or purple states to make Trump look like a doofus and increase Biden enthusiasm, make him appear more legitimate nationwide
the latter is what i think was employed in huge margins (as you say, on avg 7%) in 2016 for Crooked Hillary... but i could see them being more careful with it this time around
it doesn't really work that way - you have to dive deep into the poll methodology - CA for example wasn't 7% too high for HC in 2016 - you can't just give a 7% haircut to all states. PA for instance, in 2016 pollsters inaccurately weighted non-college graduates. Today, they are under sampling "did not previously vote" as likely voters. It is a very state specific thing.
Well, take Virginia, for example: I'm definitely not making any allowances for federal government workers. I'm also not accounting for a massive shift with black voters everywhere.
Methodology:
In 2016, Hillary's Election Day morning polls averaged 7% inflation in her support.
On the assumption that this inflation is very likely to be even worse for Quid Pro Joe, I slashed 7% support from his totals, gave 6% to Trump, and threw away the odd 1%.
I also took the undecided totals and gave those to Trump.
My baseline polls were taken from Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections, which takes an average of the 3 most recent polls in each state. It reflects the current publicly available suppression polls.
Needless to say, this method produced some surprising results. Is it too optimistic? What factors did I fail to consider? I'm eager to hear criticism of all kinds. Except the faggoty kind, obviously.
the thing i could see happening is that they targeted their poll manipulation this time, so your 7% might not pan out where it counts.
but i pray you're right...
Meaning they would target it AWAY from the large swing states, like Penn.?
something like that... i could see
the latter is what i think was employed in huge margins (as you say, on avg 7%) in 2016 for Crooked Hillary... but i could see them being more careful with it this time around
Other than these published polls, literally EVERYTHING points to a Trump win.
There is no way that Slow Joe outperforms Obama and Bubba, which he would if these polls were accurate.
it doesn't really work that way - you have to dive deep into the poll methodology - CA for example wasn't 7% too high for HC in 2016 - you can't just give a 7% haircut to all states. PA for instance, in 2016 pollsters inaccurately weighted non-college graduates. Today, they are under sampling "did not previously vote" as likely voters. It is a very state specific thing.
Well, take Virginia, for example: I'm definitely not making any allowances for federal government workers. I'm also not accounting for a massive shift with black voters everywhere.