New Poll shows Biden 17 points ahead of Trump in WI

Billy Horner said:
That’s already accounted for in Congress (particularly the Senate) which is designed to act as a check and balance to presidential power. The electoral college essentially bakes in the over-representation of minority interests into 2 of the 3 branches of government (all 3 if you look at what’s happened to the Supreme Court recently).
Click to expand...

That's checking and balancing a president who has already been elected, not the election of the president himself.
 
Same_as_before said:
The shocking stupid people you describe in my family alone, include; a PhD, 4 Masters, 3 BA's, three nurses, a teacher, all voted to leave. You lost your argument when you needed to insult.

There was a reply on a different thread where at least the bloke was honest, basically suggesting votes should be weighted, Berwick Hills 1 vote, a BA 1.5.... you know it makes sense.
Click to expand...

For once, could you just read what I have written, not read into it what you want it to mean. You are simultaneously arguing against me yet at the same time absolutely proving my point.

My point is that Leave voters fell prey to some very human failings.

Your counter point is therefore that people who achieve a PHD, a Masters, a BA or are in the nursing and teaching profession are somehow immune to the failings of the rest of us. For clarity, can you tell me whether the Blot family are superhuman or subhuman? I know they aren't Vulcan because Vulcans rigorously apply the critical thinking principles I'm talking about.

The problem is that you are assigning your own very narrow interpretation to the word 'stupid'. You have done it since day one, because you, with your PHD, Masters or BA, couldn't possibly be stupid, as the only definition you want me to mean is that someone is a bit thick. What is more, when someone uses the word stupid about someone, even if they do mean 'thick' it is usually not in the sense of all the time, but to a specific instance or lapse. You have chosen to interpret my use in the most uncharitable way. Is that fair of you?

Let me ask you a question about these two examples .

A friend of mine has so many letters after her name she could be a welsh railway station. Professionally she has as many qualifications as it is possible to get in her field (which is a scientific one), to the point where she is one of only a dozen people who examines others for this highest qualification.

The other day she had to make a decision on a colour of paint she needed in her front room. She had had weeks to pick one, but hadn't and the decorator was booked to start, so she just picked one. When it on the wall it she came home to find it didn't work with the new carpet and the signature wallpaper she was using on another wall. She complained to me that she had been 'stupid' because she had swatches of carpet and wallpaper and could have spent some time making sure they would all match, but instead she was lazy and trusted to luck that her choice would 'be alright'.

Another friend of mine, he is one of my favourite people in all the world, I've known him from school, is a builder. He is the hardest worker I've ever seen. He left school without any qualifications and he says that is because 'he is thick'. For a time, he was self employed, but rather than prepare his own Tax Return, he asked an accountant to do it. By the way, he did not assign 'heads' to 'ask an accountant to do it' and 'tails' to 'do it myself and save a bit of money' on a coin toss.

Which of the two is the stupid one?
 
Neither of them are stupid by the sound of it.

There's a difference between a stupid person, and someone who acts stupidly. People do stupid things, completely out of character sometimes - usually when distracted.
 
Lefty said:
For once, could you just read what I have written, not read into it what you want it to mean. You are simultaneously arguing against me yet at the same time absolutely proving my point.

My point is that Leave voters fell prey to some very human failings.

Your counter point is therefore that people who achieve a PHD, a Masters, a BA or are in the nursing and teaching profession are somehow immune to the failings of the rest of us. For clarity, can you tell me whether the Blot family are superhuman or subhuman? I know they aren't Vulcan because Vulcans rigorously apply the critical thinking principles I'm talking about.

The problem is that you are assigning your own very narrow interpretation to the word 'stupid'. You have done it since day one, because you, with your PHD, Masters or BA, couldn't possibly be stupid, as the only definition you want me to mean is that someone is a bit thick. What is more, when someone uses the word stupid about someone, even if they do mean 'thick' it is usually not in the sense of all the time, but to a specific instance or lapse. You have chosen to interpret my use in the most uncharitable way. Is that fair of you?

Let me ask you a question about these two examples .

A friend of mine has so many letters after her name she could be a welsh railway station. Professionally she has as many qualifications as it is possible to get in her field (which is a scientific one), to the point where she is one of only a dozen people who examines others for this highest qualification.

The other day she had to make a decision on a colour of paint she needed in her front room. She had had weeks to pick one, but hadn't and the decorator was booked to start, so she just picked one. When it on the wall it she came home to find it didn't work with the new carpet and the signature wallpaper she was using on another wall. She complained to me that she had been 'stupid' because she had swatches of carpet and wallpaper and could have spent some time making sure they would all match, but instead she was lazy and trusted to luck that her choice would 'be alright'.

Another friend of mine, he is one of my favourite people in all the world, I've known him from school, is a builder. He is the hardest worker I've ever seen. He left school without any qualifications and he says that is because 'he is thick'. For a time, he was self employed, but rather than prepare his own Tax Return, he asked an accountant to do it. By the way, he did not assign 'heads' to 'ask an accountant to do it' and 'tails' to 'do it myself and save a bit of money' on a coin toss.

Which of the two is the stupid one?
Click to expand...
Lefty I think we are arguing the same thing.

Funnily enough the PHD niece cannot drive 20 miles without getting lost.
 
Same_as_before said:
Lefty I think we are arguing the same thing.

Funnily enough the PHD niece cannot drive 20 miles without getting lost.
Click to expand...

We can't be arguing exactly the same thing as you disagree with me on my conclusion :unsure:

As I am sure I have done before, I refer you to Carlo M Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
  1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Brexit is surely going to be proof of his Theory, much like Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition proved Einstein's General Relativity Theory by confirming it's predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun.
 
Lefty said:
We can't be arguing exactly the same thing as you disagree with me on my conclusion :unsure:

As I am sure I have done before, I refer you to Carlo M Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
  1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Brexit is surely going to be proof of his Theory, much like Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition proved Einstein's General Relativity Theory by confirming it's predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun.
Click to expand...

What we probably need now is a Theory of Special Stupidity to complement Cipolla's General Stupidity Theory.
 
Lefty said:
We can't be arguing exactly the same thing as you disagree with me on my conclusion :unsure:

As I am sure I have done before, I refer you to Carlo M Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
  1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Brexit is surely going to be proof of his Theory, much like Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition proved Einstein's General Relativity Theory by confirming it's predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun.
Click to expand...
I could argue that the Remainers were duped by Cameron and George, but we are then in the realms of real stupidity.

My take on it is that she issues should be kept well away from a public vote, this was one, capital punishment another and abortion , where I would follow my beliefs as would most Catholics. Then you are into Sheldon's chaos theory.
 
Soutra said:
The USA is a very big place and the electoral college system is there to make sure that votes from rural farming areas count just as much as votes from prosperous, heavily populated urban areas. The electoral college evens up geography, societal differences and prosperity differences to keep everyone's vote relevant.
Click to expand...
Nope it was nothing to do with that and in fact some of those areas that are now cities were nothing but villages when the constitution was written. The electoral system was created to stop a populist uprising, because the founding fathers didn't trust the intelligence of the average person to not get hoodwinked by a populist demagogue. Sadly the electoral system was gamed and enabled that very thing they tried to avoid.
 
Same_as_before said:
The shocking stupid people you describe in my family alone, include; a PhD, 4 Masters, 3 BA's, three nurses, a teacher, all voted to leave. You lost your argument when you needed to insult.
Click to expand...
you can use your 1 family all you like, but the fact is the vast majority of university educated people voted remain, and the majority of GCSE/O Level only voted leave.
 
Redwurzel said:
I want Biden, but I do not believe he will win with a 17% difference more like 7 or 8% - there are not alot of floating voters in the USA and Trump will get almost all the people he got before. The Democrats need the previous none voters to vote.
Click to expand...
the 17% is in 1 state, not across the board, yes, he'll probably have about an 8% total vote advantage, maybe 10%
 
Soutra said:
Neither of them are stupid by the sound of it.

There's a difference between a stupid person, and someone who acts stupidly. People do stupid things, completely out of character sometimes - usually when distracted.
Click to expand...
very true Soutra, when people get distracted by emotional thoughts such as patriotism and xenophobia they can make stupid decisions.
 
BoroMart said:
The polls were not wrong last time, they were correct within the margin of error. The margin of error this time sin't enough to save Trump. He's already lost
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it. Individually, each poll was within the margin of error. However, collectively they (virtually) all gave Clinton a 5-6 point lead in key states, which demonstrates a clear polling error.
 
Billy Horner said:
Depends how you look at it. Individually, each poll was within the margin of error. However, collectively they (virtually) all gave Clinton a 5-6 point lead in key states, which demonstrates a clear polling error.
Click to expand...
She had a something like a 2.3% popular vote win, which was aligned to most of the countrywide predictions, which said a a tight 3-5% win. So yes she faired on the bottom end of all the prediction error margins, but the majority were right or very close. I distinctly remember Florida and Wisconsin were actually neck and neck and they were the two big ones that cost it, Penn was a bit of an odd one that maybe had some poor polling.

To steal a phrase, the only way Trump wins is through voter fraud.
 
BoroMart said:
She had a something like a 2.3% popular vote win, which was aligned to most of the countrywide predictions, which said a a tight 3-5% win. So yes she faired on the bottom end of all the prediction error margins, but the majority were right or very close. I distinctly remember Florida and Wisconsin were actually neck and neck and they were the two big ones that cost it, Penn was a bit of an odd one that maybe had some poor polling.

To steal a phrase, the only way Trump wins is through voter fraud.
Click to expand...

In 2016, the last 10 polls in Wisconsin each gave Clinton a 4-8 point lead. That was one of the main reasons she, mistakenly, decided not to campaign there in the closing days of the race.

https://ig.ft.com/us-elections/wisconsin-polls/

Each of those polls could claim to be within its own margin of error. Collectively they were wrong, due to sampling and weighting errors.
 
Same_as_before said:
And there was me thinking all voted are equal.
Click to expand...
they are, I didn't say they are not, very strange comment. That doesn't mean that your family votes are representative of the wider set of university educated people. Your mixing up qualification of your view with quantification of the fact that university educated people largely voted for remain. That might not sit well with you because you have an unconscious bias that you think your family have smart people and voted brexit, therefore brexit is the smart choice, but the reality is they are not representative of that social group.
 
BoroMart said:
you can use your 1 family all you like, but the fact is the vast majority of university educated people voted remain, and the majority of GCSE/O Level only voted leave.
Click to expand...

There was a distinct correlation between levels of education and voting remain, as shown in the distribution of constituencies on the graph below.
It doesn't mean there weren't exceptions to it; when you're talking about tens of thousands in each constituency there are bound to be, and few examples, or a few hundred examples, won't disprove the overall trend.
It's a fair point that intelligence is not the same as education. That said, I'd think there is a decent correlation between the two concepts, and a few examples again won't disprove this.

1604049951227.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top