Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tarcone
And you guys said the same thing in 16. All the indicators said HRC wins easily.
Take a poll in rural Missouri or Rural Georgia or......
Polls are taken in mostly left leaning areas. There is a greater concentration of people and its more easily done.
Obama lost a ton of seats in his mid terms, more than Trump. That always happens with a sitting president.
|
This argument has been dealt with on these forums in the past. It's part misleading, and part totally false. Most notable though is the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever presented to support your previous assertions.
Trump winning in '16 was a historical outlier. Only twice in modern history has someone lost the overall popular vote and won the election, the other done being the razor-thin Bush-Gore campaign in '00. Before that, it hadn't happened since 1888. The national polls were right on the money with Clinton getting 3% more of the vote. Additionally, there was a historically high level of undecideds which also played a major factor.
Credible polls are specifically crafted to match the electorate, and there is a great deal of analysis done to ensure they do. Responses are weighted in order to ensure a representative sampling. Ergo, where the poll is taken is not the important issue. Methodology is. And again, disregard polls if you want. What other evidence do you have?
Midterms - Trump's losses in 2018 are higher than the modern average, and with a good economy. Special elections went the same. Obama's results in 2010 were indeed worse, but this is a half-truth as his 2012 results were better than Trump's in '18. For example, George W. Bush's midterms results were both better than Trump's showing in '18.