SHOULD Biden run for a 2nd term? (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

 

[bdb13]

Yeah, if the election were this week, I'd be seriously worried. But let's see where we are in 6 months.

I agree.. Biden has to have the economy hold together though.. if the bottom falls out then it becomes a four alarm fire.

 

[Virgil]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

Not sure about the party, but I believe the nation can be well served with Biden serving from 2025 on. He doesn't stay up late into the night Tweeting nasty, hateful, and disparaging comments on enemies - real or imagined. President Biden is known to stay up wondering how best to do what is right for America.

The second link news.yahoo, addresses support of President Biden seeking a second term. It does not address support for him after he announced (two and one half months later), a run for a second term.

 

[MT15]

I read today that Obama was considered dead in the water in November also. Adding in the way polls have lost credibility since Obama was president, and I’m not as worried as people think we should be worried. Well, I have my moments, but I try to be on an even keel. lol.

 

[Virgil]

I read today that Obama was considered dead in the water in November also. Adding in the way polls have lost credibility since Obama was president, and I’m not as worried as people think we should be worried. Well, I have my moments, but I try to be on an even keel. lol.

Polls have been misunderstood. But credibility? With whom? Campaigns and most everyone else of importance pays to have polls conducted, and make serious decisions based partly on the polls.

 

[Dragon]

My husband worked for the official danish statistical center which is a government office and as he said - he could get whatever result a customer wanted just by adjusting the way the questions were framed and the target group who were asked. In todays media world polls are used not only to evaluate the leaning of people but also to influence those in doubt.

 

[MT15]

Polls have been misunderstood. But credibility? With whom? Campaigns and most everyone else of importance pays to have polls conducted, and make serious decisions based partly on the polls.

With almost everyone who is paying attention, lol. Polls have always been subject to manipulation, but since the 2016 election I think everyone should take even polls that attempt to play it straight with a huge amount of skepticism. After all, they haven’t performed well in the interim since 2016 either. They missed numerous calls since 2016. Numerous referendums in states, mid-terms, etc.

Polling has a huge issue with getting representative samples now. They cannot easily sample a physical area due to the absence of land lines. Cell phones are mobile, and people do not generally answer a call from a number they don’t recognize anyway. I’m not aware that they have solved this issue. When your samples are not representative, your poll is garbage.

I cannot help it if people are over-valuing polls. There really isn’t a great alternative for forecasting that I’m aware of. I’m looking at results in various state and local elections since 2016. The polls aren’t doing a great job at reading the results ahead of time, IMO.

 

[MT15]

Here’s a good thread on the polls, I feel pretty much like this guy:

 

[Virgil]

My husband worked for the official danish statistical center which is a government office and as he said - he could get whatever result a customer wanted just by adjusting the way the questions were framed and the target group who were asked. In todays media world polls are used not only to evaluate the leaning of people but also to influence those in doubt.

I guess it all depends on what people want from a poll. If one wants to know who is most likely to support a candidate, it would be counterproductive to try and influence those being polled. That could play in later. But people paying are usually seeking information they can plan things with. Polls, focus groups, and other things used in research are usually misunderstood, even by some who know something about it all.

 

[Virgil]

Here’s a good thread on the polls, I feel pretty much like this guy:

He is misrepresenting things.

 

[Virgil]

With almost everyone who is paying attention, lol. Polls have always been subject to manipulation, but since the 2016 election I think everyone should take even polls that attempt to play it straight with a huge amount of skepticism. After all, they haven’t performed well in the interim since 2016 either. They missed numerous calls since 2016. Numerous referendums in states, mid-terms, etc.

Polling has a huge issue with getting representative samples now. They cannot easily sample a physical area due to the absence of land lines. Cell phones are mobile, and people do not generally answer a call from a number they don’t recognize anyway. I’m not aware that they have solved this issue. When your samples are not representative, your poll is garbage.

I cannot help it if people are over-valuing polls. There really isn’t a great alternative for forecasting that I’m aware of. I’m looking at results in various state and local elections since 2016. The polls aren’t doing a great job at reading the results ahead of time, IMO.

Polling firms do not manipulate the polls.

Your argument(s): Depends on what sort of polls you're speaking about. Look at PEW. You do know that for a seriously long time they have not done research into the horse race? That being who's ahead at any given point in time during the campaign season? Yep. PEW. You also must know most people arguing over polls, or those arguing with those who analyze polls are in the group you identify with?

I remember people attacking Nate Silver and 538 being wrong. These people were arguing over the polls. 538 never did polling. Still doesn't. They analyze polls.

 

[Virgil]

Here’s a good thread on the polls, I feel pretty much like this guy:

It's not a thread. It's a link to Twitter.

 

[MT15]

He is misrepresenting things.

Okay? Care to say how?

 

[MT15]

Polling firms do not manipulate the polls.

Your argument(s): Depends on what sort of polls you're speaking about. Look at PEW. You do know that for a seriously long time they have not done research into the horse race? That being who's ahead at any given point in time during the campaign season? Yep. PEW. You also must know most people arguing over polls, or those arguing with those who analyze polls are in the group you identify with?

I remember people attacking Nate Silver and 538 being wrong. These people were arguing over the polls. 538 never did polling. Still doesn't. They analyze polls.

You seem to think you know a lot about me. Why would that be?

 

[Virgil]

You seem to think you know a lot about me. Why would that be?

Really?

I'm not sure where this comes from. Are you paranoid or imagining a discussion here that I'm not actually apart of?

 

[Virgil]

Okay? Care to say how?

Start with this poser's words:

"I know the reasons not to take polls about the 2024 elections too seriously. I repeat them to myself like a catechism. The election is too far away. Polls this far out are often wrong. So are polls close to the election. Dems have been outperforming polls since '18."

What is he talking about? Does he imply the people paying for the polls, the people conducting the polls, and anyone paying attention to the polls are all unaware of his supposed insights?

 

[MT15]

Start with this poser's words:

"I know the reasons not to take polls about the 2024 elections too seriously. I repeat them to myself like a catechism. The election is too far away. Polls this far out are often wrong. So are polls close to the election. Dems have been outperforming polls since '18."

What is he talking about? Does he imply the people paying for the polls, the people conducting the polls, and anyone paying attention to the polls are all unaware of his supposed insights?

So now it’s your turn to read something into this that isn’t there. He is sharing how he reassures himself that the polls right now don’t really mean much. He is correct in his statement that Dems have been outperforming polls since 2018. Which is a nice way of saying the polls have been statistically significantly off since 2018. And we all know how wrong they were about the 2016 presidential race.

I’m curious - why do you call him a poser? Did you read the rest of the Twitter thread?

 

[MT15]

Really?

I'm not sure where this comes from. Are you paranoid or imagining a discussion here that I'm not actually apart of?

Nice - do you always assign a diagnosis like this the first time you interact with someone?

In your post below: first - I am not sure what your point is because I cannot make sense out of your bolded part. And you seem to say you have knowledge of a group that I identify with. I am just seeing your posts today. If you want to know about my beliefs, just ask, I will be happy to share. But you can imagine my amusement at you telling me you know what group I identify with and then not bothering to even ask if you are correct or identify the group to which you have assigned me.

Look at PEW. You do know that for a seriously long time they have not done research into the horse race? That being who's ahead at any given point in time during the campaign season? Yep. PEW. You also must know most people arguing over polls, or those arguing with those who analyze polls are in the group you identify with?

 

[Virgil]

Nice - do you always assign a diagnosis like this the first time you interact with someone?

When a stranger opens up with "You seem to think you know a lot about me. Why would that be?" It makes perfect sense.