With a lot of these pro-Trump polls, it was a case of "you can be right for the wrong reasons". A pollster like Ramussen, which has a long-standing, systemic pro-GOP bias, will of course look good in a year when there is a strong late movement of undecided voters or when the entire industry suffers from a new type of bias, like for example differential response rates being exacerbated by a pandemic.

Any one seriously think Trump can come back ? He may run just to collect money tho.
I hope he runs for 2024* and anyway i see no one able to beat him in primaries, he will bury the US republican party for good ^^

Most "right leaning" polling still showed either a Clinton win, or a tight race. That was the thing about 2016 vs 2020. 2020 showed a pretty tight race in the polling, with aggregates leaning one way or the other based on political motivations. But nowhere was there a "98.4% chance" one side or the other would win. In 2016, the bias was so incredibly huge that these bizarre and bogus numbers were just appearing out of thin air.

I for one was shocked by Trump's 2016 win. I had no doubt it wouldn't be the "blowout" that idiots like Pollster "predicted" in their open advocacy, but an actual Trump win? Nah man, that was amazing. Come 2020, it was up in the air. Some things like the bullshit about "Texas will flip" and "Florida is a swing state" was just nonsensical. Other things, such as Arizona going blue were definitely possible.

I think if 536 were to be honest in their prediction model, they'd rank Fox News polls and Rasmussen and other "right leaning" polls the same as any other. And instead of talking about "reliability" simply weight the polls based on viewership. So for instance, if you have say 80 million viewers of right leaning sources, and their respondents are saying 70% in favor of Trump, then you have 80 million viewers of left leaning sources, and their viewers are saying 80% Biden, the math is going to work in favor of Biden. Apply that same theory to 2016, where it's not about "source reliability" but instead based around viewership, and the Trump win becomes far less shocking.



Again, if you base it around viewership numbers as opposed to "do we like this source", I think it balances far more squarely with the actual vote.



Depends who Democrats run as their Candidate. Biden's approval has tanked, Kamala couldn't even survive a debate vs Gabbards in the primary. Also depends on his running mate.

Can he come back? Yes. Will he? He may try. Do I think he can win a Republican primary? On that, I'm not so sure. What won Trump the 2016 election was the Independent vote, not the Republican vote. I could see actual republicans voting for DeSantis over Trump easily.

Granted, I'm not a Republican, so my assessment of either party's candidates is merely an outside view.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 9 2021 08:44am

purple texas was always a dream, but the Cuban turnout for Trump in florida mixed with the unknowns of felon voting's effect had me unsure. When I saw Jorge Masvidal come out for Trump tho i figured it was going to go his way. its a fun anecdote for history tho for a person to win Florida and lose the election.

Texas would actually have been fairly close if not for the unexpected and seismic movement of hispanics towards Trump that pretty much no pollster or pundit saw coming. Many counties in the Rio Grande Valley swung 30++ points in his direction. Likewise, Harris county (Houston) was a wash because Trump's big losses in the county's upscale suburbs were offset by proportionate gains among the city's latino population.

Without this x-factor, he would still have won Texas, but by a sub-2% margin, delivering a real wakeup call to the GOP.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 9 2021 10:11am

it should be already, and yet they cheered as liberals from california and elsewhere migrated in.

Based on urbanization, tech sector growth and demographic change, I still expect Texas to become a full-blown battleground by 2030. The growth of the state's voting-age latino population will be explosive over the coming years, so the GOP needs to limit the margin among latinos to something like D+5 while simultaneously staunching the bleeding in the suburbs. Losing latinos by 15+%, losing grip in the suburbs and still winning the state won't be possible for much longer.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 9 2021 10:19am

blue texas is as gross as it is inevitable, agreed.

I don't think so. If there's a place where the GOP can get latinos to become a PVI "EVEN" demo, it's Texas.

We also don't know how long the in-migration from more liberal states like California will continue.
And last but not least, the GOP as a whole will have to do better in metropolitan areas anyway in a country in which almost all population growth takes place there.
The party will be forced to make at least some adjustments in this regard, which should help them out a lot in states like TX, AZ or GA.

Depends. If the Texas Legislature ever mans up and successfully implements a "money follows the child" school choice bill, radical shifts to the red can occur. As it stands right now, Educational institutions are notoriously terrible for teaching leftist activism. Thing is, if the annual funding for a child goes to whatever school the child attends, what you'll suddenly find is a lot of families homeschooling, using charter and private schools that line up with their world view, etc. Something like $12,000 goes to schools per child annually. Have that go to a parent (mother or father, doesn't matter), to teach their child (clearly covering costs of books, materials, etc.), the lack of need for summer daycare/babysitters, etc., and you could honestly see the revival of the single income household as well.

Granted, that's a longshot, but hey, we can dream.