Yeah maybe was overreacting a tad. Some people will care but anyone who wasn't going to vote Trump anyway? If you felt personally offended by the comment you probably decided long ago.

I actually think it may backfire. Inflation and immigration are really the two issues that would swaying undecided voters, so less time spent on that may be helpful. If Kamala is smart she can turn this into a conversation about rhetoric and temperament which is probably her strongest issue.

Boy does he wish he was still running against Biden...

So I came here to say what my prediction for president was. But before I do, I'd just like to say that Twitter is not reality. Nobody on twitter knows anything about anything and if you keep your eyes glued to twitter to be informed you are lost. Also, isn't spam against the rules?

Anyway....

Trump will win. I don't want him to win. I want to live in a democracy. But Harris stands virtually no chance of getting to 270 without taking Pennsylvania. Right now Trump is up 0.4% in Pennsylvania. That might not seem like much, but Pennsylvania polls are always wrong by 2% to 3% in Trump's favor. Biden was supposed to win his home state by 3% to 4% according to polls. Instead he barely squeaked out a win in his home state.

I'm not saying a Harris win is impossible. But I give it 90% odds that Trump will win, and this will be the end of Democracy in this country.

Peace.

This is why you see the far-right calling to repeal the 19th amendment/suggesting it is a mistake, complaining women are secretly "undermining" their husbands, and panicking about young men being a low-turnout demographic. 

Systematic polling errors have no correlation between election cycles because the methodology changes to accommodate for the systematic sampling errors of the previous cycle. The fact that R-favorable polls like Rasmussen and Trafalgar are much closer to the standard polls this cycle, hints that the sampling bias resulting from undersampling Trump supporters has likely been resolved this cycle. 

What is more likely going to be the systematic error is that pollsters seem to be throwing out what they deem as "outlier" polls in favor of ones that show a close race. 

The issue with doing that is that no single poll is very accurate in itself, but the aggregation of polls tend to be because biased sub-samples tend to balance each-other out. We're likely going to see a situation where the conservativeness (not in a political sense, in a statistical sense) of the pollsters this cycle (because no individual pollster wants their ratings reduced) will make any single pollster more accurate, but the aggregation of polls less accurate because they're likely underestimating the winning candidate, systematically. This could be Trump or Harris. Past cycles tell us nothing about where this systematic error resides, because of the bolded point at the start of this post. 

I don't think they've ever fixed polling errors. Trump has beat the polls the last two election cycles. I hope I'm wrong. But I've just lost hope for this country.

Edit: Also the below makes no sense. What are you saying?

We're likely going to see a situation where the conservativeness of the pollsters this cycle will (not?) make any single pollster more accurate, but the aggregation of polls less accurate because they're likely underestimating the winning candidate, systematically. This could be Trump or Harris. Past cycles tell us nothing about where this systematic error resides, because of the bolded point at the start of this post. 

I already explained why we should expect that they have fixed the old polling errors. They fundamentally changed the sampling and weighing methodology, and Trafalgar/Rasmussen are closer to the polls that had the Trump under-representation, this cycle. More evidence to that point is that in 2022 they overestimated Republican chances and the supposed "red wave" never happened. 

In response to your edit.

Imagine you have the following scenario. The true value that is being predicted/estimated turns out to be 51%. 

But let's say using methodology 1, you have pollsters with final predictions of: 49%, 50%, 50.5%, 48%, 52%. The error of each pollster is: -2%, -1%, -.5%, -3%, and +1% respectively. The average prediction is 49.9% (-1.1% error.) 

Now let's say using methodology 2, you have: 47%, 54%, 48%, 52%, 51% The error of each pollster is: -4%, +3%, -3%, +1%, 0% respectively. The average prediction is 50.4 (-.6% error.) 

You can see now how each pollster could be more accurate while their aggregation is less accurate?

Edit: 

To expand, the MAE (mean absolute error) for #1 is 1.5%. The MAE for #2 is 2.2%. But the error by taking the average of predictions is: -1.1% and -.6% respectively. This is a situation where each individual pollster has a closer value to the actual, but the aggregate is further off because the direction of the error matters, and can cancel out. 

Edit 2: Added a picture. 

Blue-line is the actual, purple line and dots are scenario 2, green lines and dots are scenario 1. Purple estimate is closer to blue actual, despite some purple dots being  much further from it. 

Who overestimated Republican chances? I remember Biden being up in the polls nationally in 2020.

I do understand that polls can be wrong but basically come out to have a more correct aggregate if enough polls are wrong in both directions. And vice versa.

Not a smart move from Biden. Maybe Kamala should talk more against Biden as well. Sure, same party but those who are undecided or who will only vote if something drastical happens could be more convinced to vote Kamala if she shows that she's a true alternative to both. And especially some of the easy "manipulated" who decide like a day before they vote what to vote for could love some honey around their mouth from Kamala if she says that potential Trump voters are also awesome people.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/27/23475262/midterm-elections-2022-results-red-wave-democrats