The "Shy Trump Voter" Theory

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

 

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

Joe supports the Green New Deal, at least according to his website. Joe wants to raise corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Joe is certainly more likely to shut down the country due to the COVID hoax. Joe won’t condemn ANTIFA. Joe will promote a single-payer system or at the very least, extend Obamacare. There is much more and this doesn’t even include the fact that Harris will be running the show and she is a looney lefty.

Try to keep up...plenty would change under a Biden/Harris presidency and virtually all of it would be very detrimental to our country.

Please research his 50 year track record. It’s not hard.

 

[DBA]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

Joe supports the Green New Deal, at least according to his website. Joe wants to raise corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Joe is certainly more likely to shut down the country due to the COVID hoax. Joe won’t condemn ANTIFA. Joe will promote a single-payer system or at the very least, extend Obamacare. There is much more and this doesn’t even include the fact that Harris will be running the show and she is a looney lefty.

Try to keep up...plenty would change under a Biden/Harris presidency and virtually all of it would be very detrimental to our country.

Please research his 50 year track record. It’s not hard.

So we should ignore what he is saying now and go by his track record? The man is senile and is a puppet. He will do whatever he is told. His VP pick's policies should be very telling. You have been duped, which is exactly what the far-left strategy has been all along...to fool people into thinking Biden will be a moderate instead of a left-wing looney puppet.

 

[TheParser]

Oh, yes, President Trump will lose.

That's settled. The vote-by-mail scheme may not be the principal cause, but it will be decisive to Mr. Biden's victory.

"Shy" Trump voter? More like the "terrified" Trump voter.

I am almost afraid to vote in "secret" for him, let alone tell a pollster that I plan to do so.

I am retired, but I assume that Trump supporters lie about it lest they be shunned by fellow workers or even fired.

 

[Turtlesoup]

But don't all Trumpsters on USMB declare how ALL of America agrees w/Trump and how he and the rest of them are ALL the REAL Americans?

If that's really the case, what's to be ashamed of?

Violent Libs attacking people for wearing Trump hats? violent libs burning down cities, demanding money, attacking people eating. Violent libs murdering people...

 

[BlueGin]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

Except of course his association with the Obama administration,the backing of AOC. And the outright refusal to denounce ANTIFA and BLM.

 

[MarcATL]

Violent Libs attacking people for wearing Trump hats? violent libs burning down cities, demanding money, attacking people eating. Violent libs murdering people...

Sir, do you mind post a list of the volumes of cities that has been burned down due to "violent libs?"

How about listing the tons and tons of murdered people by the said "violent libs."

Looking forward to learning about all those trajedies.

Thanks in advance.

 

[healthmyths]

First, I'm not making any predictions about the election whatsoever. I'm not saying Biden or Trump is going to win. Nor am I saying that that this theory isn't true. I just want to see if there is any empirical data to suggest that this "Shy Trump Voter" theory is statistically true.

The theory is that many Trump voters don't want to tell pollsters that they are really voting for Trump. The theory psotulates that social disapproval leads people not to be truthful that they are supporting the President.

If this were the case - that voters were telling pollsters one thing but doing the other - it should be pretty simple to see in the data. On a net basis, what that means is that Trump's actual number of votes should materially differ from what pollsters were estimating Trump's vote to be.

I looked at 13 states from the 2016 election - six that most pundits consider swing states, and seven that pundits think will not flip but could be in play. The data is from RCP.

View attachment 395223

The first column is the estimate of Trump's vote by the polling firms. The second column is Trump's actual votes. As you can see, in all but one case, Trump's vote was actually higher than what pollsters were estimating.

But that was true for the most part for Clinton too.

Why would that happen? Why would both candidate's actual vote tallies be higher than what was being shown in the polls? Because people who were undecided made their decision on election day. And they voted mostly for Trump.

But assuming that the differential between Trump's actual votes and polling numbers were all because of shy voters (they weren't), and not because people were genuinely undecided until they stepped into the polling booth, it appears that there isn't much statistical significant evidence of this theory. Perhaps except for one very notable, and important, exception.

The average between Trump's votes and polling numbers of the 13 states is 3.2%. Most state polls have a margin of error of 4% or greater, so this average is likely not statistically significant. In fact, the differences are below 4% in 10 of the 13 states.

However, it is above 4% in three critical states - IA OH and WI - all states Trump flipped, and were critical in him winning. So perhaps the Shy Voter Theory only applies to the (critically important) Midwest.

There is no evidence that people said they were voting for Clinton then voting for Trump. Or if there was, it wouldn't matter because what matters is the net differential between what the polls were telling us and what actually happened. IOW, there may have been pollsters who were "Shy Hillary Voters," and saying they were voting for Trump and actually voting for Clinton. But that's unlikely. Thus, most "Shy Trump Voters" were probably saying they were undecided or not saying anything.

The problem this time around for Trump is that there are fewer people who are undecided. These numbers come from both RCP and 538. Those who are saying they are undecided is down by about a third from last election.

View attachment 395228

This is especially a problem for Trump because he is further behind Biden than he was behind Clinton. In all 13 states, Biden is out-polling Clinton.

View attachment 395234

And if you look at the gap between the lead Biden has and the number of undecideds/other, i.e. the ground Trump has to make up on Biden, it looks pretty daunting.

View attachment 395235

The higher the number, the better it is for Trump. Anything with a zero or a negative number means there is no runway for Trump to catch up based on current polling. In PA, it's virtually zero. If this is true, then Biden would flip MI PA and WI and win the election.

Now does this mean Biden is certainly going to win? No, of course not. Of course Trump can win. Something may happen between now and the election. Polls might be off. The pandemic may affect voting. Maybe Biden really does have Alzheimer's and he shows it. Who knows?

But this is a different election than 2016, and it appears Trump has a higher hill to climb.

Do Polls Still Work If People Don’t Answer Their Phones?
“The jury’s out” on whether historically low response rates could make surveys less accurate.
Pollsters face a growing obstacle in gathering Americans’ opinions: getting people to answer their calls. The proportion of people called who answer the survey — in pollster jargon, the “response rate” — has dropped dramatically over the last few decades as Americans have changed how they interact with the world.
Even worse for pollsters, landline telephones, which are quicker and cheaper to call, have been steadily disappearing over the last 20 years. Almost half of the American population is now solely reliant on mobile phones.
ll of these factors have resulted in less efficient polling than in the past.
A 2012 report from Pew Research, one of the nation’s most reputable pollsters, showed a 9 percent response rate, compared to nearly 40 percent in the late 1990s.
The vast majority of pollsters don’t even report their response rates.

Do Polls Still Work If People Don't Answer Their Phones?

"The jury's out" on whether historically low response rates could make surveys less accurate.

www.huffpost.com

NOW with:
We’re making this change to ensure our survey samples properly represent the now roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults whose only phone is a cellphone.
Nine-in-ten Americans have a cellphone, and the share of adults who are cellphone-only has steadily increased since 2004, the year the government began tracking the size of this group. To keep pace with the public’s changing habits and lifestyle, we have increased the percentage of respondents interviewed by cellphone nearly every year since 2009.

Pew Research Center will call 75% cellphones for surveys in 2016

We’re making this change to ensure our survey samples properly represent the now roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults who only have a cellphone.

www.pewresearch.org

SO MY opinion is this:
My personal response is
a) 100% of my phone activity is on my cell phone.
b) I don't answer ANY call from a number or party I don't recognize.
And I'm not alone!
90% of Customers Screen Phone Calls From Unknown Numbers
ZipWhip conducted a test surveying 520 consumers on their communication preferences with brands,
and found that a staggering 87% of participant reported rejecting or ignoring phone calls recently from an unknown number.

[New Research] 90% of Customers Screen Phone Calls From Unknown Numbers

Is cold calling dead? Recent research points to yes. A new study by ZipWhip shows that over 90% of customers ignore phone calls. So, what's next?

www.impactbnd.com

 

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

Except of course his association with the Obama administration,the backing of AOC. And the outright refusal to denounce ANTIFA and BLM.

I suppose you think Ears is a socialist Marxist too. Good god woman, wake up.

 

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

Joe supports the Green New Deal, at least according to his website. Joe wants to raise corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Joe is certainly more likely to shut down the country due to the COVID hoax. Joe won’t condemn ANTIFA. Joe will promote a single-payer system or at the very least, extend Obamacare. There is much more and this doesn’t even include the fact that Harris will be running the show and she is a looney lefty.

Try to keep up...plenty would change under a Biden/Harris presidency and virtually all of it would be very detrimental to our country.

Please research his 50 year track record. It’s not hard.

So we should ignore what he is saying now and go by his track record? The man is senile and is a puppet. He will do whatever he is told. His VP pick's policies should be very telling. You have been duped, which is exactly what the far-left strategy has been all along...to fool people into thinking Biden will be a moderate instead of a left-wing looney puppet.

Yeah. LMFAO.....That’s right. Go by what he does not what he says. If this logic is new to you, you need to take a step back and think.

Next you’re going to tell me politicians never lie.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

Who Biden?

 

[BlueGin]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

Except of course his association with the Obama administration,the backing of AOC. And the outright refusal to denounce ANTIFA and BLM.

I suppose you think Ears is a socialist Marxist too. Good god woman, wake up.

He backs BLM both while president and now via Netflix who openly endorsed them . So...yes.

 

[kaz]

First, I'm not making any predictions about the election whatsoever. I'm not saying Biden or Trump is going to win. Nor am I saying that that this theory isn't true. I just want to see if there is any empirical data to suggest that this "Shy Trump Voter" theory is statistically true.

The theory is that many Trump voters don't want to tell pollsters that they are really voting for Trump. The theory psotulates that social disapproval leads people not to be truthful that they are supporting the President.

If this were the case - that voters were telling pollsters one thing but doing the other - it should be pretty simple to see in the data. On a net basis, what that means is that Trump's actual number of votes should materially differ from what pollsters were estimating Trump's vote to be.

I looked at 13 states from the 2016 election - six that most pundits consider swing states, and seven that pundits think will not flip but could be in play. The data is from RCP.

View attachment 395223

The first column is the estimate of Trump's vote by the polling firms. The second column is Trump's actual votes. As you can see, in all but one case, Trump's vote was actually higher than what pollsters were estimating.

But that was true for the most part for Clinton too.

Why would that happen? Why would both candidate's actual vote tallies be higher than what was being shown in the polls? Because people who were undecided made their decision on election day. And they voted mostly for Trump.

But assuming that the differential between Trump's actual votes and polling numbers were all because of shy voters (they weren't), and not because people were genuinely undecided until they stepped into the polling booth, it appears that there isn't much statistical significant evidence of this theory. Perhaps except for one very notable, and important, exception.

The average between Trump's votes and polling numbers of the 13 states is 3.2%. Most state polls have a margin of error of 4% or greater, so this average is likely not statistically significant. In fact, the differences are below 4% in 10 of the 13 states.

However, it is above 4% in three critical states - IA OH and WI - all states Trump flipped, and were critical in him winning. So perhaps the Shy Voter Theory only applies to the (critically important) Midwest.

There is no evidence that people said they were voting for Clinton then voting for Trump. Or if there was, it wouldn't matter because what matters is the net differential between what the polls were telling us and what actually happened. IOW, there may have been pollsters who were "Shy Hillary Voters," and saying they were voting for Trump and actually voting for Clinton. But that's unlikely. Thus, most "Shy Trump Voters" were probably saying they were undecided or not saying anything.

The problem this time around for Trump is that there are fewer people who are undecided. These numbers come from both RCP and 538. Those who are saying they are undecided is down by about a third from last election.

View attachment 395228

This is especially a problem for Trump because he is further behind Biden than he was behind Clinton. In all 13 states, Biden is out-polling Clinton.

View attachment 395234

And if you look at the gap between the lead Biden has and the number of undecideds/other, i.e. the ground Trump has to make up on Biden, it looks pretty daunting.

View attachment 395235

The higher the number, the better it is for Trump. Anything with a zero or a negative number means there is no runway for Trump to catch up based on current polling. In PA, it's virtually zero. If this is true, then Biden would flip MI PA and WI and win the election.

Now does this mean Biden is certainly going to win? No, of course not. Of course Trump can win. Something may happen between now and the election. Polls might be off. The pandemic may affect voting. Maybe Biden really does have Alzheimer's and he shows it. Who knows?

But this is a different election than 2016, and it appears Trump has a higher hill to climb.

I see two things wrong with your analysis. I don't dispute particularly the analysis of "shy" voters, which exist.

1) It's not just fear of telling pollsters and the media, but there is a strong loathing for pollsters and the media, which has gotten a lot stronger the last four years. Many of us (yes, me included) wouldn't confirm to a pollster that I like ice cream. I live in Florida like you, and I've not once answered a poll in 2016 when I voted for Gary Johnson or this year when I'm voting for Trump.

2) It's a lot harder to take a poll because only very few people have land lines anymore. I was getting calls on my mobile from pollsters all the time in 2016. I changed my number because of all the junk calls I was getting and I stopped giving my mobile number to anyone other than friends and family. No one has found the new number who was harassing me with junk calls. And no pollsters this year have found me. I put my contact number for all businesses on an OOMA phone for $5 a months and I only check messages roughly once a month to be sure I don't miss anything.

Those factors are not counted for in your analysis

 

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

His track record doesn’t have anything of note period. Other than creating tax codes that help the rich and legislation that incarcerated minorities.

That’s absurd. Joe’s a con like you.

He’s already nothing will change when gets elected. He’s said several times he won’t include any policies promoted by Bernie. His whole career in the senate he’s wanted to cut social programs , while expanding the war budget.

Incorrect. He openly lied about far left policies listed on his own web page th he supports..

Yet his 50 year history reveals nothing even vaguely socialist or Marxist. Please WTFU!

Except of course his association with the Obama administration,the backing of AOC. And the outright refusal to denounce ANTIFA and BLM.

I suppose you think Ears is a socialist Marxist too. Good god woman, wake up.

He backs BLM both while president and now via Netflix who openly endorsed them . So...yes.

If you can’t see through that, you’re blind.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

You has a 47 year record of being anything the democratic party wants him to be.

 

[gipper]

Trump’s an asshole. If I were voting for him I’d be shy to.

Biden’s an inept, Socialists/Marxists moron, but then again, so are those that support him. They aren’t even smart enough to figure out just how dumb it makes them look so they certainly aren’t shy.

Just like a kooky lib who thinks Don is controlled by Putin, cons think Joe is a socialist/Marxist. LMFAO. Joe has a 50 year track record that doesn’t include a smidgen of socialism or Marxism.

DOPE!

You has a 47 year record of being anything the democratic party wants him to be.

I suppose you could say that, since the d party and r party are essentially the same.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

First, I'm not making any predictions about the election whatsoever. I'm not saying Biden or Trump is going to win. Nor am I saying that that this theory isn't true. I just want to see if there is any empirical data to suggest that this "Shy Trump Voter" theory is statistically true.

The theory is that many Trump voters don't want to tell pollsters that they are really voting for Trump. The theory psotulates that social disapproval leads people not to be truthful that they are supporting the President.

If this were the case - that voters were telling pollsters one thing but doing the other - it should be pretty simple to see in the data. On a net basis, what that means is that Trump's actual number of votes should materially differ from what pollsters were estimating Trump's vote to be.

I looked at 13 states from the 2016 election - six that most pundits consider swing states, and seven that pundits think will not flip but could be in play. The data is from RCP.

View attachment 395223

The first column is the estimate of Trump's vote by the polling firms. The second column is Trump's actual votes. As you can see, in all but one case, Trump's vote was actually higher than what pollsters were estimating.

But that was true for the most part for Clinton too.

Why would that happen? Why would both candidate's actual vote tallies be higher than what was being shown in the polls? Because people who were undecided made their decision on election day. And they voted mostly for Trump.

But assuming that the differential between Trump's actual votes and polling numbers were all because of shy voters (they weren't), and not because people were genuinely undecided until they stepped into the polling booth, it appears that there isn't much statistical significant evidence of this theory. Perhaps except for one very notable, and important, exception.

The average between Trump's votes and polling numbers of the 13 states is 3.2%. Most state polls have a margin of error of 4% or greater, so this average is likely not statistically significant. In fact, the differences are below 4% in 10 of the 13 states.

However, it is above 4% in three critical states - IA OH and WI - all states Trump flipped, and were critical in him winning. So perhaps the Shy Voter Theory only applies to the (critically important) Midwest.

There is no evidence that people said they were voting for Clinton then voting for Trump. Or if there was, it wouldn't matter because what matters is the net differential between what the polls were telling us and what actually happened. IOW, there may have been pollsters who were "Shy Hillary Voters," and saying they were voting for Trump and actually voting for Clinton. But that's unlikely. Thus, most "Shy Trump Voters" were probably saying they were undecided or not saying anything.

The problem this time around for Trump is that there are fewer people who are undecided. These numbers come from both RCP and 538. Those who are saying they are undecided is down by about a third from last election.

View attachment 395228

This is especially a problem for Trump because he is further behind Biden than he was behind Clinton. In all 13 states, Biden is out-polling Clinton.

View attachment 395234

And if you look at the gap between the lead Biden has and the number of undecideds/other, i.e. the ground Trump has to make up on Biden, it looks pretty daunting.

View attachment 395235

The higher the number, the better it is for Trump. Anything with a zero or a negative number means there is no runway for Trump to catch up based on current polling. In PA, it's virtually zero. If this is true, then Biden would flip MI PA and WI and win the election.

Now does this mean Biden is certainly going to win? No, of course not. Of course Trump can win. Something may happen between now and the election. Polls might be off. The pandemic may affect voting. Maybe Biden really does have Alzheimer's and he shows it. Who knows?

But this is a different election than 2016, and it appears Trump has a higher hill to climb.

Does this strike ANYONE as odd that not one single poll gave too much to Trump? Every motherfucking one of those polls turned out to be too fucking low.

What should we take away from this?

 

[Natural Citizen]

As of 9/13/2020, 40% of the electorate affailiates with neither party representing the duopoly. 29% of the electorate are aligned with the Republican side of the duopoly. 30% of the electorate align with the democrat side of the duopoly.

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

 

[gipper]

As of 9/13/2020, 40% of the electorate affailiates with neither party representing the duopoly. 29% of the electorate are aligned with the Republican side of the duopoly. 30% of the electorate align with the democrat side of the duopoly.

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

Clearly the smart people know voting is a waste of time.

I have a dream that one day no American will vote on Election Day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, the 'shy' vote is very real.

Poll: 56% Americans Say They Are Better Off Now Under Trump Than Four Years Ago Under Obama-Biden

A solid majority of 56 percent of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago, a new Gallup survey reveals.

www.breitbart.com

If 56% believe the economy is better than it was 4 years ago, why would people be wanting to change that?

The polls are F*cked up by wishful thinking by Democrats who use Luntz style polls to make them feel better.