US Presidential Election 2020

Brian?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I wouldn't be worried either way. I don't really rate that website

Why don't you rate it? The model has been proven to be pretty accurate repeatedly.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Final warning. Drop the "cognitive issues" line. That applies to all candidates.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The thing is , it won't stand , they know it won't stand , but that's not the point.

Like every other legal tactic by Trump it's not about winning in court - He almost never ever does.

It's about delaying things so much that the other side gives up , or in the this case , the case gets delayed out to beyond the Election.

Barr is absolutely complicit is using the DOJ to facilitate this and he should be held accountable

Interesting analysis here in Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/e-jean-carroll-trump-doj-response.html


Basically, the DOJ is stating Trump's actions in the past, are immune from lawsuit now, because he's President. Cool, eh? President Biden, should that come to pass, can't be sued for anything done previously as they would be 'Presidential Acts' by the curious interpretation the DOJ is pulling.

And this other tidbit is great from that article: "At long last, Trump’s defenders are formally acknowledging that the sexual predator on the Access Hollywood tape is who the president really is"


Definitely worth the read. And, I agree this is all about delay delay delay. I expect that if the case lingers into 2021 (likely) and the #IMPOTUS is mercifully no longer the President, the lawsuits will fly fast and thick.

Water John

Biden comes out strongly and supports Irl and Withdrawal Agreement.

MadYaker

Brian? wrote: »

Why don't you rate it? The model has been proven to be pretty accurate repeatedly.

It’s because it’s not telling him the things he wants to hear.

Brussels Sprout

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1303896652965584896


Those Woodward tape quotes are pretty bad. I'm not naive enough to think it's going to affect the vast majority of Trump voters but it doesn't have it. It just needs to sway a small % of undecided in a few key states.

duploelabs

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1303896652965584896


Those Woodward tape quotes are pretty bad. I'm not naive enough to think it's going to affect the vast majority of Trump voters but it doesn't have it. It just needs to sway a small % of undecided in a few key states.

Don't forget the caravan coming up to the border that we supposedly had for the house and senate elections two years ago

everlast75

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1303896652965584896


Those Woodward tape quotes are pretty bad. I'm not naive enough to think it's going to affect the vast majority of Trump voters but it doesn't have it. It just needs to sway a small % of undecided in a few key states.

Tucker's threw Lindsey Graham under the bus last night.

So Tucker's question is not..
"Why did Trump do this horrible thing?"

His question is..
"Who let Trump admit to doing this horrible thing?"

EltonJohn69

everlast75 wrote: »

Tucker's threw Lindsey Graham under the bus last night.

So Tucker's question is not..
"Why did Trump do this horrible thing?"

His question is..
"Who let Trump admit to doing this horrible thing?"

Horrible thing = let Trump do an interview ?? Ha ha ha

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

Tucker's threw Lindsey Graham under the bus last night.

So Tucker's question is not..
"Why did Trump do this horrible thing?"

His question is..
"Who let Trump admit to doing this horrible thing?"

Hannity went for a different angle.

He tried the "Trump is like FDR" approach.

He actually (mis)quoted FDR saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and tried to say that Trump was adhering to that mantra by lying to everyone so that they wouldn't fear fear or something..

The chyron while he was spouting that guff was "Hannitys History Lesson"!!!!

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Hannity went for a different angle.

He tried the "Trump is like FDR" approach.

He actually (mis)quoted FDR saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and tried to say that Trump was adhering to that mantra by lying to everyone so that they wouldn't fear fear or something..

The chyron while he was spouting that guff was "Hannitys History Lesson"!!!!

Yep! Trump is all about making sure people don't panic. That's credible....

serfboard

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

His whole campaign is now about to scaring/panicking suburban women into thinking imaginary protesters will come into their home or whatever.

One would imagine that suburban women would be more concerned about a sexual predator like Donald Trump coming into their home ...

serfboard

Igotadose wrote: »

Interesting analysis here in Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/e-jean-carroll-trump-doj-response.html

That is an excellent article - really well written.

Slate wrote:

we all heard him boast of acts so vile on the Access Hollywood tape that even some Republicans denounced him - before ... insisting that Trump the man (a vulgar predator) is really not the same person as Trump the president (a constitutional conservative). That fictional distinction allowed spineless Republicans to celebrate their president’s actions (more far-right judges! Fewer Muslims!) without fretting over his cruel and fundamentally profane personal and ethical life.

On Tuesday, however, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice declared that Trump the man and Trump the president are formally one and the same. In an unprecedented and jaw-dropping motion, DOJ attorneys asserted that Trump’s choice to disparage women, which he has done while in office, falls within “the scope of his employment” as the president.

That's some opening few lines.

Brussels Sprout

Biden up to 75% on the 538 forecast. He was sitting on 70-71% for a long time so that's a bit of a bump based on recent good polls.

He's at 1.86 on Betfair which translates to an implied probability of 54% so quite a substantial difference there still.

Water John

That he's going in that direction is as important as the figures. All pollsters are basing their models on the race tightening, so hopefully it's actually widening more in reality.

Quin_Dub

I think the big thing about this cycle is the difference around the "undecided" Voters.

If you look at the polling from 2016 , even at the state level they were extremely accurate in where Clinton ended up - They were either spot on or slightly below her final vote tally.

What they got wrong was how the undecided votes would breakdown - Trump picked up the majority of those votes in those swing states.

This time around , the volume of undecided in most cases is less than the lead that Biden currently has so even if Trump was to pick them up at the same rate as 2016 he's still in trouble.

Water John

The dial on some decided voters can also be moved, maybe a little. One also has to look at how, people might vote Trump but switch down the ballot paper. All hopeful.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

The dial on some decided voters can also be moved, maybe a little. One also has to look at how, people might vote Trump but switch down the ballot paper. All hopeful.

Watching out for the opposite messaging from the GOP will be a key notice.


If we start to hear McConnell and others talk about the need to defend the Senate and start talking about "balance of power" etc. that's a sign that they have given up on Trump.

The message is "OK , Moderate Republicans - vote for Biden , but please vote GOP down ballot, Don't give the Democrats total control "

Watch for that if Trump doesn't get a bounce after the 1st debate.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Watching out for the opposite messaging from the GOP will be a key notice.


If we start to hear McConnell and others talk about the need to defend the Senate and start talking about "balance of power" etc. that's a sign that they have given up on Trump.

The message is "OK , Moderate Republicans - vote for Biden , but please vote GOP down ballot, Don't give the Democrats total control "

Watch for that if Trump doesn't get a bounce after the 1st debate.

I remember getting a polling call in 2008, whose questions largely hinged then on 'Checks and Balances'

This was about this same stage in the game, after Palin had been exposed as feckless and McCain playing his best Baghdad Bob while discussing the fundamentals of the economy.

droidus

Polling wise, everything is still steady for Biden. Looking good in all crucial swing states except Florida, where it seems Cuban Hispanics are pulling the contest there closer to a toss up.

Brian?

droidus wrote: »

Polling wise, everything is still steady for Biden. Looking good in all crucial swing states except Florida, where it seems Cuban Hispanics are pulling the contest there closer to a toss up.

One positive this time is that Florida might not matter. Nothing has been done to fix the systemic issues with elections that were highlighted in 2000. Voter suppression is still rampant.

StringerBell

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if trump doesn't win Florida that's it. Job done, over and out. There is no path for him to election that doesn't include Florida in my reckoning.

I love that Texas is costing them money, what will they do in a few years when Texas is a blue state? How do republicans win s presidential election without it?

Overheal

StringerBell wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if trump doesn't win Florida that's it. Job done, over and out. There is no path for him to election that doesn't include Florida in my reckoning.

I love that Texas is costing them money, what will they do in a few years when Texas is a blue state? How do republicans win s presidential election without it?

It's all but indisputable at the moment, he needs Florida to win. Even if he grabbed the other swing states - AZ, PA, and NC, if Biden winds FL he is well over 270. Trump would need to surprise a win from somewhere like Nevada, Michigan, or Minnesota to remain in contention were that the case. Minnesota could lean that way, depending on current events, but 538 still has it as Biden's swing state to lose. If Biden upsets in Texas, that would be huge.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

It's all but indisputable at the moment, he needs Florida to win. Even if he grabbed the other swing states - AZ, PA, and NC, if Biden winds FL he is well over 270. Trump would need to surprise a win from somewhere like Nevada, Michigan, or Minnesota to remain in contention were that the case. Minnesota could lean that way, depending on current events, but 538 still has it as Biden's swing state to lose. If Biden upsets in Texas, that would be huge.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Biden's doing a bunch of ad buying in FL now. The #IMPOTUS is trying to portray him as the second coming of Fidel Castro, Biden needs to get the younger Floridians who don't have ties to Bautista out to vote.

Florida was really tight in 2016, too, and has a dodgy electoral history (Pam Bondi anyone?)

Brian?

StringerBell wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if trump doesn't win Florida that's it. Job done, over and out. There is no path for him to election that doesn't include Florida in my reckoning.

I love that Texas is costing them money, what will they do in a few years when Texas is a blue state? How do republicans win s presidential election without it?

I saw a good analysis on fivethirtyeight, essentially the rust belt is becoming more red to counter balance the south and southwest becoming more blue. I'll try to dig it out.

Brussels Sprout

Overheal wrote: »

Trump would need to surprise a win from somewhere like Nevada, Michigan, or Minnesota to remain in contention were that the case. Minnesota could lean that way, depending on current events, but 538 still has it as Biden's swing state to lose. If Biden upsets in Texas, that would be huge.

Where is all this speculation about Minnesota coming from recently? Biden is well ahead in the polls there and unlike the rest of the rust belt states it actually stayed blue in 2016. I've heard it mentioned a few times in the last week but it looks like a big ask for Trump. If Biden is losing here then he's likely already lost.

Brian?

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Where is all this speculation about Minnesota coming from recently? Biden is well ahead in the polls there and unlike the rest of the rust belt states it actually stayed blue in 2016. I've heard it mentioned a few times in the last week but it looks like a big ask for Trump. If Biden is losing here then he's likely already lost.

Last week MN was looking a little dodgy for Biden as Trump was on an upward trend. With the prediction that the race would tighten as we got close to November 3rd. Now Biden is pulling away, but it is still predicted to tighten.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/minnesota/

Biden has now gone from "slightly favoured" to "favoured".

Brussels Sprout

Shudders

Water John

Have you lost one there? I think there was some one extra delegate in some district that went with the winner of that state which was Biden's, so 270 Biden 269 Trump.
You'll have the 200K dead from Covid mark next weekend. So much for Trump saying they're turning the corner. They have rounded that corner a good many times now.

Overheal

There are an even number of electors, 538. So, a 269-269 tie is theoretically possible

StringerBell

Do we see trump winning Iowa Ohio and Pennsylvania? All three?

Edit: Georgia is one to watch for me also, I think Biden will get close there, voter suppression notwithstanding he may even pull it out of the bag and that's a huge 16 EC votes if he can manage it.

StringerBell

Overheal wrote: »

There are an even number of electors, 538. So, a 269-269 tie is theoretically possible

What happens in that scenario? When 270 is required to win how does it get settled?

Overheal

StringerBell wrote: »

What happens in that scenario? When 270 is required to win how does it get settled?

uhm.... this happened before. I can't recall if it was an electoral college tie, or just a tie. But it was an early republic doozy. I'll have to look it up.

As for Iowa Penn and Ohio yes FiveThirtyEight has those states in play, he has possibilities of winning them.

Overheal

It was the 1800 election between Burr and Jefferson, both the federalist party and the democratic-republican party games the existing electoral college rules in such a way that both wound up incidentally with 73 votes each (70 needed to win). The Congress had to resolve the deadlock in February; it took 36 ballots to resolve a winner (Jefferson), for the other 35 none had achieved 50% of the vote. It was only the country's 4th presidential election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election#Disputes

The 12th Amendment was introduced thereafter:

"[...]

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Nody

StringerBell wrote: »

What happens in that scenario? When 270 is required to win how does it get settled?

If neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win.

State House delegations can cast their vote for president from among the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes, while Senators are limited to the top two candidates in their vote for Vice-President.

It is important to note that an apparent tie on election night does not mean that there is actually a tie. The Electors meet on December 14, 2020 (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) to cast their votes. Only about half the states have laws requiring their Electors to vote for the popular vote winner. It is possible that an Elector could cast his or her vote for another person. We saw that in the 2016 election, when seven* Electors were 'faithless'.

The Congress meets in joint session on January 6, 2021^ to count the electoral votes (this count happens whether the election is close or not). If no candidate has reached 270 Electoral Votes, then the House and Senate take over and elect the President and Vice-President, respectively. Note that the newly elected 117th Congress will be sworn in on January 3rd, 2021. It is that new Congress that would take on this responsibility.

Note that if a majority is not reached in the House vote (e.g., 25-25), that chamber needs to keep at it until the tie is broken. If the deadlock is still in place when the new term starts (noon, ET on Jan. 20), the vice president becomes acting president until such time as the House elects a president.

Taken from here with more details.

Brussels Sprout

StringerBell wrote: »

Do we see trump winning Iowa Ohio and Pennsylvania? All three?

Yes to the first two. No to Pennsylvania although that looks likely to be the crucial state. Biden can win without it, if he wins Florida but Florida always conspires to go red in the end so best to pour the resources into Pa. imo

StringerBell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yes to the first two. No to Pennsylvania although that looks likely to be the crucial state. Biden can win without it, if he wins Florida but Florida always conspires to go red in the end so best to pour the resources into Pa. imo

I agree, he could win 2 of 3 but I can't see him winning all 3 and depending on how things go in the lead up to the election I think he may end up just winning Iowa.

Biden can win in a few different paths, for trump yeah it comes down to Florida one way or another. He wins it he has a shot, he loses it and that's the end of the line.

everlast75

It's incredible the stuff Qanon supporters believe. The beginning of the GOP aligning with that group of people seems to be like the harvesting of mentally ill people as a last resort, where logical and ideological differences no longer are what matter.

https://twitter.com/realchriswilson/status/1304157786704670720?s=19

Brussels Sprout

everlast75 wrote: »

It's incredible the stuff Qanon supporters believe. The beginning of the GOP aligning with that group of people seems to be like the harvesting of mentally ill people as a last resort, where logical and ideological differences no longer are what matter.

I remember seeing some kind of debate on Youtube between Clinton and Bush for the 1992 election where they were taking audience questions. It was actually quite jarring to see how far things have fallen in the space of a few decades. They were engaging in lengthy, complex and thoughtful answers to intelligent questions from people in the audience. Nobody was shouting slogans. The crowd weren't hooting & hollering.

For years there has been a perceived hysteria about the dumbing down of society. The thing is though that it is a real thing. Since that election we've seen the continued rise of 24 hour cable news, reality TV and social media.

Attention spans have reduced, willingness to discuss complex matters has been replaced with soundbites. People have been filtered out into their own bubbles where they are often taking in information without any critical analysis of the content. The perception that anyone can know as much (if not more) then any expert, on any topic, by simply watching a few videos online and reading some blog posts.

I think Q-Anon is the inevitable conclusion of all this. A completely de-centralized movement, originating from an internet chatroom that is entirely fuelled by fantasy that plays into the worst fears of people who are all too willing to believe it.

Even if Biden wins in November, he's still going to inherit the 15% or so of the population who believe this guff. I have no idea what he, or anyone else can do about it.

marno21

Water John wrote: »

Have you lost one there? I think there was some one extra delegate in some district that went with the winner of that state which was Biden's, so 270 Biden 269 Trump.
You'll have the 200K dead from Covid mark next weekend. So much for Trump saying they're turning the corner. They have rounded that corner a good many times now.

Instead of the AZ/WI/MN flip scenario as above, a more likely scenario a few weeks back with the rioting in Wisconsin was for Biden to flip Pennsylvania (20) and Michigan (16), plus Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (1 vote - the most likely of any electoral vote to flip this year it seems) leading to a 269-269 tie. This would involve Biden not flipping Wisconsin or Arizona.

enno99

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Where is all this speculation about Minnesota coming from recently? Biden is well ahead in the polls there and unlike the rest of the rust belt states it actually stayed blue in 2016. I've heard it mentioned a few times in the last week but it looks like a big ask for Trump. If Biden is losing here then he's likely already lost.

Can you trust polls

‘I’ve Never Seen It Like This’: Trump Well Ahead Of Biden In Red Wing Bakery’s Presidential Cookie Poll

Since 1984, the bakery claims the winner of their cookie poll has matched the winner of the popular vote.

“So far, President Trump has a very large lead of 2,576 cookies to 696 for Joe Biden,” said Bill Hanisch. “So, I’ll tell you, in the 25 years I’ve been here, I’ve never seen it like this.”

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/09/03/ive-never-seen-it-like-this-trump-well-ahead-of-biden-in-red-wing-bakerys-presidential-cookie-poll/

Bill Pick, leader of the Aitkin County Democratic Party, called the erosion of support for Democrats in rural Minnesota "mind-boggling." "It's really sad to see that there's a potential of Minnesota going to be a red state."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/910816173/trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?t=1599870920636

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A boat parade in support of President Donald Trump Saturday on the St. Croix River left more than one homeowner contending with property damage.

Keith Smith lives on the river in River Falls, Wisconsin.

“The river was flooded with boats,” Smith said. “Big boats, small boats, all kinds of boats.”

enno99

Cant find any videos of supporters for Biden/Harris visit this week

Only pro trump protesters


Kamala Harris was not well received in Florida today. President Trump’s Hispanic supporters came out to make it clear that we reject her socialist policies!

https://twitter.com/EquipoTrump/status/1304195663463415808

StringerBell

https://ig.ft.com/us-election-2020/

Polls polls polls

Do love a good snapshot in time personally, the time when he should be getting a big bounce traditionally as the incumbent it isn't really materialising as of yet.

Long may it continue.

Professor Moriarty

StringerBell wrote: »

https://ig.ft.com/us-election-2020/

Polls polls polls

Do love a good snapshot in time personally, the time when he should be getting a big bounce traditionally as the incumbent it isn't really materialising as of yet.

Long may it continue.

That opening graph is jaw-dropping.

rossie1977

enno99 wrote: »

Can you trust polls

Yes you can.

Its the reason candidates pull out of elections before a vote is even cast. Its the reason Trump isn't going to dump money or visit certain states because he is polling badly in them.

In fact the main reason Trump attempted to get dirt on Biden from Ukraine was because he was polling so well versus Trump..

Once again the aggregate of all polls was almost spot on last election. There were two state polls that were off but nationwide they were well within margin of error.

Brussels Sprout

rossie1977 wrote: »

Yes you can.

Its the reason candidates pull out of elections before a vote is even cast. Its the reason Trump isn't going to dump money or visit certain states because he is polling badly in them.

In fact the main reason Trump attempted to get dirt on Biden from Ukraine was because he was polling so well versus Trump..

Once again the aggregate of all polls was almost spot on last election. There were two state polls that were off but nationwide they were well within margin of error.

I remember after 2016 Nate Silver making the point that the polling error was relatively small but the crucial thing was that it was decisive. Very often the polling errors are much larger but predict the correct outcome so nobody cares about them. It's a bit like in football when somebody shanks a penalty but it still goes in because the goalkeeper dives the wrong way. Many people perceive that as a "good penalty" since it went in regardless of the fact that it was badly executed. It's classic "results-oriented thinking"

I see a lot of attitudes dismissing polls because Trump won last time and I believe this is feeding into the betting market prices for Trump being lower than the polls suggesting it should be.

Getting back to Nate Silver/538. I believe he gave Trump a 28% shot prior to the last election. As anyone, who's familiar with Texas Hold'em knows that's considerably higher odds than having AA cracked by a lower pocket pair, all-in pre-flop - and that happens a lot. It's not like Trump was some 3-legged, 500/1 shot in the grand national. He was more like the odds of Liverpool winning the upcoming premier League (3.7 on Betfair exchange right now)

Fundamentally, most people don't understand probabilities and they really don't want to hear about nuance. They believe things are/should be binary but in reality they are a lot more complex then that.

So yeah, polls get the results wrong from time to time but they are a vital predictive tool and if you really don't believe that ask yourself why all of the major parties commission their own internal polls.

enno99

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I remember after 2016 Nate Silver making the point that the polling error was relatively small but the crucial thing was that it was decisive. Very often the polling errors are much larger but predict the correct outcome so nobody cares about them. It's a bit like in football when somebody shanks a penalty but it still goes in because the goalkeeper dives the wrong way. Many people perceive that as a "good penalty" since it went in regardless of the fact that it was badly executed. It's classic "results-oriented thinking"

I see a lot of attitudes dismissing polls because Trump won last time and I believe this is feeding into the betting market prices for Trump being lower than the polls suggesting it should be.

Getting back to Nate Silver/538. I believe he gave Trump a 28% shot prior to the last election. As anyone, who's familiar with Texas Hold'em knows that's considerably higher odds than having AA cracked by a lower pocket pair, all-in pre-flop - and that happens a lot. It's not like Trump was some 3-legged, 500/1 shot in the grand national. He was more like the odds of Liverpool winning the upcoming premier League (3.7 on Betfair exchange right now)

Fundamentally, most people don't understand probabilities and they really don't want to hear about nuance. They believe things are/should be binary but in reality they are a lot more complex then that.

So yeah, polls get the results wrong from time to time but they are a vital predictive tool and if you really don't believe that ask yourself why all of the major parties commission their own internal polls.

Im not sure how they work I have never been contacted by any
But I would imagine that they also ask what do you think the candidate is doing wrong /right So it would help them change their message tactics
Im open to correction

Anyway

https://spectator.org/conservatives-moderates-self-censor-cato-poll-silent-majority/

More Evidence That Trump’s Silent Majority Is Real
New poll says moderates and conservatives are genuinely afraid to discuss their politics.

Many Democrats mistakenly believe this illusory dominance of the public debate means they have won the hearts and minds of the electorate. As we saw in 2016, however, the reluctance of right-of-center voters to argue with puffed-up progressives simply meant they wanted to avoid shaming and social ostracism. They kept their peace until it really mattered — when they reached the voting booth. That’s the beauty of the secret ballot — people who decline to be bullied by “strong liberals” can make their voices heard loud and clear in November. According to the Cato survey, the number of people choosing this path is far larger than it was in 2016. Moreover, they span the entire demographic spectrum:

Nearly two‐​thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non‐​religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

If you think the article is just spin
Take a look through the threads on boards.ie and see the level of vitriol leveled at anyone who says anything good about Trump

MAGA Hat Boy Witch Hunt Continues: ACLU Staffer Condemns School for Admitting Nick Sandmann

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO Black conservitave started Blexit

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WalkAway&src=hashtag_click Started by a gay democrat

https://twitter.com/Timcast

Tim Pool
1.06M subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts liberal political commentator not a Trump supporter and anti guns
now voting for trump and a gun owner

StringerBell

We've done this one already too.

Your entitled believe whatever you like or claim to anyway, not long to go now either way.

A nice but also sad moment for media, analysts, hell even the boards politics forum will feel the absence of trump if and when he loses of course but it will be a nice but of quiet in all fairness.

Brussels Sprout

enno99 wrote: »

....

I can see that you're attempting to engage in good faith but I don't understand the point that you are making. You have linked to a lot of partisan pro-Trump accounts/hashtags there.

Nobody is saying that Trump is not popular with his supporters. Nobody is saying that the Democrats didn't lose a lot of white working class voters to Trump.

Searching for hastags used by one side or the other isn't going to tell you very much. Regardless of the outcome in November, each candidate is going to get a minimum of 60 million votes. You could spend between now and the election on twitter or facebook looking at posts in favour of one candidate or the other and you'd be none the wiser about who's going to win.

As for the "shy Trump voter" phenomenon. This may affect people in social situations but it's not going to affect opinion polls unless people are actively lying to complete strangers (where there is no social cost to being honest).

p.s. I don't want to sound condescending but I'd be wary of using Candice Owens as an example to support any positive point that you want to be make. She's a fairly transparent grifter/troll in the same way as Katie Hopkins is.

Timberrrrrrrr

Is Trump advocating for voter fraud in North Carolina?

Surely it is illegal to mail in a ballot (something he is against for other states) and then go and vote in person? Will they be able to tell on the day if a persons postal vote has been counted already?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1304769412759724033?s=19