US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

Said it a few months ago, their wasn't much Trump could do to ensure success in november as so much damage had been done but as someone said in the comments below he should have been spending like a "drunken sailor":)

The Hunter biden stuff isn't a game changer , but going big on stimulus and getting money in people's pockets would have been massive and is arguably the biggest mistake of the GOP in the last few weeks as the very least would have saved some positions down balot.

If the GOP lose everything, they will likely blame Trump entirely, but the financial hawks in the party who are so obsessed with balanced budgets even in these times before a ****ing election should take some blame also.



https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1319642104688185344

letowski

droidus wrote: »

Im beginning to think he might take Texas.

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

Water John

letowski wrote: »

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

The GOP might want to have a look at FF here in Ireland.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1319756900804689925

Oh Florida...

Water John

That poll is an outlier. 538 still call Florida 70 to 30 in favour of Biden.

droidus

Its Rasmussen FFS.

droidus

letowski wrote: »

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

Yeah, I dont think Id bet on it, but I certainly think it's more possible now than ever before.

The unprecedented turnout seems to point to something new going on here and Trump is well within the margin of error, about 2 points ahead in the polling average.

A small polling error in Bidens favour would be enough...

BonnieSituation

Rjd2 wrote: »

Said it a few months ago, their wasn't much Trump could do to ensure success in november as so much damage had been done but as someone said in the comments below he should have been spending like a "drunken sailor":)

The Hunter biden stuff isn't a game changer , but going big on stimulus and getting money in people's pockets would have been massive and is arguably the biggest mistake of the GOP in the last few weeks as the very least would have saved some positions down balot.

If the GOP lose everything, they will likely blame Trump entirely, but the financial hawks in the party who are so obsessed with balanced budgets even in these times before a ****ing election should take some blame also.



https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1319642104688185344

They're not obsessed with having balanced budgets at all. They're obsessed that the Dems have balanced budgets.

droidus

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, I dont think Id bet on it, but I certainly think it's more possible now than ever before.

The unprecedented turnout seems to point to something new going on here and Trump is well within the margin of error, about 2 points ahead in the polling average.

A small polling error in Bidens favour would be enough...

Its a partisan source, but this is what I mean when i say 'something new'.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/10/voter-suppression-efforts-could-be-backfiring-on-republicans/

It was the latest attempt by Texas Republicans to depress turnout in a state with a long record of voter suppression. Texas has no online registration. Voters need a valid excuse to get a mail ballot—and for those under 65, fear of contracting COVID-19 doesn’t count. The state’s voter ID law allows you to vote with a gun permit but not a student ID.

Yet when early voting began in Texas on October 13, Abbott’s plan to limit Democratic participation appeared to backfire, as voters in Harris County, where voters of color make up a majority and where Hillary Clinton won by 12 points in 2016, surged to the polls.

The numbers in Harris County have been astonishing. A record 128,000 people voted on the first day of early voting, up from 68,000 in 2016 and a higher turnout than the entire state of Georgia on the same day. Turnout has barely dropped since then. On Friday, Harris County surpassed 1 million early votes, exceeding its total from 2016 with a week of early voting still left, and nearly equaling the 1.3 million people who voted overall in 2016.

VinLieger

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1319756900804689925

Oh Florida...

Rasmussen consistently weight in favour of republicans, you cant take their data as evidence of anything when its viewed by itself

Water John

Source 538;
POLLSTER RATING TRUMP BIDEN LEADER
St. Pete Polls
C
Oct. 21-22 47% 49% Biden +2
Morning Consult
B/C
Oct. 11-20 45% 52% Biden +7
CNN/SSRS
B/C
Oct. 15-20 46% 50% Biden +4
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research
C+
Oct. 20-21 50% 46% Trump +4
University of North Florida
A/B
Oct. 12-16 47% 48% Biden +1
Civiqs
B/C
Oct. 17-20 47% 51% Biden +4
Emerson College
A-
Oct. 10-12 48% 51% Biden +2
HarrisX
C
Oct. 12-15 48% 48% Even +0

Rjd2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They're not obsessed with having balanced budgets at all. They're obsessed that the Dems have balanced budgets.

Sort off.


Yes they can be hypocritical regarding money been spent, but the reason why they have been poor regarding the stimulus is a few senators genuinely do believe that spending to help poor people isn't what the base want.

Really though, it shows how out of touch they are with their actual voters , but that's why so many still don't understand why Trump not Jeb or whatever chosen one got the nomination .

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

Rasmussen consistently weight in favour of republicans, you cant take their data as evidence of anything when its viewed by itself

Better to focus on all the other polls that are weighted in favour of the democrats right?

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

Better to focus on all the other polls that are weighted in favour of the democrats right?

Nice straw man, pathetic but nice.

I said it cannot be viewed on its own nothing more. Literally any credible pollster will say the same thing that Rasmussen weights far more in favour of republicans than any other poll.

Theres several reasons for this 2 of which are they only poll likely voters and they only use landline phone numbers for polling, both of which taken together heavily disenfranchise younger people from being a part of their polls.

Also when looking at the most recent evidence of their accuracy they were declared the least accurate of the polls in 2018, their final poll suggested a republican house victory which couldn't have been further from the truth.

Maybe it would benefit you to actually investigate what you are talking about before being annoyed at others who have actually researched their opinions.

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

Nice straw man, pathetic but nice.

I said it cannot be viewed on its own nothing more. Literally any credible pollster will say the same thing that Rasmussen weights far more in favour of republicans than any other poll.

Theres several reasons for this 2 of which are they only poll likely voters and they only use landline phone numbers for polling, both of which taken together heavily disenfranchise younger people from being a part of their polls.

Also when looking at the most recent evidence of their accuracy they were declared the least accurate of the polls in 2018, their final poll suggested a republican house victory which couldn't have been further from the truth.

Maybe it would benefit you to actually investigate what you are talking about before being annoyed at others who have actually researched their opinions.

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

StringerBell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This here is quite cool, its an interactive electoral college decision tree

https://observablehq.com/@observablehq/electoral-college-decision-tree

here is my prediction, i think Florida is going to be incredibly close, while there is increase in older people voting for Biden this time, they will also be afraid to leave home imho unlike the exCubans

Florida is always extremely close, and your right this year will be no different. No polling would change my mind on that either way, what has been shown to increase the democrats vote share is the turnout, it's key in all the states but the close states in particular. The higher the turnout the better it is for the democrats.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To clarify , yes Thread bans still apply , however I have now removed any posts that might cause a problem and also no one is going to get a ban for a post that got moved by a mod.

Any other queries , drop me a PM.

PM sent immediately after this post. I have not received a reply.

letowski

Rasmussen hasn’t been all that favourable to Trump in this election cycle. They have Trump losing in Arizona, Pennsylvania and (yes) Ohio. That’s an easy path to +270 right there without even taking MI and WI into account (assuming Biden keeps Hillary’s states).

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

Indeed Rasmussen were one of the closest on the national level they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 1.7% and she won by 2.1%. Im not able to find any historical records of their polling regarding predictions for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan which is the real key to seeing who was the most accurate in 2016.

Midlife

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

Here's the man himself saying all the polls pretty much got it right.

https://scottrasmussen.com/the-polls-werent-wrong-in-2016-but-the-analysis-of-the-polls-was-horrible/

Graham

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed Rasmussen were one of the closest on the national level they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 1.7% and she won by 2.1%. Im not able to find any historical records of their polling regarding predictions for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan which is the real key to seeing who was the most accurate in 2016.

Out of the last 722 Rasmussen polls the Mean Reverted Bias for Rasmussen has been Republican +1.5

Igotadose

Early voting and new voters heavily favoring Democratic candidates so far:
"Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day.

In a more worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP, according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish, a new Democratic research firm, which was reviewed by Republicans and independent experts."


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/early-voting-numbers-swing-states-431363

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Early voting and new voters heavily favoring Democratic candidates so far:
"Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day.

In a more worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP, according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish, a new Democratic research firm, which was reviewed by Republicans and independent experts."


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/early-voting-numbers-swing-states-431363

Great.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

It's a common misconception the polls were way off in 2016. They weren't. They were within margin of error at worst.

stefanovich

6 wrote: »

It's a common misconception the polls were way off in 2016. They weren't. They were within margin of error at worst.

98% Chance of Hillary winning. Remember that?

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

98% Chance of Hillary winning. Remember that?

I wouldn't be overly confident about nailing my flag to that particular mast.

As others have pointed out, within the margin of error.

I don't think the same can be said for most of the swing states this time around.

Quin_Dub

letowski wrote: »

Rasmussen hasn’t been all that favourable to Trump in this election cycle. They have Trump losing in Arizona, Pennsylvania and (yes) Ohio. That’s an easy path to +270 right there without even taking MI and WI into account (assuming Biden keeps Hillary’s states).

Well they sort of do.. Whilst they do show a Biden lead in some states, it's a smaller one than most others.

Equally, someone like Quinnipiac tend to give the Democrat side a few points of a boost over the average.

I guess the point is, viewing a single poll from a single pollster isn't really all that instructive.

You have to look at the average of them all over time to get a more accurate picture.

RCP for example just do a simple rolling average of the poll results whereas somewhere like 538 or the Economist apply an algorithm to the data to adjust for various factors.

All of them show Biden with an 8 to 10 point national lead and a 4 to 6 point combined lead in the key swing States.

To be in with a shout, Trump needs to get the National average gap below 4 points and needs to get the swing States down into the 1-2 point range.

That could still happen.

There will be a glut of polls coming out in the next few days following the debate , let's see what the picture looks like by mid week when they are all available and tabulated.

Christy42

letowski wrote: »

Rasmussen hasn’t been all that favourable to Trump in this election cycle. They have Trump losing in Arizona, Pennsylvania and (yes) Ohio. That’s an easy path to +270 right there without even taking MI and WI into account (assuming Biden keeps Hillary’s states).

They haven't been that favourable for Trump because it is pretty hard to be at the moment.

For those with short memories Rasmussen had Romney to win vs Obama when that turned out to be a one sided affair.

Last time out the polling error suited Republicans so Rasmussen were close. 4 years before that the polling error went in favour of Democrats so they were miles off. They consistently favour Republicans and only wind up close if Republicans do better than expected. Certainly some favour Democrats but checking both is important.

Gbear

Rjd2 wrote: »

Sort off.


Yes they can be hypocritical regarding money been spent, but the reason why they have been poor regarding the stimulus is a few senators genuinely do believe that spending to help poor people isn't what the base want.

Really though, it shows how out of touch they are with their actual voters , but that's why so many still don't understand why Trump not Jeb or whatever chosen one got the nomination .

The thing is, if you remove tribalism from the equation, conservatives are also extremely supportive of things like socialised medicine (as long as you don't say anything that sounds like "socialised"), and economic stimulus.

The main difference is that policy follows tribe in conservatism to a far higher degree. Conservatism is fundamentally about tribalism and hierarchy. What those at the top say are good policies are good policies, so long as they fulfill the role of tribal leader.

I don't think any senators or any elected representatives of any kind believe that the base don't want to help poor people. The base are told what to think. It's blasted at them from every angle. The senators choose to tell them what benefits them and their cohorts the most. Or perhaps it's fairer to say, their cohorts choose what to say, and the elected representatives parrot it, or are cut off from the pipeline of cash. If the representatives have any beliefs beyond cold practicality and self-interest, it's a sort of aristocratic notion that there's dignity in poverty and strife, and it's better for the little people to go it alone. Builds character and all that.

It's aggravating, but it's no surprise that it persists. While the left are constantly warring amongst themselves, the upshot of conservative tribalism is that they're far more cohesive as a political block, and especially with FPTP, can cling to power despite being a minority.

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly confident about nailing my flag to that particular mast.

As others have pointed out, within the margin of error.

I don't think the same can be said for most of the swing states this time around.

Trump is likely to win Arizona. If that happens Biden will need all of the other 4 swing states.

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

Trump is likely to win Arizona. If that happens Biden will need all of the other 4 swing states.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Apart from the fact Arizona is leaning democrat

Arizona has 11 electoral votes.

It looks like the current toss-up states are:

Florida (29)
Georgia (16)
Iowa (6)
Maine 2nd CD (1)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)

duploelabs

stefanovich wrote: »

Trump is likely to win Arizona. If that happens Biden will need all of the other 4 swing states.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/arizona/

Biden is ahead by 3.2% and that's outside the MOE

Comical Ali type stuff with your predictions

Brian?

stefanovich wrote: »

98% Chance of Hillary winning. Remember that?

Whoever came up with that number was an idiot. Trump had roughly a 30% chance on the night.

Christy42

Brian? wrote: »

Whoever came up with that number was an idiot. Trump had roughly a 30% chance on the night.

The common refrain I have seen is the polls we're fine. The analysts were wrong. The biggest mistake is assuming states are all independent when realistically a shift to the right in one means a shift in others is likely.

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

The common refrain I have seen is the polls we're fine. The analysts were wrong. The biggest mistake is assuming states are all independent when realistically a shift to the right in one means a shift in others is likely.

The issue in 2016 was one of a lack of objectivity from the viewing the polling data.

The polls said Clinton was ahead by 3 points nationally and by 1 or 2 points in most keys States.

Those polls all had an MoE of about 4 points, but few really thought that Trump could win so they mentally gave the MoE to Clinton, which to be fair is what happened in 2012 - Obama performed quite a bit ahead of the polling and Romney well below.

Those two elements taken together meant that the media under-played the actual statistical evidence leading to the media perception that Clinton was a lock.

That mistake won't be made again and in fact I have a sneaking suspicion that the pollsters may have over adjusted towards the mythical 'shy' trump voter in a lot of places.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone else feel Biden made a critical mistake with his fossil fuel energy comments during the debate?

Got a bad feeling about it given some of the states he needs to win.

Won't go down well with certain communities.

Itssoeasy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else feel Biden made a critical mistake with his fossil fuel energy comments during the debate?

Got a bad feeling about it given some of the states he needs to win.

Won't go down well with certain communities.

Not a critical mistake no. I mean it’s not like the energy market in the US is 100% fossil fuelled in 2020. It’s been moving away slowly for a few decades at this stage so what he said isn’t a new idea, but maybe he could have phrased it a bit better perhaps. I’m sure the trump campaign will try and spin it in Pennsylvania but it likely won’t work.

greenfield21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else feel Biden made a critical mistake with his fossil fuel energy comments during the debate?

Got a bad feeling about it given some of the states he needs to win.

Won't go down well with certain communities.

Yeah serious mistake, he will lose votes Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota from this. If you're going to go after the corn/rust belt then you need to explain your plan clearly. The changes are already happening anyway from combustion to EV and corn farms to solar farms...

briany

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else feel Biden made a critical mistake with his fossil fuel energy comments during the debate?

Got a bad feeling about it given some of the states he needs to win.

Won't go down well with certain communities.

I don't expect that it would be popular message in the hills of West Virginia, no, but it's better to be honest than to give those people false hope (something Trump has no problem doing). You could be even more blunt and say that instead of sitting around complaining about how the local mine or oil field closed down, maybe you could use some of that time to figure out new economic strategies for your local town.

Kermit.de.frog

briany wrote: »

I don't expect that it would be popular message in the hills of West Virginia, no, but it's better to be honest than to give those people false hope (something Trump has no problem doing). You could be even more blunt and say that instead of sitting around complaining about how the local mine or oil field closed down, maybe you could use some of that time to figure out new economic strategies for your local town.

Yeah but the objective is to win and he won't win to implement anything alienating workers in the energy industry.

It's particularly relevant given the states he needs.

I think his comments may come back to haunt him. Needless damage to his campaign in my view.

It's up there with Clinton's suicidal coal comments.

He gives Trump ample ammunition with that.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Not a critical mistake no. I mean it’s not like the energy market in the US is 100% fossil fuelled in 2020. It’s been moving away slowly for a few decades at this stage so what he said isn’t a new idea, but maybe he could have phrased it a bit better perhaps. I’m sure the trump campaign will try and spin it in Pennsylvania but it likely won’t work.

In the final debate of the election, he gave Trump the sound-bite that he'd close down the oil industry. It doesn't matter that he clarified that it would happen over time as 'green' energy sources increase their contribution to the energy supply. Biden is absolutely correct- over time, fossil fuels will become redundant. But you can be sure that reality will be spun out of the comment by the Trump campaign. I cringed a bit when I heard it said TBH. I don't know whether it will move any needles that much though.

Separately, the day after the debate, Trump held a 'masks optional' rally in a Florida Seniors community. That will NOT help him among that cohort, as polls show a massive swing against Trump among 65 y.o.+ voters compared to 2016. Such a swing in Florida, which has such a high % of 65+ residents, where he won by 1% the last time, could really scupper him there.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else feel Biden made a critical mistake with his fossil fuel energy comments during the debate?

Got a bad feeling about it given some of the states he needs to win.

Won't go down well with certain communities.

Trump’s has seized on it already.

Biden has come out since and said fossil fuels won't be eliminated until 2050.

Kermit.de.frog

6 wrote: »

Trump’s has seized on it already.

Biden has come out since and said fossil fuels won't be eliminated until 2050.

It's easier just not to say dumb things in the first place (and it was a dumb thing to say). I knew straight away he had created a problem for himself and a rod for his back.

He needs to be extremely careful with the constituency he needs to win.

Capt'n Midnight

greenfield21 wrote: »

Yeah serious mistake, he will lose votes Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota from this. If you're going to go after the corn/rust belt then you need to explain your plan clearly. The changes are already happening anyway from combustion to EV and corn farms to solar farms...

Writing is on the wall for fossil fuel.

Fracking killed coal on cost. And that's before you take into account future carbon tax increases.

Electric cars are reducing the demand for oil.

Biden could have phrased it better. But unless those areas are diversifying now the future is looking grim.

US coal-fired capacity peaked in 2011


Most of the remaining coal capacity is in the south.

WastedYouth

There is a lot of activity on boards.ie about Trump and the US election

Has the US election and US politics always been a popular topic in this forum or is it just popular recently because it involves Trump?

Is politics in other countries also discussed to the same degree?

As to the election itself - if it isn’t actually happening until the 3rd of November then why is Trump (and I assume others) voting today? Is it getting spread out over different days because of CoVid?

briany

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah but the objective is to win and he won't win to implement anything alienating workers in the energy industry.

It's particularly relevant given the states he needs.

I think his comments may come back to haunt him. Needless damage to his campaign in my view.

It's up there with Clinton's suicidal coal comments.

He gives Trump ample ammunition with that.

Better to lose a campaign honestly than win one dishonestly. In any case, Trump happily twisted Biden's words, but the point Biden was making was that fossil fuels are on the decline, and in the long term that's good for everybody. If the balance is tipped to Trump by some honesty about the situation from Biden, then America deserves no better.

Tell me how

WastedYouth wrote: »

Has the US election and US politics always been a popular topic in this forum or is it just popular recently because it involves Trump?

US politics always popular but Trump has been such a polarising and evocative character that its ramped up significantly this time.

WastedYouth wrote: »

Is politics in other countries also discussed to the same degree?

Not quite to the same degree. UK Politics gets a lot of attention as well obviously.

WastedYouth wrote: »

As to the election itself - if it isn’t actually happening until the 3rd of November then why is Trump (and I assume others) voting today? Is it getting spread out over different days because of CoVid?

Early voting is permitted to allow people who might not be available on 3rd November to place their votes.

WastedYouth

Tell me how wrote: »

US politics always popular but Trump has been such a polarising and evocative character that its ramped up significantly this time.

And why is US politics in particular popular on boards.ie? Aside from whoopty-do about Trump?

Phoebas

WastedYouth wrote: »

And why is US politics in particular popular on boards.ie? Aside from whoopty-do about Trump?

In no particular order: English speaking, gets covered in other media, some very interesting/crazy characters, US policy has an impact on Ireland, Trump, covered in popular culture, usually some fun shenanigans around election time, lots of polls/stats (for the nerds), divisive system so it's fun to pick a side and watch the game.

pixelburp

Why has American politics ever been popular around the world? Because thanks to its entertainment industry and the various cultural links through migration, US politics is a popular spectator sport. If we don't actively follow it in the news, film and TV exposes us to it through "the West Wing" et al. Exposure made more of a guilty pleasure by the ever increasing hyperbole and partisanship. It's the closest thing to politics as a soap opera at this stage, as glib or flippant as that might sound.