US Presidential Election 2020

TomOnBoard

So, you know how Trump wanted his disciples to go act as 'poll watchers'? Well, here's some of these very fine people 'watching' a drive-in voter in Los Angeles:

When Trump calls for “poll watchers,” this is what he wants.

https://twitter.com/ajayrochester/status/1320148950398038016?s=19

MJohnston

enno99 wrote: »

But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

I'm sorry, but this is such a dumb post. I think it's fair to call it that as you seem to be wilfully ignoring reality rather than it being unintentional ignorance.

High quality polls have well-chosen samples that are representative of the demographics of the district, state, or country they're polling. They are well calibrated to accurately reflect the opinions of the population. And they all signal a margin of error to indicate the uncertainties of this scientific process.

Why you think this is worth comparing to a livestream audience is completely beyond me.

enno99

Overheal wrote: »

Sure in 2016 I was there in Greenville SC when Bernie filled a stadium. Doesn't mean the state became a Communist regime, either.

Bernie a communist

A joint effort by former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to unify Democrats around Biden's candidacy has produced a 110-page policy wish list to recommend to the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency?t=1603895510231

Wonder how much influence he will have over Biden

McFly85

enno99 wrote: »

But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

Yes. Polls are statistically managed to take information from a broad range of the electorate to try and generate a representative figure.

600k views on a livestream can’t be used to prove anything.

enno99

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is such a dumb post. I think it's fair to call it that as you seem to be wilfully ignoring reality rather than it being unintentional ignorance.

High quality polls have well-chosen samples that are representative of the demographics of the district, state, or country they're polling. They are well calibrated to accurately reflect the opinions of the population. And they all signal a margin of error to indicate the uncertainties of this scientific process.

Why you think this is worth comparing to a livestream audience is completely beyond me.

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

Graham

enno99 wrote: »

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

within the margin of error.

gmisk

Graham wrote: »

within the margin of error.

This has been mentioned so so many times at this stage.
Plus poll companies have changed their practices to account for the so called shy trump voters

MJohnston

enno99 wrote: »

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

They did pretty well actually — the final polling average on 538 in 2016 had Clinton ahead by 3.7% in the popular vote. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Margin of error in these things is usually around 3%, so that's a tiny error in the grand scheme of things.

On average in the 2016 in critical swing states like PA, WI, and MI, the polling averages were off by less 3%.

Let's look at the current state of these races in 2020:
* WI — Biden ahead by 8.3%
* PA — Biden ahead by 5.1%
* MI — Biden ahead by 7.4%

Even if the polls were off by the same amount and direction as in 2016, Biden still wins all three states.

Of course, there's absolutely no guarantee that a polling error this year would favour Trump. In 2012, the polls underestimated Obama by about 3% nationally too. Here's a handy reminder from the New York Times:

An Ciarraioch

Not to mention that when you look at the state polls for Michigan, Wisconsin, and largely for Pennsylvania, Biden's lead generally exceeds the MoE - rather narrower when it comes to North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa, but then all those are states that the Dems would only win if they're already over 270.

MJohnston

Democrats smell blood in Texas:

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20

DK224

MJohnston wrote: »

Democrats smell blood in Texas:

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20

Biden to win Texas still available at 11/4!

TomOnBoard

MJohnston wrote: »

Democrats smell blood in Texas:

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924?s=20

I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...

Quin_Dub

enno99 wrote: »

How did they do in 2016 :rolleyes:

Graham wrote: »

within the margin of error.

##Mod Note##

No one liners please.

ancapailldorcha

Some low quality posts have been deleted. A user has been banned and another carded. Please post constructively, civilly and do not dump links here. Thanks.

MJohnston

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...

It's probably more about the down-ballot at this stage, but it also puts Trump's campaign on the defensive in a supposedly safe red state.

538's polling average has ticked down to +8.5 Biden this morning, although the incoming polls are still in the 8-11 point range.

The forecast was also briefly up to 89-11 but has gone back to 88-12 now. I'd wonder if they'd be reluctant to ever upgrade Biden to "Strongly Favoured"

An Ciarraioch

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think Beto O'Rourke has been begging the campaign to show up in TX. His team have done a lot of work on the ground and need a senior presence. I'd prefer to see Joe go, but Kamala's visit should help invogorate Beto and his team...

Apparently, another complaint was that they hadn't invested enough in Spanish-language advertising in Texas, but that this has changed in recent weeks.

droidus

MJohnston wrote: »

It's probably more about the down-ballot at this stage, but it also puts Trump's campaign on the defensive in a supposedly safe red state.

538's polling average has ticked down to +8.5 Biden this morning, although the incoming polls are still in the 8-11 point range.

The forecast was also briefly up to 89-11 but has gone back to 88-12 now. I'd wonder if they'd be reluctant to ever upgrade Biden to "Strongly Favoured"

The economist is up to 96% after the removal of some partisan polls. https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

TomOnBoard

DK224 wrote: »

Biden to win Texas still available at 11/4!

I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

EDIT: I just put a tenner on Trump. So, if he does win TX, it'll pay for the bottle of Black Bush I'll need to drown my sorrows...

LuckyLloyd

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

For Texas?!

DK224

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

You'll get the 11/4 on Biden winning Texas on BetFred

accensi0n

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I see Paddy Power thinks differently... He has Biden at 2/5 and Trump at 15/8

EDIT: I just put a tenner on Trump. So, if he does win TX, it'll pay for the bottle of Black Bush I'll need to drown my sorrows...

Were you reading it backwards?

BonnieSituation

accensi0n wrote: »

Were you reading it backwards?

I think Tom is looking at the outright odds there.

TomOnBoard

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For Texas?!

Ooops! I misread that! No, those odds were on the presidency!

DK224

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ooops! I misread that! No, those odds were on the presidency!

So now it's official Tom has backed Trump for President!!

droidus

Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.

Zubeneschamali

droidus wrote: »

Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.

538 say 96% chance Biden wins popular vote, 94% gets above 50% of vote, 28% he wins by double digits.

everlast75

droidus wrote: »

Betfair still have 1/7 odds on Biden winning the popular vote, which seems insane.

Does that mean you win 1e for every 7e you bet?

0gac3yjefb5sv7

droidus wrote: »

The economist is up to 96% after the removal of some partisan polls. https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

How accurate was this in 2016?

Will we likely have a winner by Wed morning or is it possible we have to wait for all postal votes to come in?

Christy42

enno99 wrote: »

But thats not the case a poster said 600,000 watching a broadcast is not indicitave of the population
but a couple of hundred from polls are ?
The democrat attendees were there even before the election campaign really kicked in

Yes. Polls are chosen to be a selection of the population. A trump rally is fairly obviously biased towards certain segments of the population.

A rally and a poll are two very different things and should not be compared.

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Correct and despite the Democrats having a healthy majority in the house , the GOP actually lead 26-24 in a state by state count.

So the dozens of Democrat House reps from California are worthless here , they get 1 vote , exactly the same as Liz Chaney does as the sole House rep from Wyoming.

Would Liz vote for Trump though?

Foxtrol

MattS1 wrote: »

How accurate was this in 2016?

For projections like 'likelihood to win %', there isn't really an accuracy issue that you can look in the past and call out unless they've said someone is 100% going to win and didn't.

Like a team being behind and pulling off a late comeback, it doesn't change that they were unlikely to win at a point in time.

Larbre34

Just over 31% of the 240 million or so eligible voters in the United States, have *already* voted. Eligible being a far higher figure than registered.

Incredible.

Quin_Dub

MattS1 wrote: »

How accurate was this in 2016?

Will we likely have a winner by Wed morning or is it possible we have to wait for all postal votes to come in?

Definitely won't have a confirmed winner on the night or even the next day.

But depending on how a few States go you may have a very strong indication of the final result.

If a few of the traditionally early to report States like Arizona or Ohio go for Biden that will be an extremely strong indicator that he's going to take the whole lot (not 100% ,but extremely likely).

If they go for Trump , it's a less definitive indicator , but at the very least , them going to Trump will say that it's probably going to be incredibly close.

Florida won't be done on the night , but quite a few of their counties will have reported as they can start processing mail-in ballots before election day, so we may have some indicators early in Wednesday.

Dillonb3

Lot of pressure on Lieberman to drop out of this race now. No Idea why he's keeps hanging on.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1321082775110254592

TomOnBoard

DK224 wrote: »

So now it's official Tom has backed Trump for President!!

I'll never live that down!!!

The thing is, I don't mind admitting that, during the 2016 primaries, I would have had a lot of time for the Trump train... For shame, as my Granny used to say!!!

Itssoeasy

I see that people who went to a trump rally in Omaha were left stranded after trump left and either the transport that was organised didn’t arrive or more likely is the trump campaign didn’t bother to sort it out. It seems it was freezing last night and several attendees had to be treated for hyperthermia. And yet these people will still support the guy.

TomOnBoard

Dillonb3 wrote: »

Lot of pressure on Lieberman to drop out of this race now. No Idea why he's keeps hanging on.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1321082775110254592

I saw that! However, Lieberman is barely a Dem, a bit like his father who was an 'ornery Dem for years. So, I reckon that Lieberman's vote would be capturing votes that might otherwise go to a Republican. And if he drops out, relatively few might end up with Biden. Just a thought!

Zubeneschamali

Itssoeasy wrote: »

and either the transport that was organised didn’t arrive or more likely is the trump campaign didn’t bother to sort it out.

The report I saw said the campaign booked buses but their credit cards were rejected.

Overheal

All the Democrat yard signs in my area have been stolen overnight. Yesterday when I went to vote, there they all were, go out today for other business, all of them gone.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/robsfriedlander/status/1321509344727437313?s=20


Can't get enough of Obama spanking Trump like Stormy with a rolled up Time magazine. It is good for the soul.

Deshawn

Overheal wrote: »

All the Democrat yard signs in my area have been stolen overnight. Yesterday when I went to vote, there they all were, go out today for other business, all of them gone.

Good to hear. People have been destroying and vandalising Trump signs since 2016.

I saw a video of some chap who electrified his sign and another where the lady left piles of cat poop around hers to deter criminals and vandals.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Definitely won't have a confirmed winner on the night or even the next day.

But depending on how a few States go you may have a very strong indication of the final result.

If a few of the traditionally early to report States like Arizona or Ohio go for Biden that will be an extremely strong indicator that he's going to take the whole lot (not 100% ,but extremely likely).

If they go for Trump , it's a less definitive indicator , but at the very least , them going to Trump will say that it's probably going to be incredibly close.

Florida won't be done on the night , but quite a few of their counties will have reported as they can start processing mail-in ballots before election day, so we may have some indicators early in Wednesday.

This narrative is being pushed hard when it really shouldn't be. If it's close then yeah, it could take some time. If Biden is 20 points up and Trump needs 80% of late votes to break for him then the media should do as they always have in such cases and call the state.

The press need to have some balls on election night. Obviously in a state where it's close and postal ballots won't be counted until late then be circumspect. Where it's obvious who has won, bloody call it. If the polls are accurate there are enough states and electoral votes that the entire race could be called for Biden on the night.

BonnieSituation

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

538 currently have that as a 4% probability so yeah that's a great price.

I was also surprised to see that New York was 1.04 the other day on Betfair Exchange to be won by the Democrats. In investment terms you'd be getting 4% with absolutely zero risk.

I think it's a cert that Biden wins the popular vote.

The EC on the otherhand...

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Take the betting talk elsewhere please.

Tell me how

Said it before, we grew up listening to news broadcasts describing how the US and UN were sending observers to central African countries to ensure elections were fair and accessible.
America, 2020. It's over a minute, but worth watching.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381

Saw a very pertinent comment elsewhere on Twitter which said, 'Vote for the people who want you to be able to vote'.

Shocking stuff in a country where so many scream about the need for a well regulated militia to prevent a tyrannical government when you see images like this and hear about single ballot drop off boxes in counties in Texas which are bigger than Delaware.

JJayoo

I hope Biden wins, can't stick 4 more years of people complaining about Trump, so fcuking annoying

Foxtrol

Tell me how wrote: »

Said it before, we grew up listening to news broadcasts describing how the US and UN were sending observers to central African countries to ensure elections were fair and accessible.
America, 2020. It's over a minute, but worth watching.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381

Saw a very pertinent comment elsewhere on Twitter which said, 'Vote for the people who want you to be able to vote'.

Shocking stuff in a country where so many scream about the need for a well regulated militia to prevent a tyrannical government when you see images like this and hear about single ballot drop off boxes in counties in Texas which are bigger than Delaware.

Many places are a mess in the US for voting, especially early voting. I live in a very blue city and when I went by there yesterday it was a 3 hour wait for early in person voting, winding around several blocks. At this point early in person voting has become potentially more dangerous than it will be on the day of the election, as there are less sites so likely longer lines.

There is a split between lines caused by incompetence and obvious attempts at disenfranchising voters by the GOP.

8mv

everlast75 wrote: »

Can't get enough of Obama spanking Trump like Stormy with a rolled up Time magazine. It is good for the soul.

Damn, Everlast - I'd just taken a large mouthful of coffee before reading that. Now it's cleanup time.

Water John

538 showing the chances of the Dems taking the Senate almost as high as Biden's chance. Running between 74/77 in 100.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-races-where-democrats-have-an-edge-in-the-polls/
BTW Tump is now at 11 in 100 and Biden up to 88 in 100.

briany

Prominent American pollster Frank Luntz has been on Larry King's show saying that if the polls are wrong on this election, then the polling business is 'done'. Seems hyperbolic to me if he means that in a total way - the polling wasn't exactly wrong the last time around, but the analysis was off the mark. Generally public sentiment didn't seem to be correctly gauged. If you go back to the 2012 election, that thing was pretty close in most nationwide polls, and Hillary's apparent lead in the polls over Trump was never really less than Obama's over Romney, so this is probably where a big error laid.

But Luntz could be right in the sense that a certain group of people would never listen to polls again if Trump does win and go further down the rabbithole of not trusting expert opinion on anything.