US Presidential Election 2020

is_that_so

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I will never understand the whole "rally" thing.

Covid or not , why on earth would you want to go to a political rally - for anyone?

50+ Years ago before TV and more recently the Internet etc. they were probably the only way to get to see/hear the candidate and what they were about , but since then?

I just don't get it.

Razzmatazz and instant gratification for both candidates and public. People like to be close to who they are voting for and they are a good way to get a decent captive audience. In Trump's case they are the bubble he desperately needs.

Christy42

Interesting he doesn't want the military votes counted either. The deadline for their arrival to be counted is well after midnight of the election night with Trump threatening to bring in the lawyers at midnight.

I am sure he will fail at this but the point remains that he actively wants to disenfranchised people and is getting cheered for it.

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

But I thought there was such a thing a silent trump voter.

All the ones we've seen so far have been pretty vulgar about the open support. Even so far as to attack the opposition front runner. And trump tweeting out support of such actions in twitter only hours ago.

America is broken.

And it's broken for all to see.

These arent the silent votes though.
The silent voter is the one who claims to be undecided when polled but then ticks the Trump box on the day.

VinLieger

Christy42 wrote: »

Interesting he doesn't want the military votes counted either. The deadline for their arrival to be counted is well after midnight of the election night with Trump threatening to bring in the lawyers at midnight.

I am sure he will fail at this but the point remains that he actively wants to disenfranchised people and is getting cheered for it.

Also wont the postal votes in many states like florida be counted first if not immediately released upon polls closing? There is every likelihood that by 11:59 PM on tuesday he will still be losing due to the high number of democratic early voting slowing the counting of in person election day voting

Christy42

ELM327 wrote: »

These arent the silent votes though.
The silent voter is the one who claims to be undecided when polled.

I have yet to see evidence in any election anywhere that this is a thing. Ever. I have seen it claimed it pretty much every election as well but when the results are in the polls tend to be pretty close.

VinLieger

Christy42 wrote: »

I have yet to see evidence in any election anywhere that this is a thing. Ever. I have seen it claimed it pretty much every election as well but when the results are in the polls tend to be pretty close.

Its also funny that republicans push this as their narrative, they are admitting their supporters feel so much shame about voting for them that they wont publicly admit to doing it.

ELM327

Christy42 wrote: »

I have yet to see evidence in any election anywhere that this is a thing. Ever. I have seen it claimed it pretty much every election as well but when the results are in the polls tend to be pretty close.

Like the last time?
Hillary was between +5 and +10, along with projected EC victory, right up to the day of the election.

MJohnston

ELM327 wrote: »

Like the last time?
Hillary was between +5 and +10, along with projected EC victory, right up to the day of the election.

That's not true.

Christy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Like the last time?
Hillary was between +5 and +10, along with projected EC victory, right up to the day of the election.

She was definitely not +10 the day of the election after the Comey news.

The Comeys news hit the polls last minute and they were still within the margin of error.

538 had Hilary winning the popular vote by 3.5%, she won by 2% on election night. 1.5% is not a sign of a shy vote.

The issue of the national polls not capturing the electoral college was even highlighted by some before the election,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/

MJohnston

Solid PA and FL results here for Biden from Morning Consult (B/C rating on 538):

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1323205067726532608/photo/1

Water John

Late polls could be quite accurate considering how many would have voted already this time. It's half an exit poll really.

Francie Barrett

ELM327 wrote: »

Like the last time?
Hillary was between +5 and +10, along with projected EC victory, right up to the day of the election.

That is not true.

Hillary was polling +4 the day before the election, her actual result in 2016 was +2. The poll was out by 2%, which was well within the margin of error.

MJohnston

is_that_so wrote: »

I think this is where you provide support to confirm that claim!

No, that's where someone making the original, disputed claim posts evidence to support that.

But here, click through to this:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&odds

Scroll to "How the forecast has changed" and switch to the "popular vote" graph. Even at her peak, Clinton was forecast to only be +5 on Trump in the popular vote. 3 days before election day she was only up 2.7 and the final forecast on election day was +3.5.

Or you can view the simple polling averages here:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#plus

Peak Clinton lead during the entire campaign was +6.3 one month out from the election (pre-Comey letter). Final polling average was Clinton +3.8.

Keep in mind when looking at all these figures that the actual result in the end was Clinton +2.1.

MJohnston

Water John wrote: »

Late polls could be quite accurate considering how many would have voted already this time. It's half an exit poll really.

Nate Silver has pointed out that they can tend to herd more in the last couple of days though. So who knows.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Solid PA and FL results here for Biden from Morning Consult (B/C rating on 538):

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1323205067726532608/photo/1

Actually looking again at that Florida result it's even more encouraging — Biden +6 with a huge sample size of 4,451.

everlast75

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Mostly same cohort pile into mega churches, logic goes out when one believes in an invisible man up there somewhere and already participate in mass (ha) events. Now that I think of it Trump is using the preacher handbook at these events.

It's a cult.

And, like members of a cult, they are treated like **** and would gladly come back for more.

For the third time this week, he abandoned them


https://twitter.com/JulieNBCNews/status/1323140942623313920?s=19

Quin_Dub

ELM327 wrote: »

These arent the silent votes though.
The silent voter is the one who claims to be undecided when polled but then ticks the Trump box on the day.

Indeed - And that may have been a factor in 2016.

Across pretty much all of the swing states last time out there were ~10% of people described as "undecided" - Some of those may indeed have been actual Trump voters unwilling to share their true feelings.

This time around though the undecided bucket is in the low single digits , 3% to 4% so it doesn't look like there are enough of them this time around.

Take PA for example.

RCP average currently has it as 49.7% Biden , 45.4% Trump.

That potentially leaves 4.9% on the table , but roughly ~1.5% of that balance is going to go to 3rd party votes , so really there are about 3.5% truly in the undecided category, probably a little bit less than that.

That is the massive difference this time around , even if Trump took every single one of that ~3.5% , it still might not be enough.

Also bear in mind , that last time RCP had Clinton on 46.2% in polling , but she actually got 47.5%.

In fact Clinton outperformed her polling number in all of the swing states except Wisconsin where she came in fractionally below. It was the undecided voters that won it for Trump. It doesn't look like there is sufficient numbers this time around.

Biden will get at least some percentage of those 3.5% and given how close to 50% polling has him he doesn't need that much.

Trumps task is of course , not impossible but it does look increasingly improbable looking at the data.


None of this of course takes in account any potential legal challenges/rulings etc. - Who knows what might happen then.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I will never understand the whole "rally" thing.

Covid or not , why on earth would you want to go to a political rally - for anyone?

50+ Years ago before TV and more recently the Internet etc. they were probably the only way to get to see/hear the candidate and what they were about , but since then?

I just don't get it.

I suspect that it's a bit like the Pope's visit to Ireland in 1979 and the crowds (like myself) who thronged into the Phoenix Park to be part of it all...

I know! Are you serious?? Comparing Trump to The Pope!!

Well, here's my rationale... Many/most of these folks are consuming a CONSTANT diet of pro-Trump propaganda, day in and day out. Limbaugh, Infowars, OANN, Fox are their sole source of "news", and their beliefs are pavlovian as a result. There is no critical thinking going on, no questioning of what they are being told, and a 'fingers in the ears' / "LaLaLaLa......LaLa" attitude to any/all reason-based, evidence-supported alternative thinking. As part of that constant conditioning and programming, basic personality defects and innate human frailties are harnessed by propaganda peddlers to undermine followers' otherwise natural kindness and tolerance. As people get further invested in the belief system, they get sucked in deeper and deeper, and individual minds become subservient to the overall 'herd mentality'. By that time, you have a cult of blind following of a leader and members will congregate to see and hear the 'Great Leader' when he visits an area that's within travelling distance.

In many ways, the cult of Trump is a form of religion- a blind faith in someone that gives some meaning to otherwise empty belief systems. And it's not just Trump. It's the cult of personality that follows charismatic figures all over the political and religious map. Popes, JFK, Fidel Castro, Obama, Ugo Chavez, Hitler, Eva Peron- all capable of drawing large crowds just to hear them speak, and be in their presence. Mad, I know!

Alonso77

MJohnston wrote: »

Solid PA and FL results here for Biden from Morning Consult (B/C rating on 538):

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1323205067726532608/photo/1

If those polls in PA, Michigan and Wisconsin are even close to accurate then Trump is done. When Texas and Georgia are in play republicans know they are in trouble

seamus

Alonso77 wrote: »

If those polls in PA, Michigan and Wisconsin are even close to accurate then Trump is done. When Texas and Georgia are in play republicans know they are in trouble

Even the Trump-positive states tell a story. Trump won by 19 points in Indiana in 2016 (56% -v- 37%).

All he would have to do to maintain that is meet a minimum level of competency through his presidency. And he didn't.

South Carolina is another good one. Trump had a 13.5% lead in in 2016. Now 6.6% in that poll. That's the lowest polling Republican in S. Carolina since Bob Dole. (Who?...Exactly)

partyguinness

In Michael Moore's opinion you should automatically half Biden's poll leads in any given State. This brings most States withiin the margin of error and too close to call.

Water John

Biden's national lead is at +8%. Very little move throughout the campaign.

ELM327

Texas is not in play.
Biden was ran out of texas sure.

Quin_Dub

ELM327 wrote: »

Texas is not in play.
Biden was ran out of texas sure.

I do not think that Texas is going to go for Biden , but the mere fact that a Democrat candidate is even remotely in sight there is a huge warning sign for Trump.

Across the board , even in typically raging red States he is polling well behind where he was in 2016.

As I said earlier , his task is not impossible , but it does look improbable at this stage.

Water John

Texas is about a one in three shot for Biden. Harris wouldn't be wasting time there if it wasn't in play to some degree. Also puts Trump on the back foot defending it.

Alonso77

ELM327 wrote: »

Texas is not in play.
Biden was ran out of texas sure.

Trump will prob eek out Texas by 3 to 4 pts but it won't matter if PA, Michigan and Wisconsin are in the bag for Biden. PA is looking like the one to watch.

Christy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Texas is not in play.
Biden was ran out of texas sure.

Trump supporters being more violent does not mean there are more of them.

He probably won't get it in the end but it is absolutely in play.

listermint

ELM327 wrote: »

Texas is not in play.
Biden was ran out of texas sure.

A small cohort of idiots acting aggressively does not constitute anything. Tbh they should all be arrested. Imagine any other vice president or ex president being boxed in on a highway by vehicles and armed men.

The secret service would be well within rights to take action

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted and sanction issued. Don't dump videos here please.

Quin_Dub

Alonso77 wrote: »

Trump will prob eek out Texas by 3 to 4 pts but it won't matter if PA, Michigan and Wisconsin are in the bag for Biden. PA is looking like the one to watch.

Indeed - As has been flagged for quite some time , the PA vote is likely the critical one.

Which is why that case potentially coming back in front of the Supreme court is so huge.

Trump was railing against their "non-decision" the other day.

Expect that rhetoric to increase exponentially if he takes Florida.

Personally I'd have Florida slightly leaning for Trump at this stage but it will be very very close.

If Trump wins Florida then sadly I think the Election gets decided in a court room and not the ballot box as Trump and the GOP will go scorched earth in PA to try to win there , regardless of what tallied advantage there might be for Biden.

MJohnston

Monmouth with Biden +7 in PA (or +5 if you somehow think this is going to be a low turnout election):

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1323221431682015232

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

Biden's national lead is at +8%. Very little move throughout the campaign.

I stopped looking at national poll results some time ago. The only pre-election polls that matter are those on a state by state basis.

Water John

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I stopped looking at national poll results some time ago. The only pre-election polls that matter are those on a state by state basis.

The logic is that, once a Dem candidate is about +6 they can overcome the differential between the popular vote and the Electoral College.

droidus

538 have come out with their traditional last minute disclaimer.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/

Here’s what it seems safe to say, though. In an election that is very close, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is likely to side with Trump. Our model shows a 4 percent chance of an election that winds up with one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points, close enough to trigger a recount. If you want to round up Trump’s odds slightly by assuming he wins the lion’s share of those 4 percent of cases, plus most of the 0.5 percent of the time that the election ends up in an Electoral College tie, I wouldn’t strenuously object to that. Mostly, though, I’d just be worried about the meltdown that could occur if a recount or a tie comes up. The odds are against it, but the stakes are awfully high.

And politico have done a local report on each of the swing states - slightly more encouraging than the last selection of articles I linked to. If you start here you'll find the other states at the end of the article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/swing-states-arizona-433248

TomOnBoard

ELM327 wrote: »

These arent the silent votes though.
The silent voter is the one who claims to be undecided when polled but then ticks the Trump box on the day.

And the folks in Trumpland (such as Retirement village folks in FL) who say they'll vote Trump (out of fear of neighbour ostracising them) but actually vote for Biden.

Quin_Dub

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I stopped looking at national poll results some time ago. The only pre-election polls that matter are those on a state by state basis.

I don't disagree , but the evidence suggests that the "Electoral College effect" means that a GOP candidate can lose the popular vote by about 4% and still be in the mix for the overall win.

Losses beyond that margin and the chances of a GOP EC win decrease exponentially.

Brussels Sprout

There was always a big question mark over Trafalgar given their record of constantly issuing polls that look better for Republicans

Their chief pollster dispensed entirely with the facade of neutrality last night on Fox News:


https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1323087162938720256

MJohnston

partyguinness wrote: »

In Michael Moore's opinion you should automatically half Biden's poll leads in any given State. This brings most States withiin the margin of error and too close to call.

This makes no sense — if you believe in the methodology of polls and their outcomes, then the margin of error is something that builds in its own uncertainty.

If you don't trust the methodology or results of polls, and you're doing something completely arbitrary like cutting them in half, then why would the margin of error suddenly matter? You've already undermined the objectivity of the polling, so the margin of error is meaningless.

MJohnston

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

There was always a big question mark over Trafalgar given their record of constantly issuing polls that look better for Republicans

Their chief pollster dispensed entirely with the facade of neutrality last night on Fox News:

As Nate Silver pointed out last week, they also issued a bunch of polls that were funded by partisan groups, and did not disclose this. I suspect they'll get a rating downgrade post-election, and I'd imagine Silver only keeps them in the averages because he likes to include outliers to be as objective as possible.

seamus

droidus wrote: »

538 have come out with their traditional last minute disclaimer.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/

Speaks to what a farce the US system is.

"If it's a very close race, the Supreme Court will hand the election to the candidate they like the best".

Incredible. The US spent so many years toppling democracies and replacing them with dictatorships, it didn't realise the same thing was happening at home, just more slowly.

droidus

Like (I'm sure) many people here Ive been following the polls and analysis for months and for quite some time it looked like we would have a strong Biden performance and a probable victory.

In the last week or two I think the uncertainty levels have ratcheted up. Unprecedented early voting, coronavirus, slow turnout of certain demographics in key areas, the possibility violence and civil unrest and mail in ballot suppression, some indicators of improved trump support in some places, more evidence of shy voters.

It could just be the dejavu from 2016, or last minute nerves and the fact that there's so much riding on this, but I honestly can't think of another election in my lifetime when the outcome was so uncertain and also so consequential.

It seems entirely possible that Trump could somehow squeeze a victory, or at least make it tight enough to delay and let SCOTUS do the rest. Conversely it seems like a Biden landslide is within grasp. Most of my friends in the US are nervous wrecks at this stage.

Quin_Dub

MJohnston wrote: »

As Nate Silver pointed out last week, they also issued a bunch of polls that were funded by partisan groups, and did not disclose this. I suspect they'll get a rating downgrade post-election, and I'd imagine Silver only keeps them in the averages because he likes to include outliers to be as objective as possible.

Watch out for the * beside the poll info on both RCP and 538.

The Asterisk means that it was a poll paid for by one side or the other. Doesn't mean that the polling is wrong , but they are funded by groups directly or indirectly linked to the candidates.

Brussels Sprout

Hah right on cue, I see that the only poll out so far today is Trafalgar showing Trump up by 3% in Michigan :pac:

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

The logic is that, once a Dem candidate is about +6 they can overcome the differential between the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Ok. I see that.. I have felt that, with polarisation being so massive in US right now, and huge state populations like in California and New York being so pro-Dem, they would skew national figures in such as way as to be misleading. But, if there is a basis for adjusting like you say, then I too relish that national Biden +8 figure..

droidus

Ralston's final prediction on Nevada is Biden +4.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/biden-will-win-nevada-blue-wave-should-help-down-ballot

If he's right, that puts NV within about 1 point of the polling average (-1), and probably augurs well for Arizona.

partyguinness

I would be more interested in what US voters living in the US have to say.

I was living in the US in 1999 during the run up to the 2000 election. The picture and narrative around Bush (even in NY and Boston) was very different than the left wing bias encountered when I arrived back in Ireland i.e. Bush was came across as a very sensible and electable candidate.

droidus

partyguinness wrote: »

I was living in the US in 1999 during the run up to the 2000 election. The picture and narrative around Bush (even in NY and Boston) was very different than the left wing bias encountered when I arrived back in Ireland i.e. Bush was came across as a very sensible and electable candidate.

lol, yeah, and its precisely that attitude that got us in the mess we're in today and now has most of the world regarding the US as a basket case.

partyguinness

droidus wrote: »

lol, yeah, and its precisely that attitude that got us in the mess we're in today and now has most of the world regarding the US as a basket case.

Who is "we" and "us" amd whose "attitude" are you referring to?


Sorry are you a US voter?

everlast75

partyguinness wrote: »

I would be more interested in what US voters living in the US have to say.

I was living in the US in 1999 during the run up to the 2000 election. The picture and narrative around Bush (even in NY and Boston) was very different than the left wing bias encountered when I arrived back in Ireland i.e. Bush was came across as a very sensible and electable candidate.

Why are you on an Irish forum where the vast majority of posters are Irish?

droidus

partyguinness wrote: »

Who is "we" and "us" amd whose "attitude" are you referring to?


Sorry are you a US voter?

'We' and 'us' is the world, and the 'attitude' is that of American voters who regarded a mentally deficient and deeply incompetent war criminal who stole an election as 'sensible' and 'electable'.