US Presidential Election 2020

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

Trump has another rally on today. Looking at the 'pre-game' coverage, so to speak, and REM was just playing over the PA. Can artists request that their songs not be played at campaign events, or is that just for songs which are adopted as official campaign themes? I'd imagine Michael Stipe of all people would be thoroughly disgusted to think that any of his music has anything to do with Trump.

Tell me how wrote: »

Been there, done that.

I think the issue is that playing them at public events isn't a breach of copyright or whatever.

As long as they (or the event location) are paying the appropriate broadcast dues to the artist for playing the song , there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.

The cease and desist notices are nothing more than an appeal to the "better nature" of the campaign , so we know how that will go.

Using it in an ad or something is very different though.

salmocab

eire4 wrote: »

It certainly will be interesting to see what the final numbers are. The US has not even hit 60% turnout for a presidential election since 1968 when it was just over 60% and they have not hit 70% since 1900!

As a comparison the lowest turnout in an Irish election ever over the past 100 years was just over 61% in 1923.

To be fair we make voting Quick and easy and the local nature of a parliament and the people in it make it much more likely that people will vote. America has lots of places with hours waiting to vote which if we had would I suspect knock a huge amount off the numbers bothering.
Making a straight comparison isn’t really fair. If we knocked off all the people still on the register that have died or moved our percentage could go up a bit (2 voters in my house and 4 ballots 2 of them for people who haven’t lived here for over 15 years) does America have similar issues? They are certainly more transient for work than we are so possibly lots have moved without sorting out their stuff.

Quin_Dub

I saw this article last week that gives a good insight into the underlying issues with Voting in the US and how Voter suppression still takes place.

It talks about the history of "One man One Vote" , basically back in the day , congressional representation was based on counties.

Leading to situations where a rural county with a handful of residents had the same number of representatives as an urban county with tens or hundreds of thousands of residents.

That changed in 1962 with the Baker v Carr Supreme court ruling.

Chief Justice Earl Warren considered that ruling to be the single most important decision of his court.

Chief Justice Earl Warren later called Baker v Carr the most important decision issued by his court. He also summarized the principle behind that decision perfectly. “Legislators represent people,” he wrote. “Not trees or acres.” That principle – that power belongs to the people rather than the land – is what we now call one person, one vote.

That decision at least established that representation was tied to population , but the current problem is that Election organisation is still controlled at the county level , leading to the scenarios like the "one drop off point per county" craziness in Texas etc.

The solution would be to update the Electoral controls to align with congressional districts thereby being linked to Population and not geography.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1318051738100756481?s=20

Interesting figures.

Is there any merit in the thought that none of the Dems would vote for Trump, but some of the Reps might vote for Biden?

There's lots of merit in that thought IMO. An even more possible if not highly likely thought is that the bulk of non-affiliated voters will have voted for Biden.

Brussels Sprout

eire4 wrote: »

Anybody saying polls got it all wrong in 2016 is either being disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. They did not get it wrong. The average of the final week polls in 2016 had Clinton up by 3.1% nationally her final margin was 2.1% so they were pretty accurate.

That is true but it conceals a lot of error on the state level, that in some ways, cancelled each other out, making the national figures seem more accurate.

The Mid-West states consistently under-estimated Trump:

• Wisconsin - polls off by 7.2%
• Iowa - polls off by 6.5%
• Minnesota - polls off by 4.7%
• Ohio - polls off by 4.6%
• Michigan - polls off by 3.7%
• Pennsylvania - polls off by 2.6%

Whereas in the other direction there was a fairly big miss in the most populous state California where Clinton out-performed her polls by over 7%.

The crucial difference being that the mid-west misses meant several states going unexpectedly to Trump whereas the California miss, from an electoral college standpoint, was completely meaningless.

eire4

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That is true but it conceals a lot of error on the state level, that in some ways, cancelled each other out, making the national figures seem more accurate.

The Mid-West states consistently under-estimated Trump:

• Wisconsin - polls off by 7.2%
• Iowa - polls off by 6.5%
• Minnesota - polls off by 4.7%
• Ohio - polls off by 4.6%
• Michigan - polls off by 3.7%
• Pennsylvania - polls off by 2.6%

Whereas in the other direction there was a fairly big miss in the most populous state California where Clinton out-performed her polls by over 7%.

The crucial difference being that the mid-west misses meant several states going unexpectedly to Trump whereas the California miss, from an electoral college standpoint, was completely meaningless.

The national polls in 2016 did not seem more accurate they were accurate. Clinton won by 2.1% in the national vote the polls predicted 3.1% as her lead. That is well within the margin of error.

Brian?

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That is true but it conceals a lot of error on the state level, that in some ways, cancelled each other out, making the national figures seem more accurate.

The Mid-West states consistently under-estimated Trump:

• Wisconsin - polls off by 7.2%
• Iowa - polls off by 6.5%
• Minnesota - polls off by 4.7%
• Ohio - polls off by 4.6%
• Michigan - polls off by 3.7%
• Pennsylvania - polls off by 2.6%

Whereas in the other direction there was a fairly big miss in the most populous state California where Clinton out-performed her polls by over 7%.

The crucial difference being that the mid-west misses meant several states going unexpectedly to Trump whereas the California miss, from an electoral college standpoint, was completely meaningless.

Those polling figures, where are you getting them? Are they individual polls or averages? Because they're way out of whack with my memory.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

Those polling figures, where are you getting them? Are they individual polls or averages? Because they're way out of whack with my memory.

They are out of whack your correct. Even at the state level the polls were within the margin of error for the most part. It was just in those states the numbers were so close that a swing within the margin of error changed the result from a small Clinton lead to a tiny loss which is what happened. So again taking the margin for error inherent in polling into account the polls were correct in 2016.

Quin_Dub

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That is true but it conceals a lot of error on the state level, that in some ways, cancelled each other out, making the national figures seem more accurate.

The Mid-West states consistently under-estimated Trump:

• Wisconsin - polls off by 7.2%
• Iowa - polls off by 6.5%
• Minnesota - polls off by 4.7%
• Ohio - polls off by 4.6%
• Michigan - polls off by 3.7%
• Pennsylvania - polls off by 2.6%

Whereas in the other direction there was a fairly big miss in the most populous state California where Clinton out-performed her polls by over 7%.

The crucial difference being that the mid-west misses meant several states going unexpectedly to Trump whereas the California miss, from an electoral college standpoint, was completely meaningless.

That is correct , but the "miss" was entirely down to getting the distribution of undecided voters wrong . For all of the swing States Clinton's actual vote percentage was higher than polling suggested.

Trump closed the gap and sneaked ahead exclusively by winning the undecideds , he did not take any votes away from Clinton.

That bucket just doesn't exist this time around.

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is correct , but the "miss" was entirely down to getting the distribution of undecided voters wrong . For all of the swing States Clinton's actual vote percentage was higher than polling suggested.

Trump closed the gap and sneaked ahead exclusively by winning the undecideds , he did not take any votes away from Clinton.

That bucket just doesn't exist this time around.

Your right in what you say there. I would just add that including the margin for error that most of the state polls were not wrong either for the most part with a couple of exceptions. Wisconsin being the main one that was definitely outside the margin of error.

spacecoyote

duploelabs wrote: »

That would be reflected by the amount of people remotely voting because of Covid rather than a metric of motivation

I think it is somewhat of a reasonable comparison for enthusiasm, the stats are not in relation to just postal voting, they are in relation to early voting, which is people actually going out and queueing to vote, lines have already been crazy from some news I've seen

Water John

One woman interviewed, who voted for Trump in 2016, switching to Biden because, he is likeable. That's the X factor.

kowloon

Water John wrote: »

One woman interviewed, who voted for Trump in 2016, switching to Biden because, he is likeable. That's the X factor.

Any candidate comes out as likeable compared to Trump. His own side largely admits that he's a POS unless they have an agenda or a mental condition.

everlast75

More stats in...

https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1318235865664147457?s=19

The turn out is surely gonna be huge

everlast75

Perhaps this gives trump reason to pull out of the last debate.

Either way, he won't be happy

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1318338641140338689?s=19

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Perhaps this gives trump reason to pull out of the last debate.

Either way, he won't be happy

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1318338641140338689?s=19

I think the 2 minute muted mics will not be the hill he'll want to die on. However, the topics seem to be causing more grief. The moderator picked the topics (as agreed): American families, race in America, climate change, national security, and leadership. The Trump campaign is claiming that the 3rd debate was agreed months ago would be about foreign policy. But of course, they're conveniently ignoring the fact that they refused to partake in the 2nd debate, so the original spread of topics over 3 debates has got to be catered for within 2 debates. Hence, topics being debated that Trump wants nothing to do with. It is noteworthy that health care and foreign policy are not specifically msntioned, so theres lots of scope for heated discussion about those as well as Covid when leadership is being debated.

stefanovich

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think the 2 minute muted mics will not be the hill he'll want to die on. However, the topics seem to be causing more grief. The moderator picked the topics (as agreed): American families, race in America, climate change, national security, and leadership. The Trump campaign is claiming that the 3rd debate was agreed months ago would be about foreign policy. But of course, they're conveniently ignoring the fact that they refused to partake in the 2nd debate, so the original spread of topics over 3 debates has got to be catered for within 2 debates. Hence, topics being debated that Trump wants nothing to do with. It is noteworthy that health care and foreign policy are not specifically msntioned, so theres lots of scope for heated discussion about those as well as Covid when leadership is being debated.

Can you think of any other reasons why foreign policy discussion might be bad for Biden?

Brussels Sprout

Brian? wrote: »

Those polling figures, where are you getting them? Are they individual polls or averages? Because they're way out of whack with my memory.

They're all Real Clear Politics averages.

Aggregate for the mid-western states is here with the individual source references for each of them given in the table

California here

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is correct , but the "miss" was entirely down to getting the distribution of undecided voters wrong . For all of the swing States Clinton's actual vote percentage was higher than polling suggested.

Trump closed the gap and sneaked ahead exclusively by winning the undecideds , he did not take any votes away from Clinton.

That bucket just doesn't exist this time around.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that the polls are wrong this time.

In 2016 the big mistakes in the polls were not taking account of the education levels of voters (leading to the big miss in non-college, white voters) and not seeing that the undecideds would break decisively for Trump. This time around pollsters are asking for education levels and the number of undecideds is way down from 4 years ago.

eire4 wrote:

The national polls in 2016 did not seem more accurate they were accurate. Clinton won by 2.1% in the national vote the polls predicted 3.1% as her lead. That is well within the margin of error.

You're missing the point. it's not a national election. It's a composite of 50 state elections. National polls are nothing more than a general indicator. The real value is in the sate polls. Your initial statement was that people claiming a polling error were "either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant". It is neither of those things to point out that there were considerable errors in the state polls and they proved to be decisive in the end.

stefanovich

College turnout has cratered. That could be a significant disadvantage to the democrats.

Democrats also used University events to campaign. Most are cancelled due to covid.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

College turnout has cratered. That could be a significant disadvantage to the democrats.

Democrats also used University events to campaign. Most are cancelled due to covid.

They're set to have largest election turnout since early 20th century. Large turnouts work against the GOP.

TomOnBoard

stefanovich wrote: »

Can you think of any other reasons why foreign policy discussion might be bad for Biden?

Not particularly in a debate context.

In fact, I see a foreign policy debate as being a massive exposure of Trump's foreign policy malfeasance in areas such as:

He doesnt actually have any coherent policy, and what he does have is for sale to the highest bidder
His only stated objective is the tired old 'America First' trope, which translates into '**** the rest of the world"
He has placed a Christian Fundamentalist lunatic in charge of the State Department
He has been responsible for evisceration of professional foreign policy expertise in the State Dept and has reduced those remaining to being mere 'bag carriers' for incompetent US representatives abroad such as Ivanka, Kushner and their ilk
He has put 'pay for play' cronies without an ounce of diplomatic skill in crucial embassy positions around the world
He only has eyes for the 'strongmen' like Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsanaro, Netanyahu, Orban while pi$$ing all over long term allies such as NATO and Canada
He was played bigly by DPRK in his narcissistic pursuit of a love affair with Kim
His trade war with China has led to increased tensions in the South China Sea with limited back-channel tension relief
His Middle East policy, such as if is, is handled by a grifter whose level of indebtedness leaves him wide open to be compromised by Qatari, Arab and Israeli interests, which I believe him to be
His BS move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem to appease Israel has set back relations with Palestinians by years
His meddling in Ukraine is all about favouring Putin's grandiosity in relation to taking over the entire eastern part of the country
His treatment of the continent of Africa as just a collection of '****hole countries' has been an appalling foreign policy disaster

I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I dont have time to give a more detailed answer. If I get time during the day, I'll tell you what I really think of current U.S. Foreign 'Policy'...

stefanovich

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Not particularly in a debate context.

In fact, I see a foreign policy debate as being a massive exposure of Trump's foreign policy malfeasance in areas such as:

He doesnt actually have any coherent policy, and what he does have is for sale to the highest bidder
His only stated objective is the tired old 'America First' trope, which translates into '**** the rest of the world"
He has placed a Christian Fundamentalist lunatic in charge of the State Department
He has been responsible for evisceration of professional foreign policy expertise in the State Dept and has reduced those remaining to being mere 'bag carriers' for incompetent US representatives abroad such as Ivanka, Kushner and their ilk
He has put 'pay for play' cronies without an ounce of diplomatic skill in crucial embassy positions around the world
He only has eyes for the 'strongmen' like Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsanaro, Netanyahu, Orban while pi$$ing all over long term allies such as NATO and Canada
He was played bigly by DPRK in his narcissistic pursuit of a love affair with Kim
His trade war with China has led to increased tensions in the South China Sea with limited back-channel tension relief
His Middle East policy, such as if is, is handled by a grifter whose level of indebtedness leaves him wide open to be compromised by Qatari, Arab and Israeli interests, which I believe him to be
His BS move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem to appease Israel has set back relations with Palestinians by years
His meddling in Ukraine is all about favouring Putin's grandiosity in relation to taking over the entire eastern part of the country
His treatment of the continent of Africa as just a collection of '****hole countries' has been an appalling foreign policy disaster

I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I dont have time to give a more detailed answer. If I get time during the day, I'll tell you what I really think of current U.S. Foreign 'Policy'...

He wants to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US that were outsourced due to globalisation and the search for ever cheaper labour.

Pompeo is not a lunatic. He's a very competent politician actually and has a moral compass.

"Professional foreign policy experts" - professional saboteurs more like.

NATO members are not paying their fair share. Totally reasonable for Trump to hold them to account.

He tried to resolve the situation in North Korea which is admirable.

China has been waging economic war with the rest of the world for decades.

duploelabs

stefanovich wrote: »

He wants to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US that were outsourced due to globalisation and the search for ever cheaper labour.

Pompeo is not a lunatic. He's a very competent politician actually and has a moral compass.

"Professional foreign policy experts" - professional saboteurs more like.

NATO members are not paying their fair share. Totally reasonable for Trump to hold them to account.

He tried to resolve the situation in North Korea which is admirable.

China has been waging economic war with the rest of the world for decades.

But he failed miserably. Tarrifs did nothing to help manufacturing jobs as those Tarrifs were applied to the imported raw materials, thus increasing the cost of manufacture, in turn leading to a loss of manufacturing jobs.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

They're set to have largest election turnout since early 20th century. Large turnouts work against the GOP.

Not among college age students.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Not among college age students.

Care to provide a source?

everlast75

stefanovich wrote: »

He wants to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US that were outsourced due to globalisation and the search for ever cheaper labour.

Pompeo is not a lunatic. He's a very competent politician actually and has a moral compass.

"Professional foreign policy experts" - professional saboteurs more like.

NATO members are not paying their fair share. Totally reasonable for Trump to hold them to account.

He tried to resolve the situation in North Korea which is admirable.

China has been waging economic war with the rest of the world for decades.

Allow me to reply....

stefanovich wrote: »

I don't have the time or patience to address that wall of text. Truth and fiction interleaved.

looksee

He really, really doesn't get it
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521759-trump-says-he-could-out-raise-biden-with-calls-to-wall-street-oil

Trump claims - actually said - that he could raise more funds than Biden by talking to oil firms and selling permits. He just doesn't get it that Biden fundraised from people who want him to be president, he has to use his position as president to bribe firms to support him, for a quid pro quo!

And Exxon felt they had to come out and say clearly that the hypothetical conversation never happened.

Brussels Sprout

I cannot see any topic where Trump would have an actual advantage with the provision that they actually drill into the detail and get beyond meaningless soundbites (which unfortunately they would never do).

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

College turnout has cratered. That could be a significant disadvantage to the democrats.

Democrats also used University events to campaign. Most are cancelled due to covid.

Or it could be significant disadvantage to republicans as those college students are all now voting in their home states many of which might be republican leaning in normal years but might tip democratic with college students at home instead of in college in guaranteed blue states.