US Presidential Election 2020

martingriff

VinLieger wrote: »

Five Thirty Eight has info on pretty much everything going on

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo

Is it only the presidential election or other election

An Ciarraioch

That said, in a world where Trump is only leading in Utah within the MoE, Pennsylvania becomes less of a concern:

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1322640604296318981

Water John

CNN poll in AZ, MI, NC and WN. Biden ahead in all four, only AZ within the margin of error. Women voting massively for Biden.
Many Biden supporters being motivated anti Trump. Women grab back and are squeezing.

Canice Picklington

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

That said, in a world where Trump is only leading in Utah within the MoE, Pennsylvania becomes less of a concern:

Biden could lose by 1 point in every red state and it would still make no difference. He isn't going to win Utah, and is likely going to be voter suppressed or malwared to defeat in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Ohio and North Carolina.

He has to win Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania carries the probability of chaos, violence and outright denial of democracy.

Trump is not hiding his plan to steal the election in the gerrymandered Supreme Court, he's flaunting it.

And the question is, what are the Democrats going to do to stop any of this?

I have no faith.

froog

tuesday's gonna be fun. i booked off the wednesday in work. make a night of it!

pixelburp

The question I've asked before in response to a Trump defeat is not what Trump does, but what the GOP allows. Trump has had his uses at this point so if the winds show a blowout, what value is there for the GOP to side with this (at best) divisive blow in to the party? Yes, the power grab is real, documented and involves precedent, but even still, I can't see their lust totally overriding sense. Just can't imagine Trump has made enough allies - bar Lindsey Graham - willing to side with him when the chips are down. Trump doesn't seem worth it; the GOP have their SC majority, the midterms will be along soon enough. Trump may find himself alone very quickly if the GOP whip decides him a lame duck.

Water John

pixelburp wrote: »

The question I've asked before in response to a Trump defeat is not what Trump does, but what the GOP allows. Trump has had his uses at this point so if the winds show a blowout, what value is there for the GOP to side with this (at best) divisive blow in to the party? Yes, the power grab is real, documented and involves precedent, but even still, I can't see their lust totally overriding sense. Just can't imagine Trump has made enough allies - bar Lindsey Graham - willing to side with him when the chips are down. Trump doesn't seem worth it; the GOP have their SC majority, the midterms will be along soon enough. Trump may find himself alone very quickly if the GOP whip decides him a lame duck.

The ebbing of power away can be quite dramatic. You become a has been in 24 hours.

Christy42

So does any of the polling take into account the mass discounting of votes that might favour Biden? Like how do those 100,000 votes effect the odds or the late votes being thrown out in Wisconsin?

The harassing of the Biden bus to cancel campaign events. Sure they are obviously scared but cheating can work for people including Trump.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

The ebbing of power away can be quite dramatic. You become a has been in 24 hours.

Precisely. And at no point has Trump seemed interested in cultivating relationships or alliances within the machinations of Washington. The swamp, basically. In fact I still remember reading of his tantrums at being expected to horse trade with republican senators during the failed healthcare reforms; he refused to engage with the boilerplate processes of governance. This suggests to me that if the axe falls, his calls to action might ring to disconnected numbers. I do expect very public Road to Damascus moments from Republican politicians, keen to distance from the man. Trump never bothered learning the game of politics and may yet learn the cost.

briany

pixelburp wrote: »

The question I've asked before in response to a Trump defeat is not what Trump does, but what the GOP allows. Trump has had his uses at this point so if the winds show a blowout, what value is there for the GOP to side with this (at best) divisive blow in to the party? Yes, the power grab is real, documented and involves precedent, but even still, I can't see their lust totally overriding sense. Just can't imagine Trump has made enough allies - bar Lindsey Graham - willing to side with him when the chips are down. Trump doesn't seem worth it; the GOP have their SC majority, the midterms will be along soon enough. Trump may find himself alone very quickly if the GOP whip decides him a lame duck.

In this event, it would be interesting to see where Trump supporters go. We don't know what would happen with Trump in terms of pending legal cases and all that, but you have to think that Trumpism is going to stick around at the very least in the form of another candidate who has Trump's endorsement if not Trump himself trying to run for reelection in 2024. That would pose a huge headache for a Republican establishment that wanted to move away from Trump back to a more traditional Republican candidate who was about the stock stuff like small government, low taxes and traditional values. The mask has slipped from a good half of the Republican base. Therefore I don't think that the Republican party can afford to move too far from Trumpism (i.e. build the wall and conspiratorial thinking) without alienating those people.

ZeroThreat

I'm not sure how true this is. This is obviously an extremely biased anti-trump progressive liberal youtuber, but he's claiming in some places ballots have even been burned.

froog

what's the thinking on the massive texas voter turnout? blue wave?

An Ciarraioch

Depends on which counties are up most, presumably.

Brussels Sprout

Christy42 wrote: »

So does any of the polling take into account the mass discounting of votes that might favour Biden? Like how do those 100,000 votes effect the odds or the late votes being thrown out in Wisconsin?

In a word, no they do not - at least not directly.

One thing to consider though is that polls assess whether someone is likely to actually vote (the best polls assign a probability to each person's likelihood of voting). Quite often the people who end up having their ballots rejected are inexperience voters who may have been assigned a lower probability of voting when polled.
One caveat to that that though, is that this year many experienced voters are not voting in person and therefore could be open to being disenfranchised either through their own fault (not signing everything they should, dropping their vote off at something that isn't actually a drop off box) or through no fault of their own (For example, a court changing the rules around when a mail-in vote is admissible after the event or the failure of the postal service to deliver their ballot on time).

briany

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I'm not sure how true this is. This is obviously an extremely biased anti-trump progressive liberal youtuber, but he's claiming in some places ballots have even been burned.

There is nothing wrong with poll watchers and I understand that to be a normal part of U.S. elections. There is everything wrong with people coming down to polling places and being disruptive díckheads, though. A poll watcher's primary concern should be that every voter gets to vote and that democracy is carried out in a lawful manner. Getting in the way or worse is the very antithesis of that and should be an arrestable offence carrying a substantial penalty. That is unequivocal and applies to anyone showing up to a polling place with bad faith intentions, completely regardless of what end of the political spectrum they are coming from.

Hopefully such incidents are isolated and the vast, vast majority (>99.9%) of U.S. voters are able to get to their polling stations and vote with impunity. God knows there is already enough underhand stuff being pulled to suppress voters without adding literal physical harassment into the mix.

Brussels Sprout

3 state polls from 538's A-rated pollsters today:

• Nebraska (2nd dis.) - Biden +2%
• Wisconsin - Biden +7%
• Pennsylvania - Biden + 5%

those could well be the final polls for all of those states

Water John

Are you sure that's Nebraska?

rossie1977

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I'm not sure how true this is. This is obviously an extremely biased anti-trump progressive liberal youtuber, but he's claiming in some places ballots have even been burned.

Story is true https://abc7.com/ballot-drop-box-fire-vote-by-mail-election/7218106/

briany

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

3 state polls from 538's A-rated pollsters today:

• Nebraska (2nd dis.) - Biden +2%
• Wisconsin - Biden +7%
• Pennsylvania - Biden + 5%

those could well be the final polls for all of those states

We have to be fair, here, and say that there is recent precedent for such leads being flipped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Wisconsin

In the two polls closest to the election listed here, Clinton was estimated to have a 7 point lead or a 2 point lead. It cannot be considered that 7 points is entirely safe.

However, in this coming election, the 7 point lead is the most conservative estimate regarding a Biden win and in another poll, it extends up to 10. You don't know until you know, but flipping Wisconsin would be even more contrary to polling than list time.

Regarding Pennsylvania, a 5 point lead is flippable as well, but are there any polls even suggesting it's a closer race than the general consensus of polls? Last time out, Trump always had those few polls that were contrary to the general tide of things. Those seem to have deserted him now.

MJohnston

Water John wrote: »

Are you sure that's Nebraska?

There are three districts in Nebraska.

MJohnston

briany wrote: »

We have to be fair, here, and say that there is recent precedent for such leads being flipped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Wisconsin

In the two polls closest to the election listed here, Clinton was estimated to have a 7 point lead or a 2 point lead. It cannot be considered that 7 points is entirely safe.

However, in this coming election, the 7 point lead is the most conservative estimate regarding a Biden win and in another poll, it extends up to 10. You don't know until you know, but flipping Wisconsin would be even more contrary to polling than list time.

Regarding Pennsylvania, a 5 point lead is flippable as well, but are there any polls even suggesting it's a closer race than the general consensus of polls? Last time out, Trump always had those few polls that were contrary to the general tide of things. Those seem to have deserted him now.

The two last WI polls in 2016 were from lower quality pollsters with Dem house effects.

TomOnBoard

CorkRed93 wrote: »

How do people see TX going with this insane turnout?

Well, there's a current attempt to have 100,000 ballots, from 'drive-in' voting stations thrown out... Turnout is only useful if votes actually get counted!!

Call me Al

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Well, there's a current attempt to have 100,000 ballots, from 'drive-in' voting stations thrown out... Turnout is only useful if votes actually get counted!!

It smacks of desperation.
The idea that Texas GOP have to resort to such blatant disenfranchisement is shocking.
But this is the level they've been reduced to..

CorkRed93

Call me Al wrote: »

It smacks of desperation.
The idea that Texas GOP have to resort to such blatant disenfranchisement is shocking.
But this is the level they've been reduced to..

They have invaded and backed coups in countries for less. The irony is strong in this one.

An Ciarraioch

MJohnston wrote: »

There are three districts in Nebraska.

And Obama won NE2 in 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska%27s_2nd_congressional_district#Electoral_vote;_2008_presidential_race

Brussels Sprout

Water John wrote: »

Are you sure that's Nebraska?

It's the second electoral district only. It awards 1 electoral college vote to it's winner (Maine and Nebraska allow each off their electoral districts to award electoral college votes individually).

The Nebraska second district is basically the city of Omaha so it's far more liberal than the rest of the state (which wouldn't be difficult since the 3rd district is more Republican than any state in the country and the 1st district ranks somewhere between Kentucky and South Dakota).

Tell me how

It begins...

https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1322306439944282113

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1322682319090733057

froog

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1322682319090733057

"The poll of 814 likely Iowa voters"

Water John

US hits 100,000 covid cases today.