US Presidential Election 2020

CorkRed93

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1322852329910116359

interested to see how this holds up come election day

Brussels Sprout

ABC News /Washington Post (A+ rated by 538) have polls out as well for Florida and PA of Likely Voters:

PA (n=810) : Biden +7%
FL (n=824) : Trump +2%

m.o.e is 4% for both polls

full details here

This, along with the Upshot poll, is making me feel a lot more confident about PA.
Florida will, as usual, likely come down to the wire.

Water John

Navarro a Cuban Floridian, maintains, there may be shy Bidens voters in Florida. They don't want to be seen by other Cubans as not supporting Trump.

Brussels Sprout

Canice Picklington wrote: »

It's hard not to think of Florida and North Carolina as a pair, that's certainly how it worked in 2016. You could probably throw in Georgia and Texas to make it a foursome. If Biden doesn't win Florida, it's difficult enough to see him take any of the others.

NBC News had a piece last night about North Carolina. Apparently it's become quite the tech and pharma hub and as a result it's attracted a lot of college-educated workers from other states who have collectively turned it into a purple state.

I believe similar movements of people are happening into Atlanta, Georgia and into the Dallas/Houston/Austin area of east Texas.

Brussels Sprout

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I believe similar movements of people are happening into Atlanta, Georgia and into the Dallas/Houston/Austin area of east Texas.

Yup Atlanta is growing massively and both of your examples have had huge increases in African American population.


On a more general note based just on gut feeling Iowa, AZ, Florida and Ohio are all Trump's I think. PA and Wisconsin are going to be the 2 crucial states IMO.

CorkRed93

Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
6m
National GE:
Biden 52% (+10)
Trump 42%

@NBCNews
/
@WSJ
, RV, 10/29-31

TomOnBoard

MJohnston wrote: »

The Senate is a massively archaic institution in a country that’s despairingly beholden to an archaic constitution. I feel like it’s because they wiped out the only intrinsic history that America had that they feel this obsessive need to cling to the small bits of history they do have. It’s such a broken country, and the one good outcome of the Trump era has been the EU realising that we shouldn’t be following their lead or relying on their presence anymore.

Land of the Free?
Leaders of the 'Free World'?
Richest Country on Earth?
A Great Democracy?

All myths being trounced on over the past 4 years... One thing he's done that I'm glad about: he's popped all that bubble of self- aggrandising bull**** we used to hear for decades...

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

Navarro a Cuban Floridian, maintains, there may be shy Bidens voters in Florida. They don't want to be seen by other Cubans as not supporting Trump.

I believe that. Also, shy Seniors who fear being bullied in retirement communities if they 'admit' to being fed up with MAGA!

Itssoeasy

It may just people being over cautious but it was reported on the 11th hour with Brian Williams that business people are boarding up their places of business for what may come post election in terms of unrest.

An Ciarraioch

Latest pollsters:

Emerson:

Ohio: Biden +1 49-48% (change from last poll not stated)
Iowa: Trump +1 48-47% (1% swing to Trump)
Michigan: Biden +7 52-45% (4% swing to Trump)

Iowa Senate: Greenfield +3 51-48% (7% swing to Greenfield)

RMG:

Florida: Biden +4 51-47% (2% swing to Biden)

Research and Polling (New Mexico poll):

Biden +12 54-42% (3% swing to Trump)

EPIC-MRA:

Michigan: Biden +7 48-41% (2% swing to Trump)

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Your 'dick move' in the US would be. Called voter suppression by any other metric in any other country and has been called that by American administration's.

It's not a dick move shrug your shoulders it's cancelling 100,000 plus American citizens legal right to vote which they've actually gone out and made.

What would you say if it was your vote. And don't give me anything about voting in a different way. Let's say you voted in your chosen format and the Democrats decided that the polling station location had bad lightening and therefore all votes cast in it are suspended because the voter couldnt know what ballot selections they were made. What would be your thoughts. Dick move ?

The difference between the two examples is that, to my knowledge, there is no legislation concerning the levels of lighting in a polling station. If the drive-through polling sites are, indeed, contrary to the cited state legislation, even if done in good faith, then it's illegal and can be knowable and avoidable ahead of time and Harris County is to blame. Would it have a suppressive effect? Yes, which is why I'm not approving of the concept in its application even if the Republican legal argument is correct. That doesn't, however, make it incorrect and there is something to be said for following legislation when dealing with elections. After all, both sides are going to use the rules to their advantage. The drive-through voting sites themselves are apparently disproportionately in Democrat areas of Harris county, if so, could that also not have a suppressive effect?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference between the two examples is that, to my knowledge, there is no legislation concerning the levels of lighting in a polling station. If the drive-through polling sites are, indeed, contrary to the cited state legislation, even if done in good faith, then it's illegal and can be knowable and avoidable ahead of time and Harris County is to blame. Would it have a suppressive effect? Yes, which is why I'm not approving of the concept in its application even if the Republican legal argument is correct. That doesn't, however, make it incorrect and there is something to be said for following legislation when dealing with elections.

There is something to be said for being sure about it ahead of time. Has Harris put out a defense or have they been given an opportunity to do so? The judge seemed mighty quick to push the ruling through. A bigger question is when did Republicans find out about this? Did they simply wait for the vote to suppress it or how are they only finding out about a voting system 100,000 people used?

You can blame Harris County and there is surely some blame there if they made mistakes but the fact remains that the US as a whole is really, really bad at organising elections. By far the worst in the first world. Blaming individual counties does nothing. Obviously they need more support from an independent body across the board.

I have seen individual potentially spoiled votes argued over but 100,000 in one go? Last minute rulings on when post needs to arrive by? Last minute rulings on the number of allowable ballot boxes? Massive lines in loads of places. Whatever the hell republics s thought they were doing in California with those ballot boxes. I don't know what their thoughts were or even what benefit they sought there. A supreme Court judge being asked by a state to retract part of their reasoning on an election ruling. Government mail being a complete shambles this year including whatever was up with Miami post office.

It isn't just this year either but there seems to be no concerted effort to actually fix it. Some things are better done centralised. Shrugging the shoulders and blaming the numerous counties at fault is not helpful, whether or not it is their fault.

Suppressive means to reduce voting. The drive through increased voting. It is not suppressive. It is like someone offering lifts to the voting booth for certain areas is not suppressive. However these things shouldn't be organised by parties but it is yet more evidence the US really struggles at running elections.

Brussels Sprout

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yeh play around with this electoral decision tree map, it's quite cool, Trump does not have many paths to victory

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

Thanks, that's really handy.

It really illustrates (once again) how crucial PA is. If Trump loses it he basically needs to clear the board everywhere else.

Francie Barrett

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

ABC News /Washington Post (A+ rated by 538) have polls out as well for Florida and PA of Likely Voters:

PA (n=810) : Biden +7%
FL (n=824) : Trump +2%

m.o.e is 4% for both polls

full details here

This, along with the Upshot poll, is making me feel a lot more confident about PA.
Florida will, as usual, likely come down to the wire.

It's hard to see how Trump wins now. The key swing states are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden has huge leads in the first two and a decent lead in the last. Even if Biden fails to take PA, he can win one of Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, or Ohio. Like has already been pointed out, he has so many paths to victory.

Christy42

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It's hard to see how Trump wins now. The key swing states are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden has huge leads in the first two and a decent lead in the last. Even if Biden fails to take PA, he can win one of Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, or Ohio. Like has already been pointed out, he has so many paths to victory.

If PA switches to Trump it means there is likely a decent shift or error missed by pollsters across the board. This is Trump's main hope.

Plus numerous voter suppression tactics to tip the scales if any places get too close though I get the feeling the Republicans are focussing them more on house/senate votes.

An Ciarraioch

If there were any doubt about Nevada, this should quell it:

https://twitter.com/JohnRSamuelsen/status/1322827814513614848

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

There is something to be said for being sure about it ahead of time. Has Harris put out a defense or have they been given an opportunity to do so? The judge seemed mighty quick to push the ruling through. A bigger question is when did Republicans find out about this? Did they simply wait for the vote to suppress it or how are they only finding out about a voting system 100,000 people used?

Oh, they've been trying for a while. Prior attempts, using slightly different legal argument have failed, which is why I don't see that they have much chance this time around either.

Suppressive means to reduce voting. The drive through increased voting. It is not suppressive. It is like someone offering lifts to the voting booth for certain areas is not suppressive. However these things shouldn't be organised by parties but it is yet more evidence the US really struggles at running elections.

Actually, I agree with you on this. Interestingly, it is exactly the same logic which was used by the court to uphold the limit on one drop-off-point for postal ballots per county: The argument was over just how much expansion there would be, not if it was a restriction. That logic did not seem to go over well in certain quarters, however.

Perhaps I should have said 'relative suppression', if you're making it easier for one crowd to vote than another.

looksee

First, I am utterly, totally mystified as to how a majority of people in the US can possibly support someone who is as utterly irresponsible and inept as Trump. I am at a loss to see how it could even be a close race given the lies, corruption, bad decisions and impossibly bad people he has surrounded himself with. How can there be a country that would prefer to have a carnival barker running the show than someone, anyone, with any degree of competence at all?

Second, the sheer neck of the US criticising Tanzania for their elections when they are obviously completely incapable of organising one for themselves.

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps I should have said 'relative suppression', if you're making it easier for one crowd to vote than another.

It just boggles my mind to read this. Just make it easier for everyone. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

droidus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

If there were any doubt about Nevada, this should quell it:

https://twitter.com/JohnRSamuelsen/status/1322827814513614848

Thats it, Nevada's done. Time to get back to worrying about PA.

SimonTemplar

https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1322912856153739266?s=20

Trump and the Republicans are building a narrative that votes counted after election night are not valid and are somehow an attempt by democrats to steal back the election. This is obviously nonsense. There is nothing in American law that states that all votes need to be counted on election night. In fact, the whole concept of election night is a media creation rather than something enshrined in law.

There may be some grey area regarding votes received after election day but all postal votes received up to election day may need a few days to be fully counted and are just as valid as those cast in person.

You can't steal back an election if all the votes haven't even been counted yet.

This is very damaging and deceitful by the GOP.

I don't understand what the legal basis for such a battle would even be.

Graham

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I don't understand what the legal basis for such a battle would even be.

There doesn't necessarily need to be a strong legal basis, just enough to throw the results into question.

Mr.Nice Guy

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Trump and the Republicans are building a narrative that votes counted after election night are not valid and are somehow an attempt by democrats to steal back the election. This is obviously nonsense. There is nothing in American law that states that all votes need to be counted on election night. In fact, the whole concept of election night is a media creation rather than something enshrined in law.

There may be some grey area regarding votes received after election day but all postal votes received up to election day may need a few days to be fully counted and are just as valid as those cast in person.

You can't steal back an election if all the votes haven't even been counted yet.

This is very damaging and deceitful by the GOP.

I don't understand what the legal basis for such a battle would even be.

It's very insidious stuff. I recall an article in The Guardian discussing this a few weeks back:

Democrats have said a massive victory is the surest way to avoid lengthy legal disputes that could even spill over into street violence. Trump has spent months seeking to undermine the credibility of the election in general and mail-in voting in particular.

Opinium found that Biden’s lead relies on the success of mail-in voting, likely to hit record levels during the pandemic. Some 55% of in-person voters intend to vote for Trump while 42% intend to vote for Biden. But when it comes to mail-in voters, 75% intend to vote for Biden and only 22% intend to vote for Trump.

As a result, America may witness a so-called “red mirage” in which Trump appears to be winning based on the early count of in-person votes, only to be overtaken by Biden’s mail-in ballots hours or day later. Only 30% of voters expect to know who the winner is on election night.

There are fears that Trump will use that time to spread conspiracy theories and declare victory. Half (50%) of voters are worried that if the president loses the election, he will not concede. There is a partisan divide: two-thirds (66%) of Trump voters are worried that the election will be rigged.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/13/election-poll-biden-leads-trump-17-points

I can't see any scenario where Trump concedes gracefully. It's not in his character. Wouldn't surprise me if he tweets out on election night that he has won, and then if mail-in votes change the outlook he'll claim that the deep state are trying to steal his win or some nonsense. The scary thing is millions of Americans will swallow that, and many of them are well-armed too.

briany

Graham wrote: »

There doesn't necessarily need to be a strong legal basis, just enough to throw the results into question.

There would need to be more than the results being in question. If you don't have a strong legal basis, then you're starting off from a bad footing taking things to the inevitable supreme court case. Even the likes of Barrett and Kavanaugh would have to know that they cannot be seen to be cowboys on this one, given the importance of their decision.

The other possible strategy of throwing the results into question is a veiled call to arms. This is almost too dark to countenance. Plus, when push comes to shove, I don't think your beer-bellied, scraggle-bearded, gun-nut class of Trump supporter really has the heart for an actual physical fight. If they get a bad stitch from walking to the store, fighting a running gun battle would likely be a step too far.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

It just boggles my mind to read this. Just make it easier for everyone. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

Yes.

The problem is that the two main parties trying to win also control the system, everyone is more worried about winning than making things easier and fair. Very much US politics is about the ends justifying the means, unfortunately.

Graham

I don't disagree with either of your points Briany but its becoming more likely that Trump is working towards one or both of them.

At this point it's almost impossible to know what Trump's plan is if the election doesn't go his way.

prawnsambo

briany wrote: »

There would need to be more than the results being in question. If you don't have a strong legal basis, then you're starting off from a bad footing taking things to the inevitable supreme court case. Even the likes of Barrett and Kavanaugh would have to know that they cannot be seen to be cowboys on this one, given the importance of their decision.

The other possible strategy of throwing the results into question is a veiled call to arms. This is almost too dark to countenance. Plus, when push comes to shove, I don't think your beer-bellied, scraggle-bearded, gun-nut class of Trump supporter really has the heart for an actual physical fight. If they get a bad stitch from walking to the store, fighting a running gun battle would likely be a step too far.

Yeah. It reeks of desperation.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, they've been trying for a while. Prior attempts, using slightly different legal argument have failed, which is why I don't see that they have much chance this time around either.



Actually, I agree with you on this. Interestingly, it is exactly the same logic which was used by the court to uphold the limit on one drop-off-point for postal ballots per county: The argument was over just how much expansion there would be, not if it was a restriction. That logic did not seem to go over well in certain quarters, however.

Perhaps I should have said 'relative suppression', if you're making it easier for one crowd to vote than another.

Hardly, it seems to be for the entire county so I can't see relative suppression. It is just the entire county is left leaning. If Harris is responsible for this they can't have been expected to force other counties to do the same. It is no more biased than any system of voting. Unless the system is centralised for the country or at least on state level I can't see a way differences don't crop up between areas.

Any areas who manage to get more of their people to vote is doing a good job imo, as long as no one favours sectors within their area of control.

They trialled the system in July as well with no controversy.

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes.

The problem is that the two main parties trying to win also control the system, everyone is more worried about winning than making things easier and fair. Very much US politics is about the ends justifying the means, unfortunately.

Yeah. Both main parties have had the opportunity to end gerrymandering, improve voting systems or any number of other electoral reforms, but have sat on their hands because it may have suited them once they were in power. Even the ludicrous situation of SC judges sitting for life is locked in the same alternating power paradigm.

duploelabs

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. Both main parties have had the opportunity to end gerrymandering, improve voting systems or any number of other electoral reforms, but have sat on their hands because it may have suited them once they were in power. Even the ludicrous situation of SC judges sitting for life is locked in the same alternating power paradigm.

I think there will be a lot of checks and balances will be installed in the Biden presidency to ensure those 'gentlemens agreements' won't be abused in further administrations