Who thinks Trump will win?

OS_Head

Igotadose wrote: »

Still leaves 38 undecided - that's 260 Biden, 240 Trump. Take a look at the map and decide all the undecideds.

The rust belt is key, with law and order and the economy being top of the agenda.

Call Me Jimmy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is not the purpose of democracy to give an advantage to one side. The US system is not democratic.

But it's a federal system made up of many smaller states. If the people in those states feel that they aren't being represented it won't remain united imo.

If EU became a proper federal system and the candidates that Ireland wanted could never get in power I know I'd want to leave.

I'm sure there are places where it works differently (Germany?) I don't know. I just think it is a good balance if you want to keep the union.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

That's gotta be post of the year across the site. Bravo sir, fantastic stuff. Tremendous.

you heard it here folks, Trump didn't amplify it and toxify it, he "put it to bed" by dragging it up constantly. Makes sense now.

Bass Reeves

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you describe a system where a handful of votes relatively speaking in a very small number of states decides the presidency as balanced?

It's the same as any close election, a small number of votes decide its outcome. You can make the same statement about PR. However you have to be in position(with a solid core vote) for those few votes to count. Democracy is the best least best system.

The US election is similar in a way to ours where the majority of votes wins. The electors system is a way if preventing larger states dominating the election system. Every state has two senators and Congress is elected by equal representation across states. The major flaw in the US system which makes it devisive is that Congress is elected every two years , Senators every six and the President every four. Therefore it is often hard for a US president or a Congress to develop and continue on policy initiatives as total control us seldom in one parties hand for longer than two years. Because of election cycles some politician within even the same party are continuously looking at the effect that policy change will have on there electoral chances

Overheal

OS_Head wrote: »

The rust belt is key, with law and order and the economy being top of the agenda.

Except he wouldn't lose West Virginia otherwise you've recreated one of the few possible outcomes where Trump were to actually win.

FiveThirtyEight doesn't show the race tightening though it shows it widening

Sorry the screengrab highlights August 8 but look at where we are now



https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Call Me Jimmy

Overheal wrote: »

Except he wouldn't lose West Virginia otherwise you've recreated one of the few possible outcomes where Trump were to actually win.

FiveThirtyEight doesn't show the race tightening though it shows it widening

Sorry the screengrab highlights August 8 but look at where we are now



https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

This reminds me when I clicked into the 2016 thread there the other day it landed on a page with some polls from FiveThirtyEight talking about Clinton's emphatic lead and all the same number crunching. Not saying that means they're definitely wrong but it's a little bit of deja vu at least.

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

This reminds me when I clicked into the 2016 thread there the other day it landed on a page with some polls from FiveThirtyEight talking about Clinton's emphatic lead and all the same number crunching. Not saying that means they're definitely wrong but it's a little bit of deja vu at least.

Except in October and early November the race was tightening far more.

2016:



2020:

Call Me Jimmy

Overheal wrote: »

Except in October and early November the race was tightening far more.

2016:



2020:

Yes, maybe they are right this time?

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yes, maybe they are right this time?

They were right last time, too. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1% and lost the electoral college by fewer than 80,000 votes in critical swing districts.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast on election night gave Trump a healthy 1 in 5 chance to win and he rolled nat' 20.

OS_Head

Overheal wrote: »

Except he wouldn't lose West Virginia otherwise you've recreated one of the few possible outcomes where Trump were to actually win.

I don't believe the polls though. The two Virginias were some of the states I was unsure about, but Virginia's it's proximity to DC and very sparse rural population made me give it a miss. The last three elections 08, 12 and 16 all went to the Democrats.

Just reread that. West Virginia. Yep, I agree with you, I didn't include it. That's probably in the bag for Trump.

Call Me Jimmy

Overheal wrote: »

They were right last time, too. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1% and lost the electoral college by fewer than 80,000 votes in critical swing districts.

Okay, so you misinterpreted them last time?

quokula

Overheal wrote: »

Except in October and early November the race was tightening far more.

It was tightening more, but it's worth noting that the scales on those graphs are not the same. If you look at the last datapoint, Biden has a ~9 point lead while Clinton had a ~4 point lead.

This is still a pretty big difference, but nowhere as near as massive as those graphs look.

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Okay, so you misinterpreted them last time?

Nope.

As I said, the FiveThirtyEight forecast always predicted Trump had chances to win it. Just as they are this year showing he wins about 13% of the outcomes they process.

If I told you there was a 13% chance you'd get in a head on collision this week you'd wear a seatbelt.

duploelabs

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Okay, so you misinterpreted them last time?

You understand what the concept of Margin of Error is right?

Call Me Jimmy

Overheal wrote: »

Nope.

As I said, the FiveThirtyEight forecast always predicted Trump had chances to win it. Just as they are this year showing he wins about 13% of the outcomes they process.

If I told you there was a 13% chance you'd get in a head on collision this week you'd wear a seatbelt.

Seems a little disingenuous to me.

For example I remember right before the election either CNN or MSNBC saying they literally couldn't find a path a victory for him. If the polls were all so close those types of things wouldn't be credible. You're claiming that unless the polls /pollsters gave him 0% chance of winning then they were still right. How could they have been wrong?

Call Me Jimmy

duploelabs wrote: »

You understand what the concept of Margin of Error is right?

Did the people at the time? Even people on the republican side, pollsters and people who look at this all the time were having a hard time predicting he'd win as I remember.

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

For example I remember right before the election either CNN or MSNBC saying they literally couldn't find a path a victory to him.

Then they were wrong. Either way if the implication here was I watch either network - lol. I haven't watched a news channel unironically since the Sandy Hook Massacre in 2012. Gross ratings push shoving cameras into victims faces as they ran out of the line of fire, promoting the Columbine Effect, etc.

FiveThirtyEight always showed Trump had a path to 270 in their model. As they do now. I'm sure you will find many pundits who say he has no chance bla bla bla but it is of no interest to me.

Tell me how

Bernie calling it once again.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1319620620871716864

With the likes of Obama, Bernie, Pete Buttigeig and AOC, the Democrats have a much stronger supporting cast lending their voice to Biden's campaign.

Trump in comparison seems alienated.

partyguinness

Tell me how wrote: »

Bernie calling it once again.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1319620620871716864

With the likes of Obama, Bernie, Pete Buttigeig and AOC, the Democrats have a much stronger supporting cast lending their voice to Biden's campaign.

Trump in comparison seems alienated.

True but at the same time they are preaching to the converted and cut from the same cloth. It's like a Benneton Ad- black, Hispanic, gay and old lad which is great in San Fran or NY.


How likely is AOC going to appeal to anyone in the rust belt and/or swing states?

Call Me Jimmy

Overheal wrote: »

Then they were wrong. Either way if the implication here was I watch either network - lol. I haven't watched a news channel unironically since the Sandy Hook Massacre in 2012.

FiveThirtyEight always showed Trump had a path to 270 in their model. As they do now. I'm sure you will find many pundits who say he has no chance bla bla bla but it is of no interest to me.

Definitely didn't mean to imply you watch CNN! Was just referencing what I remember of the prevailing wisdom, the mainstream attitudes on the left. I haven't looked back at it in depth, I may be overestimating how bad the data was.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Tell me how wrote: »

Bernie calling it once again.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1319620620871716864

With the likes of Obama, Bernie, Pete Buttigeig and AOC, the Democrats have a much stronger supporting cast lending their voice to Biden's campaign.

Trump in comparison seems alienated.

Trump is fighting socialism to protect Americans Medicaid and social security..

The bestest of brains does Donnie have.

Overheal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Definitely didn't mean to imply you watch CNN! Was just referencing what I remember of the prevailing wisdom, the mainstream attitudes on the left. I haven't looked back at it in depth, I may be overestimating how bad the data was.

If you look at the old threads, a lot of the narrative was "look at this individual poll!" etc. - the lead was shifting, Trump and Hillary were, at many points, in a dead heat. So I'm not surprised most people are confused by it all. That said if you want to look up those old threads you'll find me banging on to people about not being misled by individual polls but to look at aggregators and modeling forecasts like FiveThirtyEight. I only wished I had taken more screengrabs from the website because after the election they took those pages offline almost immediately, which only fueled the idea that they were ashamed of the model despite it showing his 1 in 5 shot.

MeMen2_MoRi_

partyguinness wrote: »

True but at the same time they are preaching to the converted and cut from the same cloth. It's like a Benneton Ad- black, Hispanic, gay and old lad which is great in San Fran or NY.


How likely is AOC going to appeal to anyone in the rust belt and/or swing states?

So well that when a gop congressman invited her to speak with coal miners from his state and she took him up on the offer, it was quickly taken back.

Tell me how

partyguinness wrote: »

True but at the same time they are preaching to the converted and cut from the same cloth. it's like a Benneton Ad- black, Hispanic, gay and old lad.


How likely is AOC going to appeal to anyone in the rust belt and/or swing states?

• Because young people who have had to work from an early age to support their family and put themselves through college know she understands what they are going through.
• Because people who are descendants of recent immigrants know that she understands them.
• Because young females finally have someone in congress whose footsteps they could aspire to follow.
• Because people who are aware of facts know that climate action is needed and that she is one of the strongest proponents of this in congress.
• Because many of them probably actually do feel that a situation where a serious illness could likely bankrupt a family is not a good situation in the richest country in the world.

In my view, she is one of the most impressive political candidates anywhere right now and I hope we see her in congress for at least another 20 years before she attempts a run at the Presidency.

thebestwords

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Definitely didn't mean to imply you watch CNN! Was just referencing what I remember of the prevailing wisdom, the mainstream attitudes on the left. I haven't looked back at it in depth, I may be overestimating how bad the data was.

You're not. Saying the polls got it right is entirely disingenuous. Reuters, NYT's, NBC, major outlets all had Clinton at huge percentages to win, I'm talking 90%, then you had the usual garbage leftie outlets that had her even higher. Wall to wall 24/7 coverage on cable TV saying he had to chance.

Claiming that because he had a certain percentage to win hence the polls got it right is the dumbest logic ever, what's the point of polls in the first place if that was the case?

Overheal

partyguinness wrote: »

How likely is AOC going to appeal to anyone in the rust belt and/or swing states?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By5LL4O00nE

I'd chip in $1.

Oh wait - didn't I? :pac:

thebestwords

Tell me how wrote: »

In my view, she is one of the most impressive political candidates anywhere right now and I hope we see her in congress for at least another 20 years before she attempts a run at the Presidency.

Why is her polling so bad nationally, even in her home state of NY?

ELM327

partyguinness wrote: »

True but at the same time they are preaching to the converted and cut from the same cloth. It's like a Benneton Ad- black, Hispanic, gay and old lad which is great in San Fran or NY.


How likely is AOC going to appeal to anyone in the rust belt and/or swing states?

She's an extremist. She wont appeal to anyone except those on the extreme left and catching some of the moderate lefts.


I'm a fan of Trump and the GOP but I would prefer to see Hilary given the presidency for life than AOC getting one term.

Tell me how

thebestwords wrote: »

Why is her polling so bad nationally, even in her home state of NY?

Is she running for a national office?

thebestwords

Tell me how wrote: »

Is she running for a national office?

That doesn't answer the question.