US Presidential Election 2020

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-08-2020 06:58PM

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't reply when I see that stuff being trotted out. We need original ideas here, I don't read stuff anywhere else and then post it here I post my own opinions.

Wish the Trump zealots would hold to the same standards instead of copy/pasting from websites and trying to pass it off as their own work.

rossie1977 · 30-08-2020 07:20PM

manual_man wrote: »

You're being deliberately disingenuous. The mayhem is occuring in Democrat run States, almost exclusively at the hands of far left agitators. It is local leadership's responsibility to control it. And if they can't, then to request federal assistance (which Trump has offered from the start). So, like I said, it is crucially important to also elect mayors and other local officials who are willing to maintain law and order (including accepting federal assistance if necessary). Each person rioting, assaulting, burning, destroying - is responsible for their own actions (a message that has sorely been lacking among Democrat leadership). Why on earth would anyone want to elect a person for president who's party has effectively enabled all the chaos and destruction? What's the message? Vote for us and we'll remove our street thugs? Doesn't sound like a sound election strategy to me.

Buck stops with the president. If this was protests under a Democrat president let me guess who you, right wing media and youtube talking heads would be blaming...

Show me where Democrat leadership have enabled violence! On the flipside Trump has continually enabled violence

The Republican Party, while far from perfect, at least seems willing to confront the violent anarchists and scumbags wreaking havoc across the nation.

Yes like Charlottesville or the dozens of mass shootings last four years..

Republicans have stood back and done nothing and in Trumps case praised nazis that murdered civilians!

Brian? · 30-08-2020 07:47PM

The FiveThirtyEight model has tightened again. I’m pretty much convinced Trump is going to win now. Time to settle in for another 4 years of stupidity.

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

letowski · 30-08-2020 09:40PM

Brian? wrote: »

The FiveThirtyEight model has tightened again. I’m pretty much convinced Trump is going to win now. Time to settle in for another 4 years of stupidity.

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

I think its worth waiting until Labor Day in a weeks time to see if bounce is legitimate and Trump maintains his climb. Every election, the party nominee would get a bounce post convention. Nate Silver, who owns FiveThirtyEight, is skeptical that Trump has turned a corner. Trump actually got a bigger bounce in the polls in 2016 post convention.

Its hard to know if it could be down to the rioting/looting. Contrary to popular opinion, its not a widely held view by pollsters either that the rioting and looting in Oregon/Minnesota benefits Trump. At the end of the day, Trump polls poorly on race relations, this civil unrest is occurring under his watch and Biden increased his lead back in the early summer when the George Floyd protests started.

I guess we will know more in the coming days, and its the swing state polls that really count.

Gbear · 30-08-2020 09:41PM

Brian? wrote: »

The FiveThirtyEight model has tightened again. I’m pretty much convinced Trump is going to win now. Time to settle in for another 4 years of stupidity.

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

It's still nearly 70-30.

I'd say that both your estimations of Trump's chances of winning, and your gauging of how bad it'll be are both wrong.

If he wins a 2nd term, it won't be 4 years of stupidity. It won't be less criminal, less violent, less destructive to the status of the Western world than the previous four. Stupidity is the least of our worries.

Professor Moriarty · 30-08-2020 09:48PM

Gbear wrote: »

It's still nearly 70-30.

I'd say that both your estimations of Trump's chances of winning, and your gauging of how bad it'll be are both wrong.

If he wins a 2nd term, it won't be 4 years of stupidity. It won't be less criminal, less violent, less destructive to the status of the Western world than the previous four. Stupidity is the least of our worries.

Stupidity is indeed the least of our worries. Though it's probably too late anyway, any hope of defeating climate change hinges on Trump losing.

TomOnBoard · 30-08-2020 09:54PM

letowski wrote: »

I think its worth waiting until Labor Day in a weeks time to see if bounce is legitimate and Trump maintains his climb. Every election, the party nominee would get a bounce post convention. Nate Silver, who owns FiveThirtyEight, is skeptical that Trump has turned a corner. Trump actually got a bigger bounce in the polls in 2016 post convention.

Its hard to know if it could be down to the rioting/looting. Contrary to popular opinion, its not a widely held view by pollsters either that the rioting and looting in Oregon/Minnesota benefits Trump. At the end of the day, Trump polls poorly on race relations, this civil unrest is occurring under his watch and Biden increased his lead back in the early summer when the George Floyd protests started.

I guess we will know more in the coming days, and its the swing state polls that really count.

There's an old saying that the real electioneering doesn't start until after Labor Day. I'd be largely in agreement that we'll see lots of see-sawing between now and Nov 3.

In the meantime, Biden needs to differentiate between legitimate protestors and the element that's hanging on to the Black Lives Matter movement and causing chaos. It's time for calming of the waters in the face of Trump"s inflammatory rhetoric and actions. And on that score, WTF is he doing by planning a trip to Kenoshe on Tuesday?? Crazy pot stirring!!

letowski · 30-08-2020 10:06PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

There's an old saying that the real electioneering doesn't start until after Labor Day. I'd be largely in agreement that we'll see lots of see-sawing between now and Nov 3.

In the meantime, Biden needs to differentiate between legitimate protestors and the element that's hanging on to the Black Lives Matter movement and causing chaos. It's time for calming of the waters in the face of Trump"s inflammatory rhetoric and actions. And on that score, WTF is he doing by planning a trip to Kenoshe on Tuesday?? Crazy pot stirring!!

Biden has to tread very lightly for sure. But I actually think this weeks events will largely come to pass in 8 weeks time as the protests die down once again. Covid, and by extension the economy will be the only thing on most American's minds on November the 3rd. For example, the Q3 GDP Update on the 29th of October will be a huge day. Also I imagine the ironic (and totally legit) discovery of a vaccine in late October could help.

spacecoyote · 31-08-2020 09:10AM

The argument that the protests are all Democrats fault because they've got democrat led mayors is really disingenuous really as its more of a consequence of demographics.

It pretty much holds true that almost every urban/city in the US is predominantly democratic, with rural areas more heavily republican.

So blaming the mayors because of their demographics just rings like a bit of a false narrative.

There have been cops shooting black people in US cities for a long time, and those cities have been predominantly Democrat for a long time too, but we haven't had the violence we're seeing today.

One thing is different today though, and that's who the president is.

The Nal · 31-08-2020 09:57AM

Michael Moore warned that Trump's support among his base is 'off the charts', and he is on course to win the presidential election

Moore got 2016 right on the money

spacecoyote · 31-08-2020 10:08AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/30/outcry-as-us-intelligence-stops-in-person-reports-to-congress-on-election-security?CMP=GTUS_email

Hard to not see something a bit dubious in this. They are going to stop giving congress in person briefings on intelligence, so there are is no opportunity for questioning what will be included in them.

Given there has already been talk about foreign interference in the election, and that the guy now running the show is an aren't Trump supporter, it all points towards an effort to keep potentially unsavoury information out of the public eye

joe35 · 31-08-2020 10:17AM

I think the Dems need a slogan that will stick. They should start asking what's the J for in 'Donald J Trump'.

Is it 'Judas' as he sold out the soldiers to Putin for 30 pieces of silver.

Is it 'Jobless' as 180,000 lost their jobs.

Is it 'Joker' as he thinks this pandemic will just magically disappear.

Should it be 'Z' as he's clearly sleeping on the job.

I think what Dems are missing is something that the crowd love to hear, you can just say it and walk away. Don't wait for a response. Like they way republicans say sleepy Joe Biden.

The Nal · 31-08-2020 10:21AM

joe35 wrote: »

I think the Dems need a slogan that will stick. They should start asking what's the J for in 'Donald J Trump'.

Is it 'Judas' as he sold out the soldiers to Putin for 30 pieces of silver.

Is it 'Jobless' as 180,000 lost their jobs.

Is it 'Joker' as he thinks this pandemic will just magically disappear.

Should it be 'Z' as he's clearly sleeping on the job.

I think what Dems are missing is something that the crowd love to hear, you can just say it and walk away. Don't wait for a response. Like they way republicans say sleepy Joe Biden.

They need something, and quick. The Dems momentum has fallen off a cliff. Same old tired message.

Brian? · 31-08-2020 10:31AM

letowski wrote: »

I think its worth waiting until Labor Day in a weeks time to see if bounce is legitimate and Trump maintains his climb. Every election, the party nominee would get a bounce post convention. Nate Silver, who owns FiveThirtyEight, is skeptical that Trump has turned a corner. Trump actually got a bigger bounce in the polls in 2016 post convention.

Its hard to know if it could be down to the rioting/looting. Contrary to popular opinion, its not a widely held view by pollsters either that the rioting and looting in Oregon/Minnesota benefits Trump. At the end of the day, Trump polls poorly on race relations, this civil unrest is occurring under his watch and Biden increased his lead back in the early summer when the George Floyd protests started.

I guess we will know more in the coming days, and its the swing state polls that really count.

In July it was 80-20 in Biden's favour and the Trumpster fire has only gotten worse. If Trump is somehow swinging votes back to him in this environment I don't see how there is any sanity left in the US.

Statistically it should be in the bag for Biden, he's hoovering up the majority on independent voters and chipping off some moderate GOP voters, but I simply can't understand how Trump has even a 1% chance left.

Brian? · 31-08-2020 10:35AM

The Nal wrote: »

They need something, and quick. The Dems momentum has fallen off a cliff. Same old tired message.

"We are going to govern sensibly" is way too boring for elections these days it seems. People no longer want competence and dependability, they want some populist razzmatazz.

droidus · 31-08-2020 12:02PM

The economist model has dropped 1% point from Biden based on the last couple of post RNC polls.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

DK224 · 31-08-2020 12:18PM

I think everyone here who is convinced this is a stroll in the park for Biden need to drill down into the polls that show him leading by 6-9%. This isn't about politics it is the complete unreliability of polling these days.
The recent polls below show the over sampling of Democrat voters and this is being passed off as legitimate polling when the Vote disparity in 2016 was only Dem+3:

CNN/SRS RV D+7
IPSOS Reuters D +13
NBC/WSJ/HART RESEARCH RV D+12
QUINNIPIAC RV D+10
CBS/SSR AV D+9.4
SIENNA/NYTIMES RV D+9

Tell me how · 31-08-2020 12:40PM

Biden's camp and everyone else should read every poll as indicating a Trump win is likely and re-energize and go again.
Two months to go.

Nobody should be using the excuse 'We felt we had done enough' after the election.

The Nal · 31-08-2020 12:44PM

droidus wrote: »

The economist model has dropped 1% point from Biden based on the last couple of post RNC polls.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

Polls and opinions based off the fallacy that the electorate sample are telling the truth about who they're voting for. But we know from 2016 that its not the case.

Tell me how wrote: »

Biden's camp and everyone else should read every poll as indicating a Trump win is likely and re-energize and go again.
Two months to go.

Nobody should be using the excuse 'We felt we had done enough' after the election.

If the Dems lose thats exactly what they'll do. They're still hungover and rolling out that excuse from 2016. "Told you so" sort of stuff. Pathetic.

pixelburp · 31-08-2020 12:50PM

The Nal wrote: »

Polls and opinions based off the fallacy that the electorate sample are telling the truth about who they're voting for. But we know from 2016 that its not the case.

If the Dems lose thats exactly what they'll do. They're still hungover and rolling out that excuse from 2016. "Told you so" sort of stuff. Pathetic.

Show the numbers; we've been here a thousands times before about the fallacy that the polls "got it wrong" - even within the last week of this very thread when you yourself brought it up IIRC - so give some stats that showed those polled lied or gave false information. Don't "silent majority" the debate with some phantom, unprovable demographic, when it has been said over and over the 538 among others gave Trump a reasonable chance.

The Nal · 31-08-2020 12:56PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Show the numbers; we've been here a thousands times before about the fallacy that the polls "got it wrong" - even within the last week of this very thread - so give some stats that showed those polled lied or gave false information. Don't "silent majority" the debate with some phantom demographic, when it has been said over and over the 538 among others gave Trump a reasonable chance.

We've been here a million times yeah. Anyone running had a reasonable chance I suppose but look at the polling for the 6 month run into the 2016 election. Look at who was ahead in all those polls. Looks at who was favourite with the bookies. And then look at who won the election. Theres no need to deep dive.

droidus · 31-08-2020 12:59PM

The Nal wrote: »

We've been here a million times yeah. Anyone running had a reasonable chance I suppose but look at the polling for the 6 month run into the 2016 election. Look at who was ahead in all those polls. Looks at who was favourite with the bookies. And then look at who won the election. Theres no need to deep dive.

Trump was at one in three chance of winning on election day. The national polls were pretty much spot on. Bookies only reflect the intelligence or ignorance of the crowd.

It was the undecideds that tipped it for Trump in 2016, and there's a lot less of them out there now. There's certainly reasons to be skeptical of polls, but this isn't an argument.

Gerry Hatrick · 31-08-2020 01:01PM

DK224 wrote: »

I think everyone here who is convinced this is a stroll in the park for Biden need to drill down into the polls that show him leading by 6-9%. This isn't about politics it is the complete unreliability of polling these days.
The recent polls below show the over sampling of Democrat voters and this is being passed off as legitimate polling when the Vote disparity in 2016 was only Dem+3:

CNN/SRS RV D+7
IPSOS Reuters D +13
NBC/WSJ/HART RESEARCH RV D+12
QUINNIPIAC RV D+10
CBS/SSR AV D+9.4
SIENNA/NYTIMES RV D+9

Many people are shamed into not admitting they will vote for Trump. Come election day all that disappears. As in 2016 and even actually more now the polls are completely useless.

pixelburp · 31-08-2020 01:02PM

The Nal wrote: »

We've been here a million times yeah. Anyone running had a reasonable chance I suppose but look at the polling for the 6 month run into the 2016 election. Look at who was ahead in all those polls. Looks at who was favourite with the bookies. And then look at who won the election. Theres no need to deep dive.

Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning the election. Polling is not Gospel, so Trump was well within not just the margin of error, but had a legitimate chance of winning. Clinton was favourite within the pool of editorialised journalism - but that's not what you're saying: you claimed that those polled didn't tell the truth. Where's the proof of this?

droidus · 31-08-2020 01:10PM

The last election was decided by about 40,000 votes in swing states that didn't have great polling to begin with.

I dont think theres any credible analysis pointing to a shy trump vote, mainly because trump voters aren't particularly shy.

is_that_so · 31-08-2020 01:47PM

So the Swift Boat gang are back. Not sure how successful they might be this time with a more experienced candidate.

The Republican strategist who orchestrated the “swift boating” of John Kerry in 2004 is behind a new effort to aid Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/31/trump-super-pac-chris-lacivita-swiftboat-joe-biden

DK224 · 31-08-2020 02:34PM

droidus wrote: »

I dont think theres any credible analysis pointing to a shy trump vote, mainly because trump voters aren't particularly shy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/new-study-suggests-polls-are-missing-shy-trump-voters?utm_source=url_link

"A new online study finds that Republicans and independents are twice as likely as Democrats to say they would not give their true opinion in a telephone poll question about their preference for president in the 2020 election. That raises the possibility that polls understate support for President Donald Trump."

droidus · 31-08-2020 02:46PM

...

The AAPOR study said evidence for a “Shy Trump" effect isn't conclusive. The authors hypothesized that if voters didn't want to tell a live interviewer that they supported Trump, you'd expect Trump to do worse in live-interview polls than in ones involving interactive voice response, which is less personal. In fact, Trump, didn't do worse in live-interview polls.

StringerBell · 31-08-2020 03:03PM

DK224 wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/new-study-suggests-polls-are-missing-shy-trump-voters?utm_source=url_link

"A new online study finds that Republicans and independents are twice as likely as Democrats to say they would not give their true opinion in a telephone poll question about their preference for president in the 2020 election. That raises the possibility that polls understate support for President Donald Trump."

Possibly, but when the numbers at 5% v 10% basically it's a stretch to say it would make a big difference isn't it?

Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't looked into it nearly enough but an extra 5 in 1000 people not telling the truth doesn't seem like something huge. I'll look into it more.

Edit: the post above mine points out another issue

spacecoyote · 31-08-2020 03:04PM

Interesting article in 538 about the difference in voting method intentions, with something like 66% of Trump voters saying they would likely vote in person vs only 47% of Biden voters.

Opens up the possibility of Trump leading on the night and trying to call the election with a sizeable portion of Bidens votes not being declared for a couple of days due to postal voting.

Has all the hallmarks of serious chaos

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments