US Presidential Election 2020

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 05:06PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

How is that supposed to work when a poster is threadbanned there?

Stick to the focus of this thread and that issue should not arise.

droidus · 23-10-2020 05:09PM

Water John wrote: »

Similar to Everlast's post, this snapshot of 538 shows so much in play;
Arizona: Biden +3.5
Florida: Biden +3.3
Georgia: Biden +0.9
Iowa: Biden +1.0
Michigan: Biden +7.5
Nevada: Biden +6.6
North Carolina: Biden +2.9
Ohio: Trump +1.0
Pennsylvania: Biden +6.2
Texas: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Biden +6.6

Im beginning to think he might take Texas.

Water John · 23-10-2020 05:13PM

It's hard to predict when numbers are fairly close as it totally depends on turnout on each side. Looks like Dems will have a high turnout if the trend keeps going. Will the GOP do their usual and get all their vote out?
Dems would win most elections if they consistently could get their vote out.

TomOnBoard · 23-10-2020 05:27PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Stick to the focus of this thread and that issue should not arise.

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 06:02PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

Understood and covered

TomOnBoard · 23-10-2020 06:16PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Understood and covered

I don't know what 'covered' means. Are current threadbans in the other thread still alive or are they dead?

BonnieSituation · 23-10-2020 06:25PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

I had wondered what had happened to posts from last night. Just saw they were moved over to the DT thread. Weird.

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 06:34PM

To clarify , yes Thread bans still apply , however I have now removed any posts that might cause a problem and also no one is going to get a ban for a post that got moved by a mod.

Any other queries , drop me a PM.

Water John · 23-10-2020 08:31PM

Biden has given a good speech outlining his plan for Covid 19, quite impressive.

Rjd2 · 23-10-2020 08:35PM

Said it a few months ago, their wasn't much Trump could do to ensure success in november as so much damage had been done but as someone said in the comments below he should have been spending like a "drunken sailor":)

The Hunter biden stuff isn't a game changer , but going big on stimulus and getting money in people's pockets would have been massive and is arguably the biggest mistake of the GOP in the last few weeks as the very least would have saved some positions down balot.

If the GOP lose everything, they will likely blame Trump entirely, but the financial hawks in the party who are so obsessed with balanced budgets even in these times before a ****ing election should take some blame also.

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1319642104688185344

letowski · 23-10-2020 10:30PM

droidus wrote: »

Im beginning to think he might take Texas.

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

Water John · 23-10-2020 10:43PM

letowski wrote: »

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

The GOP might want to have a look at FF here in Ireland.

Frank Bullitt · 23-10-2020 10:49PM

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1319756900804689925

Oh Florida...

Water John · 23-10-2020 10:54PM

That poll is an outlier. 538 still call Florida 70 to 30 in favour of Biden.

droidus · 23-10-2020 11:04PM

Its Rasmussen FFS.

droidus · 23-10-2020 11:10PM

letowski wrote: »

Just read today that 6.4 million Texans have already voted, 72% of the total 8.9 million who voted in 2016. That makes Texas with the highest percentage voter turnout currently right now.

I'd still expect Trump to take Texas this election cycle, but it seems the state is turning more and more purple through the years, with its large and ever growing Hispanic community. I think there are studies showing that Hispanics will have a plurality over the white American population by 2022. Texas Democrats are also more competitive in state elections in recent years.

Yeah, I dont think Id bet on it, but I certainly think it's more possible now than ever before.

The unprecedented turnout seems to point to something new going on here and Trump is well within the margin of error, about 2 points ahead in the polling average.

A small polling error in Bidens favour would be enough...

BonnieSituation · 23-10-2020 11:20PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Said it a few months ago, their wasn't much Trump could do to ensure success in november as so much damage had been done but as someone said in the comments below he should have been spending like a "drunken sailor":)

The Hunter biden stuff isn't a game changer , but going big on stimulus and getting money in people's pockets would have been massive and is arguably the biggest mistake of the GOP in the last few weeks as the very least would have saved some positions down balot.

If the GOP lose everything, they will likely blame Trump entirely, but the financial hawks in the party who are so obsessed with balanced budgets even in these times before a ****ing election should take some blame also.

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1319642104688185344

They're not obsessed with having balanced budgets at all. They're obsessed that the Dems have balanced budgets.

droidus · 23-10-2020 11:35PM

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, I dont think Id bet on it, but I certainly think it's more possible now than ever before.

The unprecedented turnout seems to point to something new going on here and Trump is well within the margin of error, about 2 points ahead in the polling average.

A small polling error in Bidens favour would be enough...

Its a partisan source, but this is what I mean when i say 'something new'.

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/10/voter-suppression-efforts-could-be-backfiring-on-republicans/

It was the latest attempt by Texas Republicans to depress turnout in a state with a long record of voter suppression. Texas has no online registration. Voters need a valid excuse to get a mail ballot—and for those under 65, fear of contracting COVID-19 doesn’t count. The state’s voter ID law allows you to vote with a gun permit but not a student ID.

Yet when early voting began in Texas on October 13, Abbott’s plan to limit Democratic participation appeared to backfire, as voters in Harris County, where voters of color make up a majority and where Hillary Clinton won by 12 points in 2016, surged to the polls.

The numbers in Harris County have been astonishing. A record 128,000 people voted on the first day of early voting, up from 68,000 in 2016 and a higher turnout than the entire state of Georgia on the same day. Turnout has barely dropped since then. On Friday, Harris County surpassed 1 million early votes, exceeding its total from 2016 with a week of early voting still left, and nearly equaling the 1.3 million people who voted overall in 2016.

VinLieger · 23-10-2020 11:55PM

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1319756900804689925

Oh Florida...

Rasmussen consistently weight in favour of republicans, you cant take their data as evidence of anything when its viewed by itself

Water John · 23-10-2020 11:57PM

Source 538;
POLLSTER RATING TRUMP BIDEN LEADER
St. Pete Polls
C
Oct. 21-22 47% 49% Biden +2
Morning Consult
B/C
Oct. 11-20 45% 52% Biden +7
CNN/SSRS
B/C
Oct. 15-20 46% 50% Biden +4
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research
C+
Oct. 20-21 50% 46% Trump +4
University of North Florida
A/B
Oct. 12-16 47% 48% Biden +1
Civiqs
B/C
Oct. 17-20 47% 51% Biden +4
Emerson College
A-
Oct. 10-12 48% 51% Biden +2
HarrisX
C
Oct. 12-15 48% 48% Even +0

Rjd2 · 24-10-2020 01:20AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They're not obsessed with having balanced budgets at all. They're obsessed that the Dems have balanced budgets.

Sort off.

Yes they can be hypocritical regarding money been spent, but the reason why they have been poor regarding the stimulus is a few senators genuinely do believe that spending to help poor people isn't what the base want.

Really though, it shows how out of touch they are with their actual voters , but that's why so many still don't understand why Trump not Jeb or whatever chosen one got the nomination .

stefanovich · 24-10-2020 08:02AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Rasmussen consistently weight in favour of republicans, you cant take their data as evidence of anything when its viewed by itself

Better to focus on all the other polls that are weighted in favour of the democrats right?

VinLieger · 24-10-2020 08:47AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Better to focus on all the other polls that are weighted in favour of the democrats right?

Nice straw man, pathetic but nice.

I said it cannot be viewed on its own nothing more. Literally any credible pollster will say the same thing that Rasmussen weights far more in favour of republicans than any other poll.

Theres several reasons for this 2 of which are they only poll likely voters and they only use landline phone numbers for polling, both of which taken together heavily disenfranchise younger people from being a part of their polls.

Also when looking at the most recent evidence of their accuracy they were declared the least accurate of the polls in 2018, their final poll suggested a republican house victory which couldn't have been further from the truth.

Maybe it would benefit you to actually investigate what you are talking about before being annoyed at others who have actually researched their opinions.

stefanovich · 24-10-2020 08:59AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Nice straw man, pathetic but nice.

I said it cannot be viewed on its own nothing more. Literally any credible pollster will say the same thing that Rasmussen weights far more in favour of republicans than any other poll.

Theres several reasons for this 2 of which are they only poll likely voters and they only use landline phone numbers for polling, both of which taken together heavily disenfranchise younger people from being a part of their polls.

Also when looking at the most recent evidence of their accuracy they were declared the least accurate of the polls in 2018, their final poll suggested a republican house victory which couldn't have been further from the truth.

Maybe it would benefit you to actually investigate what you are talking about before being annoyed at others who have actually researched their opinions.

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

StringerBell · 24-10-2020 09:05AM

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This here is quite cool, its an interactive electoral college decision tree

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

here is my prediction, i think Florida is going to be incredibly close, while there is increase in older people voting for Biden this time, they will also be afraid to leave home imho unlike the exCubans

Florida is always extremely close, and your right this year will be no different. No polling would change my mind on that either way, what has been shown to increase the democrats vote share is the turnout, it's key in all the states but the close states in particular. The higher the turnout the better it is for the democrats.

TomOnBoard · 24-10-2020 09:11AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To clarify , yes Thread bans still apply , however I have now removed any posts that might cause a problem and also no one is going to get a ban for a post that got moved by a mod.

Any other queries , drop me a PM.

PM sent immediately after this post. I have not received a reply.

letowski · 24-10-2020 09:41AM

Rasmussen hasn’t been all that favourable to Trump in this election cycle. They have Trump losing in Arizona, Pennsylvania and (yes) Ohio. That’s an easy path to +270 right there without even taking MI and WI into account (assuming Biden keeps Hillary’s states).

VinLieger · 24-10-2020 09:54AM

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

Indeed Rasmussen were one of the closest on the national level they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 1.7% and she won by 2.1%. Im not able to find any historical records of their polling regarding predictions for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan which is the real key to seeing who was the most accurate in 2016.

Midlife · 24-10-2020 09:57AM

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder which pollster was more accurate in 2016?

Here's the man himself saying all the polls pretty much got it right.

https://scottrasmussen.com/the-polls-werent-wrong-in-2016-but-the-analysis-of-the-polls-was-horrible/

Graham · 24-10-2020 09:59AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed Rasmussen were one of the closest on the national level they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 1.7% and she won by 2.1%. Im not able to find any historical records of their polling regarding predictions for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan which is the real key to seeing who was the most accurate in 2016.

Out of the last 722 Rasmussen polls the Mean Reverted Bias for Rasmussen has been Republican +1.5

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments