US Presidential Election 2020

MJohnston · 29-10-2020 11:42am

L1011 wrote: »

I don't think there's much in the way of silent Trump voters - they're usually loud and proud on the issue.

Same happened here when people were sure there were many shy No voters in the SSM and Repeal referendums, but there weren't.

I think the shy voter effect on polling specifically, as I said above, is largely unimportant (these polls are mostly conducted via voice calls or online, and it seems very unlikely anyone is going to be 'shy' about telling these things privately to some pollster). And I don't think there are any shy Trump voters. However there are probably shy Republican voters, shy about being vocal in their support of Trump that is.

L1011 · 29-10-2020 11:53am

MJohnston wrote: »

I think the shy voter effect on polling specifically, as I said above, is largely unimportant (these polls are mostly conducted via voice calls or online, and it seems very unlikely anyone is going to be 'shy' about telling these things privately to some pollster). And I don't think there are any shy Trump voters. However there are probably shy Republican voters, shy about being vocal in their support of Trump that is.

That should be detectable by a skew on down ticket support in polls where those questions are asked first (or the presidential one isn't asked at all).

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 29-10-2020 12:03pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I think the shy voter effect on polling specifically, as I said above, is largely unimportant (these polls are mostly conducted via voice calls or online, and it seems very unlikely anyone is going to be 'shy' about telling these things privately to some pollster). And I don't think there are any shy Trump voters. However there are probably shy Republican voters, shy about being vocal in their support of Trump that is.

Well that's the point though isn't it... you're only capturing roughly 2% of the population. That's not really a true representative sample. And it's certainly unlikely to be very random.

Who are these people? Why do they engage with pollsters, when 98% choose not to? Are they more politically engaged, and what does that mean for voting trends? (among many other potential factors)

I've read that many of these polls take anything up to 45 mins to complete over the phone. What type of person in society, is likely to take that sort of time out of their day to engage with such a medium?

Trump has huge populist appeal... much of it among hard working families in middle America. Do you know many of these busy families, that would sit down for 45 mins to complete such a poll? Or even be politically engaged enough to give worthwhile answers?

And there has been suggestions, that left leaning pollsters are pushing many undecideds to declare their voting preference over the phone. Among many other such questionable practices... so undecideds are in many cases, not being recorded as such. The undecided vote was crucial back in 2016.

There are just far too many grey areas in polling, to really give these polls too much credence... especially when there are so many other metrics to be studied and analyzed, that give a much more nuanced picture of the overall state of play.

But I guess we'll find out who is correct very soon. I just hope for the sake of the American people, that we get a reasonably quick and clean decision. And that people can accept that decision whatever way it goes, and get on with dealing with these difficult times. These elections are pretty important for the world in general imo. America is too big and too influential, for any of us to dismiss their importance as simply internal affairs. (even if many would like to)

MJohnston · 29-10-2020 12:06pm

Biden ahead by 4 in FL according to A+ rated Marist (MOE is 4.4% though so still a tossup):

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1321757871290388481

MJohnston · 29-10-2020 12:10pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Well that's the point though isn't it... you're only capturing roughly 2% of the population. That's not really a true representative sample. And it's certainly unlikely to be very random.

Who are these people? Why do they engage with pollsters, when 98% choose not to? Are they more politically engaged, and what does that mean for voting trends? (among many other potential factors)

I've read that many of these polls take anything up to 45 mins to complete over the phone. What type of person in society, is likely to take that sort of time out of their day to engage with such a medium?

Trump has huge populist appeal... much of it among hard working families in middle America. Do you know many of these busy families, that would sit down for 45 mins to complete such a poll? Or even be politically engaged enough to give worthwhile answers?

And there has been suggestions, that left leaning pollsters are pushing many undecideds to declare their voting preference over the phone. Among many other such questionable practices... so undecideds are in many cases, not being recorded as such. The undecided vote was crucial back in 2016.

There are just far too many grey areas in polling, to really give these polls too much credence... especially when there are so many other metrics to be studied and analyzed, that give a much more nuanced picture of the overall state of play.

But I guess we'll find out who is correct very soon. I just hope for the sake of the American people, that we get a reasonably quick and clean decision. And that people can accept that decision whatever way it goes, and get on with dealing with these difficult times. These elections are pretty important for the world in general imo. America is too big and too influential, for any of us to dismiss their importance as simply internal affairs. (even if many would like to)

I dunno dude, I'm just not particularly interested in a "polls are pointless" discussion, because I don't find it compelling at all.

Sure it's misleading to focus on individual polls, as I said above, but if you're willing to dig down below the top-level numbers and you understand probabilisitic outcomes, then it's fairly easy to get a solid and accurate sense of how the race is going.

Christy42 · 29-10-2020 12:40pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Well that's the point though isn't it... you're only capturing roughly 2% of the population. That's not really a true representative sample. And it's certainly unlikely to be very random.

Who are these people? Why do they engage with pollsters, when 98% choose not to? Are they more politically engaged, and what does that mean for voting trends? (among many other potential factors)

I've read that many of these polls take anything up to 45 mins to complete over the phone. What type of person in society, is likely to take that sort of time out of their day to engage with such a medium?

Trump has huge populist appeal... much of it among hard working families in middle America. Do you know many of these busy families, that would sit down for 45 mins to complete such a poll? Or even be politically engaged enough to give worthwhile answers?

And there has been suggestions, that left leaning pollsters are pushing many undecideds to declare their voting preference over the phone. Among many other such questionable practices... so undecideds are in many cases, not being recorded as such. The undecided vote was crucial back in 2016.

There are just far too many grey areas in polling, to really give these polls too much credence... especially when there are so many other metrics to be studied and analyzed, that give a much more nuanced picture of the overall state of play.

But I guess we'll find out who is correct very soon. I just hope for the sake of the American people, that we get a reasonably quick and clean decision. And that people can accept that decision whatever way it goes, and get on with dealing with these difficult times. These elections are pretty important for the world in general imo. America is too big and too influential, for any of us to dismiss their importance as simply internal affairs. (even if many would like to)

Given all of the above the national polls in 2016 were only slightly off. And that is considered one of their worse performances going.

The reason they keep being used is that they work. You are correct that the sample isn't random but they work hard to ensure that a representative sample is gotten. So if no African Americans have responded for instance they will focus in on that segment till they get enough of a response to analyse.

droidus · 29-10-2020 12:40pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Well that's the point though isn't it... you're only capturing roughly 2% of the population. That's not really a true representative sample. And it's certainly unlikely to be very random.

Who are these people? Why do they engage with pollsters, when 98% choose not to? Are they more politically engaged, and what does that mean for voting trends? (among many other potential factors)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how polling works. It would be stupefying if more than 2% of the US were ever polled, that's 6.6 million people.

In terms of samples, some pollsters use random methods, others have pools of people they know are aligned with certain positions, and credible organisations use a variety of weighting methods to compensate for various issues with sample size and composition.

There are issues with polling, and sometimes it goes wrong, but it is generally fairly accurate and works pretty much the same way all over the world.

You seem to be implying that 98% of the Americans refuse to be polled - where did you get this information and how was it calculated?

Im also very curious about this 'local/anecdotal' evidence for a Trump victory. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but district polling is about as local as it gets and that seems to be pointing the other way after accurately predicting a trump win in 2016.

duploelabs · 29-10-2020 1:30pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Well that's the point though isn't it... you're only capturing roughly 2% of the population. That's not really a true representative sample. And it's certainly unlikely to be very random.

Who are these people? Why do they engage with pollsters, when 98% choose not to? Are they more politically engaged, and what does that mean for voting trends? (among many other potential factors)

I've read that many of these polls take anything up to 45 mins to complete over the phone. What type of person in society, is likely to take that sort of time out of their day to engage with such a medium?

Trump has huge populist appeal... much of it among hard working families in middle America. Do you know many of these busy families, that would sit down for 45 mins to complete such a poll? Or even be politically engaged enough to give worthwhile answers?

And there has been suggestions, that left leaning pollsters are pushing many undecideds to declare their voting preference over the phone. Among many other such questionable practices... so undecideds are in many cases, not being recorded as such. The undecided vote was crucial back in 2016.

There are just far too many grey areas in polling, to really give these polls too much credence... especially when there are so many other metrics to be studied and analyzed, that give a much more nuanced picture of the overall state of play.

But I guess we'll find out who is correct very soon. I just hope for the sake of the American people, that we get a reasonably quick and clean decision. And that people can accept that decision whatever way it goes, and get on with dealing with these difficult times. These elections are pretty important for the world in general imo. America is too big and too influential, for any of us to dismiss their importance as simply internal affairs. (even if many would like to)

As always, all guff and absolutely no documented figures or statistics to back you up. Like hunters laptop

Deshawn · 29-10-2020 1:39pm

I took Wednesday off work so I can watch the election coverage. Jaysus I'm a sad so and so but looking forward to it as there is absolutely nothing else going on.

seamus · 29-10-2020 1:42pm

The early voting data is crazy. Theoretically if all the mail-in votes were to be returned then the turnout would almost match 2016's, on early voting alone. No wonder the GOP was so desperate to try and suppress mail-in votes and so eager to declare them fraudulent.

Of course, one would expect voting next Tuesday to be markedly lower, but could be a massive shift in turnout either way. The last time turnout broke 60% was 1968.

As much as it's clear that the democratic process in the US is decidedly not democratic, if the mail-in process results in a considerable jump in votes then there's a good model for other countries to consider following, to try and increase engagment in the system.

MJohnston · 29-10-2020 2:39pm

seamus wrote: »

As much as it's clear that the democratic process in the US is decidedly not democratic, if the mail-in process results in a considerable jump in votes then there's a good model for other countries to consider following, to try and increase engagment in the system.

We cope just fine in Ireland without substantial mail-in or early voting. And think of how much more complex our PR-STV ballots can be compared to theirs!

Practically every problem with voting in the US is derived from current or historical voter suppression. Think of all the bizarre things that they have to do like have a verified signature on their ballot, or bring overly restricted forms of ID along. It just adds more and more time to the voting process (and that's the goal of Republicans, to be clear).

Maybe America's angry and aggressive partisanship results in additional electoral fraud, but there's not much evidence of it in any state.

One thing we should borrow here, which certain US states have started adopting recently, is automatic voter registration. I wouldn't go as far as mandatory voting, although I'd be receptive to an argument for it, but we shouldn't make it so hard to register to vote here.

Water John · 29-10-2020 2:55pm

Almost the total number who voted in 2016 have already voted in 2020 in Texas.

BonnieSituation · 29-10-2020 3:02pm

Shelga wrote: »

Anyone else just have no faith in the American people to do the right thing anymore?

Also I think many people will lie to pollsters, and intend to vote for Trump.

The economic numbers just released have given me pause for thought.

Manic Moran · 29-10-2020 3:21pm

looksee wrote: »

Amy Coney Barratt has recused herself from the Pennsylvania vote on the grounds that she has not had time to read up the arguments. The Supreme Court has declined to revisit as a fast-track the lower court's decision to allow 3 days after polling day to count votes. Is there hope, or should one be cynical?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-won-t-immediately-consider-whether-pa-can-count-n1245175

As I understand it, Barrett's participation may be unlikely to make a difference anyway. The swing vote on this topic seems to be Roberts, and he's apparently making his decisions on the basis of whether or not it is appropriate for federal courts to get involved in this sort of state-level voting processes. There were two cases which got up there recently about mail-in-ballot deadlines, one was Pennsylvania, the other Wisconsin. He joined with the liberal wing in the Pennsylvania case (5-3) as he believed the federal court below was wrong as a matter of process to reverse the State court. He joined with the conservative wing in the Wisconsin case as that came up through the State court system.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-wisconsin-elections-us-supreme-court-dcf1e115d0804e203ef2cf9887cfabff

Quin_Dub · 29-10-2020 3:31pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I understand it, Barrett's participation may be unlikely to make a difference anyway. The swing vote on this topic seems to be Roberts, and he's apparently making his decisions on the basis of whether or not it is appropriate for federal courts to get involved in this sort of state-level voting processes. There were two cases which got up there recently about mail-in-ballot deadlines, one was Pennsylvania, the other Wisconsin. He joined with the liberal wing in the Pennsylvania case (5-3) as he believed the federal court below was wrong as a matter of process to reverse the State court. He joined with the conservative wing in the Wisconsin case as that came up through the State court system.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-wisconsin-elections-us-supreme-court-dcf1e115d0804e203ef2cf9887cfabff

Indeed - looking at the various decision thus far around voting , it seems they are clearly following a guideline that says if the decision was taken solely at the State level , they are getting involved , but if there was a federal involvement they are open to over-ruling it.

spacecoyote · 29-10-2020 4:14pm

Broadly speaking it just seems nuts with these cases in the courts. For a country that claims to be the greatest ever democracy, a not insignificant portion of the country seem to think that not everyone's vote should count in said greatest democracy.

To be honest, its pretty embarrassing and pathetic really, and the fact that the supreme court of the land is happy to work around the constitution, to prevent or limit the count of votes, in a time of unprecedented circumstances, says everything that is wrong with the country and the system. There is no reason why they couldn't give a few days to ensure every vote is counted, by my understanding the president isn't officially declared until the states declare their EC votes, which is a couple of weeks after the election (could be wrong on my timings there)

I mean, even late night comedians appear to be doing more to help people to vote, each creating their own sites which give people guides on how to vote in their different states. I know that they lean pretty heavily anti-Trump, but that's beside the point, their message is...GET OUT AND VOTE across the board.

Water John · 29-10-2020 4:21pm

Could be corrected but I think States have until the 8th Dec to nominate their EC voters. See HC hopes to be one for New York.

Quin_Dub · 29-10-2020 5:38pm

Water John wrote: »

Could be corrected but I think States have until the 8th Dec to nominate their EC voters. See HC hopes to be one for New York.

I think it's 41 days from the day of the Election so that sounds about right.

Clinton is an Electoral College voter and so will almost certainly be casting her vote for Biden in January when the official vote takes place.

Manic Moran · 29-10-2020 5:44pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Indeed - looking at the various decision thus far around voting , it seems they are clearly following a guideline that says if the decision was taken solely at the State level , they are getting involved , but if there was a federal involvement they are open to over-ruling it.

I think you have it reversed. If it's a purely state-level issue, he would rather the federal courts leave the state rulings alone (Unless you missed a "not" in there). It's a position I wish more politicians and judges had.

Quin_Dub · 29-10-2020 5:53pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Indeed - looking at the various decision thus far around voting , it seems they are clearly following a guideline that says if the decision was taken solely at the State level , they are getting involved , but if there was a federal involvement they are open to over-ruling it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think you have it reversed. If it's a purely state-level issue, he would rather the federal courts leave the state rulings alone (Unless you missed a "not" in there). It's a position I wish more politicians and judges had.

Indeed - Typo on my part

"if the decision was taken solely at the State level , they are NOT getting involved"

eire4 · 29-10-2020 7:44pm

Here is the bottom line IMHO when it comes to the US Supreme Court and voting. Says so much about who they are really.

According to the US Supreme Court an American has the right to bear arms and the government if it wants to try and take a gun away from you has to go to court to prove why. However voting not so much. If the government takes away someone's right to vote they can do so and then it is up to them to go to court to prove that the government is wrong.

So the bottom line is according to the US Supreme Court having a gun is a right but voting that is only a privilege not a right. As I said above it just says so much about who they are and the US as a country.

Outlaw Pete · 29-10-2020 10:00pm

Ah here, how can this nonsense be happening:

https://twitter.com/jakejakeny/status/1321900543451799559

L1011 · 29-10-2020 10:05pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, how can this nonsense be happening:

https://twitter.com/jakejakeny/status/1321900543451799559

One post by one 'freelance editorial columnist' which basically means unemployed hack.

Translation - it probably isn't happening.

Foxtrol · 29-10-2020 10:11pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, how can this nonsense be happening:

https://twitter.com/jakejakeny/status/1321900543451799559

Yes, the democrats really need to pull this kind of plot to win NY where Trump lost in 2016 by 22 points and according to polls Biden is up 30 points :rolleyes:

More unsubstantiated rubbish which I'm sure Trump will be tweeting about soon (especially seeing as the guy making the claim is tweeting at basically every right wing grifter).

everlast75 · 29-10-2020 10:15pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes, the democrats really need to pull this kind of plot to win NY where Trump lost in 2016 by 22 points and according to polls Biden is up 30 points :rolleyes:

More unsubstantiated rubbish which I'm sure Trump will be tweeting about soon (especially seeing as the guy making the claim is tweeting at basically every right wing grifter).

I would imagine if Trump is trailing on the night he will demand votes be counted into the middle of next year

MJohnston · 29-10-2020 10:30pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, how can this nonsense be happening:

Honestly, if this actually was happening, I’d think it most likely to be a Trumpist plot to undermine the whole process. Far more likely to be (a) made up (b) an error

marno21 · 29-10-2020 10:49pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I don't got it what's difference between b and c, and why multiple languages?

The Conservative Party of New York also nominated Trump/Pence as nominees for President.

spacecoyote · 29-10-2020 11:04pm

Saw some remarks also stating it's not a faked ballot, but is a sample letter that was sent showing how to complete the ballot papers, but not sure to be honest.

Smacks of more fakery to try dispute the result

L1011 · 29-10-2020 11:13pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I don't got it what's difference between b and c, and why multiple languages?

It may be a down ticket voting option possibly - there is a Conservative Party of New York who have also nominated Trump.

If its not down-ticket - in years when the candidate isn't the controversial option but the party might be, some nonsense option like this lets you say you didn't vote for the party.

Brussels Sprout · 29-10-2020 11:17pm

L1011 wrote: »

One post by one 'freelance editorial columnist' which basically means unemployed hack.

Translation - it probably isn't happening.

His bio also says that he's heavily associated with Fox News.

I also checked out his personal website (aside: the very worst layout that I have seen on a website in many years) and found this in the "Trump Policies" section

Stick to the issues and I can make you a Trump supporter in 10 minutes

by Jake Novak

I dunno - something tells me that this guy might not be a neutral conveyor of the facts.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments