US Presidential Election 2020

Outlaw Pete · 04-10-2020 10:17pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything? blm Does not = the Democrats, Not all BLM (or any other) protesters are Democrats.

What does BLM have to with anything??

The liberal media went out of their way to carry water for them, as did the democrats, including Biden, when they condemed even outdoor Trump rallys but yet never doing the same when it came to BLM protests. Instead, they all had their back.

An example of that double standard:

So a virus will more likely infect people if they are being defiant. Bending over backwards to make an absurd distinction between two groups doing the same thing: gathering in mostly maskless groups outdoors.

DK224 · 04-10-2020 10:38pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Looking bad for Trump based on this new poll.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/04/trump-behind-biden-election-poll-shows

Flashback to their poll this time 4 years ago.

The idea of a Dem +8 turnout which the poll is based on sounds extremely optimistic based on the registered voter figures which show a GOP increase which has spiked the past few months. The polls problem is projecting the electorate and turnout models and if they are off on turnout by a tiny bit like 2016, the polling error will be huge.

Biden's team wouldn't be campaigning in Michigan if they thought they were 14 points up and more importantly wouldn't be resorting to a ground game 4 weeks from the election after spending the previous 6 months saying that door to door electioneering was now obsolete. The voter registration numbers have to be a worry.

droidus · 04-10-2020 10:40pm

No evidence that BLM protests led to a spike in cases, partially due to mask wearing, hygiene stands, social distancing & lack of any shared indoor facilities.

A paper looking at virus data from protests between May 26 and June 20, found “no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset.”

“We conclude that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived,” the authors of the National Bureau of Economic Research paper wrote.

That lines up with what others have seen in various cities.

“I have not seen any peer-reviewed research linking outdoor protests (or really any major outdoor events) to the surge here in Texas,” said Rodney Rohde, PhD, an associate dean for research at Texas State’s College of Health Professions who focuses on public health microbiology.https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge#No-evidence-of-protest-spread

Whereas several Trump related events have been linked to mass spread of the virus, such as:

It was a 10-day celebration of big bikes, revving engines and inalienable American freedoms that saw more than 400,000 people descend on a South Dakota town.

Vowing that a pandemic would not halt the 80th Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, bikers rode from across the country to join in, despite local fears it would cause a spike in Covid-19.

Three weeks after the event ended and attendees roared off along highways, health officials now fear many took home more than just new tattoos.

The jamboree is feared to have been a so-called super-spreader event responsible for large numbers of coronavirus cases across the country.

Doctors have begun recording scores of cases linked to the get-together and an academic paper has now suggested the rally could have been potentially responsible for more than 250,000 cases.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/south-dakota-super-spreader-biker-rally-could-linked-250000/

The main difference presumably is behaviour. It is possible to hold outdoor events in relative safely IF the people involved attempt to follow basic guidelines.

Gbear · 04-10-2020 10:57pm

DK224 wrote: »

The idea of a Dem +8 turnout which the poll is based on sounds extremely optimistic based on the registered voter figures which show a GOP increase which has spiked the past few months. The polls problem is projecting the electorate and turnout models and if they are off on turnout by a tiny bit like 2016, the polling error will be huge.

Biden's team wouldn't be campaigning in Michigan if they thought they were 14 points up and more importantly wouldn't be resorting to a ground game 4 weeks from the election after spending the previous 6 months saying that door to door electioneering was now obsolete. The voter registration numbers have to be a worry.

There's also been an unprecedented amount of mail-in and early voting, which is good for the Dems, but probably makes it more difficult to get an accurate picture.

everlast75 · 04-10-2020 11:02pm

Trump decides to leave the hospital and have his staff drive him around before returning to the hospital.

W.t.f. is wrong with this guy?

https://twitter.com/DrPhillipsMD/status/1312869454385229827?s=19

blackcard · 04-10-2020 11:22pm

That drive by by Trump reminded me of when Polly dressed up as Sybil in Fawlty Towers. I presume Trump has a double?

yaboya1 · 04-10-2020 11:23pm

blackcard wrote: »

That drive by by Trump reminded me of when Polly dressed up as Sybil in Fawlty Towers. I presume Trump has a double?

Brendan Gleeson

Water John · 04-10-2020 11:25pm

Don't think Alec Balwin or Brendan Gleeson were available.

Foxtrol · 04-10-2020 11:47pm

That drive by is another example of how the GOP don't really care about law enforcement or the military. They are nothing more than a tool for them.

It is also another example of Trump's photo ops turning around and biting him. Just like the one that they cleared the protesters for, the photo itself won't be the story, it'll be the recklessness in getting it.

Foxtrol · 05-10-2020 12:01am

DK224 wrote: »

Flashback to their poll this time 4 years ago.

The idea of a Dem +8 turnout which the poll is based on sounds extremely optimistic based on the registered voter figures which show a GOP increase which has spiked the past few months. The polls problem is projecting the electorate and turnout models and if they are off on turnout by a tiny bit like 2016, the polling error will be huge.

Biden's team wouldn't be campaigning in Michigan if they thought they were 14 points up and more importantly wouldn't be resorting to a ground game 4 weeks from the election after spending the previous 6 months saying that door to door electioneering was now obsolete. The voter registration numbers have to be a worry.

Very different race this time. In 2016 there were:
- a lot more undecideds
- people weren't as set in their choice
- Clinton had much higher negatives
- poll models have been changed
- there is a decent chance of these polls are even undercounting Biden support (under representing youth vote due to their normal low rates that might change)

Polls aren't guarantees, they currently give Trump around a 20% chance which is still pretty likely. The polls were nearly spot on regarding the national vote in 2016 and there were only outside the margin of error in a handful of states.

DK224 · 05-10-2020 8:20am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Very different race this time. In 2016 there were:
- a lot more undecideds
- people weren't as set in their choice
- Clinton had much higher negatives
- poll models have been changed
- there is a decent chance of these polls are even undercounting Biden support (under representing youth vote due to their normal low rates that might change)

Polls aren't guarantees, they currently give Trump around a 20% chance which is still pretty likely. The polls were nearly spot on regarding the national vote in 2016 and there were only outside the margin of error in a handful of states.

The premise behind a lot of these polls are for a huge voter turnout (especially youth) for Biden. That has been touted by many commentators and polls but if you throw into the mix that a huge number of colleges are closed and that a smaller number of students are on campus to vote (mostly democrat), which could be big in some close states.

Also, if you drill down to the crosstabs there is a few things that are showing up consistently the past few weeks. There is a 20-30 point voter enthusiasm gap between likely Biden & Trump voters. It is not the same electorate this year Trump is gaining close to 5% & 10% of the Afro American and Hispanic vote compared to 2016. If these figures come close to holding on election day then even with the loss of a large % of Suburban White Women the Dems are in trouble.

Brian? · 05-10-2020 8:57am

DK224 wrote: »

The premise behind a lot of these polls are for a huge voter turnout (especially youth) for Biden. That has been touted by many commentators and polls but if you throw into the mix that a huge number of colleges are closed and that a smaller number of students are on campus to vote (mostly democrat), which could be big in some close states.

Also, if you drill down to the crosstabs there is a few things that are showing up consistently the past few weeks. There is a 20-30 point voter enthusiasm gap between likely Biden & Trump voters. It is not the same electorate this year Trump is gaining close to 5% & 10% of the Afro American and Hispanic vote compared to 2016. If these figures come close to holding on election day then even with the loss of a large % of Suburban White Women the Dems are in trouble.

All of the above us factored in to this model:

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

Which gives Trump a 19% chance of winning. It’ll be an upset if he wins, but not a massive one.

Quin_Dub · 05-10-2020 10:02am

DK224 wrote: »

The premise behind a lot of these polls are for a huge voter turnout (especially youth) for Biden. That has been touted by many commentators and polls but if you throw into the mix that a huge number of colleges are closed and that a smaller number of students are on campus to vote (mostly democrat), which could be big in some close states.

Also, if you drill down to the crosstabs there is a few things that are showing up consistently the past few weeks. There is a 20-30 point voter enthusiasm gap between likely Biden & Trump voters. It is not the same electorate this year Trump is gaining close to 5% & 10% of the Afro American and Hispanic vote compared to 2016. If these figures come close to holding on election day then even with the loss of a large % of Suburban White Women the Dems are in trouble.

Does that not just mean that they'll vote in their home location?

Unless all students live in California or some other Hard Blue state I don't see how this is necessarily a negative - In fact it might tighten some of the more rural area if the (typically) more liberal youth vote is there rather than in the blue cities where Colleges are.

breezy1985 · 05-10-2020 10:55am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Does that not just mean that they'll vote in their home location?

Unless all students live in California or some other Hard Blue state I don't see how this is necessarily a negative - In fact it might tighten some of the more rural area if the (typically) more liberal youth vote is there rather than in the blue cities where Colleges are.

I don't know about the US but in Ireland don't most students tend to vote in their home county rather than their college one. In the UK kids in London seem to be pretty savvy about where to vote depending on where it's needed more

DK224 · 05-10-2020 11:23am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Does that not just mean that they'll vote in their home location?

Unless all students live in California or some other Hard Blue state I don't see how this is necessarily a negative - In fact it might tighten some of the more rural area if the (typically) more liberal youth vote is there rather than in the blue cities where Colleges are.

I was reading an article last week on the Oregon 4th Congressional District race where Peter DeFazio the democratic candidates team were lamenting that they expect a huge drop off of the college vote.

They predicted that half of the college vote that they received in 2016 at Oregon and Oregon St off the table due to closed campuses.

Quin_Dub · 05-10-2020 12:14pm

DK224 wrote: »

I was reading an article last week on the Oregon 4th Congressional District race where Peter DeFazio the democratic candidates team were lamenting that they expect a huge drop off of the college vote.

They predicted that half of the college vote that they received in 2016 at Oregon and Oregon St off the table due to closed campuses.

I can see an impact at a local vote level , but most Students attend college in their home state due to the massive difference in cost between the two options , so while there might be an impact for a few house districts I can't see it having an impact at State/National level.

But look - Lots of things about this election are going to be massively different to any previous one , so who knows?

DK224 · 05-10-2020 12:41pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I can see an impact at a local vote level , but most Students attend college in their home state due to the massive difference in cost between the two options , so while there might be an impact for a few house districts I can't see it having an impact at State/National level.

But look - Lots of things about this election are going to be massively different to any previous one , so who knows?

I think the fact colleges are closed could mean they may not vote in the huge numbers that are being predicted because of the grassroot motivation there would be on campus to get out the vote.

But as you say there is so many variables that this is an extremely difficult to predict with confidence

Zubeneschamali · 05-10-2020 2:13pm

Brian? wrote: »

Which gives Trump a 19% chance of winning.

Yes, about the same odds as dying of Covid19.

Foxtrol · 05-10-2020 2:27pm

DK224 wrote: »

The premise behind a lot of these polls are for a huge voter turnout (especially youth) for Biden. That has been touted by many commentators and polls but if you throw into the mix that a huge number of colleges are closed and that a smaller number of students are on campus to vote (mostly democrat), which could be big in some close states.

Most colleges in red/purple states haven't been closed. It is in heavily blue states that they're closed.

In general campus voting is a disaster in those states, with lines nearly as bad as minority areas. The opening up of mail voting could help even more with turnout.

Also, if you drill down to the crosstabs there is a few things that are showing up consistently the past few weeks. There is a 20-30 point voter enthusiasm gap between likely Biden & Trump voters.

Can you point to the 20 - 30 point difference in voter enthusiasm? Are you quoting the 'enthusiasm for candidate x' numbers, as if so I think that is a poor one to base your opinion on. When I've dug into polls it generally shows Trump far ahead in that number but those for 'how enthusiastic are you to vote' and 'likelihood to vote' are much closer between both groups of voters.

It is not the same electorate this year Trump is gaining close to 5% & 10% of the Afro American and Hispanic vote compared to 2016. If these figures come close to holding on election day then even with the loss of a large % of Suburban White Women the Dems are in trouble.

What about the large % of over 65's that look to have left Trump? They make up a sizeable element of 2 swings states and tend to vote in high numbers.

As you said in a later post it is still very hard to predict with any confidence, giving Trump a ~20% chance of winning like he has now isn't predicting with confidence, it is just pointing to what is likely. It is about as likely as Biden blowing Trump out of the water with near historic numbers

DK224 · 05-10-2020 2:47pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Most colleges in red/purple states haven't been closed. It is in heavily blue states that they're closed.

In general campus voting is a disaster in those states, with lines nearly as bad as minority areas. The opening up of mail voting could help even more with turnout.

Can you point to the 20 - 30 point difference in voter enthusiasm? Are you quoting the 'enthusiasm for candidate x' numbers, as if so I think that is a poor one to base your opinion on. When I've dug into polls it generally shows Trump far ahead in that number but those for 'how enthusiastic are you to vote' and 'likelihood to vote' are much closer between both groups of voters.

What about the large % of over 65's that look to have left Trump? They make up a sizeable element of 2 swings states and tend to vote in high numbers.

As you said in a later post it is still very hard to predict with any confidence, giving Trump a ~20% chance of winning like he has now isn't predicting with confidence, it is just pointing to what is likely. It is about as likely as Biden blowing Trump out of the water with near historic numbers

Instead of getting a fine tooth comb out and disagreeing with your opinions one by one, i'll save us some time and ask for your prediction of Electoral College, Senate, House and popular vote?

I'll go Trump 320
Reps hold the Senate 52- 48
Dems holding the House by 10-15 seats
Biden winning the popular by 2-3million votes

We can come back on November 4th or more likely a week later and figure out which one of us was wrong!

Quin_Dub · 05-10-2020 2:59pm

DK224 wrote: »

Instead of getting a fine tooth comb out and disagreeing with your opinions one by one, i'll save us some time and ask for your prediction of Electoral College, Senate, House and popular vote?

I'll go Trump 320
Reps hold the Senate 52- 48
Dems holding the House by 10-15 seats
Biden winning the popular by 2-3million votes

We can come back on November 4th or more likely a week later and figure out which one of us was wrong!

My current Prediction?

Biden - 291, Clintons 232 from 2016 plus AZ , PA , WI and MI
Senate 51-49 Democrat
House - Dems to hold with a small increase , maybe 5 seats or so

droidus · 05-10-2020 3:17pm

DK224 wrote: »

Instead of getting a fine tooth comb out and disagreeing with your opinions one by one, i'll save us some time and ask for your prediction of Electoral College, Senate, House and popular vote?

I'll go Trump 320
Reps hold the Senate 52- 48
Dems holding the House by 10-15 seats
Biden winning the popular by 2-3million votes

We can come back on November 4th or more likely a week later and figure out which one of us was wrong!

Id be curious to see the work behind this. It would require trump to win all of the current toss up and lean GOP states, which brings him up to (a generous) 260. To get 320 he'd have to take PA, MN, MI, WN, NH/NV as well... you're basically predicting a big improvement on 2016 when pretty much all the polling, fundamentals and circumstances point to the opposite result.

DK224 · 05-10-2020 3:32pm

droidus wrote: »

Id be curious to see the work behind this. It would require trump to win all of the current toss up and lean GOP states, which brings him up to (a generous) 260. To get 320 he'd have to take PA, MN, MI, WN, NH/NV as well... you're basically predicting a big improvement on 2016 when pretty much all the polling, fundamentals and circumstances point to the opposite result.

Quin_Dub · 05-10-2020 3:43pm

DK224 wrote: »

Not sure I can see that scenario playing out.

That requires him to take NV and NH as well as Maine from the Clinton column from 2016. I just do not see him doing better than he did last time out.

If he wins, it will be by the narrowest of margins.

I can see a scenario where he holds on to AZ and one of MI/WI/PA.

Depending on which of the Rustbelts he holds that would put him at between 270(holding WI) to a max of 280 (Holding PA).

I just don't see a path above 300 for him.

Water John · 05-10-2020 3:43pm

Picking Nevada and Pennsylvania, Biden V Trump is rated at over 80 against less than 20 in both states. You may wish it to be otherwise but the odds are against it and unlike 2016 there are very few undecideds to be picked up.

droidus · 05-10-2020 4:04pm

Yeah, given current polling and all the variables, this is far more likely, and also quite generous to Trump. I think its very possible Biden will hit 340+

DK224 · 05-10-2020 4:14pm

Water John wrote: »

Picking Nevada and Pennsylvania, Biden V Trump is rated at over 80 against less than 20 in both states. You may wish it to be otherwise but the odds are against it and unlike 2016 there are very few undecideds to be picked up.

I don't have a dog in this hunt so "wishing" Trump will win states isn't my angle here, as I said on this topic a few months back my angle has always been that the polls are going to fall short again.

I think there is a lack of enthusiasm for Biden, a shy Trump voter effect and I think a 10% rise in Hispanic, 5% rise in Afro Americans for Trump will offset losses and bring a lot of toss up states into play. The Trump ground game is far more efficient than 2016 and if you study individual states their voter registration figures are outpacing Dems

Quin_Dub · 05-10-2020 4:25pm

DK224 wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this hunt so "wishing" Trump will win states isn't my angle here, as I said on this topic a few months back my angle has always been that the polls are going to fall short again.

I think there is a lack of enthusiasm for Biden, a shy Trump voter effect and I think a 10% rise in Hispanic, 5% rise in Afro Americans for Trump will offset losses and bring a lot of toss up states into play. The Trump ground game is far more efficient than 2016 and if you study individual states their voter registration figures are outpacing Dems

Perhaps - The NYT covered this in a recent article

And the basic message was - If the polls were as wrong as they were in 2016 on a percentage swing basis , Biden still wins.

TOTALS BASED ON CURRENT POLLS* IF POLLS ARE AS OFF AS THEY WERE IN 2016
Electoral coll. 390 310
CURRENT POLLS IF POLLS ARE AS OFF AS THEY WERE IN 2016
Arizona Biden +3 Biden <1
Florida Biden +6 Biden +3
Michigan Biden +10 Biden +5
North Carolina Biden +3 Trump +1
Pennsylvania Biden +7 Biden +2
Wisconsin Biden +8 Biden <1
U.S. avg. Biden +9 Biden +7

Basically, in a "No-Toss ups" scenario , Biden is on 390 today , but if you shift the polls by the same percentages that they were off in 2016 to the final result , that still leaves Biden on 310.

There's also another article that I can't find right now that posited the same question against the polls vs. Final tallies for the last 3 Elections and in the case of 2008 and 2012 there would appear to have been a load of "shy Obama" voters as in both cases they understated the Democrat tallies.

Polls are always off by a little bit (but very rarely outside MoE) but they aren't consistently donwplaying one side or the other , they swing back and forth.

Given the methodology over-correction that a lot of pollsters did in the aftermath of 2016 there's about as much chance of them understating the Biden support levels as there is for Trump.

Igotadose · 05-10-2020 4:25pm

DK224 wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this hunt so "wishing" Trump will win states isn't my angle here, as I said on this topic a few months back my angle has always been that the polls are going to fall short again.

I think there is a lack of enthusiasm for Biden, a shy Trump voter effect and I think a 10% rise in Hispanic, 5% rise in Afro Americans for Trump will offset losses and bring a lot of toss up states into play. The Trump ground game is far more efficient than 2016 and if you study individual states their voter registration figures are outpacing Dems

I'm interested in why you think the ground game is more efficient in 2020 than 2016? Enthusiasm and ratings are record lows for the #IMPOTUS. As Steve "Lincoln Project" Schmidt pointed out last week, Biden has historic leads at this point, bigger than Clinton v. Dole in 1996. So, I don't see how, having spent nearly $1bn (probably at $1bn now as that reports a bit old), for a huge poll deficit when the #IMPOTUS has the huge advantage of the Presidential megaphone, that they're more efficient. Feels like lazier and more inept, keeping the #IMPOTUS happy by putting him in front of crowds (some of which are hired to stand behind him).

Also, I think "Afro American" is dated usage. African Americans is current. Afro Americans is out of the '60s.

DK224 · 05-10-2020 4:37pm

Igotadose wrote: »

I'm interested in why you think the ground game is more efficient in 2020 than 2016? Enthusiasm and ratings are record lows for the #IMPOTUS. As Steve "Lincoln Project" Schmidt pointed out last week, Biden has historic leads at this point, bigger than Clinton v. Dole in 1996. So, I don't see how, having spent nearly $1bn (probably at $1bn now as that reports a bit old), for a huge poll deficit when the #IMPOTUS has the huge advantage of the Presidential megaphone, that they're more efficient. Feels like lazier and more inept, keeping the #IMPOTUS happy by putting him in front of crowds (some of which are hired to stand behind him).

Also, I think "Afro American" is dated usage. African Americans is current. Afro Americans is out of the '60s.

I apologise if I offended anybody with that was certainly not intended.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments