The American Politics Thread!

[TeamAudra]

1 hour ago, ButterflyEffect said:

If I were being overconfident I'd tell you that Texas and Georgia are about to flip blue along with every other state I just listed. 

I'll throw it all out there so there's no confusion to my thought process:

Arizona, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio could easily stay Trump Tuesday night. Anyone claiming they're easy victories for Biden are ignoring polling data. they're basically ties. In fact I suspect Iowa and Ohio are won by Trump no matter the result Tuesday. 

Texas and Georgia only flip Biden if it's a complete Biden blowout. This is unlikely however.

Pennsylvania is close enough that a standard polling error is all that's needed for Trump to win it. That's basically a 2016 scenario.

Biden is polling so well Michigan and Wisconsin that even a standard polling error in favour of Trump doesn't win it for him. What you're hoping for in those states is a catastrophic failure of polling and/or interference.

Beyond these toss-up states, I'm not sure what else there is for any party to hope for. I know that partisans are sometimes blind to the realities of the political situation, and trust me I've seen some really bad takes from amateur pundits on both sides of the spectrum. The likelihood of the Democrats winning Missouri and Republicans winning Oregon are pretty equal: less than 1%, yet I've seen both proposed.

You seem to have a distrust of polling though, so nothing I said will matter to you. I get that the United States is full of absolutely horrid, biased polling agencies. There are plenty of good agencies though with excellent track records with detailed information.



 

I’m adding Nevada and Colorado to the list of states in play. Colorado isn’t as likely, but there hasn’t been any polling in over 3 weeks, and Democrats don’t have a decided advantage in early voting. Nevada was  close in 2016, and the RCP average shows only a 3.6% edge for Biden. Early voting is basically even in the state.

 

Again, I’m expecting Republicans to have a huge turnout edge on Election Day, since Democrats are more likely to fear COVID and large crowds. In many of these swing states, Democrats are underperforming in early and mail-in voting. Pennsylvania is the exception, as I mentioned before. Trump is going to need massive turnout in that state on Tuesday, and if he loses there, it becomes difficult, but not impossible. Maybe it will turn out as you’re predicting, but this is not a typical election, so we shouldn’t be surprised by atypical results. 
 

None of the above is a “prediction,” other than I believe Trump will have a huge turnout advantage on Tuesday. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by TeamAudra

[season1]

 

I guess they're just riding and driving around while gas is still cheap. If Biden wins, be prepared for $4 gas again, instead of the current $2 per gallon.

 

 

[psterina]

The Flint, Michigan stunt he pulled, was indeed disgusting. And then ... there's what he did to civilians, in the mid-east  

 

 

 

[Someone648]

I filled out my ballot today...

 

Actual footage of me sealing my ballot knowing I checked J*e/K*mala and knowing that my Democratic congressional nominee yet again has zero chance against our incumbent Republican congressman that's been there since before I was born and has done ~absolutely nothing~

 

 

At least I still get the "I voted" sticker.

 

Bring on 2022 and 2024 please.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Someone648

[TeamAudra]

13 minutes ago, psterina said:

The Flint, Michigan stunt he pulled, was indeed disgusting. And then ... there's what he did to civilians, in the mid-east  

 

 

 

I know I’m on the opposite of the ideological spectrum, but I find myself agreeing with almost everything he says in these videos, and it always entertaining. 

[TeamAudra]

Oh, man this is...not good for Joe. 

 

 

[ButterflyEffect]

1 hour ago, TeamAudra said:

I’m adding Nevada and Colorado to the list of states in play. Colorado isn’t as likely, but there hasn’t been any polling in over 3 weeks, and Democrats don’t have a decided advantage in early voting. Nevada was  close in 2016, and the RCP average shows only a 3.6% edge for Biden. Early voting is basically even in the state.

 

Again, I’m expecting Republicans to have a huge turnout edge on Election Day, since Democrats are more likely to fear COVID and large crowds. In many of these swing states, Democrats are underperforming in early and mail-in voting. Pennsylvania is the exception, as I mentioned before. Trump is going to need massive turnout in that state on Tuesday, and if he loses there, it becomes difficult, but not impossible. Maybe it will turn out as you’re predicting, but this is not a typical election, so we shouldn’t be surprised by atypical results. 
 

None of the above is a “prediction,” other than I believe Trump will have a huge turnout advantage on Tuesday. 

Colorado hasn't had much polling. Survey Monkey dropped a Biden +13 yesterday, but Survey Monkey is hot trash so it really shouldn't count. Polls from a few weeks ago were very good for Biden though, and we haven't seen a tightening anywhere else to indicate that it could be happening in CO. Nevada could be close....two high level polling agencies have Biden +2 (Emerson) and +6 (Siena). Maybe split the difference there. I'd say if we're in a situation where there is a 3-4 point shift to Trump in Nevada that it's a moot point anyway, Trump will have likely already won the election as a proportional shift across the board in swing states that large will likely also give them Pennsylvania and all the southern swing states. It's not realistic to expect some states to shift one way and some to shift the other. Much like what we saw in 2016, most states will shift with each other.

If you truly want to see what Liberal overconfidence looks like, check these guys out:

https://leantossup.ca/us-presidency/
https://twitter.com/LeanTossup
https://twitter.com/EScrimshaw

While I really do hope for a Biden victory Tuesday, one positive of a Trump victory would be seeing these clowns have to explain the 8+ months of their cocky, arrogant tweets and opinion pieces. 

[ButterflyEffect]

[season1]

 

I've seen many similar videos and I don't think this man is the only one who thinks and feels this way about the President. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

This is an interesting thread -- 

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1323003310790508545.html

 

Here's the first tweet of the thread:

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by season1

[ButterflyEffect]

New high quality state level polls from YouGov/CCES

Florida: Biden +2
Georgia: Biden +1
North Carolina: Biden +4
Pennsylvania: Biden +8
Texas: Trump +2

[TeamAudra]

24 minutes ago, ButterflyEffect said:

New high quality state level polls from YouGov/CCES

Florida: Biden +2
Georgia: Biden +1
North Carolina: Biden +4
Pennsylvania: Biden +8
Texas: Trump +2

I honestly don’t know which pollsters are “high quality.” Do any of these fit that description? Asking for a friend. 

 

[ButterflyEffect]

I don't know, you tell me what you think of Trafalgar

[TeamAudra]

7 minutes ago, ButterflyEffect said:

I don't know, you tell me what you think of Trafalgar

They all have hits and misses. Yes, they clearly have some bias, as most pollsters do, but they’ve had some shining moments too. 
 

And....

 

 

[ButterflyEffect]

1 minute ago, TeamAudra said:

They all have hits and misses. Yes, they clearly have some bias, as most pollsters do, but they’ve had some shining moments too. 
 

And....

 

 

So was your post with that Florida result supposed to be your gotchya moment? Where I concede that Trafalgar is actually good and that all other polling agencies are trash? People a lot more invested in US politics have painstakingly analyzed agencies track records, polling methods, and sample demographics to determine whether they are "high quality" or not. 

And that tweet is false. Nate Silver had the odds of a Clinton victory at 71% (Trump 29%). He was also the only person with the balls to warn people that a Trump victory wasn't super outlandish. All it took was a standard polling error.....and that's exactly what happened.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And his final post about the election where he clearly states that there's a lot of uncertainty and that standard polling error could completely eliminate Clinton's lead:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

[TeamAudra]

18 minutes ago, ButterflyEffect said:

So was your post with that Florida result supposed to be your gotchya moment? Where I concede that Trafalgar is actually good and that all other polling agencies are trash? People a lot more invested in US politics have painstakingly analyzed agencies track records, polling methods, and sample demographics to determine whether they are "high quality" or not. 

And that tweet is false. Nate Silver had the odds of a Clinton victory at 71% (Trump 29%). He was also the only person with the balls to warn people that a Trump victory wasn't super outlandish. All it took was a standard polling error.....and that's exactly what happened.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And his final post about the election where he clearly states that there's a lot of uncertainty and that standard polling error could completely eliminate Clinton's lead:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

It wasn’t supposed to be a gotcha. Just trying to have a little fun. I guess I underestimated how big of a Silver fan you are. Yes, he lives and breathes this stuff, and knows much more about polling than I’ll ever know, but he also has biases, just like everyone else.
 

What stands out the most to me is his model forecasted 302 electoral votes for Hillary, yet she ended up with only 227. It’s interesting, and I occasionally look at it too, but I don’t treat it as gospel. 
 

Good catch on the correction of Gingrich. He’s biased too, obviously. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by TeamAudra

[season1]

The polls can miss certain members of the electorate:

 

1. Non-voters in previous cycles but are voting now.

2. "Shy" Trump voters who refuse to be polled, or worse, lie about their preference. 

3. Last minute voters who make up their minds (sit out, confirm vote, etc) very close to election day.

 

Meanwhile, this weekend, there are rallies, caravans and boat parades in all 50 states. Even in the blue states like MA, NY and CA.

 

I think I understand why Trump voters are getting more vocal about their support. They see President Trump, his family and VP working really hard to campaign for his re-election, with about 30 rallies (14 for the President) Saturday-Monday. They want to show their support while in a group of like-minded people. Especially when they are worried to put signs on their yards or being vocal on social media because of censorship, cancel culture or worse.

 

We will know soon which group of people have the greater number -- the group that supports the President or the group that hate him enough to vote against him despite all his accomplishments.

 

P.S.

An example of ridiculous social media censorship. (What's sensitive about Snoopy?) 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by season1

[ButterflyEffect]

1 hour ago, TeamAudra said:

It wasn’t supposed to be a gotcha. Just trying to have a little fun. I guess I underestimated how big of a Silver fan you are. Yes, he lives and breathes this stuff, and knows much more about polling than I’ll ever know, but he also has biases, just like everyone else.
 

What stands out the most to me is his model forecasted 302 electoral votes for Hillary, yet she ended up with only 227. It’s interesting, and I occasionally look at it too, but I don’t treat it as gospel. 
 

Good catch on the correction of Gingrich. He’s biased too, obviously. 

I'm neutral on Nate, though I do appreciate his very in depth work to establish polling track records. I also appreciate that he isn't very sensationalist. Sure he's likely Liberal, but I don't think it impacts his work much. I've seen a lot more partisan aggregates, like those Lean Tossup clowns, absolutely rip him apart for including republican-biased polls in his model. I get it, polling agencies also have house effects, but if its minor you need to include it unless the polling methodologies are completely flawed.

In 2016 when nearly everyone else was giving Trump 10% or less odds on winning, I appreciate the fivethirtyeight 29%. Nearly 30% is actually dang good odds. He has Trump at 11% chance of winning right now.....not as good as 2016, but also not inconceivably small that there's no path to victory.

[season1]

I haven't seen enthusiasm like this for any Presidential candidate. Maybe Reagan? But I wasn't here to see it back then.  

 

https://streamable.com/go7swb

 

Weekend Caravans (Pics/Vids)

 

Secret service estimated about 60k people attended the GA rally. Similar crowds for MI, IA, NC and FL. They were there for hours, in cold weather, yet they all sounded enthusiastic, joyful and high energy.

 

For every Trump voter who's vocal about supporting Trump in these rallies, parades and caravans, we don't know how many more are just quiet about it but they will vote. How can the polls account for those "shy" voters? When the media and the democrats call you racist, homophobic, sexist uneducated nazis (and some even call for your destruction) because you don't agree with them on the issues or you support the President they despise, would you tell a stranger you're voting for Trump?

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by season1

[TeamAudra]

11 minutes ago, season1 said:

I haven't seen enthusiasm like this for any Presidential candidate. Maybe Reagan? But I wasn't here to see it back then.  

 

https://streamable.com/go7swb

 

Weekend Caravans (Pics/Vids)

 

Secret service estimated about 60k people attended the GA rally. Similar crowds for MI, IA, NC and FL. They were there for hours, in cold weather, yet they all sounded enthusiastic, joyful and high energy.

 

For every Trump voter who's vocal about supporting Trump in these rallies, parades and caravans, we don't know how many more are just quiet about it but they will vote. How can the polls account for those "shy" voters? When the media and the democrats call you racist, homophobic, sexist uneducated nazis (and some even call for your destruction) because you don't agree with them on the issues or you support the President they despise, would you tell a stranger you're voting for Trump?

 

 

That’s true, but I’m still getting hung up on the massive early vote numbers. I’m particularly concerned about Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, to a lesser extent. The betting odds have it at about 65% for Biden, which feels about right. 

[season1]

1 hour ago, TeamAudra said:

That’s true, but I’m still getting hung up on the massive early vote numbers. I’m particularly concerned about Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, to a lesser extent. The betting odds have it at about 65% for Biden, which feels about right. 

 

PA has a weird early voting setup -- I read that only Philly and Pittsburgh has early voting locations, while the rest of the state can only mail their early votes. Biden has a last-minute Pittsburgh stop scheduled. They also visited Philadelphia this weekend. It's hard to know how it will pan out but the campaign's action may indicate they're not getting their target votes and they have to campaign more to turn out the votes in those blue cities. The Philly riots may hurt the Dem votes there.

 

NC always have Dems advantage in early votes and voter registration. But comparing 2016 and 2020 early voting and absentee numbers, I think NC will remain red.

 

1. Voter registration: Dems still have more registered voters, but Dems lost 114k, Reps gained 135k, Unaffiliated gained 383k. In 2016, there were 646k more Dems than Reps. In 2020, their advantage went down to 396k.
2. Dems early vote lead is smaller this year vs 2016: 305k in 2016, 256k in 2020. (Trump won NC by 173k votes in 2016).
3. Many NC Dems are "blue dog democrats" and not all of them vote Dem especially for the WH.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by season1

[TeamAudra]

4 hours ago, season1 said:

 

PA has a weird early voting setup -- I read that only Philly and Pittsburgh has early voting locations, while the rest of the state can only mail their early votes. Biden has a last-minute Pittsburgh stop scheduled. They also visited Philadelphia this weekend. It's hard to know how it will pan out but the campaign's action may indicate they're not getting their target votes and they have to campaign more to turn out the votes in those blue cities. The Philly riots may hurt the Dem votes there.

 

NC always have Dems advantage in early votes and voter registration. But comparing 2016 and 2020 early voting and absentee numbers, I think NC will remain red.

 

1. Voter registration: Dems still have more registered voters, but Dems lost 114k, Reps gained 135k, Unaffiliated gained 383k. In 2016, there were 646k more Dems than Reps. In 2020, their advantage went down to 396k.
2. Dems early vote lead is smaller this year vs 2016: 305k in 2016, 256k in 2020. (Trump won NC by 173k votes in 2016).
3. Many NC Dems are "blue dog democrats" and not all of them vote Dem especially for the WH.

 

True, but this time, 64% of registered Dems and of registered Rep have already voted in NC.  So, hopefully a lot of those are blue dog Dems voting for Trump. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by TeamAudra

[bswanson]

about the rallys thouh, yes trump has way more but supporters are more likey to still go out during the pandemic where biden supporters are likey to stay home and they voted from home. rally size is only part of it. its who actually votes. i think it will be a close election and if Bide nwins it will moslty be cause of the pandemic and Trumps handlding of it, when he says stuff like its getting better and going away but each day cases get worse and worse, I think that kinda hurts his chances. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by bswanson

[ButterflyEffect]

I don't place any weight on rally size or mass gatherings size. It's the equivalent of looking at 20,000 people in an arena watching a concert and proclaiming that they've never seen the city as a whole so enthused about the band before. Those people want to be there. There are large number of Trump supporters and a large number of Biden supporters everywhere. Even a large crowd of say 25,000 people in Los Angeles only accounts for 0.6% of the cities population.

---------

Going to be a busy day for polling data (I think). Too bad I'll be at work missing most of it. The only thing I've seen so far is a Biden +5 in Pennsylvania from Monmouth. Monmouth is pretty dang good, I'd like to see them release some more state-level stuff today. 

[TeamAudra]

33 minutes ago, ButterflyEffect said:

I don't place any weight on rally size or mass gatherings size. It's the equivalent of looking at 20,000 people in an arena watching a concert and proclaiming that they've never seen the city as a whole so enthused about the band before. Those people want to be there. There are large number of Trump supporters and a large number of Biden supporters everywhere. Even a large crowd of say 25,000 people in Los Angeles only accounts for 0.6% of the cities population.

---------

Going to be a busy day for polling data (I think). Too bad I'll be at work missing most of it. The only thing I've seen so far is a Biden +5 in Pennsylvania from Monmouth. Monmouth is pretty dang good, I'd like to see them release some more state-level stuff today. 

Monmouth was only off by 4.7% in Pennsylvania in 2016. Let’s see if they do better this time. To be fair, it was within their stated MOE of +/- 4.9%. 
 

Edited November 2, 2020 by TeamAudra

[ButterflyEffect]

5% is a huge MoE too, probably didn't sample nearly enough people. The poll isn't wrong, but you'd feel that had they found a way to sample even 250 more people that they could have likely had a better result (I have no idea the number of poll'd for that particular poll). Sample today was only 502 likely voters so I'm guessing MoE is similar. They did do pretty good in 2018 though.

If all the polls had a 5% MoE then Biden would be in major trouble. Even seeing Biden +5 averaged in Pennsylvania has me a bit concerned regarding that race.

I did read a good article this morning about how polling agencies changed their methodologies between 2016 and 2018-present. I sort of figured that they had to account for the errors in 2016 but I didn't know how, nor where exactly the errors arised from. Turns out it was because many of them didn't weight responses by education. Non-college educated whites were undersampled. Agencies are now weighting by education so this shouldn't happen again, unless of course something else in the weighting is out of whack now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uspolls-trust-1.5765695

Edited November 2, 2020 by ButterflyEffect