2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[CooterBrown 18028]

TL/DR:  Trump needs a cunt punch.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden
We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but Trump's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country—particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color, where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population.

It wasn't just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures, saying in April—again, falsely—that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.

And of course, the rebound came, with cases across the nation rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June. The states that followed Trump's misguidance posted new daily highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did not. By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-19 patients. States had to close up again, at tremendous economic cost. About 31 percent of workers were laid off a second time, following the giant wave of unemployment—more than 30 million people and countless shuttered businesses—that had already decimated the country. At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is the path to economic reopening and recovery.

Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease, saying it was not a serious concern and “this is like a flu” when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible, according to his taped statements to journalist Bob Woodward. His lies encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the virus further, and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump's falsehoods. The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise of the nation's leading infectious disease physician, Anthony Fauci, in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust.

Trump's reaction to America's worst public health crisis in a century has been to say “I don't take responsibility at all.” Instead he blamed other countries and his White House predecessor, who left office three years before the pandemic began.

But Trump's refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus. He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness. Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress has countermanded his reductions. Yet he keeps trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.

Trump also keeps pushing to eliminate health rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, putting people at more risk for heart and lung disease caused by pollution. He has replaced scientists on agency advisory boards with industry representatives. In his ongoing denial of reality, Trump has hobbled U.S. preparations for climate change, falsely claiming that it does not exist and pulling out of international agreements to mitigate it. The changing climate is already causing a rise in heat-related deaths and an increase in severe storms, wildfires and extreme flooding.

Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making. He solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals.

On COVID-19, he states correctly that “it is wrong to talk about ‘choosing' between our public health and our economy.... If we don't beat the virus, we will never get back to full economic strength.” Biden plans to ramp up a national testing board, a body that would have the authority to command both public and private resources to supply more tests and get them to all communities. He also wants to establish a Public Health Job Corps of 100,000 people, many of whom have been laid off during the pandemic crisis, to serve as contact tracers and in other health jobs. He will direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to enforce workplace safety standards to avoid the kind of deadly outbreaks that have occurred at meat-processing plants and nursing homes. While Trump threatened to withhold money from school districts that did not reopen, regardless of the danger from the virus, Biden wants to spend $34 billion to help schools conduct safe in-person instruction as well as remote learning.

Biden is getting advice on these public health issues from a group that includes David Kessler, epidemiologist, pediatrician and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief; Rebecca Katz, immunologist and global health security specialist at Georgetown University; and Ezekiel Emanuel, bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. It does not include physicians who believe in aliens and debunked virus therapies, one of whom Trump has called “very respected” and “spectacular.”

Biden has a family and caregiving initiative, recognizing this as key to a sustained public health and economic recovery. His plans include increased salaries for child care workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out of the economy and places enormous strains on families.

On the environment and climate change, Biden wants to spend $2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035, build energy-efficient structures and vehicles, push solar and wind power, establish research agencies to develop safe nuclear power and carbon capture technologies, and more. The investment will produce two million jobs for U.S. workers, his campaign claims, and the climate plan will be partly paid by eliminating Trump's corporate tax cuts. Historically disadvantaged communities in the U.S. will receive 40 percent of these energy and infrastructure benefits.

It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress. But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges.

Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It's time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.

[BradInATX 9208]

14 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Monmouth poll has a MOE of +/- 4.7 so that's still a statistical dead heat.

Not trying to pick a fight with  you or anything, but that's sort of a common misconception. If Biden is up 5 in Florida, it means that there's a chance that it's an even race. But that chance is almost on the far end of the bell curve, meaning it's one of the least likely scenarios. It's just as equally likely that Biden is up 10% as it is that it's a "dead heat".

+5% gives Biden an extraordinarily high chance of winning the state. However that's assuming the demographic sampling and weightings are 100% perfect and the methodologies are 100% perfect. Which as we saw in 2016, they almost never are. To your point, 5% definitely isn't comfortable. But it's encouraging.

[David Dennison 18946]

The Colorado arm of Lake LBJ has the highest concentration of Trump flags I've seen yet. It seemed like every other lake house past Kingsland was flying Trump colors.

I did see two Biden flags, one gay pride flag, and a BLM flag. So that's something.

[henrygandorf 29194]

while that ad is horrifying, we still see the mr burns disease phenomenon with the trump attacks.  if he was a normal politician, or functioning adult human, then one attack would work, but when there are dozens...

[Sbbruin 21882]

19 hours ago, Lobo said:

Hey, I lived there for two years.  They run that state like a shitshow.  But their natural lands are gorgeous and I am thankful for every day I spent hiking and fishing those lands.  California government sucks but much of their state is on fire.   Texans didn’t mind getting federal assistance in 2011 when a huge chunk of our state was on fire.  

Feds are dragging their asses because of one guy playing politics with fires.  I can deal with politics on health insurance, wars, taxes, even education.  But I can’t accept the politicization of fire.  
 

 

All of this.  Dipshit's laughing dismissal yesterday was waaay the fuck out of bounds.  The fucking state, and the entire west, is burning and all he couldn't give a shit because he's written California's electoral votes off long ago.  So why waste the effort?  Meanwhile the air quality in my neighborhood makes Beijing's worst smog day feel like the fresh air of the Alps.

[henrygandorf 29194]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Not trying to pick a fight with  you or anything, but that's sort of a common misconception. If Biden is up 5 in Florida, it means that there's a chance that it's an even race. But that chance is almost on the far end of the bell curve, meaning it's one of the least likely scenarios. It's just as equally likely that Biden is up 10% as it is that it's a "dead heat".

+5% gives Biden an extraordinarily high chance of winning the state. However that's assuming the demographic sampling and weightings are 100% perfect and the methodologies are 100% perfect. Which as we saw in 2016, they almost never are. To your point, 5% definitely isn't comfortable. But it's encouraging.

it should also be said the moe is a mathematical disclaimer stamped on individual polls to account for the size of the sample.  when the numbers (national, florida, whatever) are this consistent for this long, you can pretty much throw out the moe.  those numbers are what they are.

if anything, you'll need to start accounting for voter suppression tactics. 

[The Dog 44138]

18 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Not trying to pick a fight with  you or anything, but that's sort of a common misconception. If Biden is up 5 in Florida, it means that there's a chance that it's an even race. But that chance is almost on the far end of the bell curve, meaning it's one of the least likely scenarios. It's just as equally likely that Biden is up 10% as it is that it's a "dead heat".

+5% gives Biden an extraordinarily high chance of winning the state. However that's assuming the demographic sampling and weightings are 100% perfect and the methodologies are 100% perfect. Which as we saw in 2016, they almost never are. To your point, 5% definitely isn't comfortable. But it's encouraging.

I get it, but nearly every poll for FL shows a statistical dead heat of some form or another. Biden isn't winning by 5 in all of them and in fact is trailing in several polls. Monmouth is a respected pollster but their sample size is very small compared to others. Additionally, several polls have Trump winning (although also within the margin of error). So I think there's a quite a bit of evidence that this is possibly an outlier. I think we need to see more polls with Biden having a lead like this to say that it's anything other than a dead heat at this point.

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

35 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This.  It might go either way, but it is trending heavy blue as Virginia did the last few cycles and is now a solid Blue State.  Research Triangle nerds out front should've told ya.

[SydneyCarton 48169]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I get it, but nearly every poll for FL shows a statistical dead heat of some form or another. Biden isn't winning by 5 in all of them and in fact is trailing in several polls. Monmouth is a respected pollster but their sample size is very small compared to others. Additionally, several polls have Trump winning (although also within the margin of error). So I think there's a quite a bit of evidence that this is possibly an outlier. I think we need to see more polls with Biden having a lead like this to say that it's anything other than a dead heat at this point.

HG mentioned factoring in voter suppression. I think the easiest (granted, not exactly scientific) method to account for that is to subtract 3--5 points off the top from whatever Biden poll we see. Dead heat with Trump? Well, that's probably Biden -4. Biden +1? Closer to a statistical dead heat. 

[SydneyCarton 48169]

1 minute ago, Herpa Derpa said:

This.  It might go either way, but it is trending heavy blue as Virginia did the last few cycles and is now a solid Blue State.  Research Triangle nerds out front should've told ya.

"It might go either way" is sort of the definition of a swing state. So I mean...while I understand and agree with you guys on how the state is trending, writing it off as a blue lock seems fucking absurd. By the same token, would you use the same reasoning and write off PA as a red lock this go round? Because it's sorta trended that way recently as well. 

[bolverk 29717]

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I get it, but nearly every poll for FL shows a statistical dead heat of some form or another. Biden isn't winning by 5 in all of them and in fact is trailing in several polls. Monmouth is a respected pollster but their sample size is very small compared to others. Additionally, several polls have Trump winning (although also within the margin of error). So I think there's a quite a bit of evidence that this is possibly an outlier. I think we need to see more polls with Biden having a lead like this to say that it's anything other than a dead heat at this point.

Where are all of these several polls showing Trump winning Florida? I can only find 2 out of 23 (and only 4 ties) since the beginning of August

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/

I'm obviously not say it's not possible for Trump to win the state, but the poll-based evidence is fleeting.

 

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

Based on the Trump campaign emails I've received over the last week (great for a laugh, and they apparently don't remove you regardless of how you reply back), they are broke and getting desperate.  Hawking everything from signed books, personalized yard signs, fake $1000 Trump bills, champagne glasses, 600% no 700% no 800% matches to squeeze every penny they can.

And the AEI op-ed in the Washington Post and recent distancing comments of David Perdue (R GA Sen candidate), tell me the bigwigs have moved to fighting for the Senate.  The money ain't coming for Donald. 

Stay vigilant. Vote. Despite chicken littles running around screaming, the system doesn't die until it's dead, and it's still breathing.

[SydneyCarton 48169]

1 minute ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Based on the Trump campaign emails I've received over the last week (great for a laugh, and they apparently don't remove you regardless of how you reply back), they are broke and getting desperate.  Hawking everything from signed books, personalized yard signs, fake $1000 Trump bills, champagne glasses, 600% no 700% no 800% matches to squeeze every penny they can.

And the AEI op-ed in the Washington Post and recent distancing comments of David Perdue (R GA Sen candidate), tell me the bigwigs have moved to fighting for the Senate.  The money ain't coming for Donald. 

Stay vigilant. Vote. Despite chicken littles running around screaming, the system doesn't die until it's dead, and it's still breathing.

I mean, 100% this. I dont know anyone not voting, and not motivated to vote. .

[gmr548 16614]

I am surprised they’re spending money in NC and MI as I don’t really think they’re swing states at this point (NC red, MI blue).  I still believe PA will decide the election, with shenanigans in AZ and/or WI as Trump’s backup plan.  And I understand why they’re both spending money in Florida; it’s close enough to flip, Trump is sunk without it, and Biden can remove all doubt if he wins it (Biden gets to 270 with Florida even if he loses PA, WI, and AZ).
My assumption is that blue spending in Texas is geared toward 2024, as a step toward preparing for it to be an actual swing state, since for now, Texas is a red state slowly turning purple.  Trump will win Texas by 5-6 points.

Generally agree with this post but the NC take isn't really supported. Cooper cruising to reelection and Cunningham currently leading Tillis opens the door in a state where black voters and educated whites make up a lot of the electorate. Polls for Biden have been decent. Tossup is fair but to say it's gone the way of Michigan, where Biden is hitting 50+percent and Trump is giving up, just isn't supported by the evidence.

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

"It might go either way" is sort of the definition of a swing state. So I mean...while I understand and agree with you guys on how the state is trending, writing it off as a blue lock seems fucking absurd. By the same token, would you use the same reasoning and write off PA as a red lock this go round? Because it's sorta trended that way recently as well. 

Agree.  I classify it as a true swing state, but not a Red State as was stated.  Write nothing off.  Hell, I live in a state that will go Biden +20 and I will still be marking my ballot Straight D.

PA is an interesting scenario this go round. Hillary was HATED by many of the same folks that are classic Biden voters. I suspect, we'll see just how much she was the difference in PA, WI and MI.  Adding to PA is that Biden is a de facto local kid who has always been fairly popular there.

[henrygandorf 29194]

9 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

fake $1000 Trump bills

they're only fake if he loses.

[6th Street 6503]

3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

 

That is a great article. Some interesting insights. Trump spending $0 in Texas. My guess is that they know if they lose Texas they've already lost the whole thing probably in a landslide, so no use putting money into it. And although it says Biden is throwing a few million into Georgia, probably to make Trump play defense there, he's ignored it so far. Sort of the reverse of Texas. Their data folks have run scenarios and understand that if Georgia goes blue, so have the other 6-7 swing states. 

The 6 states that they're both focusing on (WI/MI/PA, plus FL, NC, AZ) make sense. There are no other states that have a chance to swing the election.

It's a sign of weakness and desperation that Trump is trying to flip MN/CO. There's a zero percent chance he takes CO, and a 5% chance he takes MN. I'm still worried about the rust belt and I still give Trump a shot to win it all, but he's not winning those two.
 

I'm just glad to see Biden running a smart, tactical campaign instead of running around trying to drink champagne with the cool tech kids and running up the score in California with his hair on fire like you-know-who. 

Crazy how effectively only 4 states are deciding the election - PA, MI, WI, and AZ. Biden basically needs 3 of the 4 to eek out a win assuming FL, NC, and OH stay red.

[SydneyCarton 48169]

3 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Agree.  I classify it as a true swing state, but not a Red State as was stated.  Write nothing off.  Hell, I live in a state that will go Biden +20 and I will still be marking my ballot Straight D.

PA is an interesting scenario this go round. Hillary was HATED by many of the same folks that are classic Biden voters. I suspect, we'll see just how much she was the difference in PA, WI and MI.  Adding to PA is that Biden is a de facto local kid who has always been fairly popular there.

Everything I've read about PA here has terrified me. While yes, your patently correct about Hillary being hated, and Biden being well liked, the anecdotal reporting has repeatedly talked about how the red vote that swing there in 2016 seems to have crystalized, if not grown. Its hard to tell what of that is vocal supporters of Trump versus quiet supporters of Biden, but PA keeps getting tighter and tighter and the area where biden plays as the local kid are exceedingly red. At this point to me the "hillary was hated" and "biden is the popular local kid" feels just like the defacto shit we heard in 2016 on how PA would never turn read and how "no one" imagined Trump winning. 

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Everything I've read about PA here has terrified me. While yes, your patently correct about Hillary being hated, and Biden being well liked, the anecdotal reporting has repeatedly talked about how the red vote that swing there in 2016 seems to have crystalized, if not grown. Its hard to tell what of that is vocal supporters of Trump versus quiet supporters of Biden, but PA keeps getting tighter and tighter and the area where biden plays as the local kid are exceedingly red. At this point to me the "hillary was hated" and "biden is the popular local kid" feels just like the defacto shit we heard in 2016 on how PA would never turn read and how "no one" imagined Trump winning. 

Can't argue much with your impression.  Thankfully, it's not a must win state for Biden, but is for Trump.

One story I think will come out of this election is how significant reverse coattails will be in the swing states.  Senate candidates in AZ, MN, MI, and NC have all been polling well and will help generate huge turnout.  Hell, even GA with their fucked up Senate races this cycle will impact turnout and results. A strong local D candidate can only help the national ticket.  Of course, the flipside is that folks may split the two to try and get a "check" on the other.  But I have a hard time seeing a Kelly or Cunningham, etc. voter giving a vote to Trump.

[Biff Tannen 45733]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

Lol.  First response.

 

 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2682]

8 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Crazy how effectively only 4 states are deciding the election - PA, MI, WI, and AZ. Biden basically needs 3 of the 4 to eek out a win assuming FL, NC, and OH stay red.

*eke

[The Dog 44138]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Where are all of these several polls showing Trump winning Florida? I can only find 2 out of 23 (and only 4 ties) since the beginning of August

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/

I'm obviously not say it's not possible for Trump to win the state, but the poll-based evidence is fleeting.

 

OK so it's splitting hairs to say "a couple" but they are also recent (as in the last two weeks). And the RCP average is a 1.6% lead for Biden. It's a dead heat right now and that's with the new Monmouth polls included. 

That said, Trump was leading the RCP average at this point four years ago (+0.7). I don't believe he's been ahead of Biden since April.

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

All polls will likely tighten 1- 3% as the outfits push for likely over registered voters.  But every one that has Biden at 50% or better should send a shiver down a GOP spine.  Hard to overcome half with less than half.

[gmr548 16614]

Agree.  I classify it as a true swing state, but not a Red State as was stated.  Write nothing off.  Hell, I live in a state that will go Biden +20 and I will still be marking my ballot Straight D.
PA is an interesting scenario this go round. Hillary was HATED by many of the same folks that are classic Biden voters. I suspect, we'll see just how much she was the difference in PA, WI and MI.  Adding to PA is that Biden is a de facto local kid who has always been fairly popular there.

PA is a little different in that WI and MI are 100 percent attributable to decreased Democratic turnout/third party defections. The white working class revolt bit is a little overplayed in these states because, while yes rural areas did move R, the suburbs moving a bit more Democratic more or less cancelled that out. Milwaukee and Detroit just didn't push Clinton over the line like they normally would due to depressed turnout.

Trump did not run notably better than Romney in either state. Mitt Romney actually got a few thousand more votes than Trump in WI. Trump did improve on Romney by about 100k in Michigan, but even if every single one of those was an Obama-Trump voter, Trump still would've lost by a decent margin if Democrats turned out. The bottom line with those two is that Clinton just badly underperformed relative to Barack Obama, by roughly 250k votes in each state. Given the Democratic enthusiasm and electoral success over the past four years, Democrats should feel good about both. Especially Michigan, where Trump has effectively conceded. Democrats have the votes to win if everyone shows up and there's nothing the cult can do about it.

In PA, Clinton ran closer to Obama, only underperforming by about 70k (though if she'd have matched him she would've eeeked it out), but the difference wasn't as noticeable. Turnout in the Philly area was not depressed like it was in Milwaukee or Detroit. What did it was Trump got 300k more votes than Romney in PA. More than the other two, there really was a groundswell of support for Trump in PA.

[gmr548 16614]

Everything I've read about PA here has terrified me. While yes, your patently correct about Hillary being hated, and Biden being well liked, the anecdotal reporting has repeatedly talked about how the red vote that swing there in 2016 seems to have crystalized, if not grown. Its hard to tell what of that is vocal supporters of Trump versus quiet supporters of Biden, but PA keeps getting tighter and tighter and the area where biden plays as the local kid are exceedingly red. At this point to me the "hillary was hated" and "biden is the popular local kid" feels just like the defacto shit we heard in 2016 on how PA would never turn read and how "no one" imagined Trump winning. 

There's definitely something different in PA. It's not hopeless - I'm sure Biden can cut into Trump's margins in rural areas, even if only slightly, by just not being Hillary. And Democratic enthusiasm is unquestionably up. Philadelphia and its surrounds drive essentually all the growth in the state and that area isn't getting any more Trump friendly. That's a lot going for yoy when you've only got to close a gap of 45k votes.

But yes, PA is probably the most tenuous of the three Midwestern states. And it's the most important, as flipping MI, WI, and AZ only gets Biden to 269.

[henrygandorf 29194]

16 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Crazy how effectively only 4 states are deciding the election - PA, MI, WI, and AZ. Biden basically needs 3 of the 4 to eek out a win assuming FL, NC, and OH stay red.

that's definitely a scary way to look at it.  but on the flipside, if biden wins where he should - michigan, penn, minny, etc, then he only needs one of arizona, wisconsin, north carolina, florida to win.  trump needs all of them.

for what it's worth, on predictit, arizona ($0.66) has moved past penn and is now medium blue, where penn ($0.63) and fla ($0.53) are the only light blue states remaining.  north caro remains the lightest red state at $0.52 currently.  so if biden wins az, mich, wisconsin, that puts him at 269 with the split state vote waiting to push him to 270.  with 20 ev, penn is obviously the most important of that grouping.

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

More than the other two, there really was a groundswell of support for Trump in PA.

But we really won't know how much of that was due to him and how much to her until we have 2020 numbers to compare.  The anti-Hillary vote was real, and PA was a hot zone.  She still was a front burner item as a next door Senator for much of the PA working class listening to Rush and Hannity.  I live in the region, the anti-Hillary's around here are as venomous as dyed in the wool Birmingham or Macon boys.  As I said, it's definitely questionable how it will turn out, but not as crucial for one side as the other.  I expect to start seeing an endless stream of ads on OTA broadcasts from both sides*.

 

*money willing**

 

 

 

**for one team

[gmr548 16614]

But we really won't know how much of that was due to him and how much to her until we have 2020 numbers to compare.  The anti-Hillary vote was real, and PA was a hot zone.  She still was a front burner item as a next door Senator for much of the PA working class listening to Rush and Hannity.  I live in the region, the anti-Hillary's around here are as venomous as dyed in the wool Birmingham or Macon boys.  As I said, it's definitely questionable how it will turn out, but not as crucial for one side as the other.  I expect to start seeing an endless stream of ads on OTA broadcasts from both sides*.
 
*money willing**
 
 
 
**for one team

You're right, we don't, but Trump's support has been very inelastic. I think assuming he loses any significant amount of support is dangerous. Conversely, I'm very skeptical he's gained any significant amount either, which is a positive, because we know Democrats can beat that number. Hell, the governor came within 100k votes of Trump's 2016 total in a midterm.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

if anything, you'll need to start accounting for voter suppression tactics. 

I've been wondering how the modeling guys are accounting for shenanigans. I mean, you'd have to be a fool to not include one or more modifiers to your model to account for the possibility of just complete nonsense. Because if the polls look like they do today on election eve, and it's a fair election, a good model is going to have Biden at 90+% to win. But there's no way I'd be comfortable projecting anything close to 90%. 

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

But yes, PA is probably the most tenuous of the three Midwestern states. And it's the most important, as flipping MI, WI, and AZ only gets Biden to 269.

Don't forget the split Maine and Nebraska EVs.

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

that's definitely a scary way to look at it.  but on the flipside, if biden wins where he should - michigan, penn, minny, etc, then he only needs one of arizona, wisconsin, north carolina, florida to win.  trump needs all of them.

This.  For Trump to hit 270, he HAS to win: FL, NC and PA AND 1) AZ and WI or 2) AZ, and NV or 3) AZ, NH, all of ME or 3) MN, WI, NH and ME.  That's his floor, anything less and it's over.  Biden has around 15 different scenarios where he can win, and he's favored in most of them.  He can win without FL.  He can win without NC.  He can win without PA.  Trump can't.  He has to have all three+. 

[SydneyCarton 48169]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I've been wondering how the modeling guys are accounting for shenanigans. I mean, you'd have to be a fool to not include one or more modifiers to your model to account for the possibility of just complete nonsense. Because if the polls look like they do today on election eve, and it's a fair election, a good model is going to have Biden at 90+% to win. But there's no way I'd be comfortable projecting anything close to 90%. 

Counterpoint is that polls aren't and shouldn't be designed to account for anything other than how people vote. Not what court injunctions and suits follow. 

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

17 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

But we really won't know how much of that was due to him and how much to her until we have 2020 numbers to compare.  The anti-Hillary vote was real, and PA was a hot zone.  She still was a front burner item as a next door Senator for much of the PA working class listening to Rush and Hannity.  I live in the region, the anti-Hillary's around here are as venomous as dyed in the wool Birmingham or Macon boys.  As I said, it's definitely questionable how it will turn out, but not as crucial for one side as the other.  I expect to start seeing an endless stream of ads on OTA broadcasts from both sides*.
 
*money willing**
 
 
 
**for one team

Read more  

You're right, we don't, but Trump's support has been very inelastic. I think assuming he loses any significant amount of support is dangerous. Conversely, I'm very skeptical he's gained any significant amount either, which is a positive, because we know Democrats can beat that number. Hell, the governor came within 100k votes of Trump's 2016 total in a midterm.

Quite true.  But he has most certainly lost with the soccer moms and they are a mighty force in all of the meaningful states.  Anecdotally, I know of at least a half dozen of such people that regretted their Trump vote, two of whom live in PA.  He never "grew into the job".  And despite what their husbands might think, they vote the way they want.

[Snake Diggity 4627]

35 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Can't argue much with your impression.  Thankfully, it's not a must win state for Biden, but is for Trump.

One story I think will come out of this election is how significant reverse coattails will be in the swing states.  Senate candidates in AZ, MN, MI, and NC have all been polling well and will help generate huge turnout.  Hell, even GA with their fucked up Senate races this cycle will impact turnout and results. A strong local D candidate can only help the national ticket.  Of course, the flipside is that folks may split the two to try and get a "check" on the other.  But I have a hard time seeing a Kelly or Cunningham, etc. voter giving a vote to Trump.

It is hard to chart a path to victory for Biden without PA, especially considering that if PA goes red it almost certainly means FL is red and would be a bad sign for WI, NC, and AZ.  Without PA or FL, Biden must win 2 of NC, WI, and AZ, and I would consider that a long shot.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Counterpoint is that polls aren't and shouldn't be designed to account for anything other than how people vote. Not what court injunctions and suits follow. 

I wasn't even going that far. I mean purely tangible shenanigans that will change the vote. Voter suppression, fraud, Ron DeSantis, etc. Obviously there is no way to account for whatever bullshit Trump tries to pull after he (hopefully) loses the actual election.

Edited September 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Where are all of these several polls showing Trump winning Florida? I can only find 2 out of 23 (and only 4 ties) since the beginning of August

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/

I'm obviously not say it's not possible for Trump to win the state, but the poll-based evidence is fleeting.

 

We have a place in FL and do a decent amount of business all over the state.  I've got a decent pulse on the mood down there.  The most disappointing part of the situation is seeing the amount of latino support Trump is getting.  It's very significant.  Hoping 100M from Bloomberg can help connect with some of that group and get those votes.  

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

1 minute ago, Snake Diggity said:

It is hard to chart a path to victory for Biden without PA, especially considering that if PA goes red it almost certainly means FL is red and would be a bad sign for WI, NC, and AZ.  Without PA or FL, Biden must win 2 of NC, WI, and AZ, and I would consider that a long shot.

Not a long shot by any means.  Biden has consistently polled ahead in WI (+6.8 RCP avg.)and AZ (+4.7).  NC is Biden +0.7, so a little shaky there.  But like MI (+3.5) and MN (+8.7), NC and AZ have strong Senate D candidates. (NC +3.3, AZ +8.7).  And even Collins (-4.5) has managed to bungle ME for the party.  I know we all have PTSD for polls, but on the average, they're generally right.  While the Tip O'Neill adage may not be as strong in these social media days, it still means a lot.  And nothing local in the swing states is helping Trump, but it can certainly (and likely) hurt him.  Bigly.  Kids aren't safe in this world and Mommies don't like that.  It doesn't get any more local than that.

[6th Street 6503]

6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

We have a place in FL and do a decent amount of business all over the state.  I've got a decent pulse on the mood down there.  The most disappointing part of the situation is seeing the amount of latino support Trump is getting.  It's very significant.  Hoping 100M from Bloomberg can help connect with some of that group and get those votes.  

Your anecdote appears to be spot on driven by the socialism boogeyman (Cubans and Venezuelans) and radical misinformation flooding the airwaves.

At the same time, there has been a rise of Spanish-language conservative media, especially revolving around politics connected to Colombia and Venezuela, that are increasingly showing up in the social media feeds of South Florida’s Latin America diaspora communities. They’re finding common cause with Cuban-Americans, who dominate Spanish-language radio airwaves and have been a bulwark of Republican support in Florida’s otherwise Democratic-leaning and diverse Hispanic communities.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923

 

 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

6 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Your anecdote appears to be spot on driven by the socialism boogeyman (Cubans and Venezuelans) and radical misinformation flooding the airwaves.

At the same time, there has been a rise of Spanish-language conservative media, especially revolving around politics connected to Colombia and Venezuela, that are increasingly showing up in the social media feeds of South Florida’s Latin America diaspora communities. They’re finding common cause with Cuban-Americans, who dominate Spanish-language radio airwaves and have been a bulwark of Republican support in Florida’s otherwise Democratic-leaning and diverse Hispanic communities.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923

 

 

 

Thanks, I honestly had no idea where the hell this was coming from but it was alarming.  Not that this makes it less alarming but at least I can see why the hell I"m seeing what I am. 

[SydneyCarton 48169]

9 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Your anecdote appears to be spot on driven by the socialism boogeyman (Cubans and Venezuelans) and radical misinformation flooding the airwaves.

At the same time, there has been a rise of Spanish-language conservative media, especially revolving around politics connected to Colombia and Venezuela, that are increasingly showing up in the social media feeds of South Florida’s Latin America diaspora communities. They’re finding common cause with Cuban-Americans, who dominate Spanish-language radio airwaves and have been a bulwark of Republican support in Florida’s otherwise Democratic-leaning and diverse Hispanic communities.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Thanks, I honestly had no idea where the hell this was coming from but it was alarming.  Not that this makes it less alarming but at least I can see why the hell I"m seeing what I am. 

Florida is going to vote red, and I'd wager it's not going to end up that close. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

33 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Biden must win 2 of NC, WI, and AZ, and I would consider that a long shot.

“long shot” is a gross exaggeration. he’s favored in 2/3 and has been. my last post about predictit was about how az and wisc have passed penn and are now medium blue. 

[Biff Tannen 45733]

1 hour ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Hard to overcome half with less than half.

Aye, but that's where the cheating comes in.

[Herpa Derpa 6131]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Aye, but that's where the cheating comes in.

Trump wins WI 53% to 51%.  And his followers will accept that result as fair and legitimate. Book it.

/snark (except the middle sentence)

[Snake Diggity 4627]

30 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Not a long shot by any means.  Biden has consistently polled ahead in WI (+6.8 RCP avg.)and AZ (+4.7).  NC is Biden +0.7, so a little shaky there.  But like MI (+3.5) and MN (+8.7), NC and AZ have strong Senate D candidates. (NC +3.3, AZ +8.7).  And even Collins (-4.5) has managed to bungle ME for the party.  I know we all have PTSD for polls, but on the average, they're generally right.  While the Tip O'Neill adage may not be as strong in these social media days, it still means a lot.  And nothing local in the swing states is helping Trump, but it can certainly (and likely) hurt him.  Bigly.  Kids aren't safe in this world and Mommies don't like that.  It doesn't get any more local than that.

 

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

“long shot” is a gross exaggeration. he’s favored in 2/3 and has been. my last post about predictit was about how az and wisc have passed penn and are now medium blue. 

I know what the polls say.  If we just use the polling to predict the likely results, the election is decided, and Biden will be president.  That is not how I look at it.  If Trump wins PA, that means this thing has gone sideways, the polling is essentially out the window, and to me means Biden’s chances of winning any traditionally red state (AZ, NC) go WAY down.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Snake Diggity

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 

I know what the polls say.  If we just use the polling to predict the likely results, the election is decided, and Biden will be president.  That is not how I look at it.  If Trump wins PA, that means this thing has gone sideways, the polling is essentially out the window, and to me means Biden’s chances of winning any traditionally red state (AZ, NC) go WAY down.

i don’t think biden will lose pa. if you’re saying “assuming trump wins pa, then...” i understand what you’re saying. but conditional statements like that are tricky. 

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 

I know what the polls say.  If we just use the polling to predict the likely results, the election is decided, and Biden will be president.  That is not how I look at it.  If Trump wins PA, that means this thing has gone sideways, the polling is essentially out the window, and to me means Biden’s chances of winning any traditionally red state (AZ, NC) go WAY down.

That was exactly what was wrong with 538's model, as well as most of the others in 2016. Their models worked as if each state operated in a vacuum. Where they should have been under the assumption that if Trump outperforms in one state, he's likely to outperform in several other states, especially similar/nearby states. That's what happened in the rust belt and here we are. I think the Rust Belt will continue to move together, FL is its own thing, GA/NC will move together, and Arizona is probably its own thing.

[The Dog 44138]

7 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 

I know what the polls say.  If we just use the polling to predict the likely results, the election is decided, and Biden will be president.  That is not how I look at it.  If Trump wins PA, that means this thing has gone sideways, the polling is essentially out the window, and to me means Biden’s chances of winning any traditionally red state (AZ, NC) go WAY down.

I posted this far up this thread, but Hillary actually performed almost right at or even a bit better than her RCP averages in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The pollsters actually did a very good job estimating her share of the vote, and so I think it's safe to assume they will do the same for Biden. If anything, they might be underestimating Biden's support as many pollsters changed their approach to get more blue collar/non-college whites in the samples to try and more accurately gauge Trump's support. 

Something to keep in mind.

[ndawg 1242]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

That was exactly what was wrong with 538's model, as well as most of the others in 2016. Their models worked as if each state operated in a vacuum. Where they should have been under the assumption that if Trump outperforms in one state, he's likely to outperform in several other states, especially similar/nearby states. That's what happened in the rust belt and here we are. I think the Rust Belt will continue to move together, FL is its own thing, GA/NC will move together, and Arizona is probably its own thing.

538's model was absolutely fine. And how would you propose that a predictive model account for momentum? It doesn't seem possible.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, ndawg said:

538's model was absolutely fine. And how would you propose that a predictive model account for momentum? It doesn't seem possible.

 

The owner of 538 wrote an entire article about how his model was flawed, for the exact reasons I laid out. They also made significant changes to the model this time around to correct for those flaws. So if the model was "absolutely fine" that's news to the guy who created it.

Edited September 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

48 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

Florida is going to vote red, and I'd wager it's not going to end up that close. 

I hope you're wrong but propaganda is a hell of a drug. 
 

edit: idoit 

Edited September 15, 2020 by ChiTownDoc

[SydneyCarton 48169]

10 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I hope you're right but propaganda is a hell of a drug. 

I believe what you meant to say was that you hope I'm dead fucking wrong. Because that's what I hope.