Jump to content

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

Patrick Bateman

By Patrick Bateman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

I am so thrilled tonight! I spoke with my mom and asked her how my dad was taking the election. She said after every network declared Biden the winner, he turned off Fox News and said “Well, glad t

HenryJames
HenryJames
Thatguy
Thatguy

This was my experience in Galveston County, except for one thing. I came in and presented my ID to the geriatric at the front who printed out my pin number. I took my pin number to a table where two B

Posted Images

Snake Diggity

Snake Diggity 4714

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Outside of some of the absurdity in your categories here, I'd argue that 300-350 probably falls in the "enough to make a statement and avoid dispute" category, and  350-400 probably needs to be a new category or might even qualify as "Total Rebuke of Trumpism."

If these polls are true and it's a tossup in all these red states, even if Trump wins them all, you're talking about a popular vote drubbing for what..6-8 million votes? He'd be picking up close to a million votes in Texas, half a million in each of the blue wall states from last election, half a million or so in Georiga, and on an on. 

Which brings me to my point. If all these states are pretty split, what do folks think the popular vote total could be? I've asked and discussed this before, but hillary was just shy of 3. I feel like Biden could easily win by 6-8 million. Regardless of the electoral college, that's a legit talking point when it comes time to Trump challenging things in various states, as well as in the supreme court if it came to that.

What do folks think the new ceiling is on his popular vote total?

I’m spitballing.  I’m no Brisket doomsday type, but I think people really underestimate what’s at stake.  Everyone knows Trump cannot legitimately win this election, so if he is somehow shown to win, or claims victory despite losing, there will be massive unrest.

 

I think Biden will win the popular vote by between 4.5M and 6M.

Edited by Snake Diggity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46166

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think one reason I've been put off by football over the last few years is that it's become very clear it's filled with so many stupid, shitty people. 

 

So much this.  Couple it with the fact that my team has been dogshit for a decade and also getting older has made me realize how it doesn't need to be a major part of my life anymore.  I watch the games, but losing is just kind of annoying now instead of a complete meltdown of my weekend.  I was in my 20s during our dominant period in the 2000s and I'm thankful for that.  If that is the last time we are good at anything, I'm ok with it now.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21785

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So much this.  Couple it with the fact that my team has been dogshit for a decade and also getting older has made me realize how it doesn't need to be a major part of my life anymore.  I watch the games, but losing is just kind of annoying now instead of a complete meltdown of my weekend.  I was in my 20s during our dominant period in the 2000s and I'm thankful for that.  If that is the last time we are good at anything, I'm ok with it now.

I love the sport itself. The culture is absolutely fucked. Whatever values it instilled back in the day has morphed into something really ugly. Life's too short to worry or care about something that's become morally corrupt. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44861

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Now I’m really questioning the accuracy of morning consult. 

That's why you look at the averages.

For example, Trafalgar just dropped a poll that showed Trump +2 in Michigan and Fox shows Biden +11. Both are clear outliers as Trafalgar is likely under-sampling Biden support and Fox is under-sampling Trump support (Fox has Trump at only 40% in their poll and I don't buy that at all). 

So look at the average and it's Biden +8 with Biden averaging nearly 51% in all polling. RCP average is just slightly lower but in line with 538. 

That's likely where things stand. Remember that 4 years ago the pollsters really only missed Trump's support due to the large number of late deciders and the media not paying attention to the fact that the races in the midwest and elsewhere were within the margin of error. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8314

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

That's why you look at the averages.

For example, Trafalgar just dropped a poll that showed Trump +2 in Michigan and Fox shows Biden +11. Both are clear outliers as Trafalgar is likely under-sampling Biden support and Fox is under-sampling Trump support (Fox has Trump at only 40% in their poll and I don't buy that at all). 

So look at the average and it's Biden +8 with Biden averaging nearly 51% in all polling. RCP average is just slightly lower but in line with 538. 

That's likely where things stand. Remember that 4 years ago the pollsters really only missed Trump's support due to the large number of late deciders and the media not paying attention to the fact that the races in the midwest and elsewhere were within the margin of error. 

Trafalgar is using their 2016 methodology where they got it more right than wrong.  

They can't effectively model for Trump as an incumbent, but as more of an insurrection candidate, as silly as that sounds.

While Trump is not conventional, incumbency factors should be weighted with more signal than noise in his case.  Polls that are dead even or within a point or two of the MOE will not favor Trump when votes are cast, at least if traditional effects hold true.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53502

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

If Mr Bloomberg wants to write an equally big check for ads here in Texas that would be great.

 

I think they want to get back what they lost in 2016 more than they want to take Texas.   If money is finite, better to use it on MI,WI, PA than Texas. From an optics standpoint, the upper Midwest is more the dem area with unions and other factors, plus its 3 separate races so it’s not all or nothing for 40 EV. You take back what was taken from you, then you take some of theirs. Maybe these last 10 days they’ll shift some money and people power to Texas if those states look secure and Texas looks more gettable than Ohio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2863

Posted
Posted

b8ece313f7e37d0911c032fffdef0cd0.jpg

Billboard in Fayette county PA.

Fayette County is the poster child for rust belt Trumpism. Mostly rural county, 94% white, 20+% poverty rate, that used to be a democratic stronghold. Voted Dem from 1932-2004 with Nixon’s second term being the only exception where he only won by 9 points. The peak was LBJ winning the county by 50 points. Then in 08 McCain took it by 215 total votes. Trump won it by 30%.

It was a perfect place to be sold on Trumpism. It peaked in the post-war 1940’s with its biggest town now at half the population it was then (currently 10k people). The decline of coal in the area and then steel has had the county in steady decline since the 40’s.

Along cane Trump talking about making America great again and bringing back coal and steel. But I guess no one there remembered that the coal there is mostly mined out and done with a small crew and machines, not a few hundred guys with pickaxes.

They voted democratic for 75 years but had been in steady decline for most of that time. They were as ripe as could be for Trump’s con for a bunch of reasons, and they bit, hook, line, and sinker. That area will be solid R for at least a generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted

That map is my wipeout map. I predicted 333 to 205 as my best try guess. But I think there's a slim chance that the polls are wound too tightly around Trump's base and not weighting properly for the anti-Trump surge of young and minority voters, and if that happens, it's gonna be that map right there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53502

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, heso said:

b8ece313f7e37d0911c032fffdef0cd0.jpg

Billboard in Fayette county PA.

Fayette County is the poster child for rust belt Trumpism. Mostly rural county, 94% white, 20+% poverty rate, that used to be a democratic stronghold. Voted Dem from 1932-2004 with Nixon’s second term being the only exception where he only won by 9 points. The peak was LBJ winning the county by 50 points. Then in 08 McCain took it by 215 total votes. Trump won it by 30%.

It was a perfect place to be sold on Trumpism. It peaked in the post-war 1940’s with its biggest town now at half the population it was then (currently 10k people). The decline of coal in the area and then steel has had the county in steady decline since the 40’s.

Along cane Trump talking about making America great again and bringing back coal and steel. But I guess no one there remembered that the coal there is mostly mined out and done with a small crew and machines, not a few hundred guys with pickaxes.

They voted democratic for 75 years but had been in steady decline for most of that time. They were as ripe as could be for Trump’s con for a bunch of reasons, and they bit, hook, line, and sinker. That area will be solid R for at least a generation.

So which group put that up, having misspelled dementia?  Tough to read that:  citizens for something something energy something something dark side. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SizzleChest said:

Trafalgar is using their 2016 methodology where they got it more right than wrong.  

They can't effectively model for Trump as an incumbent, but as more of an insurrection candidate, as silly as that sounds.

While Trump is not conventional, incumbency factors should be weighted with more signal than noise in his case.  Polls that are dead even or within a point or two of the MOE will not favor Trump when votes are cast, at least if traditional effects hold true.

 

Yeah, if you want some "it just scares you to death" action, here you go: https://luckboxmagazine.com/trends/this-pollster-says-the-polls-are-wrong-trump-will-win/

Interview with the Trafalgar guy. He thinks 2016 is going to happen again. I think he's wrong and I think like you said his methodologies are making false assumptions that 2020 is going to do the same exact thing as 2016, but it's enough to keep a bit of fear in me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17656

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Isn't that illegal?

 

FORT MORGAN, Colo. — The landlord of a trailer park in Fort Morgan allegedly sent a note to residents warning rent would most likely double in price if Joe Biden becomes President.

9NEWS received several emails from Fort Morgan residents concerned about the legality of the letter, calling it a form of voter suppression.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office confirmed they have received a complaint, and told 9NEWS they passed it along to the Attorney General.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/trailer-park-biden-voter-intimidation-letter/73-56daf9cd-5eb8-49eb-a768-4e3cb08640a3

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44861

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Yeah, if you want some "it just scares you to death" action, here you go: https://luckboxmagazine.com/trends/this-pollster-says-the-polls-are-wrong-trump-will-win/

Interview with the Trafalgar guy. He thinks 2016 is going to happen again. I think he's wrong and I think like you said his methodologies are making false assumptions that 2020 is going to do the same exact thing as 2016, but it's enough to keep a bit of fear in me. 

He's not wrong about social desirability and some of the labels branded to Trump supporters.  It's especially true for college educated whites where they know they are in the minority and don't particularly want to be outcasts because of their political preference(s). 

I also agree that some of these polls are waaay too long. That's one thing you'll notice about the USC poll is it's short and sweet and it's a tracking poll with a large sample size. 

Now where I think he's wrong is that social desirability works both ways. The press has written about the possibility of a "shy Biden voter" in traditionally red states where Trump supporters are much more open and vocal. I also think the idea that the "shy Trump voter" effect is stronger this year is very wrong. It may be there but it isn't like 2016.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

He's not wrong about social desirability and some of the labels branded to Trump supporters.  It's especially true for college educated whites where they know they are in the minority and don't particularly want to be outcasts because of their political preference(s). 

I also agree that some of these polls are waaay too long. That's one thing you'll notice about the USC poll is it's short and sweet and it's a tracking poll with a large sample size. 

Now where I think he's wrong is that social desirability works both ways. The press has written about the possibility of a "shy Biden voter" in traditionally red states where Trump supporters are much more open and vocal. I also think the idea that the "shy Trump voter" effect is stronger this year is very wrong. It may be there but it isn't like 2016.

Yeah, and he tags the RNC and all of the Trump minions in all of his tweets. He clearly _wants_ it to happen again. I think he happened to (whether accidentally or competently) stumble upon being the most correct last time, and he's doubling down on it in 2020. He doesn't seem like he's acting like someone who wants to really find the science and the truth anymore. But, I could be totally wrong and we'll all be the idiots and he's the genius. Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32592

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/22/two-weeks-inside-trump-campaign-431134

 

Quote

Monday was a day of rage for Donald Trump.

He woke up at his Las Vegas hotel, a gold brick of glass on the edge of the Strip next to an abandoned lot, and was already in a foul mood. The previous day he had seen a TV ad that accused him of belittling American soldiers. “Losers. Suckers. Dopes. Babies,” the ad said. “That’s how Donald Trump describes our men and women in uniform.” He had railed about it at a rally in Carson City — “a horrible, vicious ad!” — and it was still infuriating him later that morning. After seeing the ad, he screamed, “I blew my stack!”

 

Quote

Normally, Trump would be thrilled to wake up in a suite in a tower with his name on it. But on this day it seemed to do little to improve his mood. Just being in Nevada was a reminder of his troubles. He had lost the state in 2016 and the polls weren’t very encouraging this time around, either. The newest outrage was a New York Times story about low morale in his campaign. He phoned into a conference call for the press with his campaign manager Bill Stepien and spoke in a stream of consciousness for nearly half an hour.

Most of the time, when a candidate gathers staff to buck them up after some bad news, they inspire their supporters, praising them for all of their hard work and thanking them for their sacrifice. Trump handled the assignment differently.

 

Quote

Speaking slowly with his raspy morning voice, Trump stared with his anger at the story in the paper. “You know they’re sick, actually, they’re deranged people,” he said. “Let me give you the real truth. They know this, too, by the way. We’re going to win!” But he soon meandered his way through more than a dozen other topics on his mind.

There were a lot of wild moments. He called Anthony Fauci an “idiot.” (Afterwards he added in a tweet, “Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball!”) He said members of the press are “mentally ill.” He said Democrats have dominated early voting in Michigan “for years and centuries.”

 

Spoiler

He compared the reception he received during his drive to a California fundraiser to the Manhattan ticker tape parade thrown for Charles Lindbergh in 1927. He told a story of how in 2016 the Washington Post “amended” its poll to be more favorable to him after he threatened to sue. He added, almost as an aside, as if it wasn’t a breathtaking allegation for a president to be making about his opponent, that Joe Biden “should be in jail,” because “he’s a criminal.”

When he got off the call, he left his hotel and flew to Phoenix. After landing he immediately got into a series of testy exchanges with reporters. “Why is that so important to you?” he demanded when one asked about the date of his last negative Covid test before he tested positive. “You’re a criminal for not reporting it!” he yelled above the din of plane engines to a reporter who questioned why the president was using the term for Biden. He boarded Marine One and landed in Prescott for the first of two rallies that day.

Backstage, while the crowd waited in the 90-degree sun, the president tweeted. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has turned New York City into a “ghost town” and “Washington wants nothing to do with him.” And, by the way, the governor shouldn’t listen to his brother “Fredo.” Here’s a video from Herschel Walker. Here’s a video of the president throwing “a perfect strike for the American people” — unlike Fauci, in case you missed the point.

Then the president walked on stage to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” stood in front of Marine One, pumped his fists in the style of his recently viral YMCA dance and addressed the crowd.

Trump has an almost mystical belief in the power of his live events to affect the campaign. “I’m going to go out and win the state of Arizona today with two big rallies,” he said that morning in Las Vegas. Since bouncing back from Covid, he’s held 13 rallies in nine states, and that doesn’t include the one at the White House on Oct. 10 that kicked off Trump’s post-illness phase of the race.

I’ve watched all 13 of them closely — from the Sanford, Fla., event on Oct. 12 where Trump falsely claimed that 100 million vaccines that “will end the pandemic” are “waiting for final approval” and will be distributed before the end of the year, to the rally last night in Gastonia, N.C., where he said that the media cover the coronavirus, which has killed over 220,000 Americans this year, “because they want to scare the hell out of everyone.”

I attended one rally in Johnstown, Pa., where he famously pleaded, “Suburban women, will you please like me?” and one in Carson City, Nev., where he seemed most preoccupied with the low flow of water in modern sinks, showers and toilets, and coined the unlikely election year slogan, “Take the restrictors off!” I’ve reread many of the transcripts of these rallies and I also hit some Trump surrogate events: Rudy Giuliani in Philadelphia, Lara Trump in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Trump has largely accomplished what he set out to do in 2015. After he won the presidency, CBS’ Lesley Stahl asked Trump why he attacks the press. Stahl recalled during a talk in 2018 that Trump responded, “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.” Trump set about creating a closed information ecosystem where he defines for his supporters what is true and what isn’t. It seemed ludicrous to me at the time that this was possible. And frankly, sometimes the incessant fact-checking of Trump seems pedantic.

Trump is occasionally lanced by outsiders who don’t realize the context of a long-running gag. In Prescott, Ariz., he told a story about calling the head of Exxon and asking for $25 million in exchange for policy favors. The bit, a regular feature of his rallies, is about how Trump could do that if he wanted but he doesn’t. A video of the fake Exxon call went viral, politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) demanded an explanation, and Exxon put out a statement explaining that the call never happened. (That is correct; the innocent explanation here was that Trump regularly brags about how he doesn’t solicit bribes, and the reporter who tweeted the comments didn’t understand the peculiar context.)

The rallies are crucial to Trump, not just because they feed his famously insatiable ego, but because they are the main vehicle by which he "informs" his supporters what he thinks they should know that professional reporters aren't telling them. At a Trump rally, the pandemic is almost over, a vaccine is imminent, Biden is an obvious criminal (and also mentally “gonzo”), Trump saved millions of people from Covid, he is ahead in the polls in most swing states, “the Christmas season will be canceled” by Democrats, and there is widespread fraud with mail-in balloting .

Also, there are sometimes 40,000 people waiting to get inside the rally and lines of cars are stretched out for 15 miles. The Regeneron treatment he received is now available free to anyone who wants it. Hillary Clinton covered up crimes by personally shattering multiple incriminating cell phones with a hammer. (Trump loves pantomiming the hammer during this riff.)

And the president is a big fan of most demographic groups.

“I love the Italians,” Trump said in Johnstown. (Italians are not really an important voting bloc but it allowed Trump to discuss the toppling of statues of historical figures such as Christopher Columbus.)

“I like the Hispanics,” he said in Carson City.

“I like women,” he said in Prescott.

As the likelihood of Trump losing the election has grown, the quantity of misinformation has increased exponentially. Trump’s greatest frustration is that this sealed info bubble that he has created is no longer amplified by traditional media. Just in the last few days Trump has described the press as “dumb bastards,” “sleaze,” “crooked,” and “real garbage.” But at a Trump rally, the most privileged spot is reserved for national TV networks, which are afforded a riser in front of what the campaign seems to regard as the second-class media outlets that cover local news. Fox has started carrying the events live again, but other networks rarely do, which enrages Trump, who, even before his fundraising troubles, has needed the larger audience that cable TV brings him.

To help compensate, the Trump campaign has flooded the swing states with surrogates — mostly his children and their significant others, but also MAGA celebrities like Giuliani and Richard Grenell. Trump’s style and content has filtered down to these family members and campaign operatives as well, suggesting that whatever the outcome of this election, the Trump Effect will be a feature of our politics for a long time to come.

In Scottsdale on Tuesday, Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, spoke to a hotel ballroom packed with maskless supporters who hollered and cheered.

“The president is rubbing off on me,” she joked about a recent tweet she was particularly proud of. But he’s influenced her in other ways, too. Her explanation of the race was that the Democrats are saddled with an awful candidate who “doesn’t know where he is half the time" and an unpopular “socialist” agenda. So they’re in a jam.

“What do you do?” she asked. “You try to rig the system. You try to change an election system 90 days out. That’s exactly what the Democrats did: universal vote-by-mail.” She did not tell the crowd that there is no such universal system in America and that only a few states have adopted one. But like her father-in-law, she did make false claims about widespread election fraud, including that “cats that have been dead for 12 years — true story — are getting ballots in the mail.”

It is not a true story.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Storm the Field

Storm the Field 5366

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Yeah, if you want some "it just scares you to death" action, here you go: https://luckboxmagazine.com/trends/this-pollster-says-the-polls-are-wrong-trump-will-win/

Interview with the Trafalgar guy. He thinks 2016 is going to happen again. I think he's wrong and I think like you said his methodologies are making false assumptions that 2020 is going to do the same exact thing as 2016, but it's enough to keep a bit of fear in me. 

Trafalgar is so transparent with their BS. When they show Trump ahead in a swing state it's almost always 48-46 or 47-45. Same is true for states where they show Biden with a small lead. Usually right at 47-45. They always make sure to leave plenty of undecided.

Nate Silver had a pretty compelling argument the other day that the fact they will consistently come up with nearly the exact same result each time they poll a state is evidence that they decide on the result they expect to see and then build their sample to produce that number.

For example, they've done PA 4 times in the past 30 days:

47-45, 48-46, 47-45, 48-46. 

Based on random sampling error, it's highly unlikely.

They release limited crosstabs for each poll, but without fail the sample is always significantly whiter and older than 2016 exit polls, usually by a pretty consistent margin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaysOff

DaysOff 8209

Posted
Posted
He's not wrong about social desirability and some of the labels branded to Trump supporters.  It's especially true for college educated whites where they know they are in the minority and don't particularly want to be outcasts because of their political preference(s). 
I also agree that some of these polls are waaay too long. That's one thing you'll notice about the USC poll is it's short and sweet and it's a tracking poll with a large sample size. 
Now where I think he's wrong is that social desirability works both ways. The press has written about the possibility of a "shy Biden voter" in traditionally red states where Trump supporters are much more open and vocal. I also think the idea that the "shy Trump voter" effect is stronger this year is very wrong. It may be there but it isn't like 2016.

Each person polled should represent thousands in that demographic. I've never been polled, but out there somewhere there's a 53 year old - white -college educated airline captain that lives in an exurb that has been. How do you think those guys normally vote?

I guess I could be deemed a shy Biden voter. I went down the ballot and put in D everywhere I could find one.. Brisket pushed me off the ledge. There are no political signs on me street although the closer you get to the golf course the olds are trying to outdo each other in Trump signs.

I think (hope) I'm underrepresented in the polls.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

The Biden >50% is the key to these results.

Absolutely.

One thing that's really reassuring is that in 2016 even with the undecideds breaking for Trump and/o the "shy midwestern Trump voter" phenomenon, Hillary still received a higher actual percentage of the vote than her polling average in every state except Wisconsin. And even WI polls had her at 46.8% and she finished 46.5%, barely anything at all.

So even in a repeat of 2016, any state where Biden is above 50% in the polling averages is going to be pretty much a rock solid safe bet for him to win. And even Wisconsin he's at 49.5% in the RCP average, which would be enough with a couple of percentage points going to third parties and Brett Favre.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2863

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So which group put that up, having misspelled dementia?  Tough to read that:  citizens for something something energy something something dark side. 

Citizens for American Energy Federal PAC.

Unsurprisingly, their biggest public donor in 2016 was the company that owns that billboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...