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

[zork 629]

Larry King talked to Reade's mother, apparently, anonymously, according to The Intercept.

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

Also:

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by zork

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,344]

Trump leads Biden in Texas

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/25/trump-biden-texas-coronavirus-poll/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1587770132&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[kevwun 15,653]

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Man, what are you doing on a Friday night in here shitposting?  Go get yourself some bourbon and chase it with a shot of bleach to kill the 'Rona.  I mean, get the weekend started off right.

Maybe he was taking a break from opening 17 new credit cards so he could get a free flight with points?

[Chult86 335]

On 4/20/2020 at 1:24 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I mean, that's right.  It's like being up 5 points with :40 left in the game, and you tell me "all we need to do is not give up a touchdown."  Yeah--that's great.  I suppose I feel pretty good about that in a vacuum.  But then if I look down at the field and I see the other team has 1st-and-Goal with the ball at the 3-yard line, I'm probably not feeling so hot.

 

On 4/20/2020 at 1:26 PM, henrygandorf said:

nah, we have the ball. 

Just catching up on this thread, ya we're up 5 with :40 left and have the ball, but it feels like Pete Carroll is our coach and he's asking James Winston to throw and ice the game.

[Message Board User 12,389]

 

[Larry T. Spider 1,741]

7 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Trump leads Biden in Texas

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/25/trump-biden-texas-coronavirus-poll/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1587770132&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

“In the poll, Trump beat Biden 60% to 34% among white voters“

Another interesting note was that trump and Biden were tied 46%-46% with women. Even with all of that going on Trump is only up 5% in this poll.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

That’s not a horrible number in Texas for Democrats. 

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

26 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

“In the poll, Trump beat Biden 60% to 34% among white voters“

Another interesting note was that trump and Biden were tied 46%-46% with women. Even with all of that going on Trump is only up 5% in this poll.

This is another reason why 2020 is the last chance. If we defeat the Dotard and his minions as a nation, it will energize texas and similar states for 2024. If not, I think a lot of people, possibly including myself will check out and the movement back to sanity will lose. 

[Pancho 44,486]

Number I’m that poll for Hispanics (50%) is sad. 16% black vote is odd too.

[Larry T. Spider 1,741]

I have never been under any illusions that a state as large as Texas is ever going to make any drastic political shifts in 4 years. It was 9 in the last election. Within 5 is my goal for 2020. That sets us up for a real run at it in 2024. After that the demographics start to change much more rapidly as boomers begin their steep decline.

[gmr548 16,516]

Just catching up on this thread, ya we're up 5 with :40 left and have the ball, but it feels like Pete Carroll is our coach and he's asking James Winston to throw and ice the game.

I think it's more like Democrats are up 3 with 2-3 minutes in the fourth quarter and just got a gift of an interception to set up with good field position. They could ice the game with a TD, but if they just kick a FG, the GOP is still very much alive.

[gmr548 16,516]

Number I’m that poll for Hispanics (50%) is sad. 16% black vote is odd too.

Yeah those are both crazy high relative to Trump's typical numbers. Between that and women it may be a bit of an outlier. Then again, R +5-6 is about what I expect, so maybe not.

[bolverk 29,400]

Dipping my toes in this thread for the first time and having only read this page and the last, my spidey senses tell me that Joe will select Harris as his running mate. From what I can tell as a spectator, their individual personalities (and age plus experience) just match really well, and I think that she checks off all his boxes.

To be clear, neither was my first choice, but I think the above simply makes too much sense, given the situation, expectations, and political strategies.

[Larry T. Spider 1,741]

It really wouldn’t take a monumental shift in those poll numbers for Biden to be even with trump.

I would be shocked if trump gets 16% of the Texas black vote as he got 11% last time.

In 2016 Trump lost the female vote by 2%. I can’t see him making a comeback with that demographic based on his first term. Yet the poll has it 46-46.

Clinton won the Latino vote 61-34. Any poll that has this as a close demographic is just wrong.

Seeing some of those numbers so far off yet the overall results with Biden being close could be seen as really encouraging. Or it’s all crap, just throw it out.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

On 4/22/2020 at 9:57 AM, Brisketexan said:

A good bit of what Larry says below.

More than anything, it was the complete abandonment of the "appeal," and actually selling the shittiness of the product.  To go with your metaphor, it's when they shifted from telling us that cars should be reliable and high-performing, and the VW does that....to telling us that cars are SUPPOSED to be shitty, and anyone who demands a functioning car that isn't always in the shop is a socialist anti-American.  I mean, jaw-dropping shit -- are you REALLY yelling at us, with a straight face, that we're SUPPOSED to lose use of our car for weeks at a time and spend $500 a month on repairs?  I don't know, maybe the threshold was the absolute insult to our collective intelligence.

I turned from the GOP well before Trump.  It was driven by the purposeful anti-intellectualism of the GOP broadly, and the shameless and open embrace of hate -- against a black president, against gay people, what have you.  I mean, there's more to it -- thinking the concept of trickle-down makes sense, but then watching it tried over and over and failing each time....I'm not fucking stupid.  I may (foolishly) think that plywood wings will help me fly, but after the second or third time I smash my face into the ground, I'm smart enough to realize that the plywood wing plan is utter bullshit.  And again, there's more, but seeing the Party of Trump as the culmination of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, anti-fact, and being politics based ENTIRELY on division (it's not what Trumpism stands for -- it's who he targets, and how much of a bully he is, that inspires his supporters) seals my opposition to the GOP, literally, in blood.

For me, I was increasingly uncomfortable with the social conservatism and "culture war" (to me, if you are fighting a culture war, it means you have surrendered in the actual policy war, or have no strategy or tactics). And quite disgruntled with the fiscal profligacy.  And disgusted by pseudo-Christians governing with bad theology.

But,  between candidates or parties, it was a choice between tax and spend and admit it or tax and spend and talk a good game.  I continued to fall for the talk a good game for a couple of election cycles.

Ultimately, if we're going to tax/spend ourselves into a macroeconomic bankruptcy, it's time to spend the money on the people, or at least not Wall Street and big business.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the Democratic party on these issues, either. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Storm the Field 5,273]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,707]

23 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

It really wouldn’t take a monumental shift in those poll numbers for Biden to be even with trump.

I would be shocked if trump gets 16% of the Texas black vote as he got 11% last time.

In 2016 Trump lost the female vote by 2%. I can’t see him making a comeback with that demographic based on his first term. Yet the poll has it 46-46.

Clinton won the Latino vote 61-34. Any poll that has this as a close demographic is just wrong.

Seeing some of those numbers so far off yet the overall results with Biden being close could be seen as really encouraging. Or it’s all crap, just throw it out.

Yeah, I expect a lot of women will abandon Trump this time around. But it seems that many Latinos actually prefer Trump's hardline stance re: immigration. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. 

With a competent campaign message/strategy, Texas could be very close. Hillary won Harris county by 160,000 votes over Trump in '16. What could that number jump to this year? 200k? 300k? If small town voters don't massively turnout for Trump, Biden has a chance. 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For me, I was increasingly uncomfortable with the social conservatism and "culture war" (to me, if you are fighting a culture war, it means you have surrendered in the actual policy war, or have no strategy or tactics). And quite disgruntled with the fiscal profligacy.  And disgusted by pseudo-Christians governing with bad theology.

But,  between candidates or parties, it was a choice between tax and spend and admit it or tax and spend and talk a good game.  I continued to fall for the talk a good game for a couple of election cycles.

Ultimately, if we're going to tax/spend ourselves into a macroeconomic bankruptcy, it's time to spend the money on the people, or at least not Wall Street and big business.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the Democratic party on these issues, either. 

Yes. The few keep raking in the benefit from the many and the many are suffering from poor health with no access to healthcare, poor job prospects with little access to improvement, and infrastructure that does not serve the users, but the grifters.

I'm not happy with the Democratic party, either, and if they can take enough seats to right the sinking ship of healthcare I would feel a little better. If they could sit down and hash out a very simplified and straight forward path to citizenship/immigration, I would be overjoyed. If they could wrestle corruption out of the hands of Wall Street and big business....oh now that's probably crazy talk.

[workswithseed 2,037]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For me, I was increasingly uncomfortable with the social conservatism and "culture war" (to me, if you are fighting a culture war, it means you have surrendered in the actual policy war, or have no strategy or tactics). And quite disgruntled with the fiscal profligacy.  And disgusted by pseudo-Christians governing with bad theology.

But,  between candidates or parties, it was a choice between tax and spend and admit it or tax and spend and talk a good game.  I continued to fall for the talk a good game for a couple of election cycles.

Ultimately, if we're going to tax/spend ourselves into a macroeconomic bankruptcy, it's time to spend the money on the people, or at least not Wall Street and big business.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the Democratic party on these issues, either. 

Culture is upstream of policy, and Democrats have been winning that one for years. 

I will say I hope we get someone who will stop the drain from government. 

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

11 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Trump leads Biden in Texas

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/25/trump-biden-texas-coronavirus-poll/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1587770132&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

So I guess a few comments about the Texas Tribune poll.*

1) Any time an incumbent Republican is below 50% in Texas, that's a problem.  Everyone knows what Donald Trump is about, and at this point he doesn't have a majority who say they'll vote for him.

Forty-nine percent is probably good enough to win, owing to third parties and the like.  But if I'm a Republican, there's definitely cause for concern here.

2) The TT poll spends more time in the field than any other poll of which I'm aware--9 days.  Most polls spend just three days in the field.

Broadly, I think that makes a lot of sense for a poll of a November election that you're doing in April.  You expect short-term trends will not impact the overall race, and will be forgotten in November.  So what they're trying to do here is factor out the noise to capture the signal.

The trouble is that it can miss the signal in a dynamic universe.  This poll went into the field back on April 10, when Trump's approval was very close to its zenith (according to fivethirtyeight.com).  And I think you see that in an increase reflected in Trump's "strongly approve" numbers up to 36% over 33% in February and 32% in June.  

So you probably saw some difference between the people you sampled on April 10 and those you sampled on April 19.  I mean, you do in every poll.  And generally that's just noise, and can be factored out.  But sometimes it's not noise.  And with Trump's approval rating reverting to the mean after his initial rally-round-the-flag bump (all the way up to 49%!), I wonder if it hasn't factored out some of the signal.

Note that that can be addressed somewhat through weighting and matching to the target sample.  I see they did that in the methodology, but I don't really see the details.  I'd be real curious about that.

3) The underlying numbers--even going back to earlier this month--showing that Turmp is net-negative in the "trust to give accurate information" category should be really alarming for his campaign.  It indicates that he doesn't have just a whole lot of room to go up.  And that should be mildly troubling for Republicans.

4) Let's be real realistic about all this--Texas is (and continues to be) a Republican state.  Barring a massive turnout from Dems and a lackluster turnout from Trumpublicans, Trump is going to win.

But five points is not a comfortable win for a Republican in Texas.  And it indicates a real problem nationwide.  Dole won by five points in Texas in 1996.  He lost the electoral college 379-159.  If Trump can only take Texas by five points, that probably indicates that he is losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona.

 

 

 

* By way of full disclosure, Daron Shaw was my faculty adviser at UT and I took several of his classes.  So I'm probably predisposed to agree with his polling choices.  

[bolverk 29,400]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Culture is upstream of policy, and Democrats have been winning that one for years. 

I will say I hope we get someone who will stop the drain from government. 

Can you expand on that second line because I'm not entirely sure I catch your meaning? Are you referring to the drain of talent and expertise within the various agencies?

[henrygandorf 29,177]

judging from some twitter trolling and seeing what some texan trump supporters have to say:

trump down 6-8 points in key states = margin of error, etc, these are all basically a coin flip

trump up 5 in texas = yep, texas is in the bag

[Snake Diggity 4,614]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

So I guess a few comments about the Texas Tribune poll.*

1) Any time an incumbent Republican is below 50% in Texas, that's a problem.  Everyone knows what Donald Trump is about, and at this point he doesn't have a majority who say they'll vote for him.

Forty-nine percent is probably good enough to win, owing to third parties and the like.  But if I'm a Republican, there's definitely cause for concern here.

2) The TT poll spends more time in the field than any other poll of which I'm aware--9 days.  Most polls spend just three days in the field.

Broadly, I think that makes a lot of sense for a poll of a November election that you're doing in April.  You expect short-term trends will not impact the overall race, and will be forgotten in November.  So what they're trying to do here is factor out the noise to capture the signal.

The trouble is that it can miss the signal in a dynamic universe.  This poll went into the field back on April 10, when Trump's approval was very close to its zenith (according to fivethirtyeight.com).  And I think you see that in an increase reflected in Trump's "strongly approve" numbers up to 36% over 33% in February and 32% in June.  

So you probably saw some difference between the people you sampled on April 10 and those you sampled on April 19.  I mean, you do in every poll.  And generally that's just noise, and can be factored out.  But sometimes it's not noise.  And with Trump's approval rating reverting to the mean after his initial rally-round-the-flag bump (all the way up to 49%!), I wonder if it hasn't factored out some of the signal.

Note that that can be addressed somewhat through weighting and matching to the target sample.  I see they did that in the methodology, but I don't really see the details.  I'd be real curious about that.

3) The underlying numbers--even going back to earlier this month--showing that Turmp is net-negative in the "trust to give accurate information" category should be really alarming for his campaign.  It indicates that he doesn't have just a whole lot of room to go up.  And that should be mildly troubling for Republicans.

4) Let's be real realistic about all this--Texas is (and continues to be) a Republican state.  Barring a massive turnout from Dems and a lackluster turnout from Trumpublicans, Trump is going to win.

But five points is not a comfortable win for a Republican in Texas.  And it indicates a real problem nationwide.  Dole won by five points in Texas in 1996.  He lost the electoral college 379-159.  If Trump can only take Texas by five points, that probably indicates that he is losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona.

 

 

 

* By way of full disclosure, Daron Shaw was my faculty adviser at UT and I took several of his classes.  So I'm probably predisposed to agree with his polling choices.  

Word.  Those polling numbers reinforce my belief that a black VP could be the difference in the election.  If it’s 5% in Texas, hard to think that a black VP won’t generate enough additional turnout in places like Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia to potentially be the difference in one of those states, which could be the difference in the election.  I don’t see how Harris isn’t the choice.

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

50 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Word.  Those polling numbers reinforce my belief that a black VP could be the difference in the election.  If it’s 5% in Texas, hard to think that a black VP won’t generate enough additional turnout in places like Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia to potentially be the difference in one of those states, which could be the difference in the election.  I don’t see how Harris isn’t the choice.

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

This would be so awesomely hilarious. Just to watch the trumpkins explode. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

She’s not qualified and at any rate I’m troubled by the idea of spouses and children of living former Presidents running for president or being heir apparent.
I want Harris.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[David Dennison 18,659]

It's not going to be Michelle Obama.

[Pancho 44,486]

It most definitely will not be Michelle Obama.

 

 

I mean, probably not. 

[WBT 20,422]

58 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

Why not Oprah?

[Underdog 28,457]

Can we put into motion to changing the thread title from Dopey Don to Dumbass Don?  I'd hate the thought of one of the cute dwarfs associated with this fuckstick in the WH. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

 

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This would be so awesomely hilarious. Just to watch the trumpkins explode. 

 

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

She’s not qualified and at any rate I’m troubled by the idea of spouses and children of living former Presidents running for president or being heir apparent.
I want Harris.

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It's not going to be Michelle Obama.

It's not going to be Michelle Obama, although I agree with both Biff and Bozo's takes. Plus, Michelle is not Hillary Clinton and there does seem to be this undercurrent that pushes the narrative that VP is something Michelle Obama wants to do and I don't get that vibe from her at all. Hillary is actively commenting on current events in the political arena, but I have seen Michelle Obama promoting voter registration, children's literacy, and Girls Opportunity Alliance and those seem to be where her interest is.

[Aqua Buddha 14,521]

16 hours ago, WBT said:

Why not Oprah?

Finally get a real billionaire in the White House.

[Macanudo 12,928]

I dont know that Harris is the slam dunk choice everyone thinks.   For every vote she gets out for Joe in Philly or Atlanta, theres probably an offsetting white male mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging one for Trump.   Harris doesnt do anything for him in CA, WA, NY, etc.  Joe already scores well those kind of places. 

6 weeks ago, I would have thought Gretchen Whitmer was a outstanding pick but her own state is very much in play because shes being (IMO, properly so) cautious with opening the state back up.  I still think Klobuchar is a great choice. 

But I agree with whoever pointed to 1840 and 1864.  Toss in 1960 too.  Hell, LBJ got shit done that probably doesnt happen if JFK doesnt get Oswalded. 

[gmr548 16,516]

9 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

6 weeks ago, I would have thought Gretchen Whitmer was a outstanding pick but her own state is very much in play because shes being (IMO, properly so) cautious with opening the state back up.  I still think Klobuchar is a great choice. 

Keep in mind Whitmer is crushing Trump in opinion polling in MI. The protesters are loud, but they are decidedly a minority, even there.

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

14 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I still think Klobuchar is a great choice. 

Can you expand on this?  Genuinely curious, because I don’t get her appeal. 

[kevwun 15,653]

LBJ also was uniquely capable of getting legislation done because few Presidents have had his understanding of the process.  He knew which buttons to push to get things through the House and Senate.

[WBT 20,422]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

The protesters are loud, but they are decidedly a minority, even there.

The protesters are a minority everywhere.  Even among self-identified republicans 47% oppose the protests vs 36% support.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rjneitr3jm/20200419_yahoo_coronavirus_crosstabs.pdf

[Celery Man 20,886]

22 hours ago, bolverk said:

Can you expand on that second line because I'm not entirely sure I catch your meaning? Are you referring to the drain of talent and expertise within the various agencies?

If I’m remembering wws correctly he probably means the government drain on free market capitalism of whatever.

I am curious a bit if (if my understanding in your meaning is correct) what makes that notion ring true for you specifically. Especially if you live in a rural area, if it’s stuff where it seems like government interferes with but never helps out your community.

that idea was attractive to me at one point but my thoughts have changed, and either way tge thing that the free market peddlers are selling is Darwinian capitalism for individuals and socialism for big business.

[Turkleton 145]

20 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it's going to be Michelle Obama.

If this happens, Trump can kiss his 2nd term goodbye. No way he wins.

[6th Street 6,357]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can you expand on this?  Genuinely curious, because I don’t get her appeal. 

I hear she knows how to win in the Midwest

[tantric superman 4,667]

19 hours ago, Underdog said:

Can we put into motion to changing the thread title from Dopey Don to Dumbass Don?  I'd hate the thought of one of the cute dwarfs associated with this fuckstick in the WH. 

I like Mo-ron Don.

[tantric superman 4,667]

23 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So I guess a few comments about the Texas Tribune poll.*

1) Any time an incumbent Republican is below 50% in Texas, that's a problem.  Everyone knows what Donald Trump is about, and at this point he doesn't have a majority who say they'll vote for him.

Forty-nine percent is probably good enough to win, owing to third parties and the like.  But if I'm a Republican, there's definitely cause for concern here.

2) The TT poll spends more time in the field than any other poll of which I'm aware--9 days.  Most polls spend just three days in the field.

Broadly, I think that makes a lot of sense for a poll of a November election that you're doing in April.  You expect short-term trends will not impact the overall race, and will be forgotten in November.  So what they're trying to do here is factor out the noise to capture the signal.

The trouble is that it can miss the signal in a dynamic universe.  This poll went into the field back on April 10, when Trump's approval was very close to its zenith (according to fivethirtyeight.com).  And I think you see that in an increase reflected in Trump's "strongly approve" numbers up to 36% over 33% in February and 32% in June.  

So you probably saw some difference between the people you sampled on April 10 and those you sampled on April 19.  I mean, you do in every poll.  And generally that's just noise, and can be factored out.  But sometimes it's not noise.  And with Trump's approval rating reverting to the mean after his initial rally-round-the-flag bump (all the way up to 49%!), I wonder if it hasn't factored out some of the signal.

Note that that can be addressed somewhat through weighting and matching to the target sample.  I see they did that in the methodology, but I don't really see the details.  I'd be real curious about that.

3) The underlying numbers--even going back to earlier this month--showing that Turmp is net-negative in the "trust to give accurate information" category should be really alarming for his campaign.  It indicates that he doesn't have just a whole lot of room to go up.  And that should be mildly troubling for Republicans.

4) Let's be real realistic about all this--Texas is (and continues to be) a Republican state.  Barring a massive turnout from Dems and a lackluster turnout from Trumpublicans, Trump is going to win.

But five points is not a comfortable win for a Republican in Texas.  And it indicates a real problem nationwide.  Dole won by five points in Texas in 1996.  He lost the electoral college 379-159.  If Trump can only take Texas by five points, that probably indicates that he is losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona.

 

 

 

* By way of full disclosure, Daron Shaw was my faculty adviser at UT and I took several of his classes.  So I'm probably predisposed to agree with his polling choices.  

TL/DR/Fuck the 49%

[Gatorubet 30,113]

On 4/25/2020 at 8:40 AM, Biff Tannen said:

This is another reason why 2020 is the last chance. If we defeat the Dotard and his minions as a nation, it will energize texas and similar states for 2024. If not, I think a lot of people, possibly including myself will check out and the movement back to sanity will lose. 

You won't check out.   Unless your own self interest means nothing to you.

[Pancho 44,486]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can you expand on this?  Genuinely curious, because I don’t get her appeal. 

This. Even the white womens I follow on academic twitter don’t like her. There was a poll floating around about Biden’s veep choices and Klo was last on the list with like 6%. Warren was first with 21%??? And Harris was second with 18%.
 

ill try to find that poll, but basically no one wants Klo.

[zork 629]

On 4/25/2020 at 12:12 AM, zork said:

Larry King talked to Reade's mother, apparently, anonymously, according to The Intercept.

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

Also:

 

Nothing to see here:

 

[Gatorubet 30,113]

23 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So I guess a few comments about the Texas Tribune poll.*

1) Any time an incumbent Republican is below 50% in Texas, that's a problem.  Everyone knows what Donald Trump is about, and at this point he doesn't have a majority who say they'll vote for him.

Forty-nine percent is probably good enough to win, owing to third parties and the like.  But if I'm a Republican, there's definitely cause for concern here.

2) The TT poll spends more time in the field than any other poll of which I'm aware--9 days.  Most polls spend just three days in the field.

Broadly, I think that makes a lot of sense for a poll of a November election that you're doing in April.  You expect short-term trends will not impact the overall race, and will be forgotten in November.  So what they're trying to do here is factor out the noise to capture the signal.

The trouble is that it can miss the signal in a dynamic universe.  This poll went into the field back on April 10, when Trump's approval was very close to its zenith (according to fivethirtyeight.com).  And I think you see that in an increase reflected in Trump's "strongly approve" numbers up to 36% over 33% in February and 32% in June.  

So you probably saw some difference between the people you sampled on April 10 and those you sampled on April 19.  I mean, you do in every poll.  And generally that's just noise, and can be factored out.  But sometimes it's not noise.  And with Trump's approval rating reverting to the mean after his initial rally-round-the-flag bump (all the way up to 49%!), I wonder if it hasn't factored out some of the signal.

Note that that can be addressed somewhat through weighting and matching to the target sample.  I see they did that in the methodology, but I don't really see the details.  I'd be real curious about that.

3) The underlying numbers--even going back to earlier this month--showing that Turmp is net-negative in the "trust to give accurate information" category should be really alarming for his campaign.  It indicates that he doesn't have just a whole lot of room to go up.  And that should be mildly troubling for Republicans.

4) Let's be real realistic about all this--Texas is (and continues to be) a Republican state.  Barring a massive turnout from Dems and a lackluster turnout from Trumpublicans, Trump is going to win.

But five points is not a comfortable win for a Republican in Texas.  And it indicates a real problem nationwide.  Dole won by five points in Texas in 1996.  He lost the electoral college 379-159.  If Trump can only take Texas by five points, that probably indicates that he is losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona.

 

Good stuff Ghost.   I think the point about the Rally-to-the-POTUS-in-a-time-of-Crisis-Bump is spot on.   It is probably wishful thinking, after the thousand reasons to hate Trump are ignored by his base, but I have to think that his inject Lysol to beat the virus MAY be a Jump the Shark moment.    Not for all, mind you, but for non-insane registered GOP voters and Independents, you really only need about 5% of that group voting Democratic - and another 2% saying "Fuck it! Not voting" , to give Biden the election.  No matter the real or imagined dirt thrown on Biden, it is still an odd universe in 2020, more exception from what we knew as a normal POTUS election.     It may be that the dirt thrown at a bad Democratic POTUS Nominee will not stick as much, at least when the alternative is the Pathologically Narcissistic, Xenophobic, racist, misogynist in the White House.    A Sexually Harassing Joe as candidate would be HORRIBLE back in the day when a GOP pick like Romney was the opponent.   But the current alternative is 'grab them by the pussy', get involved in beauty pageants to look at naked 15 year olds, bang a porn star when you wife is delivering your kid, piece of shit Trump.   There is the thing that Trumpkins do not care.  And they don't.   Others do care.   Deeply.   And Trump is viewed so horribly by those who do care, that Joe will viewed as - well -  less shitty.  Or maybe seen as 'shitty light',  a perv who nevertheless will not get us in WWIII - or tell us to inject disinfectants, becoming the clear preference, even when nose holding.   

The TL/TR version is that Trump's demonstrated idiocy and loathsomeness is a kind of Firewall to legitimate Biden negatives.   

And this: Hillary was the most reviled Democrat of my lifetime, with a good 25 years of incessant GOP hate radio and Fox attacks, and she still won the damn popular vote.   We forget that.  Biden will be a target, but I see it very unlikely that blue collar men will hate Joe the way they hated Hillary.  No matter what.   And enough women will hold their nose and vote for Joe over Trump, even with harassment allegations.     If a black woman Veep is picked, then see a surge in African American and women voting,  so much so that the Bernie Bros staying home will not make or break this.  People not getting jobs back by November will decide this.  Enough people's families going hungry and being evicted will decide this.   A second wave of Covid due to premature openings will decide this.    The virus going away in June - or mutating into a less virulent form - and Trump's crazy ass lucking into being 'right' might decide this.   I'm still doubling down on the concept that 'no money for my family or job for me' is going to be the paper over Trump's  "See...only 60 thousand deaths, and it's disappearing like I said" rock.   If it turns out that way.     

This will be a long strange trip, and we are just starting out.   

[Gatorubet 30,113]

40 minutes ago, Pancho said:

ill try to find that poll, but basically no one wants Klo.

Agree.  And Stacy Abrams is not the answer either.   Too many white folks won't vote for a large Black woman who hates Invisalign and has a light resume.   You need some other face.  Here, the longer you delay the Veep pick the better.  Palin looked good until you dug around and until she ran around revealing her true worth.   Maybe a deep vetted but little known minority female candidate picked late is the key.

[gmr548 16,516]

This will be a long strange trip, and we are just starting out.   

Important to remember. The election is a little over six months. Six months ago we were all fuming about Texas getting its ass kicked by OU and subsequently sitting the bed vs Kansas and TCU. What a very different world that was. What a very different world it could be in November.

[thepop 4,409]

3 hours ago, Macanudo said:

I dont know that Harris is the slam dunk choice everyone thinks.   For every vote she gets out for Joe in Philly or Atlanta, theres probably an offsetting white male mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging one for Trump.   

Those mouth breathers are voting for Trump regardless. 

[6th Street 6,357]

Whoever the running mate is needs to be a viable Presidential candidate in 2024. Only Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Whitmer fit that profile.