2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Kyriakos]

I’m just jealous. I’ve never snorted coke in my life (wouldn’t!) and no one has ever hooked me up with a job that pays fifty large a month.

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
Where’s the job connections, Hunter?

I don't want to see more stuff about Hunter. I never build the Hunter-Seeker algorithm great wonder either.

The DNC obviously sucks, but I am pretty certain we won't see Hunter in any way being part of the government, unlike with Trump's family.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

538 is cautioning that exit polls are going to be especially bad this year since they only interview people who vote in person. This means the exit polls will likely skew heavily republican because most democrats have voted already. A few organizations are trying hybrid exit polls where they talk to people after they vote at the polling places and also call people on the phone, but we should probably not put too much weight on these new approaches until they're been proven to work - which we won't know until after the dust has settled.

 

[EgonSpengler]

538 is cautioning that exit polls are going to be especially bad this year since they only interview people who vote in person. This means the exit polls will likely skew heavily republican because most democrats have voted already. A few organizations are trying hybrid exit polls where they talk to people after they vote at the polling places and also call people on the phone, but we should probably not put too much weight on these new approaches until they're been proven to work - which we won't know until after the dust has settled.

For the same reason, The Washington Post this morning said they won't be using "precincts reporting" on election night. They're going to try to follow and report on the running totals of counted votes instead.

 

[Kyriakos]

Are democrats having an older voting base than republicans? Cause if not, one would expect ancient republicans to also vote by mail (if they are aware of the tech).

 

[Sommerswerd]

538 is cautioning that exit polls are going to be especially bad this year since they only interview people who vote in person. This means the exit polls will likely skew heavily republican because most democrats have voted already. A few organizations are trying hybrid exit polls where they talk to people after they vote at the polling places and also call people on the phone, but we should probably not put too much weight on these new approaches until they're been proven to work - which we won't know until after the dust has settled.

I think this means the FOX News will probably be leaning heavy into exit polling, because they know in advance that it will be giving their viewers good news, which will keep them watching. It also means that there is going to be a higher than normal jilted feeling if those exit polls start not holding up, and louder cries of foul and vote fraud.

 

[Drakle]

Cook House final ratings. 8 final movements all to Democrats.



The final ratings generally give Democrats

New @CookPolitical: our FINAL House outlook is a Dem net gain of 10-15 seats, with anything from 5-20 seats well within the range of possibility

Solid/Likely/Lean D: 229
Solid/Likely/Lean R: 179
Toss Up: 27

Democrats are set to expand their majority, with fairly few vulnerable incumbents. Despite being the ones to win more seats, in far more vulnerable territory. 2020, is basically 2008, to 2018's 2006. Two successive Democratic Wave years, one that takes back the House, and one that expands it some more.

But unlike 2006 and 2008, the Democrat in charge of recruitment isn't Rahm Emanuel, and they aren't just finding super conservative Democrats to run, and then say no to most things in government. I mean if you look at the stimulus bill, and the ACA bill, a ton of House Democrats voted against it, and then nearly all those people just lost anyway.

Anyone saying that Republicans are set to take back the House, is lying or just not looking at the field of play. The field of play is just how many seats Democrats take. Republicans have to sweep every seat in the above image, to basically retake the majority. That would be the worst prediction cycle types like Cook would have ever had. Even if Trump wins reelection, he will have to face a Democratic House.

 

[amadeus]

I don't want to see more stuff about Hunter.

Neither do I, aside from the entertainment value. I don’t think there’s any corruption going on because, usually, you have to have some influence before you can even be corrupt.

To any company considering corruption: I’ll work for half the price and get you as much access to the White House. That basically means looking up their phone number from the website, which is probably about all they’d get anyway.

Honestly, I’m ready for Trump to be out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. because he didn’t follow through: trade deficit up, manufacturing jobs down. Coronavirus, out of control. He’s not doing better than Europe, but he should be!

Decent SCOTUS picks, but that’s not good enough. Same with the Paris climate accord. I don’t care enough about that. I’m not wild about Biden, but Trump had his chance and blew it.

 

[Drakle]

Decent SCOTUS picks, but that’s not good enough. Same with the Paris climate accord. I don’t care enough about that. I’m not wild about Biden, but Trump had his chance and blew it.

How? I mean I guess if you like conservativism than Gorsuch seems like he has a decent enough legal mind (though he still acts like a partisan most of the time). But Kavanaugh and Barrett are both mediocre judges and openly partisans, not acting from a coherent legal theory. And the conservative legal theory is already crazy.

But besides competence, how do they help you? They act to help perpetuate the Republican party, which allow it to rule as a minority, which means it acts crazier, and their economic rulings, only serve the uber-wealthy. Which is why they are there. The Commerce people all endorse these judges, not because they love the social issues they have. That is just the red meat for the base. They want that economic reactionism.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Decent SCOTUS picks, but that’s not good enough.

Is this a joke?

At least we know where you stand on minorities now, as if we didn't before

How? I mean I guess if you like conservativism than Gorsuch seems like he has a decent enough legal mind (though he still acts like a partisan most of the time). But Kavanaugh and Barrett are both mediocre judges and openly partisans, not acting from a coherent legal theory.

But besides of competence, how do they help you? They act to help perpetuate the Republican party, they allow it to rule as a minority, which means it acts crazier, and their economic rulings, only serve the uber-wealthy. Which is why they are there. The Commerce people all endorse these judges, not because they love the social issues they have. That is just the red meat for the base. They want that economic reactionism.

What does your heart tell you?

 

[amadeus]

@Drakle, I say it’s Congress’ fault for writing crappy law.

At least we know where you stand on minorities now, as if we didn't before

Bad bait attempt. Boo.

edit: posts combined for maximum postability (a perfectly cromulent word)

 

[Sommerswerd]

One thing I don't understand about the 'shy Trump voters' and 'shy Biden voters' takes is that they never seem to really be based on anything substantial. I mean it's possible that one of those takes is correct, but in the absence of conducting your own empirical research you would think the safest bet is to just go with the empirical research of people who do it for a living.

Well here's an interview of someone who "does it for a living" explaining why he believes in the "shy Trump voter" factor, essentially another version of the "Bradley Effect"... and how he factors it into his polling. He is predicting a Trump upset and claims that his polling is more accurate precisely because he is able to account for the "shy Trump voter".

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/...called-2016-for-trump-says-hell-win-again.cnn

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Bad bait attempt. Boo.

At least before you had a fig leaf that helped you to deflect it, but with crap like this you are truly naked.

I get it ama, you and all the other conservatives absolutely hate having it pointed out to you the consequences of supporting and enabling these idiots have on certain groups, but unfortunately you don't get to run away and try to wash your hands from this.

Not any more, not since you think they're "decent picks". So no, it's not bait, it's reality, so go take some responsibility for what your words and support actually entails rather than being a coward about it and crying when it's brought up, people WILL suffer as a result of these scotus picks and thats on every gop voter, enabler and defender.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Are democrats having an older voting base than republicans? Cause if not, one would expect ancient republicans to also vote by mail (if they are aware of the tech).

No, the Democratic base is younger and yes, the Republicans used to have a slight advantage in mail in votes. Then Trump attacked the post office, mail in voting and absentee ballots and all of a sudden his base has turned away from mail-in voting. It's another own goal, like his response to Covid as a whole. Hard left types will point out Trump is not the worse president in history because he doesn't support slavery or Native American genocide but it's very hard to argue he is not the most incompetent president at the very least. His entire presidency has been a comedy of errors and missed opportunities.

Cook House final ratings. 8 final movements all to Democrats.



The final ratings generally give Democrats





Democrats are set to expand their majority, with fairly few vulnerable incumbents. Despite being the ones to win more seats, in far more vulnerable territory. 2020, is basically 2008, to 2018's 2006. Two successive Democratic Wave years, one that takes back the House, and one that expands it some more.

But unlike 2006 and 2008, the Democrat in charge of recruitment isn't Rahm Emanuel, and they aren't just finding super conservative Democrats to run, and then say no to most things in government. I mean if you look at the stimulus bill, and the ACA bill, a ton of House Democrats voted against it, and then nearly all those people just lost anyway.

Anyone saying that Republicans are set to take back the House, is lying or just not looking at the field of play. The field of play is just how many seats Democrats take. Republicans have to sweep every seat in the above image, to basically retake the majority. That would be the worst prediction cycle types like Cook would have ever had. Even if Trump wins reelection, he will have to face a Democratic House.

The first link doesn't work, neither does the images.

-------------------------------------

Trump and his surrogates are making the argument that partial vote tallies should be the only thing accepted as results on election night. That is to say that Trump and company believe that whatever votes come in by election night should be the only ones that count and that any mail-in votes that come later should be tossed regardless of their validity under state voting laws.

This will bite them in the ass when the election night tallies show a clear Biden win - Trump will likely be demanding that votes be counted for days and weeks after he loses, hoping to both sow discord and find a path to winning through the courts. Mail in voters do tend to put it off to the last minute but if any year were going to be the year of on-time or early mail in votes, this is it. This is reflected in Texas where more people have early voted already than voted in total in 2016 as well as the fact that some 90 million Americans have already had their votes counted.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well here's an interview of someone who "does it for a living" explaining why he believes in the "shy Trump voter" factor, essentially another version of the "Bradley Effect"... and how he factors it into his polling. He is predicting a Trump upset and claims that his polling is more accurate precisely because he is able to account for the "shy Trump voter".

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/...called-2016-for-trump-says-hell-win-again.cnn

538's Nate Silver talked about this in a recent podcast and he's pretty adamant it isn't real. He said that basically if you're a Trump voter, there are lots of reasons you could give for being a Trump supporter. Maybe you liked the tax cuts, maybe you want to end abortion, maybe you think he's doing great with the economy. You never have to tell a poster, 'I hate Mexicans' or whatever. Moreover, he says the data just doesn't back up the shy Trump voter being a thing.

On issues-focused polls, however, this doesn't hold up according to Nate Silver. Given the zeitgeist and cultural conversation on many topics, there are very few credible ways to say you don't like Black Lives Matter without someone calling you a racist and so people do sometimes lie to pollsters about their support for certain issues even if they don't for candidates.

Nate Silver also made the case that there is some (albeit not much) data showing that people of color are less likely to be truthful or forthright with pollsters they identify as white and as such there may actually be a bit of a 'shy Biden voter'.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Look, if you vote GOP in 2020, you're doing so because you're either comfortable with bigotry and support it, or think it's an acceptable price to pay for getting what you want, which functionally makes them bigots regardless of intent

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump and his surrogates are making the argument that partial vote tallies should be the only thing accepted as results on election night. That is to say that Trump and company believe that whatever votes come in by election night should be the only ones that count and that any mail-in votes that come later should be tossed regardless of their validity under state voting laws.

This will bite them in the ass when the election night tallies show a clear Biden win - Trump will likely be demanding that votes be counted for days and weeks after he loses, hoping to both sow discord and find a path to winning through the courts. Mail in voters do tend to put it off to the last minute but if any year were going to be the year of on-time or early mail in votes, this is it. This is reflected in Texas where more people have early voted already than voted in total in 2016 as well as the fact that some 90 million Americans have already had their votes counted.

This actually would be pretty hilarious. I can taste the schadenfreude. The only problem is... in a scenario like this, where Trump has to reverse himself on counting all the votes and he drags his supporters with him into the flip flop... the cognitive dissonance is going to be turned up to fever pitch and the concurrent anger is going to be boiling hot. The bottom line is that type of scenario may actually play into Trump's favour because it will stoke the chaos and confusion he needs to throw the election into the SCOTUS.

As an aside... 538 is now showing Trump's chance of winning at 9%.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Cloud_Strife - The point was not that any particular Trump voters are or are not racist, it's that they have plenty of leeway to openly support him without having anything to do with race. This means they have little motivation to lie to pollsters about that support which means the 'shy Trump voter' is not a thing like desperate right wing talking heads want it to be.

The bottom line is that type of scenario may actually play into Trump's favour because it will stoke the chaos and confusion he needs to throw the election into the SCOTUS.

I completely agree and I think this is the only real/realistic motivation for going this route.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

@Cloud_Strife - The point was not that any particular Trump voters are or are not racist, it's that they have plenty of leeway to openly support him without having anything to do with race. This means they have little motivation to lie to pollsters about that support which means the 'shy Trump voter' is not a thing like desperate right wing talking heads want it to be.

I completely agree and I think this is the only real/realistic motivation for going this route.

Oh no i get that, but it's impossible to support a candidate like trump or a party like the GOP without at least being complicit in the bigotry they spew.

It's why i have no respect for anyone who votes GOP, they are complicit in the pain and suffering they enable by supporting them

 

[Sommerswerd]

538's Nate Silver talked about this in a recent podcast and he's pretty adamant it isn't real. He said that basically if you're a Trump voter, there are lots of reasons you could give for being a Trump supporter. Maybe you liked the tax cuts, maybe you want to end abortion, maybe you think he's doing great with the economy. You never have to tell a poster, 'I hate Mexicans' or whatever. Moreover, he says the data just doesn't back up the shy Trump voter being a thing.

On issues-focused polls, however, this doesn't hold up according to Nate Silver. Given the zeitgeist and cultural conversation on many topics, there are very few credible ways to say you don't like Black Lives Matter without someone calling you a racist and so people do sometimes lie to pollsters about their support for certain issues even if they don't for candidates.

Nate Silver also made the case that there is some (albeit not much) data showing that people of color are less likely to be truthful or forthright with pollsters they identify as white and as such there may actually be a bit of a 'shy Biden voter'.

Yeah Nate Silver all but called Trafalgar (the pollster in the video I linked) a heretic. He essentially called his methodology junk and his data trash. The Trafalgar guy responds by essentially calling 538 and all the other pollsters haters and hacks using outdated methods, which is why he claims he got it right in 2016 and they were all wrong.

Obviously I hope that Trafalgar are just the new Rasmussen pumping out Republican propaganda to curry favor with and/or get featured on FOX News... or cranks who just got lucky with the call they made. But @Camikaze asked for some source for the "shy Trump voter" theory, basically implying that it was made up from whole cloth rather than coming from the folks who "did this for a living". So I wanted to oblige him with a source for the idea.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Another Trump caravan disrupted early voting in a city here in California by blocking access to the polls with their flag-decked vehicles. To those that say shy Trump voters are real I ask (again): Have you not met or seen Trump voters? Also:
D E S P E R A T I O N
Yeah, blocking one polling site in California is going to do the trick.

But @Camikaze asked for some source for the "shy Trump voter" theory, basically implying that it was made up from whole cloth rather than coming from the folks who "did this for a living". So I wanted to oblige him with a source for the idea.

Gotcha gotcha