American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That might be a good enough reason. After all, Biden’s campaign is currently flush with cash, and while we don’t know how Trump’s is doing there are signs (like going dark in Arizona) that he may be hurting for money right now.

judging by the increasingly desperate now 8 to 10 emails a day Trump and his minions are sending me, up from 5 a month ago, I would agree

[driveway]

One of the things I've been hearing on podcasts is that Biden has been spending some money in Texas and will continue to do so for a few reasons.

1. As said, it forces the GOP to 'play defense' and spend money there as well.
2. There are a number of down-ballot Democrats who stand to benefit from spending by the National campaign.
3. There is a large push from the progressive donor base to spend money in Texas, and that by spending a little bit there, they can increase the overall amount of money coming into the campaign.

I haven't heard any of the pundits I listen to suggest that the Biden campaign is seriously looking at winning Texas as a route to 270, but that the reasons above are compelling enough to warrant some spending in the State.

[activeStick]

So mainstream media and even non traditional media platforms have really latched on to the "Trump encouraged Americans to commit a felony by encouraging them to vote twice", train but I'm not sure that's what he said. I'm the furthest you can be from a Trump supporter, but when I watched the clip, he was telling voters that choose to vote by mail to send in their early ballot, then go into their polling place and line up to vote again where they'd have mechanisms in place to verify if your early vote has already been counted, in which case you wouldn't be allowed to vote. As usual, Trump's messaging was a bit garbled as he isn't very good at putting sentences together, but that's what I got from what he said. Maybe I'm missing something?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by activeStick

So mainstream media and even non traditional media platforms have really latched on to the "Trump encouraged Americans to commit a felony by encouraging them to vote twice", train but I'm not sure that's what he said. I'm the furthest you can be from a Trump supporter, but when I watched the clip, he was telling voters that choose to vote by mail to send in their early ballot, then go into their polling place and line up to vote again where they'd have mechanisms in place to verify if your early vote has already been counted, in which case you wouldn't be allowed to vote. As usual, Trump's messaging was a bit garbled as he isn't very good at putting sentences together, but that's what I got from what he said. Maybe I'm missing something?

I think he is saying if they let you vote twice do it because the system is broken.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by activeStick

He was telling voters that choose to vote by mail to send in their early ballot, then go into their polling place and line up to vote again where they'd have mechanisms in place to verify if your early vote has already been counted, in which case you wouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm pretty sure this is still a felony.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Came across a new (to me, I’m sure it’s been around a while) polling aggregator/projection model from the Economist:
https://projects.economist.com/us-20...cast/president

I’m not smart enough to figure out whether this projection (currently showing Biden at 84% to win) is better or worse than the 538 model that has Biden at 70% or so. Nor do I know how we would ever know that....

But I like it because it lists the most recent polls included in the model right below the updated projection.

And nationally it looks like the conventions (perhaps not surprisingly) have not moved the needle. The best result in a national poll for Trump is the Harvard/Harris poll which (with learners included) shows Biden ahead 53-47.

My only slight quibble is I don’t see state level polls here. So you can find those here, along with the USC/Dornsife poll that the Economist isn’t using (likely because it is so different from the others methodologically)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Some state level notes:
1. YouGov and Morning Consult both have Biden up 50-44 in Wisconsin.
2. Biden is WAY ahead in New Mexico, which is not a huge surprise. NM has been trending blue for years and hasn’t been a true swing state in a while.
3. More strange polls out of Texas showing a very close race there, with Trump ahead by only two and polling under 50%. Makes you wonder when the Democrats will take a risk and spend some money here, though it’s a major risk to do so given how huge the state is, and the history of “close, but no cigar” results for Democrats there.

Do you honestly trust the polling after the debacle that was 2016?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

71.4% chance of Clinton winning. 538 seems to have the best approach as well.

[GirlySports]

Trump is all about cheating if they don't catch you. Also being in line clogs up the line. The less votes, the better it is for Republicans.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think he is saying if they let you vote twice do it because the system is broken.

Is he? He didn't suggest that. He did go off about how if the system works, they wouldn't be allowed, but he didn't say voters should or shouldn't vote again if they let you.

[Azure]

Posted this in the Canadian politics thread.

I was pretty disappointed that Joe Biden was the candidate the Democrats went with. Especially considering Andrew Yang was in the running.

I just don't think it'll be enough to beat Trump. Not with everything going on, and so many happy to just throw 'fascist and dictator' around, as if Trump were even capable of doing that.

The other thing is that Trump has a solid China policy going, something the media loves to ignore, and we already know that he won a lot of votes in 2016 by telling people he'll bring jobs back from China.

If the Democrats don't move beyond the whole stupidity around 'dictator' and 'fascist' I would be pretty concerned. I agree with Taibbi, Trump doesn't lack the foresight or ability to be a dictator.

We’ve been living with Trump for so long, we’ve gotten out of the habit of asking the basic questions we normally ask, when a famous person says something odd. What is he thinking? Is he being serious? Does he mean this as metaphor — is he talking about the donors and party higher-ups who may indeed have outsize influence behind his elderly opponent’s candidacy — or does he really believe in a nebulous, Three Days of the Condor-style secret spooks’ club, working after hours to install a socialist dictatorship through Joe Biden?

Donald Trump is so unlike most people, and so especially unlike anyone raised under a conventional moral framework, that he’s perpetually misdiagnosed. The words we see slapped on him most often, like “fascist” and “authoritarian,” nowhere near describe what he really is, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. It’s been proven across four years that Trump lacks the attention span or ambition required to implement a true dictatorial regime. He might not have a moral problem with the idea, but two minutes into the plan he’d leave the room, phone in hand, to throw on a robe and watch himself on Fox and Friends over a cheeseburger.

The elite misread of Trump is egregious because he’s an easily familiar type to the rest of America. We’re a sales culture and Trump is a salesman. Moreover he’s not just any salesman; he might be the greatest salesman ever, considering the quality of the product, i.e. himself. He’s up to his eyes in balls, and the parts of the brain that hold most people back from selling schlock online degrees or tchotchkes door-to-door are absent. He has no shame, will say anything, and experiences morality the way the rest of us deal with indigestion.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-tr...s-and-needs-to

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm pretty sure this is still a felony.

Is it? I honestly don't know.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Trump is all about cheating if they don't catch you. Also being in line clogs up the line. The less votes, the better it is for Republicans.

I think this is your first post I agree with!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by activeStick

So mainstream media and even non traditional media platforms have really latched on to the "Trump encouraged Americans to commit a felony by encouraging them to vote twice", train but I'm not sure that's what he said. I'm the furthest you can be from a Trump supporter, but when I watched the clip, he was telling voters that choose to vote by mail to send in their early ballot, then go into their polling place and line up to vote again where they'd have mechanisms in place to verify if your early vote has already been counted, in which case you wouldn't be allowed to vote. As usual, Trump's messaging was a bit garbled as he isn't very good at putting sentences together, but that's what I got from what he said. Maybe I'm missing something?

Just attempting to vote twice is a felony. Which includes voting by mail and then going to vote in person just in case your mail ballot hasn’t been counted yet.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Is he? He didn't suggest that. He did go off about how if the system works, they wouldn't be allowed, but he didn't say voters should or shouldn't vote again if they let you.

Depends,

He consistently says that mail in ballots have a fraud problem. Then he tells people to try to vote twice.

So either he is lying about the fraud occurring in mail in ballots or he is telling voters to try to commit the fraud he believes is occurring.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

He absolutely is telling people to vote twice.

"If it has not been counted, vote -- which is every citizen's right to do -- you go and vote. You press the lever and vote. So if it hasn't been counted, if it doesn't show up, go and vote, and then, if your mail-in ballot arrives after you vote, which it shouldn't but possibly it could perhaps, that ballot will not be used or counted in that your vote has already been cast and tabulated, so this way you're guaranteed to have your vote count," Trump said. "So send it in. And then see and then vote and let's see what happens. You're now assured, though, that your very precious and important vote has been counted."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

So either he is lying about the fraud occurring in mail in ballots or he is telling voters to try to commit the fraud he believes is occurring.

No, no - it's definitely both of these.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you honestly trust the polling after the debacle that was 2016?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

71.4% chance of Clinton winning. 538 seems to have the best approach as well.

71.4% is not the same as 100%, 30% chance things happen all the time. 30% of the time to be exact...

And what about 2018?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you honestly trust the polling after the debacle that was 2016?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

71.4% chance of Clinton winning. 538 seems to have the best approach as well.

I do. Firstly the 538 numbers you cite above are projections of chance of winning, not vote share. And anyone who plays poker knows there is a WORLD of difference between a 30% chance and an 8% chance. For what it’s worth 538 gave Trump a higher chance of winning than just about anybody else (and that’s true in 2020 too).

I’ve said this before but people really need to stop saying the polls were “wrong” in 2016. With the exception of a measurable polling “error” in Wisconsin, the aggregate polling averages actually provided a very accurate picture of what happened. The “error” was pundits not catching the fact that there were very few high quality polls in certain swing states (most notably Michigan and Wisconsin) and assuming that voter preferences in those states would follow the national popular vote. As we know, that isn’t what happened.

Pollsters didn’t get 2016 wrong. Poll WATCHERS did. There are important lessons to be learned from 2016 but “don’t trust polls” just... isn’t one of them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I do. Firstly the 538 numbers you cite above are projections of chance of winning, not vote share. And anyone who plays poker knows there is a WORLD of difference between a 30% chance and an 8% chance. For what it’s worth 538 gave Trump a higher chance of winning than just about anybody else (and that’s true in 2020 too).

I’ve said this before but people really need to stop saying the polls were “wrong” in 2016. With the exception of a measurable polling “error” in Wisconsin, the aggregate polling averages actually provided a very accurate picture of what happened. The “error” was pundits not catching the fact that there were very few high quality polls in certain swing states (most notably Michigan and Wisconsin) and assuming that voter preferences in those states would follow the national popular vote. As we know, that isn’t what happened.

Pollsters didn’t get 2016 wrong. Poll WATCHERS did. There are important lessons to be learned from 2016 but “don’t trust polls” just... isn’t one of them.

Totally agree, this idea that polls were wrong in 2016 isn’t founded in evidence.

In general polls for 2016 were highly accurate. Within 2% of the final results. This is more accurate than average.

I think the big issue was the Princeton poll aggregator saying 98% and then pissing al over the 538 model publicly. This created the perception of certainty. But even the aggregators that has high odds of Hillary winning like the New York Times (85%) had warnings over how uncertain an 85% chance is.

The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.

So people’s perception of what 85% or 70% or even 98% (1 election in the history of the US) means is really the issue. Though given that lotteries are successful we shouldn’t be surprised.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I do. Firstly the 538 numbers you cite above are projections of chance of winning, not vote share. And anyone who plays poker knows there is a WORLD of difference between a 30% chance and an 8% chance. For what it’s worth 538 gave Trump a higher chance of winning than just about anybody else (and that’s true in 2020 too).

I’ve said this before but people really need to stop saying the polls were “wrong” in 2016. With the exception of a measurable polling “error” in Wisconsin, the aggregate polling averages actually provided a very accurate picture of what happened. The “error” was pundits not catching the fact that there were very few high quality polls in certain swing states (most notably Michigan and Wisconsin) and assuming that voter preferences in those states would follow the national popular vote. As we know, that isn’t what happened.

Pollsters didn’t get 2016 wrong. Poll WATCHERS did. There are important lessons to be learned from 2016 but “don’t trust polls” just... isn’t one of them.

This is why I'm asking you. Your coverage in most of the elections in regards to polling has always been interesting. I never paid much attention in 2016; in fact I remember logging in later in the evening and seeing that Trump had won and was completely shocked. Big reason that I never paid attention was because I actually thought Clinton had it in the bag, and spent too much time listening to what media said.

Seems the bigger issue is like you said the interpretation of the polls. And how the media covers the election in general.

Why, then, had so many people who covered the campaign been so confident of Clinton’s chances? This is the question I’ve spent the past two to three months thinking about. It turns out to have some complicated answers, which is why it’s taken some time to put this article together (and this is actually the introduction to a long series of articles on this question that we’ll publish over the next few weeks). But the answers are potentially a lot more instructive for how to cover Trump’s White House and future elections than the ones you’d get by simply blaming the polls for the failure to foresee the outcome. They also suggest there are real shortcomings in how American politics are covered, including pervasive groupthink among media elites, an unhealthy obsession with the insider’s view of politics, a lack of analytical rigor, a failure to appreciate uncertainty, a sluggishness to self-correct when new evidence contradicts pre-existing beliefs, and a narrow viewpoint that lacks perspective from the longer arc of American history. Call me a curmudgeon, but I think we journalists ought to spend a few more moments thinking about these things before we endorse the cutely contrarian idea that Trump’s presidency might somehow be a good thing for the media.

To be clear, if the polls themselves have gotten too much blame, then misinterpretation and misreporting of the polls is a major part of the story. Throughout the campaign, the polls had hallmarks of high uncertainty, indicating a volatile election with large numbers of undecided voters. And at several key moments they’d also shown a close race. In the week leading up to Election Day, Clinton was only barely ahead in the states she’d need to secure 270 electoral votes. Traditional journalists, as I’ll argue in this series of articles, mostly interpreted the polls as indicating extreme confidence in Clinton’s chances, however.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...story-of-2016/

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Azure

Posted this in the Canadian politics thread.

I was pretty disappointed that Joe Biden was the candidate the Democrats went with. Especially considering Andrew Yang was in the running.

I just don't think it'll be enough to beat Trump. Not with everything going on, and so many happy to just throw 'fascist and dictator' around, as if Trump were even capable of doing that.

The other thing is that Trump has a solid China policy going, something the media loves to ignore, and we already know that he won a lot of votes in 2016 by telling people he'll bring jobs back from China.

If the Democrats don't move beyond the whole stupidity around 'dictator' and 'fascist' I would be pretty concerned. I agree with Taibbi, Trump doesn't lack the foresight or ability to be a dictator.



https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-tr...s-and-needs-to

you don't actually think Yang would have a better chance of winning do you? I never get this argument.

"my candidate who polled way worse against Trump and didn't get enough votes in the primary would have somehow had a better chance in the election."

Preferring a guy be president is one thing but there is ZERO evidence there was a better realistic candidate Vs. Trump