2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Right, but margin of error is what it is in relationship to a specific poll. It has less validity when averaging a group of polls, and less than that when extending to it to several states. You'd need those states all to have the multiple polls in them be off in the same direction by similar amounts, amounts which in some cases are pretty much at the margin of error. That's possible, but extremely unlikely and is not what margin of error measures.

It would make more sense if it's a block of states that are close and similar politically, which is what swung the election for Trump in 2016. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania having polling errors makes sense. Arizona, Iowa, NC, Pennsylvania, and Florida all having the same polling error favoring the same candidate makes little sense.

It's definitely within the realm of possibility, but we're talking about things that are in play to give Trump the 11% chance he's sitting at now that likely sits at 7-8% by election day.

[HerRealName]

This is a related tweet. It shows the difference between current polling and includes a column showing the results adjusted by 2016 errors. Biden still wins this scenario but it's a lot tighter.

Today, our trusty 'if the polls are wrong' table gets a slight makeover: it shows what would happen if the polls are as wrong as they were over the final week of 2016, rather than the final three weeks https://t.co/6qVQn80pjT pic.twitter.com/q4vs73SyI1

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) October 28, 2020

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Right, but margin of error is what it is in relationship to a specific poll. It has less validity when averaging a group of polls, and less than that when extending to it to several states. You'd need those states all to have the multiple polls in them be off in the same direction by similar amounts, amounts which in some cases are pretty much at the margin of error. That's possible, but extremely unlikely and is not what margin of error measures.

Exactly. If the MoE is the same direction in the max level for every poll, it's a massive polling error.

[JPhillips]

The best case scenario for Trump is a narrow win while losing the popular vote by millions more than in 2016(look at the polling differences in safe Red states). That isn't a recipe for stability.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The best case scenario for Trump is a narrow win while losing the popular vote by millions more than in 2016(look at the polling differences in safe Red states). That isn't a recipe for stability.

I still don't get these takes. Maybe I'm missing something, but what is unique about Biden that he would appeal to red states but not to moderates in swing states?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I still don't get these takes. Maybe I'm missing something, but what is unique about Biden that he would appeal to red states but not to moderates in swing states?

I think Biden will win. I'm just saying any prediction that Trump will win includes the idea that he'll fair worse in red states than in 2016. He's down 8 to 10 points from 2016 in pretty much every red state.

Outside a handful of crazies, nobody thinks Trump can win the popular vote and it's almost certainly going to be way more lopsided than in 2016.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

This is a related tweet. It shows the difference between current polling and includes a column showing the results adjusted by 2016 errors. Biden still wins this scenario but it's a lot tighter.

Just added it up. Unless I missed something, the "polling errors as bad as 2016" scenario is 335-203 Biden.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think Biden will win. I'm just saying any prediction that Trump will win includes the idea that he'll fair worse in red states than in 2016. He's down 8 to 10 points from 2016 in pretty much every red state.

Outside a handful of crazies, nobody thinks Trump can win the popular vote and it's almost certainly going to be way more lopsided than in 2016.

Right, I get that you think Biden will win. I just don't agree with the scenarios of Trump's win.

In 2016, Pennsylvania was just under 3 points to the right of the popular vote. If Trump wins the election, but loses the popular vote by more, then Pennsylvania will have moved even more to the right. That doesn't make sense given that 2018 went heavily blue for Dems in PA and all evidence shows that Biden is more popular than Clinton in PA.

I guess my point is that in the Trump wins scenarios, i believe the popular vote will heavily shift towards him. He could win PA, but I don't think he wins PA again but loses the popular vote by more. That just doesn't track with what we've seen in 2018 or the 2020 primaries.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Just added it up. Unless I missed something, the "polling errors as bad as 2016" scenario is 335-203 Biden.

Even if you flip Georgia and Florida, which it has a 1% wins for Biden, it's still a 290-248 win for Biden. Even if he picks up Pennsylvania, it's 270-268 Biden and he has to pick up something like Arizona or Nevada.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

My (pessimistic) prediction:

Biden wins, but it is close enough that the GOP files some frivolous lawsuits in a few swing states.

Then, the "moderate" GOP Senators propose a "deal" for "the good of the country" in which they agree to accept the election results in exchange for enough Dem Senators to pledge to not reform the House, the Courts, or the Filibuster.

The Media JUMPS on this as SO REASONABLE. And all the ancient institutionalist Dem Senators readily agree.

The GOP then uses the filibuster to submarine the recovery. They gain control of the House and Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024. At which point they eliminate the filibuster and expand the courts.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My (pessimistic) prediction:

Biden wins, but it is close enough that the GOP files some frivolous lawsuits in a few swing states.

Then, the "moderate" GOP Senators propose a "deal" for "the good of the country" in which they agree to accept the election results in exchange for enough Dem Senators to pledge to not reform the House, the Courts, or the Filibuster.

The Media JUMPS on this as SO REASONABLE. And all the ancient institutionalist Dem Senators readily agree.

The GOP then uses the filibuster to submarine the recovery. They gain control of the House and Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024. At which point they eliminate the filibuster and expand the courts.

Mitch: "Gawrsh - we're you reading my wish diary?"

SI

[Lathum]

Biden killing it at his Florida rally which is being broadcast on FOX News. I can't believe they haven't turned away from it, meanwhile Trump is busy at his rally calling Adam Schiff "watermelon" head.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But the GOP may not be able to do a self-examination. They've awakened Trumpism and I'm not sure they'll be able to shut it down that quickly. There will be Trumpist candidates running in primaries in 2022 and 2024. If they win, not much the party elite can do about it.

I was listening to a podcast with Stuart Stevens and Steve Schmidt. Both Republicans working hard to defeat Trump. When asked when they believed the GOP will once again be the non-Trump party, Stevens said it will be after he dies. Schmidt said it would at the earliest be 12 years. The party has completely sold itself to a base that has no interest in ever being what it once was. Schmidt said he once held out hope someone like Nikki Hailey could turn the party around, but she like every other possible moderating hope sold out completely to Trump. There are very few states were an anti-Trump Republican could win a nomination. Even the few moderate governors in purplish states that have stood up to Trump, they have lost control of their local party. Schmidt said they aren't even allowed to name their state party chair, which governors normally do.

Even if we say Trump's 40% drops to 30% post blow-out loss, that will still be somewhere in the neighborhood of 65-75% of the Republican party full-on Trumpian. They are not going away, but hopefully we keep seeing them get weaker and weaker.

[GrantDawg]

Forward this to all your Republican friends to get the word out:

IMPORTANT ELECTION INFO!! FORWARD TO YOUR REPUBLICAN FAMILY!!!!!! pic.twitter.com/qRkXwLG16U

— kylie brakeman (@deadeyebrakeman) October 29, 2020

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I was listening to a podcast with Stuart Stevens and Steve Schmidt. Both Republicans working hard to defeat Trump. When asked when they believed the GOP will once again be the non-Trump party, Stevens said it will be after he dies. Schmidt said it would at the earliest be 12 years. The party has completely sold itself to a base that has no interest in ever being what it once was. Schmidt said he once held out hope someone like Nikki Hailey could turn the party around, but she like every other possible moderating hope sold out completely to Trump. There are very few states were an anti-Trump Republican could win a nomination. Even the few moderate governors in purplish states that have stood up to Trump, they have lost control of their local party. Schmidt said they aren't even allowed to name their state party chair, which governors normally do.

Even if we say Trump's 40% drops to 30% post blow-out loss, that will still be somewhere in the neighborhood of 65-75% of the Republican party full-on Trumpian. They are not going away, but hopefully we keep seeing them get weaker and weaker.

The best way to moderate the GOP is for the Dems to restore majority rule. The current GOP is only viable nationally because of the counter-majoritarian elements in the system. A conservative party can win in a majority rule system, but this version can't.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The best way to moderate the GOP is for the Dems to restore majority rule. The current GOP is only viable nationally because of the counter-majoritarian elements in the system. A conservative party can win in a majority rule system, but this version can't.

Yes.

The goal should not be to destroy the GOP. The goal should not be one party rule.

The goal should be to enact structural reforms that make it impossible for any party to win with a MAGA platform. The goal should be to require each party to present credible solutions for people who live outside of rural areas.

If you make those changes, then the GOP will evolve and adapt and start winning elections again.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My (pessimistic) prediction:

Biden wins, but it is close enough that the GOP files some frivolous lawsuits in a few swing states.

Then, the "moderate" GOP Senators propose a "deal" for "the good of the country" in which they agree to accept the election results in exchange for enough Dem Senators to pledge to not reform the House, the Courts, or the Filibuster.

The Media JUMPS on this as SO REASONABLE. And all the ancient institutionalist Dem Senators readily agree.

The GOP then uses the filibuster to submarine the recovery. They gain control of the House and Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024. At which point they eliminate the filibuster and expand the courts.

This would be fine, because the extreme centrist Dems are not going to go for the abolishment of the filibuster and any extreme-ish type reforms. I mean, Feinstein was giving Lindsey Graham a hug after the Barrett hearings for fuck's sake, nobody trusts her or those of her ilk to end this ridiculous nightmare.

[albionmoonlight]

I mean, one candidate has a 9 point national lead, and we are all sweating the results. If this were happening in any other country, we'd call it a failed state.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I mean, one candidate has a 9 point national lead, and we are all sweating the results. If this were happening in any other country, we'd call it a failed state.

I mean we kind of are a failed state.

[Brian Swartz]

To be frank, I think the sweating the results is irrational. There's always a remote chance of something you don't expect happening, but it's more people being afraid of Trump somehow winning than any rational expectation he would actually lose by 9 points and still win.

[Butter]

If there's one thing that the Trump presidency has shown us, it's that if a party wants to totally ratfuck the system, they really have no issues in doing so. Checks and balances are only as strong as the will of lawmakers and/or the justice system.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A conservative party can win in a majority rule system, but this version can't.

I don't think this is true anymore in America. Conservatism is dead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Happy to report that my entire voting experience took 14 mins from driveway of the location to back in my car.

Lots of factors contributed to that success I think, including waiting until later in the early voting window, going in the early afternoon after a morning storm, and picking a location that might have a bit older average resident. Plus it's a relatively new building (part of a county complex with fire station, extension office, etc) so I banked on fewer people being sure where it was and going elsewhere.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think this is true anymore in America. Conservatism is dead.

Definitions matter, obviously, but a Canadian or Euro conservative party would do well in the U.S.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yes.

The goal should not be to destroy the GOP. The goal should not be one party rule.

The goal should be to enact structural reforms that make it impossible for any party to win with a MAGA platform. The goal should be to require each party to present credible solutions for people who live outside of rural areas.

If you make those changes, then the GOP will evolve and adapt and start winning elections again.

A lot of politicians will lose their jobs, but the party will be fine.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Definitions matter, obviously, but a Canadian or Euro conservative party would do well in the U.S.

Maybe, but that would be centrist at best compared to traditional US standards. It would not be palatable to a lot of people on the right in America even now.

[RainMaker]

Perdue pulled out of the last debate in Georgia. I don't know who wins this but I've never seen a person get owned this hard in a debate sequence in awhile. More Democrats need to be like this.

Btw Jon Ossof ripped David Perdue a new one in Georgia’s Senator debate last night. �� pic.twitter.com/Q4TrPT2jKT

— Everything Georgia (@GAFollowers) October 29, 2020

[RainMaker]

Conservatives in Canada are arguably to the left of the Democrats in this country.

[JPhillips]

Yes, but that's only because the system allows a far-right 45% of voters party to win consistently. If they had to get a majority, the candidates would present more moderate positions and eventually enough people would support them as the better alternative to the more liberal party.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Definitions matter, obviously, but a Canadian or Euro conservative party would do well in the U.S.

They likely wouldn't have the same positions in the US that they would in Europe or Canada though. European and Canadian parties have to deal with that in the aftermath of WW2, liberal parties were able to go MUCH farther than in the US - the NHS in the UK was put in place when Churchill's Tories were swept from power after WW2, and then they couldn't get rid of it because people liked it too much (Churchill was never a fan of the NHS). There is also the issue that in the US, a lot of mass social programs were blocked because it may help the black folk, whereas European countries at the time were far more homogeneous.

A lot of these folks would be more than fine in a society that never instituted these systems. I think Boris & Co. in the UK would love to get rid of the NHS and replace it with a more private based system if they thought they could get away with it.

[Ksyrup]

I'm SHOCKED! Shocked I tell you!

NBC Exclusive: The Hunter Biden 'dossier' that went viral on right-wing internet sites and was later disseminated by Trump's close associates appears to be from a fake 'intelligence firm'.

The author of the report, 'Martin Aspen', does not exist. https://t.co/XgIbSns9Mm

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 29, 2020

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They likely wouldn't have the same positions in the US that they would in Europe or Canada though. European and Canadian parties have to deal with that in the aftermath of WW2, liberal parties were able to go MUCH farther than in the US - the NHS in the UK was put in place when Churchill's Tories were swept from power after WW2, and then they couldn't get rid of it because people liked it too much (Churchill was never a fan of the NHS). There is also the issue that in the US, a lot of mass social programs were blocked because it may help the black folk, whereas European countries at the time were far more homogeneous.

A lot of these folks would be more than fine in a society that never instituted these systems. I think Boris & Co. in the UK would love to get rid of the NHS and replace it with a more private based system if they thought they could get away with it.

Eventually, a conservative party would take positions to the right of the liberal party, but not so far right that they couldn't win a majority. All I'm really saying is that there is plenty of space between the current Trump cult and the Dems to fit a new, conservative party.

[Ksyrup]

McConnell must feel supremely confident of a win because he's pulled out an old Trump ad supporting him that I haven't seen in a long, long time. Most GOP, even in KY, aren't running on the "I love Trump and he loves me" message this time around.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

McConnell must feel supremely confident of a win because he's pulled out an old Trump ad supporting him that I haven't seen in a long, long time. Most GOP, even in KY, aren't running on the "I love Trump and he loves me" message this time around.

Actually, I'd say the opposite. If McGrath has a chance, she will have to convince some people to be split ticket voters (Trump/McGrath). Running ads with Trump tells me he's trying to prevent that from happening and may be slightly concerned.

[Ksyrup]

Maybe you're right, given Trump's relative popularity here. McGrath did run one ad with a Trump voter who was anti-McConnell which I didn't find to be all that great. I think her most effective ad was the one Rex Chapman did for her.

[JPhillips]

This shit is why Trump might still win.

#ELB: In Outrageous 2-1 Decision Ignoring Reliance Interests and Rejecting the Purcell Principle, 8th Circuit Panel Orders Segregation of Late Arriving Ballots in Minnesota, With Strong Hints Late Arriving Ballots Will Be Excluded from The Count https://t.co/6deRqnEvl3

— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) October 29, 2020

[stevew]

Pa. Secretary Of State Wants All Counties To Start Counting Mail-In Ballots On Election Day – CBS Pittsburgh

refreshing to see "Each Pennsylvania county has a different plan for how to count mail-in ballots" as the sub headline

Also they have 5 days to complete count of the mail in ballots, so if it's even close I could see some red areas deliberately dragging all week to put up false hope of a win.

[molson]

Biden looks good in sunglasses, he should just utilize that look all the time.

[stevew]

The "Weekend at Bernie's" look?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Biden looks good in sunglasses, he should just utilize that look all the time.

Yep. There is a reason there is Biden 2020 merch with just Aviators on them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe this article has been mentioned previously and I missed it, if so, sorry bout that.

I just thought it was a fun read for those who are wired for hypotheticals.

It's fivethirtyeight showing how 13 proposed but non-existent states (reconfigurations of existing territory) would have affected the 2016 presidential election. (Note: You have to use the pull down menu in the 2 maps it shows to see the other options, took me a minute to figure that out)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

89%

Still 89% today.

[Kodos]

That's about 11% too low for my liking.

[PilotMan]

The Economist has the presidency at 95% Biden, the house guaranteed, and the Senate at 83% probability to go Dem.

[albionmoonlight]

Number One Reason for Biden Hope:

The pollsters have all corrected for the methodology that got them to underestimate Trump vs. Clinton (i.e. underweighting non-college educated). And even with that correction, Biden still has a larger and more stable lead than Clinton ever did.

Number One Reason for Trump Hope:

All of the Midwestern states will have him ahead early b/c they (insanely) don't start counting early votes until election day. Because so many Dem voters have voted by mail and b/c it is still pretty close, Trump will be leading most (all?) of those on Wednesday morning with a ton of votes outstanding. At that point, he just needs 5 of the 6 conservative Justices to buy some wrong theory, and he's in.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

And I am more than ready for NC, GA, and TX to start leaning blue so we can all stop obsessing over PA. Let PA go the way of Missouri and Ohio. Just paint it red and ignore it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

And I am more than ready for NC, GA, and TX to start leaning blue so we can all stop obsessing over PA. Let PA go the way of Missouri and Ohio. Just paint it red and ignore it.

Sure, PA, but I think you misspelled FL

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sure, PA, but I think you misspelled FL

SI

Heh.

FL is WAY too annoying to ever flip red or blue. It will frustrate us for the rest of our lives, constantly being just slightly redder than the county as a whole.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The Economist has the presidency at 95% Biden, the house guaranteed, and the Senate at 83% probability to go Dem.

Wow that's pretty crazy coming from a conservative magazine.

[ISiddiqui]

Well The Economist is far more Classic Liberal Conservative. So they hate everything Trump stands for aside from tax cuts .