View Poll Results: Will Trump win in 2020?
Yes 135 47.54%
No 149 52.46%
Voters: 284. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-19-2019, 01:53 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, if the Dems win Fla, the numbers change.
Correct, there is just about no way for a Republican to win the presidency without Florida.
  #52  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:05 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Until we know who he’s running against, it’s pointless to speculate about the result.
Job Number One is for Dems to convince one another that they will be voting for the Democratic candidate named "Not Donald Trump," sorta like the Orlando Sentinel suggested yesterday. Oops, I guess in the interest of fair play that's the "failing" Orlando Sentinel.
  #53  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:11 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,467
Trump supporters (most Republicans) are one- or two-issue voters: abortion, gun rights

Democrats have too many issues to promote and must also defend themselves from the single issue people. This makes their efforts too dilute to be effective.

So, Trump.

(gawd help us all)
  #54  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:30 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
KarlGauss, don't forget about the single-issue voters whose one issue is "libtard tears". They're an important part of Trump's coalition, too.
  #55  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Trump supporters (most Republicans) are one- or two-issue voters: abortion, gun rights

Democrats have too many issues to promote and must also defend themselves from the single issue people. This makes their efforts too dilute to be effective.

So, Trump.

(gawd help us all)
Single issue gun votes are maybe 5% of gun owners, and they have voted GOP for quite some time, we still got Obama and Bill Clinton. Trump is no friend to gun owners, anyway. Same with abortion, since on the left you got single issue Choice voters.
  #56  
Old 06-19-2019, 03:58 PM
Mean Mr. Mustard's Avatar
Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Until we know who he’s running against, it’s pointless to speculate about the result.
More pointless than posting that a thread is pointless?


mmm
  #57  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:08 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
I think he'll win. As soon as the Democrats replace "Not Donald Trump" with a real name on the ballot it's going to be downhill for them.
Trump has a rock solid base that won't abandon him under any foreseeable circumstance, and it's dispersed enough to leverage the electoral map better than the Democratic field is. He'll fight dirty as hell, relentlessly attacking any opponent with no regard for the truth, and based on what I see on FaceBook, he'll have an army of followers who are as truth-agnostic as he is. At the end of the election, the politics of division and fear is going to resonate more than anything and anyone the Democrats put forth.

I hope I am proven wrong, but my faith in America and my fellow citizens is certainly lower than it's ever been.
  #58  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:26 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,821
I don't see how he doesn't get re-elected, excepting a recession or a botched disaster response. (Others have said this too, and I agree with it.)

Maybe its for the best. He is going to fuck shit up, of course, but the economy is going to hit the crapper sooner or later. If Rando-Democrat gets elected in 2020 and there is a recession right after they hit office, President Rando-D gets blamed for it. The Republican party, who's "stay the fuck on message ability" is vastly more superior than the DNC's, points to the recession and they get elected again.

The House Democrats are literally playing politics with the whole Mueller affair anyway, and people are seeing it. If they feel he should be impeached, they should just do it already, whether or not they are going to get the senate to convict. Its not supposed to matter if you are going to succeed if you are supposed to "do the right thing". If they aren't really doing it, then the trust isn't there.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #59  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:28 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, but that was very quickly discredited, so fast I never even saw the original.
I thought Facebook was refusing to take it down. It's "discredited" only if you subscribe to (like/follow) liberal groups on Facebook.

That's the problem with Facebook. Every user's experience is different. And mostly, our Facebook experience is determined by what advertisers want each of us to see. A Bernie supporter sees what advertisers want Bernie supporters to see. A Warren supporter sees something different.

Last edited by scr4; 06-19-2019 at 04:30 PM.
  #60  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:31 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,553
For True Trump Believers, the Magic Isn’t Lost
From Orlando...
Quote:
Under the tent, Joseph Belnome, a 43-year-old white man from New Jersey with “Trump” and “2020” stenciled in white eyeliner on either side of his buzz cut, looks at the sea of people with pride. “I’ve been following Trump since the day that he came down the escalator,” he says. “And I never regretted that decision because he’s been keeping every promise that he’s made since day one. And I’ve been defending him ever since because he’s been criticized and ridiculed ever since.”
...

Joining Belnome is Nick Fadael, a 29-year-old black man from New York. Fadael wears a red MAGA hat—though not the one Trump signed when he visited the White House as part of Turning Point USA’s Young Black Leadership Summit last fall. That one, Fadael says, he framed. “He’s not a politician to me. He’s one of us who happened to be sent to the White House to get the job done,” Fadael tells me. “Usually politicians lie; they don’t keep their promises or anything like that, and POTUS—promises made, promises kept. He’s the first guy who’s been ridiculed and bashed because he’s keeping his promises.”

A high moment of the past two years for Belnome, he says, was Trump’s “exoneration by the Mueller report.” (Trump was not exonerated by the Mueller report.) “That was a proud moment because I knew he’s been telling the truth from the beginning, and now it’s been proven by our Justice Department.” Really, though, he adds, “when is there not a proud moment when you have Donald Trump as your president?” Fadael jumps in. “Here’s what I’m most proud of,” he says. “He tweeted yesterday that those millions of people that got into the border are being deported ASAP. That one: number one.” As the rain stops, the two say they plan to go find the Fox News tent.
...

Rick Carter, a 58-year-old white man, is here from Indiana for his fourth rally. His self-designed cap and T-shirt both read: My president tweets!!! “Ever since he was elected president, they say they didn’t like it,” he explains, referring to the media and/or Democrats, “and when they don’t like something, I love it.”
...

“So,” she ["Chris," a Trump supporter] says, turning back to me. “I’m here today because I think he’s the greatest president there ever was in this country.” I ask her if there’s anything Trump could do that would make her rethink her support. “No,” she says.
...
What delusional planet are these people living on? There's more, but I can't read any more. <heart sinking>
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #61  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:04 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
I think Trump's odds in 2016 were, what, 1 out of 7? The dice rolled in his favor that year, but that doesn't mean betting against him was dumb.

His polling numbers have also gone down. You can say the polls were a mystery in 2016, but in 2019 they are a mystery that have gone down. That shouldn't make anyone more confident in Trump.

Hard to say, but he barely squeaked a victory in 2016, and things haven't gotten better.
  #62  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I think Trump's odds in 2016 were, what, 1 out of 7? The dice rolled in his favor that year, but that doesn't mean betting against him was dumb.

His polling numbers have also gone down. You can say the polls were a mystery in 2016, but in 2019 they are a mystery that have gone down. That shouldn't make anyone more confident in Trump.

Hard to say, but he barely squeaked a victory in 2016, and things haven't gotten better.
Nate Silver had him about 1 out of 3 in 2016.
  #63  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:38 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nate Silver had him about 1 out of 3 in 2016.
It was 28.6% to be exact.. So, less than 1 in 3.

Even if true, it's still smart to take 2/3 odds over 1/3 odds every time. Especially the second time. Doesn't guarantee a win, but probabilities aren't guarantees.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-19-2019 at 05:40 PM.
  #64  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:01 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Maybe a poll guessing what 538’s odds are election eve? ��

I take 20% or less. Still too high for comfort.
  #65  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:19 PM
jebert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I voted "yes", because I have completely given up on the American public. I think that there are way, way too many idiots out there. And Trump's minions will probably engineer a war or something
Except for the "engineer a war" part, I'm fully in line with this.
  #66  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:30 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebert View Post
Except for the "engineer a war" part, I'm fully in line with this.
Are you joking? John Bolton, Trump's national security advisor, has wanted war with Iran for a long time. Who is the opposing voice?

I don't think Trump wants a war with Iran because I don't think Trump really conceives of wanting anything beyond cheating at a round of golf, having a nice lunch and watching flattering things on Fox. I don't think Trump is engineering a war on Iran because he doesn't engineer anything. What he does is sow chaos and look for opportunity to advance his interests. It's incredibly dangerous that John Bolton is in the middle of this chaos, unopposed by a confirmed Secretary of Defense. This is very fertile territory for an "accidental" war. We are already seeing sparks fly and nobody is trying to de-escalate.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-19-2019 at 07:31 PM.
  #67  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:50 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, if the Dems win Fla, the numbers change.


If the Democrats win Florida but don’t carry Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania they lose 261-277 in the EC.

Democrats have won statewide races in those three states in recent elections but not in Florida. The 2018 midterms were a disaster for Democrats in Florida. I am convinced that is an indicator the state is moving in a much more Trumpian direction. If the Democrats carry Florida in 2020 they will also carry the three Rust Belt states. The fantasy aspect of what I said is that focusing on Florida while ignoring those states will result in defeat. The Democrats shouldn’t write Florida off but the priority should be on bringing those three states back to the D column.
  #68  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Correct, there is just about no way for a Republican to win the presidency without Florida.
Just to highlight what Kolak of Twilo posted above: flipping FL to Blue, the Republican losing FL last election would have been an R win.

If the D loses those three they don't need FL, if they win FL but lose those three they lose. Unless you ALSO flip AZ I guess.

In any case it doesn't change the validity of the answer to the question: the popular vote won can be very large with an EC loss depending on where the votes are. Big vote margins in big states still only give the same number of electors and a few votes over the other way in the tipping point states still tip the EC.
  #69  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:06 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Just to highlight what Kolak of Twilo posted above: flipping FL to Blue, the Republican losing FL last election would have been an R win.

If the D loses those three they don't need FL, if they win FL but lose those three they lose. Unless you ALSO flip AZ I guess.
...
Those three dont go together as a set, you know.
  #70  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:43 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Demographically they kind of do.

They are fairly well correlated as states go and a focus on the issues that are most likely to deliver one is likely to similarly impact the others. They are also in 2020 all three demographically at the point that the same turnouts and shares of 2016 would have delivered wins there. AZ and FL, not. Clinton spent tons trying to win FL, it's where she spent the most on ads and tied for for battleground where she spent the most days ... which wouldn't have done it for her if she had won it. If she spent a bit less money and time there and instead more in MI, WI (spent no days there), and PA, maybe the result would have been different.

I refer you to the chart on this old 538 article. MI and WI are very tightly correlated and PA not too far behind. (OH is also shifts pretty much in lockstep with MI and WI but is a few points more R as its start)
Quote:
As you can see in the chart, the model assumes that all states’ outcomes are positively correlated. But some are much more correlated than others. In particular, the Midwestern swing states are liable to behave similarly to one another.
  #71  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:01 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You’ve got to win those last three states [PA, MI, and WI].
Jeez, it's as if people have forgotten Iowa continues to exist after February 3 of next year.

Just 7 months ago, the Dems won 3 of Iowa's 4 CDs, and nearly ousted Steve King in the fourth one. They're in better shape to win IA than WI next year.

The Dems definitely need to win back PA and MI, I won't argue that. But WI isn't a must-win state; they can win Iowa instead, and AFAICT they're more likely to win Iowa.
  #72  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:42 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,981
Elections have been won without Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, and Iowa, or a combination of those.

I think it would be interesting if anyone won anything without Ohio.

The Presidency has been won with Ohio every election year since 1964. And only once since 1944 has Ohio not picked the winner, and only twice since 1892!

I'm sure John Kerry would agree with me.
  #73  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:46 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
At this point, I would put the odds of a Trump re-election at better than 50/50. Of course "at this point" is almost a year and a half before the election, So I would give two-to-one that I will bet wrong.

Regards,
Shodan
  #74  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:05 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
At this point, I would put the odds of a Trump re-election at better than 50/50. Of course "at this point" is almost a year and a half before the election, So I would give two-to-one that I will bet wrong.
Did you predict 50/50 in 2016 also? If your prediction has changed, what factors have caused it to change?
  #75  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:28 AM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Other relevant questions: "do I think there will be an election in 2020"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer View Post
I have a strong feeling there will be no vote. Tr*mp will manufacture a crisis to prevent it. He's closely following the Fascist playbook.
I the Democratic electorate is as delusional as you two in this respect, Trump may win despite his best efforts.


This has been a refrain from both sides for the last half dozen or so elections. "Clinton won't leave office!", "W won't allow an election!", "Obama will cancel the election!", "Trump won't respect the results of the election!"


We held elections in the middle of the freakin' Civil War. If Trump is defeated, he will leave office on January 20, 2021. If re-elected, he will leave office on January 20, 2025. Period.
  #76  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:09 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Is it accurate to label 2018 a "disaster" for Florida Democrats? The Dem candidates lost the Senate seat and governorship by 10,000 and 33,000 respectively out of over eight million ballots cast. The House went 16-11 against them, true, but the state won't be voting by House district for President next year.
  #77  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:23 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Jeez, it's as if people have forgotten Iowa continues to exist after February 3 of next year.

Just 7 months ago, the Dems won 3 of Iowa's 4 CDs, and nearly ousted Steve King in the fourth one. They're in better shape to win IA than WI next year.

The Dems definitely need to win back PA and MI, I won't argue that. But WI isn't a must-win state; they can win Iowa instead, and AFAICT they're more likely to win Iowa.
Trump won Iowa by 10 points while losing the national popular vote by 2.

It was within 1 point in Wisconsin.

It’s more likely to shift IA by more than ten than shift WI by less than one?

Midterms were a wave election. Might win IA in a wave election, a landslide. But will already have won.
__________________
Oy.
  #78  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:47 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Did you predict 50/50 in 2016 also?
I don't think I voted in the poll linked to in the OP, but I thought Hilary would win - not necessarily in a landslide, but pretty easily. I didn't want her to win, but I thought she would.

I didn't want Trump to win either, so I voted for the Libertarian candidate - not because I thought he had any chance, but if the Libertarian party in my state got 5% of the vote they would get major party status and would appear automatically on future ballots and they wouldn't have to do the signature and petition thing anymore.

That didn't work either.
Quote:
If your prediction has changed, what factors have caused it to change?
Trump won.

- The advantage in a Presidential election is to the incumbent. That isn't always a lock, as witnessed by Carter, Bush 41, and Ford, but a race between an incumbent and a challenger has a different dynamic than one between two non-incumbents, and the incumbent usually has the edge.

- The economy is doing quite well. That gives a large advantage to an incumbent President, whether he or she is actually responsible for the economy, or not. (Usually not.) Obviously that could change in the next year and a half, and maybe even it can be plausibly blamed on his dumb trade policies. But unless it does change, the advantage is still Trump.

The times when the incumbent lost usually have some over-riding factor to offset incumbent advantage.

Ford pardoned Nixon, the economy sucked, and Ford said stupid stuff about Poland, and it was still close.

Carter lost because the economy sucked, and because he said stupid stuff about malaise and Reagan offered hope and confidence. It wasn't particularly close, though.

Bush 41 lost because the economy sucked, and because Reagan's coat tails wore off after four years. And because Bill Clinton was the best pure politician of his generation. He (Clinton) was really, really good at politics. Bush 41 was a stellar resume and not much charisma. Also, Ross Perot. It wasn't close, very much - Clinton got less than half the vote, Bush got way less than half the vote, and then Clinton was re-elected (also with less than half the vote) because the economy was doing well.

A lot depends (of course) on who gets the Democratic nod. Sanders? Trump, easily. Warren, Booker, Harris? Trump, easily. Buttigieg? Trump. Biden? Closer, but still advantage Trump. Biden suffers from some of Hilary's drawbacks - he's not black, so he won't get the black turnout that Obama got, he is a gaffe machine and it will take some spin to get around that. Mostly, he is like Hilary and Bob Dole and John Kerry and even Bush Sr. - not necessarily popular or beloved on his or her own - it's just their turn.

As mentioned, polls mean virtually nothing at this stage. And my track record as a prognosticator is on a par with the Psychic Hot Line.

Regards,
Shodan
  #79  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:07 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
The only way Trump wins is if Democrats somehow commit a major gaffe that trips them up. Otherwise, Democrats have a 1-mile lead in this marathon.
  #80  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:21 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,553
Reading about Iran shooting down the drone today... makes me wonder if thump wants to engineer some kind of military conflict (just short of an all-out WAR) that will blow up right around the time of the election and distract everyone. Kind of like Munchausen's by Proxy, where he brings the country to the brink of disaster so he can play the hero and save the day. I'm not saying he's capable of actually planning and executing this, but that he has some vague idea that a "sort-of" war might be just what he needs to secure the win (re-election).
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #81  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:05 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Reading about Iran shooting down the drone today... makes me wonder if thump wants to engineer some kind of military conflict (just short of an all-out WAR) that will blow up right around the time of the election and distract everyone. Kind of like Munchausen's by Proxy, where he brings the country to the brink of disaster so he can play the hero and save the day. I'm not saying he's capable of actually planning and executing this, but that he has some vague idea that a "sort-of" war might be just what he needs to secure the win (re-election).
I would if I were him. Nothing will fire up his base like blowing up a bunch of stuff in a country with brown people, even if his base's kids will eventually be the ones who die cleaning up the mess over there. And (as we saw in 2003-4), lots of people in the middle are gullible enough to believe what the WH says in the lead-up to a war, and then reluctant to change leadership once the war is underway.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 06-20-2019 at 11:06 AM.
  #82  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:18 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
As mentioned, polls mean virtually nothing at this stage. And my track record as a prognosticator is on a par with the Psychic Hot Line.
Agreed, it sounds like you are weighing the economy quite heavily. It's a valid approach, but 18 months is a hugely long window for the economy to change (like anything else).

Another issue with overweighting the economic aspect... historically, if the stock market was doing well, average Americans would see that in their paycheck. That's been less true for quite a while. In fact one could argue this is why average people didn't choose Hillary as a third Obama term. The economy was doing quite well but average Americans weren't seeing it, and many still aren't.

As for the incumbent advantage... well, there is that, but Trump's popularity in early presidency has (AFAIK) been lower than anyone else in early presidency. His popularity doesn't seem to be tracking with the economy.
  #83  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:02 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
... then reluctant to change leadership once the war is underway.
Mainly this part. But the timing will be everything. The election has to happen before a lot of the MAGAbots kids are killed over there.
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #84  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I...

Carter lost because the economy sucked, and because he said stupid stuff about malaise and Reagan offered hope and confidence. It wasn't particularly close, though.

...

A lot depends (of course) on who gets the Democratic nod. Sanders? Trump, easily. Warren, Booker, Harris? Trump, easily. Buttigieg? Trump. Biden? Closer, but still advantage Trump. Biden suffers from some of Hilary's drawbacks - he's not black, so he won't get the black turnout that Obama got, he is a gaffe machine and it will take some spin to get around that. ...
And the Iran hostage crisis hurt Carter.

Harris could win vs Trump.

Biden is very popular among minorities, but yes, gaffes.
  #85  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:51 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Biden is very popular among minorities, but yes, gaffes.
Kind of funny (and sadly, true) we think gaffes might be a problem for Biden, when Trump is basically a walking 24/7 gaffe machine.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #86  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:12 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Kind of funny (and sadly, true) we think gaffes might be a problem for Biden, when Trump is basically a walking 24/7 gaffe machine.
It has never been a fair fight wrt the standards Dem candidates are held to vs Trump and I just don't fucking understand it.
  #87  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:19 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Agreed, it sounds like you are weighing the economy quite heavily. It's a valid approach, but 18 months is a hugely long window for the economy to change (like anything else).
That's certainly true.
Quote:
In fact one could argue this is why average people didn't choose Hillary as a third Obama term.
Obama didn't have very long coat tails in general, and Hilary wasn't VP or anything that could be associated with the economy. Whether or not Obama's coat tails help Biden now (providing he gets the nod) remains to be seen - it's been four years. Maybe if Obama enthusiastically endorses Biden, early and often, maybe it will. Maybe.
Quote:
As for the incumbent advantage... well, there is that, but Trump's popularity in early presidency has (AFAIK) been lower than anyone else in early presidency. His popularity doesn't seem to be tracking with the economy.
That's the elephant in the room - I no longer trust polls when it comes to Trump. All the polls said Hilary was going to win, and she didn't. Back in 2016, there were polls saying that various Democrats would beat Trump head-to-head.

I do think there is a real factor of "you aren't really going to vote for HIM, are you?" behind a lot of the polling and coverage of the 2016 election. And I don't think that has gotten any less. There is some truth to the idea of living in a bubble.

But we shall see. I find it interesting that, even on a message board as progressive-leaning (to say the least) as the SDMB, as of this post those voting that they think Trump will be re-elected are outnumbered by those thinking he won't - by one vote.

Regards,
Shodan
  #88  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
All the polls said Hilary was going to win, and she didn't.
Most of the national polls said she would win the popular vote, and she did. The state polls were much more mixed, but such that Nate Silver rated that she had about a 70% chance or so of winning the electoral college (which meant Trump had a 30% chance). The polls really weren't that far off -- this narrative is vastly inflated.
  #89  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:25 PM
Cat Whisperer's Avatar
Cat Whisperer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lethbridge, AB.
Posts: 49,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
I the Democratic electorate is as delusional as you two in this respect, Trump may win despite his best efforts.<snip>
Perhaps you're right, and Tr*mp not allowing the election to proceed is too far. One of Tr*mp's biggest assets, though, is people's willingness to underestimate him. He comes across as a complete incompetent buffoon, but he is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! As they say in sports, scoreboard, bitches.

Maybe what will actually happen is Tr*mp simply refusing to acknowledge any loss.

ETA: I should say, I think this is an extremely germane point, because you all are having this discussion like nothing in US American politics has changed. Tr*mp has changed *everything,* and if the Democrats don't see that and work with it, they will lose again.

Last edited by Cat Whisperer; 06-20-2019 at 02:28 PM.
  #90  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:41 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Most of the national polls said she would win the popular vote, and she did. The state polls were much more mixed, but such that Nate Silver rated that she had about a 70% chance or so of winning the electoral college (which meant Trump had a 30% chance). The polls really weren't that far off -- this narrative is vastly inflated.
Apart from being wrong, they weren't that far off.

My point is that I don't think the polls are that far off now.

Old joke: Football player is about to lose his eligibility for flunking all his courses. The coach pleads with the professor to pass the player. Finally, the professor agrees that if the player can answer one question right, he will pass. The coach and player agree.

The professor asks the player: "How much is nine plus four?" The player, after much thought, answers "Eleven?" The professor says, "Sorry, you flunk."

"Oh come on, prof!" says the coach. "He was only off by one!"

My concern is that the polls are only off by one.

Regards,
Shodan
  #91  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Apart from being wrong, they weren't that far off.



My point is that I don't think the polls are that far off now.



Old joke: Football player is about to lose his eligibility for flunking all his courses. The coach pleads with the professor to pass the player. Finally, the professor agrees that if the player can answer one question right, he will pass. The coach and player agree.



The professor asks the player: "How much is nine plus four?" The player, after much thought, answers "Eleven?" The professor says, "Sorry, you flunk."



"Oh come on, prof!" says the coach. "He was only off by one!"



My concern is that the polls are only off by one.



Regards,

Shodan
The polls are almost always off by one or two or more. If someone says the polling aggregate shows X winning 51 49, and another guy says the polling shows that X will lose 60 40, then who is more accurate when the result is X losing 51 49? I think the first one.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #92  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:53 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Apart from being wrong, they weren't that far off.
If I say a probability of a certain event is 30%, and it happens, was I wrong? Am I only correct if I said 51% or higher?

Personally, if the weather forecast says 30% of rain, and it actually rains, I wouldn't call the weather service and tell them they were wrong.

Last edited by scr4; 06-20-2019 at 03:55 PM.
  #93  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:56 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I do think there is a real factor of "you aren't really going to vote for HIM, are you?" behind a lot of the polling and coverage of the 2016 election. And I don't think that has gotten any less. There is some truth to the idea of living in a bubble.

But we shall see. I find it interesting that, even on a message board as progressive-leaning (to say the least) as the SDMB, as of this post those voting that they think Trump will be re-elected are outnumbered by those thinking he won't - by one vote.
The big difference is that back then we were guessing, and now we're factoring in observed events.

Yet again I point out... even if polls are giving unreliable figures, that unreliable figure has gone down, not up. Given that Trump supporters are more emboldened, it seems unlikely that more people are lying to the polls, and more likely that he's just getting less popular.

And... Trump's behavior and governance is now a revealed factor as well. Some people approve, some people don't, but nobody can now say "Give him a chance to show us who he is." That's going to peel off some conservatives and swing voters.
  #94  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:15 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
If I say a probability of a certain event is 30%, and it happens, was I wrong? Am I only correct if I said 51% or higher?
Polls are not forecasts. They are a sampling exercise. If the observed behavior doesn't match the sampling behavior, then they were wrong.
  #95  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:24 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Polls are not forecasts. They are a sampling exercise. If the observed behavior doesn't match the sampling behavior, then they were wrong.
When you compare polling results to election outcomes, you are treating the poll as a forecast. (Unless it's an exit poll.)

Also, many people & organizations made predictions (i.e. forecasts) based on polls. The 30% probability of Trump win was a forecast by FiveThirtyEight based on polling data.
  #96  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:47 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
When you compare polling results to election outcomes, you are treating the poll as a forecast. (Unless it's an exit poll.)
Polls are not probabilistic exercises, period. You compared them to weather forecasts and that's wrong.

Quote:
Also, many people & organizations made predictions (i.e. forecasts) based on polls. The 30% probability of Trump win was a forecast by FiveThirtyEight based on polling data.
This is a non-sequitur. Polling data is polling data. Forecasts are forecasts. One is probabilistic, one isn't.
  #97  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:59 PM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,153
Trump barely squeaked by in 2016, there is zero chance he does better in 2020.
  #98  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
Trump barely squeaked by in 2016, there is zero chance he does better in 2020.
It depends on the state of the country and the quality of the opposition. I'd also keep open the possibility of a third party spoiler, who comes in and shaves off just enough votes to screw over the Dem nominee. Maybe Howard Schultz or Jill Stein runs, or maybe a jilted Democrat like Bernie or Yang gets disgruntled because he's not taken as seriously as he believes he should be.
  #99  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Polls are not forecasts. They are a sampling exercise. If the observed behavior doesn't match the sampling behavior, then they were wrong.
This is ignorance of what polls represent. A poll reported as a 4 point lead (as the average of the polls said before the 2016 election) is NOT stating that the result will be 4 and results with a lead of 6 or 2 are not "wrong". Individual polls and polls in aggregate are stating probabilities. There are confidence intervals in polls which do not disappear when they are aggregated. And polls must be interpreted with awareness that polling errors often correlate together. If one is for some reason other than sampling off by 2 one way the other, others will likely also be too.

If you believe that the polls saying candidate A is leading the popular vote by 4% and she ends up leading the actual vote by 2% means that polls are worthless then you are simply wrong. And that is precisely what happened in 2016. 2 points off one way or the other is the rough average for how the national polls perform. And have less confidence in the precision of state level ones.

Forecasting is done by using the polls and by interpreting them. It was very reasonable to look at the polls and to state with some confidence that the odds were good that the result would fall somewhere roughly between Clinton +6 and Clinton +2. It was unreasonable to look at them and say that the polls meant the result was going to be Clinton +4 exactly. And smaller of a Clinton blow out of +8 or of a tie.

Problem was the exact way the votes played out to Clinton +2, within the expected result range, which resulted in a Trump EC win. Something that 538 in fact modeled as a distinct possible outcome in 10% of their simulation runs.


If I order a lab test and ignorantly misinterpret the result of the test then I am wrong, not the test.
  #100  
Old 06-21-2019, 12:06 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
Trump barely squeaked by in 2016, there is zero chance he does better in 2020.
The thing is, he doesn't have to do better. All he has to do is the same as in 2016.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017