As we approach the final days of voting, monitoring the polls is making me more and more anxious as things ever increasingly favor Biden. I have to admit 2016 is haunting me, and I have a question about methodology for Nate Silver and others who aggregate polls.
This close, and with the millions of people who have already voted, wouldn’t traditional historical data be insignificant? I have never read the methodology used but have read numerous Dopers whom I trust to understand the math and convey the meaning –and they all seem satisfied. But at this point can’t we just rely on averages of polls. I desperately want to believe 270 to win, and Real Clear Politics, and Five-Thirty-Eight, but all weekend long I have heard that the 2020 race is identical to where the 2016 race at this point in time. The only difference is that Biden is much less unfavorable than Clinton was. Barring something spectacular on Thursday, are things genuinely going well or do I have to stay awake and never change my socks through Election Day? (Okay, I am not that superstitious – but I very much want to change my anxiety into the eagerness I felt a week ago.)
Speaking of Thursday’s debate- what is Trump going to hammer Biden about, what answers does Biden need to say in brief sentences, and what do you expect from Trump as far as demeanor and composure?
I presume Hunter Biden e-mails will come up. Also Biden raising taxes and tanking the economy, it seems they have abandoned Biden being cozy with China. If we could script the debate how would it go? I know the topics have been released.
I expect Trump to act much like he did in the first debate: interrupting, deflecting, and engaging in other un-Presidential behavior.
As for the “Hunter Biden e-mails,” can somebody explain what this is all about? On a message board I watch, whose membership seems to be mostly made up of Trumpers, they’re convinced that Hunter Biden’s e-mails/laptop/New York Post story/Chinese connections/Ukranian business are now the main issue in the election (not the corona virus, because that’s of course a hoax), and they will bring Joe Biden down.
Occasionally, they’ll throw in things like “child porn on Hunter’s laptop,” and “Hunter’s a pedophile and so is Joe,” but while I don’t believe any of that, I’m confused by the e-mails/laptop/etc. stuff. If someone could summarize this briefly, I’d appreciate it. It would certainly help me understand what I’m seeing over there.
Giuliani has met on several occasions with Russian intelligence assets to look for dirt on the Bidens.
A laptop surfaced under very strange circumstances, almost like it was planted. It is claimed that it is Hunter Biden’s laptop, with very little evidence.
-Pictures of emails were published October 15 by Rudy Giuliani and The New York Post. As they are pictures, not the actual emails, there is no way to verify them.
The Hunter laptop lapdance story burst on the scene so suddenly, and imploded so equally suddenly, that I haven’t even followed it much since then.
But am I right in seeing a headline that yet another laptop has been “discovered” under even stranger circumstances? This second one being the one that somebody said has pedo pix on it? I haven’t seen any more headlines about it (not that I’ve looked), but I think it got exactly zero traction. Is that right?
Sorry, guys, that trick only works once (if at all).
And did I see a headline that Director Of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe says there is NO evidence of Russian involvement in that? (I just quickly googled for some headlines I could cite, but only came up with a page of links to known right-wing shit, even including RT dot com.)
This sounds reminiscent of the Comey Affair of October 2016 that may have played a part in Hillary Clinton’s loss.
Sorry guys, that trick may have worked once, but it too won’t work twice.
This is not really true with respect to comparing 2016 to 2020, in at least 3 distinct ways.
The national averages are not really similar at all. I’ll use RCP for this, even though I don’t think they have a very robust method, because it’s probably good enough. Biden is running about 4 points better than HRC at this point (Biden is up 8.9 nationally, Clinton was up 5).
The trends for Clinton were very bad from here on out. She ended up about 3.5 in the RCP average, and won the popular vote by 2.
Swing states are a different story. RCP likes to use the “swing state average” to show that this is pretty similar to 2016. And in some cases it is (Wisconsin, Penn). But again it was all down-hill from here for Clinton - she ended up at +1.1 in the battlegrounds. Biden is currently at +4.
I’ll add one additional difference, which is the Biden number. In Wisconsin, for example, Clinton’s final average had her receiving 46.8% of the vote. She actually got 46.6%. The error was that it had Trump receiving 40.3% but he actually got 47%. About two of that came from folks saying they would vote Johnson who didn’t, but obviously Trump did very well with the undecided voters.
This year, by contrast, Biden has 49.7% in the RCP average. Clinton never got about 47% in 2016. So basically undecided and third-party voters can’t do it. There have to be Biden voters that change their mind. The low level of support for third parties and the low level of undecided voters make the possibly errors a bit smaller than in 2016.
So, for Trump to win (which is certainly possible, of course), you need a similar polling error to 2016 and something in the news between now and election day to move the national sentiment about 5 points away from Biden.
We discussed this in a thread after the first debate. They can mute Trump’s microphone, but that won’t stop him from shouting down Biden (and the moderator) there on the stage, even if the viewing audience can’t hear him. (And they will hear him, muffled, as he is picked up by the other microphones around anyway.) That could be enough to distract Biden and rattle him to the point he can’t keep his stream of thought intact.
I think the moderator should have a gavel. One of those bad-ass Klingon gavels that have amplifiers and shoot sparks.
Yes, unfortunately I fear Trump wants primarily to demonstrate alpha male status – he surely doesn’t want to discuss his policies or accomplishments (since he has neither).
As for the e-mails, I don’t know the details either but I was hoping some well informed and articulate Doper would provide a good, concise answer to the question however it is phrased. It has to be short enough to get it in before the inevitable interruption, but must also fully address the issue and provide a “last word on the subject” answer so at least the moderator can move on even if Trump himself harps upon the matter incessantly.
I hope this makes some difference, and also that the Trump team has well coached him to shut the eff up more to keep him from scaring off fence sitters. We know he was trying to create an atmosphere that would cause Biden to st stut stutter. I assume he will be trying to do that again despite the limitation of the microphone. Biden and the moderator will hear him even if we can’t – he wants to appear tough and make Biden appear weak and will stoop to any means to do so.
I hope the dead mic at least slows down Trumps dysfunction.
Well, with an unimpeachable moral character like Giuliani as a source what is to doubt??? It is a damn shame this nation has been reduced to these clowns using every means possible to retain power and avoid responsibility. Thank you for the explanation.
So possibly: “The source of these photos is suspect at best and the DNI of your administration, John Ratcliffe says there is . . . .” might be an answer that shuts down the topic?
Thank you! I knew someone smarter than me could help me understand this mess. I was believing this fully and completely last week, but over the weekend my knees started to quiver. Feel better now, and if things go well in the debate on Thursday I will go ahead and change my socks and turn my hat right side out. (Hey I was a blue collar guy from a previously firmly red state – some habits are hard to break!)
There is nothing to worry about concerning internal polling is there?
More seriously, campaigns only release internal polling if they want to. And there reasons are varied. As an example, one of Biden’s campaign staff was quoted as saying “we don’t think Biden is up by 10”. Now, did they say that because they have “scary internal numbers”, or did they say that so folks don’t think “oh, he’s up 10 I don’t need to vote”? It’s impossible to know.
It’s as pointless as trying to read into things like where the candidate is campaigning. “Oh no, Biden is in PA, he must think it’s at risk!” “Oh boy, Harris is in FL, they must think they can win it”. The reality is they don’t really know that much more than we do.
I do feel a bit better that there seems to be lots of talk but almost no actual evidence in the “Hunter Biden” e-mail stash (I put it in quotes since it hasn’t even been confirmed that it’s his). If what the NY Post put out last week was the most damaging stuff, then I don’t see much to worry about.
My guess is that Rudy is just flapping his gums about the other stuff, trying to make it seem bigger than it really is, but who really knows. It smells like a steaming pile of crap, but I can imagine Biden’s camp is a bit nervous since Hunter truly is (was?) a piece of work for a long time so who knows what crap he might have on a rogue laptop.
In one of those threads I suggested Biden’s Secret Service detail warn Trump that if he continually interrupts or behaves aggressively toward their primary they will treat it as a credible threat and act accordingly. Knowing what a horses ass Trump is – I suspect his own detail will warn him: “You better not make them think you are attacking their guy, they will taser you”.
It might give Trump pause before he stalks Biden like he did to Clinton even if he does continue to interrupt and behave un-presidential.
I am doing everything I can to be sure everyone gets to vote just like I did. I just hope when all is said and done Biden has won at least six more states than he needs for the 270 and all of them by a significant margin that a few contested ballots will not affect. Just to discourage Trump from even trying to overturn a single one of them. I don’t care if he never concedes as long as he loses bigly and wanders away in January.
This whole thing sounds like a poorly run confidence scheme.
Thanks for that. It helps a little to understand the mindset of those Trumpers who are posting that stuff.
They’re a strange group, but perhaps not. Anything that helps Trump, no matter how unethical or untrue, is just fine by them. This sounds like both, in a last desperate conspiratorial gasp to discredit Biden.
I find it interesting that you mention that the laptop in question was found “almost like it was planted,” and there is little evidence connecting it to Hunter Biden. I have no reason to doubt you, and I don’t doubt you; but the way these Trumpers have glommed onto “the laptop with the incriminating evidence is Hunter’s” as an established fact, not to be questioned, is frightening.
Several of my friends on Facebook have reposted this summary of the situation. There’s certainly some snark in here, and probably a little exaggeration, but from what I’ve read about the story, the facts, as laid out in this, are more or less accurate:
That is the most complete and understandable overview of the matter I have seen.
How do you condense that to a thirty second answer with Trump screaming “LOCK HIM UP!!” in your ear?
Something like: “I knew you would bring up this lame attempt to frame my son with your highly questionable material. I know it is all nonsense as do the American people. There is nothing there and you are using this ‘Trumped-up’ distraction to draw attention away from your failed leadership.”
If it was me, I would say: “put up or shut-up Mr. President, you have been called – file charges or shut up! There are no charges or even any investigation because Mr. Giuliani would be the one facing charges for trying to perpetrate a fraud.” But I am far too impulsive. How does Biden forcefully dismiss this without making it a bigger story.
One of the moments I liked from the first debate was when Biden said I will abide by the election results . . . and so will he (with a thumb pointed at Trump). He spoke for Trump like he was an underage brat who would not answer a question from an adult. I hope if this e-mail thing does come up in the debate, Biden can dismiss it without stooping to Trump like behavior.
I agree. My thanks go to kenobi_65 for that. It sounds a little “out there,” but if spreading such a narrative is what it takes for Trumpers to cast dirt on Joe Biden, they’ll run with it. From what I’ve seen so far, they are.
They show the poll tracking for the past four elections by electoral vote, both including states where the aggregate of polls for each state are within the margin of error, and excluding states where the aggregate is within the margin of error. The significance of excluding states where the aggegate is within the margin of error is that it recognises that the 2016 election was decided by states within the margin of error that all broke for Trump, generally within the margin of error. Just looking at the states where the aggregate is outside the margin of error gives a clearer impression of how things may go.
And if you look at the 2016 situation, excluding states within the margin of error, Clinton was steadily dropping throughout October, and never had over 270 states over the margin of error. And after the Comey announcement, she plummets.
That’s not what the aggregate of states excluding the margin of error is showing this time. Biden is above 270 in that aggregate, which suggests that even if the margin of error breaks in Trump’s favour again, Trump has a much harder situation than Biden.
When you look at the charts for all four of the last elections, focussing just on states outside the margin of error, the closest analogue is 2008 when it was Obama and some old white guy steadily outpolling McCain.
