Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Skinypupy]

I don’t know how it works in other states but here in Utah (a vote by mail state), there are still plenty of polling places available for people who don’t choose to mail in their ballots. It’s an either/or voting solution, not exclusively one or the other.

I assume CA is the same and Trump is just being a moron as always, but figured I’d better check.

[YellowKing]

Yes, I'm sure California, which has gone Democrat in every Presidential election since 1988, was just about to go full #MAGA until the libs stole the election with a single voting booth.

[gbasden]

I don’t know how it works in other states but here in Utah (a vote by mail state), there are still plenty of polling places available for people who don’t choose to mail in their ballots. It’s an either/or voting solution, not exclusively one or the other.

I assume CA is the same and Trump is just being a moron as always, but figured I’d better check.

I've been voting by mail for years and have always had the option to either drop off my mail in ballot in person or go vote in person and have my ballot held to make sure I didn't also send in my mail in ballot. I have to assume they will continue to have some in-person sites for those that didn't get their ballot in the mail or lost it.

And you never have to worry that Trump is an idiot. It's a given.

[Alefroth]

Yes, I'm sure California, which has gone Democrat in every Presidential election since 1988, was just about to go full #MAGA until the libs stole the election with a single voting booth.

It's referring to a special election to replace Rep. Katie Hill, but yeah, the sentiment that making sure everyone gets to vote is somehow stealing an election is repugnant.

[YellowKing]

Ah gotcha. Still doesn't make it any less reprehensible. He'll be singing the same sad sob story for the presidential elections.

[Defiant]

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1260267215921844225

Spoiler:

TRANSITION TO GREATNESS

That’s the plan. http://IWillVote.com

[Holman]

Oh. Well, this is reassuring:

Kushner Cleans Up Remark Saying He’s ‘Not Sure’ He ‘Can Commit’ To Election Being Held As Scheduled

Jared Kushner, White House senior adviser and son-in-law to President Donald Trump, clarified on Tuesday his alarming comment about the upcoming elections potentially being pushed back from November 3.

“I have not been involved in, nor am I aware of any discussions about trying to change the date of the Presidential election,” Kushner said in a statement.

During a Time interview with Kushner earlier in the day, reporters Tessa Berenson and Brian Bennett asked the White House official about the possibility of the COVID-19 outbreak delaying the elections.

“I’m not sure I can commit one way or the other, but right now that’s the plan,” Kushner replied. “Hopefully by the time we get to September, October, November, we’ve done enough work with testing and with all the different things we’re trying to do to prevent a future outbreak of the magnitude that would make us shut down again.”

Breathe easy, everyone.

[YellowKing]

That little weasel doesn't have jack shit power to change the election date, but just like his other cronies he wants to plant the idea that he does. I don't for a second believe statements like that are accidental.

Jared: <Spends months implying the election could be postponed>

Actual election comes along

Jared: "The libs won't let us change the date! They're trying to steal the election! They don't care about your safety!"

[stessier]

SC changed the absentee rules for the June primary (now you don't need a reason to get a ballot) . They said they would address the November election in September and they don't believe a general, permanent change is needed. Sigh.

[Unagi]

SC changed the absentee rules for the June primary (now you don't need a reason to get a ballot) . They said they would address the November election in September and they don't believe a general, permanent change is needed. Sigh.

Well, at least that’s something. And precedence is a really big thing.

[malchior]

It's early but despite the complete failure on Coronavirus one early poll has Trump ahead in battleground states but behind nationally. It's a one off right now but this is an ominous sign that the United States is rumbling towards a failure point. This would be the worst case. Trump winning an electoral college victory again and getting crushed in the national vote. The nation would crack wide open if that happened.

[El Guapo]

It's early but despite the complete failure on Coronavirus one early poll has Trump ahead in battleground states but behind nationally. It's a one off right now but this is an ominous sign that the United States is rumbling towards a failure point. This would be the worst case. Trump winning an electoral college victory again and getting crushed in the national vote. The nation would crack wide open if that happened.

Main thing - it's one poll, most polls (including this one) show Biden with a 5% - 7% lead. If he maintains that lead (too early) it's probably too large for the electoral college to save Trump (not counting shenanigans for now).

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Trump has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Trump's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

[Defiant]

IIRC, there was at least one other national poll with a swing state subgroup that had Biden doing well in swing states overall, another that showed that Biden was winning older voters in the swing states (but Trump was still winning them nationally), and a bunch of polls of individual swing states that had Biden with (small) leads.

Trump could absolutely win the election, but I wouldn't take any single poll too seriously (and I'd take all polls this far back - both those that look good and those that look bad - with a pinch of salt. it's really only after labor day that the picture becomes clearer)

[Defiant]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Trump has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Trump's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Trump is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

[El Guapo]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Trump has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Trump's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Trump is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

On average? A poll showing Biden up 5 nationally but down 7 in Virginia (or New Mexico!) is borderline nonsensical.

[malchior]

it could just be exposing incredible polarization. We don't know yet. Still if anywhere near accurate, how is it that any "independents" could look at the current state of things and think it is a toss up? The whole thing is bonkers.

[Defiant]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Trump has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Trump's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Trump is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

On average? A poll showing Biden up 5 nationally but down 7 in Virginia (or New Mexico!) is borderline nonsensical.

That would be the number for all those states together, not any particular state. Also, the sample size was around 300, so there's a ~6% margin of error.

[Defiant]

it could just be exposing incredible polarization. We don't know yet. Still if anywhere near accurate, how is it that any "independents" could look at the current state of things and think it is a toss up? The whole thing is bonkers.

Because, as your quotation marks suggest, most independents are only independent by name.

[Kraken]

Biden hasn't started campaigning yet -- or, if he has, nobody can tell. I won't put any credence in polls until after he names his running mate and is anointed at the convention, if there is one.

[malchior]

I see the polls right now as a sensitivity metric. We know where the action is going to be. What is the mood? How suggestable are people? What is the baseline risk level? Etc.

He is aside from this outlier polling historically bad but not out of line from before coronavirus. I had expectations he would see a bigger sag with the insane press conferences and horrendous response. Maybe that will come into focus but people clearly have no idea what is really happening out there. We will see but also we have so many red blinking lights it is hard to tell which ones matter right now.

[Max Peck]

Of course Biden is campaigning. He (or his staffers, at least) are active on all the expected social media platforms, like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram (but not TikTok, for some reason -- how he'll ever reach the youth vote without a TikTok presence is beyond me).

[malchior]

It's not very effective. That first link has as many views in 4 weeks as the Unreal PS5 demo had in 6 hours today. That isn't totally surprising but he has to get much more aggressive about his presence.

[Defiant]

He's never going to get much traction right now. It's like what Clinton had to contend with when she was running and campaigning and the media ignored her speeches to watch Trump, only now he's the incumbent *and* there's a national emergency going on which both brings more attention to Trump, limits what Biden can do, and distracts people from the election.

But while I think the media should ignore when Trump speaks (since it's bullshit anyways), at least it puts all his bumbling for all to see, and gives plenty of opportunities for him to say something that the Biden camp can use against him in devastating negative ads (as they've already done)

[El Guapo]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Trump has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Trump's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Trump is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

On average? A poll showing Biden up 5 nationally but down 7 in Virginia (or New Mexico!) is borderline nonsensical.

That would be the number for all those states together, not any particular state. Also, the sample size was around 300, so there's a ~6% margin of error.

What's the point of an average across those states? The national number is relevant, and the number within a given state is relevant.

And even with that caveat, a poll showing Biden ahead by 5 nationally and down 7 across those states is odd. On top of that the poll has Trump and Biden close among young voters, which is also an odd result.

Anyway, the real answers on this stuff is that: (1) one poll is worth very little; (2) Trump *probably* has an electoral college edge of some amount (though that can change significantly from election to election - e.g., Obama had an electoral college edge in 2012); (3) if Biden is ahead by 5 - 7 points in national polls on election day, Trump's electoral college edge is unlikely to be enough to allow him to win, absent shenanigans.

[Defiant]

What's the point of an average across those states? The national number is relevant, and the number within a given state is relevant.

One could say "What's the point of a poll six months from Election Day?", too.

And I would consider it as relevant as the national numbers - assuming it was accurate, I'd rather know who's ahead in the swing states than who is ahead in the country as a whole (even though you could have a misleading situation where someones is ahead only because they're winning by landslides in a few of those states, while losing by a slim margin in the others)

[YellowKing]

Pod Save America had a guy on last episode talking about how one of the more significant polling findings is how historically consistent Biden's lead has been. It's stayed at roughly 6% for months. While this can't necessarily guarantee a win, he did say that consistent polls early tend to point to consistent polls later. If so, that's very good news.

[Defiant]

An article referencing what you mention

Biden's lead is about as steady as it can possibly be. Not only is he up 6 points over the last month or so, but the average of polls since the beginning of the year has him ahead by 6 points. Moreover, all the polls taken since the beginning of 2019 have him up 6 points.
The steadiness in the polls is record breaking. Biden's advantage is the steadiest in a race with an incumbent running since at least 1944. That could mean it'll be harder to change the trajectory of the race going forward, though this remains more than close enough that either candidate could easily win.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/10/politics ... index.html

[El Guapo]

An article referencing what you mention

Biden's lead is about as steady as it can possibly be. Not only is he up 6 points over the last month or so, but the average of polls since the beginning of the year has him ahead by 6 points. Moreover, all the polls taken since the beginning of 2019 have him up 6 points.
The steadiness in the polls is record breaking. Biden's advantage is the steadiest in a race with an incumbent running since at least 1944. That could mean it'll be harder to change the trajectory of the race going forward, though this remains more than close enough that either candidate could easily win.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/10/politics ... index.html

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

[malchior]

But while I think the media should ignore when Trump speaks (since it's bullshit anyways), at least it puts all his bumbling for all to see, and gives plenty of opportunities for him to say something that the Biden camp can use against him in devastating negative ads (as they've already done)

Here's the rub in my mind. Are they really devastating? No one seems to care about them. Yet there is evidence you can have impact with smart targeting. The Lincoln Project guys put together that 'Mourning in America' video and ran it on *1* station and got Trump to meltdown. Prior to the melt down it had a lot of buzz already. Those guys were high fiving (via zoom) for sure. Biden's campaign just has not demonstrated that level of capability or ability to make impact. We have an example to show you can pierce through the media inattention. A small group of veterans out performed the campaign for a Presidential candidate. I hate to say this because people frown on it here but they have to be better.

[malchior]

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

The overconfidence that we see generally when people point at this trend (out in the blogosphere/media - not necessarily here) is unnerving to me here. I think you're onto something there. Both are well known and that is another risk if we can't move the needle and that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs. Did we need an Obama-type energizer right now to save the Republic? It's too early but I can't shake the feeling that the real risks weren't truly wrung out in the primary process.

[Kraken]

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

The overconfidence that we see generally when people point at this trend (out in the blogosphere/media - not necessarily here) is unnerving to me here. I think you're onto something there. Both are well known and that is another risk if we can't move the needle and that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs. Did we need an Obama-type energizer right now to save the Republic? It's too early but I can't shake the feeling that the real risks weren't truly wrung out in the primary process.

We have almost six more months of pandemic deaths and economic mayhem ahead of us. This election is a referendum on trump. If we keep bumping along with deaths at an acceptable level (as we've apparently decided they are) and the economy doesn't completely crater, then maybe today's polls will have some relevance. But the body count and the economy are what will decide this thing. Biden himself is an afterthought.

[El Guapo]

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

The overconfidence that we see generally when people point at this trend (out in the blogosphere/media - not necessarily here) is unnerving to me here. I think you're onto something there. Both are well known and that is another risk if we can't move the needle and that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs. Did we need an Obama-type energizer right now to save the Republic? It's too early but I can't shake the feeling that the real risks weren't truly wrung out in the primary process.

I'm unclear what the evidence is for "that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs". As we've discussed, Biden has held a consistent 6ish point lead in the poll. Very early to be confident in any way, and we have to factor in the high chance of some type of shenanigans, BUT in a fair election if Biden goes into election day with a 6 point lead, he's going to be a heavy favorite to win the election.

Unless you're talking about the poll that we've been discussing, but that's one poll that seems to have fairly weird results, and polling averages are what's meaningful in this kind of context anyway.

[Scoop20906]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Drumpf has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Drumpf's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Drumpf is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

On average? A poll showing Biden up 5 nationally but down 7 in Virginia (or New Mexico!) is borderline nonsensical.

Didn't the same type of thing happen in the primary to Biden right before South Carolina? I think there is more support for Biden than the polls are able to show.

[El Guapo]

One thing - is it just me, or does this article not actually give any details on the battleground polling? It says that Drumpf has an "edge", but it's unclear to me what that means - is that like Drumpf's only behind by 2%, or is it that he's ahead, or what? Also doesn't seem to say which states? Though I read it quickly, so may have missed stuff.

If you look at the poll itself, Drumpf is leading 52-45 in those states. They are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin

On average? A poll showing Biden up 5 nationally but down 7 in Virginia (or New Mexico!) is borderline nonsensical.

Didn't the same type of thing happen in the primary to Biden right before South Carolina? I think there is more support for Biden than the polls are able to show.

Sort of. Biden had a fairly steady lead in SC for most of the primary (friendly state to him given his strong support among African-American voters). Sanders was gaining some, but then Clyburn's endorsement happened and he had a couple decent debate performances. Then he really surged post SC based on his win there and other candidates dropping out and endorsing him.

[Blackhawk]

Honestly, I'm following along, but trying not anticipate anything. In any other election we could look at historical data and compare. That doesn't apply anymore. We've never had this situation. We've never had someone like Trump. We've never had this kind of interference. We've never had one party so blatantly willing to break the rules to win. We've never had an election where 'truth' was considered meaningless. We haven't had this much openly hostile partisanship since the 1860s. And we've not done this at the height of a pandemic.

It's like trying to solve an equation where everything is a variable. There's just nothing to work from. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Trump won by a landslide. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden did. I wouldn't be surprised to see a record number of unfaithful electors send the whole thing to congress. I wouldn't be surprised to see a contested victory with Trump refusing to give up power.

Looking back at 'normal' is meaningless. There are no norms.

So I have hopes, and I have dreams, but I try not to have expectations.

[malchior]

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

The overconfidence that we see generally when people point at this trend (out in the blogosphere/media - not necessarily here) is unnerving to me here. I think you're onto something there. Both are well known and that is another risk if we can't move the needle and that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs. Did we need an Obama-type energizer right now to save the Republic? It's too early but I can't shake the feeling that the real risks weren't truly wrung out in the primary process.

I'm unclear what the evidence is for "that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs". As we've discussed, Biden has held a consistent 6ish point lead in the poll. Very early to be confident in any way, and we have to factor in the high chance of some type of shenanigans, BUT in a fair election if Biden goes into election day with a 6 point lead, he's going to be a heavy favorite to win the election.

It's not evidence based yet. It's too early for any of this evidence to matter. That's my point. But it is used to justify that Biden being silent is ok. That it doesn't matter yet. The President is running his campaign right now every day. Out in the spotlight. That's the problem. This isn't the election to not pull out every stop and Biden has shown no capability to pierce through the noise. The noise is only going to get worse. They need to sharpen the tools now.

Unless you're talking about the poll that we've been discussing, but that's one poll that seems to have fairly weird results, and polling averages are what's meaningful in this kind of context anyway.

Not specifically that one...yet. Unless it gets backed up by other results. It is more the general sense that now is the time to show that he will step up his game to prepare for the shit show ahead.

Edit: To get specific on the needle comment, Trump carried those states. 2018 indicates he might be in trouble there but it's unclear if those results will hold. You have to labor under the assumption he keeps his coalition until you prove he doesn't. That's the overconfidence in action.

[malchior]

Holy shit. Dr. Bright is getting completely jock bullied by Rep Mullin from Oklahoma about 'not reporting to work' because he was on medical leave to treat his hypertension. Total piece of shit garbage human. Someone hopefully will defend him on this on the Democratic side. The Republicans are flat out bullying him now. Disgusting performance here.

Edit: Choice paraphrased comments - You are well enough to do interviews and prepare for this hearing but can't report to work? You were director of an agency, some people handle pressure differently but I would have thought you should be able to handle pressure?

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/12 ... 6961592320

[El Guapo]

I wonder if that's a factor of Trump and Biden being relatively 'known' entities in the general public - at this point substantially everyone has a set view of them that's going to be difficult to dislodge. Which, with a six point lead, would be good, though who knows how everything will shake out.

The overconfidence that we see generally when people point at this trend (out in the blogosphere/media - not necessarily here) is unnerving to me here. I think you're onto something there. Both are well known and that is another risk if we can't move the needle and that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs. Did we need an Obama-type energizer right now to save the Republic? It's too early but I can't shake the feeling that the real risks weren't truly wrung out in the primary process.

I'm unclear what the evidence is for "that needle points to Trump carrying the narrow coalition he needs". As we've discussed, Biden has held a consistent 6ish point lead in the poll. Very early to be confident in any way, and we have to factor in the high chance of some type of shenanigans, BUT in a fair election if Biden goes into election day with a 6 point lead, he's going to be a heavy favorite to win the election.

It's not evidence based yet. It's too early for any of this evidence to matter. That's my point. But it is used to justify that Biden being silent is ok. That it doesn't matter yet. The President is running his campaign right now every day. Out in the spotlight. That's the problem. This isn't the election to not pull out every stop and Biden has shown no capability to pierce through the noise. The noise is only going to get worse. They need to sharpen the tools now.

Unless you're talking about the poll that we've been discussing, but that's one poll that seems to have fairly weird results, and polling averages are what's meaningful in this kind of context anyway.

Not specifically that one...yet. Unless it gets backed up by other results. It is more the general sense that now is the time to show that he will step up his game to prepare for the shit show ahead.

Edit: To get specific on the needle comment, Trump carried those states. 2018 indicates he might be in trouble there but it's unclear if those results will hold. You have to labor under the assumption he keeps his coalition until you prove he doesn't. That's the overconfidence in action.

FWIW polling averages tend to show a Biden lead in swing states. Especially MI and PA.

That said, his lead is slightly narrower in several of those states, especially WI. But anyway, I agree that we shouldn't be overconfident, shouldn't assume by any means that Biden is a lock or a heavy favorite or anything. Especially given the high risk of shenanigans. But the thing is that I feel like almost all the coverage goes the other direction - tends to treat Trump as a favorite to win reelection, when most evidence suggests that he's a slight underdog at best.

[malchior]

Fair enough. I think there is a bit of an over correct happening in the media. They hate that they missed the boat on Trump's viability. They largely still won't acknowledge there own massive failures in 2016. The consequence is they are making sure they don't 'underestimate' Trump but also making many of the same mistakes. It is pretty bad.

[El Guapo]

Fair enough. I think there is a bit of an over correct happening in the media. They hate that they missed the boat on Trump's viability. They largely still won't acknowledge there own massive failures in 2016. The consequence is they are making sure they don't 'underestimate' Trump but also making many of the same mistakes. It is pretty bad.

Yeah, a lot of the bad practices that the media did in 2016 are causing them to overcorrect in the other direction. Most media outlets dismissed Trump's chances of winning the election despite polling consistently showing him within striking range (and in the GOP primary, polling consistently showing him winning). Rather than engage in why they failed to take Trump's chances seriously, and engage in how their own conduct contributed to his viability, they instead rely on some mix of "Trump has magical political powers!" or "polling means nothing!". And because Trump has magical powers and this mystical base out there in rural diners across America, he's probably going to win again, so no need to do any real analysis.