Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[Grifman]

Big tell - he doesn’t think he’s going to win:

https://twitter.com/tackettdc/status/13 ... 75938?s=21

[malchior]

That sounds right - he doesn't want to be in a place where he'll be on tv with an expectation to concede. He is going to dig in and tear the motherfucker down.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I'm back to thinking Trump is going to win. PA is too close. This is bad.

As mentioned, Biden's lead in PA has been pretty consistent over the last few weeks. What will happen, however, is that Trump will likely be in the lead after election day votes are tallied, which are done first in PA. But over 2 million votes have already been cast early in PA and, just based on party affiliation, Dems hold a one million vote margin over Republicans. So if Trump's up by one million+ votes at the end of the day on Nov. 3, then I would start stressing.

[Grifman]

Battling polls - are Trump voters undercounted or shy?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... debate?amp

[wonderpug]

Wait. So it was electronic media. They had copies of. That could be transmitted instantly. By one of the largest media companies in the world. To an on air personality. By his producer. That they shipped by UPS.

So not only should they fuck the hell right off, but they are proclaiming publicly from the rooftops exactly how objectively stupid they are when it comes handling media as a media company.

Oh and we're still evaluating if we're going to tell you what's on the flash drive.

Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen flash drive, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Liberals' hidden fortr--

[Zaxxon]

Battling polls - are Trump voters undercounted or shy?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... debate?amp

Nate Silver on why 2020 isn't 2016.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm back to thinking Trump is going to win. PA is too close. This is bad.

As mentioned, Biden's lead in PA has been pretty consistent over the last few weeks. What will happen, however, is that Trump will likely be in the lead after election day votes are tallied, which are done first in PA. But over 2 million votes have already been cast early in PA and, just based on party affiliation, Dems hold a one million vote margin over Republicans. So if Trump's up by one million+ votes at the end of the day on Nov. 3, then I would start stressing.

Does Philly unrest have any impact?

That sounds right - he doesn't want to be in a place where he'll be on tv with an expectation to concede. He is going to dig in and tear the motherfucker down.

I think he wants to be in the bunker to QB martial law. Lot easier to secure the White House.

[Holman]

I'm back to thinking Trump is going to win. PA is too close. This is bad.

As mentioned, Biden's lead in PA has been pretty consistent over the last few weeks. What will happen, however, is that Trump will likely be in the lead after election day votes are tallied, which are done first in PA. But over 2 million votes have already been cast early in PA and, just based on party affiliation, Dems hold a one million vote margin over Republicans. So if Trump's up by one million+ votes at the end of the day on Nov. 3, then I would start stressing.

Does Philly unrest have any impact?

It'll be used in right-wing media, but I don't think it will have any real-world impact. All of the "action" is at night, well after the polls close (the city isn't in some kind of daily lockdown), and I expect things to wind down before Tuesday anyway.

Plus, Philadelphia has reached 90% eligible voter registration this year. It's hard to imagine anything short of a hurricane preventing a large turnout, and much of the city has already voted.

[Grifman]

Texas surpasses 2016 vote count with 4 days left;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 6-election

Will it go blue?

[LawBeefaroni]

Texas surpasses 2016 vote count with 4 days left;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 6-election

Will it go blue?

One can hope.



Also, since you put it that way, will ?

[Skinypupy]

Stephen Miller is such a horrid little racist goblin.

President Donald Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller has fleshed out plans to rev up Trump's restrictive immigration agenda if he wins re-election next week, offering a stark contrast to the platform of Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

In a 30-minute phone interview Thursday with NBC News, Miller outlined four major priorities: limiting asylum grants, punishing and outlawing so-called sanctuary cities, expanding the so-called travel ban with tougher screening for visa applicants and slapping new limits on work visas.

The objective, he said, is "raising and enhancing the standard for entry" to the United States.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Does Philly unrest have any impact?

Direct effect on voting unknown, but I don't think it being used in the right-wing media as a scare-story will have much of an impact. For one, lots of people have already voted, and secondly, the protests and unrests this summer didn't seem to help Trump despite his cries of Law and Order. More worrisome is the almost clearly intention slowdown of mail in Philly; hopefully people there planning to vote by mail put their ballots in days ago.

[Jaymann]

Countdown to election:

4 Days

Trump making plans to hunker in the bunker.

[Yojimbo]

Battling polls - are Trump voters undercounted or shy?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... debate?amp

The only evidence that I acknowledge of a shy Trump voter is the 2016 result - The "independent" polls were SO wrong it was either shy voters or crooked pollsters trying to "shape" the weak minded (not the job of an independent pollster). The rest of it sounds like theories to me, theories with no data or time to flush out before the impending election.

It would kind of the ultimate rope-a-dope or feint if there is a huge number of people who so fear the ire of angry recriminations that can't even say who they prefer. Thinking of the millions of campaign dollars spent in places where (alleged) fishy numbers make it look like they should be spending, thinking of the people who are taking a bold stand for who they think will win and discriminating against the other side, but who stand to lose billions in shareholder value (looking at you, Jack) if they gamble wrong. It's a bit like my old Audi where the gas gauge was inaccurate - it left me in some lonely places (looking at you Rabbit Ears Pass).

In any case we will know in a few score hours and if The Trafalgar Group is right, may their fortunes soar for doing a good job at polling. If Nate Silver is right, may his fortunes sore in a likewise manner.

[Paingod]

Countdown to election:

4 Days

Trump making plans to hunker in the bunker.

Expect unbridled gloating if he's ahead, absolute petulance if he's not. Spend days biting your nails to see which way it eventually lands.

I'm sincerely hoping the historic turnout we're seeing is a tidal wave of people who are tired of his shit.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas surpasses 2016 vote count with 4 days left;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 6-election

Will it go blue?

One can hope.



Also, since you put it that way, will ?

Hopefully we won't see any

[malchior]

Battling polls - are Trump voters undercounted or shy?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... debate?amp

The only evidence that I acknowledge of a shy Trump voter is the 2016 result - The "independent" polls were SO wrong it was either shy voters or crooked pollsters trying to "shape" the weak minded (not the job of an independent pollster).

What do you mean by independent polls? Because most of the polling actually was correct in 2016. There was some variation in some places where they missed the mark but overall mostly accurate. Many people misinterpreted the outcome as polls getting it wrong because they don't understand margin of error and probability. It'd be more accurate that the media miscommunicated the polling. Which they'll always tend to do because they are inclined to maintain a horse race. They have no other real model of electoral coverage as we saw it mostly repeated this year.

In any case, Trump won by a very thin margin in places where last minute deciders broke in Trump's favor. Many blame it on the Comey letter. And no model or polling could have predicted that utter horseshit. The tldr; is that saying polling science got it wrong misses the story and substitutes a black & white interpretation of the outcome. It was far more complicated.

It would kind of the ultimate rope-a-dope or feint if there is a huge number of people who so fear the ire of angry recriminations that can't even say who they prefer.

They are afraid of angry recriminations for talking to pollsters? Are the pollsters going to hunt them down? This is what I don't understand about this nonsense argument. The methodology about how they reach people is far more important (landlines/mobile/online/etc.) is almost certainly way more impactful than this shy voter effect which feels more urban myth than reality.

[RunningMn9]

It is natural to feel anxiety. The consequences of a Trump win are such that it magnifies the perception of the probability of such an event occurring.

[Holman]

It is natural to feel anxiety. The consequences of a Trump win are such that it magnifies the perception of the probability of such an event occurring.

Plus most of us have PTSD from 2016. Trump eking out a razor-thin win was such a blow that we distrust any reason for optimism.

[Paingod]

It is natural to feel anxiety. The consequences of a Trump win are such that it magnifies the perception of the probability of such an event occurring.

Plus most of us have PTSD from 2016. Trump eking out a razor-thin win was such a blow that we distrust any reason for optimism.

I'm certain that optimism is exactly what got us here. Too many people felt way too comfortable with Hillary's chances.

[Carpet_pissr]

Geez, guys, I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that with all the shit Trump has done and said, that many people who support his deplorable policies are ashamed to admit it, even to strangers.

Obviously there are hard core Trumpers who loudly crow about their xenophobia, white supremacy-ism, and love of “crushing liberals”.

But there are plenty of people (probably mostly the one issue voters, think 2a and pro-lifers) who despise Trump the person, and President, but who will (and did) hold their nose and vote for him anyway.

It’s the same reason Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected. Disliked or hated by people that are in their party, but still vote for them because 1. They detest the idea of a liberal winning, or 2. They have such strong feelings on one or two issues that are part of the party platform, they they would vote for a convicted felon if they had to.

Basically the people between the hard-core flag-wearing, boat-sinking , gun-pointing Zealots, and the Lincoln Project, never Trumper, GOP establishment types.

[malchior]

Geez, guys, I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that with all the shit Trump has done and said, that many people who support his deplorable policies are ashamed to admit it, even to strangers.

It is plausible but there isn't any real evidence of it. Several studies have been conducted around this and it hasn't been shown to be all that measurable. My opinion is this effect is an invention and hyped up by the media.

[Yojimbo]

What do you mean by independent polls? Because most of the polling actually was correct in 2016. There was some variation in some places where they missed the mark but overall mostly accurate. Many people misinterpreted the outcome as polls getting it wrong because they don't understand margin of error and probability. It'd be more accurate that the media miscommunicated the polling. Which they'll always tend to do because they are inclined to maintain a horse race. They have no other real model of electoral coverage as we saw it mostly repeated this year.

In any case, Trump won by a very thin margin in places where last minute deciders broke in Trump's favor. Many blame it on the Comey letter. And no model or polling could have predicted that utter horseshit. The tldr; is that saying polling science got it wrong misses the story and substitutes a black & white interpretation of the outcome. It was far more complicated.

It would kind of the ultimate rope-a-dope or feint if there is a huge number of people who so fear the ire of angry recriminations that can't even say who they prefer.

They are afraid of angry recriminations for talking to pollsters? Are the pollsters going to hunt them down? This is what I don't understand about this nonsense argument. The methodology about how they reach people is far more important (landlines/mobile/online/etc.) is almost certainly way more impactful than this shy voter effect which feels more urban myth than reality.

I can only take the pollsters word that claim to be independent, as some do. I don't have the perspective to start cutting out that herd. Its fascinating that you think the 2016 presidential polling was mostly correct even though all but 2 of the victor predictions were wrong. Maybe my perspective was skewed by all of the tears and anguish on election night. Am I the only person who thinks the 2016 polling was out of step with the election result? - maybe I was putting too much emphasis on the media as you suggest.

It terms of the media wanting to make it appear closer than it was (as you say) - isn't that the opposite of 2016? They would have said "too close to call" very clearly (and we would likely be re-electing Clinton if they had simply done that). What the media did do was take a race that was within the margin of error and report it as a near sure thing for Clinton. I think that (more than Comey) caused people to coast and not make an effort to get out.

As for the shy voters - maybe its not a thing as you suggest. Maybe only democrats still have land lines and answer the phone at 14:00 in the afternoon? I'm not sure what that missing factor is. But I know most polls showed Clinton winning in 2016 and that she did not. I know that most polls show Biden winning in 2020. In few days he will or he won't.

[Skinypupy]

Am I the only person who thinks the 2016 polling was out of step with the election result?

The polling was pretty accurate, predicting a 1-2% margin of victory by Clinton (which is about where she ended up). Around 80,000 votes (out of 127 million) in three states was the difference in the election. Forecasting with that degree of specificity would have been nearly impossible.

I suppose that a similar scenario could happen again (which is what keeps me up at night), but to say that the 2016 polling was somehow wildly inaccurate really isn't true.

[Alefroth]

I'm back to thinking Trump is going to win. PA is too close. This is bad.

Where are you seeing that?

[malchior]

I can only take the pollsters word that claim to be independent, as some do. I don't have the perspective to start cutting out that herd. Its fascinating that you think the 2016 presidential polling was mostly correct even though all but 2 of the victor predictions were wrong.

The polls don't tell you who wins. They estimate voting outcomes with margins of error. Almost all the major polls were well inside their margin of error. In other words, they were mostly right.

Maybe my perspective was skewed by all of the tears and anguish on election night. Am I the only person who thinks the 2016 polling was out of step with the election result? - maybe I was putting too much emphasis on the media as you suggest.

No a lot of people think the polls were wrong. The problem is the interpretation of the outcome.

It terms of the media wanting to make it appear closer than it was (as you say) - isn't that the opposite of 2016? They would have said "too close to call" very clearly (and we would likely be re-electing Clinton if they had simply done that). What the media did do was take a race that was within the margin of error and report it as a near sure thing for Clinton.

Not accurate. The national vote was extremely accurate. The chances of a Trump victory were low and the vote broke late last election in key locations. It was a very low probability outcome. It actually proved out many models. Probably more than people realize. Some models had Clinton at 99% and even they could be accurate to describe the Trump victory in less than 1% chance terms based on the margin seen. And they didn't factor in the last minute surprise element. Most people voted on election day and priced in that Comey letter & the high margin. Even then the Comey letter almost certainly was the biggest effect.

I think that (more than Comey) caused people to coast and not make an effort to get out.

Data says otherwise. Some people surely didn't bother but history will probably endlessly debate if disaster wouldn't have struck if Clinton bothered to campaign in any of those states. Some of her people allegedly pushed for it.

[YellowKing]

Maybe my perspective was skewed by all of the tears and anguish on election night. Am I the only person who thinks the 2016 polling was out of step with the election result? - maybe I was putting too much emphasis on the media as you suggest.

I think people have substituted "polls" for "conventional wisdom." The polls were mostly accurate. The conventional wisdom that Hillary was going to win is what was wrong.

That conventional wisdom was driven primarily by people mistaking odds for certainty. 538 had Trump with a roughly 30% chance of winning the presidency. That almost 1 in 3. Not exactly an impossible hill to climb. Yet Clinton had been deemed the winner in all three debates by the pundits, she had a 70% chance of winning - why wouldn't you think she's the likely victor?

There are a lot of other factors too. Trump's rise to the primary already seemed nearly impossible - it felt ridiculous that he could actually defy the odds again and win the presidency. We were coming off a two-term African-American president. It felt like electing a woman wasn't out of reach anymore, so why would the country elect another old white guy? Tons of little intangibles like that kind of seeped into the subconscious lending some air of inevitability to Clinton's win.

And to be fair, she DID win the popular vote. And without third party candidate spoilers and a bit higher turnout, she would have won the presidency. So even the conventional wisdom wasn't completely out of left field. It took an extremely narrow set of circumstances to upend it.

[El Guapo]

I also suspect that part of the issue was with late movement towards Trump, which was I think mainly due to a mix of the Comey Letter (fuck that guy) and anti-incumbent energy with the democrats running for a third term and with Trump being an "outsider". So Trump overwhelmingly won late deciders. So I think to the extent that the final polls did underrate Trump somewhat (which is true, in addition to the conventional wisdom issue) that's in part due to late breakers not just polling error.

Whereas this time there are very few undecideds, and not much reason to assume that they'll break disproportionately for Trump.

[Smoove_B]

Can anyone tell me more about the allegations that Biden is a plagiarist and that reflects poorly on his character? Because I was today years old when I heard this and I don't even know how to process it. Both in terms of it's truthiness and in terms of how it could possibly in any way somehow make Trump more desirable.

[Isgrimnur]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The other thing about 2016 is that there weren't a lot of state polling in the last week of the election (when there was a lot of movement towards Trump because *&#! Comey). This time there have been lots of polls in battleground states over the last week. That doesn't, of course, mean that those polls will definitely be borne out in the results, but the amount of data we have this time is much greater than in 2016.

[Smoove_B]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

Yeah, I did eventually see that, but I'm saying more of *right now* as a talking point as to why Trump is demonstrably the better choice. Who's floating that? Is this a Rush Limbaugh thing? Alex Jones? Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Why is this even a thing in October of 2020?

[Skinypupy]

Can anyone tell me more about the allegations that Biden is a plagiarist and that reflects poorly on his character? Because I was today years old when I heard this and I don't even know how to process it. Both in terms of it's truthiness and in terms of how it could possibly in any way somehow make Trump more desirable.

Where are you seeing this? That's a bit of derp that hasn't hit my radar at all.

EDIT: NVM, I hadn't clicked on Grim's link yet.

[Isgrimnur]

National Review brought it up three weeks ago, as did Bloomberg and Faux News.

[Jaymann]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

Rumor has it Biden took his own SAT test.

[Isgrimnur]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

Rumor has it Biden took his own SAT test.

What a sucker.

[RunningMn9]

For Trump to win, he has to have expanded his base. Did the last four years do that? I don’t think it did. I think we look at ballot data and see that votes are coming in from Dems or Reps or Independents, and making judgements.

I voted in NJ, and if someone looked at my party affiliation, what would they see? A vote from a registered Republican in conservative Warren County NJ. They are probably going to misinterpret my vote.

I think that Trump’s reign of terror narrowed his base, rather than expanded it. I think the Biden has expanded Clinton’s base, rather than narrowed it. I don’t think the Biden +17 poll in WI is accurate, but I don’t think it’s off by 18+ points either.

I think that the GOP should be really concerned that the early voting in TX has already surpassed the total vote count on 2016.

[Carpet_pissr]

I take it as a GREAT sign that they are resorting to that plagiarism weak sauce. Probably a sign of desperation because the Hunter Biden BS did not stick as hoped. Or at all.

I don't know why, but I remember very specifically when the plagiarism "scandal" hit Biden back then. I probably watched a 60 Minutes episode on it at the time. Weird that I remember thinking back then what a bunch of nothing to basically ruin what seemed to be a great guy's political career.

[Smoove_B]

National Review brought it up three weeks ago, as did Bloomberg and Faux News.

Thanks. I was trying to figure out how the hell this is circulating again. I guess it's officially grasping at straws time.

[Remus West]

For Trump to win, he has to have expanded his base. Did the last four years do that? I don’t think it did. I think we look at ballot data and see that votes are coming in from Dems or Reps or Independents, and making judgements.

I voted in NJ, and if someone looked at my party affiliation, what would they see? A vote from a registered Republican in conservative Warren County NJ. They are probably going to misinterpret my vote.

I think that Trump’s reign of terror narrowed his base, rather than expanded it. I think the Biden has expanded Clinton’s base, rather than narrowed it. I don’t think the Biden +17 poll in WI is accurate, but I don’t think it’s off by 18+ points either.

I think that the GOP should be really concerned that the early voting in TX has already surpassed the total vote count on 2016.

I'm seeing stories of trump expanding his base in the African American and Latino communities. Mostly their men. I'm floored by it but terrified it is true.