By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

Hiku said:

@sundin13 

(Paraphrasing)

AOC:How do you do healthcare in the UK without a credit card?

HBomberguy: You go to the doctor, he gives you your prescription, you get your medicine, and then you go home and google how much all of that would have cost in the US.

ROFLMAO!



Around the Network

More polls and some doozies. I'm going to drop any pretense, because I'm pretty sure it's not a secret where I stand. Good news should be interpreted as good for Biden. Bad news as good for Trump.

Bad News

Three polls are showing a somewhat competitive race on the national. ABD/TIPP still has Biden up by an average of 2.5 based on different turnout models. HarrisX has Biden up by 4. Rasmussen by 3. The latter two polls though have always been well below the average. But still, that's a few polls showing a closeish race. 

That being said, most polls have Biden up by around 10% including SurveyUSA (10) and Times (9). On average he still has a 9.9 point lead... so the race is slightly tightening, but not by a huge margin.

Good News

The good news is basically everything on the state level.

Change Research and Civiqs show Biden up by 4 and 5 in Florida respectively. Biden currently has a 3.5% lead in Florida atm. Trump has less than a 1% chance of winning if Biden wins in Florida.

Pennsylvania has seen some polls shifting towards Trump, but the latest polls are better with Suffolk University showing a 6 point lead, and Quinnipac showing 8 points. Quinnipac also shows an even race in Texas. A loss in either state is fatal to the Trump campaign.

Biden's lead is also pretty steady in Arizona. Of the past 36 or so polls, Biden has been ahead in about 33 of them. 

Really Good News

The most notable news is in the state of Iowa. Monmouth and Times/Sienna (two polls rated A+ by fivethirtyeight) have Biden up by 3% and 5% respectively. 

If Biden wins Iowa, he has a greater than 99% chance of winning the election. Not because Iowa's six electoral votes are that important, but because if Biden wins Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are virtually a lock, and a win in Ohio would be fairly likely. 

So, over this week, we've seen a slight dip in the national polls for Biden, but a slight increase in state level polling. Both show more or less the same picture of a race that is Biden's to lose.



One thing we need to keep in mind is that...

Pulse Opinion Research
Rasmussen
co/efficient
Research Co
HarrisX
Susquehanna
RMG Research
Cygnal

... are all Republican polling outfits and Scott Rasmussen is behind four of these (Pulse Opinion, RMG, Rasmussen and HarrisX).

IBD/TIPP is a weird one: they've overestimated Trump by about 3 points in 2016, but even then, I suppose a Biden +3 outlier is just as likely as a Biden +17 point one like PRRI or Opinium in the context of him being up by 10 or so.



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:

One thing we need to keep in mind is that...

Pulse Opinion Research
Rasmussen
co/efficient
Research Co
HarrisX
Susquehanna
RMG Research
Cygnal

... are all Republican polling outfits and Scott Rasmussen is behind four of these (Pulse Opinion, RMG, Rasmussen and HarrisX).

IBD/TIPP is a weird one: they've overestimated Trump by about 3 points in 2016, but even then, I suppose a Biden +3 outlier is just as likely as a Biden +17 point one like PRRI or Opinium in the context of him being up by 10 or so.

Yeah, it's worth noting, but being a Republican outlet doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Good to be skeptical, but without knowing their polling method, can't really say that they're doing anything that would skew the results.



JWeinCom said:
haxxiy said:

Yeah, it's worth noting, but being a Republican outlet doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Good to be skeptical, but without knowing their polling method, can't really say that they're doing anything that would skew the results.

And yet that's what happens most of the time, so yeah. Maybe it's not the fault of the pollsters themselves but of the cherrypicked results their hirers decide to make public.

Of course, Rasmussen manages to be an exception even then. Their results have always been infamous, though they do present a herding effect from time to time not to be 100% laughed off the scene. They predicted Republicans +1 in 2018 but Democrats won the House by almost 9 points. And yet they defended their results and said they wouldn't change their methodology.

Edit - all that I said, of course, can also be applied to Dem pollsters like Data for Progress & others. You get far less dithering in polls that way.

Last edited by haxxiy - on 21 October 2020

 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network

Nice info-nugget partially related to the election: Trump paid more taxes in China than in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/21/donald-trump-china-bank-account-nearly-200000-taxes-report



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [1], [2], [3], [4]

haxxiy said:
JWeinCom said:

Yeah, it's worth noting, but being a Republican outlet doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Good to be skeptical, but without knowing their polling method, can't really say that they're doing anything that would skew the results.

And yet that's what happens most of the time, so yeah. Maybe it's not the fault of the pollsters themselves but of the cherrypicked results their hirers decide to make public.

Of course, Rasmussen manages to be an exception even then. Their results have always been infamous, though they do present a herding effect from time to time not to be 100% laughed off the scene. They predicted Republicans +1 in 2018 but Democrats won the House by almost 9 points. And yet they defended their results and said they wouldn't change their methodology.

Edit - all that I said, of course, can also be applied to Dem pollsters like Data for Progress & others. You get far less dithering in polls that way.

Honestly don't know a ton about the situation, as I really only followed the polls closely for this election. I know their results are consistently leaning towards Trump. I also know that a lot of them are funded by "center for American Greatness" which obviously makes me suspect.

I think it's worth looking at their results, but to look more closely at the averages, which tend to be more reliable than any individual polls.

Speaking of Rasmussen though, here's a video on what would happen if their polls are accurate.

Mnementh said:
Nice info-nugget partially related to the election: Trump paid more taxes in China than in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/21/donald-trump-china-bank-account-nearly-200000-taxes-report

A little bit misleading in the wording. He (through his company) paid more in taxes in China than on income tax in the US. But, unless his accountants are really amazing or he's going to go to jail for a really long time, he likely paid more overall taxes in the US through his companies.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 21 October 2020

When you look at state polls, national polls, district polls, presidential approval polls, correlate to past results, account for systematic error, etc. you end up at the same place where it all converges and makes hard to believe the cake hasn't been baked already.

But damn if it isn't hard to be at ease after 2016. No wonder PTSD is one of the hardest psychiatric conditions to treat.



 

 

 

 

 

Trump posted the full 60 Minutes interview that he walked out of, and it is not a fun watch.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/522254-trump-posts-full-60-minutes-interview-showing-him-walking-out

I feel like the Chris Wallace interview and the Axios interview both did a good job of working with Trump's mental deficiencies to create a valuable experience, but I'm ten minutes into this interview and it is just the interviewer asking a question and Trump rambling for several minutes while she tries to rephrase the question in a way he understands. It is painful and so far, I do not recommend.

I would say that this isn't going to have any affect on basically anything unless something changes.

EDIT: 

About 20 minutes in:

Interviewer: Do you want to leave [ObamaCare]?

Trump: No, I don't want to leave it. I want to see what happens [in the Supreme Court]. We may be stuck with it if we lose in the Supreme Court."

That's kind of....wow, that's Trump admitting that he has given up on Repealing/Replacing ObamaCare through legislation. This should be a headline.

Last edited by sundin13 - on 22 October 2020

sundin13 said:

Trump posted the full 60 Minutes interview that he walked out of, and it is not a fun watch.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/522254-trump-posts-full-60-minutes-interview-showing-him-walking-out

I feel like the Chris Wallace interview and the Axios interview both did a good job of working with Trump's mental deficiencies to create a valuable experience, but I'm ten minutes into this interview and it is just the interviewer asking a question and Trump rambling for several minutes while she tries to rephrase the question in a way he understands. It is painful and so far, I do not recommend.

I would say that this isn't going to have any affect on basically anything unless something changes.

EDIT: 

About 20 minutes in:

Interviewer: Do you want to leave [ObamaCare]?

Trump: No, I don't want to leave it. I want to see what happens [in the Supreme Court]. We may be stuck with it if we lose in the Supreme Court."

That's kind of....wow, that's Trump admitting that he has given up on Repealing/Replacing ObamaCare through legislation. This should be a headline.

Striking down Obamacare without a replacement would be such a disaster.  I would think so much so that even most republicans wouldn’t be on board with it (except the obvious extremists).  People like my brother who has MS would basically be kicked off their coverage and then denied new coverage because of preexisting conditions.  The medication he takes to hold off the MS would be a couple thousand a month without coverage.  His only option would be to basically let the disease ravage him...

basically... I just hope the politicians aren’t dumb enough to let it be repealed without at least putting some protections in place for people like my brother...