Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: Latest polling from Biden’s three must win states
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: Latest polling from Biden’s three must win states
We are now just two months away from the US Presidential elections and rather than focus on national polling I thought it would be useful to review every so often how things are going in the key swing states that the Democrats need to win in order to unseat Trump in November.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In past polls the shares have tended to under-represent both parties candidates - last time Hillary did better than her poll shares predicted but the problem is that Trump did even better than his had predicted than she did.
If Biden's shares are accurate then he is at or above 50% in most of those. He needs to keep hold of the voters he's got but if he's at or above 50% that is good enough, even if Trump does better at squeezing the "others" again.
Typo???
I'm curious what term @Charles wants to be used to describe people who march under this flag if not "Nazi"?
What happens if Trump does win.
Four years of the same sort of chaos but with what consequence in 2024 ?
If the pendulum continues its normal swing then a radical leftist Dem win in 2024 would be possible.
Still blindly insistent everything will be magically sorted in short order.
https://twitter.com/TheNationalUAE/status/1300403337272139778
I was not.
I was referencing the multiple specific incontrovertibly documented instances where the Portland Police have been found to be collaborating with far right groups.
Apart from quarantine changes, cancelled flights, hotel lockdowns, ski lifts closed, transfer busses cancelled, people getting infected with a nasty virus and finding their insurance doesn’t cover it, refunds in vouchers rather than cash, etc etc.
Seriously guys, don’t go abroad on holiday, there’s plenty to do wherever you live until the horrible thing has gone away.
Biden needs 270 electoral college votes. Starting with the 2016 result, if he picks up all three, he has 278.
What other plausible paths are there?
PIck up Florida and Biden would need only 1 of those 3 to get across the line. Pick up Florida and Arizona and he would need none of them. Neither scenario is implausible. Biden is polling well in Florida, with 538 having him 5.2% ahead there respectably, only just behind the 5.8% for Wisconsin. His lead in Arizona is 3.8% but there's an unpopular Senate candidate there who may drag the Republican ticket down. Florida and Arizona are very different states demographically to the above three, with significant Latino populations, so there's scope for differential swing.
It's possible though that Trump could pick up Minnesota (10 seats) in a close contest, where 538 have Biden with a 5.2% lead, while Biden fails to take Arizona (11). Even then Florida and Pennysylvania alone would still be enough for Biden.
In a really close contest, the split electoral college in Maine and Nebraska might come into play. Biden has the potential to pick up 1 seat in each compared to 2016. Biden could pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona giving him 269 votes - a tie, with 1 more from either Nebraska or Maine being enough. The same tie on 269 arises if Biden picks up Pennysylvania, Michigan and Arizona but loses Minnesota.
Biden could even get over the line if he picked up Pennysylvania and Michigan alone, which gets him to 268, in which case he'd need to pick up both the single votes in play in Maine and Nebraska to get to 270. The same scenario occurs if he also picks up Wisconsin too but loses Minnesota.
In summary - it's complicated.
I thought I had a handle on Florida demographics and voting trends but 2018 threw me for a loop.
Different, probably. Unpleasant, possibly.
But there are too many checks and balances within the US system.
Where would the brake on Trumpism come from?
Among all the crap that’s been 2020, getting Arabs and Israelis restoring diplomatic relations has to be one of the best news stories of the year. 🇦🇪🇮🇱
It’s a huge benefit to businesses in both countries, who have had to dance a careful dance when dealing with each other in the past, so as not to upset their governments.
There’s also negotiations taking place with Oman and Bahrain to open up formal relations with Israel too.
That applies to members of both parties.
And why not - if judges are going to vote on a party basis then it doesn't matter how qualified they are.
Though it seems that GOP appointed judges have a little more independence of thought than those appointed by Democrat Presidents:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53357590
https://twitter.com/anonpatriotq/status/1300419094030811136?s=20
@anonpatriotq is a subtle touch.
Have I fucked up the calculations?
I'm guessing whatever Trump whale is trying to make it look like a tight contest has ignored that market.
I’m not sure that “Nazi” in itself is a particularly helpful term for these people in that it forces the mind to view them in a specific way associated with 1930s German. In doing so you may miss relevant data about their beliefs or attitudes. But it’s clear that they are likely to be unpleasant people.
Currently the popular vote winner market is @5 for Trump to win. That combined with Trump's chance of being the actual winner does not multiply out to this market as far as I can tell.
The impossible coalition. And so it proved.
Only downside is that it might not pay out until next year, or whenever California can be arsed to count its votes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-adenoviru-idUSKBN25R19H
Jesus Christ these people are nuts, it was a Twitter poll
Well, that's my reaction to that being their reaction. So proud, so satisfied.
On what "objective" criteria do you judge him to be objectively not smart?
It doesn't necessarily follow that I'd be willing to vote Labour next time because that also depends on other factors, and there's still probably a very long way to go until the next election, but I might. Although I live in a deep blue Tory safe seat, so what I think doesn't really count anyway.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
Similar thinking - the Dems to win the WH but lose Florida. Does not quite work at current prices but worth monitoring.
He was 4th but gaining rapidly on the top 3 at Spa, and his tyres were lovely as theirs were ruined.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
Already HB is capped and not linked to market rates of rent, meaning the tenant already needs to pay the difference.
Ken Clarke, by a country mile.
https://twitter.com/weegingerdug/status/1300438426047713281
Hmmm. Just looking at the @ScotTories
“Scotland first” procurement proposals
Much talk of making contracts more accessible to local business but not overtly favouring them over firms in rUK
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1300383554967306240
Are you against salt? Swimming pools? The periodic table?
‘Yes, I’m a bit wet and too old, but I’m not going to blow up the world testing an invalid meteorological hypothesis. That should be good enough for you right now.’
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
Just noted the latest Missouri poll from Trafalgar giving Trump a 52-41 advantage. Trump won 57-38 last time so that's a 4% swing so well in line with other state polls outside the battleground states.
Biden is building a lead in his strongholds and making a small dent in the Republican strongholds but in the key Midwest and southern marginal states he isn't doing quite as well. The swings there are more like 2-3% rather than the 4-6% seen elsewhere.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey
Roy Jenkins
William Whitelaw
Geoffrey Howe
Michael Heseltine
Ken Clarke (as you say)
George Osborne
David Milliband
Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.