Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
I'm not clear on what you think will happen in Texas?
Biden gets the electoral votes, Republicans keep Senate seats etc... I think....
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The county containing Cleveland, Cuyahoga, voted 65% for Hillary in 2016 and New York city voted 79% for Hillary, if Biden is not racking up the score in both he would be in trouble.
Interesting fact, in 2016 Trump got the lowest voteshare for the Republican presidential nominee in New York city since 1900, no wonder he has moved to Florida.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
Ann Richards was defeated in 1994. That's over a quarter of a century ago, so it's been solid republican for 26 years, and hasn't voted Dem in a General Election for 44 years. That's pretty solid in anyone's book.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
So Texas has only been a GOP fiefdom for the past quarter century.
Texas is not that keen on Trump eg Trump won it in 2012 by less than Romney did in 2012 or McCain in did in 2008 and by far less than George W Bush did in 2000 and 2004 but it is still a pretty solid red state and he will still win it again even if he loses the election
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The county containing Cleveland, Cuyahoga, voted 65% for Hillary in 2016 and New York city voted 79% for Hillary, if Biden is not racking up the score in both he would be in trouble
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
Has HYUFD given his reasoning for WHY Trafalgar did so badly in 2018 Mid-terms? I mean, after all, if their method is so superior then they must have some very good base data from which they can then import their "shy Trump" adjustment.
Is he suggesting that for some reason they were under the impression that Trump was on the ballot in 2018 and made the mistake of including the "adjustment" to their sound base data?
Or is it in reality that their base date, if it exists at all, is just a crock of sh*t? Or that the base data is just what other pollsters do with 6pts added to Trump? In which case he should perhaps answer the question i have repeatedly asked him about what he thinks the impact is of the changes in methodology that most pollsters have made since 2016... Which might rather undermine the Trafalgar "model"...
They weren't that bad even in 2018, they correctly had DeSantis winning Florida unlike other pollsters they only got Georgia really badly wrong and in the article I linked to he admits that but overall they still were far better at identifying the shy Trump vote in 2016 than other pollsters were, especially in the rustbelt
In every poll that I have seen that has asked Americans how they think their neighbours are voting, Trump has a huge lead.
Indicative of a shy Trump factor? has to be, for me.
I don't follow that. If Americans think their neighbours are voting Trump, it doesn't indicate that their neighbours are shy. Quite the opposite.
Massive difference between your neighbour and a pollster. Ask the honest pollsters how easy it is to get responses from some big Trump supporting rural areas in swing states.
Some firms don;t even bother. They just poll the liberal cities. That's why I reckon they are a country mile out.
Which firms don't poll rural areas? Nate Cohn who does the NYT polling has been tweeting maps of where their respondents are, they're definitely not limited to liberal cities...
Clearly faked in contrarian world.
It also doesn't explain why the national polls and the polls in 2018 were largely spot on.
Perhaps he'll share his wisdom (sic) with us all.
2018 did not have Trump on the ballot that is why.
There was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy Trump vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, who are sometimes Trump Democrats in effect, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
Makes sense.
I hope you are wrong but am not convinced you are.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
Ann Richards was defeated in 1994. That's over a quarter of a century ago, so it's been solid republican for 26 years, and hasn't voted Dem in a General Election for 44 years. That's pretty solid in anyone's book.
Yes - but the demographics have apparently been moving against the Republicans there for quite a few years now.
Has HYUFD given his reasoning for WHY Trafalgar did so badly in 2018 Mid-terms? I mean, after all, if their method is so superior then they must have some very good base data from which they can then import their "shy Trump" adjustment.
Is he suggesting that for some reason they were under the impression that Trump was on the ballot in 2018 and made the mistake of including the "adjustment" to their sound base data?
Or is it in reality that their base date, if it exists at all, is just a crock of sh*t? Or that the base data is just what other pollsters do with 6pts added to Trump? In which case he should perhaps answer the question i have repeatedly asked him about what he thinks the impact is of the changes in methodology that most pollsters have made since 2016... Which might rather undermine the Trafalgar "model"...
They weren't that bad even in 2018, they correctly had DeSantis winning Florida unlike other pollsters they only got Georgia really badly wrong and in the article I linked to he admits that but overall they still were far better at identifying the shy Trump vote in 2016 than other pollsters were, especially in the rustbelt
In every poll that I have seen that has asked Americans how they think their neighbours are voting, Trump has a huge lead.
Indicative of a shy Trump factor? has to be, for me.
I don't follow that. If Americans think their neighbours are voting Trump, it doesn't indicate that their neighbours are shy. Quite the opposite.
Massive difference between your neighbour and a pollster. Ask the honest pollsters how easy it is to get responses from some big Trump supporting rural areas in swing states.
Some firms don;t even bother. They just poll the liberal cities. That's why I reckon they are a country mile out.
Which firms don't poll rural areas? Nate Cohn who does the NYT polling has been tweeting maps of where their respondents are, they're definitely not limited to liberal cities...
Clearly faked in contrarian world.
It also doesn't explain why the national polls and the polls in 2018 were largely spot on.
Perhaps he'll share his wisdom (sic) with us all.
2018 did not have Trump on the ballot that is why.
There was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy Trump vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, who are sometimes Trump Democrats in effect, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
Makes sense.
I hope you are wrong but am not convinced you are.
His entire theory is based on zero evidence - just his prejudices.
Q: "What's the evidence for shy trump supporters?"
A: "Because there are."
Q: "Why will all undecideds vote for Trump?"
A: "Because they will."
Q: "Why do you ignore the fact most of the polls are now weighted correctly for education after learning from 2016?"
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
The Dems shouldn't even be close in the Michigan 3rd district. If it is close, then Trump can kiss the state goodbye. That's small town blue collar going Democratic blue.
Trump won Michigan 3rd with a lower voteshare than Mitt Romney got and his lead there was far smaller than George W Bush's in 2000 and 2004 or even Bob Dole's in 1996, it is not typical of Michigan which Trump won for the first time for any GOP candidate since 1988
Trump won by 10 points! Come on man, see past your blinkers.
How can you spin a district won by Trump by 10 points (thus more Trump than the state average) looking increasingly Democrat as a positive thing for Trump!?
Please 2018 doesn't count as Trump wasn't on the ballot (Copyright HYUFD). So you need to compare to 2016 where Trump won it by... Checks notes... 22 points.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
More or less how I see it (FWIW), except I don’t think the polling will be quite so far out.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
It is remarkable to reflect that until the 1964 election the safest Republican state was Vermont. And even until 1992 with that exception it was a banker.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
IF, and its a big if but if Trafalgar, HYUFD, Mr ED et all are correct about the 'shy Trumpers' it really does make the whole polling history for this election seem so weak. Now I can definately see why some voters would either lie about voting for Trump or not disclose their intentions. He is almost unique in the way some people would react that way such is his polarization of people. I can also see that people will vote for the Republicans and policies despite this but not admit to voting Trump. So the logic is there that something like Mr Ed's prediction of national vote loss by say 3% but still wining could well happen. I just find it incredible that only Trafalgar and to a lesser degree Rasmussen could end up being so right again and the rest of the polling industry so wrong after 2016. The logic that HYUFD uses about why 2018 was different makes sense to me , Trump wasnt directly on the ballot then, surely pollsters must see that too, Perhaps they should just have weighted +5 shy Trumpers in their polls! Yes I know thats not proper polling but still,,,,,,If they are wrong again in 2020 maybe 'shy voters' will become a new weighting measure !!
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
It is remarkable to reflect that until the 1964 election the safest Republican state was Vermont. And even until 1992 with that exception it was a banker.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
Well Phil Scott is still the governor ! And that probably tells you all you need to know about republicans chances generally in Vermont.
@Mal557 They very well could be right but it's not based on any actual evidence. As far as I understand it the polling error in 2016 was down to not weighting for education and thus non-college educated whites were underrepresented. That, I believe, is fixed now. There's no actual evidence that Trump supporters are in any way "shy".
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
Genuine question to the people who bang on about 2018. When have midterms been predictive of the subsequent presidential election?
Nobody is saying that the midterms will predict the election as such. They are generally discussing the polling in 2016 compared to 2018 and what that means for the polling in 2020.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
It is remarkable to reflect that until the 1964 election the safest Republican state was Vermont. And even until 1992 with that exception it was a banker.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
Well Phil Scott is still the governor ! And that probably tells you all you need to know about republicans chances generally in Vermont.
They have to be more liberal than the average Democrat to win it?
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
People tend to get overexcited about queue length even in normal times.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
It is remarkable to reflect that until the 1964 election the safest Republican state was Vermont. And even until 1992 with that exception it was a banker.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
Well Phil Scott is still the governor ! And that probably tells you all you need to know about republicans chances generally in Vermont.
They have to be more liberal than the average Democrat to win it?
Basically yes. Scott is cultural/social liberal, fiscal conservative (sort of). Which is a good mix in Green Mountain State for early 21st century.
Note that in small states, top elected officials are NOT remote from the populace.
For example, know a guy from Delaware, he's never met Joe Biden. BUT his dad, a state trooper, knows and has worked some with Biden; and his mother worked for USPS and used to see & speak with Jill Biden whenever Joe's missus stopped by post office to mail packages.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
We will see
That's definitely very plausible.
My view has really hardened up overnight. We had dinner yesterday with a couple and their parents. Our friends are typical California liberals. Her parents are religious and from small town Oregon.
The single biggest issue for them is the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
In 2016, they held their noses and voted for Trump. This year, they (unprompted) railed against his moral failings. Simply, he doesn't live up to their high ethical standards.
The funny bit is, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died a month later, then they might still have voted for President Trump. But now, with ACB soon to be on the court, and little likelihood of an SC vacancy in the future, they don't have to make that choice.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
That is fair enough. My real point is that Texas has been won by the Democrats at elections well within living memory - and that for - say - the last decade the demographics have been swinging back in their favour.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
It is remarkable to reflect that until the 1964 election the safest Republican state was Vermont. And even until 1992 with that exception it was a banker.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
Well Phil Scott is still the governor ! And that probably tells you all you need to know about republicans chances generally in Vermont.
They have to be more liberal than the average Democrat to win it?
Basically yes. Scott is cultural/social liberal, fiscal conservative (sort of). Which is a good mix in Green Mountain State for early 21st century.
Note that in small states, top elected officials are NOT remote from the populace.
For example, know a guy from Delaware, he's never met Joe Biden. BUT his dad, a state trooper, knows and has worked some with Biden; and his mother worked for USPS and used to see & speak with Jill Biden whenever Joe's missus stopped by post office to mail packages.
Yes. People generally don't get that about rural areas. There hasn't been a County Council candidate I didn't know personally in 15 years of living here. They can't be remote as everyone knows where they live, work, who their relatives are, their characters, hobbies, etc.
If you're worried about not having anything to read in the next few weeks, just drive across the border. Then, the police will throw the book at you.
But if you’re in Gloucestershire don’t bother because they’re so wildly inaccurate in everything they do they’re more likely to hit their colleagues than you.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
You do make a point. Though you are also missing one: that folks are lining up to vote, in less-than-balmy weather, TEN DAYS before Election Day.
Here in WA State, which is all vote-by-mail, as of 6pm Friday (ED-11) > cumulative ballot returns = 1.8m (37.7% of 4.8m active registered voters) > in 2016 at same point in cycle (ED-11) cumulative returns = 738k (17.3% of 4.3m active reg)
In other words, early voting Evergreen State style is more than DOUBLE what it was four years ago.
Further note that return rate in Democratic stronghold of King County (Seattle & burbs) = 575k (40.8%)
AND the return rate for even-more Democratic City of Seattle = 231k (46.5%)
Analysis of statewide returns so far confirms what is obvious from the above: that Democrats are voting early at disproportionate rates compared with Republicans - the OPPOSITE of the usual WA pattern.
Also, of all King Co returns so far, 71.6% have been returned via official ballot drop boxes. Which is unusually high, and clearly result of voter concerns re: security of ballots entrusted to USPS.
All in all, very clear evidence that Trumpky is indeed working his magic out here in the Great Pacific Northwest!
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
That is fair enough. My real point is that Texas has been won by the Democrats at elections well within living memory - and that for - say - the last decade the demographics have been swinging back in their favour.
The Tories have held Liverpool Walton within living memory - indeed, within your memory. Doesn’t mean they’re about to win it back.
IF, and its a big if but if Trafalgar, HYUFD, Mr ED et all are correct about the 'shy Trumpers' it really does make the whole polling history for this election seem so weak. Now I can definately see why some voters would either lie about voting for Trump or not disclose their intentions. He is almost unique in the way some people would react that way such is his polarization of people. I can also see that people will vote for the Republicans and policies despite this but not admit to voting Trump. So the logic is there that something like Mr Ed's prediction of national vote loss by say 3% but still wining could well happen. I just find it incredible that only Trafalgar and to a lesser degree Rasmussen could end up being so right again and the rest of the polling industry so wrong after 2016. The logic that HYUFD uses about why 2018 was different makes sense to me , Trump wasnt directly on the ballot then, surely pollsters must see that too, Perhaps they should just have weighted +5 shy Trumpers in their polls! Yes I know thats not proper polling but still,,,,,,If they are wrong again in 2020 maybe 'shy voters' will become a new weighting measure !!
Some good points but if the pollsters get it wrong again and Trump is re elected he will be ineligible to run again and I cannot see there being a shy Pence or shy Haley vote for example in 2024 just as there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 so they will have egg on their faces but will avoid the risk of it happening again
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
We will see
That's definitely very plausible.
My view has really hardened up overnight. We had dinner yesterday with a couple and their parents. Our friends are typical California liberals. Her parents are religious and from small town Oregon.
The single biggest issue for them is the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
In 2016, they held their noses and voted for Trump. This year, they (unprompted) railed against his moral failings. Simply, he doesn't live up to their high ethical standards.
The funny bit is, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died a month later, then they might still have voted for President Trump. But now, with ACB soon to be on the court, and little likelihood of an SC vacancy in the future, they don't have to make that choice.
Interesting but Oregon did not vote for Trump in 2016 anyway so unfortunately for Biden it is yet another example of him picking up votes in states he does not need them and it was the white working class which won it for Trump in the rustbelt swing states more than the evangelical vote (most of whom will still hold their nose and vote for him anyway and of course ACB has still yet to be confirmed)
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
That is fair enough. My real point is that Texas has been won by the Democrats at elections well within living memory - and that for - say - the last decade the demographics have been swinging back in their favour.
Including US Senators and judges, there are 29 statewide partisan elected officials in Texas.
Texas has never been the solid Republican fiefdom that many make out here. The Democrats won it at three consecutive elections in the 1960s. Whilst their success in 1960 and 1964 - in particular - may not have been surprising due to LBJ being on the ticket, Humphrey also managed to win narrowly in 1968 despite losing the national election to Nixon. Carter also carried the state in 1976 - though his Southern roots will have helped him - and Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator as late as 1988 and Ann Richards was Governor there until defeated by Bush in the 1990s.
I think your indepth historical knowledge sometimes blinds you to more casual references by others. One side winning pretty comfortably since 1980 is, considering the most recent and thus relevant history, pretty solid for casual discussion. There seem to be some other pretty solid states which in the 60s went th eother way, or other rock solid states now which went the other way even nearer.
That is fair enough. My real point is that Texas has been won by the Democrats at elections well within living memory - and that for - say - the last decade the demographics have been swinging back in their favour.
The Tories have held Liverpool Walton within living memory - indeed, within your memory. Doesn’t mean they’re about to win it back.
Eric Heffer defeated the Tories at Liverpool Walton in 1964. There have been significant boundary changes in the intervening years, but I am unaware of any evidence there of demographic shifts which might bring the seat into play for the Tories anytime soon!
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
"We should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure."
That is royal We. Certainly yours truly does NOT agree with your expectation.
Note that here is WA State, early returns by younger as compared to older voters are lagging (which is usual pattern) but are nevertheless WAY higher than in 2016,
Jodi from RCT shows exactly why the clothing ban in supermarkets is stupid. And, incidentally, how affluent everyone on pb.com is including the Tribunes of the People. Someone might not be able to afford to buy some clothes for their kid until payday.
The Senedd petition increased by about a thousand while I typed this out. It is now at 31942. I signed it.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
We will see
That's definitely very plausible.
My view has really hardened up overnight. We had dinner yesterday with a couple and their parents. Our friends are typical California liberals. Her parents are religious and from small town Oregon.
The single biggest issue for them is the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
In 2016, they held their noses and voted for Trump. This year, they (unprompted) railed against his moral failings. Simply, he doesn't live up to their high ethical standards.
The funny bit is, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died a month later, then they might still have voted for President Trump. But now, with ACB soon to be on the court, and little likelihood of an SC vacancy in the future, they don't have to make that choice.
Mitch McConnell suckered Trumpsky and his No-Brains Trust into thinking that nominating ACB was gonna boost their electoral prospects.
When in fact speedy appointment & confirmation is actually to Trumpsky's DISADVANTAGE for the reason you cite: the pressure is off.
MMcC's motivation was two-foldL 1) get new conservative justice confirmed while GOP still has required votes in US Senate; and 2) help Lindsay Graham and others of the same endangered species: Republican senators in tight re-election battles.
For those who fancy a 2-3% return in a week, note you can get on Biden in New York at 1.03 (£184 as I write - after I've taken £100) or 1.02 (£10783). The last poll there had Biden leading 65-32, which must be as close to a sure thing as one can get.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
You do make a point. Though you are also missing one: that folks are lining up to vote, in less-than-balmy weather, TEN DAYS before Election Day.
And yet if you look at the states where voters register by party the GOP are over-performing in-person voting relative to Dems.
Citing people queuing and believing they are there because they are pumped up for Biden is...brave.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Ok, @rcs1000, as you might guess I am going to disagree with you on at least some of that.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
We will see
That's definitely very plausible.
My view has really hardened up overnight. We had dinner yesterday with a couple and their parents. Our friends are typical California liberals. Her parents are religious and from small town Oregon.
The single biggest issue for them is the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
In 2016, they held their noses and voted for Trump. This year, they (unprompted) railed against his moral failings. Simply, he doesn't live up to their high ethical standards.
The funny bit is, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died a month later, then they might still have voted for President Trump. But now, with ACB soon to be on the court, and little likelihood of an SC vacancy in the future, they don't have to make that choice.
Interesting but Oregon did not vote for Trump in 2016 anyway so unfortunately for Biden it is yet another example of him picking up votes in states he does not need them and it was the white working class which won it for Trump in the rustbelt swing states more than the evangelical vote (most of whom will still hold their nose and vote for him anyway and of course ACB has still yet to be confirmed)
Yeah, but what about folks just like these Oregonians who happen to live and vote in battleground states?
Interesting how you latched onto red herring (or red beaver?) INSTEAD of Robert's point which was about impact of ACB's coronation upon religious conservative voters.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
You do make a point. Though you are also missing one: that folks are lining up to vote, in less-than-balmy weather, TEN DAYS before Election Day.
And yet if you look at the states where voters register by party the GOP are over-performing in-person voting relative to Dems.
Citing people queuing and believing they are there because they are pumped up for Biden is...brave.
Dude, a vote is a vote is a vote. You seem to think that voting in person takes more "intensity" than voting by mail.
Perhaps more courage THIS year - but more intensity? Hell no.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
You do make a point. Though you are also missing one: that folks are lining up to vote, in less-than-balmy weather, TEN DAYS before Election Day.
And yet if you look at the states where voters register by party the GOP are over-performing in-person voting relative to Dems.
Citing people queuing and believing they are there because they are pumped up for Biden is...brave.
Dude, a vote is a vote is a vote. You seem to think that voting in person takes more "intensity" than voting by mail.
Perhaps more courage THIS year - but more intensity? Hell no.
What are you wittering on about? It's you claiming that people queuing up in bad weather must be walk-through-glass anti-Trumpers, despite actual numbers showing these voters are more GOP than usual.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
The person posting the tweet made the reference that people lining around the block showed the level of enthusiasm to get Trump out. However, the actual number of people lining up was far fewer when you realised how far they were standing apart.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
You do make a point. Though you are also missing one: that folks are lining up to vote, in less-than-balmy weather, TEN DAYS before Election Day.
And yet if you look at the states where voters register by party the GOP are over-performing in-person voting relative to Dems.
Citing people queuing and believing they are there because they are pumped up for Biden is...brave.
Dude, a vote is a vote is a vote. You seem to think that voting in person takes more "intensity" than voting by mail.
Perhaps more courage THIS year - but more intensity? Hell no.
What are you wittering on about? It's you claiming that people queuing up in bad weather must be walk-through-glass anti-Trumpers, despite actual numbers showing these voters are more GOP than usual.
Your "argument" is apples & oranges & kiwi & god-knows-what all mixed together - a real fruit salad!
First, someone said that it's NOT a long line because of social distancing. Then yours truly said ANY line this early is by definition impressive.
Then you say that early voting in person is true sign of intensity, to which I replied that ALL early voting (except by folks who habitually do it) is intense,
YOU, sir or madam, are the witherer! But do keep on twisting arguments of others here on PB - because it is WAY less persuasive than you realize.
Comments
Interesting fact, in 2016 Trump got the lowest voteshare for the Republican presidential nominee in New York city since 1900, no wonder he has moved to Florida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_York_City#:~:text=The city government of New,a year, as of 2016.&text=City government is dominated by,, Congressional, and Presidential elections.
First, I agree on the turnout point. It’s clear a hell of a lot of people are enthused judging by the early voting etc So expect turnout to be high (which is the opposite of what I thought a few weeks back);
Second, though, the enthusiasm of the Republicans looks as high as the Democrats at least when it comes to In Person Early Voting (no surprise less so on Mail In Ballots given Trump’s comments). So, there definitely doesn’t appear to be an enthusiasm gap. As you said, non-college white voters tend to be under-represented. I would bank that 2020 will see another big increase in the share of the vote from this group which will help Trump.
Third, looking at some of the data (NC is always good), it still looks like younger voters are under punching in their share of their vote vs their share of registered voters. That may reverse but I disagree with @SeaShantyIrish2 that younger voters will naturally rise as we get to Election Day - given how much early voting there is this year, we should expect younger voters’ share so far to more closely match their final figure.
Fourth, re undecideds, with no empirical data whatsoever, my view is they break for Trump simply because, as President, he is a known entity.
My prediction on national share of the vote - Biden 50pc, Trump 47pc, others 3. Trump to win the electoral college narrowly
I hope you are wrong but am not convinced you are.
Q: "What's the evidence for shy trump supporters?"
A: "Because there are."
Q: "Why will all undecideds vote for Trump?"
A: "Because they will."
Q: "Why do you ignore the fact most of the polls are now weighted correctly for education after learning from 2016?"
A: "Because I do."
Oh.
Anyone suggesting that it might even vaguely trend Republican now?
I just find it incredible that only Trafalgar and to a lesser degree Rasmussen could end up being so right again and the rest of the polling industry so wrong after 2016. The logic that HYUFD uses about why 2018 was different makes sense to me , Trump wasnt directly on the ballot then, surely pollsters must see that too, Perhaps they should just have weighted +5 shy Trumpers in their polls! Yes I know thats not proper polling but still,,,,,,If they are wrong again in 2020 maybe 'shy voters' will become a new weighting measure !!
And that probably tells you all you need to know about republicans chances generally in Vermont.
Let’s put it another way:
100m block length. Individuals standing 50cm apart = 200 people
100m block length. Individuals standing 2m apart = 50 people
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1320019627548835840
Note that in small states, top elected officials are NOT remote from the populace.
For example, know a guy from Delaware, he's never met Joe Biden. BUT his dad, a state trooper, knows and has worked some with Biden; and his mother worked for USPS and used to see & speak with Jill Biden whenever Joe's missus stopped by post office to mail packages.
That's definitely very plausible.
My view has really hardened up overnight. We had dinner yesterday with a couple and their parents. Our friends are typical California liberals. Her parents are religious and from small town Oregon.
The single biggest issue for them is the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
In 2016, they held their noses and voted for Trump. This year, they (unprompted) railed against his moral failings. Simply, he doesn't live up to their high ethical standards.
The funny bit is, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died a month later, then they might still have voted for President Trump. But now, with ACB soon to be on the court, and little likelihood of an SC vacancy in the future, they don't have to make that choice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54676457
Then, the police will throw the book at you.
They can't be remote as everyone knows where they live, work, who their relatives are, their characters, hobbies, etc.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1320053682759663622?s=19
I'm old enough to remeber back in summer when experts in here were telling us that Covid would not be an election issue come November.
Here in WA State, which is all vote-by-mail, as of 6pm Friday (ED-11)
> cumulative ballot returns = 1.8m (37.7% of 4.8m active registered voters)
> in 2016 at same point in cycle (ED-11) cumulative returns = 738k (17.3% of 4.3m active reg)
In other words, early voting Evergreen State style is more than DOUBLE what it was four years ago.
Further note that return rate in Democratic stronghold of King County (Seattle & burbs) = 575k (40.8%)
AND the return rate for even-more Democratic City of Seattle = 231k (46.5%)
Analysis of statewide returns so far confirms what is obvious from the above: that Democrats are voting early at disproportionate rates compared with Republicans - the OPPOSITE of the usual WA pattern.
Also, of all King Co returns so far, 71.6% have been returned via official ballot drop boxes. Which is unusually high, and clearly result of voter concerns re: security of ballots entrusted to USPS.
All in all, very clear evidence that Trumpky is indeed working his magic out here in the Great Pacific Northwest!
Current box score: Republicans = 28, Democrats = 0, vacancy = 1
That is royal We. Certainly yours truly does NOT agree with your expectation.
Note that here is WA State, early returns by younger as compared to older voters are lagging (which is usual pattern) but are nevertheless WAY higher than in 2016,
Jodi from RCT shows exactly why the clothing ban in supermarkets is stupid. And, incidentally, how affluent everyone on pb.com is including the Tribunes of the People. Someone might not be able to afford to buy some clothes for their kid until payday.
The Senedd petition increased by about a thousand while I typed this out. It is now at 31942. I signed it.
https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/244282
I suspect Drakeford will be "clarifying" shortly -- sadly for all his loyal English fan-club.
When in fact speedy appointment & confirmation is actually to Trumpsky's DISADVANTAGE for the reason you cite: the pressure is off.
MMcC's motivation was two-foldL
1) get new conservative justice confirmed while GOP still has required votes in US Senate; and
2) help Lindsay Graham and others of the same endangered species: Republican senators in tight re-election battles.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170365463
Citing people queuing and believing they are there because they are pumped up for Biden is...brave.
Interesting how you latched onto red herring (or red beaver?) INSTEAD of Robert's point which was about impact of ACB's coronation upon religious conservative voters.
Perhaps more courage THIS year - but more intensity? Hell no.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1320078267358085122?s=20
First, someone said that it's NOT a long line because of social distancing. Then yours truly said ANY line this early is by definition impressive.
Then you say that early voting in person is true sign of intensity, to which I replied that ALL early voting (except by folks who habitually do it) is intense,
YOU, sir or madam, are the witherer! But do keep on twisting arguments of others here on PB - because it is WAY less persuasive than you realize.