Board 8 > Election 2020 Statistics and Discussion

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroicCrono posted...

Rasmussen put out a Trump +1 poll today. Biden's lead in the 538 polling average down to 8.7%.

Yeah, Trump is one miss-poll in Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Michigan away from having a viable path for re-election. Obviously a lot needs to go his way, more so than in 2016...

---

Trump gained 3% in the last week last time. If he gets a similar boost he's one reasonably sized polling error away from getting to Biden +3 or +4 and an EC win.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Trump gained 3% in the last week last time. If he gets a similar boost he's one reasonably sized polling error away from getting to Biden +3 or +4 and an EC win.

There aren't as many undecided voters this time as there were last time. Trump hasn't done anything to expand his base, and at this point its too late. He's a known commodity. Democrats are also much more motivated to turn out in this election, especially with ACB being ushered onto the supreme court with a week to go before the election. Combine that with the mishandling of COVID19 and Trump definitely has a very tough road to victory.

I was surprised how few paths trump has to winning. I remember in 2000 Gore needed the world and was shocked when I looked at the map and saw colorado went Republican that year. Funny how things change.

Seems like Trump needs Penn AND Florida AND every other state that usually goes red but are surprisingly competitive such as Georgia and Texas.

That means he needs a country wide polling error which is hugely different from 2016 when he won off a rust belt polling error. That seems tough

---

masterplum posted...

I was surprised how few paths trump has to winning. I remember in 2000 Gore needed the world and was shocked when I looked at the map and saw colorado went Republican that year. Funny how things change.

Seems like Trump needs Penn AND Florida AND every other state that usually goes red but are surprisingly competitive such as Georgia and Texas.

That means he needs a country wide polling error which is hugely different from 2016 when he won off a rust belt polling error. That seems tough

Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina will be fine if he gets that 3% last week surge. To the extent that that surge represents Republicans deciding that any Republican is still better than any Democrat, it could very plausibly happen again.

---

I just don't see a nationwide change in a landscape where 95% of people are 100% set already.

Trump needs to

A: Hope Republican turnout is substantially better than Democrat turnout (Looking exceedingly unlikely based on early voting numbers)

Or

B: Hope for systematic polling error across the entire country

Trump had A last time, but he didn't have B. Polls actually underestimated Clinton support in deep blue states which led to the popular vote differential. What he did have is polling error in the rust belt.

He just needs the world this time. I don't think it's going to happen

---

masterplum posted...

I just don't see a nationwide change in a landscape where 95% of people are 100% set already.

Trump needs to

A: Hope Republican turnout is substantially better than Democrat turnout (Looking exceedingly unlikely based on early voting numbers)

Or

B: Hope for systematic polling error across the entire country

Trump had A last time, but he didn't have B. Polls actually underestimated Clinton support in deep blue states which led to the popular vote differential. What he did have is polling error in the rust belt.

He just needs the world this time. I don't think it's going to happen

He doesn't need anything more than what you said he had in 2016. He could lose every blue state by 20+ more points and lose 4% off all his reliable red states. As long as he skates by in the midwest and florida, he should in theory win.


---

Arizona and North Carolina are both very losable this time around.

---

masterplum posted...

I just don't see a nationwide change in a landscape where 95% of people are 100% set already.

Trump needs to

A: Hope Republican turnout is substantially better than Democrat turnout (Looking exceedingly unlikely based on early voting numbers)

Or

B: Hope for systematic polling error across the entire country

Trump had A last time, but he didn't have B. Polls actually underestimated Clinton support in deep blue states which led to the popular vote differential. What he did have is polling error in the rust belt.

He just needs the world this time. I don't think it's going to happen

But the polls from a week before the election in 2016 did have substantial polling error, even on a national level. They moved about 3 points in the last week, after which the national polling error was minimal, although the distribution was very favorable to Trump.

We've heard many people theorize over the last 4 years that Comey announcement that he was reopening the investigation of Hillary's emails caused that 3 point boost. Well, I've always been skeptical of that. I think it's more that many people didn't want to admit (to others or themselves) that they were going to vote for Trump. But during the last week, there was no more time to put off the decision by remaining uncommitted and they were forced to look at their options - and conclude that the Republican was better on policy.

We'll get a good idea soon of if my theory is correct. If it moves substantially toward Trump without an October surprise like a stash of Biden's emails being found - then I'm probably right.

---

masterplum posted...

Arizona and North Carolina are both very losable this time around.

North Carolina, Iowa, and Georgia I think he will win. He doesn't really need Arizona if that same midwest issue exists tho.

---

No amount of speculation is going to settle my anxiety about Election Day. I don't care if the polls show the race getting closer or further apart because we're only going to be able to see with hindsight what the reality of the situation was. Trump is too much of a wild card.

---

Seanchan posted...

No amount of speculation is going to settle my anxiety about Election Day. I don't care if the polls show the race getting closer or further apart because we're only going to be able to see with hindsight what the reality of the situation was. Trump is too much of a wild card.

Trump is toast bud. Mostly because the midwest issue will not happen again.

---

I remain skeptical but co tongue to hope you are right.

The Fact that it seems like we are in for record voter turnout especially among millennials and Gen Z does give me more hope though.

---

Hmm, if we start with the 2016 map and give Biden Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, while everything else stays the same, we end up with a 269-269 tie. In which case the House delegations vote by state, with each state getting one vote, which should be a Trump win.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Hmm, if we start with the 2016 map and give Biden Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, while everything else stays the same, we end up with a 269-269 tie. In which case the House delegations vote by state, with each state getting one vote, which should be a Trump win.

Depends how bad the house election goes, but likely yes. However, Trump likely losing the maine 2nd and the Nebraska 2nd and PA. So there is problems.

---

I think Trump probably keeps Nebraska 2nd. Maine 2nd is tough but it could happen. Pennsylvania...... is really looking like the pivot point.

I think Nevada is an outside chance for Trump too. I don't think any state has had its business damaged as badly by the shutdowns. Lots of working class people who depend on the casino/tourism industry. Earlier in the year I was thinking New Hampshire was a good possibility for Trump but his polling there recently is pretty bad.

---

Stances for or against lockdown should already be factored into the polls, right? They've been going on for month now. Also backlash against lock down can also take the form of blaming Trump for letting COVID-19 get out of control in the first place or the country not getting it under control and having lockdown extend for months.
---

Team Rocket Elite posted...

Are mailed in ballots largely counted after the in-person ballots? I'm trying to get an idea of what the poll trends are going to look like. If in-person ballots tend to be counted first, Trump might have an L-Block style explosive early vote and then go into free fall hoping for the match to end early somehow.

I plan on tracking poll updates for the election. I expect there will be a huge amount of random variation for individual updates, even more so than a typical election. It will depend a lot on the ratio of mail-in votes to in-person votes in each individual update, which is subject to extreme fluctuations. Each state also has its own rules for when their mail-in ballots can start being counted, but I likely expect Joe Biden to open up with a good lead, Trump making a comeback, and then maybe another surge from Biden from the states that start counting mail-in ballots on Election Day.
---

Team Rocket Elite posted...

Stances for or against lockdown should already be factored into the polls, right? They've been going on for month now. Also backlash against lock down can also take the form of blaming Trump for letting COVID-19 get out of control in the first place or the country not getting it under control and having lockdown extend for months.

Yes, and the polls for Nevada are better for Trump than Michigan or Wisconsin. You would think he had no chance given Nevada is normally a fair bit more blue than Arizona, but this year they are closer than normal.

---

LusterSoldier posted...

I plan on tracking poll updates for the election. I expect there will be a huge amount of random variation for individual updates, even more so than a typical election. It will depend a lot on the ratio of mail-in votes to in-person votes in each individual update, which is subject to extreme fluctuations. Each state also has its own rules for when their mail-in ballots can start being counted, but I likely expect Joe Biden to open up with a good lead, Trump making a comeback, and then maybe another surge from Biden from the states that start counting mail-in ballots on Election Day.

You're tracking state by state? Thank you so much for doing this!

---

I'm not tracking by state. I will only track the national results.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Hmm, if we start with the 2016 map and give Biden Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, while everything else stays the same, we end up with a 269-269 tie. In which case the House delegations vote by state, with each state getting one vote, which should be a Trump win.

i've mentioned as such in a couple of the politics topics! either what you described OR giving biden only michigan and pennsylvania could result in a tie.

However, a few scenarios would happen before we see a true tie that goes to the house delegates.

One - the special districts in maine and nebraska have to vote just so for it to work, which polling suggests they are not poised to.

Two - there have to be zero faithless electors. If it is really looking that close, it's hard to imagine someone not pulling some strings, or even for some individuals to decide they have a responsibility to vote faithlessly. This works in combination with:

Three- if it's that close, trump will delay the process as much as possible and declare it fraudulent. he's stated as such. This will give more time to pressure, harrass, and cajole electors, murky the waters, or attempt to rule by inertia. Possibly attempting to invoke a house delegate vote even if the votes don't perfectly match

There were quite a few faithless electors in 2016- granted, more protest votes than flips- so there is some precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2016

Granted, all of this is moot. As time goes on it seems more and more likely that all four states (michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, AND arizona) will vote biden, giving him a decisive victory. Even if it's not an exact tie, the most common scenario is that it will be a complete shitshow of delays, obfuscation, and elector manipulation

i think the only way we get out of this swiftly is if florida votes decisively for biden. this is because mail-in ballots are counted on election day. polls give him a 2 point lead there, but that's very much within the margin of error

---

Im going to laugh really hard if the record turn out leads to all the republicans who wait till Election Day not being able to because of long lines.

---

banananor posted...

i've mentioned as such in a couple of the politics topics! either what you described OR giving biden only michigan and pennsylvania could result in a tie.

However, a few scenarios would happen before we see a true tie that goes to the house delegates.

One - the special districts in maine and nebraska have to vote just so for it to work, which polling suggests they are not poised to.

Two - there have to be zero faithless electors. If it is really looking that close, it's hard to imagine someone not pulling some strings, or even for some individuals to decide they have a responsibility to vote faithlessly. This works in combination with:

Three- if it's that close, trump will delay the process as much as possible and declare it fraudulent. he's stated as such. This will give more time to pressure, harrass, and cajole electors, murky the waters, or attempt to rule by inertia. Possibly attempting to invoke a house delegate vote even if the votes don't perfectly match

There were quite a few faithless electors in 2016- granted, more protest votes than flips- so there is some precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2016

Granted, all of this is moot. As time goes on it seems more and more likely that all four states (michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, AND arizona) will vote biden, giving him a decisive victory. Even if it's not an exact tie, the most common scenario is that it will be a complete shitshow of delays, obfuscation, and elector manipulation

i think the only way we get out of this swiftly is if florida votes decisively for biden. this is because mail-in ballots are counted on election day. polls give him a 2 point lead there, but that's very much within the margin of error

If there is faithless electors, that is bound to end up at the SC.

---

red sox 777 posted...

We've heard many people theorize over the last 4 years that Comey announcement that he was reopening the investigation of Hillary's emails caused that 3 point boost. Well, I've always been skeptical of that. I think it's more that many people didn't want to admit (to others or themselves) that they were going to vote for Trump. But during the last week, there was no more time to put off the decision by remaining uncommitted and they were forced to look at their options - and conclude that the Republican was better on policy.

Heh I figured it was mostly people deciding at the last minute to vote for Trump because they decided Hillary Clinton has too much baggage.

---

https://wtop.com/presidential-election/2020/10/poll-shows-deep-partisan-divide-in-va-early-voting/

VA should be/is reliably in the blue column for 2020 but I thought the stats were interesting.

Polls show early voters are going 69% Biden vs 24% Trump, while Election Day voters 35% Biden vs 59% Trump.

29% Democrats, 23% Independents, 14% Republicans have voted.

I'm sure someone with more time on their hands could look at 2016 results and extrapolate to see if those 2020 results match what's expected for VA in 2020.

---

Trump is going to run up totals in election day big. People who keep cheering and calling these elections in the bag because of early vote totals forget that a lot of election day Democrats are just voting early this year cuz of the pandemic. This isn't plusses but shifted around votes from election day to early.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Trump is going to run up totals in election day big. People who keep cheering and calling these elections in the bag because of early vote totals forget that a lot of election day Democrats are just voting early this year cuz of the pandemic. This isn't plusses but shifted around votes from election day to early.

Wait...haven't YOU been saying this election is in the bag for Biden...?

---

Seanchan posted...

Wait...haven't YOU been saying this election is in the bag for Biden...?

I'm saying their reasoning isn't good. There is a pandemic. More regular votes will be early votes now.

Biden is gonna win. But people saying Texas is guaranteed flipped and certain swing states are locks now are lying to themselves

---

Poll today had Biden +5 in Georgia

big if true

---

Yeah Civiqs. I don't trust their polls personally because they are online polls you have to sign up for. But, maybe they are right.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah Civiqs. I don't trust their polls personally because they are online polls you have to sign up for. But, maybe they are right.

Their Penn and Miss polls seemed reasonable.

I absolutely think they are off, but even a moderate error would still be a Biden lead

---

banananor posted...

Two - there have to be zero faithless electors. If it is really looking that close, it's hard to imagine someone not pulling some strings, or even for some individuals to decide they have a responsibility to vote faithlessly. This works in combination with:

Not quite, the faithless elector would have to switch their vote from Biden to Trump (or vice versa) for it to matter. Them switching to some other person wouldn't matter as none of the candidates would have the 270 electoral votes needed to win (e.g. 269-268-1 result will still go to the house). An elector switching between the two major nominees has never happened, though I imagine there would be a lot of pressure from all sides.

Though considering the top three candidates in the electoral college are considered by the house, I imagine there will definitely be some faithless electors to try to give their secret choice (Sanders, a non-Trump Republican) a chance to be President.

Corrik7 posted...

If there is faithless electors, that is bound to end up at the SC.

Assuming it was done in a state with no laws regarding faithless electors the SC should uphold the vote. The constitution is quite clear that these electors decide who wins an election.

---

My crazy ex-wife who has gone full neocon since the divorce keeps sending me damning proof about hunter Biden

For some reason me telling her it's a good thing hunter biden isn't running for president doesn't seem to matter

---

charmander6000 posted...

Not quite, the faithless elector would have to switch their vote from Biden to Trump (or vice versa) for it to matter. Them switching to some other person wouldn't matter as none of the candidates would have the 270 electoral votes needed to win (e.g. 269-268-1 result will still go to the house). An elector switching between the two major nominees has never happened, though I imagine there would be a lot of pressure from all sides.

Though considering the top three candidates in the electoral college are considered by the house, I imagine there will definitely be some faithless electors to try to give their secret choice (Sanders, a non-Trump Republican) a chance to be President.

Assuming it was done in a state with no laws regarding faithless electors the SC should uphold the vote. The constitution is quite clear that these electors decide who wins an election.

It's complicated. The SC ruled recently (in a ruling that was very disappointing to me) that a state can deselect an elector if he attempts to vote contrary to the winner of that state. I think it's also clear that a state is allowed to punish a faithless elector with jailtime or fines. But that doesn't necessarily mean that an electoral vote actually cast by a faithless elector in a state with laws against it would not count. It's also not clear that the SC has the jurisdiction to decide the question of what votes count (as opposed to how states may select electors) - the Constitution appears to give that solely to the new Congress.

It's sort of like the question of what happens if an excommunicated bishop ordains a new priest. Is the ordination valid? Is the new priest able to perform sacraments? What about if someone posing as a bishop ordains a priest and no one finds out for decades - have all the baptisms performed by that priest for decades actually been invalid?

---

That's what I mean, the SC has already said the states have the power to deselect/punish an elector. This was done in 2016 for three faithless electors where they were replaced or had their vote changed. The Washington faithless electors while fined still had their votes counted as that is the punishment in that state. It's not in the SC place to change the votes.

---

I don't get why we have to select specific electors in the first place instead of the votes just....going to whoever earned them. It seems like a needless step in the best case, and a recipe for weird faithless elector controversy in the worst.

---

charmander6000 posted...

That's what I mean, the SC has already said the states have the power to deselect/punish an elector. This was done in 2016 for three faithless electors where they were replaced or had their vote changed. The Washington faithless electors while fined still had their votes counted as that is the punishment in that state. It's not in the SC place to change the votes.

But there's a potential situation where, say, whoever is in charge of running the electoral college meeting in the state allows the faithless vote to go forward. The other campaign sues, and the state courts determine that the decision was incorrect, that the elector should have been replaced under state law. Meanwhile, the electoral vote has already been cast and submitted to Congress. In that situation, I don't think the state courts have the power to stop Congress from counting the vote that was cast, and SCOTUS would also likely refuse to step in. But there's some room for ambiguity.

---

Or, another scenario: the faithless elector is replaced under state law. Undeterred, he casts his vote anyway, and takes it to DC where he presents it to Congress. When Congress meets to count the votes, one of the parties wants to count that vote. Of course this could potentially devolve into the constitutional crisis of a party that won both houses of Congress but lost the presidential election simply submitting a complete set of electoral votes, and counting their own set, even though everyone knows those are not the real electoral votes. But if Congress says so, then their word is final.

I much prefer the constitutional crisis where the Queen fires her whole cabinet, dissolves Parliament, and rules from the throne though.

---

red sox 777 posted...

But there's a potential situation where, say, whoever is in charge of running the electoral college meeting in the state allows the faithless vote to go forward. The other campaign sues, and the state courts determine that the decision was incorrect, that the elector should have been replaced under state law. Meanwhile, the electoral vote has already been cast and submitted to Congress. In that situation, I don't think the state courts have the power to stop Congress from counting the vote that was cast, and SCOTUS would also likely refuse to step in. But there's some room for ambiguity.

Whoever is running the meeting is likely from the party that won in that state so any faithless voter would hurt their own campaign and will be dealt with quickly.

red sox 777 posted...

Or, another scenario: the faithless elector is replaced under state law. Undeterred, he casts his vote anyway, and takes it to DC where he presents it to Congress. When Congress meets to count the votes, one of the parties wants to count that vote. Of course this could potentially devolve into the constitutional crisis of a party that won both houses of Congress but lost the presidential election simply submitting a complete set of electoral votes, and counting their own set, even though everyone knows those are not the real electoral votes. But if Congress says so, then their word is final.

I much prefer the constitutional crisis where the Queen fires her whole cabinet, dissolves Parliament, and rules from the throne though.

This makes no sense it would be if a senator who lost an election (or is impeached) tried to place a vote, it obviously wouldn't count.

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I don't get why we have to select specific electors in the first place instead of the votes just....going to whoever earned them. It seems like a needless step in the best case, and a recipe for weird faithless elector controversy in the worst.

Electors were not initially meant to represent the popular vote. States are allowed to appoint electors however they want, not just to represent whomever wins the popular vote in their state. Every state just so happens to do that, but it's not required*. When the Constitution was written, it was assumed (and indeed was the case for most states initially) that electors would be chosen by a vote in the state legislatures (similar to how the Senate was initially chosen.) During the 1820's almost every state switched over to using a popular vote to decide electors in an effort for the country to become more democratic, and while the latter goal was achieved it established a disconnect between the Electoral College and the overall Presidential Election which was not really intended.

*South Carolina didn't have a popular vote for President until after the Civil War!

---

charmander6000 posted...

Whoever is running the meeting is likely from the party that won in that state so any faithless voter would hurt their own campaign and will be dealt with quickly.

This makes no sense it would be if a senator who lost an election (or is impeached) tried to place a vote, it obviously wouldn't count.

Yes, the next step in the chain of constitutional crisis is that the other party convenes their own Congress, which they declare to be the legitimate Congress. These are, well, cracks in the constitutional structure. Hopefully we won't have to see this road explored.

---

If Trump loses this he becomes the first single-term President of the century.

Although I guess he could try his luck in 2024?

---

We haven't heard the last of the name Trump no matter what. Even if it's not Donald I expect we'll at least see other Trumps running at a future point.

---

Seanchan posted...

We haven't heard the last of the name Trump no matter what. Even if it's not Donald I expect we'll at least see other Trumps running at a future point.

Son is already running in 2024 basically guaranteed.

---

None of the Trump kids can replicate the original. You cant fake that level of narcissism and megalomania, and thats key to the appeal.

---

That wisconsin poll though

---

I voted by mail weeks ago but now I'm paranoid my vote will get thrown out because I dont have the most consistent signature.

I'm going to be so annoyed if my vote doesnt count.

---

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I don't get why we have to select specific electors in the first place instead of the votes just....going to whoever earned them. It seems like a needless step in the best case, and a recipe for weird faithless elector controversy in the worst.

The Electoral College is a momentously stupid system, but was implemented to solve the problem of heavily populated urban areas dictating policy decisions that would adversely affect rural populations. Going to a "popular vote" system would be just as stupid, but there has to be a better way.

---