Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 17, 2020 0:42:13 GMT
Politico has a habit of playing up internal divisions for drama's sake in both blue and red teams (so I'd recommend reading with a pinch of salt), but this piece gives a good look at how the beltway-focused navel-gazing of Obama loyalists (and, more widely, Hillaryworld) underestimated Biden. I'd argue the blind spots shown here would have made up the difference between winning and losing 2016. I doubt that is all that accurate on the relationship between Obama and Biden but I suspect that it is mostly right about their aides.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,506
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 17, 2020 1:31:49 GMT
Given their recent form, trump may have a better chance relying on his current policy of massively restricting the opportunities for postal voting The Redskins lost their last home match (and away match as it happens) before this presidential election. It was also the Washington Redskins last ever home match. www.nfl.com/games/giants-at-redskins-2019-reg-16
|
|
|
Post by London Lad on Aug 17, 2020 6:05:20 GMT
Given their recent form, trump may have a better chance relying on his current policy of massively restricting the opportunities for postal voting The Redskins lost their last home match (and away match as it happens) before this presidential election. It was also the Washington Redskins last ever home match. www.nfl.com/games/giants-at-redskins-2019-reg-16Wasn't it also their last ever game? - I thought I read that the Redskins were no more..
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Aug 17, 2020 9:37:46 GMT
I don't see anything wrong with my "take". Past performance is no guarantee of future success. I don't have huge confidence in the 79-year-old Biden getting through the next three months without various gaffes and health scares that would see his lead slide like Clinton's did. The risk is not so much people voting for Trump as people not voting for Biden - what you might call the hand sitters. Of course it doesn't, but your comment actually reinforces my point.
You can't guarantee the unusual situation of Clinton winning the popular vote quite convincingly but losing swing states like MI by tony margins again. Trump's path to the WH is more difficult than Biden's and that's just a plain fact.
The polling, in general, paints a much more positive picture for the Dems this time around than in 2016.
On age, Biden is 77, not 79. Anecdotally, he is in much better physical condition than Trump - a man who struggles to descend a ramp or drink a glass of water.
In terms of gaffes, in many respects they are already priced in. He can make quite a few and get away with it because he's expected to make them.
You can't add 1+1 and get 3.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Aug 17, 2020 9:59:59 GMT
Of course it doesn't, but your comment actually reinforces my point.
You can't guarantee the unusual situation of Clinton winning the popular vote quite convincingly but losing swing states like MI by tony margins again. Trump's path to the WH is more difficult than Biden's and that's just a plain fact.
The polling, in general, paints a much more positive picture for the Dems this time around than in 2016.
On age, Biden is 77, not 79. Anecdotally, he is in much better physical condition than Trump - a man who struggles to descend a ramp or drink a glass of water.
In terms of gaffes, in many respects they are already priced in. He can make quite a few and get away with it because he's expected to make them.
You can't add 1+1 and get 3.
There’s old established wisdom in US political analysis that polling prior to Labor Day is worth very little. Relatively close US Presidential Elections are won more on differential turnout than they are by vote switchers. Those differential turnout voters and non-voters are mostly (but by no means all) relatively uninterested in politics and they just don’t engage with the election process, or with pollsters, until just weeks before polling day. That said, the polls are pretty much all we’ve got to go on, so of course almost every political pundit, whilst qualifying their relevance, dices and slices the latest pre-Labor Day polls either to get the answer they want or, far less commonly, to seek out some reflection of current political thinking. I’ve been struck, both with national polls and with the far smaller database of state polls, at the amount of variation we are seeing between polls. This of course makes it easy for partisans to pick and choose the data they like because it favours their preferred outcome. The polling averages help to reduce this effect, but even they don’t eliminate it. These polling averages are currently showing the tiniest of advantages for Biden over Trump compared to the same date four years ago. Week before last they were showing Trump with a tiny advantage over the averages being reported four years earlier. Go back to the beginning of this month and Biden had a more substantial lead over the average polling numbers from four years earlier. Conclusion: the polls have limited relevance before polling day, but to that limited extent that they do have any relevance, they are showing no significant difference to the position four years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by adlai52 on Aug 17, 2020 11:59:24 GMT
There’s old established wisdom in US political analysis that polling prior to Labor Day is worth very little. Relatively close US Presidential Elections are won more on differential turnout than they are by vote switchers. Those differential turnout voters and non-voters are mostly (but by no means all) relatively uninterested in politics and they just don’t engage with the election process, or with pollsters, until just weeks before polling day. That said, the polls are pretty much all we’ve got to go on, so of course almost every political pundit, whilst qualifying their relevance, dices and slices the latest pre-Labor Day polls either to get the answer they want or, far less commonly, to seek out some reflection of current political thinking. I’ve been struck, both with national polls and with the far smaller database of state polls, at the amount of variation we are seeing between polls. This of course makes it easy for partisans to pick and choose the data they like because it favours their preferred outcome. The polling averages help to reduce this effect, but even they don’t eliminate it. These polling averages are currently showing the tiniest of advantages for Biden over Trump compared to the same date four years ago. Week before last they were showing Trump with a tiny advantage over the averages being reported four years earlier. Go back to the beginning of this month and Biden had a more substantial lead over the average polling numbers from four years earlier.Conclusion: the polls have limited relevance before polling day, but to that limited extent that they do have any relevance, they are showing no significant difference to the position four years earlier. This isn't true. Biden is polling consistently ahead of where Clinton was at this point in 2016. Fivethirtyeight has made this point more concisely than I can here: fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-polling-better-than-clinton-at-her-peak/A key point when comparing the polls today with 2016 is that Biden is also regularly polling above 50%, suggesting a higher baseline of support than Clinton had in 2016. Meanwhile Trump continues to poll pretty much in line with his favourability ratings, meaning he remains behind in the low 40s. Unlike in 2016, a much higher proportion of the electorate appear to have made up their mind and what undecided voters polls are recording skew towards the Democrats. We've had plenty of polls and very little in the way of volatility, Biden's lead was around +4% pre-Covid and has been averaging 8-9% since April/May. Importantly, he's also not seeing much erosion in that lead when the 'likely voter' screens are applied to these polls. It's true that Biden's lead has edged down a tad and if that continues it will be significant, but right now there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe it will continue. So far, the trajectory of this race - as with the 2018 midterms - has been pretty consistent.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,491
|
Post by johng on Aug 17, 2020 12:16:51 GMT
This isn't true. Biden is polling consistently ahead of where Clinton was at this point in 2016. Fivethirtyeight has made this point more concisely than I can here: fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-polling-better-than-clinton-at-her-peak/A key point when comparing the polls today with 2016 is that Biden is also regularly polling above 50%, suggesting a higher baseline of support than Clinton had in 2016. Meanwhile Trump continues to poll pretty much in line with his favourability ratings, meaning he remains behind in the low 40s. Unlike in 2016, a much higher proportion of the electorate appear to have made up their mind and what undecided voters polls are recording skew towards the Democrats. We've had plenty of polls and very little in the way of volatility, Biden's lead was around +4% pre-Covid and has been averaging 8-9% since April/May. Importantly, he's also not seeing much erosion in that lead when the 'likely voter' screens are applied to these polls.
I think some people just don't get this. His lead is much deeper than Clinton's was in 2016.
On cue, ABC/The Washington Post have a poll out today (A+ on 538). ''As the virtual Democratic National Convention opens, Biden holds a 12 percentage-point lead over Trump among registered voters, 53-41%, and a similar 10 points among likely voters, 54-44%, with two and a half consequential months to go.''
Just look at the numbers and compare them to 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 17, 2020 13:06:39 GMT
There’s old established wisdom in US political analysis that polling prior to Labor Day is worth very little. Relatively close US Presidential Elections are won more on differential turnout than they are by vote switchers. Those differential turnout voters and non-voters are mostly (but by no means all) relatively uninterested in politics and they just don’t engage with the election process, or with pollsters, until just weeks before polling day. That said, the polls are pretty much all we’ve got to go on, so of course almost every political pundit, whilst qualifying their relevance, dices and slices the latest pre-Labor Day polls either to get the answer they want or, far less commonly, to seek out some reflection of current political thinking. I’ve been struck, both with national polls and with the far smaller database of state polls, at the amount of variation we are seeing between polls. This of course makes it easy for partisans to pick and choose the data they like because it favours their preferred outcome. The polling averages help to reduce this effect, but even they don’t eliminate it. These polling averages are currently showing the tiniest of advantages for Biden over Trump compared to the same date four years ago. Week before last they were showing Trump with a tiny advantage over the averages being reported four years earlier. Go back to the beginning of this month and Biden had a more substantial lead over the average polling numbers from four years earlier.Conclusion: the polls have limited relevance before polling day, but to that limited extent that they do have any relevance, they are showing no significant difference to the position four years earlier. This isn't true. Biden is polling consistently ahead of where Clinton was at this point in 2016. Fivethirtyeight has made this point more concisely than I can here: fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-polling-better-than-clinton-at-her-peak/A key point when comparing the polls today with 2016 is that Biden is also regularly polling above 50%, suggesting a higher baseline of support than Clinton had in 2016. Meanwhile Trump continues to poll pretty much in line with his favourability ratings, meaning he remains behind in the low 40s. Unlike in 2016, a much higher proportion of the electorate appear to have made up their mind and what undecided voters polls are recording skew towards the Democrats. We've had plenty of polls and very little in the way of volatility, Biden's lead was around +4% pre-Covid and has been averaging 8-9% since April/May. Importantly, he's also not seeing much erosion in that lead when the 'likely voter' screens are applied to these polls. It's true that Biden's lead has edged down a tad and if that continues it will be significant, but right now there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe it will continue. So far, the trajectory of this race - as with the 2018 midterms - has been pretty consistent. I confess my ignorance of US politics, but this seems what I'd expect. Biden's been around forever and Trump is very much a known quantity now, surely few are going to change their minds on either short of some "autumn surprise" events. Also, lack of enthusiasm for Biden has been widely noted, in which case it seems hard for him to get less popular - there's no "bubble" to burst. If received wisdom is correct that the driver of Biden's lead is Trump's unpopularity, surely Trump needs to become less unpopular, specifically in swing states. (Or steal the election I suppose) How does Trump do this? And can he keep his base on-side while doing so? (Non-rhetorical questions)
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,643
|
Post by nelson on Aug 17, 2020 13:49:49 GMT
This isn't true. Biden is polling consistently ahead of where Clinton was at this point in 2016. Fivethirtyeight has made this point more concisely than I can here: fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-polling-better-than-clinton-at-her-peak/A key point when comparing the polls today with 2016 is that Biden is also regularly polling above 50%, suggesting a higher baseline of support than Clinton had in 2016. Meanwhile Trump continues to poll pretty much in line with his favourability ratings, meaning he remains behind in the low 40s. Unlike in 2016, a much higher proportion of the electorate appear to have made up their mind and what undecided voters polls are recording skew towards the Democrats. We've had plenty of polls and very little in the way of volatility, Biden's lead was around +4% pre-Covid and has been averaging 8-9% since April/May. Importantly, he's also not seeing much erosion in that lead when the 'likely voter' screens are applied to these polls. It's true that Biden's lead has edged down a tad and if that continues it will be significant, but right now there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe it will continue. So far, the trajectory of this race - as with the 2018 midterms - has been pretty consistent. I confess my ignorance of US politics, but this seems what I'd expect. Biden's been around forever and Trump is very much a known quantity now, surely few are going to change their minds on either short of some "autumn surprise" events. Also, lack of enthusiasm for Biden has been widely noted, in which case it seems hard for him to get less popular - there's no "bubble" to burst. If received wisdom is correct that the driver of Biden's lead is Trump's unpopularity, surely Trump needs to become less unpopular, specifically in swing states. (Or steal the election I suppose) How does Trump do this? And can he keep his base on-side while doing so? (Non-rhetorical questions) Trump could possibly improve a bit among female voters by picking Nikki Haley or SC governor Kristi Noem (a staunch Trump loyalist) as running mate instead of Pence (who isn't particularly popular among his base, and he's highly unlikely to lose the evangelical vote), but nothing indicates he will. They're both 48, so that would make the R ticket younger than the D ticket, which would be an advantage. He also needs to stop trying to paint Biden as "a tool for the far left", which no one believes, and try get economically leftist voters to stay home (they distrust Harris as a "woke Corporate Democrat"). Also somehow give Howie Hawkins some credibility and hope he can snatch a couple of percentage points rather the 0.5% that seems likely now.
|
|
|
Post by relique on Aug 17, 2020 14:10:38 GMT
He also needs to stop trying to paint Biden as "a tool for the far left", which no one believes, and try get economically leftist voters to stay home (they distrust Harris as a "woke Corporate Democrat"). Also somehow give Howie Hawkins some credibility and hope he can snatch a couple of percentage points rather the 0.5% that seems likely now.
I guess it'll be hard for an incumbent president to campaign on "draining the swamp", and criticize the "corporate-friendly/corrupt establishment". It would however remain his strongest argument against Biden/Harris as it was with Clinton in my opinion with voters who gained him his electoral college win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 15:38:27 GMT
He also needs to stop trying to paint Biden as "a tool for the far left", which no one believes, and try get economically leftist voters to stay home (they distrust Harris as a "woke Corporate Democrat"). Also somehow give Howie Hawkins some credibility and hope he can snatch a couple of percentage points rather the 0.5% that seems likely now.
I guess it'll be hard for an incumbent president to campaign on "draining the swamp", and criticize the "corporate-friendly/corrupt establishment". It would however remain his strongest argument against Biden/Harris as it was with Clinton in my opinion with voters who gained him his electoral college win.
It could still work as Biden was in 'the swamp' 20 years before Hillary, but I have my doubts it would be effective.
|
|
|
Post by MacShimidh on Aug 17, 2020 16:56:01 GMT
Here is an incredible read on the current goings-on inside the Trump campaign. The main focus of the article is on the replacement of Brad Parscale with Bill Stepien, although it also delves deep into the myriad personal rivalries within Trumpworld. For instance, there's a deep-seated hatred between Jared Kushner and Chris Christie that I had never heard of before. The most striking thing about the campaign though is just how slapdash it all is - there's barely any strategy or organisation at all.
|
|
|
Post by London Lad on Aug 17, 2020 18:43:23 GMT
And it starts... Due to the recent warning from the USPS that some States Election Law is not compatible with the service standards of USPS the Pennsylvania Secretary of State has gone to Court to allow votes received for 3 days after the election to be counted...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 19:17:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by relique on Aug 17, 2020 19:24:30 GMT
Could he put a nickname in the ballot papers ?
"Joseph Robinette "Not Trump" Biden Jr" could be quite effective. And "Kamala "not Hillary" Harris" for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 17, 2020 19:25:36 GMT
Could he put a nickname in the ballot papers ?
"Joseph Robinette "Not Trump" Biden Jr" could be quite effective. And "Kamala "not Hillary" Harris" for good measure.
A low-profile Green candidate for GA-SEN gave himself "Green" as a middle name, presumably for this very reason.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 17, 2020 19:53:10 GMT
And it starts... Due to the recent warning from the USPS that some States Election Law is not compatible with the service standards of USPS the Pennsylvania Secretary of State has gone to Court to allow votes received for 3 days after the election to be counted... For the Presidential election voters are electing Electors, who gather in mid-December, so there's fundamentally no flaw in allowing ballots to trail in well past 3rd November.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by peterl on Aug 17, 2020 21:13:33 GMT
Yes there is. People want to know the result overnight. The electoral college exists these days merely to balance the votes across states. Beyond that, its anachronous.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Aug 17, 2020 21:18:00 GMT
And it starts... Due to the recent warning from the USPS that some States Election Law is not compatible with the service standards of USPS the Pennsylvania Secretary of State has gone to Court to allow votes received for 3 days after the election to be counted... For the Presidential election voters are electing Electors, who gather in mid-December, so there's fundamentally no flaw in allowing ballots to trail in well past 3rd November. Not to mention that this was fuelled by removal of USPS collection boxes and restriction of services ostensibly, according to the President, to make it harder to vote (he's also on the record as believing easier voting would hurt his chances of reelection). The removals have stopped, but I've read nothing about restoration of any that were taken away and voter suppression attempts must be resisted even if that makes the counting process a bit more cumbersome.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,506
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 18, 2020 0:48:03 GMT
For the Presidential election voters are electing Electors, who gather in mid-December, so there's fundamentally no flaw in allowing ballots to trail in well past 3rd November. Not to mention that this was fuelled by removal of USPS collection boxes and restriction of services ostensibly, according to the President, to make it harder to vote (he's also on the record as believing easier voting would hurt his chances of reelection). The removals have stopped, but I've read nothing about restoration of any that were taken away and voter suppression attempts must be resisted even if that makes the counting process a bit more cumbersome. Recently I've been reminded how much voter suppression is endemic in the US. Including through the use of laws to disenfranchise 'undesirable elements' from having the vote at all, using municipal/state power to make voting more difficult either through severely restricting postal voting or minimising polling stations or, using the first amendment as a cover, literally misleading opposition voters that they are unable to vote, directing them to the wrong polling station or other lies to suppress them voting at all. Along with the monetary element it really is a rotten system.
|
|