|
Xombie posted:I still think that trauma has caused people to blow up Trump's performance in 2016 in their memory relative to reality. He only had 260 EV's in states he won by more than 1%, and Florida (29 EV) by only 1.2%. He eked out the win by the skin of his teeth, entirely on the back of "I don't like Hillary, so eh let's roll the dice". I mean, fingers crossed but aren't the polls at least somewhat tuned to catch that? I think if a nonvoter tells the pollster they're going to vote or already voted, then the pollster doesn't go "bah, ignoring that they're a nonvoter so who cares what they say"
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Daduzi posted:I'm actually going the other way: polls will underestimate the final result as most polling firms continue to over-correct from 2016. I want to say this as well, but can't quite bring myself to, so I'll just quote you and add this hemming and hawing down here to try to insulate my heart from too much hoping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Regardless of the outcome, I will look back and say "Of course, it was obviously going to end like that."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1320757052491386883 lol trump is toast
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1320757052491386883 They've had him up by 1 or 2 since September, where everyone else has him down by 3. It's a D-leaning poll, just not quite as hilarious as Ras and Traf. EDIT: This take may age like roadkill depending on what the NYTimes poll says. Why am I so nervous about that poll? TwoQuestions fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:I'm actually going the other way: polls will underestimate the final result as most polling firms continue to over-correct from 2016. Yeah, i'm in this boat: my finger in the air prediction is biden +12.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
NYT is releasing a Texas poll in about 20 minutes. Gonna be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Glumwheels posted:On the heels of the 60 minutes interview where he berated Leslie Stahl...gee wonder why women don’t like him I will make the additional prediction that Trump will not carry Pennsylvania
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Biden will win Texas. I'm about to be owned by the NYT poll but I will stick with this prediction. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
With Texas (and the idea that Texas is even in play is a death knell for the Trump campaign) it's entirely possible that traditional R Texans have had enough of Trump's poo poo and are willing to punch a Biden ticket to make him go away for good. In 2016 Trump beat Clinton by 813,774 (4,681,590 to 3,867,816) and in the 2018 midterms Cruz only beat O'Rouke by 214,921 (4,260,553 to 4,045,632) - but on the same day Abbott beat Valdez in the gubernatorial by 1,109,581 (4,656,196 to 3,546,615) so even from two years ago about 400k Republican Texans and up to 900k TX voters just want off the Trump Train and with demographic changes and COVID-19 it may well be enough. I'd say it's actually quite likely you'd see a split ticket in Texas where Cornyn wins Senate relection but Biden takes the EC votes e: or Texans just really hate women idk Doccykins fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
It is incredibly difficult to even contrive scenarios where Trump has a shot of winning, based on all of the available data.
Like, I'm a pessimist, but there is absolutely nothing I can point to that would be remotely comforting if I were part of Trump's campaign. I think it's conceivable that he wins OH, FL, GA,TX and AZ, but 1) I'd still have Biden as clear favourite to win even without those states and 2) if I'm being honest with myself, it's just as plausible to think that Biden will win all 5, let alone the one or two he needs to put the election to bed completely. I'll stop short of indulging myself in the possibility that it's going to be a bloodbath, but a victory on the order of Obama 2008 seems pretty likely to me atm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Ny times texas poll was taken pre-debate with the one thing that might move the needle from that debate being Biden's oil comments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Ny times texas poll was taken pre-debate with the one thing that might move the needle from that debate being Biden's oil comments. basically the only place where it has gotten any type of traction, but I wouldn't call it signficant traction. Still, enough a flub to possibly make an impact in polling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
I will also predict that Trump loses Michigan and Wisconsin by a significant margin
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Like I wasn't traumatized to the same extent as others in 2016 (in part thanks to elections like 2014 and 2010) but my brain still has that anxious feeling in the back going 'you can imagine how stressed and panicky you'll be on election night' and I don't know how to avoid that. My most vivid memory of that night (aside from being resigned and going to bed after PA fell) is every other goon in the thread telling everyone to calm the gently caress down, certain districts aren't in yet, we got this and all that and just gradually watching that tone fade into acceptance. It was not a good feeling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
the one good thing about the rona is that I'm not tempted to have an election night party, which was extremely awkward last time
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:57
|
|
Tater Love 
|
To be honest, I also think a lot of people didn't yet realize the implications of a Trump presidency, and were gloating/cheering at the victory of the underdog/chaos candidate. Not this time around, he doesn't have that same energy, he's going down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:My most vivid memory of that night (aside from being resigned and going to bed after PA fell) is every other goon in the thread telling everyone to calm the gently caress down, certain districts aren't in yet, we got this and all that and just gradually watching that tone fade into acceptance. It was not a good feeling. Then a late night group text rant with my co-workers, some of whom voted for Trump, as I laid out why the world was hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Is Texas really deluded enough that "we're not gonna keep burning oil forever" would turn people off? That's the accepted line by everyone from scientists to energy companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:NYT is releasing a Texas poll in about 20 minutes. Gonna be interesting. That fact that they are even bothering to poll Texas a week before the election is not positive for Trump. Trump ‘16 was +9. Romney won it by 16. (He overperformed with Whites everywhere) McCain won it by 11. You would expect John Q Republican to win it by 8-10 even in a heavily Dem year. The last Democrat to win it was Jimmy Carter in 1976, and he won it with 51%, not exactly a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1320772439882780672 Bah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I still think that trauma has caused people to blow up Trump's performance in 2016 in their memory relative to reality. He only had 260 EV's in states he won by more than 1%, and Florida (29 EV) by only 1.2%. He eked out the win by the skin of his teeth, entirely on the back of "I don't like Hillary, so eh let's roll the dice". It’s fun reading posts like these and feeling optimistic knowing that in 24 hours there will be like an IBD/TIPP poll showing a tie in Florida and we’ll all be rending our garments and wailing for the inevitable red tsunami. E: or Trump a laughable +4 in Texas ought ten fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Is Texas really deluded enough that "we're not gonna keep burning oil forever" would turn people off? That's the accepted line by everyone from scientists to energy companies. Resource extraction is currently one of two industry sectors (the other being teamster jobs) where high school educated people can make a middle class and even upper class income. The people who are making that money would like to keep making it regardless of how unrealistic it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:To be honest, I also think a lot of people didn't yet realize the implications of a Trump presidency, and were gloating/cheering at the victory of the underdog/chaos candidate. Keith knew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
That's a big undecided group. I'm sure they'll talk themselves into voting from Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
lol Biden is only winning Black voters 78-12, someone is going to get cancelled today for their take on this
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1320772723942019074 This is the more interesting fact from that poll
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Resource extraction is currently one of two industry sectors (the other being teamster jobs) where high school educated people can make a middle class and even upper class income. The people who are making that money would like to keep making it regardless of how unrealistic it is. the distinct impression i got is that being anti-fracking can be dangerous in pennsylvania, because its heritage of blue collar union jobs means there are plenty of people who are potential democratic voters but who also have a strong economic impact in fracking continuing - so you can really lose votes those same people in texas i think are deep red republicans no matter what biden says, so he won't lose nearly the sort of votes he might in PA
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Is Texas really deluded enough that "we're not gonna keep burning oil forever" would turn people off? That's the accepted line by everyone from scientists to energy companies. this is every single oilfield contractor: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Is Texas really deluded enough that "we're not gonna keep burning oil forever" would turn people off? That's the accepted line by everyone from scientists to energy companies. There are a lot of people who make a living in the oil industry, and they and their families are genuinely worried that a Democratic administration would speed up this transition to the extent that they'd be out of a job. These people are the lifeblood of the local economy: they bring in the money that restaurants, stores, etc etc depend on. They aren't deluded, they are just anxious for their future. Anyone would be anxious, if you told them the industry they worked in their whole lives will go away. What are they supposed to do, Learn To Code? Change is hard. That said, I don't think any minds are actually changed. They would have had the same fear about any democratic administration, and many are simply conservative besides that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
lol second to last paragraph of the siena writeupquote:Low-turnout Hispanic voters in Texas are some of the toughest voters to reach in the country for pollsters. It is even harder to ensure a representative sample of the group in a state like Texas where voters don’t register with a party; party registration can be used to ensure the right number of Democrats and Republicans. We can’t rule out the possibility that the poll failed to reach the most Democratic-leaning of these voters. i'm certainly prepared for trump to win texas, but i just fundamentally don't get how you make Cohn's poll make sense - we think nonwhite support is going to carry trump to the win, in the face of suburban white revolt - biden does way better than hillary with hispanic voters that've already voted ("Mr. Biden has an even wider lead of 73-20 among Hispanic voters who say they have already voted") - trump only does well with unlikely voters, so we've decided that more hispanic turnout effectively hurts biden - and also maybe our whole hispanic sample just sucked
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
The article is interesting, in that it talks about Biden's weakness with Latinos compared to Clinton 2016. We know Beto lagged behind with that group compared to Hillary. There are also some surveys showing Trump doing a little better among latinos compared to 2016. And IIRC the Biden campaign cancelled a lot of their ads in Texas recently except for San Antonio and El Paso media markets. It kinda paints a picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Is Texas really deluded enough that "we're not gonna keep burning oil forever" would turn people off? That's the accepted line by everyone from scientists to energy companies. There are two theories, one is that global warming isn't real and the other is we'll figure something out like some crazy moonshot tech but on the subject of oil and gas... It's not even popular among Republicans. https://twitter.com/cohan_ds/status/1320487506396303369?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Again, Texas would be grand but I really think Kamala would be better off in Arizona or NC or GA than Texas. Coming within 10 points of Trump in Texas will be awesome but I'd hate another scenario where Biden gets within 3% of Trump in some solid-R states while still not picking up the ones he needs for 270. We need the ice cream for the cherry on top.
MaoistBanker fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
MaoistBanker posted:Again, Texas would be grand but I really think Kamala would be better off in Arizona or NC or GA than Texas. Coming within 10 points of Trump in Texas will be awesome but I'd hate another scenario where Biden gets 3% of some solid-R states while still not picking up the ones he needs for 270. We need the ice cream for the cherry on top. Agreed. Sending Harris there with so little time, when its clearly out of reach, seems like a waste.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
I'm taking the NYT's poll at face value and guessing Trump has the edge still. I think what Cohn is referring to about NYT not capturing adequate Latino support for Dems in the past in their polls, is the fact they had Cruz winning the Senate race in 2018 by 8 points, which was 6 points off from the actual result. But then again every pollster was several points off in 2018 in that race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:when its clearly out of reach Texas absolutely is not "clearly out of reach" when multiple decent polls have shown a statistical tie. The Biden campaign wouldn't be doing this if they weren't confident in the polling in the Rust Belt, which is an average of Biden +6 at the absolute worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Agreed. Sending Harris there with so little time, when its clearly out of reach, seems like a waste. I don't think the polling we've seen would say Texas is "out of reach" - on the lower end of the swing states Biden can nab, sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
if the question that texas comes down to, as nate says, is whether Donald J. Trump's "strength among nonwhite voters does enough to overcome all out rebellion in the suburbs", then i like our odds lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
MaoistBanker posted:Again, Texas would be grand but I really think Kamala would be better off in Arizona or NC or GA than Texas. Coming within 10 points of Trump in Texas will be awesome but I'd hate another scenario where Biden gets 3% of some solid-R states while still not picking up the ones he needs for 270. We need the ice cream for the cherry on top. I mean I agree but also I doubt the deployment of Kamala matters all that much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 18:14
|
|