The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I'm glad you are perfect living in a perfect world. It must be lovely. I still have friends and family that will vote for Trump. They are not bad people. They are actually some really nice people.

 

 

I don't 100% agree with either of you and don't want to get into it. But I just wanted to comment on this because it's something I've been thinking about lately. My aunt is one of the nicest people on earth and also funny. She posted this huge, insane thing about the 4 year old white boy dying and not getting riots and it had a bunch of pretty racist (but not quite overt) stuff in it and it's clear how she feels about BLM and I'm 99% sure is a Trump supporter. I got to thinking... maybe it should matter more how these people treat others who aren't White than how they treat me. Maybe she's only super nice to people as long as they look like her. And it should also matter somewhat if they vote for someone who is going to make those people's lives worse.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

What did you use to look it up?

 

RealClearPolitics? If so, their polling average tend to lean Republican. They include pollsters that are dubious (sponsored by Sean Hannity, sponsored by GOP members, etc).

 

 

The thing is Trafalgar Group was the "correct" pollster last time for the battleground states... although when the race is really close it's easier to be right even when you have a large bias. And also I like not to get my hopes up. I look at 3 sites; RCP, 538, and 270towin. The nice thing with RCP is they have some extra metrics that the other 2 don't have, like the comparisons to the 2016 race.

[Ulty]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't 100% agree with either of you and don't want to get into it. But I just wanted to comment on this because it's something I've been thinking about lately. My aunt is one of the nicest people on earth and also funny. She posted this huge, insane thing about the 4 year old white boy dying and not getting riots and it had a bunch of pretty racist (but not quite overt) stuff in it and it's clear how she feels about BLM and I'm 99% sure is a Trump supporter. I got to thinking... maybe it should matter more how these people treat others who aren't White than how they treat me. Maybe she's only super nice to people as long as they look like her. And it should also matter somewhat if they vote for someone who is going to make those people's lives worse.

This. I’ve known plenty of racist people who come across as perfectly nice in their interactions with me, as a white cisgender male, and are generally polite to most others. But they have horrific views. I have the privilege of not being the target of their ire. I also have the privilege of not being directly impacted by Trump’s evil rhetoric.
 

To Zrod’s point, yeah we should make efforts to reach out and educate. Only light can defeat darkness, and all that. But when it comes to right and wrong, we certainly should not compromise our values just to meet someone in the middle (which I don’t think Zrod was advocating for).

[Ratt Mhule]

6 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

What did you use to look it up?

 

RealClearPolitics? If so, their polling average tend to lean Republican. They include pollsters that are dubious (sponsored by Sean Hannity, sponsored by GOP members, etc).

Yes, RCP average

[BigRedBuster]

8 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

No hes up in all except AZ

“Biden +8” would mean he’s losing.  

[Ratt Mhule]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

“Biden +8” would mean he’s losing.  

Its not betting markets, its how much hes up in an average of the polls in those states. 

[FrantzHardySwag]

33 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Its not betting markets, its how much hes up in an average of the polls in those states. 

^ This an example would be Biden polling 48-40 in a state, hence +8.

[Cdog923]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

“Biden +8” would mean he’s losing.  

 

Someone's been at the casino....

[Danny Bateman]

12 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

This cant be good for Trump in TX. Higher voter turnout usually means Dems win. Cant wait for Dave to say “ive seen enough” and declare Biden the winner. 

 

Wasserman is such a good Twitter follow for election stuff. He's seen a wealth of private polling, particularly at the district level, which suggests Trump's margins have significantly worsened such that if you extrapolate those results to the state as a whole, Trump's in for an even bigger drubbing than the national or state polls suggest. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison but one can hope!

 

And an overperformance in Texas would be huge this cycle. There's a big push there to flip the State House blue. If they can do that, they get input on the redistricting maps and some legislative power, which would make it much, much harder for the TX GOP to gerrymander and continue infringing on voting rights.

 

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The thing is Trafalgar Group was the "correct" pollster last time for the battleground states... although when the race is really close it's easier to be right even when you have a large bias. And also I like not to get my hopes up. I look at 3 sites; RCP, 538, and 270towin. The nice thing with RCP is they have some extra metrics that the other 2 don't have, like the comparisons to the 2016 race.

 

After reflecting on it a lot my belief is that Trafalgar Group just got lucky in 2016. All major pollsters underestimated the noncollege white turnout in the Rust Belt for Trump. Trafalgar just happened to have some rosy polls for Trump in those states that fell a$$ backward into looking "correct." 

 

Reputable pollsters have adjusted their methodology to account for this this cycle. Trafalgar has some really weird methodology where they overrepresent Trump-favorable demographics to account for "shy Trump" voters. Has anyone ever met a Trump supporter that was particularly shy?

 

They also do some other stuff that I don't quite understand but results in some wacky results. Here's Nate Silver not being particularly nice to them:

 

 

[Moiraine]

48 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Wasserman is such a good Twitter follow for election stuff. He's seen a wealth of private polling, particularly at the district level, which suggests Trump's margins have significantly worsened such that if you extrapolate those results to the state as a whole, Trump's in for an even bigger drubbing than the national or state polls suggest. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison but oen can hope!

 

And an overperformance in Texas would be huge this cycle. There's a big push there to flip the State House blue. If they can do that, they get input on the redistricting maps and some legislative power, which would make it much, much harder for the TX GOP to gerrymander and continue infringing on voting rights.

 

 

After reflecting on it a lot my belief is that Trafalgar Group just got lucky in 2016. All major pollsters underestimated the noncollege white turnout in the Rust Belt for Trump. Trafalgar just happened to have some rosy polls for Trump in those states that fell a$$ backward into looking "correct." 

 

Reputable pollsters have adjusted their methodology to account for this this cycle. Trafalgar has some really weird methodology where they overrepresent Trump-favorable demographics to account for "shy Trump" voters. Has anyone ever met a Trump supporter that was particularly shy?

 

They also do some other stuff that I don't quite understand but results in some wacky results. Here's Nate Silver not being particularly nice to them:

 

 

 

 

Yes I agree. If you're 95% confident the margin of victory is between 0% and 10% and your statistic was 5% and the margin was actually 0.1% you can claim you were correct, but you still had a lot of bias.

[knapplc]

11 hours ago, ZRod said:

I'm glad you are perfect living in a perfect world. It must be lovely. I still have friends and family that will vote for Trump. They are not bad people. They are actually some really nice people.

 

I had a conversation not 2 weeks ago with a Trump voter. Very civil and calm. He told me why he votes Republican. I told him why I didn't agree with his thoughts. I doubt I changed his mind, but we we're civil and learned about each other's positions. He said there was a lot he didn't like about Trump and he wishes would change. I just said "then change it!"

 

Seriously, castigating a whole group the way you do is exactly the same thing that Trump does and extreme right wingers do. The reality is we all see things differently and consume things differently. It's not coddling to find common ground with someone, even if you view them as an enemy. It's called decency, and it's a way to make progress and learn from one another. This shouldn't be a hard concept. Open honest discussion and debate is the only way to move forward.

 

 

So, "trying not to be racist or supporting racists, xenophobes or misogynists" means "you are perfect living in a perfect world."

 

And "expecting grown-ups to be responsible and not support racists, xenophobes or misogynists" means "castigating a whole group the way you do is exactly the same thing that Trump does."

 

This is laughable on its face.

 

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Wasserman is such a good Twitter follow for election stuff. He's seen a wealth of private polling, particularly at the district level, which suggests Trump's margins have significantly worsened such that if you extrapolate those results to the state as a whole, Trump's in for an even bigger drubbing than the national or state polls suggest. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison but one can hope!

 

And an overperformance in Texas would be huge this cycle. There's a big push there to flip the State House blue. If they can do that, they get input on the redistricting maps and some legislative power, which would make it much, much harder for the TX GOP to gerrymander and continue infringing on voting rights.

 

 

After reflecting on it a lot my belief is that Trafalgar Group just got lucky in 2016. All major pollsters underestimated the noncollege white turnout in the Rust Belt for Trump. Trafalgar just happened to have some rosy polls for Trump in those states that fell a$$ backward into looking "correct." 

 

Reputable pollsters have adjusted their methodology to account for this this cycle. Trafalgar has some really weird methodology where they overrepresent Trump-favorable demographics to account for "shy Trump" voters. Has anyone ever met a Trump supporter that was particularly shy?

 

They also do some other stuff that I don't quite understand but results in some wacky results. Here's Nate Silver not being particularly nice to them:

 

 

In Michigan Trafalgar has Trump polling 21 points higher with African Americans, than how he actually did in 2016. They also have him polling 21 points higher with Democrats than he actually did 2016.

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 10/25/2020 at 4:55 PM, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

Californians voted for those high prices whether you're buying a house or a soda can.  No one gets into the state house for being pro-business and anti-regulation. Always they restrict building while encouraging immigration, legal or otherwise.  

 

 

California resident here. Actually those high housing prices are the result of supply & demand as practiced by the free enterprise system you champion. Regardless of regulations and taxes and liberalism, people keep wanting to live here, and because they continue to pay more for the privilege, you gotta figure many of them are pretty successful capitalists. 

 

And if you focus on the super-liberal Bay Area, you'll discover the greatest concentration of venture capital in the history of the world. Out in the valleys you'll see the largest agricultural output in America by far. Ask Republican farmer's and ranchers in California if they'd like stricter immigration and they'll tell you the same thing as a Nebraska meat-packing plant: no f#&%ing way. They can't afford to hire legal Americans who don't want the jobs anyway. 

 

Sure, if you wave tax breaks, lax regulation and cheap labor at corporations you can get some of them to relocate. It's been that way for decades. And yet here we are, one state with the sixth largest economy in the world, bailing out Red States year after year.

 

We're pretty good on the money stuff, thanks. 

 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

When Trump supporters talk about polling being fake news bc of the “silent majority” they may be right. But not the way they want it to be lol. People f#&%ing hate this guy and he is bringing people out that dont vote just to vote against him. 

[funhusker]

7 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

When Trump supporters talk about polling being fake news bc of the “silent majority” they may be right. But not the way they want it to be lol. People f#&%ing hate this guy and he is bringing people out that dont vote just to vote against him. 

Fingers crossed...

 

But I also have a fear that there are a lot of young white men that previously had no intentions of participating in elections until Trump came along.  I'm hopeful, most of these "new voters" are against Trump.  But I fear that there is a scary movement of people that now feel like they have someone that speaks for them. 

 

My brother is 50, he's only voted in two elections: 2016 and 2020.  He is a proud Trump supporter.