Q'Anon

[Dr. Strangelove]

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

trump is still trump, and there are enough never-trumpers to make his reelection suspect.

I highly disagree.

 

His chances if he decides to run are higher than 50%, probably north of 60.

 

Even with people who dislike him, never Trumpers included, it's offset by the structural advantages built into the electoral college. The Republican advantage in the Electoral College was ~2.7% in 2016 and ~4.4% in 2020. This advantage is growing, likely reaching 5-5.5% in 2024.

 

It may not be possible to win a popular vote by enough to offset the Republican electoral college advantage in 2024 or 2028. Things may flip when Texas turns blue in the 2030s.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Easter. That’s when the savior rises. 

[RedDenver]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The Republican advantage in the Electoral College was ~2.7% in 2016 and ~4.4% in 2020. This advantage is growing, likely reaching 5-5.5% in 2024.

 

It may not be possible to win a popular vote by enough to offset the Republican electoral college advantage in 2024 or 2028. Things may flip when Texas turns blue in the 2030s.

Where are you getting these numbers? Changes in the EC are typically big step changes since most states have a winner-takes-all EC allotment.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Where are you getting these numbers? Changes in the EC are typically big step changes since most states have a winner-takes-all EC allotment.

The Cook Political Report uses something called the 'Partisan Voter Index or PVI. It's a measure given to the country as a whole and to individual states. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

 

Basically, the entire country has a PVI of R+4.4, meaning that in order to win an election the Democrat would have to win by 4.4% or higher. (Another example would be Colorado, which has a value of D+3. Meaning that a Republican would have to win the national popular vote by 3% or more to win the state.) Each and every state and congressional district has a PVI value. If you know the national popular vote, you can use PVI to project the winners.

 

The concern for Democrats is the PVI of the electoral college is trending away from them. So much so that it may not be possible to win in 2024 no matter the candidates or policy positions. 

 

 

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The Cook Political Report uses something called the 'Partisan Voter Index or PVI. It's a measure given to the country as a whole and to individual states. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

 

Basically, the entire country has a PVI of R+4.4, meaning that in order to win an election the Democrat would have to win by 4.4% or higher. (Another example would be Colorado, which has a value of D+3. Meaning that a Republican would have to win the national popular vote by 3% or more to win the state.) Each and every state and congressional district has a PVI value. If you know the national popular vote, you can use PVI to project the winners.

 

The concern for Democrats is the PVI of the electoral college is trending away from them. So much so that it may not be possible to win in 2024 no matter the candidates or policy positions. 

Cook PVI doesn't work the way you're suggesting. It's simply a measure comparing a district to the average of the last two presidential elections. It's not a measure of how much more a party is disadvantaged.

 

https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/pvi/introducing-2021-cook-political-report-partisan-voter-index

Quote

A Partisan Voter Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Cook PVI doesn't work the way you're suggesting. It's simply a measure comparing a district to the average of the last two presidential elections. It's not a measure of how much more a party is disadvantaged.

 

https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/pvi/introducing-2021-cook-political-report-partisan-voter-index

 

I get how it's calculated and what it means. But you can absolutely use it to guess what it will take to win an election. If Colorado is a D+3 state, based on the previous election cycles, we can assume it would take a Republican candidate to win the national popular vote by 3% in order to win that state. 

 

You can also use it to project trends, if a state is growing more or less partisan compared to the nation as a whole. Colorado is likely to be a D+4.5 state in 2024, for example, but it's impossible to know for sure until the votes are cast.

 

That doesn't mean it's set in stone, it's completely possible for a candidate to overperform and win when PVI suggests otherwise (like Manchin winning in W. Virginia). 

 

It's not the end all be all because you can use far more sophisticated metrics to predict elections. But you can use PVI for a simple discussions on trends concerning voting, what it takes for a candidate to win, etc.

[RedDenver]

16 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I get how it's calculated and what it means. But you can absolutely use it to guess what it will take to win an election. If Colorado is a D+3 state, based on the previous election cycles, we can assume it would take a Republican candidate to win the national popular vote by 3% in order to win that state. 

That's not how it works. The Cook PVI is relative to the last 2 presidential elections, so Colorado as D+3 means that the popular vote in Colorado was 3 points higher for the Dem candidate than the national average. If the national average was 52% for the Dem, then the R candidate would need to get 3+2=5 to reach the break even point. Whereas if the national average was 52% for the R, then the R candidate would need 3-2=1 to reach the break even point.

 

Cook PVI is a relative measure for each district as compared to the nation, not an absolute measure of how much is needed to win an election.

 

16 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

You can also use it to project trends, if a state is growing more or less partisan compared to the nation as a whole. Colorado is likely to be a D+4.5 state in 2024, for example, but it's impossible to know for sure until the votes are cast.

 

That doesn't mean it's set in stone, it's completely possible for a candidate to overperform and win when PVI suggests otherwise (like Manchin winning in W. Virginia). 

 

It's not the end all be all because you can use far more sophisticated metrics to predict elections. But you can use PVI for a simple discussions on trends concerning voting, what it takes for a candidate to win, etc.

Yes, Cook PVI can be used to analyze trends for districts as compared to the rest of the country but not what it takes for a candidate to win.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

That's not how it works. The Cook PVI is relative to the last 2 presidential elections, so Colorado as D+3 means that the popular vote in Colorado was 3 points higher for the Dem candidate than the national average. If the national average was 52% for the Dem, then the R candidate would need to get 3+2=5 to reach the break even point. Whereas if the national average was 52% for the R, then the R candidate would need 3-2=1 to reach the break even point.

 

Cook PVI is a relative measure for each district as compared to the nation, not an absolute measure of how much is needed to win an election.

 

Yes, Cook PVI can be used to analyze trends for districts as compared to the rest of the country but not what it takes for a candidate to win.

We're saying the same thing in different ways. In Colorado,  Republican would have to win the national popular vote (because PVI is relative to a national average) by 3% over the other candidate to break even.  If a Democrat wins the national popular vote by 3%, they'll win states with a D+3 value or higher most of the time and lose states with a value of D+2 most of the time. It's not exact and not exactly what PVI is designed to do, but because PVI gives you the partisan makeup of a state it makes a decent enough tool to predict what it might take to win.  (Note: this was not the case prior to 2016, but the electorate is extremely partisan and votes along party lines more than ever)

 

But to my point, no matter what metrics used, the problem Democrats are facing is that battleground states are moving to the right compared to the nation as a whole. It's going to be increasingly difficult for them to win states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The gains democrats are making in other states don't seem to be happening fast enough to offset their losses in the upper-midwest.

 

Their best hope is that Georgia/Arizona turn Blue before Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania turn red. If Democrats can make that happen they will be in good shape in 2024, if not they will have to hope Texas turns blue in 2032/36 when they will have massive the EC advantage. 

[knapplc]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Wisconsin

 

Where are you finding data that shows Wisconsin is moving right? The Wisconsin Elections Commission doesn't register voters by party affiliation. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

37 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Where are you finding data that shows Wisconsin is moving right? The Wisconsin Elections Commission doesn't register voters by party affiliation. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/amp/

 

This 538 Article has a good explained on PVI and how it's used to see what it might take to win an election. 

 

In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin by .7%. In an election Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.1%. This means that the PVI for that election for Wisconsin was R+2.8. (Meaning that had Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.8%, the exact partisan lean of Wisconsin, she could've won the state). 

 

In 2020 Joe Biden won Wisconsin by .1% and the national popular vote by 4.4%, giving Wisconsin a PVI of R+4.3.

 

Even though Joe Biden won Wisconsin, the electorate there went from 2.8% more Republican than the country as a whole in 2016 to 4.3% more Republican in 2020.

 

These trends seem to be continuing. In order to win Wisconsin in 2024, a Democratic candidate may have to win the popular vote by ~5%. Which may not be possible. 

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/amp/

 

This 538 Article has a good explained on PVI and how it's used to see what it might take to win an election. 

 

In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin by .7%. In an election Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.1%. This means that the PVI for that election for Wisconsin was R+2.8. (Meaning that had Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.8%, the exact partisan lean of Wisconsin, she could've won the state). 

This is a totally backwards way to look at voting because no matter how Hillary did in the rest of the country, it doesn't change the voting or the the outcome in Wisconsin. The national popular vote doesn't matter because of how the electoral college works.

 

17 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

In 2020 Joe Biden won Wisconsin by .1% and the national popular vote by 4.4%, giving Wisconsin a PVI of R+4.3.

 

Even though Joe Biden won Wisconsin, the electorate there went from 2.8% more Republican than the country as a whole in 2016 to 4.3% more Republican in 2020.

The problem in this comparison is that Wisconsin could have stayed basically the same and it was the rest of the country that moved more Democratic. PVI is a relative measure, so you can't decouple the state measure from the national measure without additional data.

 

The 538 article you linked describes this:

Quote

So now that you know what our new partisan lean scores are, let’s talk about how — and how not — to use them. First, we want to emphasize again that FiveThirtyEight partisan leans are expressions of relative partisanship; that is, they don’t necessarily tell us how red or blue a place is in absolute terms. And with Democrats having won the national popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, there’s a good case to be made that the U.S., as a whole, is actually a tad left of center, and that a state with a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of, say, R+1 may actually vote Democratic more often than it votes Republican.

 

17 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

These trends seem to be continuing. In order to win Wisconsin in 2024, a Democratic candidate may have to win the popular vote by ~5%. Which may not be possible. 

You can interpret the data that way but I don't think it's a useful or predictive conclusion. A Dem candidate winning Wisconsin (because they have a majority of the votes) would push the national popular vote towards the Dems, not the other way around.

[Dr. Strangelove]

35 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is a totally backwards way to look at voting because no matter how Hillary did in the rest of the country, it doesn't change the voting or the the outcome in Wisconsin. The national popular vote doesn't matter because of how the electoral college works.

 

The problem in this comparison is that Wisconsin could have stayed basically the same and it was the rest of the country that moved more Democratic. PVI is a relative measure, so you can't decouple the state measure from the national measure without additional data.

 

The 538 article you linked describes this:

 

You can interpret the data that way but I don't think it's a useful or predictive conclusion. A Dem candidate winning Wisconsin (because they have a majority of the votes) would push the national popular vote towards the Dems, not the other way around.

All of this is completely somewhat true, but I would push back on if we can determine the voting in Wisconsin is truly independent of the country as a whole.

 

Given a particular candidates strength nationally, whether they win the popular vote by 2.5% or 5%, some of those gains come from Wisconsin. This is because voters across the country tend to vote the same way. A white male without a college degree in California votes the same way as a white male without a college degree in Wisconsin (or wherever they are). The same is true across nearly all demographics. 

 

The reason we can use the national popular vote to see how a state might vote is by looking at the demographic voting patterns of the country as a whole then we can look at the demographic makeup of the state to see how it might vote.

 

In 2020, the electorate is extremely simple. You can ask a voter a few simple questions and be able to tell with a high degree of accuracy how they will vote. 1.) Education Level (some college or those with degrees vote for Democrats) 2.) Race/Ethnicity (minorities favor Democrats, but it varies by which one). 3.) Sex (women favor Democrats).

 

So, because we know that Black Women vote for Democrats 95% of the time, simply check how many live in that state. Same with males without a college degree. It's easy to extrapolate, and as such, why states aren't all that independent of the poplar vote. The only thing that matters is the demographic makeup of the state. 

 

And in the upper midwest, those demographics are trending Republican. 

[RedDenver]

On 10/27/2021 at 1:07 PM, Dr. Strangelove said:

A white male without a college degree in California votes the same way as a white male without a college degree in Wisconsin (or wherever they are). The same is true across nearly all demographics. 

 

The reason we can use the national popular vote to see how a state might vote is by looking at the demographic voting patterns of the country as a whole then we can look at the demographic makeup of the state to see how it might vote.

Literally none of this is true. If it were, there would be no need for polling data because you could simply ask a single person from a demographic and then know how the rest of that demographic would vote. Demographics tend to vote in similar patterns, that's true, but it's not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

Instead of taking national polls and then trying to fit the data to individual states, the far more accurate method is to poll that state. The reason places like 538 are trying to fit data from national polling to each states is because there's not always good polling data for a state, so a poorly fit model is better than nothing. But good polling data is way, way better.

[Dr. Strangelove]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Literally none of this is true. If it were, there would be no need for polling data because you could simply ask a single person from a demographic and then know how the rest of that demographic would vote. Demographics tend to vote in similar patterns, that's true, but it's not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

Instead of taking national polls and then trying to fit the data to individual states, the far more accurate method is to poll that state. The reason places like 538 are trying to fit data from national polling to each states is because there's not always good polling data for a state, so a poorly fit model is better than nothing. But good polling data is way, way better.

It absolutely is true, demographics vote in predictable ways throughout the country. Right now, educational attainment is one of the biggest indicators of how one will vote. More data is needed than just 1 question and polling is helpful to determine which demographics are motivated to vote or not.

 

Polling helps determine trends in those demographics. So far that trend is bad for Democrats, this paywalled article from the Economist gets into it. It's embedded into the tweet by the author:

 

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1453440176567562244?t=NjWmKeJEdxkdZDbsBxVr2g&s=19

 

 

[commando]

i am wondering what the last page of discussion in this thread has to do with qanon?   i am missing the connection