2020 Presidential Election

[Chicago 1995]

You ignore the NC decision also decided 5-3 letting stand lower court decisions to allow NC to count mail-in ballots postmarked by November 3rd though November 12th - with no review by the court post election.

Did the majority in the 5-3 decision say they would review it post-election? Or was it just the three dissenters? I think only the dissenters. Perhaps Barrett will participate; perhaps she won't.

And re Kavanaugh - far be it for me to defend him - but if he thought that the dissenters didn't go far enough, doesn't it make sense that he would have also dissented and written his own opinion, as he did yesterday in the Wisconsin case?

Given how riddled with errors the Wisconsin decision was, Brett may have been licking his wounds. Or maybe he”s not capable of producing quality work product at this pace.

[El_Diablo]

You ignore the NC decision also decided 5-3 letting stand lower court decisions to allow NC to count mail-in ballots postmarked by November 3rd though November 12th - with no review by the court post election.

Did the majority in the 5-3 decision say they would review it post-election? Or was it just the three dissenters? I think only the dissenters. Perhaps Barrett will participate; perhaps she won't.

And re Kavanaugh - far be it for me to defend him - but if he thought that the dissenters didn't go far enough, doesn't it make sense that he would have also dissented and written his own opinion, as he did yesterday in the Wisconsin case?

In order to obtain relief, the PA Republicans needed 5 justices to agree on granting the motion to expedite. They didn't have it last time and didn't get it this time (although note that Barrett declined to participate due to a lack of time to review the filings). No statement explaining the denial is required, but Alito wrote one, which Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Alito's stated reasoning was that the there is a "strong likelihood" that the PA supreme court's decision upholding the extension violates the U.S. Constitution but it was too late to decide it before the election. He specifically pointed out, however, that denying the motion to expedite does not mean they were denying certiorari and specifically noted that if it is granted it can be decided under a shortened schedule. I.e., after the election.

Again, I don't know why Kavanaugh declined to join the statement. But the crux of Alito's reasoning was that it was too late to decide the matter before the election, so if Kavanaugh doesn't think it was too late then he could have decided not to join for that reason. He doesn't have to write a separate statement. He could still do so if he wants to, but he may not want to though if he knows they can just take it up next week.

I didn't read the NC statements like I read the PA one, so yes, I am ignoring those ones. But for PA, the fact is there are three justices on record as saying there is a "high likelihood" that the PA supreme court's decision is unconstitutional, a fourth justice who shares the same general philosophy and ideology who did not participate for temporary logistical reasons, and a fifth justice who shares the same general philosophy and ideology who did not join in this most recent statement for unspecified reasons. Note that those last two (Barrett and Kavanaugh) also worked for Bush's team on Bush v. Gore, FWIW. Anyway, my point is that the door is still wide open for SCOTUS to toss out any PA ballots that arrive after Nov. 3rd.

[tommy]

I want to point something out about polling and the Wisconsin poll that shows Biden with a 17 point lead...

Also, it should be noted that many folks look at a poll and do not consider the margin of error as part of the results. In the case of the Wisconsin poll, the MOE was +-4 points. This means that the 17 point lead could be as small as a 9 point lead (Biden -4, Trump +4) and the poll would be correct according to accepted polling methodology. Does Biden +9 in Wisconsin seem out of line with reality? Suddenly that crazy poll seems not so crazy.

I could be mistaken in my reading of this, but don't these calculations depend on whether the "margin of error" is based on the measured individual favorability of each candidate as opposed to the measured difference between them, what we usually refer to as the "lead?" In this Wisconsin poll, if what is being measured is the lead held by one candidate (here, Biden), and that lead is 17 points with a MOE of +/- 4 points, then wouldn't the pollsters be saying with 95% confidence that the true margin is between 13 and 21 points, rather than between 9 and 25?

Seems like the way you get to the 9-to-25 margin is by looking at the individual numbers of each candidate. So in the Wisconsin poll at issue, Trump was at 40%. If you apply the +/- to his numbers individually, that would mean his support lies between 36 and 44%. Biden, who came in at 57%, would have his support lie between 53 and 61%. Only taking Trump at his worst and Biden at his best would yield a 25 point margin (61-36) while taken Biden at his worst and Trump at his best would leave you with a margin of 9, that being 53-44%. This is kind of a double counting of the margin of error -- applying 4 points to Biden and 4 points to Trump.

Is that really what the numbers mean when they are reported? Or is it actually that the margin of error should be considered once, not twice, that is, apply it to the measured margin between the candidates?

Here is an article on this issue:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...lection-polls/

[JasonEvans]

I could be mistaken in my reading of this, but don't these calculations depend on whether the "margin of error" is based on the measured individual favorability of each candidate as opposed to the measured difference between them, what we usually refer to as the "lead?" In this Wisconsin poll, if what is being measured is the lead held by one candidate (here, Biden), and that lead is 17 points with a MOE of +/- 4 points, then wouldn't the pollsters be saying with 95% confidence that the true margin is between 13 and 21 points, rather than between 9 and 25?

Seems like the way you get to the 9-to-25 margin is by looking at the individual numbers of each candidate. So in the Wisconsin poll at issue, Trump was at 40%. If you apply the +/- to his numbers individually, that would mean his support lies between 36 and 44%. Biden, who came in at 57%, would have his support lie between 53 and 61%. Only taking Trump at his worst and Biden at his best would yield a 25 point margin (61-36) while taken Biden at his worst and Trump at his best would leave you with a margin of 9, that being 53-44%. This is kind of a double counting of the margin of error -- applying 4 points to Biden and 4 points to Trump.

Is that really what the numbers mean when they are reported? Or is it actually that the margin of error should be considered once, not twice, that is, apply it to the measured margin between the candidates?

Here is an article on this issue:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...lection-polls/

The Margin of Error applies to both numbers in the poll. With a 4 point MOE, Biden's number could be 4 points too high and Trump's number could be 4 points too low. If you were only looking to see one data point -- like asking what percentage of people like a candidate -- then you would only apply the MOE once. But, when you are looking at 2 points -- like the difference in support for candidate A and candidate B -- you must double the MOE to make it work.

So, the Wisconsin poll that showed a 17 point lead could have been off by 4 points in Biden's favor and 4 points against Trump. Hence the possibility that it was really showing a 9 point race (and, as you note, it could have also been showing a 25 point race).

The link you provided to the Pew Research website does a nice job of explaining this in item #2 on that page:

To determine whether or not the race is too close to call, we need to calculate a new margin of error for the difference between the two candidates’ levels of support. The size of this margin is generally about twice that of the margin for an individual candidate. The larger margin of error is due to the fact that if the Republican share is too high by chance, it follows that the Democratic share is likely too low, and vice versa.

For Poll A, the 3-percentage-point margin of error for each candidate individually becomes approximately a 6-point margin of error for the difference between the two. This means that although we have observed a 5-point lead for the Republican, we could reasonably expect their true position relative to the Democrat to lie somewhere between –1 and +11 percentage points. The Republican would need to be ahead by 6 percentage points or more for us to be confident that the lead is not simply the result of sampling error.

Lastly, like I noted, MOE is only measuring 95% confidence. There is a 1 in 20 chance that the poll is just plain whackadoodle and incorrect.

I actually think it is pretty cool that ABC/WashPost were not afraid to release this poll because it does look a little screwy. When Biden wins Wisconsin by 9.5, no one is going to remember that the MOE made that a reasonable result for this poll... most folks will just think, "that 17 point poll was waaaay off," even though (technically) it wasn't.

[JasonEvans]

In your face, doctors! https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/polit...ors/index.html

Gosh, who would have thought that a 39 year old real estate investor (mostly notable for some terrible real estate investment decisions) and his New York PR buddies were not perfectly qualified to advise the President on a pandemic. I mean, it really feels like a national health crisis should be right in Kushner's wheelhouse.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Gosh, who would have thought that a 39 year old real estate investor (mostly notable for some terrible real estate investment decisions) and his New York PR buddies were not perfectly qualified to advise the President on a pandemic. I mean, it really feels like a national health crisis should be right in Kushner's wheelhouse.

Seems like the right guy to me. He clearly has the American people’s best interest at the top of his list of priorities:

"But the President also is very smart politically with the way he did that fight with the governors to basically say, no, no, no, no, I own the opening. Because again, the opening is going to be very popular. People want this country open. But if it opens in the wrong way, the question will be, did the governors follow the guidelines we set out or not?"

And the money quote from el presidente himself:

”Jared will handle -- very capable guy, Jared. You can't get people like this."

I just, well, uh... never mind.

[bundabergdevil]

Seems like the right guy to me. He clearly has the American people’s best interest at the top of his list of priorities:


And the money quote from el presidente himself:


I just, well, uh... never mind.

One feature of this administration has always been its deep appreciation of expertise and humility...

[OldPhiKap]

One feature of this administration has always been its deep appreciation of expertise and humility...

F6D814F1-E680-44CC-B828-BACA462012D4.jpg

[ClemmonsDevil]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/polit...rus/index.html

Nice breakdown of the news in the lead-up to the election. Takeaways: increases in Coronavirus in the Upper Midwest are shifting voters towards Biden. The economy is on a downward trend which is probably bad news for POTUS. And why oh why would anyone think it is a good idea for Kushner to talk to Bob Woodward?!?! Kushner seems like a smart enough guy (I didn't say intellectually gifted, just smart) but there was no way that was going to go well. Kushner seems like the kind of person who walks into any room and assumes he is the smartest person in there. I know so many people like that. This astounding level of self-confidence that is completely undermined by actual ability. I feel like David Dunning and Justin Kruger would really enjoy hanging out with Kushner, tagging him and then observing him in the wild.

[DevilHorse]

The Margin of Error applies to both numbers in the poll. With a 4 point MOE, Biden's number could be 4 points too high and Trump's number could be 4 points too low. If you were only looking to see one data point -- like asking what percentage of people like a candidate -- then you would only apply the MOE once. But, when you are looking at 2 points -- like the difference in support for candidate A and candidate B -- you must double the MOE to make it work.

So, the Wisconsin poll that showed a 17 point lead could have been off by 4 points in Biden's favor and 4 points against Trump. Hence the possibility that it was really showing a 9 point race (and, as you note, it could have also been showing a 25 point race).

The link you provided to the Pew Research website does a nice job of explaining this in item #2 on that page:



Lastly, like I noted, MOE is only measuring 95% confidence. There is a 1 in 20 chance that the poll is just plain whackadoodle and incorrect.

I actually think it is pretty cool that ABC/WashPost were not afraid to release this poll because it does look a little screwy. When Biden wins Wisconsin by 9.5, no one is going to remember that the MOE made that a reasonable result for this poll... most folks will just think, "that 17 point poll was waaaay off," even though (technically) it wasn't.

Lastly, like I noted, MOE is only measuring 95% confidence. There is a 1 in 20 chance that the poll is just plain whackadoodle and incorrect.

I actually think it is pretty cool that ABC/WashPost were not afraid to release this poll because it does look a little screwy. When Biden wins Wisconsin by 9.5, no one is going to remember that the MOE made that a reasonable result for this poll... most folks will just think, "that 17 point poll was waaaay off," even though (technically) it wasn't.

Yes and No.

Some things are right and some are wrong here.

Margin of Error (MOE) is an approximate description of the mathematical usage of the standard deviation (assuming a standard normal curve in statistics), which is differently applied if you are using a one-sided or two-sided case. Here it is defined as the 95% one-sided case which is one of the usual numbers used by statisticians (not arbitrary) when providing opinions on things.

But the MOE (95% - actually 2 Standard Deviations) applies to the distribution involving both values (meaning Biden and Trump) in the distribution, and is not additive for each data point (meaning you don't put an MOE on each side, the Margin applies to both at the same time - like ' this could be wrong if they are this close '). So you can't say, "a 17 point lead could have been off by 4 points in Biden's favor and 4 points against Trump. Hence the possibility that it was really showing a 9 point race". You can only draw a Range of Possible outcomes of 4 points on either side of 17 for Biden that goes from 21 to 13.

That's the way I see it.

Larry
DevilHorse

[budwom]

F6D814F1-E680-44CC-B828-BACA462012D4.jpg

I believe it's an established fact that dead people can't vote against you...(except in 1960s Chicago)

[sagegrouse]

Yes and No.

Some things are right and some are wrong here.

Margin of Error (MOE) is an approximate description of the mathematical usage of the standard deviation (assuming a standard normal curve in statistics), which is differently applied if you are using a one-sided or two-sided case. Here it is defined as the 95% one-sided case which is one of the usual numbers used by statisticians (not arbitrary) when providing opinions on things.

But the MOE (95% - actually 2 Standard Deviations) applies to the distribution involving both values (meaning Biden and Trump) in the distribution, and is not additive for each data point (meaning you don't put an MOE on each side, the Margin applies to both at the same time - like ' this could be wrong if they are this close '). So you can't say, "a 17 point lead could have been off by 4 points in Biden's favor and 4 points against Trump. Hence the possibility that it was really showing a 9 point race". You can only draw a Range of Possible outcomes of 4 points on either side of 17 for Biden that goes from 21 to 13.

That's the way I see it.

Larry
DevilHorse

My explanation is a poll vote for Biden and a poll vote for Trump are basically the same data because they come from the same poll. A vote for Trump comes out of the Biden column. Ergo (I always say this when I don't know what I'm talking about), the race shouldn't be viewed as two independent tests.

[Furniture]

It's Highly likely that Texas will cast more votes *before* Election Day than it cast in the entire 2016 election. Right now, it's at over 94% of its 2016 total with two days of early voting left and a few more postage days on top of that.

[bundabergdevil]

It's Highly likely that Texas will cast more votes *before* Election Day than it cast in the entire 2016 election. Right now, it's at over 94% of its 2016 total with two days of early voting left and a few more postage days on top of that.

Happening in the big cities, too. Good sign for Dems. Don’t live there now but I’m a born and raised Texan and I don’t remember anything quite like this. Something is going on deep in the heart of Texas.

Well, I lived not too far from the Perot estate and there wasn’t anything quite like that guy either.

[ClemmonsDevil]

It's Highly likely that Texas will cast more votes *before* Election Day than it cast in the entire 2016 election. Right now, it's at over 94% of its 2016 total with two days of early voting left and a few more postage days on top of that.

That is pretty great. I love when people vote and I assume there are really only about 50 people in the country who would actually like to have fewer people cast votes. NC is at 82% of 2016 total and with 3 more days of early voting and 4 more days of return by mail voting, NC should get to right around the 4.5 million votes cast in all of 2016. Much of this total is cannibalism, but one has to assume SOME people will vote on election day. I assume quite a lot actually, but we dont KNOW that.

[PackMan97]

My explanation is a poll vote for Biden and a poll vote for Trump are basically the same data because they come from the same poll. A vote for Trump comes out of the Biden column. Ergo (I always say this when I don't know what I'm talking about), the race shouldn't be viewed as two independent tests.

Does it also mean that it could be -4 for Biden, -4 for Trump and +8 for Jorgensen? Asking for a friend.

[CDu]

That is pretty great. I love when people vote and I assume there are really only about 50 people in the country who would actually like to have fewer people cast votes. NC is at 82% of 2016 total and with 3 more days of early voting and 4 more days of return by mail voting, NC should get to right around the 4.5 million votes cast in all of 2016. Much of this total is cannibalism, but one has to assume SOME people will vote on election day. I assume quite a lot actually, but we dont KNOW that.

Yeah, I was going to add that it will be quite interesting to see how many voters vote on Nov 3. Are we going to blow the voter turnout records out of the water this year, or is it just that more people are choosing to vote early and we'll just see a more typical voting growth pattern?

[Rich]

Yeah, I was going to add that it will be quite interesting to see how many voters vote on Nov 3. Are we going to blow the voter turnout records out of the water this year, or is it just that more people are choosing to attempt to vote early and we'll just see a more typical voting growth pattern?

FIFY based on the likely legal wrangling to come about whether certain mail-in ballots should count or not

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/polit...rus/index.html

Nice breakdown of the news in the lead-up to the election. Takeaways: increases in Coronavirus in the Upper Midwest are shifting voters towards Biden. The economy is on a downward trend which is probably bad news for POTUS. And why oh why would anyone think it is a good idea for Kushner to talk to Bob Woodward?!?! Kushner seems like a smart enough guy (I didn't say intellectually gifted, just smart) but there was no way that was going to go well. Kushner seems like the kind of person who walks into any room and assumes he is the smartest person in there. I know so many people like that. This astounding level of self-confidence that is completely undermined by actual ability. I feel like David Dunning and Justin Kruger would really enjoy hanging out with Kushner, tagging him and then observing him in the wild.

Jared was born on third base and goes through life thinking he hit a triple.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Does it also mean that it could be -4 for Biden, -4 for Trump and +8 for Jorgensen? Asking for a friend.

You should have told him that friend was Moe Morgensen.