2020 Presidential Election

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I feel they have the right to kneel but I have the right to not watch. I feel DT went over the line a bit though.

I agree with this 100%. However, calling the players "dumb," while on brand, is quite an insulting way to describe a large number of people peacefully protesting.

And to your bigger point - yes, freedoms of speech doesn't insulate you from consequences of said speech. People misinterpret this all the time. NBA players should not get arrested for kneeling, social media posts, anything that they say. But, people have the right to make their own decisions based on their reactions to said statements, just as I can decide I don't want to shop in a store that flies a rebel flag.

But DJTs comments are uneccessarily tone deaf in our current social climate.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I feel they have the right to kneel but I have the right to not watch. I feel DT went over the line a bit though.

"A bit?" Thanks for putting yourself out there. My parents taught me that if you don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all. And until 2016, this rule particularly applied to POTUS - people could attack you and you had to rise above it. Ah, the good old days...

[Phredd3]

I have not gone through all of Nate's data yet, but I suspect that if the election were today, the Trump number would be significantly lower, like maybe in the 5% kinda range.

Nate's follow-on article mentions that the chance of a Biden win if the election were tomorrow is 93%.

[dudog84]

I feel they have the right to kneel but I have the right to not watch. I feel DT went over the line a bit though.

If you read the article (it does pay to be informed), Trump made the quoted comment because some players had the audacity to criticize him, not because they were kneeling.

[dudog84]

I think this shows that some in the Trump camp are worried about Kamala Harris. Tucker Carlson has a bit of a hissy fit when he is told quite nicely ("...this will serve you and your fellow hosts on Fox...") that he is mis-pronouncing Kamala.

For the record, absolutely everyone I know feels disrespected if you continue to mis-pronounce their name after being corrected. Rightfully so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Evp?li=BBnb7Kz

[Rich]

I know we've discussed it a bit on this thread, but to me this is a train wreck waiting to happen and the biggest potential issue facing this election.

States are bracing for controversy as they work to ensure that Postal Service postmarks and other tracking will back efforts to prove mail-in votes are sent on time. They're seeking to avoid lawsuits and other issues about unclear markings that have dogged some primaries and could mar ballot counts come Election Day.

In primaries this summer, some ballots that lacked a postmark but were received on or near Election Day were invalidated because they did not have a stamp from the post office indicating they were received in time. The issues come as the US Postal Service faces questions over its mail delivery and whether it will be able to handle an onslaught of mail-in ballots for the general election.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/polit...ots/index.html

NPR audio story here: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/90124...-mean-for-2020

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think this shows that some in the Trump camp are worried about Kamala Harris. Tucker Carlson has a bit of a hissy fit when he is told quite nicely ("...this will serve you and your fellow hosts on Fox...") that he is mis-pronouncing Kamala.

For the record, absolutely everyone I know feels disrespected if you continue to mis-pronounce their name after being corrected. Rightfully so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Evp?li=BBnb7Kz

And many DBR posters feel disrespected when a Duke basketball player's name is continuously misspelled after being corrected! Plus I know a national park that felt disrespected after its name was recently mispronounced...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Nate's follow-on article mentions that the chance of a Biden win if the election were tomorrow is 93%.

However, it isn't held tomorrow. This is like those CFB polls saying "if the season ended today" or my own personal nemesis Joey Brackets (charlatan!). Anyone can say "if apples were oranges than this would be a tasty fruit salad.". It can't be disproven.

Of course, in 2016, Nate Silver got pummelled for giving Hillary a 64% chance of winning the Electoral College (lower than most other outlets at the time) and saying 538 was "wrong."

Well, no. That means that there's basically a one in three chance of Trump winning. In fact, even if there was a 90% chance of Clinton winning, a Trump victory doesn't mean he was "wrong."

People misunderstand probability on the regular.

Sorry, two pet peeves. Feel free to ignore and move on with your life.

[Rich]

For the record, absolutely everyone I know feels disrespected if you continue to mis-pronounce their name after being corrected. Rightfully so.

Reminds me of how President Bush used to pronounce 'Sa-dam' Hussein

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...089-story.html

[Phredd3]

However, it isn't held tomorrow. This is like those CFB polls saying "if the season ended today" or my own personal nemesis Joey Brackets (charlatan!). Anyone can say "if apples were oranges than this would be a tasty fruit salad.". It can't be disproven.

I totally agree with everything you said, I was just posting for Jason's benefit so he'd know that the "official" estimate was very close to his own back-of-the-envelope guess. Their estimate is still just an estimate, albeit a very informed one.

[OldPhiKap]

However, it isn't held tomorrow. This is like those CFB polls saying "if the season ended today" or my own personal nemesis Joey Brackets (charlatan!). Anyone can say "if apples were oranges than this would be a tasty fruit salad.". It can't be disproven.

Of course, in 2016, Nate Silver got pummelled for giving Hillary a 64% chance of winning the Electoral College (lower than most other outlets at the time) and saying 538 was "wrong."

Well, no. That means that there's basically a one in three chance of Trump winning. In fact, even if there was a 90% chance of Clinton winning, a Trump victory doesn't mean he was "wrong."

People misunderstand probability on the regular.

Sorry, two pet peeves. Feel free to ignore and move on with your life.

Yup. If you want a lesson in probability, play poker. A person is not "lucky" if the last card to hit the felt in hold'em is a spade to fill his flush. 25% happens one out of four times. (actual odds are about 23.7% but 25% is close enough)

All I needed to know about probability I learned playing Dungeons and Dragons as a kid. 5% still happens once every twenty times.

(Yes, I know that the "out of X times" statement is not a guarantee -- just because a balanced coin landed heads three times in a row does not make the next flip any more or less likely to come out heads).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yup. If you want a lesson in probability, play poker. A person is not "lucky" if the last card to hit the felt in hold'em is a spade to fill his flush. 25% happens one out of four times. (actual odds are about 23.7% but 25% is close enough)

All I needed to know about probability I learned playing Dungeons and Dragons as a kid. 5% still happens once every twenty times.

(Yes, I know that the "out of X times" statement is not a guarantee -- just because a balanced coin landed heads three times in a row does not make the next flip any more or less likely to come out heads).

Gambling is a good/bad way to learn about probability. It's easy to say Nate was "wrong" giving Hillary a 64% chance to win. But, if you wagered $10 on a 2:1 shot and lost, would you be shocked and upset?

[Bluedog]

Gambling is a good/bad way to learn about probability. It's easy to say Nate was "wrong" giving Hillary a 64% chance to win. But, if you wagered $10 on a 2:1 shot and lost, would you be shocked and upset?

Yup. If you want a lesson in probability, play poker. A person is not "lucky" if the last card to hit the felt in hold'em is a spade to fill his flush. 25% happens one out of four times. (actual odds are about 23.7% but 25% is close enough)

All I needed to know about probability I learned playing Dungeons and Dragons as a kid. 5% still happens once every twenty times.

(Yes, I know that the "out of X times" statement is not a guarantee -- just because a balanced coin landed heads three times in a row does not make the next flip any more or less likely to come out heads).

Nate's follow-on article mentions that the chance of a Biden win if the election were tomorrow is 93%.

The other thing that makes the election odds highly volatile is our process of selecting the president - the electoral college - can have a different outcome with small changes in sentiment. If it was a nationwide popular vote contest, there's be less "noise" in the prediction and the prediction markets would be more stable. A slight shift of 2-3% of voters in 4 states can completely tilt the election even though that may be only 300,000 people (~0.1% of the Total U.S.). In one model, for example, I think it had Biden as like 88% chance of winning electoral college and 99% chance of winning the popular vote.

[nmduke2001]

I saw an interesting fact on Twitter. Kamala Harris is part Indian. She still has family living in India. Michigan has an approximate Indian population of 100,000. Trump won Michigan by only 10,000 votes in 2016.

[CDu]

I saw an interesting fact on Twitter. Kamala Harris is part Indian. She still has family living in India. Michigan has an approximate Indian population of 100,000. Trump won Michigan by only 10,000 votes in 2016.

While it certainly can't hurt with the Indian vote, I can't imagine it moves the needle much. In that example, presumably many of those 100,000 aren't even eligible to vote (kids), and I suspect that the Indian population already votes strongly Democrat.

So the question is, how much does Harris move the needle with African-Americans (her father is Jamaican) and Indians (her mother is Indian) vs how much does her being a minority hurt with the rural White vote. My guess is that it doesn't move the needle much either way.

What will be more interesting is whether Harris can help solidify Biden's standing with the surbuban woman vote. That was apparently one area where she had expected to do well had she stayed in the primary, so I imagine this is an area in which she'll focus her efforts. In addition to strengthening Biden's position with African-American and Indian populations as much as she can, of course.

[CDu]

The other thing that makes the election odds highly volatile is our process of selecting the president - the electoral college - can have a different outcome with small changes in sentiment. If it was a nationwide popular vote contest, there's be less "noise" in the prediction and the prediction markets would be more stable. A slight shift of 2-3% of voters in 4 states can completely tilt the election even though that may be only 300,000 people (~0.1% of the Total U.S.). In one model, for example, I think it had Biden as like 88% chance of winning electoral college and 99% chance of winning the popular vote.

Yes. For example, in 2016, Clinton won the popular vote ~2.9 million people. But she lost Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a combined ~77,000 votes. And that tilted the electoral college result from a slight victory by Clinton (273-258) to a comfortable win by Trump (304-227).

[YmoBeThere]

...I suspect that the Indian population already votes strongly Democrat.

Any evidence for this? I tend to believe otherwise, at least based on anecdotal data.

[dudog84]

I think Kamala's selection came down to one thing: Of the black women available (it was going to be a black woman), she will be by far the best attack dog. It's always one of the primary responsibilities of the VP candidate, and is especially relevant in 2020 with Trump as the opponent. Joe gets to stay above the fray and look Presidential.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

While it certainly can't hurt with the Indian vote, I can't imagine it moves the needle much. In that example, presumably many of those 100,000 aren't even eligible to vote (kids), and I suspect that the Indian population already votes strongly Democrat.

So the question is, how much does Harris move the needle with African-Americans (her father is Jamaican) and Indians (her mother is Indian) vs how much does her being a minority hurt with the rural White vote. My guess is that it doesn't move the needle much either way.

What will be more interesting is whether Harris can help solidify Biden's standing with the surbuban woman vote. That was apparently one area where she had expected to do well had she stayed in the primary, so I imagine this is an area in which she'll focus her efforts. In addition to strengthening Biden's position with African-American and Indian populations as much as she can, of course.

And is her white husband going to impact any of this? He is a corporate lawyer. Unless he was out representing the KKK, if his business dealings become an issue then I give up...

[CDu]

Any evidence for this? I tend to believe otherwise, at least based on anecdotal data.

A quick google of “Indian-American vote Democrat” yielded a lot of hits suggesting it to be the case. They have historically voted Dem.

However, that same search does suggest that the GOP is hoping Trump’s friendliness with Modi will help shift things a bit. So it may become more relevant. We will see.