2020 Presidential Election

[MarkD83]

but (fill in the blank) gets all of the calls!!!!

[jimsumner]

.

We also have a track record of Biden’s behavior in public office and several losses as data points for what he might do in the event Trump wins in a landslide.

You think Trump winning in a landslide is in play?

[bundabergdevil]

You think Trump winning in a landslide is in play?

Popular vote, absolutely not. Electoral votes, almost certainly not. I was more making the point that we have a track record of how Biden handles political defeat. We have a track record of how Trump handles defeat, too, just not in the political arena.

[OldPhiKap]

Popular vote, absolutely not. Electoral votes, almost certainly not. I was more making the point that we have a track record of how Biden handles political defeat. We have a track record of how Trump handles defeat, too, just not in the political arena.

Trump has never lost. Ever. He is not a loser.

Now, people have cheated him though. That’s different.

[budwom]

POTUS evidently wants a stimulus deal, willing to go higher according to Big Larry Kudlow...this should be interesting, will Mitch bring a vote to the floor on a bill which most of his members don't like, but some of his "in peril" members want badly?

[bundabergdevil]

Trump has never lost. Ever. He is not a loser.

Now, people have cheated him though. That’s different.

Bingo bango bongo.

He’s got an entire life purposefully lived in the public eye. We know how he operates.

Biden, too.

[mpj96]

Just got a fundraising email from Biden campaign claiming that the polls are really close to what they were last back in 2016, so give. If I knew how to paste a picture in I would. Have a hard time squaring that email with the polling reports on this thread.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Trump has never lost. Ever. He is not a loser.

Now, people have cheated him though. That’s different.

Must spread cheater sporks.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Just got a fundraising email from Biden campaign claiming that the polls are really close to what they were last back in 2016, so give. If I knew how to paste a picture in I would. Have a hard time squaring that email with the polling reports on this thread.

Even if Biden was up in the polls by 20, I'd be sending out those emails if I worked for him. Right now, it is all about making sure your supporter votes. The ones that sit on the couch because you "are going to obviously win anyway" terrify you.

[Kdogg]

Just got a fundraising email from Biden campaign claiming that the polls are really close to what they were last back in 2016, so give. If I knew how to paste a picture in I would. Have a hard time squaring that email with the polling reports on this thread.

Apparently internal polls from both camps have the race a lot tighter than the polls that are released. Some of Trumps internal polls from four years ago had him winning going into election day. I've heard people say the margin might be half of the figures we see and when taking account for margin of error the race is close. Biden is universally up but not close to 10 points.

[YmoBeThere]

Just got a fundraising email from Biden campaign claiming that the polls are really close to what they were last back in 2016, so give. If I knew how to paste a picture in I would. Have a hard time squaring that email with the polling reports on this thread.

Even if Biden was up in the polls by 20, I'd be sending out those emails if I worked for him. Right now, it is all about making sure your supporter votes. The ones that sit on the couch because you "are going to obviously win anyway" terrify you.

You want to go into the end with every vote you can get. Given the unknowns of what will follow Election Day, both parties have to approach it as if no lead is safe.

[rsvman]

Clinton was up significantly fairly late in 2016. I can't remember the exact odds but it seems like she was about 80% likely to win, or thereabouts? I don't blame the Biden camp at all for continuing to run hard all the way though the finish line.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Apparently internal polls from both camps have the race a lot tighter than the polls that are released. Some of Trumps internal polls from four years ago had him winning going into election day. I've heard people say the margin might be half of the figures we see and when taking account for margin of error the race is close. Biden is universally up but not close to 10 points.

Sooooo this internal polling thing is a fallacy. There is no "internal polling" that has unlocked some secret sauce. Trump's internal polling didn't show him losing the popular vote badly and eeking out an electoral college win by 60,000ish votes spread out over 3 states. That was quirky. Internal polls are propaganda and not some secret key to the electorate that traditional polls don't possess.

[OldPhiKap]

Clinton was up significantly fairly late in 2016. I can't remember the exact odds but it seems like she was about 80% likely to win, or thereabouts? I don't blame the Biden camp at all for continuing to run hard all the way though the finish line.

October 23, 2016: Hillary up by 12 points in ABC poll:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/polit...lls/index.html

(I think the dynamics here are drastically different — but that did happen.)

[Kdogg]

Sooooo this internal polling thing is a fallacy. There is no "internal polling" that has unlocked some secret sauce. Trump's internal polling didn't show him losing the popular vote badly and eeking out an electoral college win by 60,000ish votes spread out over 3 states. That was quirky. Internal polls are propaganda and not some secret key to the electorate that traditional polls don't possess.

Here’s an article from Wired about it. This was before we knew the full scope of Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-polling-data/amp

Groups like these are seeing things through different lens.

Or Clinton’s team seeing a problem in Michigan near Election Day when earlier then thought it was in the bag.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/05/politics/hillary-clinton-michigan-donald-trump/index.html

I’m just saying, this ain’t over. Not by a long shot.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Here’s an article from Wired about it. This was before we knew the full scope of Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-polling-data/amp

Groups like these are seeing things through different lens.

I’m just saying, this ain’t over. Not by a long shot.

1. I am not 100% in love with my tone. I sounded like I was personally attacking you and I was not. I disagree that internal polls have polling methods that traditional polls don't. So I apologize for my tone.

2. They knew 62,000 people over 3 states would decide the election? I am dubious. I think this is playing the result and taking credit for a quirk.

3. Agree it ain't over!

[bundabergdevil]

October 23, 2016: Hillary up by 12 points in ABC poll:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/polit...lls/index.html

(I think the dynamics here are drastically different — but that did happen.)

The bottom of this Cook Political Report article has some 'verified 2016 Trump v. HRC' data compared to the same demographic cuts from 2020 polling. It shows Biden v. HRC and Trump 2020 v. Trump 2016. Biden is polling ahead of the verified 2016 HRC results in all but 2 categories.

According to the analysis, which is computed based on Pew data, Trump is doing particularly worse than he was in 2016 and Biden is doing particularly better than HRC in 4 categories:

Independents
Men
Non-College Whites
65+

Basically, the 'up for grabs' voters have broken (so far) hard for Biden and he's lost support in his core constituencies and (as of now) won't repeat his performance with those demographics at those levels.

[Kdogg]

1. I am not 100% in love with my tone. I sounded like I was personally attacking you and I was not. I disagree that internal polls have polling methods that traditional polls don't. So I apologize for my tone.

2. They knew 62,000 people over 3 states would decide the election? I am dubious. I think this is playing the result and taking credit for a quirk.

3. Agree it ain't over!

No worries mate. We are all friends here.

[Furniture]

October 23, 2016: Hillary up by 12 points in ABC poll:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/polit...lls/index.html

(I think the dynamics here are drastically different — but that did happen.)

sobering indeed if you are a dem.

[Skydog]

Here’s an article from Wired about it. This was before we knew the full scope of Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wir...lling-data/amp

Groups like these are seeing things through different lens.

Or Clinton’s team seeing a problem in Michigan near Election Day when earlier then thought it was in the bag.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ump/index.html

I’m just saying, this ain’t over. Not by a long shot.

I agree that this election definitely ain't over - too many variables, including possible voter suppression, mail in vote invalidation, etc. But campaigns just hire polling companies to do their polling. I can think of no reason to think a campaign's "internal" polls have a secret sauce that is unknown to the major polling companies.


I did read the articles though. The first is a Trump pollster claiming after the fact that he expected the win for reasons x, y and z. Maybe he did, but it's an easy thing to claim. Especially since most polls started tightening in the last two weeks before the 2016 election. The 2nd article just said the Clinton campaign was noticing the late tightening in Michigan. Now it is true that some mainstream media were too cavalier about these late shifts. But 538 for example noted it and showed Clinton dropping from a 4 to 1 favorite to a 2 to 1 favorite the night before the election. So this last minute slippage wasn't exactly an insider secret.

On a slightly different issue. Some (not talking about you at all) who go with "this is like this last time" narrative will point out "the X poll showed Clinton up N% on date MM/DD/16." That means very little. Individual polls have sizable margins of error - CNN might have had Clinton up 10 points one day but with a 6 pt lead the previous week. They just wait for an outlier and make a news story out of it. That's why you have to go by weighted averages of many polls. Anyone comparing 2020 to 2016 needs to be comparing poll aggregates, not individual outlier polls.