2020 Presidential Election

[mkirsh]

Yeah, I would note a several key differences between the 2016 and 2020 races:
- Historically polarizing candidate on the Dem side in 2016; Biden just doesn't seem to generate the animosity against that Clinton did
- Unknown commodity on the GOP side in 2016 (at least in terms of how he would govern); now the public has 4 years of Trump as president to guide their voting decisions
- No relevant third-party candidates; not that Johnson/Weld or Stein were hugely effective, but they were relevant alternatives to JUST enough of the anti-establishment crowd to matter
- The Dem candidate took the Midwest for granted in 2016; Clinton didn't campaign heavily in Michigan or Wisconsin, and that proved costly. Biden has not followed that script
- Pollsters not adjusting for education status, which proved quite relevant in 2016; polling was more accurate in 2018 for example
- Biden's polling lead is larger (~4 points nationally, and ~3 points in the swing states) than Clinton's was in 2016 at this point; the last time this race was as it was in Oct 2016 was back in early June.
- A much more volatile race in 2016: the race oscillated a TON in 2016, with the national race dipping to within 1% multiple times; this means that things were more open to shifts than they have been this time around, where Biden
- Way less early voting, and way less voting in general; people seem way more motivated to vote this time around

None of this is to say that the race is over. Trump could absolutely still win. It's about a 1 in 9 shot per fivethirtyeight, which is absolutely doable. And that's ignoring any shenanigans. But 2016 was a very different race in a lot of ways. 2016 is certainly a cautionary tale, but I'm not sure how predictive it is for 2020.

This is a great list, and I would add one more thing: fewer undecideds in 2020

On Oct 19 2016 aggregate polling at 538 had the race at Clinton 45.4%, Trump 38.8%, Johnson 6.5%, leaving just over 9% undecided (which jumps to almost 16% if you include 3rd party, as many of those polled actually ended up voting for an establishment party candidate). Big lead for HRC, but she still had under 50% support. Compare that to today, where Biden is polling at 52.5% compared to Trump's 41.8%, leaving just under 6% undecided/third party. Harder for Trump to make up ground with fewer votes up for grabs, according to polling.

[Hartford Dukie]

.

This CNN clip is a fantastic message for over confident dems.

There are very few overconfident Dems. This is behind a paywall but this is the lead story in WaPo this morning.

Biden leads Trump. So did Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, it’s a worrisome campaign deja vu

The polls are once again delivering feel-good boosts to Democrats: Joe Biden beats President Trump by 10, 11 or 12 points nationally, depending on the day. His edge in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin averages eight. Propeller-heads promise better than 4 in 5 odds of a new president next year.

But then the partisans remember they have been here before, four years ago this week. The conflicting emotions can be overwhelming.

Democrats went to the polls last time certain they would elect the first woman ever to become president, and were punched in the face with a Trump upset. This time they feel the punch coming from a thousand miles away. The worry is visceral and widespread, unassuaged by Biden’s lead in the polls.

[CDu]

This is a great list, and I would add one more thing: fewer undecideds in 2020

On Oct 19 2016 aggregate polling at 538 had the race at Clinton 45.4%, Trump 38.8%, Johnson 6.5%, leaving just over 9% undecided (which jumps to almost 16% if you include 3rd party, as many of those polled actually ended up voting for an establishment party candidate). Big lead for HRC, but she still had under 50% support. Compare that to today, where Biden is polling at 52.5% compared to Trump's 41.8%, leaving just under 6% undecided/third party. Harder for Trump to make up ground with fewer votes up for grabs, according to polling.

Yeah, this is also hugely important. Trump had a much better avenue to pull off the upset in 2016. For one, the race was closer, and for another there were a lot of undecideds. So Trump didn't need to sway any Clinton voters. "Undecideds" broke strongly for Trump in 2016, and did so JUST enough to pull off the upset (threading the needle in the Midwest by a VERY narrow margin).

This time, Trump needs more help. Biden is well over 50% in polling nationally, but more importantly he's over 50% in each of PA, MI, and WI and over 49% in FL, AZ, and NC. So Trump needs more than just undecideds. He needs to a combination of dominating with the undecideds AND generating new voters in his favor. But when you add in that COVID has been a net negative for him, that's going to be harder to achieve than it was in 2016 when Trump was the relative unknown/outsider and the biggest story was his opponent's history. So perhaps voter suppression becomes a key strategy (which is probably why we are seeing some of the attacks being made).

None of this is to say that Trump can't win. There are still two weeks for something crazy to happen. But even moreso than 2016 (when something somewhat crazy DID happen of course), it will probably take something crazy happening for Trump to win. Because Biden's lead has been very durable and generally much larger than Clinton's was.

[budwom]

and I would add a huge one: we have a pandemic which has swamped most other issues with voters, and an incumbent whose performance with said pandemic is overwhelmingly seen as negative. I think this outweighs about everything.

Pandemic, seniors tend to vote, and seniors are more concerned about The Covid than most other demographics.

[JasonEvans]

In 2016, Trump was just a normal polling error away from victory. In 2020, he is not. The data is completely different this year.

In fact, here is an article written just days before the 2016 election pointing out that very fact: Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton

It contains this excellent chart. It would take something like 1980, where support for Carter cratered in the final week, for Trump to make this close at this point. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

[LasVegas]

Trump just blew up on a call with campaign staff. Said Fauci is a disaster and other health officials are idiots. Pretty wild strategy 2 weeks out.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have been getting constant e-mails from Biden Victory Fund - they seem like they are coming from a specific person (I have gotten a lot from Jaime Harrison even though I don't live in SC, also Biden, Tom Perez, etc.). For various reasons I do not donate to politicians so I'm not sure how I got on this list. Anyway, I just got one from them that is made to look like it is from Madeleine Albright titled "I want to meet you, CrazyNotCrazie*, and so does Hillary Clinton." If I donate $7, I will be entered in a drawing to join them at a special event.

Interesting that they seem to be activating Hillary. I don't know how much they know about me but most everything about me would identify me as someone who strongly supported Hillary in 2016, so I don't know how widely this was sent. Because despite the narrative of Hillary being a polarizing candidate, there were a lot of people out there who were extremely enthusiastic about her. Though many of those who strongly supported her are still bitter at her for how she handled the campaign and screwing things up so might not like her as much now as they did in 2016.

*Note that if they really had addressed me by my DBR name that would be the final proof that I spend too much time here...

[CDu]

In fact, here is an article written just days before the 2016 election pointing out that very fact: Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton

It contains this excellent chart. It would take something like 1980, where support for Carter cratered in the final week, for Trump to make this close at this point. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

One point of clarification: that was the national polling average at one week prior to the election. We are still 2 weeks out. As of 2 weeks out in 2016, the polling average was a bit over +6.0 for Clinton. Which is still much less than Biden's lead, but about twice the normal polling error. Clinton's polling lead dropped by like 5 points over the penultimate week of the race.

But, that gets back to the other differences:
- major national news item (COVID) is not favorable to Trump
- MUCH more stability in Biden's lead than Clinton had
- Biden over 50% nationally and in several key states whereas Clinton was ~45% with lots of "undecideds" (i.e., the "shy" Trump voter could swing the election in 2016 but not in 2020)

[Hartford Dukie]

Trump just blew up on a call with campaign staff. Said Fauci is a disaster and other health officials are idiots. Pretty wild strategy 2 weeks out.

NYTimes - Trump calls Fauci ‘a disaster’ in a call with his campaign staff

President Trump attacked Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease specialist, as a “disaster,” said that people were “tired of” the coronavirus and want to be left “alone,” and denounced his media coverage in a call with campaign staff on Monday morning.

“People are tired of Covid,” Mr. Trump complained about the coronavirus. “People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong.”

He called Dr. Fauci a “nice” guy, but said, “He’s been here for 500 years,” and added, “Every time he goes on television, there’s always a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him. This guy’s a disaster.”

Mr. Trump’s comments came after Dr. Fauci dismissed the president’s claim that the end of the pandemic is just around the corner in an interview with “60 Minutes” on CBS that aired on Sunday.

[rsvman]

Trump just blew up on a call with campaign staff. Said Fauci is a disaster and other health officials are idiots. Pretty wild strategy 2 weeks out.

At a rally yesterday he told the gathered crowd why they shouldn't vote for Biden. Among other terrible things that Biden is likely to do was this gem: "...he will listen to the scientists."

Wow. And that's, apparently, a NEGATIVE thing now??!??


Hard to believe, but this is where we are right now. Trump could've told them that Biden was going to raise their taxes (a tried and true tactic), but apparently now it's more persuasive to point out that Biden is a man that, rather than relying on his own unassailable knowledge and infallible intuition, would actually pay attention and take advice from people who know more and have devoted their lives to gaining knowledge about viruses and pandemics. How dare he!

[JasonEvans]

Trump could've told them that Biden was going to raise their taxes (a tried and true tactic), but apparently now it's more persuasive to point out that Biden is a man that, rather than relying on his own unassailable knowledge and infallible intuition, would actually pay attention and take advice from people who know more and have devoted their lives to gaining knowledge about viruses and pandemics. How dare he!

If you have a college degree you are 50% more likely to be a Democrat versus a Republican. If you have at least some post-graduate education, you are twice as likely to be a Democrat. (source: Pew data from this summer)

Why is it surprising that the party that fares poorly the more and more educated you get would be the party that would think educated people are not to be trusted?

-Jason "for folks who lament the political bent of this board, most of us are Duke grads and Duke is a truly elite educational institution... hardly surprising that Duke grads would be overwhelming in favor of the party that is backed by the most educated members of society" Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I have been getting constant e-mails from Biden Victory Fund - they seem like they are coming from a specific person (I have gotten a lot from Jaime Harrison even though I don't live in SC, also Biden, Tom Perez, etc.). For various reasons I do not donate to politicians so I'm not sure how I got on this list. Anyway, I just got one from them that is made to look like it is from Madeleine Albright titled "I want to meet you, CrazyNotCrazie*, and so does Hillary Clinton." If I donate $7, I will be entered in a drawing to join them at a special event.

Interesting that they seem to be activating Hillary. I don't know how much they know about me but most everything about me would identify me as someone who strongly supported Hillary in 2016, so I don't know how widely this was sent. Because despite the narrative of Hillary being a polarizing candidate, there were a lot of people out there who were extremely enthusiastic about her. Though many of those who strongly supported her are still bitter at her for how she handled the campaign and screwing things up so might not like her as much now as they did in 2016.

*Note that if they really had addressed me by my DBR name that would be the final proof that I spend too much time here...

Huh.

I get your exact same emails, down to not living in SC and getting Jamie Harrison to the Madeline Albright one today.

[Furniture]

538 is holding firm at 10.7. It was 10.5 over the weekend. I keep checking and expecting some tightening but is ain’t happening yet...

[MarkD83]

At a rally yesterday he told the gathered crowd why they shouldn't vote for Biden. Among other terrible things that Biden is likely to do was this gem: "...he will listen to the scientists."

Wow. And that's, apparently, a NEGATIVE thing now??!??


Hard to believe, but this is where we are right now. Trump could've told them that Biden was going to raise their taxes (a tried and true tactic), but apparently now it's more persuasive to point out that Biden is a man that, rather than relying on his own unassailable knowledge and infallible intuition, would actually pay attention and take advice from people who know more and have devoted their lives to gaining knowledge about viruses and pandemics. How dare he!

The whole "don't trust scientists" is the biggest thing that irks me since I am a scientist. So I would love for Trump to promise that if gets sick with Covid again that he WON'T take the medicines or undergo the treatments that scientist just discovered that SAVED HIS D*** LIFE.

[Lord Ash]

If you have a college degree you are 50% more likely to be a Democrat versus a Republican. If you have at least some post-graduate education, you are twice as likely to be a Democrat. (source: Pew data from this summer)

Why is it surprising that the party that fares poorly the more and more educated you get would be the party that would think educated people are not to be trusted? If you value education, you probably aren't a Republican.

-Jason "for folks who lament the political bent of this board, most of us are Duke grads and Duke is a truly elite educational institution... hardly surprising that Duke grads would be overwhelming in favor of the party that is backed by the most educated members of society" Evans

This election has made the entire issue of staying as non-partisan as possible very difficult, because suddenly common-sense stuff, or science-backed stuff, or basic historical stuff, have become associated with only one side. Calling for the imprisonment of political opponents has become associated with only one side, accusing our national law enforcement apparatus of treason has become associated with one side, dismissing largely-accepted science in the midst of a pandemic has become associated with only one side... so how can reasonable, educated, informed people address this stuff and *not* take a somewhat partisan stance?

It was a lot easier back when the big debate was what level taxes should be set at, or if we should rely on more private health care or nationalized health care... and even THAT wasn't easy

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The whole "don't trust scientists" is the biggest thing that irks me since I am a scientist. So I would love for Trump to promise that if gets sick with Covid again that he WON'T take the medicines or undergo the treatments that scientist just discovered that SAVED HIS D*** LIFE.

Totally agree (though I'm not a scientist). The general dumbing down of America is a huge problem for me, particularly the lack of respect for science. I know several doctors who generally travel in fairly blue circles but have historically voted Republicans who don't seem overly bothered by this and are voting for Trump because they are more worried about Biden changing healthcare (and possibly hurting their paychecks) and taxes. We all have our priorities.

[BlueTeuf]

I respect this forum’s thirst for anecdotes - and unsurpassed capacity to transform such into actionable analytics. In support, I offer the following unsupported observations masquerading as facts:

I repetitively journey from Central NY to our weekend-getaway camp near NY’s Canadian border. Referred to as "the North Country", these bright red communities have Elise Stefanik (R -NY) as a rockstar where she commands an insurmountable lead in the competition for lawn signage. Premise: if Elise holds sway – so does President Trump.

Observation: The once infrequent, (even lonely) Biden/Harris yard-signs now have some company. But back away from the keyboard, I realize that’s not anecdote-worthy.

What may be anecdote-worthy is my assessment that Trump signs are actually disappearing. Where Trump/Pence once held a 12:1 lead in yard-signage, my last traverse scored out in a dead heat. The moderate increase in Biden/Harris signs can be part of it – but nowhere near a suitable explanation.
Someone must be removing Trump/Pence displays.

And it’s not like there isn’t any election interest. “Elise” signs can rival pumpkins for primacy among seasonal décor.

Jason, could you keep my ban to under three days please? There's an election afoot.

[Wander]

how can reasonable, educated, informed people address this stuff and *not* take a somewhat partisan stance?

Well, I would say the answer is that the word "partisan" doesn't mean what this thread thinks it means. We seem to have taken the position that it means "any statement that is not completely neutral with respect to Trump or Biden", which is an absurd definition. Voting for Trump or Biden, or strongly supporting Trump or Biden, doesn't automatically mean you have a "partisan stance". IMO.

I would describe most of the people who post in this thread as extremely anti-Trump, but also fairly non-partisan and not particularly liberal. I constantly see anti-Trump posters here talk about how they have supported people like Lindsey Graham and John Kasich in the recent past, or don't like the idea of the Democrats court packing. I imagine if the election were between AOC and Mitt Romney, most people here would be voting Republican (and just to be clear, none of this is a complaint). JE, I love ya, but I'm begging you to stop labeling people as "liberal posters" just because they don't like Trump.

[BlueDevil2K]

I constantly see anti-Trump posters here talk about how they have supported people like Lindsey Graham and John Kasich in the recent past, or don't like the idea of the Democrats court packing. I imagine if the election were between AOC and Mitt Romney, most people here would be voting Republican (and just to be clear, none of this is a complaint). JE, I love ya, but I'm begging you to stop labeling people as "liberal posters" just because they don't like Trump.

And if the election were between Kasich (or Graham, ca. 2016) and Biden, many of us would probably be voting for Kasich/Graham. I'm pretty firmly an independent, and as much as I don't feel that I've moved much on the political spectrum over the past decade or two, it's clear that the current incarnation of the Republican party has moved far away from me. I don't think that makes me "liberal" - nor should the Democratic party take voters like me for granted in future elections if it moves severely to the left.

ETA: from a horse race perspective, *this* is a big part of why Biden has a 10 point lead in the polls...

[Lord Ash]

Saw this story referenced in the NYT, and had noticed it yesterday... for the music lovers:

https://twitter.com/John_Fogerty/sta...trump-vs-biden

So the Trump campaign has been playing CCR's "Fortunate Son" at their events... a song written about draft dodging, tax evading sons of rich guys.

No idea why on earth the campaign would use it, but they do.

And now Fogerty has apparently issued a cease and desist.

Not sure if the "Law and Order" President will acknowledge the cease and desist or not.