• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump

IamThunderbolt said:
I don't think Ohio is all that important. I think it comes down to PA. If Biden wins PA, he can lose Ohio, WI, NC, and Florida and still reach 270. I don't think MN or MI will go for Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OH is gravy, and I wouldn't pour a ton of $$ there. He can lose OH, WI, NC and FL and still win if he gets AZ. Trouble is the AZ polls have been close recently. I'm actually feeling safer these days about MN, WI and MI than PA. It's just damned difficult for either party ever to poll with > 5% lead in PA. The other state where I think it's important to spend $$ is IA because both Biden and Greenfield have held tiny leads there. And I agree PA is probably going to be the bell weather state. Hard for either to win without it.

All of that said, I still have 1 other worry that has nothing to do with the states - the SCOTUS. While they rejected hearing the PA case the other day, that decision was 4-4. Elections are left to the states, and state supreme courts should be the ultimate arbiter of state law - and were, at least until 2000. Barrett would have become the 5th vote to hear the case. It's not outside the realm of reason to believe the SCOTUS could affect the outcome of this election. At which point we have officially become a banana republic.
 
keystone-clipart-6.jpg
 
i already voted, hopefully the rubes confirming the ballots don't trash my signature, though we called the county office and they assured us that they call on 'unclear' signatures and give the voter the opportunity to come in and re-sign the ballot.
 
TimmyClutch said:
Playing with fivethirtyeights, mock electoral map,https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/ , I am nervously projecting a narrow 278 to 260 win by Biden. The key states in my projection are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota, where if Biden loses any of those then Trump wins. This exercise did not make me feel better about anything.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Trump is going to run the table in nearly every blue lean state? The data suggests historic turnout and very little wavering in the national or state polls. This isn't 2016 with a clear narrowing down the stretch. If Biden gets through the debate without any issues, I think Biden will win FL, OH, AZ, GA, and maybe TX.
 
Signing your ballot seems so fucking stupid, especially now a days when you rarely sign anything. Then when you even do “sign” something it’s completely electronic. I was at a resort last year and they were like I’m sorry your signature here does not match your passport, like yeah no shit.
 
IckerDeac said:
Why do you think Trump is going to run the table in nearly every blue lean state? The data suggests historic turnout and very little wavering in the national or state polls. This isn't 2016 with a clear narrowing down the stretch. If Biden gets through the debate without any issues, I think Biden will win FL, OH, AZ, GA, and maybe TX.
Click to expand...

Trump ran the table on all the tossups or lean Dem but too close to call last time, so it's not irrational to worry about the same outcome this time around. In 2016 the week before the election 538 had OH, NC and FL as completely 50/50 toss ups and PA, MI, and WI as slight (<2%) Dem leads and Trump won all of them. The difference now is that PA, MN, and MI are all about >7% for the Dems, and FL and NC are ~+2.5% for the Dems in Silver's weighted average. He gives Trump a less than 1 in 10 chance of winning MN and MI and 1.3 in 10 chance of winning PA. He also gives Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning FL and a 3.2 in 10 chance of winning NC. Of, course on election day in 2016 Silver gave Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning the EC, so, I won't feel comfortable that Biden has this thing wrapped up until he is inaugurated and sitting in the Oval Office in January.
 
IckerDeac said:
Why do you think Trump is going to run the table in nearly every blue lean state? The data suggests historic turnout and very little wavering in the national or state polls. This isn't 2016 with a clear narrowing down the stretch. If Biden gets through the debate without any issues, I think Biden will win FL, OH, AZ, GA, and maybe TX.
Click to expand...

Republican registration is up as well, and I think he has a much more fervent fan base. From what I have been reading, I do not think as many people are going to change who they voted for in the last election as we may think. Trump won Texas by 800,000 votes in 2016, Ohio by 446,000 and Georgia by 211,000.

Since 2016, I have been looking for signs that Texas, Georgia and Florida have moved far enough left to be in play, but I haven't seen that in any major races there. In Florida, I think Trump is going to do well with the Olds, the Cubans and in the north and west of the state. NC could be one that goes for Biden, but i think Arizona is more likely. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were all close last time, and with the economy the way it is, I think they will flip to Biden.

Being overseas I am not seeing the yard signs and commercials, so most of what I am reading is from national papers.
 
birdman said:
Trump ran the table on all the tossups or lean Dem but too close to call last time, so it's not irrational to worry about the same outcome this time around. In 2016 the week before the election 538 had OH, NC and FL as completely 50/50 toss ups and PA, MI, and WI as slight (<2%) Dem leads and Trump won all of them. The difference now is that PA, MN, and MI are all about >7% for the Dems, and FL and NC are ~+2.5% for the Dems in Silver's weighted average. He gives Trump a less than 1 in 10 chance of winning MN and MI and 1.3 in 10 chance of winning PA. He also gives Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning FL and a 3.2 in 10 chance of winning NC. Of, course on election day in 2016 Silver gave Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning the EC, so, I won't feel comfortable that Biden has this thing wrapped up until he is inaugurated and sitting in the Oval Office in January.
Click to expand...

Nate I think had the lowest probability for a Clinton victory last time around. As you said, he had her at about 70% when most everyone else had it in the 80s or 90s.
 
cville deac said:
Nate I think had the lowest probability for a Clinton victory last time around. As you said, he had her at about 70% when most everyone else had it in the 80s or 90s.
Click to expand...

Every other model I looked at in the days before the 2016 election said Clinton had >95% chance of winning, several said it was >99%, like the so called "Princeton Model." They were obviously flawed, and don't remember the structure of those models very well, but I do recall the Princeton Model was a Bayesian Updating analysis, which took the prior probability added new data and updated the probability. Some times those analyses can get sunk into a inescapable probability hole...meaning, if one month before the election the model predicts that Trump has a probability of victory of 0.001 because an audio tape came out in which Trump admits to sexual assault, it would take a huge shift in the polls to over come that because the new probabilities are a function of the priors, i.e., 0.001 x New data, is still a really small number.

Silver's model is much more complex than a lot of other predictors, which actually goes against a lot of predictive modeling academic philosophy. Academic modelers typically endeavor to build the simplest models that make useful predictions, because for every added bit of complexity you need additional empirical data to parameterize the relationship. For example, to model the election as a state by state contest (which Silver does) you need polling data from every single state and who really bothers to poll Alaska or Wyoming when the outcome is almost certain. So, a state by state model has to rely on less useful data sources, like prior voting patterns or demographic trends, to make predictions, which leads to greater uncertainty in predicted outcomes. A lot of academics don't like that and avoid model structures that require low quality data, but from an applied, practical stand point, ignoring the complexities of the system for the sake of quality input data leads model users to be uninformed about predicted uncertainty...leads to over confidence in the predicted future outcomes. I think that is a pretty common thing in a lot of models, especially in economics and leads to people being really surprised by things like the 2008 housing collapse or Trump winning in 2016.
 
I think that it will be the same as 2016- PA, WI, MI, and/or OH will be the difference. If Biden can flip 3 of those 4 states, he wins no matter what happens in the other toss up states.
 
apparently one of Trump's biggest advocates has quite the compromising scene in the new Borat film, which is coming out tomorrow on Prime

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/21/rudy-giuliani-faces-questions-after-compromising-scene-in-new-borat-film
 
TimmyClutch said:
Republican registration is up as well, and I think he has a much more fervent fan base. From what I have been reading, I do not think as many people are going to change who they voted for in the last election as we may think. Trump won Texas by 800,000 votes in 2016, Ohio by 446,000 and Georgia by 211,000.

Since 2016, I have been looking for signs that Texas, Georgia and Florida have moved far enough left to be in play, but I haven't seen that in any major races there. In Florida, I think Trump is going to do well with the Olds, the Cubans and in the north and west of the state. NC could be one that goes for Biden, but i think Arizona is more likely. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were all close last time, and with the economy the way it is, I think they will flip to Biden.

Being overseas I am not seeing the yard signs and commercials, so most of what I am reading is from national papers.
Click to expand...

The flip side of this is that while Donald is potentially adding a few people here or there outside his normal demographic, he is way down on his core base: white people. And white people make up the largest single demographic as well as make up a massive amount of the actual voters.
 
BarcaDeac said:
apparently one of Trump's biggest advocates has quite the compromising scene in the new Borat film, which is coming out tomorrow on Prime

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/21/rudy-giuliani-faces-questions-after-compromising-scene-in-new-borat-film
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
IamThunderbolt said:
I don't think Ohio is all that important. I think it comes down to PA. If Biden wins PA, he can lose Ohio, WI, NC, and Florida and still reach 270. I don't think MN or MI will go for Trump.
Click to expand...

If Michigan or Pennsylvania go for Biden (or if the Tampa suburbs are very strong for Biden) I expect this to be a massive victory because of what it indicates for other similar demographic areas.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
If Michigan or Pennsylvania go for Biden (or if the Tampa suburbs are very strong for Biden) I expect this to be a massive victory because of what it indicates for other similar demographic areas.
Click to expand...




I've never had to wait to early vote before at the local library. The reported lines are 30-60 minutes or more in the first three days of early voting.
 
Another key place to look early on will be a couple areas in Maine and a few specific districts within Pennsylvania (although the state as a whole is going to be a good indicator based on rural and suburban white voting and turnouts)
 
Got confirmation that my ballot is accepted and ready to be counted in Massachusetts. Let the Donald slaughter in the Commonwealth commence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top