USA Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
True, Minnesota has the longest "blue streak" in the country!

But, Republicans won MN from 1860-1908, voted Progressive (a Republican splinter under TR) in 1912, and then voted Republican from 1916 - 1928. They voted GOP in 1952, 58 (they like Ike in MN) and again for Tricky Dick in '72. And that's it.

But yeah, they voted for the Republicans lots, just only once for the modernish GOP under Nixon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
how does everyone feel about the talking point which claims that voters who lack college degrees are under-polled, thus giving Biden an advantage in polls?

another talking point I've been seeing lately states that polls aren't as reliable as they used to be since people don't answer their cellphones when they see an unrecognizable number - and that since the advent and popularity of mobile phones, polls are no longer as reliable as they once were.
 
Pibroch_Whistler said:
how does everyone feel about the talking point which claims that voters who lack college degrees are under-polled, thus giving Biden an advantage in polls?
Click to expand...
So, this is only a talking point if you don't understand how polls work. Polls aren't "you call 1000 people, get their answers, put that in a table, bingo-bango, out the door". Pollsters balance their responses for the expected breakdown based on previous behaviour & other poll answers. Polling isn't quite a science, there's an artform to it.

In 2016, pollsters did not analyze the educational breakdown, they did not correct for it, and they did not expect it. The entire industry fucked up. They corrected this based on exit polling. So while there is a chance that the lesser educated are lesser polled, reputable pollsters are appropriately correcting for this. It could impact the polls slightly (which is why polls have a margin of error) but it's really unlikely to have the same impact it did in 2016.

Of course, most people don't understand how polling works!

Pibroch_Whistler said:
another talking point I've been seeing lately states that polls aren't as reliable as they used to be since people don't answer their cellphones when they see an unrecognizable number - and that since the advent and popularity of mobile phones, polls are no longer as reliable as they once were.
Click to expand...
That's why correcting for responses is important. Which - let's be clear - that's something pollsters have always done, but it's even more important now. However, polls are still pretty accurate, because people actually do answer their phones more often than you'd thing. Internet polling has become more prevalent as well.

Polls were extremely accurate in 2008 and 2012. When corrected for education, the numbers gathered in 2016 were correct (that is to say, the issue wasn't with data collection but with the methodology of presentation). There's no reason to think they are, en masse, wrong.

Unless you're a giant orange idiot trying to set the USA up for a coup.
 
I don’t think MN will vote for Trump, but I do think it’s his best bet if he wants to win a state that Clinton carried in 2016. And he’s going to have to, Michigan probably isn’t going red this year and Wisconsin isn’t looking great either.
 
Polling is pointing to that fact that the the traditional "Blue Wall" will in fact hold (the fluke states that Trump got in 2016 - namely, PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin).

That being said, if EITHER Wisconsin or Michigan remain red (and the rest of this map remains the same), we now have a 269-269 TIE and Biden wins the Presidency via the House of Representatives


1600382245153.png
 
Not quite, the president is decided by the house but it’s not through majority vote, each state votes as a contingent. If I’m not mistaken, there are more states with a majority of republican representatives, so Trump could very well win the presidency that way.

Of all the apocalyptic election scenarios thrown around, this one is the only one that actually makes me concerned about short and long term ramifications. There’s going to be a huge push for the house to pick the popular vote winner, who will almost certainly be Biden (all Trump has going for him right now is his electoral college advantage, which means he really has no chance at the popular vote). I think the house is more likely to go Trump, although it’s going to take some swing reps in a few key states to change that.

Keep in mind also that the next house decides this, so the results of the election in the house could make a difference here (mostly whether Dems expand their majority and by how much in which states).

Fortunately, I don’t see it happening. The thing about the 269 scenario is that it requires PA and WI to split, which is both rare and unlikely given similar demographics. Michigan is probably safely in the blue column. I think it’s more likely that Trump wins PA and WI for a narrow EC win, or Biden wins both plus probably NC and Arizona.
 
Arizona has been frequently polling to Biden beyond the margin of error. The Cook Political Report updated it to Leans Democratic today, in fact - and as Mark Kelly is going to win the Senate there (up an avg of 9 points) it looks like Arizona will go from being a red state to a blue state in one cycle.
 
Mark Kelly is the best senate candidate in who knows how long. This time ago last year, if we were to talk winnable senate races for the Dems we’d say that CO is a sure thing, Maine looks very good, and everything else depends on the candidates and national environment. AZ looked decent, especially after 2018, but it initially seemed like it was only trending blue and may or may not get there in 2020. Now AZ is the most likely to go blue, and it’s mostly due to Kelly.

CO senate race is still a pretty easy win, but Hickenlooper is a remarkably bad candidate. Just goes to show how much candidates matter in elections, not just party affiliation.
 
Gideon is obliterating Collins - 12 points in the most recent poll as well. Thom Tillis down in NC is toast as well.

Most surprising is Jaime Harrison in a tie with Lindsay Graham.
 
This conversation is timely because 538 just released their senate forecast, which currently has Democrats as very slight favorites to take the Senate (with the most likely scenario being a 50 - 50 split, where VP Harris is the tie break).

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

2020 Senate Election Forecast

Latest forecasts and polls for the 2020 Senate elections by Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight
projects.fivethirtyeight.com projects.fivethirtyeight.com

This seems based on the fact that AZ, CO, Maine, and NC are looking really good (Dems have to make up for losing Doug Jones).

The Lindsay Graham race is surprisingly close, but this feels like a repeat of Texas in 2018: national democrats are excited by a longshot race featuring a candidate who is typically hated by the left, the challenger is able to pick up steam and bring the race within a few close percentage points, the incumbent is able to drive enough turnout to win the race. I expect the same will happen here, although an environment where Graham loses his seat is probably landslide territory for Biden and the senate.

I think the more likely 5th pickup is Bullock's race in Montana.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top