|
Post by spartacus on Oct 8, 2020 7:59:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 8:15:46 GMT -8
They show Biden with a 9.8% national lead. RCP has it at 9.7%. And The Economist gives him a 91% chance of winning. I believe this election is a done deal, but I won't feel completely comfortable about it until January 10th. Here are a few key states: Michigan 7.8% Wisconsin 7.0% Pennsylvania 7.0% Arizona 4.5% Nevada 6.7%
Florida 4.7% Georgia 1.2% Iowa 1.0% Ohio 0.8% North Carolina 2.6%
A few days ago, those first three state were all just over 6%.
|
|
|
Post by gainsborough on Oct 8, 2020 8:34:23 GMT -8
Let's not overlook the possibility of a stolen election. Trump's weapons include limiting access to voting stations in heavily Democratic districts, the threat of physical intimidation at voting stations, challenges to vote-by-mail ballots, and even the use of "faithless electors."
Even worse, I suspect Russian interference may escalate to previously un-imaginable levels.
And even then.... if everything works as it should, and the vote comes in heavily for Biden... does anyone expect Trump to go quietly?
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Oct 8, 2020 9:31:16 GMT -8
They show Biden with a 9.8% national lead. RCP has it at 9.7%. And The Economist gives him a 91% chance of winning. So how has this changed since 2016? Well, looked up the 2016 538 forecast. Actually 2 forecasts from 2016. There was the final forecast when it was a close race, and the Clinton peak on October 17, about 3 weeks prior to election day. First, let's just look at the more western states, the one's west of Missouri and Minnesota, and competitive in 2016 or 2020: Nevada [first number is 538 prediction chance for Clinton/Biden, second is predicted margin for same] actual margin 1.52% 2016 final 58.3% (1.2%) 2016 O17 76.5% (4.7%) 2020 O08 86% .. (7.2%) Arizona (-3.54%) 2016 final 33.4% (-2.2%) 2016 O17 58.2% (1.3%) 2020 O08 68% .. (3.2%) Colorado (4.91%) 2016 final 77.5% (4.1%) 2016 O17 90.2% (8.3%) 2020 O08 93% .. (11.2%) New Mexico (8.22%) 2016 final 82.6% (5.8%) 2016 O17 94.8% (12.0%) 2020 O08 96% (13.9%) Texas (-8.99%) 2016 final 06.0% (-8.5%) 2016 O17 14.1% (-6.6%) 2020 O08 31% .. (-3.1%) So in the West, Biden's forecast gives him even better odds than Clinton's peak in 2016 (typically by 2-3% in the margin, comparable to the national forecast change). The final forecasts were reasonably accurate in the West in 2016. Trump did gain about 2-4% in the last 3 weeks in 2016. A similar move would only impact Arizona. Will do the upper Midwest later.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 10:04:25 GMT -8
>>So how has this changed since 2016?
This isn't 2016. First a much more stable race. In 2016 Hillary never reached 46% nationally. Biden is at 52%.
Second in 2016 the race was much more volatile.
Third the number of undecided voters was much higher in 2016. Most people tell pollsters they have already made up their mind.
Fourth, Trump wasn't an incumbent.
Fifth, Hillary was very unpopular. Trump still is. Biden isn't.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Oct 8, 2020 11:30:01 GMT -8
Also, there isn't a prominent third party ticket like Jill Stein. Who is running on the Green Party ticket anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Oct 8, 2020 11:44:01 GMT -8
Notably, Nate Silver is now repeatedly reminding people that 538's models assume a free and fair democratic election; without voter suppression, mail-in ballots not being counted, or competing slates of electors. It's amazing, in a very sad way, that it's come to this, in what was once considered democracy's shining city on the hill.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 12:07:32 GMT -8
Also, there isn't a prominent third party ticket like Jill Stein. Who is running on the Green Party ticket anyway? Libertarian Gary Johnson got 3 times the vote of Jill Stein. There are Libertarians and Green candidates this time. Polls show they could get between 1% and 4% between them. The high end would match 2016.
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Oct 8, 2020 12:15:12 GMT -8
>>So how has this changed since 2016? This isn't 2016. First a much more stable race. In 2016 Hillary never reached 46% nationally. Biden is at 52%. Second in 2016 the race was much more volatile. Third the number of undecided voters was much higher in 2016. Most people tell pollsters they have already made up their mind. Fourth, Trump wasn't an incumbent. Fifth, Hillary was very unpopular. Trump still is. Biden isn't. The slope of the change over the last 10 or so days is actually similar to the Clinton slope from late September to mid-October 2016. Averaging 538 and RCP, the 10-day slope is about a 0.3% per day shift toward Biden. Clinton had about a 0.2% per day shift over a 4-week period. These periods included the early debates.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 12:46:45 GMT -8
Clinton started from being up by around 1%. Biden has only briefly dipped below a 7% lead.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 12:56:44 GMT -8
Here's some analysis from Larry Sabato:
At least some of the numbers we’re seeing for Biden now likely represent a sugar high for the challenger, which can happen sometimes when one candidate performs poorly or is on the wrong side of a bad story. Hillary Clinton’s national lead against Trump hit double digits in some polls following the revelation of the Access Hollywood recording in early October 2016, although Clinton’s aggregate lead over Trump in national polling as measured by RealClearPolitics hit only a high point of seven that October, and her share of the vote in the average never surpassed 49% in the fall (she ended up getting 48%).
Biden, meanwhile, has not dipped under 49% in RealClearPolitics since early August, and he was approaching 52% Wednesday evening.
To borrow a phrase from Biden, here’s the deal: The president needs the election to get closer to have a reasonable chance of once again pulling off an upset. That can still happen, but it is not happening now. The clock keeps ticking to Election Day, and voters are already voting.
-------------------------------- It is important to remember the Hillary bump came just after the Access Hollywood tape was revealed.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 13:05:01 GMT -8
BTW, there is one more Senate race that is flying under the radar that might be competitive. Mississippi.
Yes, really. The race has been lightly polled, and the most recent poll show Repub Hyde-Smith with a 1% lead.
More significantly the race is shown as 41% to 40%. 41% is terrible for an incumbent.
I don't think it is very likely Mississippi would elect a Democratic Senator, but keep this race in the back of you mind. It might be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Oct 8, 2020 13:20:17 GMT -8
And in the Kansas Senate race there have been 5 polls since Sept 24. Two show the Republican winning. Two show the Democrat winning. The fifth shows a tied in.
As Frank Zappa sang, "WHOOOOOO could imagine that they would freak out in Kansas?"
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Oct 8, 2020 13:45:08 GMT -8
Libertarian Gary Johnson got 3 times the vote of Jill Stein. There are Libertarians and Green candidates this time. Polls show they could get between 1% and 4% between them. The high end would match 2016. I've wondered if in non-competitive states (there are at least 30 of them) if 3rd party voters have some understanding of the certainty, so they feel more free to vote for 3rd party candidates. Biden isn't really hurt if their are voters in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and some smaller deep blue states who feel Biden isn't progressive enough, so they vote for the Green Party. Trump isn't hurt if some in red Mountain West states vote Libertarian. I suspected in 2016 a lot of the "never Trump" Republicans were in blue states - where it didn't matter if they voted Libertarian.
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Oct 9, 2020 12:43:35 GMT -8
So how has this changed since 2016? Well, looked up the 2016 538 forecast. Actually 2 forecasts from 2016. There was the final forecast when it was a close race, and the Clinton peak on October 17, about 3 weeks prior to election day. First, let's just look at the more western states, the one's west of Missouri and Minnesota, and competitive in 2016 or 2020: ... Will do the upper Midwest later. I know mh isn't fond of these, but decided to do this anyway (while I wait for my boss to call in for the weekly update) for the upper Midwest/Great Lake states Minnesota [1.52%] 2016 final 85.0% (5.8%) 2016 O17 88.2% (8.0%) 2020 O09 90% .. (8.2%) Iowa [-9.41%] 2016 final 30.2% (-2.9%) 2016 O17 63.3% (2.1%) 2020 O09 44% .. (-1.1%) Wisconsin [-0.77%] 2016 final 83.5% (5.3%) 2015 O17 90.7% (8.6%) 2020 O09 84% .. (6.4%) Michigan [-0.27%] 2016 final 78.9% (4.2%) 2016 O17 92.7% (9.3%) 2020 O09 91% .. (8.3%) Ohio [-8.13%] 2016 final 35.4% (-1.9%) 2016 O17 66.6% (2.5%) 2020 O09 53% .. (0.5%) Pennsylvania [-0.72%] 2016 final 77.0% (3.7%) 2016 O17 90.4% (8.0%) 2020 O09 86% .. (6.3%) First, there was big movement here between October 17, 2016 and election day. The polling moved between 2.2 to 5.1% toward Trump, possibly underestimating the actual movement because Trump was beating the forecasts by more than 4%. While on the battleground states to the west, Biden is beating even the peak 2016 forecast, he's not beating Clinton's October 17 peak. That could be because the polls were off in these states in 2016 (that's been discussed elsewhere), and corrections to the voter models (perhaps now based on 2016, and not based on 2012) are offsetting real gains by Biden. Or that the Midwest has moved less toward Biden than other places. Whether Trump can repeat his late move (Oct. 17 2016 was 3 weeks ahead of the election, we are 3.5 weeks ahead now) is questionable.
|
|