2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Ifreann]

Biden has tweeted that he and Jill have tested negative.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1312065485400346625

I’m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID. Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern. I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands.

[Valrifell]

President Trump and Melania Trump are both experiencing mild symptoms at the moment.

Yeah they've tested positive now.

I'm wondering whether Trump will look at the issue differently or not now, but I have my doubts.

He's high risk but it's also quite likely he only goes through the mild symptoms. If that turns out to be the case then he's going to amplify his downplaying of the virus "I've had it and it's just like the cold, the fakenews lamestream media is lying to you! The numbers are fake! Believe me!"

[Aureumterra III]

Holy shit so I just finished watching the Snapchat Good Luck America interview with Madison Cawthorne (who will be the youngest member of Congress when elected)

He said something along the lines of "the old establishment Republicans have caused the rise of the far-left, and that is understandable. We as Republicans need to realize that there are poor people in this country, who genuinely can’t work their way up, and we need to focus on them. I represent the younger generation of Republicans, who recognize that there are problems in this country and people who are unable to pull themselves. We recognize these problems while still loving God and our country"

When asked about same-sex marriage, he responded with "The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage anyways"

I hope this is a trend among younger Republicans, I may not have lost faith in this country just yet

Seems like a decent guy from what you've described. A socially liberal (in the economic sense), One-Nation, Disraelian conservative like Boris Johnson. Maybe a centrist, European-style, Christian Democrat. He should probably be the president, not Trump or Biden. But Trump will have to suffice given the two-party, winner-take-all, FPTP electoral system in place and the unbelievably high stakes.

The guy is in his mid 20s

[Cisairse]

haha lmao

Biden has tweeted that he and Jill have tested negative.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1312065485400346625

I’m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID. Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern. I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands.

I believe he is still in the incubation period, assuming he caught it during the debate.

We'll need a few days before we know for sure he's negative.

[Zurkerx]

haha lmao

Biden has tweeted that he and Jill have tested negative.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1312065485400346625

I’m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID. Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern. I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands.

I believe he is still in the incubation period, assuming he caught it during the debate.

We'll need a few days before we know for sure he's negative.

Well, it does take 2-14 days to show symptoms. Being the debates were 2-1/2 days ago, he got the test at the earliest possible though yes, he'll need to be watched, and with an eagle eye too.

[Cisairse]

haha lmao


I believe he is still in the incubation period, assuming he caught it during the debate.

We'll need a few days before we know for sure he's negative.

Well, it does take 2-14 days to show symptoms. Being the debates were 2-1/2 days ago, he got the test at the earliest possible though yes, he'll need to be watched, and with an eagle eye too.

Symptoms aren't as relevant as virus-per-cm^3 count, which also has a roughly 4 day timer before you'd test positive assuming it will actually lead to continued replication and infection.

[Imperialisium]

haha lmao

Biden has tweeted that he and Jill have tested negative.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1312065485400346625

I’m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID. Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern. I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands.

I believe he is still in the incubation period, assuming he caught it during the debate.

We'll need a few days before we know for sure he's negative.

What saddens me is people will take the fact a candidate caught a highly infectious disease as something politically meaningful. Even though it only amounts to “hu hu your candidate caught it he he hoo hoo.”

[Cisairse]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.



I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

[Cisairse]

haha lmao


I believe he is still in the incubation period, assuming he caught it during the debate.

We'll need a few days before we know for sure he's negative.

What saddens me is people will take the fact a candidate caught a highly infectious disease as something politically meaningful. Even though it only amounts to “hu hu your candidate caught it he he hoo hoo.”

It's very obviously politically meaningful.

[Imperialisium]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

This is extremely optimistic for Biden.

[La Xinga]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

Eh, I'd give Iowa and maybe Ohio to Trump.

[Imperialisium]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

Eh, I'd give Iowa and maybe Ohio to Trump.

Yeah, I think it’s definitely not going to be lopsided in any candidates favour. Probably going to be tighter than 2016 and could see some states which were historically pretty solid in voting patterns have unconventional results

[Cisairse]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

This is extremely optimistic for Biden.

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

[Cisairse]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

Eh, I'd give Iowa and maybe Ohio to Trump.

Trump winning Iowa is a definite possibility.

However, I refuse to admit the possibility of Ohio and Florida getting a divorce this election.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Anyway, here's my October 2 prediction for what the map will look like.

(Image)

I predict that Biden specifically targeting the Obama coalition will work out for him. I see 2020 being a repeat of 2008, except Biden will trade away Indiana for Arizona.

Note that even though IN and AZ are the same EC points, due to the 2010 census this otherwise identical map means that Biden will win 7 EC points less than Obama did in 2008.

This is extremely optimistic for Biden.

Optimistic maybe, but not extremely so. Extreme would have him getting Texas.

[Imperialisium]

This is extremely optimistic for Biden.

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

Well the polls were notoriously wrong in 2016. The historical data may be more reliable in this case. Though Trump and Biden aren’t exactly Orthodox candidates. Trump is getting groups which historically voted Democrat to suddenly vote Republican in greater numbers. While Biden is relying more on the extreme youth category of voters than ever before (18-23/basically the Zoomers).

Your map could happen but I can’t just not see it being a down to the wire race.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

Well the polls were notoriously wrong in 2016. The historical data may be more reliable in this case. Though Trump and Biden aren’t exactly Orthodox candidates. Trump is getting groups which historically voted Democrat to suddenly vote Republican in greater numbers. While Biden is relying more on the extreme youth category of voters than ever before (18-23/basically the Zoomers).

Your map could happen but I can’t just not see it being a down to the wire race.

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

[Cisairse]

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

Well the polls were notoriously wrong in 2016.

A small number of polls were wrong, for identifiable reasons. The forecast accounts for this.

The historical data may be more reliable in this case.

Which is why I give Iowa to Biden.

Though Trump and Biden aren’t exactly Orthodox candidates. Trump is getting groups which historically voted Democrat to suddenly vote Republican in greater numbers.

He did this in 2016. There is plenty of reason to believe that he will not do this again in 2020.

While Biden is relying more on the extreme youth category of voters than ever before (18-23/basically the Zoomers).

What evidence is there for this?

Your map could happen but I can’t just not see it being a down to the wire race.

Well in many states I identify as Trump -> Biden states, voting has already begun, and in some cases may already be almost over (such as North Carolina).

[Imperialisium]

Well the polls were notoriously wrong in 2016. The historical data may be more reliable in this case. Though Trump and Biden aren’t exactly Orthodox candidates. Trump is getting groups which historically voted Democrat to suddenly vote Republican in greater numbers. While Biden is relying more on the extreme youth category of voters than ever before (18-23/basically the Zoomers).

Your map could happen but I can’t just not see it being a down to the wire race.

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

[Tyrassueb]

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

Well the polls were notoriously wrong in 2016. The historical data may be more reliable in this case. Though Trump and Biden aren’t exactly Orthodox candidates. Trump is getting groups which historically voted Democrat to suddenly vote Republican in greater numbers. While Biden is relying more on the extreme youth category of voters than ever before (18-23/basically the Zoomers).

Your map could happen but I can’t just not see it being a down to the wire race.

The polls weren't really all that wrong save a few times. They were pretty much right on the money on how the national polling was down to saying Clinton was on course to win between 2.5 and 3 million more votes. The problem is is that people were seeing the very narrow leads Clinton had in a few states and thinking all was well and not understand "margins of error" meant she was basically tied in those states, not really leading.

Biden this go around is really set to take 340ish or more EVs based on how polling is going.

As for the EC map, that's more or less how I have it as well, save Iowa remains red and Georgia is not colored in since it's too close to call right now.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

That's not the polls being wrong, that's just Trump winning despite extremely low odds.

[Cisairse]

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

538 gave Trump a roughly 1-in-3 chance of winning, which retrospective analyses have mostly vindicated.

[Valrifell]

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

Those aren't polls, silly, those are mathematical models built in with classic punitry in mind to yield easy-to-digest probabilities for the masses to have a basic understanding of the race at a glance. The results, again, were within the MoE in every state with the exception of WI, which was quickly identified as an error of undersampling certain populations there, which was quickly corrected for future races such as 2018, which was pretty much as close to "on the money" as you can get.

I've been saying this for four years, the polls weren't wrong, the pundits were. That you were so easily fed narratives is not the problem of math.

There's also a problem with the perception of odds. We'd like to think that 75%+ roughly means "guaranteed victory" but that is literally not how numbers work. Trump was the underdog throughout, and shock victories are distinctly a possibility in every analysis.

[Imperialisium]

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

That's not the polls being wrong, that's just Trump winning despite extremely low odds.

Saying an outcome and being wrong about it still is being wrong.

@Cirs

The extreme youth generally is very left leaning and has largely been for the last 70 years.

[Telconi]

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

That's not the polls being wrong, that's just Trump winning despite extremely low odds.

Well they can't have all been right. Did he have a 35% chance of victory, or a <1% chance of victory, because noth of those numbers were thrown out there?