2020 Elections

[dismalist]

As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Sure, but Nixon was not the incumbent, which made it easier for him to blame the sitting government.  Not to mention, the US is very different in 2020 than it was in 1968.

No analogy can be a perfect representation. Yes, the US is different now. Is it more institutionally racist or less institutionally racist than in 1968? The actual direction of change will help which candidate?

Beauty, eye! :-)

[Sun_Worshiper]

As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Sure, but Nixon was not the incumbent, which made it easier for him to blame the sitting government.  Not to mention, the US is very different in 2020 than it was in 1968.

No analogy can be a perfect representation. Yes, the US is different now. Is it more institutionally racist or less institutionally racist than in 1968? The actual direction of change will help which candidate?

Beauty, eye! :-)

Your analogy is not particularly convincing to me, for the reasons noted above (not just that the time is different, but Trump is the incumbent). 

Anyway, we'll see what happens.  As I said above, this could help Trump, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of to show that it has helped him so far and there is some reason to think it will hurt him (as his reaction to the George Floyd protests did).

[writingprof]

Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Will a single American, excepting those whose family members are currently deployed, cast his vote on the basis of the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq?  (Are we still in Iraq?  One forgets.)  Never mind that this is clearly not a foreign-policy election.  I suspect that most Americans don't know whether we still have troops deployed.

[dismalist]

Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Will a single American, excepting those whose family members are currently deployed, cast his vote on the basis of the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq?  (Are we still in Iraq?  One forgets.)  Never mind that this is clearly not a foreign-policy election.  I suspect that most Americans don't know whether we still have troops deployed.

Elections, like everything else, are decided at the margin! :-)

[mahagonny]

Sure he can. Here's why. There isn't much sign that democrats understand that many, many whites will vote for Trump as long as they believe people are requiring them to do something about racism and xenophobia that are alleged to lurk somewhere in their psyche, their language, or something about how they go about their lives. If you don't need these voters, then fine, but this I believe is the single most off putting thing about the democratic party and by association, any candidate they run, regardless of how much he is or isn't into those kinds of questions. So many of them didn't get it in 2016 and don't now. Think of Carter's 'Malaise' speech. Even his supporters were scratching their heads going 'what the...is he thinking?'  You don't win people over by telling them what's wrong with them.

[dismalist]

While discussion above is interesting, it cannot of course, be conclusive.

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

[writingprof]

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism." 

[nebo113]

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.

[marshwiggle]

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.

I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?

[mahagonny]

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.

I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?

Well. point taken, but what about all the republicans who trashed  DJT in his early days in politics and are now taking orders from him and kissing his a$$? Lindsey Graham, et al. And Mitt Romney, before the impeachment hearing, was ready to work  in his cabinet had it been offered. So they all thought, the man is totally implausible as a presidential candidate, not statesmanlike, shoots from the hip, etc. until they realized he's a winner, he knows how to campaign and get votes, so we need him. Bottom line, anything to stop the democrats.
So now it's a similar thing. In the primary campaign, you play to win, and the debates are televised, which means you play to an audience that's already made up their mind who you like and you're just fishing for soundbites and applause. You could argue that the crappy system works as it does because of the participants, but then that would include us. (Not you if you live in Canada.)
There are some who thought Harris would be seen as unsuited to push for justice for blacks after her record as a hard-ass prosecutor. Everyone's got a spot you can whack away at for votes, but once they're the choice, you know, people have to get on board or lump it.
Writingprof's point is good if it is that whatever is considered shockingly racist now was normal at some recent point in our lives.

[jimbogumbo]

Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.

The enthusiasm gap is real, but it is offset by enthusiasm to oust Trump.

As for your point about October surprises: There could be something, e.g. a vaccine, but for the October surprise to make polling moot people have to have malleable attitudes, and the consistency of polling suggests that people have made up their minds about these candidates. 

If the riots keep going, they could swing things for Trump. The longer the "leadership" in those cities avoid dealing with the situation, the greater risk there is of Trump getting re-elected.

That said, we should have a healthy skepticism of polling (and certainly of predictions based on the S&P, for example) but we also shouldn't write off the data we have in favor of speculation based on tv pundits or a mood we feel when scrolling through facebook.

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.

I'm sorry, but the statement directly above is in the running for the dumbest statement ever made on this site.

[little bongo]

Yes, Trump has a chance--if he can sell the scenario that the current chaos, danger, and confusion are the result of "Biden's America" rather than things that happened on his own (that is, Trump's) watch and that for which he is largely responsible. As he's already proven, he can fool some of the people all of the time, and it could be enough.

[marshwiggle]

I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?

Well. point taken, but what about all the republicans who trashed  DJT in his early days in politics and are now taking orders from him and kissing his a$$?

Of course it's a common practice on both sides. No question there.

You could argue that the crappy system works as it does because of the participants, but then that would include us. (Not you if you live in Canada.)

I don't think any democracy is immune, unfortunately.

Writingprof's point is good if it is that whatever is considered shockingly racist now was normal at some recent point in our lives.

This is the point to note. (And again, it's done by all parties, etc.) Ideological gaslighting by saying "Look what s/he said twenty years ago!!!!!" when what that person said was essentially mainstream at the time.

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.

I'm sorry, but the statement directly above is in the running for the dumbest statement ever made on this site.

People who make predictions have one job; to be accurate. So if someone predicted Trump would lose in 2016, it doesn't matter if they thought he was evil incarnate or the savior of the universe; if they predicted wrong, they failed at their job. If they haven't figured out why in the intervening 4 years, and get it wrong again, (once more, it doesn't matter whether they're in favour of the outcome or not), then they have no credibility for making predictions.

Yes, Trump has a chance--if he can sell the scenario that the current chaos, danger, and confusion are the result of "Biden's America" rather than things that happened on his own (that is, Trump's) watch and that for which he is largely responsible. As he's already proven, he can fool some of the people all of the time, and it could be enough.

Has policing changed dramatically during the last 4 years? Would the George Floyd situation not have happened under Obama? Any arguments I've heard claim that it's a long-standing problem. If that's the case, then the chaos; i.e. the riots, aren't attributable to him, in the same way that the covid response is. However, if the length and severity of the riots is greatest in cities run by Democrats, then that does not work in Biden's favour. (Recent polls indicated 80% of black people do not want to defund the police.)

I don't like Trump, wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 and wouldn't now if I were an American, but the unwillingness of anti-Trump people to admit that there are some legitimate concerns voters have which may make them vote for him is frustrating. Fearing your home or business could be torched or vandalized is a legitimate concern for people living in those areas, and doing nothing in order to appear "woke" is not leadership.

[jimbogumbo]

marshwiggle: it is clear that you either know nothing about statistical prediction(or just want to incite). Prediction is inherently inaccurate.

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.

[clean]

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016.

As predictions are often with probabilities, it is the news networks that then misapply the results.  A 73% chance of hillary winning became a certainty (mostly because that was the result that it seems that the major news networks wanted to hear perhaps?).

I dont know how to spell it, but there are issues that testing itself changes the results (When you check your oil level, and wipe off the oil from the stick, there is technically less oil in the system!).  When there is a note that one candidate WILL win, then some of that person's supporters may decide not to vote and it may motivate the other side to try even harder, thus changing the outcome.