Who will win the 2020 US Presidential Election?

[En Passant 3,755]

One thing that doesn't surprise me very much is that the polls got it wrong again.

Now,  the only way I'm aware a poll is run is asking x number of people which way they intend to vote and if x is a large enough sample across a broad enough spectrum of the populace it's usually pretty accurate.

However, if that then isn't borne out in the actual voting....one obvious conclusion (and the only one I can think of right now) is that there is a rather large group of people who voted for him, but were ashamed to admit it. Wonder why?

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

7 minutes ago, msc said:

Dont worry, he'll be dead by then...

 

Which one? Donny or Sleepy Joe? 

[msc 18,543]

5 minutes ago, En Passant said:

One thing that doesn't surprise me very much is that the polls got it wrong again.

Now,  the only way I'm aware a poll is run is asking x number of people which way they intend to vote and if x is a large enough sample across a broad enough spectrum of the populace it's usually pretty accurate.

However, if that then isn't borne out in the actual voting....one obvious conclusion (and the only one I can think of right now) is that there is a rather large group of people who voted for him, but were ashamed to admit it. Wonder why?

 

I've not checked this because time/short etc but I've a feeling if you took the Dont Knows/Wont Say from the poll averages, and just added them to Trump, most of the recent state polls would be within normal margin of error? It did feel that if folk were "undecided" by this point they were really just hiding their pro-Trump vote.

 

Luckily there was far fewer of them than 2016, and Biden was already hovering around 50% in them, not the sub 45% Hilary tended to level out at.

[mollyafox 460]

36 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

There is a lot of belief he will run again in 2024, citing the evidence of getting more votes this time around and the unfinished business of losing to Biden. That in itself is a terrifying thought, but there's no getting away from the fact that the Republicans are still the party of Trump, and the orange monster is still going to be spewing bile to hundreds of thousands on Twitter for the next 4 years, whether he runs or not.

I'm sure he will, unless he lands in jail. Maybe one of his kids will try to run instead. 

 

If that happens, hopefully everyone will remember how he acted the first time around, and vote against him like this time. It scares me that Biden didn't win by a landslide. Not that Biden's perfect either, but at least he doesn't have to resort to bullying like Trump does to get votes. 

[ladyfiona 2,661]

I'm pretty sure once January 21st hits then Twitter will ban him and send all the data to relevant people.

[QuebecCityOliver 26]

12 minutes ago, msc said:

 

I've not checked this because time/short etc but I've a feeling if you took the Dont Knows/Wont Say from the poll averages, and just added them to Trump, most of the recent state polls would be within normal margin of error? It did feel that if folk were "undecided" by this point they were really just hiding their pro-Trump vote.

 

Luckily there was far fewer of them than 2016, and Biden was already hovering around 50% in them, not the sub 45% Hilary tended to level out at.

Don't try to confuse idiots with facts, maths, and evidence.

 

As soon as someone says the polls were wrong, the conversation is over, since polls are nothing more than a snapshot and an attempt to measure an outcome within a margin of error. It is maths and statistics and if you don't understand those things, you should ignore polls.

 

For those actually interested, we don't know yet because we don't have final numbers but it looks like some states were pretty accurate and others less than 2016. However, after all the bitching in 2016 about getting the wrong answer and in 2018 for the senate, all I want to hear is that the polls got the answer right.

[Joey Russ 7,267]

I notice certain folk have been very avoidant of this thread after it looked like Biden would win. Hopefully they’re taking the copium that they need...

[mollyafox 460]

2 hours ago, ladyfiona said:

I'm pretty sure once January 21st hits then Twitter will ban him and send all the data to relevant people.

Very likely. 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-to-lose-twitter-protection-once-biden-sworn-in-214451930.html

[Toast 16,234]

How come he gets so long to pack his trunk and say goodbye to the circus?  It doesn't work like that here.

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

How come he gets so long to pack his trunk and say goodbye to the circus?  It doesn't work like that here.

 

Always been the case. It's all to do with things like the Electoral College (that again). The USA is exactly what it says a group of United States, each one operating independently of the others (with a Governor, State Legislature, etc.) The Electoral College is designed to ensure all states matter equally and get their own say, so they don't get swallowed up in one big mass (which was a big concern back in the founding of the Republic). So basically, there's an election, then they need to actually count all the votes (including absentee, provisional [things like people who asked for a mail in but may have voted in person too], many states have something called 'cured' ballots, which is where you may have made a mistake on your ballot [e.g. missed a signature on a mail in or the voting machine has punched a hole between candidates rather than for a specific person] and you get the opportunity to correct it so it counts) according to each state's rules (every US state has it's own version of our Electoral Commission to decide how the election is held - for instance all the states give their whole Electoral Votes to the winner of the state, apart from Maine and Nebraska which award 2 to the state winner and the rest to the winner in each Congressional district). Once that's all done, the state has to officially ratify the vote (presumably through the state legislature but I don't honestly know), then they have to appoint their 'Electors' who will attend the Electoral College and officially cast the state's votes, then the Electoral College cast their votes in early December (on a specific day about a month after the election). These are then ratified by the Congress (House and Senate) but only after the new session begins in early January. Once that's happened, there's about a fortnight before Inauguration Day on January 20th.

 

So, in answer to your question, basically: paperwork. It used to make more sense because states obviously cover a big area. If you held a Presidential election in California in the 1880s, they'd be so far from Washington that they'd operate completely independently, hold their election and then send their representatives to formally announce the vote in Washington which would take time to get there. Now it still takes time, but possibly not as much. Inauguration Day did get moved - it used to be in early March but Franklin Roosevelt moved it back to January 20th and it's stayed there ever since. Another reason for waiting is Transition. The President-elect uses the 10 weeks or so to decide on his team: Department Secretaries, key White House staff, they'd usually like to make a start on Department Staff too (Trump didn't, he left loads of roles empty for most, if not all, of his presidency). There's no Civil Service in the US, although many people may survive from administration to administration depending on their role. I guess that's the biggest difference to the UK - the reason a new government can waltz in the day after an election is because the Civil Service are still keeping the ship afloat anyway. Hope that helps.

[Joey Russ 7,267]

Oh, this is so amazing: 

 

[MrWonderful 483]

The Senate is not necessarily lost for Democrats.  Both Georgia Senate races are going to a special runoff election on January 5, as Georgia has a law that if no candidate reaches 50% of the vote, it goes to a runoff.  We knew that this would be the case in the race involving Republican incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler, since there were a few contenders on that ballot; that one will be Loeffler vs. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat, who is a Reverend.  In the other race, Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue has to go to a runoff because he only got about 49.7% of the vote against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff, who was about 2 points behind.  As Republicans had a good night in the Senate overall, with unexpectedly easy wins for Susan Collins and Joni Ernst, and since it looks like Thom Tillis will keep his seat, I view this development in Georgia as a break for Democrats.  In normal times, I'd say each Democrat in Georgia would be a slight underdog.  However, with both races now on the same ballot, it gives the Democrats something of an all-or-nothing opportunity to win both seats.  The Democratic Party can turn the January 5 election into a national referendum of sorts.  Will Republicans in Georgia be especially motivated to turn out the vote again, just 2 months later, without Trump on the ticket?  Perhaps they will, but I think it's a question worth asking.  It is fair to point out that Perdue slightly overperformed Trump in the state, a possible good thing for Republicans.  Still, If I'm the Dems, I'd rather have an all-or-nothing opportunity (it's going to be 2-0 one way or the other, almost certainly), instead of having 2 races in 2 separate states where you'd be slight underdogs in both.

 

One final point on this:  the Alaska Senate race has not been called yet.  The Republican incumbent, Dan Sullivan, has a big lead with the votes that have been counted so far, but only about half of the votes are in, and the remaining vote is supposed to be the mail-in vote, which will skew Democratic.  The "Democrat" (who is actually an Independent), Dr. Al Gross, claims that he expects that his campaign will win once all of the votes are counted up.  Perhaps that's just bluster, but it's worth noting that Sullivan was involved in some sort of scandal involving an oil pipeline deal, and that this seat was formerly held by a Democrat until Sullivan won it in 2014.  

 

Democrats would have to win 2 of the these 3 seats to get to 50/50 in the Senate, which would mean that they would have control by virtue of VP Kamala Harris being able to break ties with her vote.  

[TQR 14,462]

Biden has a new hat.

 

[msc 18,543]

11 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Biden has a new hat.

 

 

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

15 hours ago, MrWonderful said:

The Senate is not necessarily lost for Democrats.  Both Georgia Senate races are going to a special runoff election on January 5, as Georgia has a law that if no candidate reaches 50% of the vote, it goes to a runoff.  We knew that this would be the case in the race involving Republican incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler, since there were a few contenders on that ballot; that one will be Loeffler vs. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat, who is a Reverend.  In the other race, Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue has to go to a runoff because he only got about 49.7% of the vote against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff, who was about 2 points behind.  As Republicans had a good night in the Senate overall, with unexpectedly easy wins for Susan Collins and Joni Ernst, and since it looks like Thom Tillis will keep his seat, I view this development in Georgia as a break for Democrats.  In normal times, I'd say each Democrat in Georgia would be a slight underdog.  However, with both races now on the same ballot, it gives the Democrats something of an all-or-nothing opportunity to win both seats.  The Democratic Party can turn the January 5 election into a national referendum of sorts.  Will Republicans in Georgia be especially motivated to turn out the vote again, just 2 months later, without Trump on the ticket?  Perhaps they will, but I think it's a question worth asking.  It is fair to point out that Perdue slightly overperformed Trump in the state, a possible good thing for Republicans.  Still, If I'm the Dems, I'd rather have an all-or-nothing opportunity (it's going to be 2-0 one way or the other, almost certainly), instead of having 2 races in 2 separate states where you'd be slight underdogs in both.

 

One final point on this:  the Alaska Senate race has not been called yet.  The Republican incumbent, Dan Sullivan, has a big lead with the votes that have been counted so far, but only about half of the votes are in, and the remaining vote is supposed to be the mail-in vote, which will skew Democratic.  The "Democrat" (who is actually an Independent), Dr. Al Gross, claims that he expects that his campaign will win once all of the votes are counted up.  Perhaps that's just bluster, but it's worth noting that Sullivan was involved in some sort of scandal involving an oil pipeline deal, and that this seat was formerly held by a Democrat until Sullivan won it in 2014.  

 

Democrats would have to win 2 of the these 3 seats to get to 50/50 in the Senate, which would mean that they would have control by virtue of VP Kamala Harris being able to break ties with her vote.  

 

538 suggest that while it's not impossible for Gross to win Alaska, it's highly unlikely, particularly based on some of the easy victories for embattled Republicans elsewhere. It will all come down to Georgia and in previous run-off elections, there's been a significant drop-off in enthusiasm from Democrats to actually win the seat having got to the run-off. That said, there is much more on the line this year, but that could work in both directions. Republicans may be smarting from losing the presidency but they sure as hell don't want the Democrats controlling House, Senate and Presidency. Loeffler is a Trumpian I believe and Perdue more moderate? Maybe some Republicans will split their vote, get rid of Loeffler for the Reverend and re-elect Perdue. That way, Republicans hold on to the Senate 51-49 but they can maybe send a message to Republican HQ. All that said, it seems they're going to just win the presidential election there, so maybe Stacy Abrahams and her voter registration and turnout machine can roar into action again and pull of an incredible achievement. It would be a huge boost for Biden just ahead of taking office if they could.

[Death Impends 8,043]

My guess is the Georgia run-off goes for the same party in both races. Though if it splits, it will be Perdue/Warnock. And I think there's a Republican edge for now, but it is winnable for either side. All hinges on various factors.

 

It absolutely is a turnout race above all. Georgia is very polarized, even moreso than the nation at large. Stacey Abrams's strategy in making Georgia blue very wisely focused on finding people who were unregistered/unlikely to vote, but likely to vote Dem if they did, and increase their reliability. So I think the two key factors to watch will be:

 

1. If the high stakes of these races mean the Democrats can improve their runoff turnout relative to previous runoff elections, as mentioned above.

 

and

 

2. Just how many GOP voters out there only turn out with Trump on the ballot. This election has made it apparent that Trump actually parallels Obama in having their own types of gravitas where their bases are turbocharged when their candidate is on the ballot, but anemic without them. So you had a Trump midterm where Dems held Senate seats in three states that easily went to Trump two years later, but this time around only Susan Collins was able to outdo the presidential lean of her state by a significant enough amount to win. There will be a depression in turnout among these Trump-specific voters, but are there enough of them to benefit the Dems, and will it be offset by a lull in Dem turnout? We shall see.

[Joey Russ 7,267]

 

 

[Joey Russ 7,267]

[MrWonderful 483]

8 hours ago, Death Impends said:

My guess is the Georgia run-off goes for the same party in both races. Though if it splits, it will be Perdue/Warnock. And I think there's a Republican edge for now, but it is winnable for either side. All hinges on various factors.

 

It absolutely is a turnout race above all. Georgia is very polarized, even moreso than the nation at large. Stacey Abrams's strategy in making Georgia blue very wisely focused on finding people who were unregistered/unlikely to vote, but likely to vote Dem if they did, and increase their reliability. So I think the two key factors to watch will be:

 

1. If the high stakes of these races mean the Democrats can improve their runoff turnout relative to previous runoff elections, as mentioned above.

 

and

 

2. Just how many GOP voters out there only turn out with Trump on the ballot. This election has made it apparent that Trump actually parallels Obama in having their own types of gravitas where their bases are turbocharged when their candidate is on the ballot, but anemic without them. So you had a Trump midterm where Dems held Senate seats in three states that easily went to Trump two years later, but this time around only Susan Collins was able to outdo the presidential lean of her state by a significant enough amount to win. There will be a depression in turnout among these Trump-specific voters, but are there enough of them to benefit the Dems, and will it be offset by a lull in Dem turnout? We shall see.

I agree with you that if it does split, Warnock would be a little more likely than Ossoff to be the Democrat that wins, as the Reverend might get just a little more support among black voters than Ossoff does, and Loeffler may not get white male support by quite as much as Perdue does.  Also, both Republicans, Perdue and Loeffler, are unabashed pro-Trump supporters.  There's no ambiguity there.  

[Ulitzer95 12,853]

Potential for unnatural death bonus points if you play Biden in the DDP next year I reckon.

 

[Windsor 2,235]

I think the most telling sign of Trump's unpopularity is in his claim that even the dead came back to vote against him...

[RIP Wee Jum 1,559]

1 hour ago, Windsor said:

I think the most telling sign of Trump's unpopularity is in his claim that even the dead came back to vote against him...

 

Zombidenies

[Joey Russ 7,267]

 

 

[TQR 14,462]

[YoungWillz 21,217]

Love the fact that Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philly (between the adult book store and across the road from the crematorium) where Giuliani and crew held their press conference on Saturday have now attached the following tag lines to their online presence:

 

Make America Rake Again.

 

Lawn and Order.