Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Ghost_MH]

15 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

The situation could swing a few people.  The one-two punch of those people coming to grips with the reality that Covid does actually exist, was bad enough to force the President to the hospital, and Trump's disbelief in CV's seriousness has put other people directly in harm.  Compared to doubters seeing numbers on TV about places that are far away from them, there's a more tactile, real response when you can show some of these idiots pictures of real people in real places at the point of the spread, especially when it's a person who's been in our face, visually, these last 5 years. 

 

Maybe, but that only works for those few if Trump or Melania dies. Trump survives and he'll be bragging about how it was no big deal and that doctors were being overly paranoid.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[SaysWho?]

 

[SaysWho?]

 

[SuperSpreader]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

He understands the symbol like Batman. 

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

19 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

BuT hEs NoT rUnNiNg AtTaCk AdS

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

8 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

BuT hEs NoT rUnNiNg AtTaCk AdS

Or attempting to have a ground game.

 

I’m down with signaling that you’re taking Covid seriously but not with giving up on attempting to actually have a campaign infrastructure.

 

The latter easily puts you in a situation where you can’t translate your lead in the polls into actual votes.

[Keyser_Soze]

13 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

I haven't gotten mine yet, but with the slow postal service I will probably do early in person voting. 

 

They said on the radio here that The 5th is when we are supposed to start seeing our ballots in our mailbox.

[Joe]

22 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Or attempting to have a ground game.

 

I’m down with signaling that you’re taking Covid seriously but not with giving up on attempting to actually have a campaign infrastructure.

 

The latter easily puts you in a situation where you can’t translate your lead in the polls into actual votes.

 

Really? Do you have data that supports that or did you just make it up?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

31 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Or attempting to have a ground game.

 

I’m down with signaling that you’re taking Covid seriously but not with giving up on attempting to actually have a campaign infrastructure.

 

The latter easily puts you in a situation where you can’t translate your lead in the polls into actual votes.

Get with the times

http://apnews.com//branding/apple-touch/ap-news-apple-touch-167.png After pandemic delay, Biden launching in-person canvassing

APNEWS.COM

---

NEW YORK (AP) — After months of avoiding direct contact with voters because of the pandemic, Joe Biden's campaign is about to launch door-to-door canvassing across several...

 

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

27 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

Really? Do you have data that supports that or did you just make it up?

Clinton’s underinvestment in swing-state offices easily contributed to her underperformance vs the polls, where she had a decent lead in these states.

 

Quote

Obama's 2012 campaign used field activities to persuade voters, not simply activate supporters, and Clinton missed the chance to persuade these voters with face‐to‐face contact (Masket, Sides, and Vavreck 2016; however, see Bailey, Hopkins, and Rogers 2016). Clinton had fewer offices overall than Obama, hampering her ability to effectively mobilize supporters in places like Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, where she opened six fewer offices than Obama did in 2012 while netting 40,000 fewer votes.

Remember, Clinton’s poll numbers were actually very similar to Obama’s in 2012.

 

Quote

Looking forward to 2020, Democrats should not learn the wrong lesson from 2016. Democrats continue to have an edge over Republicans in effective field organizing, and given the rarity of asymmetric advantages in campaigning, they should exploit it (Sides and Vavreck 2013). Clinton's campaign organization did not rise to the bar set by Obama's in 2012. While this underinvestment was possibly a deliberate choice based on calculations of marginal costs and benefits (Sides, Tesler, and Vavreck 2018), Clinton's campaign nonetheless missed opportunities to train volunteers, gather data, and conduct face‐to‐face conversations with voters in the areas that mattered the most.

I know we all want to chalk it up to demographics errors in polling, but a lackluster ground game in swing states was a big contributor to the 2016 upset despite Clinton’s favorable numbers.  Biden’s taking a big risk with his strategy, when he shouldn’t be; the consequences are too catastrophic.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

There's far fewer undecided voters than last time, Biden is already polling at 50% or higher in many polls in many critical swing states

 

Both of these things are true of Biden that aren't true of Clinton

 

It's a different election than 2016

[SaysWho?]

53 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Remember, Clinton’s poll numbers were actually very similar to Obama’s in 2012.

 

I can't remember what didn't happen.

[thewhyteboar]

Very good polls for Biden. If he is able to take Florida, it's as good as over.

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

[Anathema-]

 

[SaysWho?]

4 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Very good polls for Biden. If he is able to take Florida, it's as good as over.

 

Interesting thing about the Florida poll is it's R+1

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

Apparently people who had already voted on their panel weren't being included in their data going back weeks.

[Brian]

Massive Harvard study finds that Donald Trump and Fox News were the biggest spreaders of misinformation about mail-in voting, much more so than Russian bots or Facebook clickbait:https://t.co/DTk7Zxss9P

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) October 3, 2020

[osxmatt]

16 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

 

Fox News is nearly the entire cause of our modern political divisions.

[Firewithin]

1 hour ago, osxmatt said:

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

 

Fox News is nearly the entire cause of our modern political divisions.

 

yup they have brainwashed an entire generation of old racist boomers for a quarter century now

[MarSolo]

It’s a shame that NOTHING can be done about it either.

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

 

 

Lol awesome

[PaladinSolo]

Post debate, pre infected.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Man, they are REALLY gonna have to put in some serious OT to steal this one, eh?

[PaladinSolo]

Basically they're using an extremely high turn out model, lol.

[marioandsonic]

41 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Basically they're using an extremely high turn out model, lol.

 

Is that good or bad?

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

 

Is that good or bad?

It's overly optimistic

[PaladinSolo]

3 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

 

Is that good or bad?

Good, higher turnout usually helps dems because theres more room to grow with minority and younger white voters which tend to be more dem leaning.  On top of Biden eating into the GOPs typical based of older white voters.

[PaladinSolo]

2 minutes ago, SlipperySlope said:

It's overly optimistic

Voter enthusiasm is higher than at any point since pollsters began asking the question.

[PaladinSolo]

 

[mclumber1]

I think it's going to be hard to for Biden to lose Pennsylvania, as it's (almost) his home state.  But it's not unheard of for a candidate to lose their home states - Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 (previously won by Clinton) and Trump lost New York in 2016 (but this was a given). 

[Anathema-]

53 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

Is that good or bad?

 

Neither. All pollsters make educated guesses on what the electorate will look like on election day and that's usually done by making guesses on who's likely to vote. It may surprise you to learn different ones decide what makes someone likely to vote will often use different methods or specifics to make that conclusion. 

 

In this case deciding not to guess at who's likely to vote is as good a guess as any other for the reasons he listed; namely sky high interest. This election may prove to have a turnout that's impossible to predict based on past behavior and so there's nothing you can do but .. not do that. 

 

That doesn't mean the poll is worth less or inscrutable. The huge swings toward Biden from seniors and men in this poll is probably more portentous than a huge top line number would be. I suspect that if they went back and weighted by likely voters that the poll would look even worse for trump. 

[Anathema-]

Also Biden being up seven in PA but even in OH is hard to square for me. 

[CitizenVectron]

While the NBC poll is registered voters and not likely (though if turnout is indeed up, this matters less), the big thing is the change it has recorded: