Trump vs. Biden

[Virtual ghost]

Though I can only say from a state level, the Dems are anything but overconfident. I would say the opposite.

Debbie Dingell Doesnt Believe the Polls - The Atlantic



This is the opinion most Dems hold. I do too, why would I believe the polls? Plus the GOP will cheat anywhere and everywhere and the shenanigans are in rural and urban areas (Louisville, KY, all 67 counties in PA). They must be worried however, I wouldn't discount many of the small wins you hear little about way down ballot by Dems. And don't forget the USPS situation although it went well in Michigan as far as the primary on Tuesday. I make an appointment and put our ballots directly into the clerks hand. That's how little I trust the people involved in the voting mechanism. As far as signs go, I live in a super red area and I'm seeing more signs for Dems than I ever have. Not just Biden, all of them. Down to the state district races. I've never seen that before around here.

Remember AOC and Rashida Talib were just outliers, this is a message the GOP and the Dems have used and it appears to be backfiring. Also, you have no idea at all how much absolute fury there is over the federal response to COVID. Especially when Trump just blows off the dead Americans to their face. That combined with administration incompetence and the corruption, even lifelong Republicans are saying fuck this guy. That may not be enough but it's more than I have seen previously.

By dems I mean on the people that run the party in high level decision. In my culture that kind of "name calling" refers to the top of the party. However about what you are talking about is kinda different pair of shoes.



The thing is that I saw that they plan to challenge GOP all over the map but I don't think that this is good idea. There simply is no need to play like you want to win 400+ electoral votes (340 is more than enough). In my opinion there is no need to "attack" places like Georgia or Texas when in Pennsylvania you are only at +4.7 as the polling average. Plus soon some older polls will officially become obsolete and fall out of that average. However those clearly favor blue and that means that the lead will become even more narrow.




Here is the link.

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden RCP

Also when you click at Wisconsin you should see something similar. Plus toward this the lead is half of what it was in Florida just 2 weeks ago.
Btw. Trump just got Texas +6, so the toss up is gone. In other word if the Democratic party doesn't have even polls on their side they probably have nothing.

Sure, people are unhappy but the question is how will they vote, if they will even vote in the middle of this mess.




*don't shoot the messenger*

 

[Jonny]

By dems I mean on the people that run the party in high level decision. In my culture that kind of "name calling" refers to the top of the party. However about what you are talking about is kinda different pair of shoes.



The thing is that I saw that they plan to challenge GOP all over the map but I don't think that this is good idea. There simply is no need to play like you want to win 400+ electoral votes (340 is more than enough). In my opinion there is no need to "attack" places like Georgia or Texas when in Pennsylvania you are only at +4.7 as the polling average. Plus soon some older polls will officially become obsolete and fall out of that average. However those clearly favor blue and that means that the lead will become even more narrow.




Here is the link.

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden RCP

Also when you click at Wisconsin you should see something similar. Plus toward this the lead is half of what it was in Florida just 2 weeks ago.
Btw. Trump just got Texas +6, so the toss up is gone. In other word if the Democratic party doesn't have even polls on their side they probably have nothing.

Sure, people are unhappy but the question is how will they vote, if they will even vote in the middle of this mess.




*don't shoot the messenger*

I wouldn't stress about it. The RCP averages are notoriously volatile. Let's take Florida as an example. The current average is based on three polls:

CNBC/Change Research (D), 7/24-7/26, +3
Mason-Dixon, 7/20-7/23, +4
CNN, 7/18-7/24, +5

A recent Quinnipiac poll (7/16-7/20) just recently dropped off, and it had Biden + 13. The three pollsters above are not particularly high quality (B/C or C- according to 538).

In fact, there has been somewhat of a high quality polling drought, which I've heard is because many pollsters are saving up resources to poll right before the conventions in the coming few weeks.

As for where money is being spent, I think there's a difference between the DNC fighting the GOP all over the map (in terms of House and Senate races) and the Biden campaign fighting the Trump campaign.

Here's a quote about Biden's campaign:

Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.​

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with any of these. Here are the current averages for each state according to 538:

Pennsylvania: Biden + 6.1
Michigan: Biden + 7.8
Florida: Biden + 5.2
North Carolina: Biden + 2.3
Arizona: Biden +3.6
Wisconsin: Biden + 7.5
Minnesota: Biden +7.1
Nevada: Biden +6.1
New Hampshire: Biden +9.0
Colorado: Biden + 12.8
Virginia: Biden + 10.4
Georgia: Trump + 0.9
Iowa: Trump + 1.4
Ohio: Biden + 0.3
Texas: Trump + 0.9

Biden needs 80 electoral votes from this list, and the demographics of these states represent quite diverse sets of the electorate. There is actually some hypothetical scenario where Biden completely collapses in the rust belt, and has a breakthrough in Texas or something to cover the gap.

The traditional path would be Nevada + Colorado + Minnesota + Wisconsin + Michigan + Pennsylvania + Virginia. But Arizona + North Carolina could replace Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. There's also the very real risk that Trump would call into question the results of an election that was really close to the margin (~270 EV). Biden shouldn't ignore the possibility of a blowout 350+ EV win if it's feasible given the polls. And it forces Trump to play defense all across the map.

That said, if I were to pare down this list, I might exclude, in this order: Texas, Iowa, Colorado, Georgia. I'm not sure what the case would be for removing some of the others. After all, there are distinct rust belt vs. sun belt vs. mid-west strategies at play here, and each of the remaining states are key to that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Here's a quote about Biden's campaign:

Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.​

Exactly, and for me this is all over the map. As I said he could win really large number of states but his lead in many of them really isn't that big (especially if we count in various electoral shenanigans that are surely somewhere in the mix). So electoral collage could quickly shift if you are spreading yourself too thin, especially since these are unprecedented elections due to the pandemic. Therefore it would perhaps we wiser to have bigger lead in 3/4 or 2/3 of those mentioned states than plan to take all of that. If I am not sure this is basically what HRC started doing in the end since the counter candidate was "that bad".



Actually I couldn't resist so I made a map of how this looks like as goal.

In other words I think it would be better to quiet down campaigning for 40 to 60 of those points and instead try to nudge safe blue and likely blue towards center of the bar for about 30 to 40 points. Since that is much more likely to cement victory than just spreading everywhere you can. Because this way you have about 180 points in tilt blue and lean blue. Which are by definition vulnerable all the way to the election day.

The traditional path would be Nevada + Colorado + Minnesota + Wisconsin + Michigan + Pennsylvania + Virginia. But Arizona + North Carolina could replace Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. There's also the very real risk that Trump would call into question the results of an election that was really close to the margin (~270 EV). Biden shouldn't ignore the possibility of a blowout 350+ EV win if it's feasible given the polls. And it forces Trump to play defense all across the map.

Correct and that is why I pulled out my 340 out of thin air. However if I am not mistaken winning of all states that you just named would go over 400 (map says 413). Not to mention that he can call into question individual states if they are won with too thin margin. What is exactly what this strategy is likely to produce. There is no need to get too humble and defensive in all of this but I simply think that this is objectively just too ambitious. If anything if you cut for about 50 points you have more money for the house, senate and governors. What matters quite a bit in the end.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Actually I couldn't resist so I made a map of how this looks like as goal.

Plus since I started: here what I would try to achieve. Somewhat less ambitious but more fortified.

I am sorry, I am simply big sucker for this kinds of things/topics.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To finish the thought. If you overextend and go too far into red states you risk losing plenty of states that you easily could have won. Especially since it isn't at all certain that you will win in red states for a whole number of reasons. What means that you risk getting something like this as the end result.

This requires some work from red side but this is both realistic and achievable. Polls miss few points all the time (especially with pandemic in the picture). Debates go bad wrong. Some kind of a large scandal is likely to happen at one point. If the polls miss as much as the last time Wisconsin will be red again. Minnesota was barely blue last time while Pennsylvania is still fairly vulnerable. Mass foreign trolling is likely. Etc.



Therefore if the DNC seriously plans to win 400+ points on the map they could gamble away everything. Fortifying Midwest, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada while trying to take only places like Ohio, Iowa or perhaps Arizona is much more likely to provide enough points. Some "guerrilla" campaigning in red states is ok-ish but being really serious about this is very risky for the party. In my book Trump isn't nearly as silly as some media are trying to portray him. Misguided by liberal standards, yes. But his debates from 4 years ago clearly show he knows how to run circles around people and their minds.



:end of analysis:

 

[highlander]

I am fairly certain that Bufen will win - not because he is great but because he is running against the most incompetent person to ever hold the office.

 

[Jonny]

Five Ways Trump And GOP Officials Are Undermining The Election Process | FiveThirtyEight

 

[Virtual ghost]

What about "none voters" ? All the polls concentrate on registered voters or likely voters. But what is about people who usually don't vote or don't vote at all ?


Last time the polls missed in some places by good part because "out of the box" option showed up. Therefore it is kinda logical that the pandemic will also nudge some people into "voting zone".

 

[Virtual ghost]

It seems Harris is VP.

 

[ceecee]

It seems Harris is VP.

I wonder if Trump will drop Mike Pence for Nikki Haley. More curious who Gov. Newsom will choose for her seat if they win.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I wonder if Trump will drop Mike Pence for Nikki Haley.

I am not sure what she really brings to the table. Since the current VP has connection with important parts of the base.

 

[Maou]

Harris proves he's not entirely a puppet, but still a bad pick.

 

[Virtual ghost]

But I must say that this looks a lot like how in many other countries they got their first female head of state. First you have a centrist guy and a woman as his right hand, but in the end he leaves her his place. Mine was one of those countries.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The old transatlantic relationship ain’t coming back




The thing is that the last world order died in 2016 and it isn't coming back. Simply too much has happened on fundamental level that the world can just go back, too many ratios have fundamentally changed. However that shouldn't prevent anyone from trying to save transatlantic relations. Which is literally the spine around which pretty much all democratic processing in the world are rotating. However this time the balance of strengths are much more equal among both sides of the Atlantic. What also means that Europe indeed has to pick up larger part of the obligations. However since dominant political force in Europe is center right that is generally similar to Biden in quite a number of issues the honest talks among traditional partners are both likely and possible. What then creates axis that will be the foundation of anti Russia/China axis around which other democracies will gather. Since it is obvious that the world is divided and the world as it was just a few years ago simply doesn't exist anymore. However if Biden doesn't win this whole idea is almost surely falling apart. Europe will go it's own way that perhaps isn't that much anti-china for a whole number of reasons. While many smaller democracies around the world will gravitate towards Europe and some will even stop being democracies due to Chinese or Russian influence.



While US will remain quite isolated in this whole mess, especially due to the trend of retreating from just about every international organization. What means that even if COVID eventually gets solved economy will be quite bad since the connections will be broken and the country is quite deindustrialized. What can't be solved with easy fix and that in combination with endless internal tensions and decaying infrastructure means lost decade in the best case situation. The sum of all debts in US passed 80 Trillion $ and repaying all that without foreign markets and alliances will be very hard. Since after WW2 US is one very powerful country, however very large parts of that power are coming from the fact that US surrounded itself with a number of quite developed and powerful countries. Which when summed are actually stronger than US in quite a number of issues. Therefore picking fights with friends when you have actual enemies is obviously bad strategy, I think I don't even have to explain why this is the case. While on the other hand if these connection continue to implode as they are doing over the last few years they will brake. What means that no amount of tax cuts and similar methods will be able to fix what was lost. Few years ago I had a thread about that I am ready to spend some of my own tax money in order help fixing US (and I didn't change my mind on that issue). Since that is actually quite important and strong cooperation is basically the only way to keep the team game afloat. Especially since your allies generally suffered weaker deindustrialization and they can help you rebuild the country in technical and infrastructural way. While the alternative is basically asking China to do the same ... and that wouldn't work. Especially since they seem to seek global domination through industry and mass production. I mean manufacture in many parts of US and in many aspects is none active or so long that the whole thing simply has to be remade from scratch. Not to mention that the whole country isn't too friendly towards blue color workers in a number of ways and therefore qualified blue collar workers could be in short supply at first.


So the long story short, I think it would be a mistake to reject all of this due to some internal issues. Because if these "traditional" connection start to fail for real the internal social atmosphere surely wouldn't be fixed. Even if you try quite hard to fix it. While current pile of problems came mostly form the fact that the world has fundamentally changed, while US didn't really adjust certain paradigms. If anything today you have much more economic competitors on the map and many of them developed all kinds of new paradigms in order to rise up in current global dynamic. Therefore turning traditional friends into enemies or strangers is simply a bad idea however you turn it. Even if it is just collateral damage of some internal drama.



I guess you can call all of this "informed personal opinion".

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Virtual ghost]

After a few "red polls" North Carolina is now direct tie. What probably means slightly red in practice.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

So the choice is between

A) the narcissist with the fetish for dictators and an evangelist running mate who doesen't understand the difference between the concepts of scientific theory and lay theory.
B) a couple of cops who built their careers on policy that exacerbated institutional racism in the justice system.

Guess I'm not voting. Don't care about the hate I'll get from my friends over this.

 

[anticlimatic]

Kamala Harris is bargain bin Hillary- another power hungry back stabbing authoritarian. If she doesn't poison Joe Biden at some point during his first year in office just to be president I'll commend her new found restraint.

Biden probably won't even make it to January as it is, but if by some miracle of God he makes it that far before passing away or stepping down we are going to have the kind of corrupt narcissistic authoritarian monster in the White House that the media has been desperately trying to paint Trump as. I almost hope it happens, just to compare the difference. Not that the media will be doing it- she's already deeply in bed with them and with Big Tech.

Get our and vote, kids. Jeff Bezos needs a few new yachts.

 

[ceecee]

 

[Jaguar]

Trump campaign adviser floats birther theory about Kamala Harris' eligibility for vice president - CBS News

Trump stokes Kamala Harris 'birther' theory - BBC News