Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2020 Presidential Election Polling Thread (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Updated 2 days later.
DC - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 75.7 in polls
MA - 11 delegates - 99% to win - Up 36.9 in polls
MD - 10 delegates - 99% to win - Up 32.0 in polls
VT - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.4 in polls
CA - 55 delegates - 99% to win - Up 31.2 in polls
NY - 29 delegates - 99% to win - Up 30.4 in polls
HI - 4 delegates - 99% to win - Up 30.3 in polls
WA - 12 delegates - 99% to win - Up 27.5 in polls
DE - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 24.6 in polls
CT - 7 delegates - 99% to win - Up 24.3 in polls
RI - 3 delegates - 99% to win - Up 23.9 in polls
IL - 20 delegates - 99% to win - Up 17.9 in polls
NJ - 14 delegates - 98% to win - Up 20.6 in polls
VA - 13 delegates - 98% to win - Up 12.3 in polls
ME1 - 1 delegate - 98% to win - Up 26.5 in polls
OR - 7 delegates - 97% to win - Up 18.9 in polls
NM - 5 delegates - 96% to win - Up 13.7 in polls
CO - 9 delegates - 93% to win - Up 13.0 in polls
MI - 16 delegates - 91% to win - Up 7.8 in polls
MN - 10 delegates - 90% to win - Up 8.9 in polls
ME - 2 delegates - 89% to win - Up 15.0 in polls
NV - 6 delegates - 86% to win - Up 6.8 in polls
PA - 20 delegates - 85% to win - Up 7.1 in polls
WI - 10 delegates - 83% to win - Up 7.0 in polls
NH - 4 delegates - 81% to win - Up 10.0 in polls
TOTAL - 278 delegates
Also currently leading in:
NE2 - 1 delegate - 73% to win - Up 6.8 in polls
FL - 29 delegates - 72% to win - Up 4.7 in polls
AZ - 11 delegates - 68% to win - Up 4.5 in polls
NC - 15 delegates - 61% to win - Up 2.7 in polls
OH - 18 delegates - 51% to win - Up 0.5 in polls
Generally speaking, Biden moved up roughly 0.5 in most of these state. The only thing that changed of note was District 2 in Maine has swung to leaning Trump (worth 1 delegate). Biden currently +9.8 nationally, 85% to win, and currently projected at 344-194. If Biden wins all the states on that top list, Trump can't get enough electoral votes to win (short of getting into a legal or legislative battle).
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
My favorite charts to look at about the 2016 election are the How the Forecast has Changed charts on FiveThirtyEight. Look at electoral college, chance of winning and popular vote charts. Then, compare it the 2020 versions. You'll notice the 2016 was often much closer and more volatile.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Trump can't win reelection. It's just less likely.
spodog
Footballguy
The Monmouth University Polling Institute recently conducted a poll that found young, college-educated Americans are more likely to believe the violent actions of protestors are justifiable.
Polls don't lie - sounds like violent actions of protestors should continue.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
If you don't think Trump would do a complete 180 and say "hey, we need all the mail-in votes counted before I relinquish my control" you're fooling yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_060220/
One might come to different conclusions about the Monmouth poll on protests if you read the unvarnished report instead of through the prism of a conservative “news” source
One might come to different conclusions about the Monmouth poll on protests if you read the unvarnished report instead of through the prism of a conservative “news” source
massraider
Footballguy
"Actions of protesters"
to
"Antifa riots"
that was a nice little glimpse into what our moms and dads are reading on Facebook right now.
to
"Antifa riots"
that was a nice little glimpse into what our moms and dads are reading on Facebook right now.
spodog
Footballguy
Or you can cut out all of these middlemen with an agenda, left, right or otherwise, and turn on twitch.tv on any given night and watch "mostly peaceful protesters" destroy s#& in Portland and livestream it to the internet.
I don't think anyone can truly quibble with the adjective violent regardless of what media outlet it springs forth from.
Would like to call this the aftermath, but not likely this is behind us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzFr5xD_q8
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Or you can stop quoting sources that add words that were never there that change its meaning.
We can do this all day.
massraider
Footballguy
I can quibble if they didn't use it in the ####### poll that you just pointed to as some sort of evidence, are you freakin' kidding right now?
Geez, man, you literally just gave a better example of these absurd news sources twisting things and spreading disinformation than I could find if I had three hours. Amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I guess I would answer the question "partially justified". I support peaceful protesting but not rioting, looting, or violence. As I'm sure you know, most protests weren't violent.
If the question stated "violent actions", my answer would change to "not all all justified".
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
If you look at the popular vote rather than the chance of winning, how close the race was is more clear. Biden's lead is much bigger, but as you point out, the stability of his lead is also striking.
massraider
Footballguy
That is exactly the reason my mother cannot have a rational conversation about this.
Most of us in here are Gen X, I am pretty dang sure I'm not alone in this.
There needs to be a support group for Gen X kids dealing with their parents going completely off the rails.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I like that you think that matters GB. I am absolutely 1 billion percent confident that if the situation suits him, he will absolutely cling to mail in ballots.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
I suspect him to use how badly he was beaten that there is a problem with the election. However that is not going to be at all effective.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I make no comments around effectiveness...I agree with you FWIW on that. It's not going to stop him from trying though. I'd bet my life savings on it.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Haven't followed the whole thread, can someone summarize for me the objective reasons this year is expected to be different than 2016? For reference, at this point relative to election day four years ago, 538 gave Clinton something like an 85% chance of winning, and Trump was campaigning like he was trying to lose. Fast forward to today, and 538 is giving Biden an 85% chance of winning and Trump once again seems like he doesn't even want to win. What are the substantive reasons we'd expect this election result to turn out differently?
McBokonon
Footballguy
Some factors include Biden/Harris favorability is significantly higher than Hillary's meaning there's no real likelihood of an "anyone but Hillary" vote. Plus, in 2016 Trump was an unknown (not really, it was clear he'd be a disaster to many but whatever) but now there's 4 years of experiencing his "leadership." There's also been no volatility, really, in the polling especially when compared to 2016. Biden grabbed the lead and has generally only added to it. Finally, no emails for Comey to bring up right before election. I'm sure there's more.
caustic
Footballguy
Cliffs notes:
—This race has been much steadier than 2016, when polls were pretty reactive to new developments.
–Biden’s lead is bigger, and his favorability numbers are much better than Hillary’s
—Fewer undecideds (they broke hard towards Trump in ‘16)
—Pollsters have tweaked their methodology so they don’t undersample white/non-college voters this time
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
You are playing Texas Holdem and you have a 4 outer gut shot straight with the river card to come. You hit the river and collect the pot.
4 years later you are playing and have another 4 outer gut shot straight with the river card to come.
Just because Trump overcame a 15% chance of winning to pull it off in 2016, doesn't give him any better odds of doing the same thing in 2020. It could happen. But it's unlikely. Upsets do happen.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
MO - they underestimated how much she was hated and how willing some people were to give Trump (an "outsider") a chance. People have had 4 years to see what we get with Trump and there will be few people sitting on the sidelines because they couldn't/can't stomach either nominee.
I honestly don't expect it to be close.
*Note - I also didn't expect last time to be close - so ignore me, I'm a moron.
massraider
Footballguy
This is how I look at it.
Hillary got 3 million more votes. She dropped the ball in the midwest. 77,000 votes over 3 states were the electoral difference (think I have that right).
That is a slim margin.
In the 4 years since, has Trump maintained or widened that lead? Do the Dems have a more likable candidate?
Hillary got 3 million more votes. She dropped the ball in the midwest. 77,000 votes over 3 states were the electoral difference (think I have that right).
That is a slim margin.
In the 4 years since, has Trump maintained or widened that lead? Do the Dems have a more likable candidate?
EZD222
Footballguy
Model is different as well so it's a bit of comparing apples/oranges. 538 never re-ran the 2016 data thru the 2020 model, but its surmised it would spit out something much less than say the 85%.
You would think its more robust now and the underlying inputs are different (ie undecideds, etc). Also there is still 27 days left... (ie the Comey had a material impact on the result).
With that said if polling/forecasts get this wrong again all those leading indicators will have to be overhauled.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
1. fewer 3rd party/undecided voters. (At this point in 2016, Gary Johnson was at around 6-7% in the polls, and undecideds were between 10 and 15%. Right now, Jo Jorgensen is at around 2% and undecideds are around 7%.)
2. Biden has a much higher Favorability rating. Hillary's favorability was below 50% for most of the campaign, and her "lead" over Trump was around 12 points. But, in 2020, Biden is OVER 50% for favorability, and his lead over Trump is around 18 points. Fewer people hate Biden, which makes it less likely that people will vote against him.
3. lower likelihood of a pro-Trump October surprise. We already had an October surprise (Trump's COVID infection), and Trump mishandled it so badly that it helped Biden. (I still expect Bill Barr to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden in late October, but I don't expect that such an announcement would influence voters in the way that Comey's announcement did.)
4. the polls have already made adjustments to account for things that they missed in 2016 -- shy Trump voters, non-college whites, unenthusiastic blacks, etc. If voting patterns match 2016, then Biden wins a fairly close race; but if voting patterns revert to what it was like in previous years, then Biden wins in a landslide.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I usually preface anything 538 related with "if the numbers and polls are accurate," which clearly was an issue last go round. As was just posted, the 2016 campaign was a lot more up and down.
Hilary was up big early before the GOP settled in on a candidate (she was pegged to have an 80% chance to win on 7/1. After the conventions, things closed to a toss up a month later. A week later, her chances shot back up to 87%. I don't remember what happened that Clinton zoomed up in the polls in a week's time the first week of August. She was down to 54% at the first debate in late September, back up over 80% at the second debate in October, and soared back to 87% at the third debate. A day or two prior to the election she had fallen to 64%. 538 called her a 71% favorite on election day, but they would readily admit they had the wrong mix of voters in several key states that Trump went on to barely win.
Throughout the summer, Biden has pretty much stayed in the 70-75% range. The lowest he dipped to was 67% around 9/1. He first hit 80% on 10/1 and has been tacking on another percentage point seemingly every 2-3 days since. Of the states I listed off earlier today, Biden is getting reported as being up at least 7 points in all of them.
In 2016, 538 showed Hilary slightly ahead in these states:
FL +0.7 (lost by 1)
PA +3.7 (lost by 1)
MI +4.2 (lost by 1)
WI +5.3 (lost by 1)
NC +0.7 (lost by 4)
They were off by about 5-6 points in some of those states. Here how things look so far this year for Biden (obviously subject to change but mostly trending higher in recent polls):
FL +3.6
PA +6.1
MI +8.3
WI + 6.2
NC + 1.7
Biden looks to be doing better than Hilary in some other places as well: (I left off TX, but he is polling pretty close this week)
AZ - Hilary lost by 5 points, Biden currently at +3.1
OH - Hilary lost by 8 points, Biden currently at +0.4
NE2 - Hilary lost by 4 points, Biden currently at +4.2
ME2 - Hilary lost by 11, Biden currently at -0.9
GA - Hilary lost by 5, Biden currently at -0.4
IA - Hilary lost by 10, Biden currently at -1.1
Certainly things can change over the next few weeks, the polls could be wrong, and 538's model could be off. But it certainly looks like Biden is a more viable option in more states (and farther ahead in many others).
General Malaise
Footballguy
Really surprised Oregon isn't going to Trump - the great law and order president - since Portland has been burned to the ground according to Twitch.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
spodog
Footballguy
CNN's prediction market (whatever that is), ratcheted Hillary up to 91% the week prior to the election. Guess not many people shop at that market.
spodog
Footballguy
Do you guys ever read this stuff before hitting the SUBMIT REPLY button?
Trump was an unknown? This dude had been in the public spotlight for literally decades upon decades, with 1000's of articles, television shows, magazine profiles, etc written about him before he ever entered the race in '15. He did commercials for fast food chains, and slapped his name and brand on anything that moved for years upon years. There is a lot to criticize him about, but to state that he is an unknown . . .
H Jass
Footballguy
I'm assuming he means unknown politically and I agree with him. I didn't vote for him nor Hillary (not making that mistake again), but I thought "Oh, he'll surround himself with competent, political people and his zaniness will be dampened bigly."
Oops.
spodog
Footballguy
Why would you doubt the outcome of what 1,003 people said on a particular day as a way to determine what 130,000,000 casting votes in a few weeks will do?
Pollsters are modern day PT Barnum protege's. As long as people keep lapping up what they are selling, they keep cranking it out. Matters not whether it means anything at all.
spodog
Footballguy
trust your instincts, the reason you are skeptical is because this Boston Herald article is nonsense.
spodog
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
To me his was a political unknown. Sure, I had heard of Trump and knew he was a NY real estate guy. I knew about The Apprentice. But I had zero clue what he stood for and how he would do in the office. My #1 issue with Trump in 2016 was he was totally unqualified and I have no interest in an "outsider" running the country. Little did I know we would be 4 years down the road and qualifications is down the list some because he has so many other horrible qualities. But amazingly, even after four years in the job he's still totally unqualified. He has no clue what he's doing and it shows on a daily basis.
spodog
Footballguy
Here is some goofball looking stressed that ran a professional polling organization, back in '08, trying to explain away why his company and all of his competitors all got their polling wrong on the CA Prop 8 voting: Well, uh
And here is the same guy, 8 years later, still making excuses, after his polling company was 100% wrong on the 2016 Presidential voting polls: must have been late deciders. Only in this second clip, he seems even more stressed because he has lost all of his customers and his underwriter (aka corporate sugar daddy) pulled his funding. His company (Field Poll) was in the process of shutting down due to incompetence as this second clip was filmed.
And here is the same guy, 8 years later, still making excuses, after his polling company was 100% wrong on the 2016 Presidential voting polls: must have been late deciders. Only in this second clip, he seems even more stressed because he has lost all of his customers and his underwriter (aka corporate sugar daddy) pulled his funding. His company (Field Poll) was in the process of shutting down due to incompetence as this second clip was filmed.
Similar threads
