What's new
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 (1 Viewer)

I'm thinking that Biden winning Texas is a good bet.  You can get around +225 right now.  Early voting usually favors Democrats, and over 70% of Texas has already voted (when compared to the 2016 numbers).  I know Trump is favored, but I think this one will be close and the odds look really nice.
I would take that action. 

 
I'm thinking that Biden winning Texas is a good bet.  You can get around +225 right now.  Early voting usually favors Democrats, and over 70% of Texas has already voted (when compared to the 2016 numbers).  I know Trump is favored, but I think this one will be close and the odds look really nice.
I would definitely take those odds. Here's an article I came across last night: http://www.politicalsalad.com/2020/10/texas-nevada-and-incorporating-turnout.html

...

Above, we see Texas' elasticity with only swing voters. The state is "difficult, but winnable" -- there are enough metro areas that are elastic to see Biden flipping enough suburban voters to take the state, but it's a tough task.

However, when factoring in turnout variation, we see that, along with general increases in elasticity across the board, the population boom in the Austin area has led to droves of new voters, which is excellent news for Democrats and expands their victory horizon. In particular, Travis (E 68.7), Williamson (E 69.7), and Hays (E 78.0) are key areas that Democrats will look to grow their vote totals in.

Another key set of counties to keep an eye on are the urban areas of Collin (E 65.1), Tarrant (E 41.0), Dallas (E 44.9), and Denton (E 62.1) -- Biden will need big wins here to carry the state in 2020, but the rapid growth in Collin and Denton should serve him well. Evidence of this growth can already be seen in comparing the 2016 Presidential election to the 2018 Senate race; while Clinton lost Collin by 17 and Denton by 20, O'Rourke only lost these counties by 6 and 8 points, respectively, in 2018.

Don't get it twisted -- swing voters are still a huge key to winning Texas. The Rio Grande Valley, in particular, has many conservative Democrats and is extremely elastic, and Biden needs to address his purported weaknesses with Hispanic voters and hold down that area to ensure it doesn't offset his continuing growth in the suburbs.

But when turnout enters the equation (and, as we are seeing, it is rapidly increasing in Texas in 2020), the state becomes way more gettable and goes from "tough, but winnable" to "tossup". It's well and truly in play, because the Democratic areas are gaining a lot of new voters. The surge in turnout we're seeing reflects the elasticity of the areas; Collin and Denton, in particular, have already cast over 35% of their votes with 12 days to go until the election. Stunningly, Harris county (E 43.5) has cast over 50% of its 2016 vote with two weeks to go until the election, and the gains in votes are reflected among young voters and women, two groups that break strongly Democratic. If these are indicators of the results we will get on November 3, it's hard to imagine the race as anything but a tossup, and I would go so far as to call it one in which Democrats are the ever-so-slight favorites.

Rating: Tossup/Tilt Democratic.

 
Data for Progress (B-):

NORTH CAROLINA
Biden 48%
Trump 44%

American Action Forum / Opinion Insights (Unrated, partisan R)

GEORGIA
Biden 49%
Trump 45%

 
"Current party spread in early votes: 49% D, 28% R, 16% No Party, 7% other." CNN

Anyone know of if this is the expected spread? For some reason I was expecting a higher D percentage.

 
"Current party spread in early votes: 49% D, 28% R, 16% No Party, 7% other." CNN

Anyone know of if this is the expected spread? For some reason I was expecting a higher D percentage.
23% of early votes did not vote for Biden or trump? Seems odd.

 
"Current party spread in early votes: 49% D, 28% R, 16% No Party, 7% other." CNN

Anyone know of if this is the expected spread? For some reason I was expecting a higher D percentage.
I don't know if that proportion is expected or not, but I do know that the nationwide proportion of voter affiliation over the last few cycles has been roughly 30-D/30-R/40-Other.

So, I think my first takeaway is that the Republican number is in line with their national strength, while the non-party number is way down. It almost makes me think that there are a lot of people out there who aren't registered with a party but are self-identifying as Democrats for this election.

 
I'm thinking that Biden winning Texas is a good bet.  You can get around +225 right now.  Early voting usually favors Democrats, and over 70% of Texas has already voted (when compared to the 2016 numbers).  I know Trump is favored, but I think this one will be close and the odds look really nice.
I know a big chunk of Texas voted already but this phasing out oil comment Thursday night did not help Biden in both Texas and possibly Pennsylvania. My electoral chart right now is looking at giving Florida,  Pennsylvania, and Texas to Trump.

 
I know a big chunk of Texas voted already but this phasing out oil comment Thursday night did not help Biden in both Texas and possibly Pennsylvania. My electoral chart right now is looking at giving Florida,  Pennsylvania, and Texas to Trump.
This country as we knew it is over. :(

 
I

"Current party spread in early votes: 49% D, 28% R, 16% No Party, 7% other." CNN

Anyone know of if this is the expected spread? For some reason I was expecting a higher D percentage.
This seems to be all early voting, incl. in-person. You'll see Ds increase looking at mail in only, while In person is slightly higher R.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html  (scroll down)

. It almost makes me think that there are a lot of people out there who aren't registered with a party but are self-identifying as Democrats for this election.
Whether someone is D, R, etc in these stats  is pulled from their voter registration. But it looks like not all states have party registration data, so that may muck up the numbers.
"Reporting states with party registration data: CA, CO, CT, FL, IA, KS, KY, MD, ME, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course we want to phase out oil.  Most people understand that.
But we will using oil for a long time. Airplanes, ships, construction equipment, agriculture, shipping with trucks, locomotives. Any place you need massive horsepower there is not an alternative on the horizon.  And we will continue to see collector cars , and tractors running. And there are many other uses for oil...asphalt, plastics etc. Somehow we do need to phase out but it is going to take along time and it will never be completely.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1503406983179361&id=100005302205209&sfnsn=mo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But we will using oil for a long time. Airplanes, ships, construction equipment, agriculture, shipping with trucks, locomotives. Any place you need massive horsepower there is not an alternative on the horizon.  And we will continue to see collector cars , and tractors running. And there are many other uses for oil...asphalt, plastics etc. Somehow we do need to phase out but it is going to take along time and it will never be completely.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1503406983179361&id=100005302205209&sfnsn=mo
 Yes. Phasing out completely likely won’t happen during our lifetimes.  But we can at least gradually reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.  

 
 Yes. Phasing out completely likely won’t happen during our lifetimes.  But we can at least gradually reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.  
You'd think for all the practice, Joe could have just said this (just drop the definitive "yes").

 
University of Texas at Tyler (B/C):

TEXAS
Biden 48%
Trump 45%
I wonder if their algorithm is thrown off by early voting? Some pollsters will adjust their numbers to give an edge to whichever candidate has received a greater share of the early votes, since A) early votes are already "banked," and B) early votes are often a sign of a stronger base.

But Biden's early lead is strictly due to COVID, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to give him a bump for that.

 
I wonder if their algorithm is thrown off by early voting? Some pollsters will adjust their numbers to give an edge to whichever candidate has received a greater share of the early votes, since A) early votes are already "banked," and B) early votes are often a sign of a stronger base.

But Biden's early lead is strictly due to COVID, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to give him a bump for that.
Texas always has a lot of early voting. The big message in Texas early voting is a historic turnout. 

 
I wonder if their algorithm is thrown off by early voting? Some pollsters will adjust their numbers to give an edge to whichever candidate has received a greater share of the early votes, since A) early votes are already "banked," and B) early votes are often a sign of a stronger base.

But Biden's early lead is strictly due to COVID, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to give him a bump for that.
I wish we knew how each pollster handled this, because the bolded is definitely a bad way to do it. There’s research showing that people who claim to have already voted are lying fairly often — maybe in an attempt to remove themselves from call lists? People who say they’re “certain to vote” end up voting at about the same rate as those who claim to have already voted (70%). So the correct way to handle this (IMO) is to give equal weight to “early voters” and self-reported certain voters. I know that’s what NYT/Siena does but I’m not sure about the others.

 
Right, but how do we know that it's a sign of Democratic enthusiasm.......and not just a sign that people are concerned about COVID?
There is no way to really know whose enthusiasm it is, but it clearly reflects voter enthusiasm.  Again turnout isn't high compared to previous early turnout. Texas is clearly going  over their total 2016 turnout.

 
Am I crazy to think that Texas has a likely higher chance to go Biden than Florida?
I think Texas ends up In Biden’s column only if it is a landslide.
 

Though I would love to be able to say that Trump lost Texas for Republicans. It would hopefully put an end to some of the truly offensive things that pushed me out of the Republican Party. 
 

 
Trump is looking good IMO.  Looks like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona will go to him.  I doubt he will lose Texas, especially after the oil gaffe by Biden.  I believe he wins NC too.
Ok on Florida but what is making Trump look good in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona? Has there been any recent polls in any of those states where he’s even tied? Sure he might win them all but nothing is ‘looking good’ about them.

 
Trump is looking good IMO.  Looks like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona will go to him.  I doubt he will lose Texas, especially after the oil gaffe by Biden.  I believe he wins NC too.
I really hope you’re not hanging your hat on that expectation. I truly think you are gonna need a drink (more like 10) the evening of November 3rd.

 
I wouldn't vote for Trump, even if it meant saving my own life. He is in the running for worst president in American history.
Best President in my lifetime, 2nd overall to Lincoln, both Republicans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top