Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[nereo]

The jobs argument was probably pretty strong pre-covid. But I doubt it's really resonating now.

Not that I'm watching the RNC in its entirety, but skirting around or outright ignoring the pandemic is a glaring weakness.  I don't know anyone who isn't affected - their kids going back to school, their job, elderly parents...  So once the invented fears of Democrats taking their guns, religion, and suburbs evaporates, people will get back to the immediate threat and disruption of the virus and realize that Republicans don't seem to realize or be addressing the fact that there's an ongoing, real problem.

Ignoring it has not made it go away, although that seems to be Trump's main strategy at this point - actively stifling public reporting and testing.

I've recently done a few very long drives for work, giving me the opportunity to listen to an absolute ton of political commentary by a variety of stations. One thing which has struck me is that every Republican being interviewed has stressed the following points about Covid-19:

• President Trump took decisive action to stop the spread early on, which saved countless lives
• No Democrat or Republican could have stopped this virus, and the virus doesn't care about political affiliation
• Only China is responsible, because they lied and didn't contain it when they had the opportunity

The US has handled the virus much better than almost every other country (and invariably they cite Spain, Italy Belgium and the UK)
[/list]

These points are made so regularly and with nearly identical language that I'm pretty positive they are part of the offiical party talking points disseminated to everyone giving interviews. Breaking them down it's clear the goals are to i) re-write the narrative that Trump largely ignored and downplayed the virus from February-April, ii) cast it as everyone's problem, not the GOP, iii) blame China and iv) frame the US response as a positive ("better than the UK!") rather than far worse than 100+ countries, including ranking us 16th out of the G-20 nations.

In short, this is a major attempt at a re-branding.

We'll see in a few weeks how effective this rebranding is. As we've been ≥1,000 new deaths/day since late July it's getting harder to make the case that we have it "under control", and the closure and cancelation of university in-person courses and sports is going to be hard to ignore.  If our per-capita deaths eclipse the UK (the country most Americans most closely relate to... sorry Canada) that talking point will stop being effective as well.

Regardless, anytime a company goes through a large rebranding after a scandal it's running against long odds.  As others have pointed out, few at this point have not been significantly impacted in some way by the virus, and it's a difficult task to convince people it's been a succeess (or at least not a horrible failure) when the kids are being homeschooled (again), your relative has gotten sick and you still can't (or won't) go to a restaurant or bar after six months.

[BicycleB]

I do agree it will be closer than the polls show.  That tends to happen, but Trump needs an inside straight for the second time in a row and we know what those odds are.

Are the odds of an inside straight about 30%?

Because that's what the polls say Trump's chances are according to 538, which now carefully describes Biden as only "slightly" favored. That's what is says on the header screen of their election forecast:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

In the details, they have a day by day % graph showing that the race is tightening. Biden's 69% chance is lowest since they started calculating in early June.

That's before counting the effect of vote suppressing measures such as mail slowdowns. Their model disregards these, so it could be much closer than they think. Not seeing a clear Democratic plan for responding to these, I suspect Trump's chance is close to 50/50 right now.

[nereo]

SOme more food for thought from fivethirtyeight's Nate Silver:

Is polling in August a highly reliable way to predict the outcome in November?

The short answer is “no.”

Polling in August is somewhat predictive. You’d much rather be ahead than behind. But there can still be some very wild swings.


The @FiveThirtyEight nat'l polling average with 84 days until E-Day:

2020: Biden+8.3
2016: Clinton+6.6
2012: Obama+0.5
2008: Obama+2.6
2004: Kerry+2.5
2000: Bush+10.0
1996: Clinton+11.3
1992: Clinton+20.1
1988: Dukakis+5.6
1984: Reagan+16.0
1980: Reagan+22.1
1976: Carter+26.6

Obviously HRC, Dukakis and Kerry lost despite leading with 86 days to go.  Important to note that none of those democrats had the lead that Biden currently enjoys (+8.4). But also worthwhile to note that Obama's ultimate vote tally exceeded his August poling both times, while Bush (W) lost the popular vote and eeked out a win with a few hundred floridian voters and a SCOTUS ruling.
Carter's monumental + 26.6 lead dwindled to +2.1 by the time votes were cast.

[caracarn]

Over the last six months I have become more firmly planted in the belief that we are witnessing the death of the GOP.

You're obviously a rusted-on Democrat.

Sorry, Kyle, totally wrong.  I am a lifelong Republican.   But I will be voting straight Democratic ticket this time around for the first time ever.  The Republican party has no platform and stands for nothing I support any longer.  They have moved too far right.

[Sid Hoffman]

Except reality is different!!

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

The notion of the president - any president - personally creating jobs is amusing to me. I believe I will benefit from a Biden presidency more than a Trump re-election mainly because of the likelihood of enhancements to healthcare in the critical age 50-65 range being likely to pass, especially if the Democrats take back the senate. Even without the senate though, I think my personal chances of benefiting are higher.

I do believe that a massive tax increase while in the sharpest economic downturn of all time is foolish though, and that too is what we're going to be facing under Biden. I'm salaried at my job with I'll say at least 60% job security over the next 8 years so it would be better for the whole of the USA to see Trump re-elected so tax policies remain business friendly. However I will personally benefit more under Biden. Does that make me selfish to support Biden? It's up to you to decide I suppose.

I may do as the last time around and leave the presidential box blank on my voter ballot simply because I detest both candidates so much. The state and local elections matter a bit more to me in many ways. As I've mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another, the city and state you live in have a greater impact on your personal happiness than the country in many cases. Plus: as a percentage of the total votes cast, your vote counts for more in local elections than national ones. I'm largely at peace regardless of who wins the presidency because I like the city I live in, and that's unlikely to change regardless of who wins.

[ctuser1]

Except reality is different!!

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

The notion of the president - any president - personally creating jobs is amusing to me.

It won't be so amusing once you really consider the concept of statistical significance.

Yes, "A president personally creating jobs" is a silly concept. There are MANY other confounding factors that play into it.

And no, a trend holding across 14 presidential terms (=56 years) is not so silly any more. If I was doing a simple random sampling without replacement in an infinite population (which this won't be, but picking for simplicity), then a sample of 56 will have a standard error of 13.36%.

Well, the difference we have is 100% - Democrats create double the # of jobs than Republicans do. So it's no longer a laughable theory.

(Note: Statisticians please don't jump on my super-simplistic and partially inaccurate illustration. I know many of the shortcomings of what I wrote above, just wanted to pull out a fast example that illustrates the issue. I am too lazy to actually think about this in detail and set up an accurate model.).

I do believe that a massive tax increase while in the sharpest economic downturn of all time is foolish though, ...

Agreed.

.... and that too is what we're going to be facing under Biden.

Really!!! Where the heck did you pull that out from?
Is there even a sample of one where a Democratic president did something stupid to make an economic cycle worse?? How about I raise you one for you raise one?

Better yet, I'll start - 2017 TCJA that stole $2T from future generations in the middle of the longest expansion and gave 80% of that loot back to the 1%......

You go next with an example. We'll add up the $$ amount in the end. I am at $2T so far!!!

I'm salaried at my job with I'll say at least 60% job security over the next 8 years so it would be better for the whole of the USA to see Trump re-elected so tax policies remain business friendly. However I will personally benefit more under Biden. Does that make me selfish to support Biden? It's up to you to decide I suppose.

Now the conservative framing is kicking in.

In my last post, I provided data that shows a trend of more jobs, higher GDP growth and just slightly higher stock market gains under democrats than republicans. I know this trend has held for at least 56 years - which I restricted my spreadsheet to because that gave me an even 7 democrats and 7 republicans. However, there is nothing in the data going back to at least FDR that violates the trend I described.

Do you have any data/research to support "it would be better for the whole of the USA to see Trump re-elected so tax policies remain business friendly"??

Dude, none of this is any surprise for anybody who is not brainwashed. Since 1980's - Republican's have been peddling shite like supply side "economics". Their real economics have been "what helps the donors the most". It is no wonder that those policies hand out feel-good candies (e.g. 2017 tax cuts in the middle of the longest expansion) while damaging the long term health!! The impact on jobs is the most visible because that has the least lag time. The impact on stock market is less visible because stock markets are forward looking.

I may do as the last time around and leave the presidential box blank on my voter ballot simply because I detest both candidates so much. The state and local elections matter a bit more to me in many ways. As I've mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another, the city and state you live in have a greater impact on your personal happiness than the country in many cases. Plus: as a percentage of the total votes cast, your vote counts for more in local elections than national ones. I'm largely at peace regardless of who wins the presidency because I like the city I live in, and that's unlikely to change regardless of who wins.

You do you, of course!!

I, personally, like crunching data more than read narratives because it cuts through the BS, framing and brainwash much quicker.

[MasterStache]

I'm salaried at my job with I'll say at least 60% job security over the next 8 years so it would be better for the whole of the USA to see Trump re-elected so tax policies remain business friendly. However I will personally benefit more under Biden. Does that make me selfish to support Biden? It's up to you to decide I suppose.

Tax policies have nothing to do with job security. In fact by far the largest predictor of economic prosperity, growth and jobs is middle/lower class spending. Spending creates jobs. You can create the fanciest thingamajig and and the government can give you all the tax breaks it desires but if your product doesn't sell, it doesn't mean shit. The very crux of why trickle down doesn't work is because this long outdated and routinely debunked notion that giving tax breaks to the wealthiest somehow creates jobs. Economics doesn't work that way.

If Biden's policies benefit the middle, working and lower class (for the record I believe they will) then the odds of you and every other person in those classes benefiting, increase.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Well, the culmination of the RNC 'terrorize our voters' week came with Donald Trump rambling to an audience in front of the White House packed together, sweating and yelling, and looking completely detached from reality.  I'm sure Trump thinks that this is what Americans want to see, but it reminds me of watching movies made in 2019.  I pine for that time when we could gather like that without fear, but I get uncomfortable watching it right now.  2020 and the years ahead will not be that time to gather precisely because Republicans are so delusional as to believe a virus can be wished away or ignored.  Without a vaccine or cure, the virus will be 'waiting for opportunities' to spread which Republicans seem to welcome. 

I was already not very optimistic about making progress against Covid this fall, but this message seals the deal, which is leading up to November 3rd.  I can only hope common sense and instinct like self preservation guide people's choices that we don't want another 4 years like the ones we just got.  Especially since they will be an even more intense version of the first 4 where Trump was still hampered by getting his government to fully fall in line.  And there's also that pesky problem that more Supreme Court nominees will likely come along, and I'm not impressed thus far with picks like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch...

[Dicey]

My cousin's husband is a super smart guy. Google says he is "an American author, television executive and radio host."

We crossed paths on October, 2016 at a family member's Memorial Service. I asked him what the hell was going on with DJT. He laughed at my concerns, reminding me that the Great Orange One - wait for it - hadn't won a single poll!

My point is this poll is great, but no one should be complacent. If you want a change, do something to facilitate it. Send money. Get involved with the campaign on a local level. VOTE! I'm positive our own, dear @monkey Jenga can help you if you need inspiration.

I LOL'd when I saw a bumper sticker that said "Bye Don 2020". Yeah, even buying/displaying one of those will help.

[Sid Hoffman]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate. The president is just there to make people happy or angry and then make hundreds of millions in speaking fees after they retire from office.

I'm going to benefit no matter what, that's simply all there is to it. I'm not a Republican, by the way. Haven't been since, uh, 2008 I think? Yeah I lean conservative but the fact I want single-payer healthcare for example makes me very much an outcast from that party. Enough so that I have refused to even register with them since that time. I'm a pragmatist. As I said, I'll benefit no matter what. My flexibility and desire to profit no matter the party in power, tax policy, or need to relocate, change jobs, or whatever it takes is why I believe I've done better than those who are unable to adapt and change, and it's how I'll continue to better myself going forward too.

As a final word on taxes - COVID has proved how mobile people are by all the work from home. My worry is that the huge tax increases on the wealthy and doubling (or tripling) of corporate taxes will simply result in a lot of companies and businesses relocating outside the US. Then there's no way to collect those taxes and it will be very hard to get those businesses to ever come back again. I can't tell who's really running the Democratic party at this point. Is it the AOC end of the party, who wants wealth taxes that would often exceed the rate of return for investments, meaning no one is able to generate wealth under their wealth tax system? Is it Pelosi, who is actually in favor of lowering taxes on the 1% by uncapping the SALT deductions? Is it Biden, who said he'll absolutely veto any type of Medicare for all bill?

My personal bet is Pelosi, and with her family net worth over $120 million and 9 posh mansions she owns, I honestly trust her to not do anything stupid and harmful to the economy because she's got too much at stake. It's if AOC is writing the budget in 2 years that I'm going to worry though as she's got nothing to lose by wrecking the country.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate. The president is just there to make people happy or angry and then make hundreds of millions in speaking fees after they retire from office.

I'm going to benefit no matter what, that's simply all there is to it. I'm not a Republican, by the way. Haven't been since, uh, 2008 I think? Yeah I lean conservative but the fact I want single-payer healthcare for example makes me very much an outcast from that party. Enough so that I have refused to even register with them since that time. I'm a pragmatist. As I said, I'll benefit no matter what. My flexibility and desire to profit no matter the party in power, tax policy, or need to relocate, change jobs, or whatever it takes is why I believe I've done better than those who are unable to adapt and change, and it's how I'll continue to better myself going forward too.

As a final word on taxes - COVID has proved how mobile people are by all the work from home. My worry is that the huge tax increases on the wealthy and doubling (or tripling) of corporate taxes will simply result in a lot of companies and businesses relocating outside the US. Then there's no way to collect those taxes and it will be very hard to get those businesses to ever come back again. I can't tell who's really running the Democratic party at this point. Is it the AOC end of the party, who wants wealth taxes that would often exceed the rate of return for investments, meaning no one is able to generate wealth under their wealth tax system? Is it Pelosi, who is actually in favor of lowering taxes on the 1% by uncapping the SALT deductions? Is it Biden, who said he'll absolutely veto any type of Medicare for all bill?

My personal bet is Pelosi, and with her family net worth over $120 million and 9 posh mansions she owns, I honestly trust her to not do anything stupid and harmful to the economy because she's got too much at stake. It's if AOC is writing the budget in 2 years that I'm going to worry though as she's got nothing to lose by wrecking the country.

I'd love to hear you try to say this to Trump.  I highlighted the spot where I believe you would have been escorted out of the room.

[ctuser1]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate. The president is just there to make people happy or angry and then make hundreds of millions in speaking fees after they retire from office.

You mean congress writes laws without support from, and against the wishes of the president? You do know how the president tends to drive the legislative policy as the de facto leader of the party in charge of the executive power and with the veto power - right?

Statistical significance gets around such objections. Numbers see through sophistry and verbal fog. When there is a correlation, that implies some relationship. The relationship is stronger the stronger the correlation, and lower the sampling error if you are using sampling. We saw that in my (very imperfect model) standard error is 13%, while the difference is 100%.

By any long term objective measures you can cook up, republicans are bad news for the economy because they push economic policies aimed only at helping the billionaires!!

I'm a pragmatist.

Good. Then it is about time you learned how to use data and logic to drive your thinking.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic
"practical as opposed to idealistic"

Trying to concoct rationalization to support a pre-conceived notion that the "conservative policies" are better for the economy in the face of almost overwhelming (data exists in multiple areas, not just national level employment/gdp but also state level) practical evidence is NOT pragmatism!!

who is actually in favor of lowering taxes on the 1% by uncapping the SALT deductions?

Who the f told you that the top 1% is affected by SALT deductions cap?

Trump used that SALT cap to teach the top 10% a lesson for not supporting Trump. Your's truly is one of those folks who paid a couple of grand extra in taxes due to that, and I am not in the top 1% by either wealth or income.

I used to already pay much more than my fair share of the federal budget so that freeloaders (billionaires/top-0.001% with capital gains only income, southwest states and other random mooch states that consume more than they contribute to federal budget) can freeload. Trump just made sure I had to pay $2k more to support their freeloading.

Top 1% paid for that legislation BEFORE it was written (https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/10/14/the-kochs-want-that-tax-cut-badly/oUJ2VvCU0GAIT7cbdZfIXL/story.html).
Hence, they got 80% of the benefits of the money stolen from the future generations (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/koch-brothers-1-billion-tax-cut/).

It's the height of naivity to think they would have been harmed by any of it's proposals???!!!

I personally think a much better proposal would be to eliminate any SALT deduction at all. High tax states shouldn't be subsidized. Let them live or die by their own tax rate(s). Creating a special $10k exemption for low income Trump supporters isn't something that serves any economic purpose!! As long as this extra money is not used to further support, encourage and subsidize conservative mooches any more than they already are - it will have my enthusiastic support.

he'll absolutely veto any type of Medicare for all bill

A pragmatist would be aware that a properly designed public option can incrementally achieve much of the same goals...

if AOC is writing the budget in 2 years that I'm going to worry though as she's got nothing to lose by wrecking the country.

WTF??
Why the bolded part? Because she looks funny??!!!

<.... taking a deep breath and trying to respond objectively ....>

Which part of her economic platform is objectively worse than Trumps?

Why don't you pragmatically (i.e. using real world data/logic) pick apart her Green New Deal and 70% tax on billionaires proposal and explain why they are worse than what Trump is doing??

Note 1: I used to dismiss her as a silly distraction when she first burst into the scene. Since then I have been impressed how she made it a point to consult experts and put together proposals that do have a significant intellectual heft behind it. She seems to somehow be able to attract many competent millennials to spend time on her staff. I've known someone who left a Silicone Valley job to work on her campaign. This doesn't mean all her platforms will be perfect. Just that they won't be as stupid as - say - supply side economic.

Note 2: I am a real pragmatist. This means I don't like big bang proposals. AOC has a penchant for big bang stuff. I hope that if/when she has the ability to effect policy (perhaps 30 years from now) that she moderates her preference for big bang proposals.

[talltexan]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate.

I think we've learned these last few years that--despite these limitations--the President is immensely powerful through his control of the administrative state. The Attorney General can wield immense discretion.

Appointing judges to the courts affects what laws states controlled by both parties will wind up passing even if the Congress is divided.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act...a President of a different party who didn't like the mandate can simply instruct the IRS to not check the line on 1040 in which people report whether they have health insurance.

Foreign Policy is basically entirely the domain of the Executive at this point. If you thought the Paris agreement, Iran Nuclear deal, and UN were bullshit, then it matters greatly to you who the President is.

Supervision of the Census seemed routine in previous cycles. It doesn't now.

Infrastructure to protect us from foreign pandemics or research/distribute vaccines? This is again stewarded by the Executive Branch.

Many of these are matters that Congress at some or other time delegated to previous executives.

[dougules]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate.

I think we've learned these last few years that--despite these limitations--the President is immensely powerful through his control of the administrative state. The Attorney General can wield immense discretion.

Appointing judges to the courts affects what laws states controlled by both parties will wind up passing even if the Congress is divided.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act...a President of a different party who didn't like the mandate can simply instruct the IRS to not check the line on 1040 in which people report whether they have health insurance.

Foreign Policy is basically entirely the domain of the Executive at this point. If you thought the Paris agreement, Iran Nuclear deal, and UN were bullshit, then it matters greatly to you who the President is.

Supervision of the Census seemed routine in previous cycles. It doesn't now.

Infrastructure to protect us from foreign pandemics or research/distribute vaccines? This is again stewarded by the Executive Branch.

Many of these are matters that Congress at some or other time delegated to previous executives.

The president is only that powerful if he has the tacit backing of at least half the house and a third of the Senate.  Most previous presidents probably would not have been acquitted by the senate if they had followed Trump's trajectory.  So there again it comes back around to congress. 

[Kl285528]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate.

I think we've learned these last few years that--despite these limitations--the President is immensely powerful through his control of the administrative state. The Attorney General can wield immense discretion.

Appointing judges to the courts affects what laws states controlled by both parties will wind up passing even if the Congress is divided.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act...a President of a different party who didn't like the mandate can simply instruct the IRS to not check the line on 1040 in which people report whether they have health insurance.

Foreign Policy is basically entirely the domain of the Executive at this point. If you thought the Paris agreement, Iran Nuclear deal, and UN were bullshit, then it matters greatly to you who the President is.

Supervision of the Census seemed routine in previous cycles. It doesn't now.

Infrastructure to protect us from foreign pandemics or research/distribute vaccines? This is again stewarded by the Executive Branch.

Many of these are matters that Congress at some or other time delegated to previous executives.

This is where I would beg voters like Sid Hoffman (not picking on you!) who are discouraged by the choices offered in the presidential race, to make the tough choice and calculate which candidate is better for the America you imagine. Trump and his supporters scare the hell out of me - The parallels between his rise and other authoritarian regimes past and current are frightening. The level of lying and reality distortion are off the charts and are heading into 1984 land where the only thing you are allowed to believe is what "Big Brother" says is fact. Trump needs to go, and his supporters and enablers need to go, and we can then begin the healing process for our democracy.

[ctuser1]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate.

I think we've learned these last few years that--despite these limitations--the President is immensely powerful through his control of the administrative state. The Attorney General can wield immense discretion.

Appointing judges to the courts affects what laws states controlled by both parties will wind up passing even if the Congress is divided.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act...a President of a different party who didn't like the mandate can simply instruct the IRS to not check the line on 1040 in which people report whether they have health insurance.

Foreign Policy is basically entirely the domain of the Executive at this point. If you thought the Paris agreement, Iran Nuclear deal, and UN were bullshit, then it matters greatly to you who the President is.

Supervision of the Census seemed routine in previous cycles. It doesn't now.

Infrastructure to protect us from foreign pandemics or research/distribute vaccines? This is again stewarded by the Executive Branch.

Many of these are matters that Congress at some or other time delegated to previous executives.

The president is only that powerful if he has the tacit backing of at least half the house and a third of the Senate.  Most previous presidents probably would not have been acquitted by the senate if they had followed Trump's trajectory.  So there again it comes back around to congress.

The bolded portion is a very low bar to clear, especially in a bipartisan system. Think of an objective measure this way - "how long in the US history has the president NOT had his party have at least a third of senate OR half of house?".

It is such a low bar as to be completely irrelevant in reality most of the time, unless the president does something blatantly illegal.

[dougules]

The president is only that powerful if he has the tacit backing of at least half the house and a third of the Senate.  Most previous presidents probably would not have been acquitted by the senate if they had followed Trump's trajectory.  So there again it comes back around to congress.

The bolded portion is a very low bar to clear, especially in a bipartisan system. Think of an objective measure this way - "how long in the US history has the president NOT had his party have at least a third of senate OR half of house?".

It is such a low bar as to be completely irrelevant in reality most of the time, unless the president does something blatantly illegal.

I think it's only seems irrelevant because most presidents haven't tested the limits. 

[ctuser1]

Democratic presidents create double the jobs than Republicans do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress is who sets tax policy though, not the president. This is why any talk of the president is so laughable. The president is just a figurehead - largely meaningless in the big picture because the president can't write a single word of law, it all comes from the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives and negotiation with the Senate.

I think we've learned these last few years that--despite these limitations--the President is immensely powerful through his control of the administrative state. The Attorney General can wield immense discretion.

Appointing judges to the courts affects what laws states controlled by both parties will wind up passing even if the Congress is divided.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act...a President of a different party who didn't like the mandate can simply instruct the IRS to not check the line on 1040 in which people report whether they have health insurance.

Foreign Policy is basically entirely the domain of the Executive at this point. If you thought the Paris agreement, Iran Nuclear deal, and UN were bullshit, then it matters greatly to you who the President is.

Supervision of the Census seemed routine in previous cycles. It doesn't now.

Infrastructure to protect us from foreign pandemics or research/distribute vaccines? This is again stewarded by the Executive Branch.

Many of these are matters that Congress at some or other time delegated to previous executives.

This is where I would beg voters like Sid Hoffman (not picking on you!) who are discouraged by the choices offered in the presidential race, to make the tough choice and calculate which candidate is better for the America you imagine. Trump and his supporters scare the hell out of me - The parallels between his rise and other authoritarian regimes past and current are frightening. The level of lying and reality distortion are off the charts and are heading into 1984 land where the only thing you are allowed to believe is what "Big Brother" says is fact. Trump needs to go, and his supporters and enablers need to go, and we can then begin the healing process for our democracy.

I'd request you to consider very hard the implication of courting voters who see a dirty brown Puerto Rican face (=AOC) and pulls stuff like "she's got nothing to lose by wrecking the country".

In my opinion, Trump is not the biggest problem for America, but Trumpism is!!

Whether Trump wins or loses this year is very important for the preservation of democracy in the US, but much more critical will be what happens to Trumpism ten years from now when the Trumpers see more and more of such dirty brown immigrant (and black) faces popping up all over the national scene due to demographic changes.

I'm not sure it will at all be good for the country if Biden suddenly started courting Spencer/David Duke/Ann Coulter to defeat Trump!! Doing so will allow Trumpism to gain foothold on both sides of the political divide and hence much longer lived than it would otherwise be. THAT would be a bigger disaster, in my personal opinion, than another 4 years of Trump.

[ctuser1]

The president is only that powerful if he has the tacit backing of at least half the house and a third of the Senate.  Most previous presidents probably would not have been acquitted by the senate if they had followed Trump's trajectory.  So there again it comes back around to congress.

The bolded portion is a very low bar to clear, especially in a bipartisan system. Think of an objective measure this way - "how long in the US history has the president NOT had his party have at least a third of senate OR half of house?".

It is such a low bar as to be completely irrelevant in reality most of the time, unless the president does something blatantly illegal.

I think it's only seems irrelevant because most presidents haven't tested the limits.

We diverged significantly from the original topic of discussion which showed data points that more jobs are created during Democratic president's terms than Republican. I posited that this data point is meaningless when you see it only in one or two terms, but is meaningful when a trend forms such as to be statistically meaningful.

Would you agree with the original (unstated) assumption that presidential politics has a significant impact on job creation and hence it IS meaningful if we see a statistically significant trend/pattern?

[BicycleB]

I've often suspected that direct correlations between presidents and job creation are tricky because presidents' actions have lag times. There is no exact time period when one president's actions have all the effect. The early part of one's term is deeply affected by the past one, and the current one's actions have some effect years after the current one departs. The lag times could also vary between particular presidents, due to their differing policies and the public's perceptions.

So when is the right time to assign blame / give credit? One year after taking office? Two? Is the first year best described as 75/25 the last guy's fault, year two 50/50, year four it's all on the new president? What do your comparisons look like under each of these methods, and how do you decide which one is fair instead of cherry picking?

[ctuser1]

I've often suspected that direct correlations between presidents and job creation are tricky because presidents' actions have lag times. There is no exact time period when one president's actions have all the effect. The early part of one's term is deeply affected by the past one, and the current one's actions have some effect years after the current one departs. The lag times could also vary between particular presidents, due to their differing policies and the public's perceptions.

So when is the right time to assign blame / give credit? One year after taking office? Two? Is the first year best described as 75/25 the last guy's fault, year two 50/50, year four it's all on the new president? What do your comparisons look like under each of these methods, and how do you decide which one is fair instead of cherry picking?

Even for two term presidents? And for Reagan + Bush 41 = three terms?

i.e. Do you think that most of the effects of the president's actions will have a lag time > 8 years? That sounds very unlikely to me.

The difference is so stark that the pattern will persist even if you ignore the single term presidents (but include Bush 41 since he was really a third Reagan term).

---------------------

I am not questioning that *some* actions will have an impact decades later. I am just questioning the assertion that *most* jobs created will be like that.

The GDP growth is a different animal (businesses have to hire first before producing, so there is a lot more lag there). Stock market is even more different as that is a giant discounting machine that will, by it's very nature, smooth out discrete events.

[BicycleB]

I've often suspected that direct correlations between presidents and job creation are tricky because presidents' actions have lag times. There is no exact time period when one president's actions have all the effect. The early part of one's term is deeply affected by the past one, and the current one's actions have some effect years after the current one departs. The lag times could also vary between particular presidents, due to their differing policies and the public's perceptions.

So when is the right time to assign blame / give credit? One year after taking office? Two? Is the first year best described as 75/25 the last guy's fault, year two 50/50, year four it's all on the new president? What do your comparisons look like under each of these methods, and how do you decide which one is fair instead of cherry picking?

Even for two term presidents? And for Reagan + Bush 41 = three terms?

i.e. Do you think that most of the effects of the president's actions will have a lag time > 8 years? That sounds very unlikely to me.

The difference is so stark that the pattern will persist even if you ignore the single term presidents (but include Bush 41 since he was really a third Reagan term).

---------------------

I am not questioning that *some* actions will have an impact decades later. I am just questioning the assertion that *most* jobs created will be like that.

The GDP growth is a different animal (businesses have to hire first before producing, so there is a lot more lag there). Stock market is even more different as that is a giant discounting machine that will, by it's very nature, smooth out discrete events.

I imagine the "right" answer if we could pin it down is that by the second term, most of the impact is from the current president, not the last one. Though personally I suspect that only a fraction of job growth is attributable to the president in the first place, at least in ordinary times.

I suspect that to whatever extent the presidents' influence had its effect, much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Bush 43's time in office was an effect of the Clinton years. That much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Obama's time in office was an effect of the Bush 43 years. That much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Trump's era was due to the Obama years. I'm not sure when to switch responsibility exactly (that's my point).

[ctuser1]

I imagine the "right" answer if we could pin it down is that by the second term, most of the impact is from the current president, not the last one.

Agreed.

Though personally I suspect that only a fraction of job growth is attributable to the president in the first place, at least in ordinary times.

Yes and no!!

Economic growth is driven by innovation and private enterprise during the expansion cycle.
 
The government's (on which the president has a very strong influence as the executive authority) job is to allow the expansion to happen and ready up dry powder to cushion the recession that will follow. So, the government has the ability to mess things up, or nurture things. 8 years (or 12 years, as was the case with Reagan + Bush41) is enough time for at least one such cycle to play out. 

I suspect that to whatever extent the presidents' influence had its effect, much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Bush 43's time in office was an effect of the Clinton years. That much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Obama's time in office was an effect of the Bush 43 years. That much of the job growth or shrinkage in the first six months of Trump's era was due to the Obama years. I'm not sure when to switch responsibly exactly (that's my point).

This is the exact reason I picked a time period that has 7 terms from each party - so that such impacts roughly cancel out.

With all those careful considerations - the difference stays at 100%, i.e. democratic administrations create almost double the jobs compared to republican administrations.

Whichever way you adjust, slice and dice things, the difference is so large that the conclusion has a lot of confidence behind it.

Surprised? Huh?!!

That is probably the residual effect of brainwashing by https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ that trained and dispersed hundreds of thousands of trained propagandists all across the country. They modeled their operations based on the Soviet propaganda machine and, based on the evidence I see, did an excellent job. This is not to belittle any of you. I myself used to believe in their propaganda, before I became interested enough in economic and social issues to start looking at actual data instead of just absorbing what the popular media is dishing out!! So I have personal experience with the "this shit can't be right" feeling you must be going through!
 

[Sid Hoffman]

With all those careful considerations - the difference stays at 100%, i.e. democratic administrations create almost double the jobs compared to republican administrations.

Whichever way you adjust, slice and dice things, the difference is so large that the conclusion has a lot of confidence behind it.

You make a bunch of false assumptions though.

1) Congress (where actual laws and policy are made) is totally ignored
2) The natural economic cycle is to be ignored
3) External events such as wars are to be ignored
4) The president is to take credit or blame for jobs on the day they are sworn in to office
5) Correlation is casation

There is a reason the saying "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." is a thing. Take enough data and you can declare that any correlation is good for your team and bad for your enemy team. The problem is that you are picking teams, not policies. That is what colors your judgement to the point where you can't see anything but what your political party demands you to see. This is one of the many reasons I do not participate in political parties and instead vote based on policies, not parties.

[ctuser1]

With all those careful considerations - the difference stays at 100%, i.e. democratic administrations create almost double the jobs compared to republican administrations.

Whichever way you adjust, slice and dice things, the difference is so large that the conclusion has a lot of confidence behind it.

You make a bunch of false assumptions though.

1) Congress (where actual laws and policy are made) is totally ignored
2) The natural economic cycle is to be ignored
3) External events such as wars are to be ignored
4) The president is to take credit or blame for jobs on the day they are sworn in to office

Strawman arguments.

5) Correlation is casation

There is a reason the saying "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." is a thing. Take enough data and you can declare that any correlation is good for your team and bad for your enemy team. The problem is that you are picking teams, not policies. That is what colors your judgement to the point where you can't see anything but what your political party demands you to see. This is one of the many reasons I do not participate in political parties and instead vote based on policies, not parties.

You should explain these fallacies to the Physicists at CERN.

They declared Higgs Boson was "found" based only on Correlation, with ALL These issues you mentioned about correlations and data fully present:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143497-cern-now-99-999999999-sure-it-has-found-the-higgs-boson#

While at it, you should also explain this to all Medical researchers who rely on far lower standard of evidences based on nothing but sampling and correlation. If/when we get a COVID vaccine, it's efficacy will have been tested with a fast track double-blind testing (i.e. nothing but correlations and hypothesis testing)...

----------------------------

If you wanted to figure out how all science (that isn't mathematics) works, this article does a relatively good job:
https://towardsdatascience.com/sample-size-and-correlation-eb1581227ce2

[BicycleB]

Surprised? Huh?!!

That is probably the residual effect of brainwashing by https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ that trained and dispersed hundreds of thousands of trained propagandists all across the country. They modeled their operations based on the Soviet propaganda machine and, based on the evidence I see, did an excellent job. This is not to belittle any of you. I myself used to believe in their propaganda, before I became interested enough in economic and social issues to start looking at actual data instead of just absorbing what the popular media is dishing out!! So I have personal experience with the "this shit can't be right" feeling you must be going through!

I'm not surprised that a specific period shows one party better than the other. I'm quite surprised that someone would think that assuming one's discussion partners must be brainwashed and telling them so is a more persuasive technique than understanding why the other person thinks what they think.

Your response about the measurement period dismisses my concerns without showing any understanding of them. Have you considered the possibility that other people look at data too?

I've given a related topic (GDP) glancing research in the past by looking for data. At the time, I was kind of hoping that Dems had a demonstrably better record. The initial data I found did not support my hope. Instead, they seemed to indicate that the results depended on the time period chosen, both in how many terms were examined and on what lag time (if any) was assumed. While I did not record the data I found (it was just for personal interest), I remember specifically concluding that there wasn't a consistent correlation based on the terms I examined if the time of taking office was the start of the measurement period.

You also seem to assume that since you concluded "oh, it all balances out if you use the same number of terms from each party", everyone should conclude the same. Maybe other people don't think that's a worthwhile simplification. I already explained why I disagree with it. You do not appear to have understood my argument, you only appear to have dismissed it. Bear in mind that if the economy in the first year of a president's term is mostly an effect from the previous term, performing the analysis starting one year after inauguration would be more accurate than the method you endorse. Your method may be adequate for your purposes, but it's legitimate for other people to seek a more accurate one.

I don't feel like the topic is worth the time for me to dig into further right now. I'll keep your assertions in mind should I return to it. But in future, my personal suggestion if you wish to persuade others would be to communicate in a manner that expresses more understanding of what people are saying, and fewer assumptions that if they don't agree with you, they must be uninformed brainwashees.

Gang, if anyone's still focused on predicting the 2020 race, sorry for going so far in a side track.

[Abe]

Hey, so getting back on track:

Using the weight average of polls within the last three weeks from FiveThirtyEight.com

Biden/Harris has:
5% lead (49 vs 44%) in Florida. In 2016, October polls for this state were off by only 1%.

4% lead (48 vs 44%) in Michigan, which was within the error of 2016 polls (4%, in favor of Trump/Pence).

4% lead (49 vs 45%) in Pennsylvania, with 2016 polls underestimating Trump/Pence by 3%.

These three states have had stable polling showing Biden with a lead greater than the 3-4% error in polls.

The remainder of swing states are toss-ups currently:

Ohio is even 47-47%, but Oct 2016 polls underestimated Trump/Pence significantly by 5%.

Wisconsin is 48-44% for Biden/Harris, but again 2016 polls underestimated Trump/Pence by 7% (most of any state).

North Carolina is 49-46% for Bidden/Harris, but within error of 2016 polls (3% underestimate of Trump/Pence).

Texas is a surprise toss-up, with 47-46% for Biden, but again polls underestimated Trump by 4%.

Arizona is another toss-up with 49-47% for Biden, within the 2% underestimate for Trump in Oct 2016.

At this point, it looks like Biden & Harris may squeak by with FL, PA and MI. If their lead in MI and PA remain stable, Trump & Pence would need to keep all of the other states they won last time to win. Biden needs only one of the other states Clinton lost.

[ctuser1]

I'll stop thread hijacking after this post.

Your response about the measurement period dismisses my concerns without showing any understanding of them.
...
You also seem to assume that since you concluded "oh, it all balances out if you use the same number of terms from each party", everyone should conclude the same. Maybe other people don't think that's a worthwhile simplification. I already explained why I disagree with it. You do not appear to have understood my argument, you only appear to have dismissed it. Bear in mind that if the economy in the first year of a president's term is mostly an effect from the previous term, performing the analysis starting one year after inauguration would be more accurate than the method you endorse. Your method may be adequate for your purposes, but it's legitimate for other people to seek a more accurate one.

You probably missed where I said "Whichever way you adjust, slice and dice things, the difference is so large that the conclusion has a lot of confidence behind it."...

e.g. do you want to *just* compare second/third terms and completely ignore the first term?
That, of course, is possible. You get the following if you do so:
Lyndon Johnson   D   1965–1969   9,855
Bill Clinton      D   1997–2001   11,324
Barack Obama   D   2013–2017   10,288
Total   31,467

Nixon/Ford           R   1973–1977   5,071
Ronald Reagan        R   1985–1989   10,795
George H. W. Bush   R   1989–1993   1,917
George W. Bush           R   2005–2009   1,259
      Total   19,042

If you go back to Eisenhower/Truman/Roosevelt/Hoover/Coolidge/Harding - the trend persists...

If none of these are good enough, if and when you do get interest in this topic, I'd be very interested how else you would like to time-sample this.

Your response implies that I had not done all these slicing and dicing on the data despite having mentioned how I came from a position of skepticism. If so, you're incorrect.

I've given a related topic (GDP) glancing research in the past by looking for data. At the time, I was kind of hoping that Dems had a demonstrably better record. The initial data I found did not support my hope. Instead, they seemed to indicate that the results depended on the time period chosen, both in how many terms were examined and on what lag time (if any) was assumed.

My conclusion was different when I have looked at the data. This paper has some useful charts and graphs: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/AER_revision.pdf
There is a demonstrable trend in the raw data. However, the trend is less persistent and pronounced than the jobs data, AND GDP has many more confounding factors compared to jobs data.

Hence, unlike the jobs data, my personal opinion is that a clear conclusion is not feasible based on the GDP data, or the stock price data. This is despite the fact that a clear statistically significant difference exists even there if you blindly looked at that data without considering the confounding factors.

I don't feel like the topic is worth the time for me to dig into further right now. I'll keep your assertions in mind should I return to it.

Fair enough.

----------------------------------------------

I contributed to the thread hijacking, but that was mostly incidental. I was following up on a response to my post linked here (which I thought was pretty on topic):

..

[nereo]

we're committing statistical malpractice by assuming the margin of error should be the same for each state for two different election years.

2020 data is independent from 2016 data.

[Abe]

we're committing statistical malpractice by assuming the margin of error should be the same for each state for two different election years.

2020 data is independent from 2016 data.

It’s true but do we have better data to use for margins of error? I admit I don’t know enough about polling to see what else we should use. The 2020 data isn’t entirely independent assuming the population being sampled is similar to the 2016 population. Unless there’s been huge demographic shifts I think they can be somewhat related. That’s why I went with those errors.

[2Birds1Stone]

y'all seriously underestimate the level that the current POTUS/regime will stoop to in order to ensure victory in November. To anyone currently living in the USA, I would pucker up and get ready for another 4 depressing years.

[Davnasty]

we're committing statistical malpractice by assuming the margin of error should be the same for each state for two different election years.

2020 data is independent from 2016 data.

It’s true but do we have better data to use for margins of error? I admit I don’t know enough about polling to see what else we should use. The 2020 data isn’t entirely independent assuming the population being sampled is similar to the 2016 population. Unless there’s been huge demographic shifts I think they can be somewhat related. That’s why I went with those errors.

Pollsters are always updating and adjusting for new information so by now they have at least attempted to understand why votes skewed from polls consistently in one direction  in 2016 and made adjustments accordingly. So the way people answer polls may not have changed, but what is done with the data has changed.

I would suggest using the margin of error provided with the poll.

[OzzieandHarriet]

This is kind of interesting to play with, FWIW:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/election-states-biden-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Roland of Gilead]

y'all seriously underestimate the level that the current POTUS/regime will stoop to in order to ensure victory in November. To anyone currently living in the USA, I would pucker up and get ready for another 4 depressing years.

We have that guaranteed with either choice.  There is no excitement for Biden.

[2Birds1Stone]

That is a good point, but I would take Joe Shmoe over a psychopathic narcissist.

Maybe we can do better in 2024?

[OzzieandHarriet]

y'all seriously underestimate the level that the current POTUS/regime will stoop to in order to ensure victory in November. To anyone currently living in the USA, I would pucker up and get ready for another 4 depressing years.

We have that guaranteed with either choice.  There is no excitement for Biden.

I’m very excited by the possibility that a sane, decent human being could be in charge. I believe this feeling is shared by many.

[jrhampt]

I, too, am very excited by the prospect of a Biden presidency.

[bacchi]

Likewise.

He's no Warren or Sanders but he's sane and won't govern by tweet. He won't dismantle environmental regulations, he'll follow the emoluments clause, and he won't be Putin's buddy. His staffers will last longer than a year (85% of Trump's 'A Team' have been replaced; 39% of positions have seen serial turnover) and he'll consider facts over what a newscaster on Fox or OAN is spewing. He'll dismiss Q instead of giving it credence and he won't recommend medicines without advice from doctors. He won't have neo-Nazis giving 'sieg heil' salutes to his Presidency and he won't claim that some nationalists are "very fine people."

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it.

[jim555]

President Whackadoodle can't be gone soon enough.  Riden with Biden.

[wenchsenior]

Same.  Experienced politician who can properly staff a ton of gov't positions with competent experienced people? Count me excited.

ETA: However, I think there is a very decent chance Trump will win reelection. 

[Abe]

I was just excited listening to a speech that wasn't a rambling mess. It's easy to get excited these days. Also I think having a plan for renewable energy is exciting. Even having plans at all.

[caracarn]

Perhaps instead of just resigning yourself to the fact Trump can win, take personal action to move the needle.  I have volunteered to assist the Biden campaign and is the first time in my life I have ever worked on a campaign.  If Trump wins it will not be for my lack of trying to avoid that outcome.  If everyone here who said "he still has a good chance of winning" put in any effort to change that, it might be the difference.  Change is never easy.  Let's all step up.

[Kris]

Perhaps instead of just resigning yourself to the fact Trump can win, take personal action to move the needle.  I have volunteered to assist the Biden campaign and is the first time in my life I have ever worked on a campaign.  If Trump wins it will not be for my lack of trying to avoid that outcome.  If everyone here who said "he still has a good chance of winning" put in any effort to change that, it might be the difference.  Change is never easy.  Let's all step up.

I'll agree with this. I am personally quite worried Trump will win. But I'm working to counteract that.

[Roland of Gilead]

Likewise.

He's no Warren or Sanders but he's sane and won't govern by tweet. He won't dismantle environmental regulations, he'll follow the emoluments clause, and he won't be Putin's buddy. His staffers will last longer than a year (85% of Trump's 'A Team' have been replaced; 39% of positions have seen serial turnover) and he'll consider facts over what a newscaster on Fox or OAN is spewing. He'll dismiss Q instead of giving it credence and he won't recommend medicines without advice from doctors. He won't have neo-Nazis giving 'sieg heil' salutes to his Presidency and he won't claim that some nationalists are "very fine people."

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it.

My mom could do all of those things you just listed...doesn't mean she would make an exciting president.

I mean, yes, to be clear, I am voting Biden, because the alternative isn't an alternative...but I am not excited about it.

[bacchi]

Likewise.

He's no Warren or Sanders but he's sane and won't govern by tweet. He won't dismantle environmental regulations, he'll follow the emoluments clause, and he won't be Putin's buddy. His staffers will last longer than a year (85% of Trump's 'A Team' have been replaced; 39% of positions have seen serial turnover) and he'll consider facts over what a newscaster on Fox or OAN is spewing. He'll dismiss Q instead of giving it credence and he won't recommend medicines without advice from doctors. He won't have neo-Nazis giving 'sieg heil' salutes to his Presidency and he won't claim that some nationalists are "very fine people."

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it.

My mom could do all of those things you just listed...doesn't mean she would make an exciting president.

I mean, yes, to be clear, I am voting Biden, because the alternative isn't an alternative...but I am not excited about it.

Biden himself isn't exciting. He's super bland. But compared to what we have now? That's exciting. It means a cake and some alcohol and some edibles and a "what happened last night?" next day.

[caracarn]

Perhaps instead of just resigning yourself to the fact Trump can win, take personal action to move the needle.  I have volunteered to assist the Biden campaign and is the first time in my life I have ever worked on a campaign.  If Trump wins it will not be for my lack of trying to avoid that outcome.  If everyone here who said "he still has a good chance of winning" put in any effort to change that, it might be the difference.  Change is never easy.  Let's all step up.

I'll agree with this. I am personally quite worried Trump will win. But I'm working to counteract that.

I am quite worried as well.  I just sat through a horrendous day in my work-from-home space as we basically got to experience the end of Hollywood week on American Idol where out company got divided into two webinars.  In one webinar you were told you lost your job.  In the other you were told you had not lost your job but that over 100 people, 15% of our workforce was getting that news as we were getting told we were safe, at least for now.  I have lost what little patience I did for a president who keeps telling us the economy is roaring back and the record number of jobs we gained when the lying by omission of all the crap left out and the actual reality on the ground when not in the bubble of a billionaire shows any sane person that is not true.  And then the patience for those who want to still vote for this?  That was gone a long time ago.  The person I have become, angry and short tempered with those who still continue to espouse these beliefs, is not something I want to be nor enjoy, yet I find it very hard to not go there given the months of hell we've all gone through and the lack of any truth coming from the top.  It's sickening. 

And as opposed to the last points being made, I am excited by Biden and the prospect of flipping the Senate and many state governments as well.  I think more positive change will come then people give him credit for.  I feel that way because I believe Biden feels the way I do.  Sick and tired of the bullshit and fired up to do something about it and I think that will create a Biden we've not seen before in the form of determination and drive to get things done.  Maybe I'll be wrong, but I'll take my chance with that possibility a million times before I consider the alternative before us.  A leader who can lead, who can form strategy and execute it is monumentally exciting.  For those who are saying they are not excited, please describe what an exciting president looks like because I am unclear what that would be?  We're not looking to be entertained or inspired.  We're looking to be governed.  Before Trump everyone many said a businessperson would be great.  How many exciting business people are there?  A lot less than extremely competent and effective business people.  I think expecting more for a job that only one person in a country of 300 million plus gets to hold at any one time is a bit high of a bar.  Maybe not I am beginning to understand how about 50% of eligible voters do not vote.  If you're waiting for exciting you'll be waiting an awful long time. 

[Roadrunner53]

Can someone explain to me why Trump has violated laws and gets away with it? He has violated the emolument laws,
the Hatch act and I am sure many, many more and no one does anything! So, why have laws if people aren't held accountable?

[Kris]

Can someone explain to me why Trump has violated laws and gets away with it? He has violated the emolument laws,
the Hatch act and I am sure many, many more and no one does anything! So, why have laws if people aren't held accountable?

Because Republicans don’t care about laws when breaking them means they win.

[GuitarStv]

Can someone explain to me why Trump has violated laws and gets away with it? He has violated the emolument laws,
the Hatch act and I am sure many, many more and no one does anything! So, why have laws if people aren't held accountable?

Because Republicans don’t care about laws when breaking them means they win.

There is only one way to hold a president accountable to the law . . . it's called impeachment.  And Republicans in the senate have indicated that they're unwilling to impose consequences when Trump is impeached regardless of the circumstances.

[Roland of Gilead]

I was reading an article today which indicated the ongoing riots might actually drive people to vote for Trump, in some weird thought that he might be more hard handed in a response.  I actually think he makes things worse but it would be a travesty if he gets re-elected essentially because the riots played into his hand.