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

[bacchi]

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.

With the initial round of Floyd protests, most people agreed with BLM.

The polling doesn't show much of an effect from Portland or Kenosha yet but there aren't a lot of good polls for Oregon. The Kenosha protests had widespread support from the major sports leagues and the NBA in particular is more of a Democrat/city sport, which might actually encourage more people to get out and vote.

The latest WI poll still has Biden +9 but it was spread throughout the conventions. Unfortunately, the RNC was taped beforehand so not much was said about the Kenosha shooting and protests; fortunately for the RNC, Wisconsin was featured prominently among the speakers.

[secondcor521]

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?

Since the emoluments clause is a phrase in the Constitution, it's not a law.  The remedy for a violation of that clause (or any other in the Constitution) would be impeachment.  The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives.  So since action on an impeachment for violating the emoluments clause hasn't happened, I'd recommend asking your current representative in that body.

The President is not subject to the Hatch Act.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[Davnasty]

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.

Here here.

Politicians aren't exciting, results are exciting.

[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.

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.

We’re talking statistics here, so ‘independent’ means that a respondent in a poll in 2020 was not influenced by a poll taken in 2016.  While it’s certainly true that nearly every adult in this country is aware of how the election of 2016 played out, the outcome is not what matters here.

Simply put the variance (or margin of error) is overwhelmingly a factor of the sample size and frequency of individual polls.  That’s why individual states have much larger margin of errors than national polls - there are fewer of them and the ones that do exist tend to have much smaller sample sizes.  How the respondents were selected also matters
. 

Note that I’m not saying 2020 polls will necessarily have lower margins of error here. While polling methods continually improve there’s also a push for groups to make and release less accurate but cheaper/faster/splashier polls (e.g. online ‘participation surveys”). And both sides formulate polls with leading questions to emphasize supporting for their platform and try to pawn that off as broad scale support for the candidate. So knowing a bit about their sample sizes and methodology is important.

As for how to judge MOE - davnasty had it right; good polls calculate their variance based on their sample size, the overall population and responses.
Tl;dr - go by the estimates given in each individual poll, not by averaging from 2016 and porting them to today.

[jrhampt]

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.

I don't need an exciting president!  I don't want to be entertained by my government.  But I am very excited to possibly have a competent, boring person back in office.

[nereo]

I'm excited at the prospect of having a competent, centrist-left individual in the executive office.  As I've said before, I very much want boring, predictable governance by our EO. No more tweet-storms, no more "keeping you in suspense", no more ad hoc attacks on allies of off-the-cuff executive decisions.  I deeply want each bureau to be run by competent individuals who have decades of experience in that particular department, rather than 'acting' and un-appointed loyalists who are often hostile to their underlying mission.

Yes, I am excited for a Biden presidency. Because he's promised all of these things while Trump has not, and he has a very long political career of doing exactly that. 

I can quibble with many of his policies but by and large I agree more with him than with Trump.  Ultimately this current administration has highlighted for me that how the executive office is run matters as much as what the individual policies are. Ironically I believe Trump hasn't been able to deliver on many long-standing goals precisely because he has been unable to govern effectively and maintain focus on what is important to him and the GOP.

[LaineyAZ]

caracarn,
I'm sorry you had to go through that online announcement that 15% of your colleagues were suddenly let go.  Glad you got to keep your job but I know how difficult it can be in the aftermath of that.

Question:  since you live in Ohio, and that's such a key state in the election, are you seeing more people thinking of voting for the Democrats given this pandemic and economy?  or are people still sticking with Republicans?

[NorthernBlitz]

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.

I don't need an exciting president!  I don't want to be entertained by my government.  But I am very excited to possibly have a competent, boring person back in office.

But turnout will probably be just north of 50% again. Excitement in this context is obviously about getting people engaged enough to cast a vote. Since the biggest pool of voters that could swing an election is the massive non-voting plurality that's almost 2x the size of people that vote for either party.

A cynic might say that the two party system consistently chooses such terrible candidates to depress turnout from the center of the political distribution. Then they rely on their partisan base to try to carry the elections.

Here's a good podcast about the political duopoly: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

I think this describes how I generally feel about politics (especially in the US with 2 parties). My guess is that lots of people feel this way given the terrible turnout in US elections.

Here's a relevant except of the transcript IMO:

GEHL: So each side of the duopoly — Republicans and Democrats — and the players that are playing for those teams, effectively, have over time worked to improve their own side’s fortunes. But collectively, they also have come together to improve the ability of the industry as a whole to protect itself from new competition, from third parties that could threaten either of the two sides of the duopoly.

PORTER: In this industry — because it’s a duopoly that’s protected by these huge barriers to entry — essentially what the parties have done is they’ve been very, very clever. They don’t compete head-to-head for the same voters. They’re not competing for the middle.

GEHL: It’s likely that we have a much more powerful center, a much more powerful group of moderates, than our current duopoly demonstrates.

PORTER: What they’ve understood is, competing for the middle is a sort of destructive competition. It’s kind of a zero-sum competition. So the parties have divided the voters and kind of, sort of, ignored the ones in the middle. Because they don’t have to worry about them, because if the middle voter is unhappy, which most middle voters are today in America, what can they do?

GEHL: The only thing either party has to do to thrive, to win the next election, is to convince the public that they are just this much less hated than the one other choice that the voter has when they go to the ballot. Which means that that gives those two companies, essentially — the Democrats and the Republicans — the incentive to prioritize other customers.

PORTER: And their target customer, on each side, is the special interests and the partisans. And they get a lot of resources, and a lot of campaign contributions, and massive amounts of lobbying money to try to get their support with whatever those partisan or special-interest needs are.

[jrhampt]

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.

I don't need an exciting president!  I don't want to be entertained by my government.  But I am very excited to possibly have a competent, boring person back in office.

But turnout will probably be just north of 50% again. Excitement in this context is obviously about getting people engaged enough to cast a vote. Since the biggest pool of voters that could swing an election is the massive non-voting plurality that's almost 2x the size of people that vote for either party.

A cynic might say that the two party system consistently chooses such terrible candidates to depress turnout from the center of the political distribution. Then they rely on their partisan base to try to carry the elections.

Here's a good podcast about the political duopoly: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

I think this describes how I generally feel about politics (especially in the US with 2 parties). My guess is that lots of people feel this way given the terrible turnout in US elections.

Here's a relevant except of the transcript IMO:

GEHL: So each side of the duopoly — Republicans and Democrats — and the players that are playing for those teams, effectively, have over time worked to improve their own side’s fortunes. But collectively, they also have come together to improve the ability of the industry as a whole to protect itself from new competition, from third parties that could threaten either of the two sides of the duopoly.

PORTER: In this industry — because it’s a duopoly that’s protected by these huge barriers to entry — essentially what the parties have done is they’ve been very, very clever. They don’t compete head-to-head for the same voters. They’re not competing for the middle.

GEHL: It’s likely that we have a much more powerful center, a much more powerful group of moderates, than our current duopoly demonstrates.

PORTER: What they’ve understood is, competing for the middle is a sort of destructive competition. It’s kind of a zero-sum competition. So the parties have divided the voters and kind of, sort of, ignored the ones in the middle. Because they don’t have to worry about them, because if the middle voter is unhappy, which most middle voters are today in America, what can they do?

GEHL: The only thing either party has to do to thrive, to win the next election, is to convince the public that they are just this much less hated than the one other choice that the voter has when they go to the ballot. Which means that that gives those two companies, essentially — the Democrats and the Republicans — the incentive to prioritize other customers.

PORTER: And their target customer, on each side, is the special interests and the partisans. And they get a lot of resources, and a lot of campaign contributions, and massive amounts of lobbying money to try to get their support with whatever those partisan or special-interest needs are.

I'm not sure how you're getting that politicians are ignoring the middle, when the middle resoundingly chose Biden.  And Biden is not a terrible candidate either, imo, other than being too old, really, but so is Trump.

[nereo]

I don't need an exciting president!  I don't want to be entertained by my government.  But I am very excited to possibly have a competent, boring person back in office.

But turnout will probably be just north of 50% again. Excitement in this context is obviously about getting people engaged enough to cast a vote. Since the biggest pool of voters that could swing an election is the massive non-voting plurality that's almost 2x the size of people that vote for either party.

What makes you think that turnout will be "just north of 50% again"?
The 2018 midterm elections and a number of special elections since have set high marks for voter turnout.

Also, what would you consider "just north of 50%"?  Would 55% be "high" voter turnout in your book?  That would be within 1% of incumbent presidential elections of 2012, 2004 and 1992, and quite a bit higher than in 1996 (49.0%) and 1984 (53.3%)

[NorthernBlitz]

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.

I don't need an exciting president!  I don't want to be entertained by my government.  But I am very excited to possibly have a competent, boring person back in office.

But turnout will probably be just north of 50% again. Excitement in this context is obviously about getting people engaged enough to cast a vote. Since the biggest pool of voters that could swing an election is the massive non-voting plurality that's almost 2x the size of people that vote for either party.

A cynic might say that the two party system consistently chooses such terrible candidates to depress turnout from the center of the political distribution. Then they rely on their partisan base to try to carry the elections.

Here's a good podcast about the political duopoly: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

I think this describes how I generally feel about politics (especially in the US with 2 parties). My guess is that lots of people feel this way given the terrible turnout in US elections.

Here's a relevant except of the transcript IMO:

GEHL: So each side of the duopoly — Republicans and Democrats — and the players that are playing for those teams, effectively, have over time worked to improve their own side’s fortunes. But collectively, they also have come together to improve the ability of the industry as a whole to protect itself from new competition, from third parties that could threaten either of the two sides of the duopoly.

PORTER: In this industry — because it’s a duopoly that’s protected by these huge barriers to entry — essentially what the parties have done is they’ve been very, very clever. They don’t compete head-to-head for the same voters. They’re not competing for the middle.

GEHL: It’s likely that we have a much more powerful center, a much more powerful group of moderates, than our current duopoly demonstrates.

PORTER: What they’ve understood is, competing for the middle is a sort of destructive competition. It’s kind of a zero-sum competition. So the parties have divided the voters and kind of, sort of, ignored the ones in the middle. Because they don’t have to worry about them, because if the middle voter is unhappy, which most middle voters are today in America, what can they do?

GEHL: The only thing either party has to do to thrive, to win the next election, is to convince the public that they are just this much less hated than the one other choice that the voter has when they go to the ballot. Which means that that gives those two companies, essentially — the Democrats and the Republicans — the incentive to prioritize other customers.

PORTER: And their target customer, on each side, is the special interests and the partisans. And they get a lot of resources, and a lot of campaign contributions, and massive amounts of lobbying money to try to get their support with whatever those partisan or special-interest needs are.

I'm not sure how you're getting that politicians are ignoring the middle, when the middle resoundingly chose Biden.  And Biden is not a terrible candidate either, imo, other than being too old, really, but so is Trump.

I think there may be a difference between the middle of the democratic party, and the middle of the country.

I'd also probably push back on resoundingly won. How many states voted for Biden before the establishment told everyone else to fold up shop? I thought that happened before super Tuesday, but maybe I'm misremembering?

And I'm pretty sure that (1) he won 0 states in his first 3 attempts at the nomination and (2) he didn't become a better candidate at 78.

But I'm also OK with other people having different opinions than the ones I have.

[sherr]

I think there may be a difference between the middle of the democratic party, and the middle of the country.

I'd also probably push back on resoundingly won. How many states voted for Biden before the establishment told everyone else to fold up shop? I thought that happened before super Tuesday, but maybe I'm misremembering?

And I'm pretty sure that (1) he won 0 states in his first 3 attempts at the nomination and (2) he didn't become a better candidate at 78.

But I'm also OK with other people having different opinions than the ones I have.

"The establishment" "told" everyone to "fold up shop". Lol. And why would anyone listen?

People dropped out when they no longer had a statistically valid shot at becoming the nominee given their current polling and funding. Because at the end of the day they're still Democrats (well, except for Bernie), and they'd rather work together with other Democrats to defeat Trump than strive on pointlessly, end up further in debt, further divide the party, and end up handing Trump another victory as a result. Also because if they drop out and start helping the nominee they have a better chance at cabinet seats or whatever. See Kamela.

Yes, that always means that the race is pretty much decided before states that come late in the cycle end up voting. No, there's no conspiracy.

[BicycleB]

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.

@caracarn, your webinar day sounds nightmarish. Congrats on surviving for now.

I agree that action is better than worry. Fwiw, will continue posting actions from time to time on the Small Daily Acts of Political Resistance thread, which focuses on such things.

(not my posts below, just the introduction and, as I write, the current post)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/small-daily-acts-of-political-resistance/
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/small-daily-acts-of-political-resistance/msg2689800/#msg2689800

[caracarn]

caracarn,
I'm sorry you had to go through that online announcement that 15% of your colleagues were suddenly let go.  Glad you got to keep your job but I know how difficult it can be in the aftermath of that.

Question:  since you live in Ohio, and that's such a key state in the election, are you seeing more people thinking of voting for the Democrats given this pandemic and economy?  or are people still sticking with Republicans?

So this is hard to determine as you might imagine.

In my personal circle there are several people who did vote for Trump last time who are voting Biden this time, but there are many who voted Trump who still will vote Trump mainly because they think Biden has dementia or because he supports abortion and no amount of discussion seems to get them to consider.  For one who was perhaps swayable, the ongoing violence has her back in the Trump camp.

Expanding the circle to my community, the Trump signs have been up for a while.  Biden signs began to peek out (in a community that I do not recall seeing ANY Clinton signs in 2016), and have been expanding while I have not seen any new Trump signs, so if we want to call that a very unofficial poll, I think Biden support is rising. 

The remaining may be wishful thinking and only the final results will prove it out.  My personal measure has been is Trump doing anything to win new voters and I struggle to believe he is.  I think most people made up their minds weeks if not months ago and are not going to be swayed without something major, which I think has a very low likelihood of happening.  I also feel pollsters learned their lesson in 2016 and will have adjusted their polls for it so I have some comfort with the beyond margin of error leads Biden has in many of the midwest states he needs to take back to secure this.  I never consider anything a done deal (again 2016 lesson learned) and also feel that the electorate working for Biden understand that.  I see a lot of anger for Trump's actions or lack of action, but also see a lot of laissez-faire on the part of supporters, though again, I do not think he had gained share.  He did win Ohio with a healthy margin in 2016, so has he lost enough people yet, that I do not know.  I am heartened by many of the Biden signs being in the yards of elderly voters, the ones typically who would do Republican in this area, so I am hopeful that means they are fed up.  The weariness with the last 4 years is certainly present in our area.

So I am cautiously optimistic and I think as things continue to fall apart, as they likely will with not actual actions being taken by Trump.  The renewal of pressure to reopen versus creating the environment when we could reopen will not draw in voters that would not already be in his camp or leaning heavily that way.  I believe most people see it as short sighted and understand that at this time the failure of those plans, like trying to get the Big Ten to play, would not be seen until after the election when all the kids are getting sick and the protesters pressing for it will be in the minority as they have been.  I think nothing will happen until after the debates begin at the end of the month.  Our in-person early voting opens up in the first week in October.  That is how my wife and I will vote.  I believe if Biden does well in the debate (and my personal feeling is he will as he is working a solid, righteous indignation strategy versus getting into the mud with Trump that has failed for so many others), I will look for the yard sign meter. 

[NorthernBlitz]

caracarn,
I'm sorry you had to go through that online announcement that 15% of your colleagues were suddenly let go.  Glad you got to keep your job but I know how difficult it can be in the aftermath of that.

Question:  since you live in Ohio, and that's such a key state in the election, are you seeing more people thinking of voting for the Democrats given this pandemic and economy?  or are people still sticking with Republicans?

So this is hard to determine as you might imagine.

In my personal circle there are several people who did vote for Trump last time who are voting Biden this time, but there are many who voted Trump who still will vote Trump mainly because they think Biden has dementia or because he supports abortion and no amount of discussion seems to get them to consider.  For one who was perhaps swayable, the ongoing violence has her back in the Trump camp.

Expanding the circle to my community, the Trump signs have been up for a while.  Biden signs began to peek out (in a community that I do not recall seeing ANY Clinton signs in 2016), and have been expanding while I have not seen any new Trump signs, so if we want to call that a very unofficial poll, I think Biden support is rising. 

The remaining may be wishful thinking and only the final results will prove it out.  My personal measure has been is Trump doing anything to win new voters and I struggle to believe he is.  I think most people made up their minds weeks if not months ago and are not going to be swayed without something major, which I think has a very low likelihood of happening.  I also feel pollsters learned their lesson in 2016 and will have adjusted their polls for it so I have some comfort with the beyond margin of error leads Biden has in many of the midwest states he needs to take back to secure this.  I never consider anything a done deal (again 2016 lesson learned) and also feel that the electorate working for Biden understand that.  I see a lot of anger for Trump's actions or lack of action, but also see a lot of laissez-faire on the part of supporters, though again, I do not think he had gained share.  He did win Ohio with a healthy margin in 2016, so has he lost enough people yet, that I do not know.  I am heartened by many of the Biden signs being in the yards of elderly voters, the ones typically who would do Republican in this area, so I am hopeful that means they are fed up.  The weariness with the last 4 years is certainly present in our area.

So I am cautiously optimistic and I think as things continue to fall apart, as they likely will with not actual actions being taken by Trump.  The renewal of pressure to reopen versus creating the environment when we could reopen will not draw in voters that would not already be in his camp or leaning heavily that way.  I believe most people see it as short sighted and understand that at this time the failure of those plans, like trying to get the Big Ten to play, would not be seen until after the election when all the kids are getting sick and the protesters pressing for it will be in the minority as they have been.  I think nothing will happen until after the debates begin at the end of the month.  Our in-person early voting opens up in the first week in October.  That is how my wife and I will vote.  I believe if Biden does well in the debate (and my personal feeling is he will as he is working a solid, righteous indignation strategy versus getting into the mud with Trump that has failed for so many others), I will look for the yard sign meter.

FWIW, here is what Fivethirtyeight is saying re: polling in Ohio.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/ohio/

Aug. 5:  Biden +2 (Zogby C+)
Aug. 21: Even (Civiqs B/C)
Aug. 24: Biden +1 (Target Smart B/C)
Sept. 1: Trump +5 (Morning Consult B/C)
Sept. 1: Trump +4 (Morning Consult B/C)

In their latest podcast, they talked about it not being clear if the increase for Trump seen generally (and in this poll) was due to something like a convention bouncy (which they had previously predicted would be small because of viewership / energy around on-line conventions) or something like support for law and order (which they also seemed to reject as a reason without more polling / data).

It seems to me like interpreting polls is kind of like interpreting the market. You see a result, and they whatever your personal bias is kicks in with some reasoning you can live with.

That website is pretty helpful in that you can filter by state if you want latest polls. But anecdotal evidence from people like caracarn is interesting too IMO.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It actually turns out that no one is going to win the 2020 Election - I now predict that Democracy will be killed by Trump.  For any other President, he would lose the popular vote convincingly, and also lose the electoral college, and that would be it.  But in the run-up to November, even Trump's cronies (e.g. William Barr) are willing to throw democracy under the bus in order to stay in power.

If there was any question before about whether William Barr could be willing to use his power as attorney general to tilt the scales in the upcoming presidential election, there shouldn't be anymore. Barr appeared to confirm as much in his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN Wednesday: that he would be willing to breach longstanding Justice Department norms -- that is, the unwritten "60-day rule" -- to advantage the re-election campaign of President Donald Trump.

Congrats Trump, in just 4 short years, you have managed to bankrupt, disease, re-segregate, and destroy the glorious foundations of a country that took over 200 years to build and steadily improve...  Nobody is winning in 2020, and the United States will limp away from all of this mortally wounded.

[brandon1827]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

The only thing surprising about it is how the rest of the Republican Party crumbled like a house of cards.  I really thought there would be more resistance than just McCain and Romney.  Talk about a weak and flabby ruling 'elite'.

[caracarn]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

The only thing surprising about it is how the rest of the Republican Party crumbled like a house of cards.  I really thought there would be more resistance than just McCain and Romney.  Talk about a weak and flabby ruling 'elite'.

What is surprising about it?  Very few people at this point in office are doing it as a public service.  It is something they use to gain recognition, like Trump, and therefore their main goal is staying electable.  When people like Flake and others who did stand up to him then had voters turn on them, the others ran scared into corners and did what was needed to keep their jobs.  It's pathetic and wrong and if the voters want to fix it they need to vote these people out.  I know that is my plan.  All our Republican Senators and Reps that I can vote for that stayed behind the president, will not get my vote.  I hear a good amount of people that feel the same way.  That may mean voting them out in a primary to get a replacement Republican or it may be voting them out with a Democrat in the general, but that is what I feel needs to happen.  The "damage" done by Democrats holding majorities for a few years will be far less than continuing with what we have.

[GuitarStv]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

The only thing surprising about it is how the rest of the Republican Party crumbled like a house of cards.  I really thought there would be more resistance than just McCain and Romney.  Talk about a weak and flabby ruling 'elite'.

People keep saying this, and it's not true at all.

Trump is the embodiment of everything the Republican party stands for.  He was born rich, and thus is better than the poors.  He is a (failed) businessman.  He is openly racist.  He hates muslims and gays and pays lip services to Christianity (without any visible indication that he understand the message or teachings of the religion).  He isn't a fan of science - and thinks his gut feeling is always smarter than some eggheads.  He hates any kind of regulation (environmental/health/anti-trust) that might even slightly interfere with him personally making money.  He is great at cheating to win and is willing to do anything or make any deal (legal or not) to make it happen.

The Republican party didn't crumble . . . or at least nothing about the core of the party has changed - it's only the thin facade of pretend reasonableness/respectability that they had been holding up that is crumbled away.  You're now seeing the true heart of the party in all it's glory.  And according to polls 40% of America fucking loves what's happening!

[talltexan]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

The only thing surprising about it is how the rest of the Republican Party crumbled like a house of cards.  I really thought there would be more resistance than just McCain and Romney.  Talk about a weak and flabby ruling 'elite'.

What is surprising about it?  Very few people at this point in office are doing it as a public service.  It is something they use to gain recognition, like Trump, and therefore their main goal is staying electable.  When people like Flake and others who did stand up to him then had voters turn on them, the others ran scared into corners and did what was needed to keep their jobs.  It's pathetic and wrong and if the voters want to fix it they need to vote these people out.  I know that is my plan.  All our Republican Senators and Reps that I can vote for that stayed behind the president, will not get my vote.  I hear a good amount of people that feel the same way.  That may mean voting them out in a primary to get a replacement Republican or it may be voting them out with a Democrat in the general, but that is what I feel needs to happen.  The "damage" done by Democrats holding majorities for a few years will be far less than continuing with what we have.

@caracarn , you talk about voting out Republicans who support Trump in primaries. Have you followed any Republican primaries lately? Every one of them is basically a contest for candidates to prove they can cling to Trump tightly, and that they were on board with Trump earlier than the others. No "replacement Republican" will be available for a general election.

[caracarn]

That's sort of Trump's thing isn't it? Taking something good and completely running it into the ground? I guess when it's casinos or other businesses it's no big deal, and now that he's done exactly the same thing to the United States...I guess it should be surprising, but unfortunately it isn't. He's always been a grifter, who hasn't worked for a single damn thing in his entire life, who has moved from failure to failure until he found himself President of the United States through a long running con of the American people.

The only thing surprising about it is how the rest of the Republican Party crumbled like a house of cards.  I really thought there would be more resistance than just McCain and Romney.  Talk about a weak and flabby ruling 'elite'.

What is surprising about it?  Very few people at this point in office are doing it as a public service.  It is something they use to gain recognition, like Trump, and therefore their main goal is staying electable.  When people like Flake and others who did stand up to him then had voters turn on them, the others ran scared into corners and did what was needed to keep their jobs.  It's pathetic and wrong and if the voters want to fix it they need to vote these people out.  I know that is my plan.  All our Republican Senators and Reps that I can vote for that stayed behind the president, will not get my vote.  I hear a good amount of people that feel the same way.  That may mean voting them out in a primary to get a replacement Republican or it may be voting them out with a Democrat in the general, but that is what I feel needs to happen.  The "damage" done by Democrats holding majorities for a few years will be far less than continuing with what we have.

@caracarn , you talk about voting out Republicans who support Trump in primaries. Have you followed any Republican primaries lately? Every one of them is basically a contest for candidates to prove they can cling to Trump tightly, and that they were on board with Trump earlier than the others. No "replacement Republican" will be available for a general election.

I have and you are correct, thus far.  That does not mean that will not occur in the future, and if I go back to voting for any Republicans it would be with that in mind.

[Kyle Schuant]

"For all his abrasiveness, Trump cuts through because he speaks a truth — many well-off left-progressives such as Pelosi do not live the way they demand that others live. The story is familiar in Australia."



That's why he'll win again.



https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/truth-unmasked-no-were-not-all-in-this-together/news-story/15917fcb2b892e88a97250fafdb24703

[BicycleB]

"For all his abrasiveness, Trump cuts through because he speaks a truth — many well-off left-progressives such as Pelosi do not live the way they demand that others live. The story is familiar in Australia."



That's why he'll win again.



https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/truth-unmasked-no-were-not-all-in-this-together/news-story/15917fcb2b892e88a97250fafdb24703

Evidently we're not all in this together - the link only displays a signup ad if you're not already a subscriber. Some cheeky capitalist wants to charge me money to hear complaints about how the cheeky politicians will take my money!

[Bateaux]

Looking back I'm ok with the Clinton loss.  We only had two years of Trump with a Republican House and Senate.  There was enough distention in the House where Trump didn't get everything he asked for.  Then 2018, the Democrats took back the House.  That ended anything too crazy getting through.  Had Clinton won,   the Republicans would have taken back the House most likely.  Clinton possibly would have been impeached for emails or some crap and possibly removed.  The 2020 election would be completely different.  Trump could run again on his same platform without all the baggage of the last 4 years.  Clinton would be completely blamed for the epidemic.  Republicans would be wearing multiple layers of masks to protect themselves from the Hillary-Virus.  Trump would win with the popular vote and 300 plus EC votes.  The Senate and House would go to the Republicans.  They would kill everything.  Social Security, Obamacare, OSHA, clean water, public lands, etc.  There would be an outright rape of what we knew as America. 
Instead Joe Biden has a great chance of winning.  The House will likely gain Democratic seats and the Senate is going to be really close.  Like 50/50 close with Harris the possible tie breaker.  It's been a rough four years, but the damages aren't nearly as bad as they could be.  This is recoverable.

[nereo]

Looking back I'm ok with the Clinton loss.  We only had two years of Trump with a Republican House and Senate.  There was enough distention in the House where Trump didn't get everything he asked for.  Then 2018, the Democrats took back the House.  That ended anything too crazy getting through.  Had Clinton won,   the Republicans would have taken back the House most likely.  Clinton possibly would have been impeached for emails or some crap and possibly removed.  The 2020 election would be completely different.  Trump could run again on his same platform without all the baggage of the last 4 years.  Clinton would be completely blamed for the epidemic.  Republicans would be wearing multiple layers of masks to protect themselves from the Hillary-Virus.  Trump would win with the popular vote and 300 plus EC votes.  The Senate and House would go to the Republicans.  They would kill everything.  Social Security, Obamacare, OSHA, clean water, public lands, etc.  There would be an outright rape of what we knew as America. 
Instead Joe Biden has a great chance of winning.  The House will likely gain Democratic seats and the Senate is going to be really close.  Like 50/50 close with Harris the possible tie breaker.  It's been a rough four years, but the damages aren't nearly as bad as they could be.  This is recoverable.

That's a whole lot of hypotheticals... 

OR...
Under HRC Garland would have been re-nominated to SCOTUS, and after dragging his feet for a full year and getting slowly hammered for the 'do-nothing' approach he ultimately got confirmed.  The GOP blocked all real legislation which only cemented their legacy of "do nothing" congress, and paid the price for it in 2018, losing their house majority.
Meanwhile... HRC acted more like Merkel or Ardern when the virus became apparent.  The Right became screaming mad at the rapid lockdown but after watching China than Italy than Spain and the UK fall apart her 'rally-behind-the-flag' boost was strong and persisted into 2020.

DJT of course continued his twitter-rages but the overwhelming majority of republicans viewed him as a rich loser who COULDN'T EVEN BEAT HILLARY! HILLARY!!!!! They blame HIM for the loss and he was largely tossed out of the party.

I mean... either is plausible.

[Bateaux]

That could have been how it happened.  Fun to imagine an alternative to the last 4 year's shit show.

[BicycleB]

^ William Gibson's "Agency" is my favorite novel on the what-if-Hillary topic (though it covers more than that). Fun reading for the moments when one isn't influencing a competitive control area.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Ugh, after my vacation away from the civilized world this weekend - we drove off of the beaten path and there are a whole lot of Trump 2020 flags, banners, and yard signs out there in the beck and beyond.  I don't get it.  Obviously, they are (still) isolated from Corona and self sufficient, but is just being entertained and pandered to enough?  Do they not see that Trump is lying to them aggressively?

Sadly, I'm sure they'd be hella' fun people to hang out with (southerners are just fun in general, as long as you come at them from the right angle).  If I had more time and guts, I'd ditch my day job and become an anthropologist of all of this - we may be witnessing the 'big jump' for America.  No matter what happens (and I'm sure it will be unexpected), the world, as us Americans know it, is about to leave its past behind...  I have no idea what is on the other side.  Might be like the UK after Princess Diana died, a sad version of what it had been but still limping along...  Or it might be like after Boris took over the Brexit deal - totally f'ed but rich enough to see one more day...

Sorry, not very optimistic about America's chances.

[Abe]

Newest polling results, courtesy FiveThirtyEight:

There were a slew of polls in Florida over the last 3 weeks, with over 10,000 people polled. These collectively showed Biden and Trump very close (48 vs 46%) and well within the error of individual polls.

Michigan, PA, WI and AZ are strongly leaning towards Biden, with 4-8% leads on average. He needs 3 of 4 to win if Florida goes to Trump, or only one if Florida goes to him.

Ohio, NC, and Texas are all tossups. If Biden wins TX (personally I think a longshot, regardless of the polls), he will almost certainly win the nomination.

As expected, the race is tightening up! Kind of sad but not surprising.

[Bateaux]

Newest polling results, courtesy FiveThirtyEight:

There were a slew of polls in Florida over the last 3 weeks, with over 10,000 people polled. These collectively showed Biden and Trump very close (48 vs 46%) and well within the error of individual polls.

Michigan, PA, WI and AZ are strongly leaning towards Biden, with 4-8% leads on average. He needs 3 of 4 to win if Florida goes to Trump, or only one if Florida goes to him.

Ohio, NC, and Texas are all tossups. If Biden wins TX (personally I think a longshot, regardless of the polls), he will almost certainly win the nomination.

As expected, the race is tightening up! Kind of sad but not surprising.

Trump will not lose one vote in Florida.  The hispanic population of Cuba origin vote Republican.  The old white people vote Republican.  The Florida crackers vote Republican.  Florida will eventually go permanently blue, but still leans red.

[Fireball]

Newest polling results, courtesy FiveThirtyEight:

There were a slew of polls in Florida over the last 3 weeks, with over 10,000 people polled. These collectively showed Biden and Trump very close (48 vs 46%) and well within the error of individual polls.

Michigan, PA, WI and AZ are strongly leaning towards Biden, with 4-8% leads on average. He needs 3 of 4 to win if Florida goes to Trump, or only one if Florida goes to him.

Ohio, NC, and Texas are all tossups. If Biden wins TX (personally I think a longshot, regardless of the polls), he will almost certainly win the nomination.

As expected, the race is tightening up! Kind of sad but not surprising.

Throw GA into that toss up mix, but I have a hard time believing that it will go for Biden.  Same with TX or OH. Still a ways to go though.   

[nereo]

Newest polling results, courtesy FiveThirtyEight:

There were a slew of polls in Florida over the last 3 weeks, with over 10,000 people polled. These collectively showed Biden and Trump very close (48 vs 46%) and well within the error of individual polls.

Michigan, PA, WI and AZ are strongly leaning towards Biden, with 4-8% leads on average. He needs 3 of 4 to win if Florida goes to Trump, or only one if Florida goes to him.

Ohio, NC, and Texas are all tossups. If Biden wins TX (personally I think a longshot, regardless of the polls), he will almost certainly win the nomination.

As expected, the race is tightening up! Kind of sad but not surprising.

Trump will not lose one vote in Florida.  The hispanic population of Cuba origin vote Republican.  The old white people vote Republican.  The Florida crackers vote Republican.  Florida will eventually go permanently blue, but still leans red.

The Cubanos may lean strongly Republican, but the Puerto Ricans are much more likely to vote  Democrat.  And thanks to Hurricane Maria and its aftermath, more than 300k have left the island and resettled in the US, with the largest percentage in Florida.

Even factoring in a low voter participation rate, there will likely be tens-of-thousands more Puerto Ricans voting in Florida in 2020 than there were in 2016.

[bacchi]

Newest polling results, courtesy FiveThirtyEight:

There were a slew of polls in Florida over the last 3 weeks, with over 10,000 people polled. These collectively showed Biden and Trump very close (48 vs 46%) and well within the error of individual polls.

Michigan, PA, WI and AZ are strongly leaning towards Biden, with 4-8% leads on average. He needs 3 of 4 to win if Florida goes to Trump, or only one if Florida goes to him.

Ohio, NC, and Texas are all tossups. If Biden wins TX (personally I think a longshot, regardless of the polls), he will almost certainly win the nomination.

As expected, the race is tightening up! Kind of sad but not surprising.

Throw GA into that toss up mix, but I have a hard time believing that it will go for Biden.  Same with TX or OH. Still a ways to go though.

North Carolina too.

Biden could get +7% in the national vote but still lose in the electoral college. California*, for example, could be more lopsided than it usually is.




* As an aside, it's amusing and a little sad when alt-right "celebrities" see some Trump signs in California and think he has a good chance of winning that state.

[Kris]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

[GuitarStv]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

[nereo]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Now you are thinking like a Trump voter!
Only Trump can stop the rioting that started when Trump was president.

[Abe]

Polls show Biden consistently ahead in MN greater than the margin of error of polls, though Democrat strength is weaker than prior elections as rural areas consistently blame them for long-standing trends in the decline of extractive industry in rural areas. The green energy platform is an easy punching bag. I think he’ll win it in this election. Upcoming ones are less clear. If they can turn around these areas with jobs from a government economic plan, then the decline may reverse. Otherwise, social issues will predominate.

I’m not sure how long people will remember the protests from early summer.

[Kris]

Polls show Biden consistently ahead in MN greater than the margin of error of polls, though Democrat strength is weaker than prior elections as rural areas consistently blame them for long-standing trends in the decline of extractive industry in rural areas. The green energy platform is an easy punching bag. I think he’ll win it in this election. Upcoming ones are less clear. If they can turn around these areas with jobs from a government economic plan, then the decline may reverse. Otherwise, social issues will predominate.

I’m not sure how long people will remember the protests from early summer.

In Minnesota, rural conservative folks are convinced the riots are still happening in Minneapolis.

[wenchsenior]

If MN is in play THIS election when it really wasn't during the last election, then I predict Biden is fucked.  I have trouble believing that it is, but then I can't believe most things going on in this country anymore, so...

[Kris]

If MN is in play THIS election when it really wasn't during the last election, then I predict Biden is fucked.  I have trouble believing that it is, but then I can't believe most things going on in this country anymore, so...

Trump has wanted this win in MN for a while. He and his minions have been here a bunch, and I suspect the Biden campaign and the DNC assume it’s a blue state and haven’t given it as much attention. I’ve been upset about that for a while now but I guess my attempts to communicate this to their people have been ignored.

[NorthernBlitz]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

Or maybe people in Minnesota should vote Biden for president, but elect republicans for Governor and Mayor?

[MaybeBabyMustache]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

[Kris]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Agreed. The two choices are akin to a palatable entree with not quite enough salt, and a literal shit sandwich.

[wenchsenior]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Agreed. The two choices are akin to a palatable entree with not quite enough salt, and a literal shit sandwich.

Agree. And I say this as someone who does not like a lot of things about Democratic Party and has never identified as a member of that party (i.e., I think the Dems kind of suck).  But the GOP is so absolutely despicable on almost every single conceivable position, there is no useful comparability. 

[NorthernBlitz]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Really? Something like 45% of the electorate will decide that it's not worth voting this time around. Maybe 40% if it's a super high turnout.

Of the 55% - 60% of people that do vote, about half of them will pick the party that you don't like (I'm guess it will be under half because I think Biden wins with a split within 55/45).

Let's say that turnout is 60% and 55% of the vote goes to Biden. I think that these are reasonable high water values, but you're free to put in other numbers if you think they're better.

In that case: 40% of people don't vote, 33% of people vote D, and 27% of people vote R*.

If it blows your mind that something like 60 - 70% of the electorate could reasonably think differently than you do about the presidency, I'd probably argue that the problem might be that you're the one who's not looking at the situation in an "intellectually honest" manner.

* I'd love to see turnout > 66% so that the winner of the election beat out the "not worth voting" faction. But my guess is that doesn't happen without mandatory voting or a significant change in party strategies.

[MaybeBabyMustache]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Really? Something like 45% of the electorate will decide that it's not worth voting this time around. Maybe 40% if it's a super high turnout.

Of the 55% - 60% of people that do vote, about half of them will pick the party that you don't like (I'm guess it will be under half because I think Biden wins with a split within 55/45).

Let's say that turnout is 60% and 55% of the vote goes to Biden. I think that these are reasonable high water values, but you're free to put in other numbers if you think they're better.

In that case: 40% of people don't vote, 33% of people vote D, and 27% of people vote R*.

If it blows your mind that something like 60 - 70% of the electorate could reasonably think differently than you do about the presidency, I'd probably argue that the problem might be that you're the one who's not looking at the situation in an "intellectually honest" manner.

* I'd love to see turnout > 66% so that the winner of the election beat out the "not worth voting" faction. But my guess is that doesn't happen without mandatory voting or a significant change in party strategies.

We can disagree on tax policy, health care coverage, abortion, etc. I'm fine with reasonable & educated people have differing perspectives & mine is certainly not *right*. However, the two parties are wildly different with what they stand for. If people don't see that, I'm saddened.

Off the top of my head differences:
-Immigration
-Health care
-Diversity
-Civility of debate & discussion (referring to the current president, not the entire party)

[BicycleB]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Really? Something like 45% of the electorate will decide that it's not worth voting this time around. Maybe 40% if it's a super high turnout.

Of the 55% - 60% of people that do vote, about half of them will pick the party that you don't like (I'm guess it will be under half because I think Biden wins with a split within 55/45).

Let's say that turnout is 60% and 55% of the vote goes to Biden. I think that these are reasonable high water values, but you're free to put in other numbers if you think they're better.

In that case: 40% of people don't vote, 33% of people vote D, and 27% of people vote R*.

If it blows your mind that something like 60 - 70% of the electorate could reasonably think differently than you do about the presidency, I'd probably argue that the problem might be that you're the one who's not looking at the situation in an "intellectually honest" manner.

* I'd love to see turnout > 66% so that the winner of the election beat out the "not worth voting" faction. But my guess is that doesn't happen without mandatory voting or a significant change in party strategies.

We can disagree on tax policy, health care coverage, abortion, etc. I'm fine with reasonable & educated people have differing perspectives & mine is certainly not *right*. However, the two parties are wildly different with what they stand for. If people don't see that, I'm saddened.

Off the top of my head differences:
-Immigration
-Health care
-Diversity
-Civility of debate & discussion (referring to the current president, not the entire party)

Yes, it's saddening. Yet the "both parties are about the same" argument has some good reasons behind it if you feel that the parties should represent the people. Lobbyists for industry are incredibly effective, for example, to the extent that it's unreasonable to charge only one party as being sold out to industry rather than the people.

Here are two of the first links I found from the search "what percent of the time does congress vote with lobbyists vs the people"
https://represent.us/action/5-facts-lobbyists/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/193484/americans-major-donors-sway-congress-constituents.aspx

The majority of Americans say Congress represents lobbyists, not them. THAT's a majority position!

I previously read that in over 98% of cases where industry opposes the majority position during the past 40 years, Congress voted with industry. I will concede that there still differences between parties, and for that reason would favor one candidate even if the other weren't on track to break the system perhaps irreparably, but it's reasonable to hold that the differences pale in comparison to the similarities.

[Roland of Gilead]

Agreed. The two choices are akin to a palatable entree with not quite enough salt, and a literal shit sandwich.

Biden is more like eating a dry raman packet....still, better than a shit sandwich, agreed.

[nereo]

Minnesota is actually in play this year.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/09/npr-trumps-rural-support-puts-democratic-bulwark-minnesota-in-play?fbclid=IwAR1D7LJYwU12UPEdJjqGQ4KzxqG7ai9_YuEtJQYvd6I2ToFT6wOr8KYrMwg

Lots and lots of rural Minnesotans who actually believe that "Minneapolis is burning down" in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder are gonna vote for Trump. At least in this state, it's very possible the riots will help the conservatives.

When you see race riots, violent protesting, and looting it's very important to vote for more of the same if you want things to change.

Do you mean at the federal, state, or local level here?

I think both political parties are currently making your argument to try to support their claim that the other team is the greater evil.

Sadly, there are only 2 real choices. They both suck and people are left splitting hairs over which sucks more.

My mind is blown that there are people out there who believe both parties "suck" and people are splitting hairs over "which sucks more". I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I don't understand how anyone with any intellectual honesty could think the two parties are the same.

Really? Something like 45% of the electorate will decide that it's not worth voting this time around. Maybe 40% if it's a super high turnout.

Of the 55% - 60% of people that do vote, about half of them will pick the party that you don't like (I'm guess it will be under half because I think Biden wins with a split within 55/45).

Let's say that turnout is 60% and 55% of the vote goes to Biden. I think that these are reasonable high water values, but you're free to put in other numbers if you think they're better.

In that case: 40% of people don't vote, 33% of people vote D, and 27% of people vote R*.

If it blows your mind that something like 60 - 70% of the electorate could reasonably think differently than you do about the presidency, I'd probably argue that the problem might be that you're the one who's not looking at the situation in an "intellectually honest" manner.

* I'd love to see turnout > 66% so that the winner of the election beat out the "not worth voting" faction. But my guess is that doesn't happen without mandatory voting or a significant change in party strategies.

None of this supports your argument that there are two near-equally poor choices.

People don’t vote for all different reasons, but surveys have shown that the biggest ones have nothing to do with the candidates themselves.  For example, a leading reason people give for not voting is they feel that in their state the result is a foregone conclusion. And of course that conclusion is logical - in >30 states the margin of victory will be so large for one candidate or another that even several hundred thousand more supporters won’t make much of a difference.  Critically, this doesn’t mean that those who did not vote feel both candidates are poor choices. 

You’ve been banging the drum about Biden being a poor candidate for months now, even going so far as to make bold claims that “No one is excited about Biden” and “people don’t support Biden” they are just reacting against Trump. Neither is true.  Nor is this insinuation that a voter turnout in the high 50s signals that both candidates are poor choices.