Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Election 2020
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(09-05-2020, 08:21 AM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]Actually over the last few days, I really do think that Trump is going to lose this fight to Joe Biden. If it is true what he said about the military dead and veterans is true, Trump is pretty much finished to a blue landslide as not even the hard core right wingers CNA tolerate that. Plus he continues to bury himself with the postal vote scandal.

However, there is only two ways that Trump can still pull this off. First is the debates. Biden has to show up to all three debates and show he is leadership material. If he backs down, sends in Kamala or performs poorly, Trump can come out of this looking strong.

Second is BLM/ANTIFA. I'm reading more reports of killings performed by these groups. America just had the Kyle Rittenhouse saga. If anything major blows up and it really does show they have created an atrocity of some kind, the Dems better take a huge harsh stand on it, otherwise Trump will capitalise.

Otherwise, I think Trump is toast. Even I am starting to go off him as the whole veteran thing and postal voting is a step too far for even me.

Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could careless if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.
(09-09-2020, 08:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could careless if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.

On Earth One it is Trump who has so many tell all books, whistleblower complaints and magazine articles to defend against so quick that I can't see how there could be possibly be anything left for an October surprise.  If the Democrats have a problem it is that there are so many Republican and deep state blockbusters coming out this early that any given blockbuster is being crowded out.  Biden has only to say how reprehensible each one is and sound presidential.  Meanwhile, the alternation between fake news and hoax defenses are getting stale.

I tend to agree that it is the strength and commitment of the bases that are important.  It would depend on how much the Republican base is listening to all of the blockbusters.
(09-09-2020, 08:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-05-2020, 08:21 AM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]Actually over the last few days, I really do think that Trump is going to lose this fight to Joe Biden. If it is true what he said about the military dead and veterans is true, Trump is pretty much finished to a blue landslide as not even the hard core right wingers CNA tolerate that. Plus he continues to bury himself with the postal vote scandal.

However, there is only two ways that Trump can still pull this off. First is the debates. Biden has to show up to all three debates and show he is leadership material. If he backs down, sends in Kamala or performs poorly, Trump can come out of this looking strong.

Second is BLM/ANTIFA. I'm reading more reports of killings performed by these groups. America just had the Kyle Rittenhouse saga. If anything major blows up and it really does show they have created an atrocity of some kind, the Dems better take a huge harsh stand on it, otherwise Trump will capitalise.

Otherwise, I think Trump is toast. Even I am starting to go off him as the whole veteran thing and postal voting is a step too far for even me.

Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could care less if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.

Dude, Isoko is right and you are wrong. Donald Trump has come to differ from the late Salvador Allende only in not supporting radical reforms against the economic elites. He insults the Armed Services with derogatory words. In the past these people have fought enemies who have even sought to destroy our political heritage. OK, Trump disparages much of our heritage... and he offers nothing in return. 

Saying that Joe Biden must show up to the debates to win is about like saying that if there were a chess match between you and Garry Kasparov that if Kasparov failed to turn up, then you would win. That is the most basic rule; one must show up to the match to have a chance. (Of course you are in no position to get a match against Kasparov, so that is an extreme hypothetical).  Until it happens I cannot predict how the debate will go. 

I have some misgivings about Joe Biden being as old as he is. Anyone his age, even if being one of the most athletic people around at age 78, is at significant risk of senile dementia. There is the precedent of Ronald Reagan, and people around him handled it well by reducing Reagan's role to ceremony while doing what most people expected Reagan to do if he were a competent administrator. Joe Biden is not too bad yet, and one of two things is likely should he find himself in the event that he is no longer up to the job. One is that he will resign for reasons of health; the other is that he will be treated like Reagan. It is unfortunate that Donald Trump, who shows signs of dementia, could never let someone else challenge his desire for despotic power.  

As for elites -- our economic elites are obnoxious, rapacious, and ruthless. The only ones with the ability to challenge them are the cultural elites as in Hollywood, New York, and perhaps Nashville. I don't see the military staging a coup. If Trump tries to stay in power while he claims to have been cheated in the election, then the military will not back him. YouTube video:





My comment on YouTube as a response:



Quote:This is exactly what I would have expected from extreme leftists back in the 1960's, defeatists who would have cheered the advance of the Soviet Army into their American town at the time. I would be wrong. This is Donald Trump. I have long thought myself a liberal Democrat, but now I feel compelled to talk about Donald Trump as if I were the conservative and he were the extreme-left defeatist. Damn, this electoral season is weird!

I can imagine ways in which he could be induced to leave without being killed or dragged out. One is that the staff no longer prepares food for him and the only beverage available is what Joe Biden asks for... and the media don't bring cameras and microphones to 'cover' him.   

This said, he is the first President who faces criminal charges. If his response to COVID-19 (which without bias toward any ethnic or religious groups might constitute negligent homicide) has any apparent connection to ethnic or religious bias, then he might be hauled off to the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity. The NAACP already makes the suggestion that COVID-19 has hit blacks harder than whites even if the assumption that I make in a rural area that the most vulnerable people are those fools who refuse to wear masks and congregate recklessly bringing it upon themselves. 

This Presidency is falling apart. All that is remarkable is that it took so long. He has his fanatical supporters who will believe in him to the end, people who will believe that he was cheated when he loses. And, yes, he is going to lose.
(09-09-2020, 10:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2020, 08:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could careless if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.

On Earth One it is Trump who has so many tell all books, whistleblower complaints and magazine articles to defend against so quick that I can't see how there could be possibly be anything left for an October surprise.  If the Democrats have a problem it is that there are so many Republican and deep state blockbusters coming out this early that any given blockbuster is being crowded out.  Biden has only to say how reprehensible each one is and sound presidential.  Meanwhile, the alternation between fake news and hoax defenses are getting stale.

I tend to agree that it is the strength and commitment of the bases that are important.  It would depend on how much the Republican base is listening to all of the blockbusters.
Well, when Earth 2 has Earth 1 on ignore it's pretty much pointless.
(09-10-2020, 12:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2020, 08:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-05-2020, 08:21 AM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]Actually over the last few days, I really do think that Trump is going to lose this fight to Joe Biden. If it is true what he said about the military dead and veterans is true, Trump is pretty much finished to a blue landslide as not even the hard core right wingers CNA tolerate that. Plus he continues to bury himself with the postal vote scandal.

However, there is only two ways that Trump can still pull this off. First is the debates. Biden has to show up to all three debates and show he is leadership material. If he backs down, sends in Kamala or performs poorly, Trump can come out of this looking strong.

Second is BLM/ANTIFA. I'm reading more reports of killings performed by these groups. America just had the Kyle Rittenhouse saga. If anything major blows up and it really does show they have created an atrocity of some kind, the Dems better take a huge harsh stand on it, otherwise Trump will capitalise.

Otherwise, I think Trump is toast. Even I am starting to go off him as the whole veteran thing and postal voting is a step too far for even me.

Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could care less if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.

Dude, Isoko is right and you are wrong. Donald Trump has come to differ from the late Salvador Allende only in not supporting radical reforms against the economic elites. He insults the Armed Services with derogatory words. In the past these people have fought enemies who have even sought to destroy our political heritage. OK, Trump disparages much of our heritage... and he offers nothing in return. 

Saying that Joe Biden must show up to the debates to win is about like saying that if there were a chess match between you and Garry Kasparov that if Kasparov failed to turn up, then you would win. That is the most basic rule; one must show up to the match to have a chance. (Of course you are in no position to get a match against Kasparov, so that is an extreme hypothetical).  Until it happens I cannot predict how the debate will go. 

I have some misgivings about Joe Biden being as old as he is. Anyone his age, even if being one of the most athletic people around at age 78, is at significant risk of senile dementia. There is the precedent of Ronald Reagan, and people around him handled it well by reducing Reagan's role to ceremony while doing what most people expected Reagan to do if he were a competent administrator. Joe Biden is not too bad yet, and one of two things is likely should he find himself in the event that he is no longer up to the job. One is that he will resign for reasons of health; the other is that he will be treated like Reagan. It is unfortunate that Donald Trump, who shows signs of dementia, could never let someone else challenge his desire for despotic power.  

As for elites -- our economic elites are obnoxious, rapacious, and ruthless. The only ones with the ability to challenge them are the cultural elites as in Hollywood, New York, and perhaps Nashville. I don't see the military staging a coup. If Trump tries to stay in power while he claims to have been cheated in the election, then the military will not back him. YouTube video:





My comment on YouTube as a response:



Quote:This is exactly what I would have expected from extreme leftists back in the 1960's, defeatists who would have cheered the advance of the Soviet Army into their American town at the time. I would be wrong. This is Donald Trump. I have long thought myself a liberal Democrat, but now I feel compelled to talk about Donald Trump as if I were the conservative and he were the extreme-left defeatist. Damn, this electoral season is weird!

I can imagine ways in which he could be induced to leave without being killed or dragged out. One is that the staff no longer prepares food for him and the only beverage available is what Joe Biden asks for... and the media don't bring cameras and microphones to 'cover' him.   

This said, he is the first President who faces criminal charges. If his response to COVID-19 (which without bias toward any ethnic or religious groups might constitute negligent homicide) has any apparent connection to ethnic or religious bias, then he might be hauled off to the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity. The NAACP already makes the suggestion that COVID-19 has hit blacks harder than whites even if the assumption that I make in a rural area that the most vulnerable people are those fools who refuse to wear masks and congregate recklessly bringing it upon themselves. 

This Presidency is falling apart. All that is remarkable is that it took so long. He has his fanatical supporters who will believe in him to the end, people who will believe that he was cheated when he loses. And, yes, he is going to lose.
Yep. Biden can't hide from Trump. It's to bad what we already know about Biden has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in front of a national audience.
(09-10-2020, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2020, 10:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2020, 08:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, it's obvious that Trump is the better/stronger leader and it's obvious that Biden is playing second fiddle to him and on the defensive at this point. So, it's a matter of how much the Democratic party is able to protect Biden and cheat and get away with it without triggering a civil war that the Washington elite ( the people that the vast majority of Americans don't like, don't trust and could careless if the all disappeared that Trump refers to as the swamp and Pelosi formerly referred to as the carousel of corruption) will be powerless to stop at that point. I've telling the out of touch bimbo's who into denial and wishful thinking and sharing values and worldviews associated with a heavenly world that doesn't exist at this point. Also, it's coming down to the over all strength and commitment of the political bases as well.

On Earth One it is Trump who has so many tell all books, whistleblower complaints and magazine articles to defend against so quick that I can't see how there could be possibly be anything left for an October surprise.  If the Democrats have a problem it is that there are so many Republican and deep state blockbusters coming out this early that any given blockbuster is being crowded out.  Biden has only to say how reprehensible each one is and sound presidential.  Meanwhile, the alternation between fake news and hoax defenses are getting stale.

I tend to agree that it is the strength and commitment of the bases that are important.  It would depend on how much the Republican base is listening to all of the blockbusters.

Well, when Earth 2 has Earth 1 on ignore it's pretty much pointless.

Bob Woodward's new book Rage makes the tell-all genre obsolete, by backing the book's points with 9 hours  of interview tapes with Trump himself.  Let's see how that flies.

FWIW, Fox Propaganda Network has the book on select quote, and won't play the tapes at all.
Here's how I handicap the 2020 Presidential election two months before based on polls alone from after the Republican National Convention:

[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

NC (Monmouth) Biden +2 (64%)
FL  (Quinnipiac) Biden +3 (69%)
PA  (Quinnipiac) Biden +8 (84%)
WI  (FoX News) Biden +8  (84%)
AZ  (FoX News) Biden +9  (87%)
NV (University of Nevada) Biden +5 (77%)
TX (Morning Consult) Trump +1 (44%)

CO (Morning Consult) Biden +10 (91%) -- new September 1
MI (Hodas) Biden +11 (92%)
MN (PPP) Biden +8 (84%)
TX (it is a D poll) Biden +3. Average with Morning Consult and you get +1 (56%)

TX (another poll, University of Texas at Tyler for the Dallas Morning News -- Trump +2) -- average is zero. 50/50 chance between the three.
NM --Research Associates for the Albuquerque Journal -- Biden +15.
MO -- We Ask America, Trump +5
OH (Rasmussen) Biden +4 (73%)
OK (Sooner Poll) Trump +25. No doubt about how Oklahoma goes in 2020.
GA (Fabrizio) Biden +1
IA (Fabrizio) Biden +2
ME at-large (Fabrizio) Biden +14
MT (Fabrizio) Trump +7

Biden 0-4% saturation 8
Biden 5-20% saturation 6
Biden 21-35% saturation 5
Biden 36-40% saturation 4
Biden 41-49% saturation 2


50/50 white

Biden 51-60% saturation 2
Biden 61-70% saturation 4
Biden 71-80% saturation 5
Biden 81-95% saturation 6
Biden 95%+ saturation 8



That's "41" in ME-02.

A reminder on scoring:

lead  likelihood, three months and two months

0   50    50  10  87  91
1   55    56  11  88  92
2   59    64  12  89  93
3   64    69  13  90  94
4   69    73  14  91  95
5   72    77  15  92  96
6   76    78  16  93  97
7   80    80  17  94  97
8   83    84  18  95  97
9   85    87  19  96  97

Note that the probability that a leader wins more precipitously at 5% (9% delta) than at 1 (2% delta), so the increase from my estimate at three months cannot be linear in the range between a 1% and a 5% lead.

At this point I would estimate that New Hampshire and Virginia are out of reach of Trump to the same extent as Maine at-large or New Mexico... and all states that Trump lost by more than 10% in 2016. A great range of possibilities remains on whether former US Vice President Joe Biden would get 300 or 400 electoral votes -- although the legal consequences would be the same.. It is telling that Trump has a chance of losing Missouri or Montana (about 1 in 5 for both).

Time is running out. By this time an incumbent usually has the ability to define the challenger; for now the opposite has happened.
(09-10-2020, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, when Earth 2 has Earth 1 on ignore it's pretty much pointless.

Yah. The tough part is that when your predictions ignore reality, they don't come true much.
I would not be surprised if Morning Consult comes out with its fifty-state poll from early September that would have the advantages of apples-to-apples comparisons between states all using the same polling techniques. That could give a more complete (however flawed) picture of the 2020 election two months out.

It is unlikely that the Trump operatives cannot place Joe Biden as among Jeffrey Epstein's good buddies... although I can imagine Biden having such against Trump as (pardon the pun) a "trump card" if things tighten up.
pbrower2a's report, compared to fivethirtyeight Sept.10 poll average (at right):
NC (Monmouth) Biden +2 (64%) Biden +1.6 (54%)
FL (Quinnipiac) Biden +3 (69%) Biden +2.7 (60%)
PA (Quinnipiac) Biden +8 (84%) Biden +5.1 (74%)
WI (FoX News) Biden +8 (84%) Biden +6.9 (78%)
AZ (FoX News) Biden +9 (87%) Biden +5.3 (66%)
NV (University of Nevada) Biden +5 (77%) Biden +6.4 (81%)
TX (Morning Consult) Trump +1 (44%) Trump +0.8 (69% Trump)

CO (Morning Consult) Biden +10 (91%) Biden +10.6 (86%)
MI (Hodas) Biden +11 (92%) Biden +7.7 (85%)
MN (PPP) Biden +8 (84%) Biden +6.4 (79%)
TX (it is a D poll) Biden +3. Average with Morning Consult and you get +1 (56% Biden) Trump +0.8 (69% Trump)

TX (another poll, University of Texas at Tyler for the Dallas Morning News -- Trump +2) -- average is zero. 50/50 chance between the three.
NM --Research Associates for the Albuquerque Journal -- Biden +15. Biden +13 (94%)
MO -- We Ask America, Trump +5 Trump +6.5 (90%)
OH (Rasmussen) Biden +4 (73%) Trump +0.9 (56% Trump)
OK (Sooner Poll) Trump +25. No doubt about how Oklahoma goes in 2020. Trump +23.6 (99+%)
GA (Fabrizio) Biden +1 Trump +1.5 (67% Trump)
IA (Fabrizio) Biden +2 Trump +1.6 (67% Trump)
ME at-large (Fabrizio) Biden +14 Biden +11 (82%)
MT (Fabrizio) Trump +7 Trump +8.3 (87%)
The point is to predict the likelihood of a win by one or the other at two months out. That means that polls from the time of the Republican National Convention or earlier are excluded in this effort. The point is to show that time matters greatly in a campaign.

Calculation may be messy soon because of early voting (including much absentee voting). Some people will have voted in September. Political realities involving COVID-19 may have forced the voting to be more by mail... and people may be seeing more in-your-face political advertising than is usual. Not many times can one say that two Presidential elections are really alike, so it is hard to say which one is the most unique. This one is weird for having two opponents in their seventies, and for having the definitive outsider (Trump) facing the most blatant insider that there has ever been.
(09-11-2020, 12:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The point is to predict the likelihood of a win by one or the other  at two months out. That means that polls from the time of the Republican National Convention or earlier are excluded in this effort. The point is to show that time matters greatly in a campaign.

Calculation may be messy soon because of early voting (including much absentee voting). Some people will have voted in September. Political realities involving COVID-19 may have forced the voting to be more by mail... and people may be seeing more in-your-face political advertising than is usual. Not many times can one say that two Presidential elections are really alike, so it is hard to say which one is the most unique. This one is weird for having two opponents in their seventies, and for having the definitive outsider (Trump) facing the most blatant insider that there has ever been.

It's best to have more than one poll though. I think fivethirtyeight does a good job of evaluating polls for their accuracy, recency and partisan lean. Using more than one method is a good idea too.

I would say Trump is an insider, because he's part of the 1% oligarchy of the country and represents their interests. Biden not having a college degree and a representative of the working class is not an insider, by that measure. But he's been inside Washington politics for almost 50 years. 

Yet, I still think of him as that young 30 year-old boomer-cusper elected thanks to the McGovern campaign that I worked on, so to me he's the young guard representing the younger generation, the boomers. I know we aren't that anymore, the millennials take precedence now; but at heart and in a certain way, we still are. Many of us blue boomers are young in mind and heart, while Xers like Classic are lost in the past and represent sclerotic minds. Blue boomers form a natural alliance with the up and coming millennials.
(09-11-2020, 05:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-11-2020, 12:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The point is to predict the likelihood of a win by one or the other  at two months out. That means that polls from the time of the Republican National Convention or earlier are excluded in this effort. The point is to show that time matters greatly in a campaign.

Calculation may be messy soon because of early voting (including much absentee voting). Some people will have voted in September. Political realities involving COVID-19 may have forced the voting to be more by mail... and people may be seeing more in-your-face political advertising than is usual. Not many times can one say that two Presidential elections are really alike, so it is hard to say which one is the most unique. This one is weird for having two opponents in their seventies, and for having the definitive outsider (Trump) facing the most blatant insider that there has ever been.

It's best to have more than one poll though. I think fivethirtyeight does a good job of evaluating polls for their accuracy, recency and partisan lean. Using more than one method is a good idea too.

I would say Trump is an insider, because he's part of the 1% oligarchy of the country and represents their interests. Biden not having a college degree and a representative of the working class is not an insider, by that measure. But he's been inside Washington politics for almost 50 years. 

Yet, I still think of him as that young 30 year-old boomer-cusper elected thanks to the McGovern campaign that I worked on, so to me he's the young guard representing the younger generation, the boomers. I know we aren't that anymore, the millennials take precedence now; but at heart and in a certain way, we still are. Many of us blue boomers are young in mind and heart, while Xers like Classic are lost in the past and represent sclerotic minds. Blue boomers form a natural alliance with the up and coming millennials.

All true, as usual. At this point I am going toward probabilistic models as opposed to gaps or edges.  If the 99% range of possibility is from a Trump victory by 1% to Trump by 17% , then we need pay little attention to any possibility that Trump loses even if, in the end, Trump might win the state by 2%.  But consider how I saw the election of 2020 beginning on Election Day 2016. If he could have a 2010-style or 2014-style electorate, then he would get re-elected, assuming that he would be a normal President who fully satisfies his base and offers a few scraps of goodies to those who did not vote for him the first time. As with Clinton, Dubya, and Obama (go back far enough, and Eisenhower fits the pattern)  he would win again with an electoral map similar to that of the one in which he got elected  because the political climate would not change. Figure that Trump came close to winning Minnesota by making promises of infrastructure, and its iron miners ordinarily expect big construction and reconstruction projects to devour iron ore. Politicians win by giving people what they promise. Trump's solution was simply to add consumer costs to enhance profits for gougers or to create profits for monopolistic gougers (add tolls!), so he disappointed there. But do as you promise or even try to do as you promise, and you win over votes that swung the last time and add to that swing by getting people who get the message the next time.   

Approval and disapproval polls suggest whether people like the results. Trump got into trouble with trade wars that would likely hurt American farmers. Farmers may not be as huge a constituency now as they were in prior times, but in close elections any constituency can flip a state or two.  The heavily-rural states from North Dakota to Kansas are usually reliable R states in Presidential elections, and none has more than six electoral votes. But add those four states and you have 17 electoral votes, and for Trump, losing those four would be one electoral vote more than failing to hold onto Michigan. Add Iowa, the definitive agribusiness state, and one has 23. With farmers, many people rely heavily upon farm activity for their living from dealers in farm machinery and lenders to farmers  to restaurant owners in small towns  and wait staff who would have no income without farmers doing well. So I imagine that Trump playing it straight with infrastructure, not promoting a trade war through tariffs (OK, that did recede), and in general not acting erratically. People would get comfortable with him as President and he would win with an electoral map similar to that of 2016. 

That is not happening. 

But could he lose with a similar electoral map? Sure. The Millennial Generation is about 20% more D than R and the parts of the electorate over 55 who hemorrhage votes from the electorate by dying off (early-wave X, Boomers, and the Silent are all about 5% more Republican than Democratic in a nomal year. Figure that the average voter has at most a sixty year career as such, then the younger replacements in the electorate replace the older ones at a rate of about 1.6% per year and swing the difference in the electorate about 25%... which means that through that effect alone, Democrats should fare about 1.6% better in a Presidential election in 2020 than in 2016 if nothing else really changes. That would be enough to swing four states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida) away from Trump. Sure, if Florida gets older population moving in such might offset that, but if Florida doesn't get Trump, then maybe Arizona or North Carolina does. On the other hand, a similar map could be that Trump loses Michigan but wins Minnesota and New Hampshire instead, which is a wash from 2016.

The distinction between approval and disapproval estimates mass assessments of performance including a response to any "clear and present danger" and avoiding the political disaster of offending parts of the electorate that can shift against him. Some people care about whether a climate of corruption prevails or does not... OK, they might still vote for Romney even if Obama acts with integrity because they expect much the same level of integrity. Maybe avoiding scandal does not get one re-elected, but getting ensnared can get one defeated. If the binary choice were between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, then I would vote for Mitt Romney because I hate cronyism and corruption in principle and because  those vices in government do me no good. This time we get Joe Biden, who has the weight of Obama corruption weighing him down (OK, that is more like a buoy than like an anchor). The "clear and present danger" is a dangerous respiratory infection that so far kills on the scale of a bungled war. On that I need say little more. I am not going to predict whether what Trump has said about Americans in the Armed Services, past and present, will do to his vote. It will not help him. 

Approval and disapproval numbers have had no meaningful trend for about half a year, so they are likely stable enough to suggest that Trump is in electoral trouble. Shaking such off in a year is far more possible than shaking off such in a month. The 4000-foot increase in elevation from east to west s easier to between Omaha and the Wyoming state line is far easier on I-80 than is the similar rise from near sea level to the near-summit of Mount Diablo even if the rise is similar... it's the angle that is steeper. Trump had a vehicular climb analogous to the ascent of I-80 in Nebraska a year ago. It is now more like the ascent of Mount Diablo. 

What I await is one pollster's fifty-state results which come from sources different from telephone polling such as interactive results from the Internet. A few years ago such would have been unorthodox. It may be reliance upon landlines that is becoming less reliable in polling. That pollster's methods do not require averaging of polls that have different assumptions for the states. Remember: a poll for a 2010-style or 2014-style electorate would suggest that Trump is doing very well, and one that has a 2006-style or 2018-style electorate suggests that Trump would do badly. 

Who votes matters greatly, and the pollster who gets the election closest to being right is the one who has an idea of who will vote. A compiler of polls can combine polls from someone who presumes a 2010-style electorate (like Rasmussen) and one that expects a 2018-style electorate (like PPP or  Quinnipiac). Oddly there are some foreign pollsters, especially Canadian and British, who seem promising due to disinterest. (For those who don;t know what the word disinterest means it expresses the idea that someone making a determination has more interest in the process than in the result and will let the facts make the decision. One wants a judge with disinterest in a criminal or civil case, that is, not having a personal interest in the case and not being prejudiced. If the suit is between a contractor and a government agency I don't want the judge to have a known family relationship to the contractor or to anyone working in any capacity for that government agency. Judges can recuse themselves from a case when they find that something has compromised the judge's objectivity, such as an offer of a bribe from a defendant. 

Disinterest by me in this election? No. I am as big a partisan hack as there is. How this one goes may shape much in my life, including my longevity and whether I can find any satisfying meaning or purpose in life. I'm trying to avoid saying that Trump will lose because he is so awful that no sane person could ever vote for him. People did vote for him in adequate numbers in critical places that he won, and some changes of  assumptions would mandate my assessment that he would be re-elected. The last thing that he has ever wanted to be is a loser -- and that stares him in the face if he does not have sycophants telling him how great he is and how much America loves him. He will lie, he will cheat, and he will steal to have a chance to win; that is predictable from his character. He may have the most troubled Presidency since Herbert Hoover, but at least Hoover had some integrity and had no risk of a prison term. His good buddy Putin may have coached him on how to get re-elected through means abnormal in  America but normal in, for example, Belarus.
Political expert Jeff Greenfield explains why the national polls haven't budged since March (although Biden's margin did widen for a while, but now it's back where it was before the pandemic crisis), and why using estimated chances of winning can deceive us instead of predict an outcome.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pollst...ng-in-2020?
[quote='Eric the Green' pid='56810' dateline='1599539294']
Fivethirtyeight presidential election poll averages for Sept.14 about 1 PM.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol.../national/

National Biden +7.1

Arizona Biden +5.1
Colorado Biden +10.1
Florida Biden +2.6
Georgia Trump +1.7
Iowa Trump +1.8
Kansas Trump +9.5
Michigan Biden +7.5
Minnesota Biden +7.7
Missouri Trump +6.6
Montana Trump +8.5
Nevada Biden +5.7
New Hampshire Biden +6.7
North Carolina Biden +1.3
Ohio Trump +1.1
Pennsylvania Biden +4.9
South Carolina Trump +6.9
Texas Trump +1.0
Utah Trump +11.7
Virginia Biden +10.5
Wisconsin Biden +6.5
LAS VEGAS (AP) — In open defiance of state regulations and his own administration’s pandemic health guidelines, President Donald Trump hosted his first indoor rally since June, telling a packed, nearly mask-less Nevada crowd that the nation was “making the last turn” in defeating the virus.

Eager to project a sense of normalcy in imagery, Trump soaked up the raucous cheers inside a warehouse Sunday night. Relatively few in the crowd wore masks, with a clear exception: Those in the stands directly behind Trump, whose images would end up on TV, were mandated to wear face coverings.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...44194.html

Not since a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that was blamed for a surge of coronavirus infections has he gathered supporters indoors. The pandemic had killed nearly 200,000 Americans and was still claiming 1,000 lives a day.

“We are not shutting the country again. A shutdown would destroy the lives and dreams of millions Americans,” said Trump, before using his inflammatory moniker for the coronavirus. “We will very easy defeat the China virus.”

The rally in Tulsa, which was his first in three months after the coronavirus reached American shores, was a disaster for the campaign, a debacle that featured a sea of empty seats and a rise in COVID-19 cases, including on his own staff. One prominent Trump supporter at the rally, businessman and former presidential candidate Herman Cain, died of COVID-19 weeks later, though it was not clear if he contracted the virus in Tulsa.

Recognizing that many supporters were uncomfortable to gather in a large group indoors, where the virus spreads more easily, the Trump campaign shifted to holding smaller, outdoor rallies, usually at airplane hangers. But those rallies have grown in size in recent weeks, with little social distancing and few masks.
At this point I can defer to the expert, Nate Silver, from whom  I adapted my model. He has more data from which to derive his model, and has the means of compiling a composite of polling data that I cannot do because of a lack of computing power and software for such. 

Here is my model:


My estimates for the results for intermediate probabilities based on near-linear differentials  for three and two months out for a Senate campaign, which I see as a good analogue for a statewide campaign for a State's electoral votes:. 
 
Time to election  |1 point|5 points||10 points|20 points| 
one day............. |...64%|....95%|.....99.7%|.99.999%| 
one week........... |...60%|....89%|.......98%|...99.97%| 
one month......... |...57%|....81%|.......95%|.....99.7%|
three months......|...55%|....72%|........87%|......98%|

six months..........|...53%|....66%|.......79%|.......93%|
one year.............|....52%|...59%|.......67%|.......81%|


lead  likelihood, three months and two months 

0   50    50  10  87  91
1   55    56  11  88  92
2   59    64  12  89  93
3   64    69  13  90  94
4   69    73  14  91  95
5   72    77  15  92  96
6   76    78  16  93  97
7   80    80  17  94   97
8   83    84  18  95  97
9   85    87  19  96  97

Note that the probability that a leader wins more precipitously at 5% (9% delta) than at 1 (2% delta), so the increase from my estimate at three months cannot be linear in the range between a 1% and a 5% lead.  




[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=1;0;9]

Numbers likely to be ill-seen:

CT 99
DE 99+
DC (don't be stupid) 
MD 99+
ME-AL 83
ME-01 96
ME-02 42
NE-AL 1
NE-01 7
NE-02 62
NE-03 0
NH 73
RI 98


Biden 0-4% saturation 8
Biden 5-20% saturation 6
Biden 21-35% saturation 5
Biden 36-40% saturation 4
Biden 41-49% saturation 2

50/50 white

Biden 51-60% saturation 2
Biden 61-70% saturation 4
Biden 71-80% saturation 5
Biden 81-95% saturation 6
Biden 95%+ saturation 8

I intend to close this thread on September 21, when reality will be closer to one month before the election (in which things really get tougher for someone behind).
Fivethirtyeight presidential election poll averages for Sept.15 about 7 PM.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol.../national/

National Biden +7.0

Arizona Biden +5.0
Colorado Biden +10
Florida Biden +2.4
Georgia Trump +1.3
Iowa Trump +1.8
Kansas Trump +9.5
Michigan Biden +7.5
Minnesota Biden +7.6
Missouri Trump +6.7
Montana Trump +8.5
Nevada Biden +5.6
New Hampshire Biden +6.7
North Carolina Biden +1.4
Ohio Trump +1.1
Pennsylvania Biden +4.9
South Carolina Trump +6.9
Texas Trump +1.1
Utah Trump +11.8
Virginia Biden +11.1
Wisconsin Biden +6.8

[Image: Y6ZmY]
i look at the above map and I notice that 202 electoral votes (the states in the two deeper-blue shades) are essentially out of reach for Trump and that only 94 electoral votes (the two darker shades of red) are essentially out of reach for Biden. In a close race those numbers typically have some symmetry; to believe that the 2020 election will be close is a poor characterization of reality. It's not that Trump has a huge number of electoral votes that he must defend; he has only 31 electoral votes in those states that are likely wins that he must defend.

The most obvious asymmetry of course is that Biden is up at least 4.9% in a contest for 290 electoral votes and that Trump is up at least (3? 4? 4.5)% in the contest for only 125 electoral votes.

It is easy to see how Biden wins. He can win if he wins all but one state in pale blue (if that state is Michigan or Pennsylvania, then he can't afford to also lose New Hampshire, and if the one of those that he loses is Pennsylvania, then he must win NE-02). Figuring that Trump must win every state in any shade of red (all of which have been easy for any Republican since at least 2012 (Indiana, Missouri, and Montana), 2004 (the arc from Louisiana to West Virginia through Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky). Anything in the "neutral zone" is bonus over a bare Biden win.

So I look at this map and I see how Trump has to win -- everything in any shade of red, anything in the "neutral" zone, and based on likelihood

PA and anything else (even NE-02)
AZ and either MN or WI
MI and either NH and NV
WI and MN and anything else
AZ, NH, and NV

To win, Trump must essentially be the quarterback who successfully threads the needle against a nickel defense. Biden can trade potential electoral votes (probably in this order: Texas, Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida) at a pace too slow for Trump to consolidate them into his column of wins. Remember: Biden can get away even with losing one of the states in pale blue (but likely nothing else) and still win.

(adapted from one of my posts on Political Wire today):


(The Hail Mary pass) will end up in the greedy and irreverent paws of a defensive back and be run back for good field position or a quick score. That is the once-innovative nickel (five defensive backs) defense that Tom Landry used if his team got an early, but not decisive lead. I've seen plenty of teams fritter away 20-0 and 27-3 leads because they think that they can keep doing what got them the early points... and they end up giving chances to the other team. That's not the Landry win. He will trade inadequate points for time and take whatever points he can get. It wins, barring some calamity rare even in NFL football.

So here is how it goes. Landry gets perhaps an early 17-3 lead, and he figures that one more score for his team will be enough to win the game. His offense will be good enough to get that, ideally in some long series of mostly rushing plays that ends in a touchdown. It's a slow score, but Landry is trying to slow the game and rush the clock. More importantly, Landry forces the opposing team to play a straight ground game that may grind out a score but also grinds down the clock. So with forty-minutes left the team behind 17-3 eats eight minutes of time to get a field goal. That leaves thirty-two minutes to go, and Landry's team gets the ball back and his team is up 17-6. Maybe his team gets a score of some time just before the end of the first half, and maybe he doesn't. Ten minutes pass, and the opposing team is down 20-6 or 24-6.

The next half, Landry calls for long series of rushes with perhaps an occasional pass that opens when some pass receiver gets open due to some defensive lapse. The quick score is good, but even at that Landry would rather that the play end after eight minutes than four. The quick score puts the opposing team in a bigger hole, and makes that team more desperate. Back comes the nickel defense, and if the opposing team tries to pass for quick long gains or a touchdown there might be a catch -- by one of the defensive backs. Or the ball might dribble from a pass receiver into the tentacles of the defensive back as a fumble. Drive over, and Landry's team has the ball back and gets to run his time-eating ground game.

So why can I speak of the late Tom Landry in the present tense? Because everyone (even I, who never played football as a competitive sport) knows about it. Landry got twenty winning seasons with that before everybody else caught up with him. Then he was through as a head coach.

Donald Trump is caught choosing between looking good and losing while playing an entertaining game... or taking big risks highly unlikely to succeed that put some states that by all rational logic he should win at risk of loss. So perhaps he goes after New Jersey or Oregon, only to lose the target -- and... what... Texas? Alaska? Montana? Missouri? Kansas? as well.

At this point I see him with at most an illusory chance of winning the electoral college, a reasonably-good chance of barely losing... but a chance about as good of losing to Biden getting 280 to 320 electoral points on the one side and Biden getting 360 to 430 points on the other. Oddly it is the middle zone between 320 and 360 electoral votes that is even less likely than a bare Trump win.

..................

Joe Biden does not look like a football player, but he does seem to be more like an effective head coach. Trump must get reckless to win. The difference between him losing to Biden and 290 electoral votes and losing to Biden and 380 electoral votes is that with the latter sort of loss nobody will believe him when he claims to be cheated. If there will eventually be 53 points in the game (why would I bring that number up instead of 53.8? Because there are no fractional points in football), then whether one gets 27 of the points or 50 of them matters not a whit in the standings.
(09-15-2020, 10:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]i look at the above map and I notice that 202 electoral votes (the states in the two deeper-blue shades) are essentially out of reach for Trump...

Ah, make that 212 electoral votes out of reach for trumpee!