Jump to content
270soft Forum

Will Trump Drop out?


Will Trump Drop Out before the General Election?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump Drop Out before the General Election?



Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, vcczar said:

But states are polling -8 for Trump! He’s losing! He’s -8 in enough states to lose the election. 
 

also, why do you assume Trump supporters under respond more than Biden supporters? Supply a recent link to support this. Otherwise, it’s just a guess. 

Not consistently. I took a quick look at OH, PA, FL, AZ, TX, MI, and NC.

The RCP averages for those states right now are: 0, -6.5, -5, -3.5, +2.5, -7.5, -3.3 respectively. And only in Ohio is there a recent downward trend. Minnesota, a state I was hoping would turn red this year is at -16.5 but there hasn't been much there and the most recent poll is a month old.

Only looking at the polls in the last 30 days, Florida ranges from -6 to even. Ohio has only one poll which is -1. PA and MI do look worrisome, ranging from -10 to -5 and -13 to -1 respectively. Wisconsin is all over the place, everywhere from -11 to +1. North Carolina -9 to +3, Arizona -7 to +4. Those last three are all over the place, but I can't find any state that's consistently down by much more than 6. I also think that NH and NV, two states Trump lost narrowly, are in play, but there's been very little polling there. I'd say they're in reach. NJ is another interesting case. Obviously that's in the bag for the Democrats so there aren't any polls being done there. If there's going to be a surprise flip, those are the states they're going to come from. New Jersey, up until Phil Murphy's election in 2017, had Republican governors for 24 of the previous 32 years, it's more purple than people think. Can Trump win it? Probably not, I'd give 10% odds maybe. But states like MN, NJ, CO even NM can be in play, particularly if he continues to make gains among blacks and Hispanics. Biden MUST get at least 85% of the black vote. And Trump is polling 30-40% among Blacks. Rasmussen has him at 40% among Blacks. Rasmussen does tend to skew Republican, so let's assume it's 30-35%. That's still substantial and may just about take Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania almost out of play for Biden. And 32% would be four times what he got in 2016. I am very disappointed at the lack of reaching out that he seems to be doing to those communities. 40+ among Blacks and 35+ among Hispanics are reaches, but either one of them would be devastating for Democrats.

A lot of his drops recently have been coming from Republicans, because Democrats can't poll that much lower. Partisan voters tend to coalesce around their candidate as things get close to November. Trump absolutely HAS to expand his base, which I don't see him doing enough of and it concerns me. But Biden basically has no base. He is what we call an "empty suit", doesn't really have any strong principles or loyal fan base. He's doing well as long as he stays in the basement but he can't do that forever.

Trump's best polling swing states right now are FL, NC, AZ, and OH, all of which have positive polls recently. If we put those in his column that gives Trump 260. From that point, Biden would need to win Michigan AND Wisconsin AND Pennsylvania. Certainly possible but far from a sure thing.

This is far from a certainty and you'd have to be a fool to think these numbers are good for Trump. I'd feel comfortable if the majority of polls are -3 or better. But I said that worry time comes when "consistently" down by 8 or more and I can't find a swing state where that's the case. And in some of them he's had recent leads. Between margins of error and the other things mentioned, I don't consider Trump truly down if it's by less than 4 points, or in trouble unless we consistently (that's the key word) see deficits of 8 or more. After Labor Day that cutoff may go to 6 or 5. Let's remember the original topic of this thread. "Will Trump drop out?" These are hardly cataclysmic numbers worthy of a party dumping its candidate or a candidate simply giving up. Trump can absolutely win, it's really up to him if he gets more Presidential, stays on the positive and gets the messaging out, differentiating himself from Biden. Will that happen is the big question. While there's an uphill climb for sure, I truly believe it's his to lose.

You can look at the polling methodologies and see that they underpoll Republicans. I've run the numbers and statistical simulations on these, and if 1 out of 10 Trump voters, out of fear of cancel culture, or feeling intimidated, not wanting to say so to a pollster (Bradley effect), if 1 of 10 lie, that alone is a 4 point swing. Yes, 1/10 is a guess, but I think a modest one. We could run a simulation on a "typical" swing state, assuming 40% independent, and the other 60% slightly skewed Democrat. Then I did the math on a skewed poll where the 1/10 lied as I said above, and Republicans were under-polled by 1 point. The result went from a true Trump deficit of 2 to a poll deficit of 14! I'll post the calculations at some later time. 

Yes a lot of this is speculation and guess work, but even tiny amounts of under-polling and "Bradley effect" can make a HUGE difference in poll results. As someone trained in the field of statistics, I can assure you that anyone can take any poll numbers and make it say anything they want to, even if all the data is gathered honestly. There are so many ways to screw up a poll, even unintentionally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well he has actually admitted he is losing. That's the genesis of this post. Lots of GOP strategisrs are really concerned about his state of mind and willingness to carry on. I've taken to calling him

Trump would be insane to drop out now, he has nothing to gain by doing so.  For better or worse, he will be the Republican candidate for the 2020 United States Presidential election.  I cannot even im

That's not easy to do. Biden has at least stated an opposition to defunding the police, opposition to looting, and opposition to tearing down statues that aren't of Confederates. Trump had to have his

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Not consistently. I took a quick look at OH, PA, FL, AZ, TX, MI, and NC.

The RCP averages for those states right now are: 0, -6.5, -5, -3.5, +2.5, -7.5, -3.3 respectively. And only in Ohio is there a recent downward trend. Minnesota, a state I was hoping would turn red this year is at -16.5 but there hasn't been much there and the most recent poll is a month old.

Only looking at the polls in the last 30 days, Florida ranges from -6 to even. Ohio has only one poll which is -1. PA and MI do look worrisome, ranging from -10 to -5 and -13 to -1 respectively. Wisconsin is all over the place, everywhere from -11 to +1. North Carolina -9 to +3, Arizona -7 to +4. Those last three are all over the place, but I can't find any state that's consistently down by much more than 6. I also think that NH and NV, two states Trump lost narrowly, are in play, but there's been very little polling there. I'd say they're in reach. NJ is another interesting case. Obviously that's in the bag for the Democrats so there aren't any polls being done there. If there's going to be a surprise flip, those are the states they're going to come from. New Jersey, up until Phil Murphy's election in 2017, had Republican governors for 24 of the previous 32 years, it's more purple than people think. Can Trump win it? Probably not, I'd give 10% odds maybe. But states like MN, NJ, CO even NM can be in play, particularly if he continues to make gains among blacks and Hispanics. Biden MUST get at least 85% of the black vote. And Trump is polling 30-40% among Blacks. Rasmussen has him at 40% among Blacks. Rasmussen does tend to skew Republican, so let's assume it's 30-35%. That's still substantial and may just about take Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania almost out of play for Biden. And 32% would be four times what he got in 2016. I am very disappointed at the lack of reaching out that he seems to be doing to those communities. 40+ among Blacks and 35+ among Hispanics are reaches, but either one of them would be devastating for Democrats.

A lot of his drops recently have been coming from Republicans, because Democrats can't poll that much lower. Partisan voters tend to coalesce around their candidate as things get close to November. Trump absolutely HAS to expand his base, which I don't see him doing enough of and it concerns me. But Biden basically has no base. He is what we call an "empty suit", doesn't really have any strong principles or loyal fan base. He's doing well as long as he stays in the basement but he can't do that forever.

Trump's best polling swing states right now are FL, NC, AZ, and OH, all of which have positive polls recently. If we put those in his column that gives Trump 260. From that point, Biden would need to win Michigan AND Wisconsin AND Pennsylvania. Certainly possible but far from a sure thing.

This is far from a certainty and you'd have to be a fool to think these numbers are good for Trump. I'd feel comfortable if the majority of polls are -3 or better. But I said that worry time comes when "consistently" down by 8 or more and I can't find a swing state where that's the case. And in some of them he's had recent leads. Between margins of error and the other things mentioned, I don't consider Trump truly down if it's by less than 4 points, or in trouble unless we consistently (that's the key word) see deficits of 8 or more. After Labor Day that cutoff may go to 6 or 5. Let's remember the original topic of this thread. "Will Trump drop out?" These are hardly cataclysmic numbers worthy of a party dumping its candidate or a candidate simply giving up. Trump can absolutely win, it's really up to him if he gets more Presidential, stays on the positive and gets the messaging out, differentiating himself from Biden. Will that happen is the big question. While there's an uphill climb for sure, I truly believe it's his to lose.

You can look at the polling methodologies and see that they underpoll Republicans. I've run the numbers and statistical simulations on these, and if 1 out of 10 Trump voters, out of fear of cancel culture, or feeling intimidated, not wanting to say so to a pollster (Bradley effect), if 1 of 10 lie, that alone is a 4 point swing. Yes, 1/10 is a guess, but I think a modest one. We could run a simulation on a "typical" swing state, assuming 40% independent, and the other 60% slightly skewed Democrat. Then I did the math on a skewed poll where the 1/10 lied as I said above, and Republicans were under-polled by 1 point. The result went from a true Trump deficit of 2 to a poll deficit of 14! I'll post the calculations at some later time. 

Yes a lot of this is speculation and guess work, but even tiny amounts of under-polling and "Bradley effect" can make a HUGE difference in poll results. As someone trained in the field of statistics, I can assure you that anyone can take any poll numbers and make it say anything they want to, even if all the data is gathered honestly. There are so many ways to screw up a poll, even unintentionally.

RCP excludes a lot of good polls. Use the FiveThirtyEight polls, which also includes RCP. 

The rest of what you say is not convincing, except for where you say Trump needs to expand his base. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

RCP excludes a lot of good polls. Use the FiveThirtyEight polls, which also includes RCP. 

The rest of what you say is not convincing, except for where you say Trump needs to expand his base. 

Well I'm not trying to convince you :) I admit I have some bias but I don't think there's anything wholly unreasonable about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, servo75 said:

Trump can absolutely win, it's really up to him if he gets more Presidential, stays on the positive and gets the messaging out, differentiating himself from Biden. Will that happen is the big question.

We already know he won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't he just announce an expansion to DACA recipients? Seems like a ploy to get more votes, well not really a ploy, cause it will help a lot of people but y'know.

The best thing Trump can do now is stop listening to Mitch and all his buddies and just go with whatever is popular in the polls in future EO's until the election and hope that shifts something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wiw said:

We already know he won't.

It's not even that he won't, he doesn't have to, well, he wouldn't have to. If this was a normal election year he would be winning cause I'm sure he would be on the campaign trail and beating Biden in terms of his rallying and local attempts to drive support but this isn't a normal year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vcczar said:

RCP excludes a lot of good polls

Like which ones? I find it hard to believe that Real Clear Politics has a right-wing bias, they seem to have a good and fair mix and are often cited by news media. 538 gives poor grades to Rasmussen, and also to Trafalgar Group which was the only poll in 2016 to correctly predict Trump winning Michigan. Can't help notice that the polls where Trump does better are also the ones graded lower by 538.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolves said:

Didn't he just announce an expansion to DACA recipients? Seems like a ploy to get more votes, well not really a ploy, cause it will help a lot of people but y'know.

The best thing Trump can do now is stop listening to Mitch and all his buddies and just go with whatever is popular in the polls in future EO's until the election and hope that shifts something.

Not a bad move but is puzzling to me. Might shave a couple points off his base but could bring in some of the crucial Hispanic vote. I still believe though that most American born and naturalized Hispanics, as well as all naturalized citizens who did things the right way, are strongly against illegal immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Not a bad move but is puzzling to me. Might shave a couple points off his base but could bring in some of the crucial Hispanic vote. I still believe though that most American born and naturalized Hispanics, as well as all naturalized citizens who did things the right way, are strongly against illegal immigration.

Except, of course, for those wealthy business owners who exploit cheap labour from illegal immigrants (and technically become criminals themselves - but their money and connections means they're never punished in the corrupt American judicial system) - including, despite the plaintiff focus of one of the major aspects of both of their election campaigns - Romney and Trump, themselves, in their personal business interests. And, I think it might be probable that the statistic of "indifference," to illegal immigration as a major issue by many Americans might be a bit higher than you give credit for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Like which ones? I find it hard to believe that Real Clear Politics has a right-wing bias, they seem to have a good and fair mix and are often cited by news media. 538 gives poor grades to Rasmussen, and also to Trafalgar Group which was the only poll in 2016 to correctly predict Trump winning Michigan. Can't help notice that the polls where Trump does better are also the ones graded lower by 538.

The grade isn’t based exclusively off presidential polls. It considers their total polling accuracy. RCP doesn’t have a right wing bias, it just hasn’t evolved to include more recent polling organizations, some which have probably learned from the mistakes of 2016. 
 

They should have their methodology for their grading system on their polling page if you are curious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Except, of course, for those wealthy business owners who exploit cheap labour from illegal immigrants (and technically become criminals themselves - but their money and connections means they're never punished in the corrupt American judicial system) - including, despite the plaintiff focus of one of the major aspects of both of their election campaigns - Romney and Trump, themselves, in their personal business interests. And, I think it might be probable that the statistic of "indifference," to illegal immigration as a major issue by many Americans might be a bit higher than you give credit for.

I do partially agree, in that businesses who hire illegal immigrants should be punished, it isn't even a matter of "exploitation" or not. I wonder, would your mind be changed if the illegal immigrants were getting cushy jobs, paid $60K a year with full benefits? Just curious.  The thing I do take issue with is the exploitation part. My biggest pet peeve, being in the computer industry, is the dreaded H1-B visa. These are given out to corporations for the sole stated purpose of hiring cheaper labor from overseas. And I would agree that they are exploited (even though some of them have good white collar jobs) because unlike a legal U.S. resident, they cannot simply quit and go to another job. So that is cheating in my eye, and it is not an example of free-market capitalism. My libertarian side and my pro-America side have been in battle on this for a long time. But ultimately I think that visa programs for jobs that there definitely are Americans to fill, are examples of the government picking winners and losers. "You can have cheaper labor, you can't." So in my mind, that's a distortion of capitalism. There are some, though, who view all employment (or at least private employment) as "exploitation." That I can't agree with. Under ordinary circumstances if one complains about bad pay or bad treatment, their remedy is not to get the government involved but to have more jobs available so they can choose their employer. For H1-B and similar visas, this option is not available to them. Make any trouble and they fire you and firing = leaving the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

And, I think it might be probable that the statistic of "indifference," to illegal immigration as a major issue by many Americans might be a bit higher than you give credit for.

Not quite sure what you mean by that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, servo75 said:

I do partially agree, in that businesses who hire illegal immigrants should be punished, it isn't even a matter of "exploitation" or not. I wonder, would your mind be changed if the illegal immigrants were getting cushy jobs, paid $60K a year with full benefits? Just curious.  The thing I do take issue with is the exploitation part. My biggest pet peeve, being in the computer industry, is the dreaded H1-B visa. These are given out to corporations for the sole stated purpose of hiring cheaper labor from overseas. And I would agree that they are exploited (even though some of them have good white collar jobs) because unlike a legal U.S. resident, they cannot simply quit and go to another job. So that is cheating in my eye, and it is not an example of free-market capitalism. My libertarian side and my pro-America side have been in battle on this for a long time. But ultimately I think that visa programs for jobs that there definitely are Americans to fill, are examples of the government picking winners and losers. "You can have cheaper labor, you can't." So in my mind, that's a distortion of capitalism. There are some, though, who view all employment (or at least private employment) as "exploitation." That I can't agree with. Under ordinary circumstances if one complains about bad pay or bad treatment, their remedy is not to get the government involved but to have more jobs available so they can choose their employer. For H1-B and similar visas, this option is not available to them. Make any trouble and they fire you and firing = leaving the U.S.

You may be surprised to know that this is an issue in almost every developed nation lol.  It is all relative, Silicon Valley will happily pay 40-50k to import a full stack developer on an H1B (well under market valuation) because that worker is more than happy to accept what is a lot of money where he is from.  While that may be pennies on the dollar for a US dev, that is like a kings life for some around the world.  Seen this in multiple countries too, not just a US problem, the employer calls in a few token applications to fulfill the national requirement (that they know are unsuitable) and then claims they need to import a worker because they cannot find an local employee with the skills that they need.  Seems to be a problem with every nation that has money...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 6:41 PM, servo75 said:

Not a bad move but is puzzling to me. Might shave a couple points off his base but could bring in some of the crucial Hispanic vote. I still believe though that most American born and naturalized Hispanics, as well as all naturalized citizens who did things the right way, are strongly against illegal immigration.

Becoming the most progressive base in the US since 2016, overwhelmingly won by progressive politicians in 2018 and 2020 and in TX, they were some of the only Democratic seats where incumbents were primaried and nearly lost on a lot of occasions, (Laredo an example) I'd argue it was a stupid move if it was to build support but if he wants to build towards sweeping campaign promises why not?

In the 2020 senate primary, Sema Hernandez, a self-described socialist, pounced with Hispanics, same with the 2018 one, Hispanics were the only crowd to overwhelmingly reject Beto, if he was better with them Texas could have a Democratic senator right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolves said:

Becoming the most progressive base in the US since 2016, overwhelmingly won by progressive politicians in 2018 and 2020 and in TX, they were some of the only Democratic seats where incumbents were primaried and nearly lost on a lot of occasions, (Laredo an example) I'd argue it was a stupid move if it was to build support but if he wants to build towards sweeping campaign promises why not?

In the 2020 senate primary, Sema Hernandez, a self-described socialist, pounced with Hispanics, same with the 2018 one, Hispanics were the only crowd to overwhelmingly reject Beto, if he was better with them Texas could have a Democratic senator right now.

The question is this: Will Trump GAIN more Hispanic voters with this executive order than he LOSES among his die-hard "build the wall" base? I cannot answer that. I don't think the latter loss will be very big, because one thing about Trump supporters, they're not single-issue voters (well he'll probably lose Ann Coulter but that's no big loss). So if there's more than a couple percentage point gain among Hispanics, I think it will prove to be a good decision. Time will tell, we may find out in the polls in upcoming weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolves said:

Becoming the most progressive base in the US since 2016, overwhelmingly won by progressive politicians in 2018 and 2020 and in TX, they were some of the only Democratic seats where incumbents were primaried and nearly lost on a lot of occasions, (Laredo an example) I'd argue it was a stupid move if it was to build support but if he wants to build towards sweeping campaign promises why not?

In the 2020 senate primary, Sema Hernandez, a self-described socialist, pounced with Hispanics, same with the 2018 one, Hispanics were the only crowd to overwhelmingly reject Beto, if he was better with them Texas could have a Democratic senator right now.

 

21 minutes ago, servo75 said:

The question is this: Will Trump GAIN more Hispanic voters with this executive order than he LOSES among his die-hard "build the wall" base? I cannot answer that. I don't think the latter loss will be very big, because one thing about Trump supporters, they're not single-issue voters (well he'll probably lose Ann Coulter but that's no big loss). So if there's more than a couple percentage point gain among Hispanics, I think it will prove to be a good decision. Time will tell, we may find out in the polls in upcoming weeks.

Interestingly enough, many Hispanics (certainly not all, but possibly a statistical majority) are Socially Conservative in their own communities and outlooks, and in terms of family and community values - in the latter two, often a bit moreso than even Bible-Belt rural Whites. They could have long been a natural constituency for many Republicans if a lot of GOP policy wasn't so hostile to them - especially on the area of deliberately blurring the line in rhetoric between Hispanic citizens and ones on a legally mandated path to citizenship, travellers, tourists, foreign students, and those in the nation on business with legitimate visas, but without the desire to settle and become citizens, and and those in the country illegally - of which Joe Arpaio became a poster boy of that attitude, but certainly not the only one promoting it, directly or by intimation. Trump's move is quite likely too little, too late - and obviously disingenuous to Hispanic citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Interestingly enough, many Hispanics (certainly not all, but possibly a statistical majority) are Socially Conservative in their own communities and outlooks, and in terms of family and community values - in the latter two, often a bit moreso than even Bible-Belt rural Whites. They could have long been a natural constituency for many Republicans if a lot of GOP policy wasn't so hostile to them - especially on the area of deliberately blurring the line in rhetoric between Hispanic citizens and ones on a legally mandated path to citizenship, travellers, tourists, foreign students, and those in the nation on business with legitimate visas, but without the desire to settle and become citizens, and and those in the country illegally - of which Joe Arpaio became a poster boy of that attitude, but certainly not the only one promoting it, directly or by intimation. Trump's move is quite likely too little, too late - and obviously disingenuous to Hispanic citizens.

Remember that following Romney's loss in 2012, the GOP leadership came to this same conclusion.  I forget what the report was called, but it outlined several platform pivots that the GOP needed to make in order to make inroads among the Hispanic community and win future elections.  When Trump received the nomination, that plan was scrapped.

Honestly, only first-generation Hispanic immigrants tend to hold to the traditional social conservative values from my experience.  Take the Cuba-American community for instance, many of the first-gens will vote Republican because they know very well what they fled, but the second and third-gens have no idea what it was like back home, and as such, tend to trend more blue if they live in a big city (assimilated would be appropriate I guess).  Even with the first-gens Hispanics too, it depends on how devout they are.  Some are "Catholic", while some are Catholic (if you get what I mean).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing Democrats should be praying for is that Trump doesn't drop out, cause he could at any moment, cite something like health and endorse a candidate and then all of Trump's support and none of Trump's hate (well maybe a little of the partisan hate) will transfer to that candidate, Biden is disliked pretty widely as proven by the polls, in Florida, 52% (a majority) of people are only voting Biden to oust Trump, 23% are voting cause theyre Democrat and the other is multiple reasons. It's pretty obvious the Democrats are happy with Trump being in the running right now.

If I'm Trump, I drop and ask Tim Scott to run or some other minority Republican who can drum up votes in that area, not a Cuban like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, Cubans are already stoic Republicans but someone like Tim Scott, strong history of being anti-racist (not excusing him overall though he's a pretty bad senator) and is somewhat moderate. The Democrats would be very scared, but the GOP won't do that, cause they're stupid lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wiw said:

I'm sorry??!!

Easiest possible person to run against, a gaff machine, literally never seen him be "presidential" (whatever that means), if you ran against the tide of what the GOP wanted in 2016, the moderate POC's like Marco Rubio, Biden or Clinton would be in HUGE trouble lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 9:07 PM, CPE said:

You may be surprised to know that this is an issue in almost every developed nation lol.  It is all relative, Silicon Valley will happily pay 40-50k to import a full stack developer on an H1B (well under market valuation) because that worker is more than happy to accept what is a lot of money where he is from.  While that may be pennies on the dollar for a US dev, that is like a kings life for some around the world.  Seen this in multiple countries too, not just a US problem, the employer calls in a few token applications to fulfill the national requirement (that they know are unsuitable) and then claims they need to import a worker because they cannot find an local employee with the skills that they need.  Seems to be a problem with every nation that has money...

Yes, big con game by tech companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...