Don't get cocky and don't get complacent

[Actinguy 862]

A warning to my fellow Biden supporters (or at least Trump detractors):  Yes, the polls look good for us right now.  But don't get cocky, and don't get complacent.

Here's where the national polling average was at 84 days out.  (We're actually something like 78 days out, but 84 days is especially illustrative because Dukakis got his ass KICKED and his polling decline didn't start until day 83.)

Actual outcome of the election in parentheses

2020: Biden+8.3 (?)

2016: Clinton+6.6 (+2.1, but lost the electoral college)

2012: Obama+0.5 (+3.9)

2008: Obama+2.6 (+7.2)

2004: Kerry+2.5 (-2.4, and lost the electoral college)

2000: Bush+10.0 (-0.5, barely won the electoral college -- nearly blowing a ten point lead)

1996: Clinton+11.3 (+8.5)

1992: Clinton+20.1 (+5.6, still won but lost 15 points off his lead)

1988: Dukakis+5.6 (-7.8, and got annihilated in the electoral college.  Dropped more than 13 points)

1984: Reagan+16.0 (+18.2) 

1980: Reagan+22.1 (+9.7) 

1976: Carter+26.6 (+2.1, still won but lost 24 points off the polls).

[Hestia11 597]

It's interesting that the swings the closer you get to modern era are smaller. Yes, still 4 points or so, but not 15 or 20 or anything. There hasn't been one larger than ten points since 2000. Or even, larger than 5. 

[vcczar 1,229]

35 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

A warning to my fellow Biden supporters (or at least Trump detractors):  Yes, the polls look good for us right now.  But don't get cocky, and don't get complacent.

Here's where the national polling average was at 84 days out.  (We're actually something like 78 days out, but 84 days is especially illustrative because Dukakis got his ass KICKED and his polling decline didn't start until day 83.)

Actual outcome of the election in parentheses

2020: Biden+8.3 (?)

2016: Clinton+6.6 (+2.1, but lost the electoral college)

2012: Obama+0.5 (+3.9)

2008: Obama+2.6 (+7.2)

2004: Kerry+2.5 (-2.4, and lost the electoral college)

2000: Bush+10.0 (-0.5, barely won the electoral college -- nearly blowing a ten point lead)

1996: Clinton+11.3 (+8.5)

1992: Clinton+20.1 (+5.6, still won but lost 15 points off his lead)

1988: Dukakis+5.6 (-7.8, and got annihilated in the electoral college.  Dropped more than 13 points)

1984: Reagan+16.0 (+18.2) 

1980: Reagan+22.1 (+9.7) 

1976: Carter+26.6 (+2.1, still won but lost 24 points off the polls).

I think few are getting cocky or complacent. My own reactions are based off the trends. Others have noted the consistency of three polls, which are unique to this election. 

1) Trump's approval has been relatively consistent from day 1.

2) Trump's disapproval has been relatively consistent from day 1. 

3) Biden's national polling lead has been relatively consistent since he's been the presumptive nominee. 

These other elections have had volatility. This election, at least so far, as not. Additionally, the undecided voters are much fewer than in previous elections. 

This information I'm presenting is neither cocky nor complacent. This assumes that there are no shenanigans, that voting is not suppressed or otherwise interfered. 

[Actinguy 862]

38 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

It's interesting that the swings the closer you get to modern era are smaller. Yes, still 4 points or so, but not 15 or 20 or anything. There hasn't been one larger than ten points since 2000. Or even, larger than 5. 

Yep, could be reflective of improvements in the science of polling.  Or, less exciting, increases in polarity -- there's fewer huge swings because there's less common ground: I like my guy, and the other guy is dead to me.

[Actinguy 862]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think few are getting cocky or complacent. My own reactions are based off the trends. Others have noted the consistency of three polls, which are unique to this election. 

1) Trump's approval has been relatively consistent from day 1.

2) Trump's disapproval has been relatively consistent from day 1. 

3) Biden's national polling lead has been relatively consistent since he's been the presumptive nominee. 

These other elections have had volatility. This election, at least so far, as not. Additionally, the undecided voters are much fewer than in previous elections. 

This information I'm presenting is neither cocky nor complacent. This assumes that there are no shenanigans, that voting is not suppressed or otherwise interfered. 

I didn't mean that you or anyone else specifically is cocky or complacent -- this was general guidance.  It's the reason I answer "Trump" in all of your polls no matter what the data says.  Because I'm going into this expecting an uphill battle the entire way, even if I can't actually see the hills yet.

[Anthony_270 1,039]

Nice post!

Things tend to intensify as you move towards the election. Sep. and Oct. the big question mark is what will happen we aren't anticipating?

This can go either way, of course.

[Actinguy 862]

38 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Nice post!

Things tend to intensify as you move towards the election. Sep. and Oct. the big question mark is what will happen we aren't anticipating?

This can go either way, of course.

Yep.  You asked the other day about what the big story will end up being.  In my mind, it's going to be how this whole "back to school" situation goes.  I expect it's going to be an absolute cluserfuck that everyone will hate regardless of whether it's in school or online/at home.  By the time election day rolls around, I expect this...even more so than coronavirus checks and unemployment...will be the number one story of the pandemic.  Parents are going to be DONE with this bullshit.

The question is: which side gets blamed?  

In my head, this is obviously Trump's fault -- he should have taken decisive action early on...or at least got on board as masks and other preventative measures became mainstream.  Lead by example.  God knows his followers don't listen to anybody else.

But I'm sure there are Democrat governors, mayors, school board chairmen who will be blamed in certain communities instead.

[Anthony_270 1,039]

10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yep.  You asked the other day about what the big story will end up being.  In my mind, it's going to be how this whole "back to school" situation goes.  I expect it's going to be an absolute cluserfuck that everyone will hate regardless of whether it's in school or online/at home.  By the time election day rolls around, I expect this...even more so than coronavirus checks and unemployment...will be the number one story of the pandemic.  Parents are going to be DONE with this bullshit.

The question is: which side gets blamed?  

In my head, this is obviously Trump's fault -- he should have taken decisive action early on...or at least got on board as masks and other preventative measures became mainstream.  Lead by example.  God knows his followers don't listen to anybody else.

But I'm sure there are Democrat governors, mayors, school board chairmen who will be blamed in certain communities instead.

Ya, schools will be important.

[Wiw 92]

You don't have to tell me that! I know the polls mean nothing!

[Cenzonico 230]

14 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

In my mind, it's going to be how this whole "back to school" situation goes.  I expect it's going to be an absolute cluserfuck that everyone will hate regardless of whether it's in school or online/at home. 

I can confirm that online schooling is a complete mess and everyone seems to hate it or at the least is annoyed by its problems.

[Actinguy 862]

2 minutes ago, Cenzonico said:

I can confirm that online schooling is a complete mess and everyone seems to hate it or at the least is annoyed by its problems.

Yep.  I'm a hospital spokesman so I understand how serious the pandemic is -- but I've also been working in person this entire time in a hospital with active cases, and been perfectly fine just wearing a mask and washing my hands and making a little effort to socially distance a bit when possible.  

So I was a big proponent of going back to school full-time, in person, with masks and other necessary changes.  Unfortunately, our school district is going online only at least for the first quarter.  I honestly think it's going to be the full academic year.  My wife is a nurse, so she obviously can't telework, and she also works the night shift so she needs to sleep during the day.

So that means that I'll be home teaching during the day while also trying to work remotely on my job that's kind of important during a freaking pandemic.  Nooooot looking forward to this one bit.

[billay 163]

Economic numbers, Corona, and debates all will be crucial 

[Patine 514]

1 hour ago, Cenzonico said:

I can confirm that online schooling is a complete mess and everyone seems to hate it or at the least is annoyed by its problems.

Annoyance is insignificance to protecting students', teachers', and school staff's lives. "Annoyance," is a very, very low-grade and petty negative to any serious issue. What cognisant and aware human being doesn't go a single day with being annoyed? "Annoyance," is a very lame counter-argument, especially in times like these.

[Actinguy 862]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Annoyance is insignificance to protecting students', teachers', and school staff's lives. "Annoyance," is a very, very low-grade and petty negative to any serious issue. What cognisant and aware human being doesn't go a single day with being annoyed? "Annoyance," is a very lame counter-argument, especially in times like these.

Annoyance was likely a catch-all to capture a lot of issues.

For example, the parents of children with special needs lose significant access to school resources.

Even my own situation, while stressful, is manageable -- it's going to be difficult to work from home while also trying to teach my seven-year-old, but I'll figure it out.  But what do people who don't have my luxury do?  There's a million jobs that can't be done from home, from doctor to gas station attendant.  If school isn't safe, then neither are daycares. Even for those fortunate enough to have grandparents available, those grandparents more than anyone else should be trying to limit their exposure to others -- not hosting children all day.  If people have to choose between their jobs and their children every single day for the foreseeable future...that's more than an annoyance.  It's a crisis.

[Anthony_270 1,039]

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Annoyance was likely a catch-all to capture a lot of issues.

Annoyance = all sorts of difficulties.

[Anthony_270 1,039]

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I've also been working in person this entire time in a hospital with active cases, and been perfectly fine just wearing a mask

What kind of mask are you wearing?

For the kinds of masks most people are wearing, see the CDC summary on mask wearing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

For typical masks, the CDC says

"However, the protective effects—how well the mask protects healthy people from breathing in the virus—are unknown."

[Actinguy 862]

9 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

What kind of mask are you wearing?

For the kinds of masks most people are wearing, see the CDC summary on mask wearing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

For typical masks, the CDC says

"However, the protective effects—how well the mask protects healthy people from breathing in the virus—are unknown."

It was handmade by my coworkers — we realized we were going to need masks ASAP but our hospital didn’t have nearly enough at the onset, so they started making enough for everybody.

Its a heavy cloth, hangs loosely over my ears like a pair of glasses but doesn’t loop back around under the ear.  Rather, it has drawstrings hanging down that I can adjust as needed.  Completely covers my nose and mouth but is also perfectly comfortable.

Because it was homemade, I couldn’t find a good picture online.  So here’s a photo I took myself a couple months ago.

[Actinguy 862]

18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

"However, the protective effects—how well the mask protects healthy people from breathing in the virus—are unknown."

The point of the mask isn’t exclusively to prevent breathing in the virus.  It’s also to prevent unhealthy people (including asymptomatic ones) from spreading it from behind their own masks).

[Anthony_270 1,039]

21 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The point of the mask isn’t exclusively to prevent breathing in the virus.  It’s also to prevent unhealthy people (including asymptomatic ones) from spreading it from behind their own masks).

Right. From what I've read, the primary reason to wear them (typical cloth masks) is so they are being worn by any infectious people who happen to be out and about, and so prevent them from spreading it.  

The idea that these are protective in any significant way for the wearer is speculative, though.

So it's unknown whether the vast majority of people wearing masks are doing any good by it. It's just we can't necessarily tell who's infectious or not, so health authorities often want everyone to wear them in certain situations.

[Actinguy 862]

Just now, admin_270 said:

Right. From what I've read, the primary reason to wear them (typical cloth masks) is so they are being worn by an infectious people who happen to be out and about, and so prevent them from spreading it.  

The idea that these are protective in any significant way for the wearer is speculative, though.

So it's unknown whether the vast majority of people wearing masks are doing any good by it. It's just we can't necessarily tell who's infectious or not, so health authorities often want everyone to wear them in certain situations.

Well...yeah?  I mean, that’s exactly why the vast majority of people SHOULD wear them.  It won’t really matter whether it prevents you from breathing in the virus as long as it stops the sick (including asymptomatic) from breathing it out.  Functionally, the end result is the same: masks decreasing the number of infections.

 

(Not literally preventing people from breathing, you know what I mean).

[Patine 514]

17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

It was handmade by my coworkers — we realized we were going to need masks ASAP but our hospital didn’t have nearly enough at the onset, so they started making enough for everybody.

Its a heavy cloth, hangs loosely over my ears like a pair of glasses but doesn’t loop back around under the ear.  Rather, it has drawstrings hanging down that I can adjust as needed.  Completely covers my nose and mouth but is also perfectly comfortable.

Because it was homemade, I couldn’t find a good picture online.  So here’s a photo I took myself a couple months ago.

I just use those blue and white disposable ones I get free in huge bulk from work.

[Anthony_270 1,039]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Well...yeah?

You sometimes speak as if your mask is protecting *you*. It's important that people realize cloth masks aren't good shields for incredibly small viruses (at least, the evidence on this is lacking).

But yes, if another person is wearing one, that other mask might be a somewhat effective shield for you.

[Actinguy 862]

Just now, admin_270 said:

You sometimes speak as if your mask is protecting *you*. It's important that people realize cloth masks aren't good shields for incredibly small viruses (at least, the evidence on this is lacking).

But yes, if another person is wearing one, that other mask might be a somewhat effective shield for you.

We mandate that everyone at the hospital has to wear one (unless they have a serious health condition that would prevent that from being feasible, of course).  I support such mandates being everywhere.

[Hestia11 597]

5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You sometimes speak as if your mask is protecting *you*. It's important that people realize cloth masks aren't good shields for incredibly small viruses (at least, the evidence on this is lacking).

But yes, if another person is wearing one, that other mask might be a somewhat effective shield for you.

I don't get the point you're trying to make rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing. 

[Anthony_270 1,039]

5 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I don't get the point you're trying to make rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing. 

You don't understand the difference?

Someone goes out into the world, thinking the mask they're wearing is protecting them.

It doesn't.

It's the masks other people are wearing that might protect them.

So if you're in a crowd, and wearing a mask, it doesn't really matter, if 1 person isn't and that person is infectious.

Can you see the difference?