Jump to content
270soft Forum

FiveThirtyEight Gives Trump a 30% To Win


Recommended Posts

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

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

Didn't realize FiveThirtyEight had this out yet. Not as in depth as their 2016 map but still interesting.

This is a lot higher than The Economist's forecast which has Biden like 90% likely to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

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

Didn't realize FiveThirtyEight had this out yet. Not as in depth as their 2016 map but still interesting.

30% is about what 538 gave him in 2016 right before the election. 28.6%, actually.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Know what they predicted in 2016?

Probably a Clinton landslide. That's the problem, I don't think the pollsters have improved. I think they assume Trump can't win twice. That's like talking to people in Austria. Basically no one I know understands how ''someone like Trump'' was elected in 2016. No expected Clinton to lose and no one expects Biden to lose, but Clinton has lost and therefore Biden could lose as well.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Know what they predicted in 2016?

I can't access it without paying. While not the %, they had Clinton winning 320ish EVs, with the same map that almost all pundits predicted for 2016. This year, they have Biden at 350ish EVs. I'd guess they had Trump at 25% chance of winning, which is what I think 538 had.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Basically no one I know understands how ''someone like Trump'' was elected in 2016.

Same in Canada. Our media is pretty biased against Trump - we don't have a Fox News equivalent. Virtually nothing the typical Canadian hears in Canadian press re Trump is positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Same in Canada. Our media is pretty biased against Trump - we don't have a Fox News equivalent. Virtually nothing the typical Canadian hears in Canadian press re Trump is positive.

There's isn't that much to say that's positive since Covid and Recession. He lost his talking point (good jobs with a strong economy). I also don't see how he can claim to be the "Law & order" candidate while the protests that he rails against are on-going. He talks about it like he isn't president and Biden is presiding over them. If he's the law & order president, he would have quelled these. The chaos, whether one supports it or not, is on his watch. It's Trump's America. Not Biden's. There's so many failures. A Pew Poll released today has the US next-to-last in Covid response and first in most divisive country since Covid. This isn't good for reelection prospects, which is why he's polling so terribly in states he should be winning as a Republican candidate. He seems to be getting more and more rudderless as time goes by. If he was even 10% FDR, he's be working ceaseless with legislators and governors to decrease the causes of the protest (whatever those might be to you) and for recovery for both the economy and Covid. It seems like the only thing he does is play golf and have photo ops. His activity isn't really broadcast at all even on FoxNews. He's basically a do nothing president. He did sign checks and some seemingly symbolic executive orders as if that's enough. I'd assume you'd probably be more critical of Trump than your are if you lived here and he was your president. Presidential historians will probably rank Trump in bottom 10 for Crisis Management, which is often the most weighted category in those rankings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

for recovery for both the economy and Covid

You guys' economy is improving rapidly, and your COVID-19 situation is also improving rapidly (sunbelt spike looks like it's over for the time being, about to drop out of top 10 internationally in mortalities / M). These are probably the 2 most important trends moving towards election day. Of course, they could change at any time, but for now, the trends are in Trump's favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I also don't see how he can claim to be the "Law & order" candidate while the protests that he rails against are on-going. He talks about it like he isn't president and Biden is presiding over them. If he's the law & order president, he would have quelled these. The chaos, whether one supports it or not, is on his watch.

But that's also the fault of do-nothing governors and mayors. Many of them Democrats. If I am voter concerned about the ongoing chaos I couldn't back Biden and his guys either. People like Evers, Walz or Durkan are not a reason to back Democrats in this election cycle. Therefore the generic house vote also tightens in each poll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

But that's also the fault of do-nothing governors and mayors. Many of them Democrats. If I am voter concerned about the ongoing chaos I couldn't back Biden and his guys either. People like Evers, Walz or Durkan are not a reason to back Democrats in this election cycle. Therefore the generic house vote also tightens in each poll.

Even if one believes that's the case. the buck stops with Trump. He can't claim to be the law and order candidate when he isn't doing anything to support that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you really believe this?

No. that's why I said "seems." I'm using it in the same way that one might say that it "seems that person has lost their way," when in fact their just aimlessly walking while thinking about something deeply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You guys' economy is improving rapidly, and your COVID-19 situation is also improving rapidly (sunbelt spike looks like it's over for the time being, about to drop out of top 10 internationally in mortalities / M). These are probably the 2 most important trends moving towards election day. Of course, they could change at any time, but for now, the trends are in Trump's favour.

That doesn't mean much when the right jobs aren't returning. You always leave that out. This was Obama's issue in 2012 that made the election closer than in 2008. Obama's economy was improving, but the right jobs weren't there. Someone that made 85k at a job won't care about those numbers when they're making 38k somewhere else or are working part-time. A lot of people have lost their jobs or are working less. For instance, I'm teaching fewer classes this fall. Doesn't bother me, since I have so many projects independent of work, but other people more desirous of money or raising a family will not be happy. Jobs are always going to carry more weight than lines on an economic graph. They tell a very surface-level story.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Even if one believes that's the case. the buck stops with Trump. He can't claim to be the law and order candidate when he isn't doing anything to support that. 

Trump at least deserves some of the blame here. The biggest question for the election I think is how voters respond to this. If the violence and rioting get worse, do they blame Dem. Governors or Mayors, or the Rep. President? If a governor accepts a federal offer of help, does Trump open himself up to liability if there's continued violence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

They're relying on RCP which is now obsolete with 538's more expansive tracking (and it includes all of RCP). I'm not sure where they'd have Clinton, but even with the FiveThirtyEight polls Biden doesn't stack up with Clinton as of today in the battleground states; yet, he's about double her performance in national polls. Here's some thoughts:

  • The 2020 polls are more accurate than the 2016 polls, which might mean Biden has less support, but his lead might be more accurate.¬†
  • Trump is holding on to a lot of his support from 2016, but since he's no longer leading in these states, he clearly has lost some support, which is hard to win back.¬†
  • Biden is favored in cities much more than even Clinton was, but Biden is less liked in rural and suburban areas than Clinton was, and that explains the double support Biden has nationally while underperforming by almost double in battleground states. This seems like the least logical of my statements here.¬†
  • Undecided voters are fewer in 2020, which has leveled out the polls in battleground states. In 2016, Trump was a political unknown and people weren't yet sure if they would support him. Now, with two well-known candidates, almost everyone has made up their mind. Which would again make Biden's case stronger.¬†

As someone that wants Biden to win, I don't find this worrying. It sort of just makes sense. If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be worried that Trump isn't leading in states he won. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That doesn't mean much when the right jobs aren't returning. You always leave that out

My point is the economy is improving. Your point seems to be 'but not enough yet'. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, just pointing out the current trajectory probably helps Trump, even though following that trajectory to Nov. it still might not be enough.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Same in Canada. Our media is pretty biased against Trump - we don't have a Fox News equivalent. Virtually nothing the typical Canadian hears in Canadian press re Trump is positive.

https://tnc.news/2020/08/17/500-more-cbc-headlines-about-kamala-harris-than-leslyn-lewis/

To be quite honest, I fully agreed when Andrew Scheer ripped the CBC for covering Kamala Harris more than Leslyn Lewis; CBC is the Canadian version of CNN when you really slice through all of the extra coverage.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Trump at least deserves some of the blame here. The biggest question for the election I think is how voters respond to this. If the violence and rioting get worse, do they blame Dem. Governors or Mayors, or the Rep. President? If a governor accepts a federal offer of help, does Trump open himself up to liability if there's continued violence?

That's definitely going to play a role. I don't think Trump wants to really flex his muscle in these situations, since it will likely increase violence and make him seem less likely to be able to manage it. It's one of those lose-lose situations. By acting, it will be impossible to do it without increasing a loss of life, without seeming autocratic, and without seeming racist. By doing nothing, he can just hope that the "what if he did something" thought will produce images of him pulling off a miracle, but ultimately it just becomes rhetoric and symbolism--the ol' timey passive political response. Obama did this all the time. 

If I were a political advisor or president, I'd do the following:

  • I'd give a major prime time speech--empathizing with the emotional concerns of both parties. I'd praise the constructive and peaceful rhetoric and activity from people on both sides. After 50% of the time proving I'm well-informed and empathetic with both arguments. I'd condemn the aspects and problems of both sides. Violence from either side will not be tolerated. After spending about 10% of the time condemning actions and rhetoric on both sides. I'd spend 20% of the time talking about how both sides might be undermining and perpetuating the problem, even if they are well-intentioned. I'd then finish, with the last 20% of my time, proposing some solutions, meetings, and etcetera to improve conditions and problem areas leading to these protests. Maybe cops would get more psychological treatment, paid leave, early retirement, and anyone with a checkered past (such as a history of domestic violence) will not be permitted to be a cop. Funding would be restored, and more funding granted to implement these changes. Similarly, police reform in inner cities would be conducted in such a way as to reduce the rate at which black unarmed people are killed by police. One such reform could be the use of effective military grade non-lethal weapons, which incapacitate but do not kill or paralyze (I read a whole book on this for a military history class War & Society). I would also propose that cities, if they do not have them already, create committees, councils, etc. aimed at keeping track of potential causes of race-based policy violence and work to remedy them at the local level. The committee would be a mix of legal experts, police experts, civil rights experts, and community leaders. I would also have the president tour the major protest cities. I would make a White House committee that does similar things to these local committees. Honorary members of the committee would be those family members killed by the cops, and the family members of police officers killed in the line of duty from those same cities. I would add more incentives for police officers that show both bravery and perfect restraint in dealing with potential suspects. I would encourage all Americans to peacefully protest, and that their work will lead to reform. Etc etc etc.¬†

Overall, I think people will be shocked when they feel like a president understands them and is actively trying to do something. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

You guys' economy is improving rapidly, and your COVID-19 situation is also improving rapidly (sunbelt spike looks like it's over for the time being, about to drop out of top 10 internationally in mortalities / M). These are probably the 2 most important trends moving towards election day. Of course, they could change at any time, but for now, the trends are in Trump's favour.

Not all states are the same. For example, Democratic governors (with some Republicans like DeWine) are credited with good responses to the pandemic. The federal government essentially did nothing - the states did it. So viewing the US response as one coherent message or way is inaccurate because even neighboring states handled things much differently. (Even some of the same party). The lack of response by the administration is the bigger fault than any actions they did take, because there weren't many. Calling it a win because Blue states like NY and the Northeast have settled the virus down is inaccurate. My state hasn't slowed down in the slightest. We're a swing state with a Republican governor who has a 28% approval rating. Its not a monolith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Not all states are the same. For example, Democratic governors (with some Republicans like DeWine) are credited with good responses to the pandemic. The federal government essentially did nothing - the states did it. So viewing the US response as one coherent message or way is inaccurate because even neighboring states handled things much differently. (Even some of the same party). The lack of response by the administration is the bigger fault than any actions they did take, because there weren't many. Calling it a win because Blue states like NY and the Northeast have settled the virus down is inaccurate. My state hasn't slowed down in the slightest. We're a swing state with a Republican governor who has a 28% approval rating. Its not a monolith.

Ya, you're right that regional patterns could matter, especially in swing states. IA could be the difference between one candidate winning or the other, and it might have a big flare up in the next couple months, and that might negatively impact Trump, even if national trends continue down in terms of mortalities per day.

  • Upvote 1
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...