Jump to content
270soft Forum

Nominees that have defeated Incumbents


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think polls are the only thing that can give anyone an accurate national or statewide estimate. I think one can get a local estimate by looking at the differences in street signs and bumperstickers from 2016 to 2020, for instance. Aside from polls and signs, I'm not sure how anyone can estimate the race. You have to have data for that. 

In regards to signs, I am yet to hear of anyone's neighborhood showing more Trump signs and less Democratic signs. Every story I've heard reflects @Actinguy's story. A GOP suburb of Ohio that had had dozens of "Lock her Up" signs and no Clinton signs in 2016 to one that has Biden signs competing with Trump signs in 2020. 

One doesn't even have to look at national and state polls. There's demographic polls, such as the one I posted that shows Trump having more than a 10% drop in support of White men. Considering how close WI, MI, and PA were, I think a drop of 1% would be enough for Biden to win these states, if all other demographics stay about the same. 

If polls did not exist or if one refused to put any faith in polls, what would you use to estimate that Trump or Biden is winning?

Trump has very little to be optimistic about. If he wins this election, it will be twice as unexpected as 2016. The only thing that will buffer the shock value is that the 2016 election had been shocking. It's not impossible for Trump to win two elections in a row that seem to completely defy pundits, data, and etc., but to do it twice is improbable (although not impossible).

To be fair I've certainly seen about twice as more Trump signs where I live in Ohio than 2016. However there's also more Biden signs. But the Trump signs still outnumber the Biden signs by a good margin, and my commute takes me through a rural area, suburb, and small town.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

First-past-the-post is anathema to the will of the voters' in the larger scope. [...] It's, frankly, a wretched form of electing lawmakers

British Columbia had a referendum on this just awhile ago (2018). FPP won decisively against PR, 61% to 39%. So the FPP voting system is apparently not anathema to the voters here at this point.

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

British Columbia had a referendum on this just awhile ago (2018). FPP won decisively against PR, 61% to 39%. So the FPP voting system is apparently not anathema to the voters here at this point.

Yes, I heard. Many analysts actually blamed a lack of education by a lot of other voters about what PR actually meant, and that the local media had a hard time articulating it. So, your point is not really cut-and-dry, there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, I heard. Many analysts actually blamed a lack of education by a lot of other voters about what PR actually meant, and that the local media had a hard time articulating it. So, your point is not really cut-and-dry, there.

Specific PR systems which retain local representation (such as MMP) are actually fairly difficult to explain.

My guess is people voted for FPP because 1. it's simple to understand from a voter's perspective, 2. they liked their local representation as it is (instead of larger districts and so on), and 3. they didn't want party lists which could give party elites more power in selecting who's in the legislature. Just my guess.

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...