State of the Race: 13 Days Left

[admin_270 846]

2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Same GOP internal shows Ernst trailing Greenfield by 5.

Ya, I wouldn't be surprised if Ernst isn't going to make it.

IA and AZ -> D?

AL and MI -> R?

 

[Hestia11 572]

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, I wouldn't be surprised if Ernst isn't going to make it.

IA and AZ -> D?

AL and MI -> R?

 

I think Peters will pull it out. It'll be closer than expected, but I think he'll make it. 

Ernst made a fatal mistake when she simply couldn't afford to. 

[vcczar 1,224]

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, I wouldn't be surprised if Ernst isn't going to make it.

IA and AZ -> D?

AL and MI -> R?

 

Not impossible MI goes R in Senate race, but it's unlikely. I like the GOP candidate though. 

[Zenobiyl 209]

55 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, I wouldn't be surprised if Ernst isn't going to make it.

IA and AZ -> D?

AL and MI -> R?

 

Michigan could go R. Still, I think its 50/50 unless something shakes up the race. My personal principle is to favor incumbents in 50/50 scenarios, so I favor Peters.

[Hestia11 572]

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/20/bloomberg-trump-florida-spending-430236

Bloomberg may have actually done it...

[Hestia11 572]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/politics/trump-china-taxes-financial-records/index.html

Taxes continues to plague Trump. If Biden brings up he paid more in China than in the United States, he could put Trump on his heels. 

[Jayavarman 129]

1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/20/bloomberg-trump-florida-spending-430236

Bloomberg may have actually done it...

Trump poll numbers have improved significantly in Florida since last month.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html

[Hestia11 572]

Just now, Jayavarman said:

Trump poll numbers have improved significantly in Florida since last month.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html

Its not just Florida, but forcing the Republicans to divert spending to Florida to defend it.

[PoliticalPundit 285]

58 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Its not just Florida, but forcing the Republicans to divert spending to Florida to defend it.

you realize Clinton outspent Trump by $240 million and still clearly lost?

 

You know it's bad when they've gone to talking about fundraising/ads bc they dont like the polls 

[The Blood 113]

8 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

you realize Clinton outspent Trump by $240 million and still clearly lost?

 

You know it's bad when they've gone to talking about fundraising/ads bc they dont like the polls 

Look, whether it's you, Admin, or someone else, there is a consistent breed of poster on here who is obsessed with pointing to half-truths, specific sets of data, or entirely different elections if it means disregarding what the "mainstream" thought is on this election to push forward a narrative that Biden is coming down and that Trump is surging forward. I admit, if Trump keeps closing the gap I will be nervous for Florida, but you cannot disregard entire, key sets of data such as fundraising and spending in such a dangerous manner as you are now. Sure, Clinton did outspend Trump, but as it pertains to 2020, Biden's large national lead, the extreme negative-partisanship going against Trump this election, and the generally strong campaign Biden has run compared the the unorganized mess of Trump's(Compared to Clinton in 2016), all lead to the idea that this race is not 2016, and comparing the two like this is wrong and dangerous. And, without the Trump-factor(The populism and strong energy which allowed for him to beat Clinton with upsets in numerous states), ad spending really matters, and Biden has been and will be outspending Trump in countless states he needs to win.

[PoliticalPundit 285]

16 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Look, whether it's you, Admin, or someone else, there is a consistent breed of poster on here who is obsessed with pointing to half-truths, specific sets of data, or entirely different elections if it means disregarding what the "mainstream" thought is on this election to push forward a narrative that Biden is coming down and that Trump is surging forward. I admit, if Trump keeps closing the gap I will be nervous for Florida, but you cannot disregard entire, key sets of data such as fundraising and spending in such a dangerous manner as you are now. Sure, Clinton did outspend Trump, but as it pertains to 2020, Biden's large national lead, the extreme negative-partisanship going against Trump this election, and the generally strong campaign Biden has run compared the the unorganized mess of Trump's(Compared to Clinton in 2016), all lead to the idea that this race is not 2016, and comparing the two like this is wrong and dangerous. And, without the Trump-factor(The populism and strong energy which allowed for him to beat Clinton with upsets in numerous states), ad spending really matters, and Biden has been and will be outspending Trump in countless states he needs to win.

Disagree entirely re Ad Spending and your entire point about fundraising mattering.

 

I don't believe in polls in the Trump era, but I sure as heck believe in them a LOT more than whether X candidate raises this much money. 

 

What exactly is the half truth about saying Clinton raised $240 million more than Trump? And what's wrong with a "specific set of data"?  Isn't that the point of analysis? 

 

the point being, celebrating that the Biden campaign is spending more than Trump in ads is non sensical GIVEN the nature of the race 4 years ago w the same candidate, media structure etc.. 

 

I can understand polls factoring in (despite their margin of error) but fundraising is what you're considering a victory? Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders would have won then. 

[TheLiberalKitten 301]

One key thing I'm looking at during this election is turnout, especially since its not like other elections where mail-in was an option almost nationwide. Although in Arizona, we have voted through mail longer than I could vote

 

[The Blood 113]

2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I don't believe in polls in the Trump era, but I sure as heck believe in them a LOT more than whether X candidate raises this much money. 

That isn't my point. I am pointing to Biden's massive national lead, Trump's serious negative-partisanship, and Biden's superior campaign to say that this isn't 2016, and that the Trump upset we all saw isn't coming. Thus, without this massive advantage to Trump, stuff like ad spending and fundraising matters a lot more. I'm not saying fundraising is all there is, but it matters a lot. Buttigieg went from an unknown mayor to the winner of Iowa because of the money he poured into organization, and Sanders didn't lose because money doesn't matter, but because the holistic totality of the factors and demographics in the campaign were against him. Fundraising is part of this totality for Biden and Trump as well, and without the Trump upset being a real possibility which clogs up space in these totalities, now fundraising matters a lot more. It isn't all important, but it matters. If you really believe polls, fundraising, and the series of differences between 2016 and now don't matter, then yeah, you are going to base your ideas off of specific sets of data, instead of the holistic totality of this data as I am doing.

[PoliticalPundit 285]

15 minutes ago, The Blood said:

That isn't my point. I am pointing to Biden's massive national lead, Trump's serious negative-partisanship, and Biden's superior campaign to say that this isn't 2016, and that the Trump upset we all saw isn't coming. Thus, without this massive advantage to Trump, stuff like ad spending and fundraising matters a lot more. I'm not saying fundraising is all there is, but it matters a lot. Buttigieg went from an unknown mayor to the winner of Iowa because of the money he poured into organization, and Sanders didn't lose because money doesn't matter, but because the holistic totality of the factors and demographics in the campaign were against him. Fundraising is part of this totality for Biden and Trump as well, and without the Trump upset being a real possibility which clogs up space in these totalities, now fundraising matters a lot more. It isn't all important, but it matters. If you really believe polls, fundraising, and the series of differences between 2016 and now don't matter, then yeah, you are going to base your ideas off of specific sets of data, instead of the holistic totality of this data as I am doing.

Totally subjective ^ bolded

To my knowledge Trump's team has done a far better job with ground game, registering new Republicans, get out the vote etc.. 

And once again, "massive national lead" means absolutely nothing it's all electoral college based. Why does it matter what an 'undecided" in states other than Florida, PA, Wisconsin etc think? 

 

You also fundamentally believe in polls as "accurate" which I fundamentally disagree with in every aspect.  

 

You talk about me not looking at the differences between 2016 and 2020, and all I see is the exact same thing repeating all over again. You don't see many similarities? The one significant difference is Biden's favorability vs. Clinton Ill give you that. 

 

I truly don't think (not you specifically) people still don't understand why Trump won in 2016 bc of the "RUSSIA!!!" narrative clogging up actual reasons people moved to him. Deja vu all over again... 

[The Blood 113]

1 minute ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Totally subjective ^ bolded

To my knowledge Trump's team has done a far better job with ground game, registering new Republicans, get out the vote etc.. 

And once again, "massive national lead" means absolutely nothing it's all electoral college based. Why does it matter what an 'undecided" in states other than Florida, PA, Wisconsin etc think? 

 

You also fundamentally believe in polls as "accurate" which I fundamentally disagree with in every aspect.  

 

I truly don't think (not you specifically) people still don't understand why Trump won in 2016 bc of the "RUSSIA!!!" narrative clogging up actual reasons people moved to him. Deja vu all over again... 

National leads matter. They help show us where momentum is, and help give us a look into who will run up statewide totals on election day. They also show how surmountable someone's lead is. Biden's lead will be a tough battle for Trump. Do you really believe Biden will lose Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but will win the popular vote by the margin the polls are saying? That's very, very unlikely, because national polls do in fact show us how likely a victory is for a candidate, without the Electoral College being a real factor. But then again, you don't believe in polls, or any substantive data, so I can't even argue with you here. So, I am ending the conversation now, because we fundamentally disagree here.

[PoliticalPundit 285]

4 minutes ago, The Blood said:

National leads matter. They help show us where momentum is, and help give us a look into who will run up statewide totals on election day. They also show how surmountable someone's lead is. Biden's lead will be a tough battle for Trump. Do you really believe Biden will lose Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but will win the popular vote by the margin the polls are saying? That's very, very unlikely, because national polls do in fact show us how likely a victory is for a candidate, without the Electoral College being a real factor. But then again, you don't believe in polls, or any substantive data, so I can't even argue with you here. So, I am ending the conversation now, because we fundamentally disagree here.

Yep we fundamentally disagree.  

[Cenzonico 224]