Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

Kat

Biden

(moving my post and the quote here since it could derail the other topic, shame on me.  

mcgruff10 said:

I don't know if anyone else saw the video on twitter of the couple wearing swastika masks to the supermarket and the woman saying that would be Joe Biden's America if he's elected. It was pointed out that we fought a war against the Nazis and they lost. I didn't want to bring the video here. How many Nazis are out there? Do they feel safe wearing that emblem? I mean, free speech is a right but I wouldn't go out and poke a hornet's nest just because I can. I'm not crazy as far as I know.   I hope they realize the truth and put those masks in a hole in the ground with some dog poop.
Hey Nazis, get a nice sports team mask.

OnWis97

Biden

The Juggler said:

Nate Silver keeps teasing their forecast model. Looking forward to that coming out soon. I'm assuming it will give Trump better odds than most of the others as it did four years ago. 

We could have a pool...

...But I'm not sending anyone money.

I'd say 62% chance Biden wins according to the first Silver model.

Halifax2TheMax

OnWis97 said:

The Juggler said:

Nate Silver keeps teasing their forecast model. Looking forward to that coming out soon. I'm assuming it will give Trump better odds than most of the others as it did four years ago. 

We could have a pool...

...But I'm not sending anyone money.

I'd say 62% chance Biden wins according to the first Silver model.

I'll guess 53%-47% Sleepy Woke Joe over Team Trump Treason.

JimmyV

Biden

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

Gern Blansten

Biden

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

Kat

Biden

She's just so cute.

https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1287085527053643778

JimmyV

Biden

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

Gern Blansten

Biden

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

The Juggler

Biden

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

Good god. This conversation again? Lol

The. Polls. Were. Accurate. (They were in 18 also)

They’ll be even more accurate this time around. 

The Juggler

Biden

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

So again, these are not polls....these are the odds to win the election. As you can see 538 only gave HRC a 58% chance 100 days out. Seems pretty reasonable, no?

I'll say they have Biden at 65% or so. We shall see

Gern Blansten

Biden

Yeah at 100 days Hillary was favored by 1% or so.  Biden is up by 8-10% I think.

JimmyV

Biden

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

I didn't say we should ignore the polls. I said the overall percentage will be largely meaningless and that the states themselves will tell the story. We don't have a national vote so pointing to a national polling average seems a bit like trying to predict who will win the World Series by calculating who will score the most runs over seven games. It might get you the right answer, but only if the losing team (Clinton) doesn't win game 1 (California) in a rout. 

JimmyV

Biden

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

So again, these are not polls....these are the odds to win the election. As you can see 538 only gave HRC a 58% chance 100 days out. Seems pretty reasonable, no?

I'll say they have Biden at 65% or so. We shall see

58% in November would have made more sense than 70%, yes, but you still wouldn't be able to back that up by his prediction in the individual states. 

Gern Blansten

Biden

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

I didn't say we should ignore the polls. I said the overall percentage will be largely meaningless and that the states themselves will tell the story. We don't have a national vote so pointing to a national polling average seems a bit like trying to predict who will win the World Series by calculating who will score the most runs over seven games. It might get you the right answer, but only if the losing team (Clinton) doesn't win game 1 (California) in a rout. 

I agree....but without a Comey letter this year's state polls should be much more accurate.

The Juggler

Biden

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

I didn't say we should ignore the polls. I said the overall percentage will be largely meaningless and that the states themselves will tell the story. We don't have a national vote so pointing to a national polling average seems a bit like trying to predict who will win the World Series by calculating who will score the most runs over seven games. It might get you the right answer, but only if the losing team (Clinton) doesn't win game 1 (California) in a rout. 

His lead in the swing states is close to the national lead. 7.6 in Mich. 6.7 in PA and and 7.1 in WI. Well over margin of error. The fact that the national lead is so large is a good indicator of what will happen on Election Day. In '16 HRC's lead was never close to as big. Her average rarely got over 45-45%, thus her state leads were also slimmer.

This ain't 2016, folks. 

The Juggler

Biden

JimmyV said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

So again, these are not polls....these are the odds to win the election. As you can see 538 only gave HRC a 58% chance 100 days out. Seems pretty reasonable, no?

I'll say they have Biden at 65% or so. We shall see

58% in November would have made more sense than 70%, yes, but you still wouldn't be able to back that up by his prediction in the individual states. 

No not really. I would say 70% was reasonable, especially considering only 70,000 people out of 130 MILLION essentially decided the election. And also Jim fucking Comey was extremely difficult to factor in so close to Election Day. 

70% was a pretty good gauge, if you ask me. 

JimmyV

Biden

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

So again, these are not polls....these are the odds to win the election. As you can see 538 only gave HRC a 58% chance 100 days out. Seems pretty reasonable, no?

I'll say they have Biden at 65% or so. We shall see

58% in November would have made more sense than 70%, yes, but you still wouldn't be able to back that up by his prediction in the individual states. 

No not really. I would say 70% was reasonable, especially considering only 70,000 people out of 130 MILLION essentially decided the election. And also Jim fucking Comey was extremely difficult to factor in so close to Election Day. 

70% was a pretty good gauge, if you ask me. 

58% is better than 70% based on what happened, not on what Silver predicted was going to happen. Trump's number should have been lower and Hillary's higher based on the numbers in WI, MI and PA. Trump had no path to 270 without at least one of those and he was at less than 28.6 in all three. Pointing to the national prediction allows us to ignore Silver was essentially predicting a close popular vote but an electoral college landslide for Clinton. I don't fault him for that and it's not that far off from what I thought was going to happen. But I was wrong, and so was he. 

Ledbetterman10

Biden

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

2016 % were not meaningless.  They were relatively accurate

The states were not relatively accurate. MI, WI and PA were wildly off. Why argue this point?

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

Silver's overall percentage should be reflected in the states. You'd be hard pressed to crunch Trump's numbers as presented back then and come up with 28.6. 

They weren't....Silver predicted a national vote of Clinton by 2-3% and that was right on.

Yes MI, WI and PA were off but the polls did not have time to adjust to the Comey letter....remember that?

To say we should ignore the polls in 2020 due to the fucked up election of 2016 makes no sense.

I didn't say we should ignore the polls. I said the overall percentage will be largely meaningless and that the states themselves will tell the story. We don't have a national vote so pointing to a national polling average seems a bit like trying to predict who will win the World Series by calculating who will score the most runs over seven games. It might get you the right answer, but only if the losing team (Clinton) doesn't win game 1 (California) in a rout. 

His lead in the swing states is close to the national lead. 7.6 in Mich. 6.7 in PA and and 7.1 in WI. Well over margin of error. The fact that the national lead is so large is a good indicator of what will happen on Election Day. In '16 HRC's lead was never close to as big. Her average rarely got over 45-45%, thus her state leads were also slimmer.

This ain't 2016, folks. 

And today in the Phillies thread you said "Sixers and golf, folks."

You're turning into Biden!

JimmyV

Biden

It ain't 2016, and it ain't November yet, but it is still America. 

The Juggler

Biden

JimmyV said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The Juggler said:

JimmyV said:

The overall percentage will be largely meaningless, much like it was in 2016. The individual states should tell the story. But, since we're prognosticating....

Biden 68%
Trump 32%

So again, these are not polls....these are the odds to win the election. As you can see 538 only gave HRC a 58% chance 100 days out. Seems pretty reasonable, no?

I'll say they have Biden at 65% or so. We shall see

58% in November would have made more sense than 70%, yes, but you still wouldn't be able to back that up by his prediction in the individual states. 

No not really. I would say 70% was reasonable, especially considering only 70,000 people out of 130 MILLION essentially decided the election. And also Jim fucking Comey was extremely difficult to factor in so close to Election Day. 

70% was a pretty good gauge, if you ask me. 

58% is better than 70% based on what happened, not on what Silver predicted was going to happen. Trump's number should have been lower and Hillary's higher based on the numbers in WI, MI and PA. Trump had no path to 270 without at least one of those and he was at less than 28.6 in all three. Pointing to the national prediction allows us to ignore Silver was essentially predicting a close popular vote but an electoral college landslide for Clinton. I don't fault him for that and it's not that far off from what I thought was going to happen. But I was wrong, and so was he. 

What part of Jim Comey don't you understand? The polling didn't have enough time to take his nonsense into account. 

58% or 70% is not 100%. It just meant HRC was the prohibitive favorite...which she was. Plenty of others had HRC as around a 90% lock on Election Day. 

538 was more accurate than any other forecasting model.