One to Choose (Sub Politics Thread USA Edition)

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
17,652
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Actually, I think I'll rescind that.

Running the boards again today the feeling I'm now getting is a Trump win. Similar margins to last time. The polls miss the shy Tory/Trump factor, the size of which will be bigger this time.
Must remember there could be up to 100m voters already voted, I'm not sure who that will benefit, It is a sizable % of those able to vote mind.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,977
Actually, I think I'll rescind that.

Running the boards again today the feeling I'm now getting is a Trump win. Similar margins to last time. The polls miss the shy Tory/Trump factor, the size of which will be bigger this time.
I'd caution against taking the polls in 2016 as a guide to this election. The fact they were marginally wrong last time precipitated a change in methodology, so comparisons are not very useful. Methodology still might be off of course, but it's definitely changed.

And besides that Biden is nationally 8% ahead, whereas Clinton was 3% on election day. Again, it still might not be enough, but definitely a better position.

On the shy Trump position, the prevailing thinking is that they will answer not sure/3rd party, rather than Biden. Last time there was a significant chunk in that bracket, whereas this time that group is much smaller. Crucially Biden is polling over 50%.
 

Mr Jinx

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
9,921
I'd caution against taking the polls in 2016 as a guide to this election.
I'm disregarding the polls altogether. It's the feeling I'm getting from the ground, message boards, etc. This has served me well in the past 5 years (the rise of Corbyn, EU referendum, GE 2015, 17 & 19). Funnily enough I didn't get this feeling with US Election 2016; I thought Hilary was a done deal and went to bed early. I don't remember any polls being 3% close. Going to bed, the New York Post had Hilary's chances at 95%. I think this time round they have Biden at 65%.

Some chap has just put down the largest political bet ever, $5m on a Trump win. He is close with insiders apparently.
 
Last edited:

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,977
I'm disregarding the polls altogether. It's the feeling I'm getting from the ground, message boards, etc. This has served me well in the past 5 years (the rise of Corbyn, EU referendum, GE 2015, 17 & 19). Funnily enough I didn't get this feeling with US Election 2016; I thought Hilary was a done deal and I went to bed early. I don't remember any polls being 3% close. Going to bed, the New York Post had Hilary's chances at 95%. I think this time round they have Biden at 65%.

Some chap has just put down the largest political bet ever, $5m on a Trump win. He is close with insiders apparently.
Doesn't matter how close you are to anyone, at this stage that is a bloody stupid bet.

Re. Clinton, most of the late polls have her in the 3-4% range, some less than that, with the odd outlier more. She had a bigger lead earlier on in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election?wprov=sfla1
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,977
Must remember there could be up to 100m voters already voted, I'm not sure who that will benefit, It is a sizable % of those able to vote mind.
Supposedly it benefits Biden. One of the Trump hopes was that Democrat voters scared of COVID wouldn't vote, whereas Republicans would. The large amount of early voting suggests they've found other means than queuing for hours on election day.

For context, there are around 230 million eligible voters. In 2016 the total turnout was just shy of 140 million.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
17,652
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Supposedly it benefits Biden. One of the Trump hopes was that Democrat voters scared of COVID wouldn't vote, whereas Republicans would. The large amount of early voting suggests they've found other means than queuing for hours on election day.

For context, there are around 230 million eligible voters. In 2016 the total turnout was just shy of 140 million.
This is reported to be on course for a record number of voters voting, One thing that gets me is those who try to get people signed up to vote are seen as biased, I can't see how getting people to exercise their democratic right and vote can be seen as that? I haven't seen any of those trying this telling how people should vote, They're just saying its your right to vote.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,977
This is reported to be on course for a record number of voters voting, One thing that gets me is those who try to get people signed up to vote are seen as biased, I can't see how getting people to exercise their democratic right and vote can be seen as that? I haven't seen any of those trying this telling how people should vote, They're just saying its your right to vote.
I suppose one could argue that they're usually targeting a demographic that generally votes a particular way.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
17,652
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
I suppose one could argue that they're usually targeting a demographic that generally votes a particular way.
That could be argued but those that think that, Their policies are for the benefit of all surely? Including those who are being asked to exercise their right to vote or are their policies not for the likes of them? It's very similar to the 1960's when people went to the deep South of the US registering black people to vote and coming up against those opposed to this and still wanted the old ways kept.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,977
That could be argued but those that think that, Their policies are for the benefit of all surely? Including those who are being asked to exercise their right to vote or are their policies not for the likes of them? It's very similar to the 1960's when people went to the deep South of the US registering black people to vote and coming up against those opposed to this and still wanted the old ways kept.
Yes, but as working class Trump voters prove, what's best for you is not necessarily what you vote for. One thing you can be sure of is that one side will object to what the other side is doing, even if it seems fairly innocuous.

Hell, we're not immune to that. Witness the reaction of our press to Harry telling people to vote.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
17,652
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Yes, but as working class Trump voters prove, what's best for you is not necessarily what you vote for. One thing you can be sure of is that one side will object to what the other side is doing, even if it seems fairly innocuous.

Hell, we're not immune to that. Witness the reaction of our press to Harry telling people to vote.
I must be niave then, I can't see a problem with it
 
Top