I'm beginning to doubt Trump's relection chances

[seanD]

Cool, so Dems have this in the bag, and won't need to come out in numbers for the election!

The AOC landslide win in NY tells me that unfortunately might not happen.

But again, they're apparently slated to have three general debates between Biden and Trump. I can't believe they actually might go through with it. God help us.

[Cow Poke]

The AOC landslide win in NY tells me that unfortunately might not happen.

But again, they're apparently slated to have three general debates between Biden and Trump. I can't believe they actually might go through with it. God help us.

I'm open to whatever. Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst.

[Reepicheep]

A New York Times poll was released today which has Biden at +14 (more specifically, Biden 50% and Trump 36%). The FIVETHIRTYEIGHT website gives this poll a grade of A+ for reliability, so it can be trusted.

An analysis of the state level data in the above poll contains very bad news for Trump. If we assume Georgia (which, in their last poll, flipped from Republican to Democrat) goes Democrat, then there are only five remaining tossup states. According to the above poll, Biden leads in all five states:

+11 Biden - Wisconsin
+10 Biden - Pennsylvania
+9 Biden - North Carolina
+7 Biden - Arizona
+6 Biden - Florida

Trump would have to win in all five of these states in order to be elected to a second term. In addition, Trump would have to hold on to Texas, which is currently +2 Trump.

If Trump is able to hold on to both Georgia and Texas, then he would have to win Florida plus three of the remaining four tossup states in order to be elected to a second term.

[Whateverman]

An analysis of the state level data in the above poll contains very bad news for Trump. If we assume Georgia (which, in their last poll, flipped from Republican to Democrat) goes Democrat, then there are only five remaining tossup states. According to the above poll, Biden leads in all five states:

+11 Biden - Wisconsin
+10 Biden - Pennsylvania
+9 Biden - North Carolina
+7 Biden - Arizona
+6 Biden - Florida

Trump would have to win in all five of these states in order to be elected to a second term. In addition, Trump would have to hold on to Texas, which is currently +2 Trump.

I tend to only pay casual attention to polling numbers, and I believe you do the same in the practical sense, even though your threads are often focused on them.

I admit the numbers do seem to spell bad news for the orange messiah.

For me, the focus is on how Trump reacts to numbers like this - and lately he's been doing nothing but tossing red meat to his base. I gotta think that no matter what these particular numbers look like, he's getting data which suggest the same thing - and it bothers him deeply.

[Reepicheep]

I gotta think that no matter what these particular numbers look like, he's getting data which suggest the same thing - and it bothers him deeply.

I agree. I think Trump is starting to realize that he is heading for a defeat in November, which is why he is already claiming that the November election is going to be "rigged".

As many of us have pointed out before, Trump claimed that there were around 3 million, and possibly more, fraudulent ballots in the 2016 election, and that was an election he won. I can't imagine a scenario where Trump loses in 2020 and he doesn't claim that widespread voting fraud took place.

***************

The interesting question is: does Trump actually believe the stuff that he posts about election fraud? I'm inclined to think that he does. Deep down, I think Trump is an insecure child who is trying to prove to his long dead father that he is a success. Trump's fragile ego doesn't allow for the possibility that he could possibly fail at any undertaking that he attempts. Not exactly the "stable genius" that I'd pick to be in charge of the US nuclear codes...

[EvoUK]

I agree. I think Trump is starting to realize that he is heading for a defeat in November, which is why he is already claiming that the November election is going to be "rigged".

As many of us have pointed out before, Trump claimed that there were around 3 million, and possibly more, fraudulent ballots in the 2016 election, and that was an election he won. I can't imagine a scenario where Trump loses in 2020 and he doesn't claim that widespread voting fraud took place.

***************

The interesting question is: does Trump actually believe the stuff that he posts about election fraud? I'm inclined to think that he does. Deep down, I think Trump is an insecure child who is trying to prove to his long dead father that he is a success. Trump's fragile ego doesn't allow for the possibility that he could possibly fail at any undertaking that he attempts. Not exactly the "stable genius" that I'd pick to be in charge of the US nuclear codes...

I'm wondering how many of the usual suspects on here will jump on the election fraud bandwagon if and when the orange bowel movent whines about it.

[Cow Poke]

I'm wondering how many of the usual suspects on here will jump on the election fraud bandwagon if and when the orange bowel movent whines about it.

Am I "one of the usual suspects"?

Nope - it will be what it will be. But I do appreciate the very adult way in which you phrased your wondering.

[Whateverman]

The interesting question is: does Trump actually believe the stuff that he posts about election fraud? I'm inclined to think that he does. Deep down, I think Trump is an insecure child who is trying to prove to his long dead father that he is a success. Trump's fragile ego doesn't allow for the possibility that he could possibly fail at any undertaking that he attempts. Not exactly the "stable genius" that I'd pick to be in charge of the US nuclear codes...

I got back and forth between thinking he does/does not believe what he says - and having no idea whatsoever as to what's in his head.

[seanD]

I'm wondering how many of the usual suspects on here will jump on the election fraud bandwagon if and when the orange bowel movent whines about it.

"Usual suspects" makes no sense in the context of anyone on the right here at tweb, unless you were referring to someone from the left whining about Russian conspiracies and election meddling. That's all they've been doing since 2016.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I'm wondering how many of the usual suspects on here will jump on the election fraud bandwagon if and when the orange bowel movent whines about it.

I wonder how many on the left will jump on the bandwagon if Trump gets reelected.

[Chaotic Void]

I'm wondering how many of the usual suspects on here will jump on the election fraud bandwagon if and when the orange bowel movent whines about it.

I don't particularly like ol' Cheetoface, so I imagine I don't count as a Usual Suspect, but as I said earlier in this thread... Only time will tell. Polls are great for getting people's thoughts at the time, but a LOT can happen in a few months. If 2016 is anything to go by, everyone thought Trump was going to get OWNED, then the Election actually came around and Hillary Clinton lost to the Political Equivalent of The Joke Character in a Fighting Game.

[DesertBerean]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45721[/ATTACH]

Whut he said.

[Whateverman]

If 2016 is anything to go by, everyone thought Trump was going to get OWNED, then the Election actually came around and Hillary Clinton lost to the Political Equivalent of The Joke Character in a Fighting Game.

This is a persistent mischaracterization (though I'm not accusing you of doing it intentionally).

It's true that for at least the first half of the 2016 campaign season, polls were weighted (some heavily) against Trump. However, as the campaign season went on, the polls narrowed substantially, such that a good number of them gave him even odds on winning a few weeks before the voting began. The notion that all the polls were against Trump is simply untrue, and is largely pushed by him and his supporters.

National polls correctly predicted the popular vote. Individual state polls were shaky, and the electoral polls were flat-out wrong.

[Reepicheep]

+11 Biden - Wisconsin
+10 Biden - Pennsylvania
+9 Biden - North Carolina
+7 Biden - Arizona
+6 Biden - Florida

The bad news for Trump is coming at such a pace that my post from this morning needs an update.

I mentioned in my earlier post that Georgia is +1 Biden. A new poll just came out, which increases Georgia to +2 Biden. As well, a Fox News poll (rated A- by the FIVETHIRTYEIGHT website) for Texas was just released, which rates Texas as +1 Biden. I overlooked the fact that a poll from yesterday had Ohio going from Trump to +1 Biden. Putting all this information together gives us:

+11 Biden - Wisconsin
+10 Biden - Pennsylvania
+9 Biden - North Carolina
+7 Biden - Arizona
+6 Biden - Florida
+2 Biden - Georgia
+1 Biden - Ohio
+1 Biden - Texas

If all these states vote Biden in November, then the electoral college tally would be:

405 - Biden
133 - Trump

Trump's lead in Iowa has been reduced to a razor thin +1, so Iowa could be the next state to flip to Biden.

If the GOP strategists aren't concerned by these polls, then they are fools.

[Terraceth]

This is a persistent mischaracterization (though I'm not accusing you of doing it intentionally).

It's true that for at least the first half of the 2016 campaign season, polls were weighted (some heavily) against Trump. However, as the campaign season went on, the polls narrowed substantially, such that a good number of them gave him even odds on winning a few weeks before the voting began. The notion that all the polls were against Trump is simply untrue, and is largely pushed by him and his supporters.

National polls correctly predicted the popular vote. Individual state polls were shaky, and the electoral polls were flat-out wrong.

Chaotic Void didn't say a single thing about polls. The statement was "everyone thought Trump was going to get OWNED". The statement was not on who would win, but who people thought would win.

I am not sure why you are claiming that a lot of people were giving "even odds" for Trump winning. If you are referring to betting sites, they were giving about 80% Hillary, 20% Trump, as seen here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/bett...-election.html

See also these articles:
https://www.ibtimes.com/presidential...hances-2443035
https://www.oddsshark.com/entertainm...s-2016-futures

Remember, betting odds aren't abstract numbers based on pole interpretations. They're set based on what people are betting on; if people are overwhelmingly betting one way, you give lower odds for the other to incentivize people to bet on that (as it would mean if they bet on the option perceived as less likely, they'll make a greater return). So not only are these not close to even odds, these show that people--or at least those who were placing bets--strongly believed that Hillary was going to be the victor.

So I don't see how you're refuting what Chaotic Void said. Not only did Chaotic Void say nothing about the polls, but only predictions, your claim of "even odds" doesn't seem to be supported. Maybe you're referring not to betting sites, but pundit predictions based on polls, but I don't recall "even odds" being given, as I recall FiveThirtyEight giving about a 30% chance for Trump and that was noted by others as being a fairly high prediction compared to what other people were saying.