Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[fwc577]

If Biden can do for Texas what Obama did for Texas in 2008, Biden will win Texas 48.7 to 46.6

Florida is always a huge battleground. Since 1972, they've voted for the winning candidate in every election except for Bush Sr in 1992. Obama won Florida by slim margins (+3 and +2) during his Presidency and Trump won it in 2016 by +1.2 with neither candidate eclipsing 50% of the vote. The last time neither eclipsed 50% of the vote in Florida? 2000. Only two recent polls show Trump with a lead in Florida. One with a poor sample size from InsiderAdvantage and right-leaning Trafalgar Group which giving a quick look at the polling data they submitted, HEAVILY oversampled Whites. Ethnicity Participation was 65.5% White while the state is only like 55.5% White while under sampling every single other demographic.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won it by the slimmest of margins (44,292 votes or +0.7%) and a Republican hadn't won Pennsylvania since 1988, even during BOTH Bush Jr races, Bush Jr. couldn't secure wins in Pennsylvania. Biden currently leads Pennsylvania by a minimum of 5% on even right-leaning polls such as Rasmussen. Even Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage shows Biden winning Pennsylvania.

If Trump loses one of these three states, he has virtually no path to 270 EVs.

[beanman12345]

If every state did it the EC would effectively become a popular vote...unless I'm still misunderstanding what you're getting at.

I'm looking forward to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact being passed.

Maybe I am explaining wrong let me try again. If Texas goes fully proportional, the possible snowball effect could mean the end of the EC, which would be good. However I don't think that'll happen. What I think more likely is they go towards district/semi proportional voting like ME/NE the possible snowball effect could mean the country goes towards the district/semi proportional, which would be bad.

Like if the entire country was like ME/NE Bush would have won handedly in 2000 with no need for SCOTUS fuckery, again in 2004, obama would have won in 2008, but much more narrowly, Romney would have won in 2012, and Trump would have still won in 2016.

Thankfully I don't see that happening, however I also don't see TX going full proportional either.

[PhaelixWW]

If every state did it the EC would effectively become a popular vote...unless I'm still misunderstanding what you're getting at.

To be fair, it would be a popular vote that would be slightly favored towards the GoP.

In the Nebraska/Maine method, the state proportionally assigns all but two of each state's EVs, then awards those two to the state winner. Currently, more states vote Republican; in 2016, it was 30 states to 20 + DC, which represents an 18 EV bonus to the GoP. Roughly speaking, that means a Democrat candidate would have to win the popular vote by about 5 percent in order to actually win.

EDIT: It depends on the election, however. In 2012, Obama actually won more states than Romney, so it would have helped the Obama that year.

- - - Updated - - -

Like if the entire country was like ME/NE Bush would have won handedly in 2000 with no need for SCOTUS fuckery, again in 2004, obama would have won in 2008, but much more narrowly, Romney would have won in 2012, and Trump would have still won in 2016.

In 2012, Obama won the popular vote and had more states, so there's really no way he would have lost that election. And in 2008, it wasn't even close.

[SirBeef]

But if the Republicans do that, if they are forced to that with Texas, then the death of the Electoral College is close.

Even if Biden wins Texas 51-49, the 19 or 20 ECs he would get in a split vote would sink Trump. Because he is losing PA, MI, WI already. He needs all three plus all 38 of Texas's to win.

[Daelak]

Past polling error never has any effect whatsoever on current and future polling error. There's only a few things that can reduce predictive error rates;

1. Polling a larger and larger percentage of the voters.
2. Making sure that nothing new happens in-between the polling date and the official voting date.
3. Reducing various social phenomena such as preference falsification.

Thinking that historical data reduces future uncertainty is magical thinking and if that were true then what we would find is that society always moves in a straight line towards higher and higher levels of certainty as more data is accumulated.

Your first point is a fallacy. Increasing sample size would not lower the MoE unless it is several orders of magnitude higher, i.e. 1,000 to 1,000,000 and even then the confidence interval would be lowered by one percentage point. That's the fundamental basis for statistics and probability.

[beanman12345]

To be fair, it would be a popular vote that would be slightly favored towards the GoP.

In the Nebraska/Maine method, the state proportionally assigns all but two of each state's EVs, then awards those two to the state winner. Currently, more states vote Republican; in 2016, it was 30 states to 20 + DC, which represents an 18 EV bonus to the GoP. Roughly speaking, that means a Democrat candidate would have to win the popular vote by about 5 percent in order to actually win.

EDIT: It depends on the election, however. In 2012, Obama actually won more states than Romney, so it would have helped the Obama that year.

- - - Updated - - -


In 2012, Obama won the popular vote and had more states, so there's really no way he would have lost that election. And in 2008, it wasn't even close.

https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if...-and-nebraska/ romney would have won.

[Draco-Onis]

Your first point is a fallacy. Increasing sample size would not lower the MoE unless it is several orders of magnitude higher, i.e. 1,000 to 1,000,000 and even then the confidence interval would be lowered by one percentage point. That's the fundamental basis for statistics and probability.

I wouldn't bother he thinks mathematics, statistics and science in general are fake.

[fwc577]

https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if...-and-nebraska/ romney would have won.

But you just shifted the goal posts. In your original post, you said if the other states operated like Nebraska and Maine. Now you're talking about splitting the EC which is entirely different and that link even calls out that Nebraska and Maine would still be an outlier in that scenario.

[cubby]

If Biden can do for Texas what Obama did for Texas in 2008, Biden will win Texas 48.7 to 46.6

Florida is always a huge battleground. Since 1972, they've voted for the winning candidate in every election except for Bush Sr in 1992. Obama won Florida by slim margins (+3 and +2) during his Presidency and Trump won it in 2016 by +1.2 with neither candidate eclipsing 50% of the vote. The last time neither eclipsed 50% of the vote in Florida? 2000. Only two recent polls show Trump with a lead in Florida. One with a poor sample size from InsiderAdvantage and right-leaning Trafalgar Group which giving a quick look at the polling data they submitted, HEAVILY oversampled Whites. Ethnicity Participation was 65.5% White while the state is only like 55.5% White while under sampling every single other demographic.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won it by the slimmest of margins (44,292 votes or +0.7%) and a Republican hadn't won Pennsylvania since 1988, even during BOTH Bush Jr races, Bush Jr. couldn't secure wins in Pennsylvania. Biden currently leads Pennsylvania by a minimum of 5% on even right-leaning polls such as Rasmussen. Even Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage shows Biden winning Pennsylvania.

If Trump loses one of these three states, he has virtually no path to 270 EVs.

If Biden wins Texas the overall count could be a major landslide.

[beanman12345]

But you just shifted the goal posts. In your original post, you said if the other states operated like Nebraska and Maine. Now you're talking about splitting the EC which is entirely different and that link even calls out that Nebraska and Maine would still be an outlier in that scenario.

How am I shifting goalposts. Nebraska and Main split their EC, that's what I've been talking about the entire time.

[cubby]

Maybe I am explaining wrong let me try again. If Texas goes fully proportional, the possible snowball effect could mean the end of the EC, which would be good. However I don't think that'll happen. What I think more likely is they go towards district/semi proportional voting like ME/NE the possible snowball effect could mean the country goes towards the district/semi proportional, which would be bad.

Like if the entire country was like ME/NE Bush would have won handedly in 2000 with no need for SCOTUS fuckery, again in 2004, obama would have won in 2008, but much more narrowly, Romney would have won in 2012, and Trump would have still won in 2016.

Thankfully I don't see that happening, however I also don't see TX going full proportional either.

Ah, ok - I think I find myself now possibly not understanding how ME/NE proportionate their votes - I'll take a quick gander. I see what you're getting at now though.

I don't see the EC actually going away, because of the Amendment requirement being such a high threshold to achieve.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, it would be a popular vote that would be slightly favored towards the GoP.

In the Nebraska/Maine method, the state proportionally assigns all but two of each state's EVs, then awards those two to the state winner. Currently, more states vote Republican; in 2016, it was 30 states to 20 + DC, which represents an 18 EV bonus to the GoP. Roughly speaking, that means a Democrat candidate would have to win the popular vote by about 5 percent in order to actually win.

EDIT: It depends on the election, however. In 2012, Obama actually won more states than Romney, so it would have helped the Obama that year.

Ah, interesting - I feel like I should have known that, but did not. Thanks the quick run-down. So my earlier statement wouldn't be right, because the ME/NE method isn't a straight popular vote apportionment, because of the two EC votes left over for the state popular win (and may I just say, that's pretty fucked up).

[postman1782]

Damn someone better stop that dastardly Hunter Biden from getting elected then.

Yep, meanwhile he will support a guy that paid a Playboy Bunny and a Porn star for sex, while he is married, for the 3rd time.

[PhaelixWW]

https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if...-and-nebraska/ romney would have won.

So, I think we're talking cross-wise, which is largely due to my mistake. What you're saying is true for the Nebraska/Maine methods, which award a single EV individually for each congressional district. I got turned around because the original poster mentioned "proportional split", which is actually a different proposition entirely. I mistakenly attributed that to the Nebraska/Maine method.

Under a proportional split, what I said would be true.

Under the district-level split, what you said would be true.

In either case, the NPVIC is the better choice.

[beanman12345]

So, I think we're talking cross-wise, which is largely due to my mistake. What you're saying is true for the Nebraska/Maine methods, which award a single EV individually for each congressional district. I got turned around because the original poster mentioned "proportional split", which is actually a different proposition entirely. I mistakenly attributed that to the Nebraska/Maine method.

Under a proportional split, what I said would be true.

Under the district-level split, what you said would be true.

In either case, the NPVIC is the better choice.

Right, I'm all for a proportional split. But as I said, i just don't think that's likely. But my way is not likely either, it's all hypothetical.

[SirBeef]

To be fair, it would be a popular vote that would be slightly favored towards the GoP.

In the Nebraska/Maine method, the state proportionally assigns all but two of each state's EVs, then awards those two to the state winner. Currently, more states vote Republican; in 2016, it was 30 states to 20 + DC, which represents an 18 EV bonus to the GoP. Roughly speaking, that means a Democrat candidate would have to win the popular vote by about 5 percent in order to actually win.

EDIT: It depends on the election, however. In 2012, Obama actually won more states than Romney, so it would have helped the Obama that year.

- - - Updated - - -


In 2012, Obama won the popular vote and had more states, so there's really no way he would have lost that election. And in 2008, it wasn't even close.

I just did the math on both 2012 and 2016. Both still would have lost. Although HCR would have had 259 ECs. But it just goes to prove that small population states have a larger disproportion over votes.

- - - Updated - - -

https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if...-and-nebraska/ romney would have won.

Just saw this link. I wasn't counting for any 3rd party and definitely have rounding errors.

[alexw]

If TX only yes dem's would get more EC votes, but if every state did that, Dem's would get much less.

Though thankfully I don't see solid blue states like NY/Illinois/California ever ever going that route, so just hypothetical.

Democrat controlled states would never ever ever do that, so the only ones who might (in your hypothetical scenario) would be the republicans meaning that it'd be them guaranteeing that they never ever hold the presidency again.

[PhaelixWW]

Maybe. Or they go the route of nebraska/maine, which, if the entire country did that, dems might never hold the presidency again.

This isn't actually true, however. The advantage would typically go to whomever controlled the House (or how the House would look after the election, more accurately), as that would be mostly representative of how those districts voted. In the 2012 election, Democrats lost over 50 seats and control of the House, which is what would have translated to that loss to Romney.

The GoP has controlled the House for most of the last 25 years, but the Democrats controlled for most of the 60 years prior. And with the Democrats currently having control of the House and almost all signs pointing to that lead increasing in this presidential election, then the NE/ME method would likely have benefited the Democrats more than the Republicans this time around.

[fwc577]

How about something a little fun. How about the Melania body double? https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/10/...al-first-lady/

Here is Melania and the SS agent who is her body double pictured together. Notice the nails on the agent? The hair color? The fact that in my link above, the smile and teeth are completely wrong to be Melania?



Here is a pic of fake Melania getting off the helo with Trump:

[alexw]

If Biden can do for Texas what Obama did for Texas in 2008, Biden will win Texas 48.7 to 46.6

Florida is always a huge battleground. Since 1972, they've voted for the winning candidate in every election except for Bush Sr in 1992. Obama won Florida by slim margins (+3 and +2) during his Presidency and Trump won it in 2016 by +1.2 with neither candidate eclipsing 50% of the vote. The last time neither eclipsed 50% of the vote in Florida? 2000. Only two recent polls show Trump with a lead in Florida. One with a poor sample size from InsiderAdvantage and right-leaning Trafalgar Group which giving a quick look at the polling data they submitted, HEAVILY oversampled Whites. Ethnicity Participation was 65.5% White while the state is only like 55.5% White while under sampling every single other demographic.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won it by the slimmest of margins (44,292 votes or +0.7%) and a Republican hadn't won Pennsylvania since 1988, even during BOTH Bush Jr races, Bush Jr. couldn't secure wins in Pennsylvania. Biden currently leads Pennsylvania by a minimum of 5% on even right-leaning polls such as Rasmussen. Even Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage shows Biden winning Pennsylvania.

If Trump loses one of these three states, he has virtually no path to 270 EVs.

Trafalgar group is junk polling.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...81379067215875

[fwc577]

Trafalgar group is junk polling.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...81379067215875

Yup, I'm aware. Taking a simple look at Florida already shows easy issues with their polling data. Why is your polling percentage have 65% of Whites in a state that only has 55% White representation? Oversampling a single demographic by 10% is a huge error.