'People Are Going To Be Shocked': Return of the 'Shy' Trump Voter? - POLITICO
Although I am disappointed with the candidates, this presidential election should prove to be interesting. The R candidate is an incumbent who, as a person, is demonstrably a narcissistic pathological liar and pretty much an asshole who cavalierly exploits people for his own benefit. The D candidate is a career politician who is clearly past his prime, lacks the charisma of Obama and whose presidency might be influenced by the more extreme factions at play in his party, but is a grandfatherly decent man who would (unlike his opponent) behave in a presidential manner.
The polls consistently suggest that Biden is going to win. But the polls still are based on statistical methods with relatively small samples sizes. They are also a function of asking questions to those people who are willing to give time to the pollster. We have seen how wrong the polls can be so it probably is not wise to think they are going to be correct. In contrast to that which we would expect from the polls, Trump seems to be able to draw large numbers to his rallies; an indication that people are willing to physically act in favor of Trump.
Ultimately the winner of the presidential race is determined by those who cast their vote and I am not confident that the polls yet accurately reflect this.
Bottom line, I do not think it is possible to confidently predict who will be the next PotUS.
Better get out and vote!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In 2016, pollsters Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly saw Trump coming. In 2020, they see polls again underestimating his support.
Zack Stanton is digital editor of Politico Magazine.
With Nov. 3 racing toward us, it can be tempting to see the 2020 election as a done deal. For months, Joe Biden has consistently and convincingly led Donald Trump in polls. Swing states in the industrial Midwest and Sun Belt appear to be heading Biden's way, and if you trust the polls, it's not a leap to imagine him winning 330+ electoral votes.
But what if you shouldn't trust the polls?
In 2016, months of national polls confidently showed Hillary Clinton ahead, and set many Americans up for a shock on Election Night, when the Electoral College tilted decisively in Trump's favor. Two pollsters who weren't blindsided by this are Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly. Kapteyn, a Dutch economist who leads the USC's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, oversaw the USC/Los Angeles Times poll that gave Trump a 3-point lead heading into election day—which, Kapteyn notes, was wrong: Clinton won the popular vote by 2 points. Cahaly, a Republican pollster with the Trafalgar Group, had preelection surveys that showed Trump nudging out Clinton in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina—all of which he won.
This year, both men believe that polls could again be undercounting Trump's support. The reason is "shy" Trump voters—people reluctant to share their opinions for fear of being judged. Though the "shy voter" idea is thrown around a lot by both Trump supporters and Democratic skeptics, Kapteyn and Cahaly have specific insights into why, and how, Trump support might be going undetected.
For Cahaly, those votes are likely to make the difference again. "There's a lot of hidden Trump votes out there," he says. "Will Biden win the popular vote? Probably. I'm not even debating that. But I think Trump is likely to have an Electoral College victory."
As an illustration, Kapteyn described what his team at USC sees in its polls. Beyond simply asking voters whether they support Biden or Trump, USC asks a "social-circle" question—"Who do you think your friends and neighbors will vote for?"—which some researchers believe makes it easier for people to share their true opinions without fear of being judged for their views.
"We actually get a 10-point lead, nationally, for Biden over Trump" when asking voters who they personally plan to support, says Kapteyn. "But if you look at the 'social-circle' question, Biden only gets like a 5- or 6-point lead. … In general—and certainly on the phone—people may still be a little hesitant to say to that they're Trump voters."
"We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they'll lie to their doctor, they'll lie to their priest," says Cahaly. "And we're supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger?"
This year, conventional pollsters say they've learned their lessons, and are accounting for factors that skewed their results last year. Kapteyn and Cahaly aren't so sure, as they explained to POLITICO this week via Zoom. A transcript of that conversation is below, condensed and edited for length and clarity.
Election Day is next week. National polling averages show Biden leading Trump by around 9 points. In 2016, averages had Clinton up by around 3 points, but you both ran polls that showed Trump winning the presidency. What do you see this year?
Robert Cahaly, the Trafalgar Group: Well first, we don't do national polls, and that's for the same reason I don't keep up with hits in a baseball game: It's an irrelevant statistic. But the battleground-state polls are a little closer [than the national polls], and there's a lot at play. People are going to be shocked. A lot of people are going to vote this year who have been dormant or low-propensity voters. I think it's going to be at an all-time high.
The models of who's going to turn out this year are very flawed. What type of person comes out for Trump? They're not a normal election participant. They're a low-propensity voter. We included them in all of our surveys in fall 2016, and we are including them now.
Relying on live callers for polls is especially bad in this modern era, where "social desirability bias" is in full play. People avoid awkward conversations. So when a person you don't know calls and asks how you feel about Donald Trump—and you don't know how they feel—you tend to give them an answer that you think will make them look at you in the best light. We've seen it year after year, and I think it is very much at play this year.
Polls are undercounting the people who don't want to give their real opinions. If they had corrected anything, why didn't they see Ron DeSantis winning in his 2018 race for governor in Florida? They made the exact same mistake with his opponent, Andrew Gillum. [The final RealClearPolitics polling average in that race had Gillum up by 3.6 percentage points. DeSantis won by 0.4 percentage points.] This wasn't some random state's race; this was the hottest, meanest—neck-and-neck races for governor and senator in Florida in an off-year election. Every single major player was polling that state. And 100 percent of them got it wrong; we got it right.
Arie Kapteyn, USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research: First, let me start with a qualification about our results four years ago. It looked as if we did a good job because our national poll had Trump winning. But that, of course, was wrong: In the popular vote, Trump actually lost. So we didn't do that well, and the reason why was our sample had an overrepresentation of people in rural states. Even though we weighted by education and past voting participation and all of that, we simply had too many Trump voters in the sample.
We have about 9,000 people in our panel [this year], and they answer questions every two weeks. And we ask them a number of things. We ask the probability that they will vote. We ask them the probability they'll vote for Biden or Trump or someone else. But we now also ask them a question I think you'd always asked, Robert: "Who do you think your friends and neighbors will vote for?" We call it a "social-circle" question.
Now, we actually get a 10-point lead, nationally, for Biden over Trump. But if you look at the "social-circle" question, Biden only gets like a 5- or 6-point lead. One explanation for that may indeed be "social desirability." In general—and certainly on the phone—people may still be a little hesitant to say to that they're Trump voters.
Cahaly: I have many problems with polling today. It's outdated. Part of it is they can't concede that this model of long questionnaires, small sample sizes and exclusively live callers—I mean, they're attacking the guys putting up telegraph wires, but they're running the Pony Express.
People are busier than ever, and long questionnaires reduce the ability of average people to participate. Who has time to answer 22 questions on a Tuesday night when you're trying to fix dinner or put your children to bed? Nobody. You end up with people on the ideological extremes—either very conservative or very liberal—or, worse: people who are bored.
We give [respondents] lots of different ways to participate—online, by text or email. You get one of our text polls at 7 p.m., and you can flip through it while watching TV, or answer Question 1 at 9 p.m. and answer Question 2 the next morning. That's fine! We give you the time to participate on your schedule. We make it very easy. It takes less than three minutes if you do it all at once.
Kapteyn: We have an Internet panel, but it's a little different from most others. We recruit our respondents by sending them letters. We buy addresses from the post office—or from a vendor—draw randomly from addresses in the United States, invite people to participate in our studies and we pay them really well. We pay them to join, and then $20 for a 30-minute interview. We have a relationship of trust with them.
I agree that telephone polling in the traditional way, as far as I can tell, is pretty close to death. You get extremely low response rates, and there is this issue: Who is still answering the phone?
That's a thing [our surveys] don't really suffer from as much, because these people typically answer questions that aren't about politics. We ask them about their health or their finances. We give them cognitive tests. We do all sorts of scientific work. We get them to wear accelerometers and we measure their physical activity. Because they participate in all of this, they're probably less likely to be extreme—although if they had no interest in politics, they might not participate.
You both spoke with POLITICO after the 2016 election. Back then, you said that one of the big things polling missed was "shy" Trump voters. In retrospect, do you still think that's the case, or was there something else at play?
Kapteyn: We actually did a little experiment during the 2016 election: If you get called for a survey, and a live person asks who you're going to vote for, do you answer that question differently than if you'd received the question in a letter and mailed it back, or answered the survey online?
We found some evidence that being called up by someone you don't know makes people more hesitant to reveal their voting preference. And if you looked at whether these were Trump or Clinton voters, you did see that those people who told us they were Trump supporters were more likely to say they would not share their preference if they got called on the phone. So that at least suggests that there was a "shy Trump voter" phenomenon in 2016. Whether that's the case this year, I really have absolutely no idea. We haven't looked at that, and I just don't know.
Cahaly: I believe it was prevalent. In 2016, the worst being said about Trump voters is that they were "deplorable." 2020 is a whole different ballgame. It is worse this time—significantly worse. This year had more things where you can get punished for expressing an opinion outside the mainstream than almost any year I can think of in modern history.
I'm finding that people are very hesitant [to share their preference for Trump], because now it's not just being called "deplorable." It's people getting beat up for wearing the wrong hat, people getting harassed for having a sticker on their car. People just do not want to say anything.
We talk to lots of people in our surveys. And I hear things like, "Yeah, I'm for Trump, my neighbors are for Trump, but there's one neighbor who just hates Trump. And when he walks his dog, he kind of wrinkles his nose by those houses, and I don't want him to do it at my house, so I don't put a Trump sign. I like the guy, and I don't want him mad at me." I hear stuff like that all the time. People are playing their cards close to their chest because there's a stigma to being for Trump. What happens when the stigma rolls away from people who hide their vote, and they start admitting where they are? This is what I think is going to happen on Election Day.
Now, there's certain people who are vocal Trump supporters. To me, it has more to do with your personality. Are you the kind of person who avoids awkward conversations, or are you the kind of person who enjoys them? If you enjoy them, and you're for Trump, you'll tell everybody. You'll be in a boat parade! But if you're the kind of person who's quiet and non-confrontational, you aren't going to say anything. And a lot of those people live in the Midwest. They're very regular, down-to-earth folks who are kind and deferential.
Robert, I'm from the Midwest—Macomb County, Michigan, the home of the "Reagan Democrats," which voted for Obama twice then flipped to Trump. When you go there, you see tons of Trump flags in people's yards or waving from their trucks, reading, "Trump 2020: No More Bullshit." It's difficult for me to believe that people who are not shy about expressing their support for Trump in pretty much every other instance are shy when—
Cahaly: But they're different people! Think about what you just said, because that's the reason why other Trump supporters are shy: The soccer mom doesn't want to say she's for Trump because she doesn't want you to think she's one of them. You just made my point for me! That's exactly it! [Laughs]
This is probably a horrible example, but there are a lot more people who like professional wrestling than admit it. There are lots of fans who don't want you to think they're like the other people who like professional wrestling.
Kapteyn: The only point I would make is that it seems that over the years, increasingly, political preferences are localized. One county, one area is safe Democratic; the other area is Republican. If you're in the minority—you're a Democrat in a Republican area, or a Republican in a Democratic area—civil political discussions have sort of ceased to exist. People become careful in expressing their political preference if they feel that their whole neighborhood has a different opinion.
In that sense, I think there will be some symmetry in shyness, at least in sort of day-to-day conversations. It's not the same as answering the phone to someone you have never talked to, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests people are careful expressing their opinions if they feel they are in the minority.
Cahaly: Absolutely true. It doesn't matter whether it's in a family or a company, people do not like talking about politics when they feel like their opinion is in the minority.
Robert, after the 2016 election, you told POLITICO that you didn't buy the idea that there were shy Clinton voters.
Cahaly: I don't.
Do you believe there are shy Biden voters?
Cahaly: No. And not because it's just for Republicans. For example, had Bernie Sanders been the nominee and been beat up every day as being socialist, there would be a tremendous "shy" vote among moderate-to-conservative Democrats who would vote for him as their nominee, but who may not want to tell people.
It depends on the polarization of the figure. Nobody looks at Joe Biden and says, "Oh, it's toxic to be for him. People say Biden supporters are pond scum." Nobody says that. Nobody does that. It's really about the stigma you get for supporting the person.
Kapteyn: This is why I feel that using the Internet [for surveys]—in the way we do it—may help us a little bit. If someone on the Internet checks the box for Trump, no one is going to yell at them.
If someone is shy about their views, how do you measure that? You mentioned using online surveys rather than live phone calls. But how do you actually measure the existence of a group of people who won't give you their opinions? How do you know they exist?
Kapteyn: Partly, you ask, "What do your neighbors think?" or "What your friends think?" That's an indirect way of eliciting opinions.
Generally, if you do surveys, people give you all sort of wrong answers. In cases where you can verify it, you'll find that there are very systematic biases. For example, one of the things we do at USC is we measure people's physical activity—how active they are, how often they do sports. And I've done international comparative work on this. If you ask about it, Americans are just as active as the Dutch or the English. But if you measure it—
Cahaly: [Laughter] I love it.
Kapteyn: —you get a Fitbit, and sure enough, you notice an enormous difference. This is not unique to political polling; there is a general issue with asking questions and what to do with the answers.
Cahaly: I couldn't agree more. We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they'll lie to their doctor, they'll lie to their priest. And we're supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that.
Now, how we measure it is a little different. We find questions that are less confrontational. We brought the "neighbor" question into the mainstream, but I got that from a man named Rod Shealy, who's since passed. I learned a lot from him doing politics in South Carolina. He always said that people are real polite, so when you need to know what they think about something that's not pleasant to talk about, ask them what their neighbors think, because they'll give you their real opinion without you judging them for it.
This year, we're asking a series of other questions that are easy and don't seem like you're going to get judged harshly for answering them. Our first goal is to minimize the social desirability effect. And you do that by giving them a great sense of anonymity. The more anonymous they think they are when giving answers, the more honest they tend to be.
It's kind of like the people who have two Twitter accounts—the one where they tweet out pictures of their pets and children, and one where they just go give everybody a fit. Well, that "troll" account is their real emotion. And the persona that runs that troll account is the one in the ballot booth. That's who I'm trying to get to.
The results in 2016 really hurt people's willingness to trust polls. You're seeing it now: Democrats say, "Biden is leading, but the polls showed Clinton winning in 2016, and she lost." Among Republicans, it's sort of the opposite: "The polls in 2016 didn't reflect Trump's strength, but he won and will win again." So how should people look at the polls over the final days of this campaign?
Cahaly: One, they should ask themselves these questions: Do you know someone who is going to vote for Trump—someone who maybe confided that fact in a few people, but didn't share it widely? Do you think that person, if called on the phone by a stranger—a live person who knows who they are—would tell them? If the answer is yes, then you should be skeptical of polls that are given with a live person.
And ask yourself, would you answer a survey that took 20 or 25 minutes on a Tuesday night when you're feeding your family? If the answer is no, then you should look with skepticism at polls with long questionnaires.
Kapteyn: I think it's good to add some nuance to the idea that polls didn't do so well in 2016, because after all, if you look at the national polls, they actually weren't very far off when it came to the popular vote.
Another thing that may be a little underappreciated: One of the things that was quite clear just from looking at the data is that there were events late in the election season in 2016 that had an effect—for example, [FBI Director James] Comey's announcement that he was reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. That moved the needle by, like, 2 percentage points or so. I could see that in the data. And that's a big number, given how tight the election was. So I think there were some reasons why the polls seemed worse than they perhaps were—and why they couldn't be more accurate, because some major events happened very late.
Cahaly: I'm a little different on that one, because we saw the Trump numbers the whole time. Nothing was new about them to us.
Did the gap between polling in 2016 and the results affect the way either of you think about polling?
Cahaly: I became fascinated with why there was denial that social desirability bias was in play and important. It made me realize just how critical the assurance of anonymity is to getting an honest answer.
Other people started using our "neighbor" question, as Arie pointed out. And that caused us to think of some new questions we thought would be more revealing. And this time, we decided we weren't going to share them with the world.
Kapteyn: In that sense, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. We [USC's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research] are not a polling firm; we're a research firm. We happen to have this Internet panel where we ask people all sorts of questions, so why not also ask them about politics? For us, this is largely an experiment. That's why we ask about this in different way: We want to see what works best.
Frankly, if I were in the business of trying to forecast who's going to be elected, then a national poll is a pretty poor instrument for doing that, because it has become increasingly clear that the battleground states are really what matter. As far as I can tell, there are many more state polls than four years ago—for good reason. You see them in all the battleground states.
My model is more this: Try to understand what works, get into these social desirability or other questions as, frankly, a scientific exercise. And then, in the process, I will be happy if my estimate is right on the mark. But if it isn't, we have probably learned something, too.
Last question: The election ends on Tuesday. National polling has consistently shown a substantial lead for Biden. What is your message to people who think that this thing is done?
Cahaly: I don't think it's done. Some of these national polls are not even taking into consideration the fact that Republicans have closed the gap with voter registrations. I don't think they're taking into account the number of low-propensity voters who are voting and who will vote on Election Day. I don't think they're measuring people's genuine opinions. And I think [pollsters] are just not going to see it coming.
There's a lot of hidden Trump votes out there. Will Biden win the popular vote? Probably. I'm not even debating that. But I think Trump is likely to have an Electoral College victory.
Kapteyn: I will be really surprised, given our own numbers, if there isn't a very sizable gap between Biden and Trump in the popular vote—in favor of Biden. But in the states? I don't know.
Cahaly: I like your skepticism.
POLITICO
Tags
Who is online
499 visitors
It ain't over 'til its over; the swing states will determine the winner and those states are determined by those who actually cast a vote.
Substitute "ashamed" for "shocked" and you might be on to something. There probably are some Trumpsters that are ashamed to admit it.
There might be a lot of them.
I doubt that it is possible to confidently predict the winner this year, so people should ignore the polls and make sure they vote.
i'm positive there ARE a lot of them, as i know quite a few, and then there R those who still defend the mental midget, but know they made a serious mistake, yet they still refuse to admit as much n such. It is just ridiculous that this race is even a tad bit close. Yea Biden is nothing special, but Trump is a LYING Special ED with E. D. and other letters from his Dr. that he did dictate, but could not spell, or pronunseeKate
If people are "ashamed" to be known to have voted for Trump, then for God's sake, WHY WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIM!!! I can understand if a person wants who he votes for to be his choice and it's nobody else's business to know, but to be SHY about it? Afraid their family, friends and/or neighbours will shame them? Maybe such a person should take the advice of their family, friends and neighbours if that's the case.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you ever figure out what makes humans tick, let the rest of us know.
I'm not sure that even Sigmund Freud was able to.
I meant to say substitute "ashamed" for "shy". That makes more sense.
I don't know that "ashamed" is the right word. Over the past few years we have seen and heard stories of friendships ending, families split and other issues all because of the political divide in this country. We have forgotten how to disagree with each other without losing sight that we are all still people. And with the rhetoric getting louder and worse these past months I would think a lot of people are just staying quiet about their choices rather than see more arguments breaking out within their own families. And we have all heard the stories from various sides about potential issues, rioting, protests, etc that may or may not be occuring after the election. Business in some large cities have all boarded up in anticipation of trouble.
I have people in my family who are voting for each side and we all try to remember that after the election is finished we will still be family. So while I don't talk within my personal group about what political party I am voting for in each election, I do so more because of the perceived inability of people to remember that it's only an election and there will be another one in four more years. There are more important things in my life than to lambast someone because of who they choose to vote for president.
Some of us, live in the spaces of each day in four year increments. Our futures as outcast or mainstream citizens worthy of joy and laughter and more importantly a sense of belonging to the whole are constantly being dangled over a 'knife's edge.'
I think you meant that quoted portion well and positive; but not so for those who suffer when a foolish man or woman takes the reins of power and rides decent people down into the dust!
As I have said before, it wouldn't shock me if Biden wins big or if Trump pulls off another huge upset.
ever try stickin a dime in the electrical outlet ? asz that's how i get m,y something bout Mary hair look. Trump isd going down like the Orange Lying Clown with a shreiking sound, cause there are many who realize what a fck up he is after 4 years of total dysfunction and above the law bullsheet
they only see the tip of the iceberg...
It is possible. Largely we are operating on low information so this is mostly guesswork. And this is why I have asked people claiming that Trump will win to offer the data that substantiates such a declaration.
Because Trump voters tend to be so quiet, thoughtful and demure, always keeping their opinions to themselves. Their unassuming mild modest manners and their reserved nature are practically legendary... /s
The idea that any of Trumps base wouldn't loudly express how much they love Trump to anyone who will listen, from pollsters to random people in line at the grocery store, is frankly hilarious. The base are the only ones imagining that there is some larger "silent" group backing them up because they desperately want to believe their opinion represents what "most" Americans believe, which of course is fucking loony toons logic.
The conservatives on here insinuate that nearly every day. You're telling me I shouldn't believe my 'lying' eyes. Every single example of Trump voter I've come across in the last 4 years has never been shy about expressing it. To believe there is some hidden religious conservatives who are going to surprise everyone on election day by voting for Trump is frankly hilarious and can only be the deluded fantasies of a desperate minority who imagine they still represent the core of America when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. No one has been lying to pollsters, that's just wishful thinking from the party that's lagging way behind.
When all the votes are counted I believe there will be at least a 10 million popular vote edge for Biden though in the battle ground States it may indeed be a squeaker. I'm not saying there's no chance for Trump to win, I'm saying that Trump and his fascist right wing ideology does not represent the majority of Americans so the idea that there is this 'silent majority' waiting to vote for Trump is beyond ridiculous.
There are indeed people that support Trump that aren't vocal about it. I just don't think the number of them are significant.
People who are quiet and reserved rarely support braggarts or bullies, I think the number of "silent" Trump supporters could fit on a single bus. I think there are millions who have stayed relatively silent in their support for Biden and Democrats because they're not huge fans of the Democratic party, they're just completely turned off by Trump and Trumpism in general and so didn't want to tell any of their loud Trump supporting neighbors because they don't like conflict. They are likely the ones who will vote for Biden but then also vote for Republican Senators since they believe any one party in control of both the legislature and executive might have too much power. I think the Senate races will be a lot closer than the Presidential race which will be a landslide for Biden even in places where it wasn't expected.
Friend DP, I can guarantee you there is a silent majority out there of Trump supporters who love that he kicks liberals and bounces civil rights. They just don't like all the political 'blood-gushing' and grandstanding. "Please just do it; don't make us watch."
They will vote for Donald today, while and when it matters most!
I agree...what is the song? Once bitten twice shy....
I assume the author has not seen this.
LOL. What else can you expect when the "Leader of the Free World", the most powerful person in the world, the President of the USA, the man who sets an example for all Americans, is the most prolific liar in the world.
This is an example of where polling needs to head (and will head). But we are not there yet.
Maybe you're not there yet, but with the technology that's available, why is the USA so far behind Canada with it?
The mechanics of this election is so different than 2016, starting with a better candidate. A big point is that there isn't a 3rd party candidate pulling votes from Biden this year.
Toss in Covid.... and two hundred other factors, I'd follow the polls this year.
Texas is going to be interesting.
GOP has already sued Texas (and lost) to block over 100,000 votes from being counted. GOP sees Texas Turning purple, if not blue and are trying to prevent legal votes from being counted to stop the people's will.
Yes and they closed all but one drive-thru voting site. Assholes.
One other thing, Biden has been out there busting his hump the last several weeks. What did Hillary do the weeks leading up the the election? Went to bed. Got lazy. Had an arrogant attitude that she had it all sewn up.
Biden's campaign is a much different one than Hillary's. Should I say it? His has more energy
Sure.... go ahead and say it..... Biden's campaign has much more energy than Clinton's 2016 run.
LOL! I didn't know if there were still any Hillary hanger-ons out there. Didn't want my liberal card yanked away
Kayleigh McEnany going down with the ship.
“Our campaign believes that tonight will be a landslide,” the White House press secretary and Trump 2020 campaign adviser says on Fox News.
Very interesting based on the points you make! Although I am taking a wait and see approach, I'll take a stake in this one with you!
Biden respects his opposition's tendency to hustle. Voters respect hustle when they see it, too. Did you notice that Donald "hustled" over into the night trying to have the last word? What a 'dick' Trump is. This is what we are up against all day long (going forward). A clown who won't stop until he is politically KNOCKED THE HEAVEN OUT!!!
And now they're suing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Trump is going full flop sweat...
And I doubt anyone is surprised by these Trump moves. He will not go quietly into the night ... he will drag this nation through hell if he thinks he has a chance to prevail.
You could also say, "he will drag this nation through hell if he thinks he has a chance to stay out of jail."
IMHO, Trump will challenge the Electoral College if Biden gets to 270 before he does, even though that is how HE won the 2016 election. The only way he won was by reaching 270 in the Electoral College before Hillary, but, she won the total votes. So even if Trump gets more votes overall, he should play by the rules and accept that Biden by reaching the 270 Electoral votes first.
However, being that he is such a bully 2 y/o sore loser, what is good enough for him is not good for anyone else. And we know he never plays fair.
I'm not surprised in the least. These moves are just slimy tactics and acts of desperation. It seems Trump's ego will not let him accept the possibility that he might actually lose the election. But the lawsuits are saying is that, to Trump, some peoples votes do not matter.
He's already dragged the nation through the proverbial hell with his response to Covid. If he is reelected, then I wouldn't expect that to change. I would also expect to see anti-science mentalities or sentiments to rise.
The world in which Trump has always lived.
That's true.
I think it's a 5 or 6 point win for Biden in the popular vote, with a number of battleground states being very close. Biden probably wins a map close to Obama in 08, with smaller margins in most battleground states.
Based on what?
I think some of those that are being called "shy" voters , no matter what party they vote for , could also be those types of voters whom do not think its anyones business but their own who they vote for so they dont say . they vote and let the chips fall where they may.
In about 16 hrs , i will be at the polls casting my vote , some here may believe they know whom it will be for , they wont know until AFTER i cast my vote , and only then if i feel they should be privy to that info.
here is a hint , even my kids are not privy to whom i will vote for in any given election , and if asked i tell them its none of their business, if they ask me whom they should vote for themselves , i tell them to vote your beliefs and best interests .
As will the rest of the world. LOL It may be a long wait, until after the SCOTUS decides who wins the election. It's been established already in the USA as in a few third world countries that a majority vote doesn't necessarily determine the result, and in the USA, this year, even the electoral college may not determine the result.
yeah, a little old thing called the U.S. Constitution just has a nasty habit of proscribing how our President is elected.
I am sure there are people living in those third world countries who would just live to have a Constitution close to ours.
Yeah, you're right, but then so am I.
I think it is rather silly to equate the US with third world countries, but that is probably because I know better.
LOL. Of course, you're an American. You don't have the same objectivity or point of view as a person who isn't, and besides you're a defender of the president during whose "reign" the present chaos has been happening.
make that a proud American, and people who equate the US with third world countries can pound sand.
And believe it or not, some, that aren’t American, hate our president because he doesn’t have THIER best interests in mind. Lol. 😜
I don't equate the USA with third world countries, I simply reported what I've read and seen. You may be surprised, but I have loved the USA, travelled though it probably more than many Americans, owned and spent time in a home there. The USA has a much higher standard of living than any third world country, and is by leaps and bounds more technologically advanced. I just don't understand what's been happening there lately, in one of the most "civilized" nations of the world.
Seems to me he has always had HIS own interests in mind. I feel sorry for the American people for their present tribuations, and if he actually wins the election I pity them.
well, I sure didn't write post 9.
which equates the US to third w countries
Oh, I see, so every American's vote counts to elect the POTUS, and no individual's vote is disenfranchised by the electoral college system. That seems different than other advice about the American system that I have read and been told. If that is so, then why didn't Gore or Hillary Clinton become POTUS? And amazing, isn't it, that hundreds of thousands of Belarus citizens are disputing that their leader got a massive landslide victory. Something must be wrong there, eh?
And yes, in the manner of the social unrest in the USA, the protests, the rioting, looting, destruction of private property, the inability to come even CLOSE to containing a virus that other countries are doing so much better with, the contravening of laws, rules and protocols that your own POTUS and his administration have committed, intentional suppression of votes and voters - all of that DOES make one wonder about comparison with a third world country.
But then, as I've already said, the expectedly subjective viewpoint of an American about America really can be different than a more objective viewpoint of a person who isn't.
if you really saw. you would recognize that Trump won the election in 2016 like every President before him, by securing at least 270 EC Votes. as required by our Constitution
Tex to someone outside , the system definitely would seem strange , thats why i took the time to explain my view of how it works , and how i thought it could be improved with the least amount of disenfranchiment , not that it will ever be totally eradicated i think that is imposable , but limiting it to the absolute minimum is posable, just have to have the will to do so.
many of US DON'T
I see what you are saying, but Buzz is an expert, so I didn't think I needed to cover the basics.
LOL. That's funny. When I first came to China my visa read that I was a "Foreign Expert".
basics for us , but not for him maybe . i have a basic understanding of parliment . house of commons , house of lords , which i assume equate to our house and senate , and the prime minister being the equivilent to our president , with of course the added touch of a monarchy how it all works together i have no clue , just as i have no clue of the different parties of political interest. as he said our system seems complicated and confusing , its no less confusing or complicated as me looking at the system he is use to .
and if anyone sees an error in what i passed on to him , they are free to interject their thoughts.
Thanks for confirming I was right.
the popular vote has NEVER determined the winner of the presidency in the US it has always been the electoral college vote , have to admit its nice when they both coincide , but in the end its the EC vote that determines the winner. and i have to admit , im wondering myself if either side will have a clear EC win ( meaning the needed 270 ec votes).
If not it goes to the house and senate , house choosing president , and senate choosing vice president , and even with divided houses of congress that is not a sure thing for either party , since in both houses , each state gets but 1 vote so the one with 26 votes in the house gets the presidency and the one with 26 votes in the senate gets the vp slot .
what will be interesting is if those votes coincide with the actual popular vote in the respective states , for those states that split parties in either house , it will likely fall down to which party controls the state legislature in their represented state. it could get very complex and competative .
Thanks, Mark. The American system sure is complicated. I guess I'm more used to Canada's parliamentary system, which, interestingly, has a very different situation in that there can be a non-confidence vote at any time during a term that can bring down the existing government. So it is, I believe, throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations.
IT CAN get complicated , not that it really has to be .
My only and biggest gripe about the system to elect the president is surprisingly , the EC itself , and NOT for the reasons everyone else gripes about it . everyone else says it gives too much power to the smaller population states.
My gripe is that the winner take all position of the ec and 48 of the states use , disenfranchises voters that didnt happen to vote the majority within their state . so essentially those votes dont count. and to me that is wrong.
You want to see elections for the presidency get both more competative and fair to those casting the votes? instead of winner take all , EC votes are apportioned by congressional district , who ever gets the popular vote in any given congressional district of the house of reps , gets it single EC vote that would leave who gets the 2 EC votes that states get for senators , simple solution to me ? whomever gets the majority of ec votes per party gets one of them, the other one can be apportioned by the govenor , state legislature by majority vote
just as it will take a constitutional amendment to do away with the EC , it would also take a constitutional amendment to make the states apportion the EC count as i described .
Currently there is a backdoor effort to nullify the Ec with the national popular vote compact , problem(s ) i forsee with that , is it does not go into effect untill enough states sign on to equal 270 ec vote 9 or whatever it takes in the EC with the addition of states to the union ) so until its enacted it cannot be challenged in court and have the USSC make a ruling . another problem is that all compacts between states have to have the approval of congress, since they are in essense treaties .
Can you imagine the cluster fuggerdoodle that will happen if enacted and california has to give ALL their ec votes to the republican candidate simply because they won the popular vote nationally? and the states majority voted for the democrat? that sir is the recipe for an apoplectic kaniption fit , of volcanic proportions think krakatoa , the one that plunged europe int winter year round for a couple years.
As you know, Canada has provinces which are basically similar to American states - each one has jurisdiction over certain things such as education, etc. while the federal government has jurisiction over other matters such as criminal law, etc. However, even though some provinces may be small and less populated, such as Prince Edward Island, others highly populated like Ontario, EVERY Canadian has an equal vote when it comes to a federal election and NOBODY has EVER complained about that system, because it works, and nobody is disenfranchised.
unfortunately the way i see it here , as we saw we have impeachment , history has shown us , an impeached president has NEVER been removed from office .
we have also have civil disobediance to outright ignoring of legislation and laws left for the courts to decide . last and not least and its only been tried once under our constitution and i hope its never tried again , outright civil war of the military kind . grandpa when talking of history when i was younger told me that there were 4 boxes open to the people , and they needed to be used in order :
Soap box : get the discussio going get the ideas talked about , problem with that one , wont get everyone everywhere to agree .
Ballot box: thats currently being used , how the end vote ends up ? we shall see , so get out and vote .
Jury box : that one is a check and balance against the elected officials that would make laws that violate the governing document ( constitution), thats where the power of the higher courts come from.
Last
Bullet box : used if faced with a government unmoved and unconstitutionally tyranical, to date its been used twice , once to win our independance from the crown , and the second time during our civil war . and as i said i hope its never used again . at least not in my , or my kids or grandkids times.
sounds like what im aiming for , i do believe someone will always get disenfranchised in voting , the point i would like to see come to fruitation is that the least possable do get disenfranchised if it has to happen yet every vote counts happens as well . but that is asking for perfection , and that has not happened to my knowledge .
i apologize for the gramatical errors and sentence structure , i am enjoying a nice rocky patel cigar and a few hell several adult beverages of distilled spirits ( im a spiritualist )
i will be voting tomorrow with a slight touch of hang over . but not to the degree of the morning after the LAST presidential election results were announced......
I can understand absolutely the desire, it not the need, for Americans to fortify themselves these days with whatever they can inbibe, smoke, snort or otherwise do (except inject).
lol im chuckling at that Buzz , i know you understand what a guy goes through after a divorce , i was accused of being an alcky and dropped it like a hot rock cold turkey for 15 years and never touched a drop, as for cigars i developed a taste for them in the service ( damn they were cheap on base ) , after the divorce i looked at how the attempt to change me had been made and how i went along , i decided it was time to start enjoying the things i liked since the only repercussions i faced now was of my own makings .
How the election is dividing American families: When lifelong Democrat Mayra Gomez told her 21-year-old son five months ago that she was voting for Donald Trump in #Election2020 , he cut her out of his life https:// reut.rs/3mJGCWJ
Priorities that are way out of whack. As important as it is, the term of a PotUS is four years. Family relationships are for lifetimes and have direct, local effects on the individuals.
Really sad that some cannot rise above differences and preserve what is most important in life.
I have a brother who has three adult children and 14 grandchildren . All but my brother and his wife are my nieces and nephews. Their whole family so to speak is 8 adults and a half dozen teenagers ( and a bunch of little ones). Every single one of these 14 adults and teenagers is a Trump supporter. My brother, his wife, their three kids and their three kids spouses. All Trumpsters. ( They are fortunate enough to live in the only neighborhood in the city of Chicago that Trump carried in 2016. There are 80 official neighborhoods in Chicago and only one of them went majority for trump)
For four years I have basically held my tongue around them and to give them credit they have more or less kept their pro Trump bs to a minimum around me, because they know it would lead to no good.
People should always try to keep politics out of family relationships , if possible.
I agree, and when i hit the el loco drinking establishments, i also always try and steer the conversation a way from politix, and straight to Religion, and my first question posed is, how about that Abortion in the White Power House of Pane Glass with the pain inn the Asz staying shot put in place by putin ? I stir the p[ot, then
SMOKE IT !
with what, a Q tip...?
I don't talk to Trumpsters in real-life. We don't have anything in common—really. I learned this "attitude" back when I lost a good friend over his republican attitude about Barack Obama-not because of Barack's experience or lack of experience thereof, but that he would not give Barack a chance for his affection in so many months and years. (By the way, I have his friendship back now - I don't dare 'test' Trump with him.)
I gave Donald Trump a chance to make a good first impression and since the 'escalator incident' I have given Donald many chances to self-correct. And he has not shown any inclination to be reasonable, agreeable, or nice. It is 'combat' all the time with Trump. And, it is the same with every Trump supporter I encounter.
Always with the 'mouth'!
Right or wrong! Steam-rolling me over me is not how I roll. It just ain't going to happen. When anybody tries it with me - they draw back a nub!
sad that had to happen over politics , and i notice it is the son that took the action , not the mother .
I sympathize with the mom and i have no doubt the son will regret it someday.
in 2012 when i got divorced , my youngest , and only son , decided he had to take sides , in 2014 his mother remarried , he calls his step dad , dad. and has not spoken to me in 6 years , wasnt even invited to his wedding , but , thats HIS choice and i respect it.
just shows it happens and it can happen over anything. doesnt make it any less sad.
There has to more to the story than you're willing to tell. No son that loves his father is going cut him out of his life because of a divorce.
Of course there is more to it and it started long before the end came , its a story of differing parenting styles , substance abuse , legal problems as a result , , a sense of entitlement , as well as a very healthy dose of teen aged rebellion due to that sense of entitlement , theft, lying and general disrespect.
for my part i will never claim to have always done things right or in the right way i will say i did the best with the information i was privy to , and was given by those involved
even 15 years after it all started , it is still a sore and raw subject that i personally consider the largest and hurtful failures of my life and worse than the failure of my marriage.
even today my 2 daughters will say as we talk about past things , oh gawd if you had know this or that back then , you would have flipped a "bitch fit", my usual response is what would things be like if had known? no one says a word . it is the road that wasnt taken.
and that actually isnt even really scatching the surface of other multiple outside influences
I would have had her examined by a psychiatrist.
over a political opinion? sounds orwellian to me buzz.
would you say a life long republican voter that decides to vote for another party , not nessisarily a dem , needs to be looked at by a shrink? or is it just possable the persons view and priorities changed from that of the party they usually vote for?
parties change , as do people.
Why a lifetime Democrat would at this point think that Trump was the better choice is in my opinion a sign of a mental problem. Sure, Biden isn't a showman, doesn't have much charisma, but he's the only game in town to stop the chaos caused by Trump.
i was a life long repub and for the last 3 presidential elections have voted 3rd party as an independent on the presidential ballot and did the same during the bill clinton years the party moved away from my beliefs or i should say they went farther right than i was . and i am about the same age as the woman john mentioned
the party left me not me leaving the party , much like reagan , he was a dem until the party moved away from him and his beliefs .
If you are comparing yourself to her, keep in mind that you went independent, she is going for Trump, Big difference.
The son is the one that needs a psychiatrist, anyone that cuts a parent, son, daughter, or sibling out of their life over political differences is nuts.
When the 21-year-old son cut his mother out of his life she told him he was cut out of her will. Sonny boy apologized to his mom, begged for forgiveness and told her he was also voting for Trump LOL
And now the long and infamous day begins to overtake us all . . . .
Take us over where ? Who will wwee B over takin by, in famous and how Long till we get there, cause i am not
from hear ?
It's Vote Day! We need a 'fight' song! (No drinking songs, though. Vote Sober!!!)
LOL, just a small tad touch of hangover , and i have already said i am not doing the drinking game watching the results this year.
I'll keep looking at the math and while Trump does have a legitimate path to a 2nd term, it's a narrow one. There is a 90 percent chance on a Biden win and 3 out 4 chance the Dems take the Senate. There is a mathematical argument, based on polling data for both a Biden landslide AND a nail biter.
This will come down to Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin. I think Trump takes Iowa and Ohio by a narrow margin - Biden takes the rest. Just for shits and giggles I'm going to guess at Biden electoral win of 340+.
Frank Luntz says if Biden wins N Carolina, Ohio OR Florida it's over.
Agreed. Trump has to draw an inside straight flush. Unless the polling data are wrong.
Generally speaking, if a D candidate wins Florida or Ohio or Texas the R candidate is almost certainly toast.
We have more polls this time around than in 2016. Many more state polls and often larger polls. Still there may be unforeseen variables that can't be accounted for.
I think the main problem is the sampling. The old paradigm of asking questions from a selected sample is inherently skewed. A better method, IMO, is to gauge actual voting intent from voluntary communications (e.g. social media) across a massive sample (billions of communications). But even here we have a problem because not everyone is active on social media (even today) so the sampling will still be skewed. So one would need to bring in additional data such as buying habits, income levels, gender, race, marital status, rally turnout, etc. which have been determined to correlate with voting intent. This is a major league undertaking with likely dozens of factors but this is exactly the kind of problem that current machine learning algorithms solve.
I am not convinced that we yet have a good way to predict bizarre elections like this one but I am confident we will improve our capabilities dramatically for 2024. Mostly this is a function of getting the right data because the algorithms to process the data already exist (they just need to be tuned to the problem).
That is indeed an issue. A couple of the newest polls showing a last minute Biden surge had the largest & broadest polling sample of 1800 people. Better, but not optimal.
I think it would need to be AI driven.
If pollsters have screwed the pooch yet again this year it will be even more difficult to trust them in 2024.
"Golden Boy" Trump has the luck of the con on his side. He and his team are always scheming, thus nothing is over until its completely done! (And man, do I want this "crispy-critter" to be done!
Didn't Mayor Bloomberg (in the background for sure) lend VP Biden his data analytics 'lists'? As well as a 100 million campaign dollars thereabouts?
I even heard someone on Morning Joe announce that very thing about poll-taking credibility needing to 'dry up,' thrown out, and completely 'refurbished' if Trump defeats the proposed spread this time!
personally, so im fronting this as simply my opinion, when it comes to polling no matter how its done , some things to keep in mind is that dependent on what the polls about is how people will answer the questions.
poll about a place to eat , a brand of pet food , type or make of car or even company that makes a car and people wont hesitate to be honest with their opinions
Politics i think is something entirely different , its more like a card game to people and they play what they think when asked direct candidate questions they are either all in , or play it so close to the vest even they have a hard time peeking .
then you have to contend with those being polled that cant WAIT to screw with a political pollster , i know this because i use to enjoy doing it . figuring if they give the wrong info , the opposition will plan differently thus causing all sorts of problems during the race or election day. be it being over confident , or thinking they dont have to spend as much or even over spend in a saturated market .
i dont have an answer either to figure out how to do reliable polling when politics is concerned , because dependent on the person , it could be a very , very personal matter .
Obviously this didn't pan out. Pollsters, I think as TᵢG says, are going to need to find a whole new model for 2022 and beyond. No matter who wins (Biden is up as I type this) now it's apparent we are more divided than ever and the wings continue to pull it apart.
Trafalgar Group has a C- rating from 538. As they themselves point out - they were way off across the board in the 2016 cycle, they just happened to correctly predict a Trump win. Of races analyzed they've correctly called the winner 75% of the time, and they have shown a significant Repubican skew in their polling.
In the absence of any proposed solutions to any of the multiple crises facing our world and nation, elections are worse than a fraud. They become an attack on the working class which is the 90%. Lacking substantive policy proposals, elections are a lie. Why 'support' a lie?