Page 1 of 4
A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:09 pm
by Xenophon
I'm curious how the posters here expect election night to shake out and so I'm going to put mine out there and invite others to join in. We're down to the wire and a bunch of fresh polling has dropped in the last day or so so I'm not expecting any major polling shifts in the runup. Obviously if you want to hedge your bets you can wait till closer to election day to get the most up-to-date data but what is the fun in that? In wager I offer nothing but 4 years of bragging rights to those closest to the truth and maybe some humble pie for the rest of us.
I used the election map over at 538 but I think any source will do as long as it allows you to predict outcomes (Real Clear Politics should have one as well).
The calls that actually matter: I suspect Trump will hold on to Florida, Georgia, and Ohio but lose out on many of the swing states that secured his victory in 2016.
BEHOLD!
A link to my map
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:30 pm
by Some Schmo
It's funny; I was immediately reluctant to play this game due to some magical thinking on my own part: I didn't want my predictions to influence the outcome... like there is any relationship between the two.
Influence the outcome... that's not really it. It's more about making a prediction and being disappointed by its contrast with reality. That's what I want to avoid. I am going to act as though Trump is going to win until he doesn't, because quite frankly, I don't trust America to do the smart thing. I want to be prepared this time. Enough Americans are fat, lazy and stupid that Trump is totally possible again.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:48 pm
by Chap
Some Schmo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:30 pm
... I am going to act as though Trump is going to win until he doesn't, because quite frankly, I don't trust America to do the smart thing. ...
I think that is the smart way to approach the night of the election and the following days.
In the past I have stayed up all night to see election results come in. Once, long ago, I was only able to spend the night in front of a TV by staying away from my authorised location overnight, and climbing over a spiked wall to get back where I should have been before anybody noticed at dawn the next day. Nowadays I am more philosophical and scientific about it: late in the evening I get in a time machine, and am then transported instantly to next morning, when the results are all available. (My method of doing that does not involve the use of wormholes - anyone can do it.)
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:43 pm
by Xenophon
Some Schmo wrote:It's funny; I was immediately reluctant to play this game due to some magical thinking on my own part: I didn't want my predictions to influence the outcome... like there is any relationship between the two.
Some butterfly-effectesque ripples of your high hopes sealing the victory for Trump? I respect that.
Some Schmo wrote:Influence the outcome... that's not really it. It's more about making a prediction and being disappointed by its contrast with reality. That's what I want to avoid. I am going to act as though Trump is going to win until he doesn't, because quite frankly, I don't trust America to do the smart thing. I want to be prepared this time. Enough Americans are fat, lazy and stupid that Trump is totally possible again.
I can understand the sentiment. It is definitely a challenge to separate one's expectations or hopes from what you think is the most probable outcome. Even though 2016 didn't go quite the way I expected it was still within the realm of possibilities and I don't think my disappointment was increased just because of what I thought the probability was. It was plenty high all on its own.
I do think there are some fairly significant differences between this election and last:
- Polling errors from 2016 changed how a lot of the better pollsters do things. I think 2018's improved accuracy reflects those changes. In fact there may even be an argument to make that pollsters are underrepresenting how wide Biden's lead is.
- There has been a lot more polling done in states like Wisconsin and Michigan that wasn't there in 2016. We have a much clearer picture of a large portion of voters
- We're still missing the black swan event that was the Comey letter. It hasn't been for lack of trying but unless Carlson somehow finds that "misplaced" letter sinking Hunter BIden their attempt seems like a dud
It is odd, if you had asked me this time last year I would have expected a Trump win. Incumbent with the appearance of a strong economy is usually so hard to beat. I even would have expected that the White House's response to COVID should have sealed the deal in their favor. It should have been fairly easy for them to put on a good front, follow solid medical recommendations to help, and look like relative heros without much work. I guess if they had done that they wouldn't be Trump though, so here we are.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:00 pm
by Chap
Xenophon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:43 pm
We're still missing the black swan event that was the Comey letter. It hasn't been for lack of trying but unless Carlson somehow finds that "misplaced" letter sinking Hunter BIden their attempt seems like a dud
Even if something moderately effective at persuading swing voters is produced at the last minute, its potential impact will be considerably diminished by the rather large proportion of voters who voted some time ago, and whose vote is therefore unaffected by what happens in the last days of the campaign.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:20 pm
by Xenophon
Chap wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:00 pm
Even if something moderately effective at persuading swing voters is produced at the last minute, its potential impact will be considerably diminished by the rather large proportion of voters who voted some time ago, and whose vote is therefore unaffected by what happens in the last days of the campaign.
Agreed for the most part. Polling suggests some states may be tight enough races that even a small number of voters could be enough to flip them either way. So although the rise in early voting safeguards to a degree, I think a large enough event could still fundamentally change the outcome.
Back to your early time machine comments. I think this is a particularly good year for not sweating results too much the night of. The dramatic increase in mail-in ballots in some critical states means that what looks like an early win (primarily for Trump) may yet swing once mail-ins are counted. Not to mention that I wouldn't be surprised if we some legal attempts at impacting results. If that is the case it could potentially take us days or weeks.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:33 pm
by Kishkumen
Some Schmo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:30 pm
Influence the outcome... that's not really it. It's more about making a prediction and being disappointed by its contrast with reality. That's what I want to avoid. I am going to act as though Trump is going to win until he doesn't, because quite frankly, I don't trust America to do the smart thing. I want to be prepared this time. Enough Americans are fat, lazy and stupid that Trump is totally possible again.
I may catch grief for saying this, but I think the truth of the matter has a lot more to do with the wealthy and corporations essentially commandeering the Republic for their own purposes. Their money pays for campaigns (Citizens United) and writes legislation for the people elected (ALEC). When Americans vote, they vote for the people the wealthy elite have chosen. So, yeah, Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump, but he is still only the guy that the slightly less crazy oligarchs have chosen. Biden's running mate is better than both, but she is still a person who has been put forward by the wealthy elite from the beginning. I don't think Bernie Sanders is supported by wealthy elites, and somehow he keeps coming up short, while helping us maintain the belief that we really do choose our candidates and get the people we vote for. The truth is so far from that, and it really always was.
George Washington was not really simply the best person to be president in the young Republic. He was the guy whom elite insiders preferred. From there on out picking the president has usually been an argument/competition between the elites that the people were allowed
some small say in.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:49 pm
by Res Ipsa
Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:33 pm
Some Schmo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:30 pm
Influence the outcome... that's not really it. It's more about making a prediction and being disappointed by its contrast with reality. That's what I want to avoid. I am going to act as though Trump is going to win until he doesn't, because quite frankly, I don't trust America to do the smart thing. I want to be prepared this time. Enough Americans are fat, lazy and stupid that Trump is totally possible again.
I may catch grief for saying this, but I think the truth of the matter has a lot more to do with the wealthy and corporations essentially commandeering the Republic for their own purposes. Their money pays for campaigns (Citizens United) and writes legislation for the people elected (ALEC). When Americans vote, they vote for the people the wealthy elite have chosen. So, yeah, Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump, but he is still only the guy that the slightly less crazy oligarchs have chosen. Biden's running mate is better than both, but she is still a person who has been put forward by the wealthy elite from the beginning. I don't think Bernie Sanders is supported by wealthy elites, and somehow he keeps coming up short, while helping us maintain the belief that we really do choose our candidates and get the people we vote for. The truth is so far from that, and it really always was.
George Washington was not really simply the best person to be president in the young Republic. He was the guy whom elite insiders preferred. From there on out picking the president has usually been an argument/competition between the elites that the people were allowed
some small say in.
You won't catch flak from me, because I think that's a pretty accurate description. In the short run, all we can do is vote for who will do less damage. In the long run, I think we need strategies to break the stranglehold that the D and R parties have on the election process. I have some libertarian friends that I'm going to hit up after the election to discuss rank-choice voting, as well as eliminating barriers that make it hard for third-parties to qualify their candidates. We should learn from the Federalist Society and judges. What we're seeing now are the fruits of a 35 year effort to capture the judiciary. Long-term organizing, starting at the local level, can change the system, but it's a helluva lot of work.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:15 pm
by Morley
Some Schmo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:30 pm
Enough Americans are fat, lazy and stupid that Trump is totally possible again.
This is so unfair. I am not lazy.
Re: A pre-election game
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:25 pm
by Morley
Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:33 pm
I may catch grief for saying this, but I think the truth of the matter has a lot more to do with the wealthy and corporations essentially commandeering the Republic for their own purposes. Their money pays for campaigns (Citizens United) and writes legislation for the people elected (ALEC). When Americans vote, they vote for the people the wealthy elite have chosen. So, yeah, Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump, but he is still only the guy that the slightly less crazy oligarchs have chosen. Biden's running mate is better than both, but she is still a person who has been put forward by the wealthy elite from the beginning. I don't think Bernie Sanders is supported by wealthy elites, and somehow he keeps coming up short, while helping us maintain the belief that we really do choose our candidates and get the people we vote for. The truth is so far from that, and it really always was.
George Washington was not really simply the best person to be president in the young Republic. He was the guy whom elite insiders preferred. From there on out picking the president has usually been an argument/competition between the elites that the people were allowed
some small say in.
Kish, while I get your point, neither Trump nor Jackson were picked by 'elite insiders.' I don't think either choice was an improvement.