CA-UC Berkeley: Biden +39

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D! 

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D! 

This is such a dumb post. Biden is not particularly strong (for a democrat) in California, and is likely only winning by this outsized margin due to his 8-10 point lead nationally, which if you have seen recent polling, is translating into swing states.

Or is Biden winning by 8-10 pts nationally due to an outsize (+39!) lead in California?  It's kinda a chicken-and-egg type situation, especially when you consider the outsize influence California responses have on national polls (being >10% of the national population).  Biden is behind his national polling lead in swing states (MI, FL, PA, NC, etc.)  There is no national election for president.   

I don't see how it's controversial to note that Biden expanding his lead (greatly!, at least over the 2016 result) in a Titanium D state like California doesn’t translate to him being in a better position to win the electoral college.  Somehow red avatars thought this was a poll of Texas?  lol

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D! 

Meanwhile conservatives will pat themselves on the back for Trump winning counties with a few hundred people in them that have voted Republican forever.

Based on your own admission, those voters count more in the electoral college....so....

[Del Tachi]

The theory that CA is "maxed out" for Democrats was always silly and didn’t even make sense when Trump's position was less catastrophic than it is now.

That said, I don’t think OC and Westchester will be what Democrats will be patting themselves on the back for on election night if that margin is accurate. DFW and Houston, though...

What does the margin in California tell us about election results in Texas or any other state?  Hillary Clinton had the best margin for any Democrat in California since FDR and she still lost the national election, lol

Democrats standing around celebrating a +39 poll in Titanium D California makes me think they're campaigning to win the NPV

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D! 

That will be nice, but I'm more excited about the new votes Biden will get in Tarrant, Denton, Collin, Williamson, Hays, Dallas, Harris, Fort Bend, Jefferson, El Paso, Bexar, Travis, Pinellas, Palm Beach, Orange, Seminole, Duval, Polk, Cobb, Gwinnett, Fulton, Wake, Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, New Hanover, Chesterfield, Virginia Beach City, Chesapeake City, Mahoning, Trumbull, Hamilton, Franklin, Lorrain, Lake, Montogmery, Delaware, Monroe, Macomb, Saginaw, Eaton, Kent, Clinton, Isabella, Van Buren, Washtenaw, Racine, Kenosha, Grant, Lafayette, Richland, Crawford, Vernon, Jackson, Trempealeau, Columbia, Dunn, Dane, Brown, Outagamie, Winnebago, Anoka, Blue Earth, Nicollet, Winona, Houston, Mower, Beltrami, Clay, Mahnomen, Freeborn, Washington, Dakota, Cerro Gordo, Dubuque, Jefferson, Polk, Warren, Winneshiek, Marshall, Buchanan, Des Moines, Dallas, Boone, Clinton, Muscatine, Black Hawk, Linn, Eire, Beaver, Allegheny, Chester, Lancaster, Lackawanna, Northampton, Dauphin, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, Centre, Cumberland, Sullivan, Coos, Carroll, Hillsborough, Rockingham, Kennebec, Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, Somerset, Androscoggin, Johnson, Douglas, Shawnee, Riley, Sedgewick, Jefferson, Arapahoe, El Paso, Pueblo, Adams, Huerfano, Chaffee, Larimer, Clear Creek, Garfield, Pinal, Yuma, Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Pima, Maricopa, Hildalgo, Sandoval, Dona Ana, Santa Fe, Ada, Teton, Gallatin, Park, Lewis and Clark, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, Cowlitz, Spokane, Yakima, Marion, Yamhill, Tillamook, Columbia, Polk, Clackamas, Lincoln, St. Louis, Jackson, Clay, Boone, Hamilton, Tippecanoe, LaPorte, Porter, Delaware, and many others.

I can't wait to see how many new votes Biden gets in those counties!

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

A +39 poll from Titanium D CA tells us very little on the state of the race

[Del Tachi]

The theory that CA is "maxed out" for Democrats was always silly and didn’t even make sense when Trump's position was less catastrophic than it is now.

That said, I don’t think OC and Westchester will be what Democrats will be patting themselves on the back for on election night if that margin is accurate. DFW and Houston, though...

What does the margin in California tell us about election results in Texas or any other state?  Hillary Clinton had the best margin for any Democrat in California since FDR and she still lost the national election, lol

Democrats standing around celebrating a +39 poll in Titanium D California makes me think they're campaigning to win the NPV

Democratic trends in Texas and Arizona maybe?

How does a poll from California inform us about trends in TX/AZ.  We have polls from AZ and TX for that reason lol

And folks pretend like I’m the crazy one here

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D! 

This is such a dumb post. Biden is not particularly strong (for a democrat) in California, and is likely only winning by this outsized margin due to his 8-10 point lead nationally, which if you have seen recent polling, is translating into swing states.

Or is Biden winning by 8-10 pts nationally due to an outsize (+39!) lead in California?  With California being >10% of the national population, the difference really is impossible to identify.  Polling indicates that Biden's leads in swing states (MI, FL, PA, NC, etc.) average smaller than his lead in national polls.  There is no national election for president.   

I don't see how it's controversial to note that Biden expanding his lead (greatly!, at least over the 2016 result) in a Titanium D state like California translates to him being in a better position to win the electoral college.  Somehow red avatars thought by post was somehow about Texas?  lol

Yeah. These states were right of the nation in 2016 and they almost certainly will be in 2020 as well. However, I don't think you can reasonably conclude that a 70-30 Biden win in California wouldn't also indicate nationwide gains among whatever demographics are propelling him to that in CA. And I think you know that.

That’s right, because there’s no local or otherwise idiosyncratic factors that could be driving Biden’s margin in a non-contested, super safe state of 40M that aren’t perfectly exportable to any suburb in the country. 

Let’s watch the congratulatory tones continue. 

[Del Tachi]

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

I said 'new votes', not 'lose votes'

Joe Biden could gain tens or hundreds of thousands of new votes in states like TX, GA, FL and NC (irrespective of the margin) and still come up short in flipping those states.  Based on the aggregate predictions on this site that's what many posters believe will happen, in fact. 

The great thing about the electoral college (for Trump) is that it doesn't matter if he wins TX by 800k, 80k or only 8k votes.  He still gets to walk away with 38 electoral votes.  Similarly, it changes the electoral calculus absolutely zilch if Biden bests Trump in CA by 6 million votes (as opposed to Clinton's 4.7 million).

[Del Tachi]

Go on Democrats, keep patting yourselves on the back about all the new votes y'all will be getting in OC and Westchester this November!  The election is Likely D!  

This is such a dumb post. Biden is not particularly strong (for a democrat) in California, and is likely only winning by this outsized margin due to his 8-10 point lead nationally, which if you have seen recent polling, is translating into swing states.

Or is Biden winning by 8-10 pts nationally due to an outsize (+39!) lead in California?  With California being >10% of the national population, the difference really is impossible to identify.  Polling indicates that Biden's leads in swing states (MI, FL, PA, NC, etc.) average smaller than his lead in national polls.  There is no national election for president.    

I don't see how it's controversial to note that Biden expanding his lead (greatly!, at least over the 2016 result) in a Titanium D state like California translates to him being in a better position to win the electoral college.  Somehow red avatars thought by post was somehow about Texas?  lol

Yeah. These states were right of the nation in 2016 and they almost certainly will be in 2020 as well. However, I don't think you can reasonably conclude that a 70-30 Biden win in California wouldn't also indicate nationwide gains among whatever demographics are propelling him to that in CA. And I think you know that.

The only demographic propelling Joe Biden to those margins in California (in only one poll, no less) is Californians, lol.  CA has trended D five elections in a row

We have polls from this week showing the race within the MOE in TX, WI, MI, GA, and NC.    

[Del Tachi]

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

I said 'new votes', not 'lose votes'

Joe Biden could gain tens or hundreds of thousands of new votes in states like TX, GA, FL and NC (irrespective of the margin) and still come up short in flipping those states.  Based on the aggregate predictions on this site that's what many posters believe will happen, in fact. 

The great thing about the electoral college (for Trump) is that it doesn't matter if he wins TX by 800k, 80k or only 8k votes.  He still gets to walk away with 38 electoral votes.  Similarly, it changes the electoral calculus absolutely zilch if Biden bests Trump in CA by 6 million votes (as opposed to Clinton's 4.7 million).

I think people here are aware of how the electoral college works. The implication is moreso that if Trump is losing TX by 8k votes, he's probably also losing AZ+NC+GA+FL. Nobody's arguing that Biden winning CA by 39 points means Biden will win TX by 5, but that trends that can be seen in a poll in CA are not completely isolated from the rest of the country and are good signs for Biden among demographics he's polling very well with in CA.

No, that's actually exactly what people are implying in this thread.  Biden having a 79-17 lead among college educated White women in California is not going to affect the race in Georgia, Texas, Florida or Michigan.  No one seems to admit that college-educated White women in California are different than those in other states, lol

[Del Tachi]

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

I said 'new votes', not 'lose votes'

Joe Biden could gain tens or hundreds of thousands of new votes in states like TX, GA, FL and NC (irrespective of the margin) and still come up short in flipping those states.  Based on the aggregate predictions on this site that's what many posters believe will happen, in fact. 

The great thing about the electoral college (for Trump) is that it doesn't matter if he wins TX by 800k, 80k or only 8k votes.  He still gets to walk away with 38 electoral votes.  Similarly, it changes the electoral calculus absolutely zilch if Biden bests Trump in CA by 6 million votes (as opposed to Clinton's 4.7 million).

If you look at the ones I listed, most of those counties are in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. Not very many in Texas, Georgia, or North Carolina

Oh yeah, so remind me which part of California is analogous to Mahoning County, OH or Cerro Gordo, IA?  I'll wait

[Del Tachi]

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

I said 'new votes', not 'lose votes'

Joe Biden could gain tens or hundreds of thousands of new votes in states like TX, GA, FL and NC (irrespective of the margin) and still come up short in flipping those states.  Based on the aggregate predictions on this site that's what many posters believe will happen, in fact. 

The great thing about the electoral college (for Trump) is that it doesn't matter if he wins TX by 800k, 80k or only 8k votes.  He still gets to walk away with 38 electoral votes.  Similarly, it changes the electoral calculus absolutely zilch if Biden bests Trump in CA by 6 million votes (as opposed to Clinton's 4.7 million).

I think people here are aware of how the electoral college works. The implication is moreso that if Trump is losing TX by 8k votes, he's probably also losing AZ+NC+GA+FL. Nobody's arguing that Biden winning CA by 39 points means Biden will win TX by 5, but that trends that can be seen in a poll in CA are not completely isolated from the rest of the country and are good signs for Biden among demographics he's polling very well with in CA.

No, that's actually exactly what people are implying in this thread.  Biden having a 79-17 lead among college educated White women in California is not going to affect the race in Georgia, Texas, Florida or Michigan.  No one seems to admit that college-educated White women in California are different than those in other states, lol

People from Mississippi think that California is just Los Angeles, San Francisco and nothing else, but that's not at all true. Many suburbs here in the state are not that much unlike those in other states, so from a standpoint of universal swing it isn't crazy to assume that suburbs in other states will see heavy swings (but on a smaller scale).

What does this even mean?  If the swing was universal (which it won't be because it never is, but whatever) then how is it on "a smaller scale"?

It is actually pretty insane to assume that a single poll out of state that has trended D in the past 5 national elections spells disaster for the GOP in the suburbs of Houston or Dallas.

[Del Tachi]

I’ll take the bait and entertain you:

The theory that CA is "maxed out" for Democrats was always silly and didn’t even make sense when Trump's position was less catastrophic than it is now.

That said, I don’t think OC and Westchester will be what Democrats will be patting themselves on the back for on election night if that margin is accurate. DFW and Houston, though...

What does the margin in California tell us about election results in Texas or any other state?  Hillary Clinton had the best margin for any Democrat in California since FDR and she still lost the national election, lol

Do you think it’s a coincidence that in that same election TX and CA had a virtually identical swing / trend toward the Democratic Party (CA: D+6.9%, TX: D+6.8%)?

Do you also think it’s a coincidence that the result of applying the same 2016 -> 2020 swing this CA poll is indicating to TX is a tied race in TX, which coincidentally is exactly what current TX polling (which has been very reliable in recent election cycles) is showing?

Do you think there might be other explanations for this pattern than "local or some other idiosyncratic factors"?

That’s right, because there’s no local or otherwise idiosyncratic factors that could be driving Biden’s margin in a non-contested, super safe state of 40M that aren’t perfectly exportable to any suburb in the country. 

No, there aren’t, actually. Certainly not in the urban/suburban areas you’re envisioning, and certainly not with a swing of this magnitude, much less in two consecutive elections. "Nuance" is nice, but not when said "nuance" amounts to nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to deliberately distort the big picture.

And this...

The only demographic propelling Joe Biden to those margins in California (in only one poll, no less) is Californians, lol. 

...isn’t helping.

I've never said that CA and TX will trend differently, but there's no reason to allow a single poll of California to act as a stand-in for polling from TX or AZ.  TX and AZ polling shows a competitive race, CA polling does not.  Biden could be competitive in TX and AZ because of strength among demographics that he also has big leads with in CA, but a poll of California doesn't tell us that.  My point for all the Democrats congratulating themselves over this poll is that Biden could win CA by 40 pts and fail to become president thanks to narrow losses in TX, GA, FL, NC and PA.  Running up the margin in safe states (which can significantly buoy national polling numbers) is a siren song luring Democrats into complacency, just like it was in 2016.

You're stupid if you believe there's something indicative from Biden's lead in a single poll of CA (a state which has now trended D for 5 elections in a row) about the national result, or even national trends.  California politics have consistently moved leftward at every level over the past 30 years, pretty regardless of the national sentiment.  This poll has Biden winning non-college educated White men in CA.  Do you expect that to be the case in AZ or TX?  If not, yet you're somehow saying this poll indicates Biden being in a strong position in those states, then you've done some sort of mental manipulation of the poll's result that isn't empirical, it's just your personal prior. 

[Del Tachi]

You do recognize that Biden could have historic performances in many of these counties (kinda like how Hillary Clinton did in 2016) and still lose the electoral college?

I said 'new votes', not 'lose votes'

Joe Biden could gain tens or hundreds of thousands of new votes in states like TX, GA, FL and NC (irrespective of the margin) and still come up short in flipping those states.  Based on the aggregate predictions on this site that's what many posters believe will happen, in fact. 

The great thing about the electoral college (for Trump) is that it doesn't matter if he wins TX by 800k, 80k or only 8k votes.  He still gets to walk away with 38 electoral votes.  Similarly, it changes the electoral calculus absolutely zilch if Biden bests Trump in CA by 6 million votes (as opposed to Clinton's 4.7 million).

I think people here are aware of how the electoral college works. The implication is moreso that if Trump is losing TX by 8k votes, he's probably also losing AZ+NC+GA+FL. Nobody's arguing that Biden winning CA by 39 points means Biden will win TX by 5, but that trends that can be seen in a poll in CA are not completely isolated from the rest of the country and are good signs for Biden among demographics he's polling very well with in CA.

No, that's actually exactly what people are implying in this thread.  Biden having a 79-17 lead among college educated White women in California is not going to affect the race in Georgia, Texas, Florida or Michigan.  No one seems to admit that college-educated White women in California are different than those in other states, lol

People from Mississippi think that California is just Los Angeles, San Francisco and nothing else, but that's not at all true. Many suburbs here in the state are not that much unlike those in other states, so from a standpoint of universal swing it isn't crazy to assume that suburbs in other states will see heavy swings (but on a smaller scale).

What does this even mean?  If the swing was universal (which it won't be because it never is, but whatever) then how is it on "a smaller scale"?

It is actually pretty insane to assume that a single poll out of state that has trended D in the past 5 national elections spells disaster for the GOP in the suburbs of Houston or Dallas.

The point that you are missing is that no one believes that Biden is going to get 67% in every state just because he gets 67% in California. To assume that universal swing means that a candidate is going to get the exact same percentage in every state is a misunderstanding of math. Biden getting 67% would present a swing of about 6% from what Clinton got. It is completely plausible that he could get a 6% swing in other states. For example, in Pennsylvania that would mean he would get 53% or in Georgia it would mean 51% or in Arkansas it would mean 39%. The overall share of the vote would be on a smaller scale, but the swing would be the same.

Why would we assume a 6pt swing in California translates into a 6pt swing in Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, West Virginia, Soddy Daisy or Timbuktu?  There's no reason to think a California swing will be indicative of the national result, especially once you consider CA has trended D in the past 5 election cycles.