2020 Presidential Election Results & Exit Polls commentary thread

[politicallefty]

I've been spending a lot of my time looking at individual state and counties that have already been called. One of the big bright spots for Democrats that's really been understated is the return of Minnesota to the Titanium Lean (or even Likely) D category. I made a fairly long post not too long ago about how I felt 2016 was a one-off in that state and it appears to be the case. Biden's currently up 52.5-45.4 with most of the outstanding vote in Biden counties. Despite the state having a Republican lean relative to the nation as a whole in 2016, Trump failed to get above 45% in 2016. This time, he's not even .5% above that. Despite the rural trends, I think the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolis is enough to keep the state in the Democratic column going forward. I was hoping to see Anoka County go for Biden, but it just barely eluded him.

This was my post from about two months ago, partially in the context of a poll showing Biden up by 8% in MN:

I'll repost what I said in the PPP poll topic here (with some added emphasis):

A lot of people talk about the high floor for Democrats in Minnesota in presidential elections. That is true, but what usually goes unmentioned is the relatively low ceiling for Democrats in the state at the presidential level. It makes the state appear more winnable for Republicans than it really is. Post-1964, despite Democrats winning the state all but once, no Democrat has managed to hit 55% and only three times have Democrats managed to get above 53% (1968, 1976, and 2008). Note that two of those three instances had a Minnesotan on the ticket.

Trump's performance in the state in and of itself in 2016 wasn't impressive. He didn't even hit 45%, which was worse than Romney and both GWB years. I won't deny the rural trends of the state and the Iron Range showed its biggest sign of swinging years before Trump (see MN-08 in 2010). However, the Twin City metro is showing signs of swinging the other way and that part of the state is actually growing (unlike the rural areas that are bleeding population).

My history is a bit rusty as to the specific reasons, but Minnesota joined the Democratic coalition in 1932 with FDR's win, where it's been ever since except on three occasions. Prior to that, it voted Republican in every election except 1912, when it voted for Teddy Roosevelt. Looking back prior to 1964, FDR's third and fourth term wins look a lot like what I mentioned in my first paragraph quoted above (i.e. in that 51-52% range). The landslides of 1932 and 1936 look more like 1964. The one anomalous huge win for Democrats in Minnesota was 1948, when Truman won over 57% and Dewey held just under 40%. Only twice have Democrats fallen below 46% in Minnesota since the New Deal Coalition was formed: the 3-way race of 1992 and Eisenhower's landslide win in 1952.

I can see the allure for Republicans to win a prize like Minnesota. It really seems more symbolic than anything. Minnesota has stubbornly eluded Republicans. I'm not sure there really is a good proper analogy on the reverse (there are some somewhat close ones like maybe Texas or Georgia or maybe Virginia before 2008, but there are/were no strong competing trends to mitigate or reverse the other side).

[politicallefty]

Joe Biden is President-Elect. OMG!

[politicallefty]

A small batch of votes just dropped in Georgia. Joe Biden is now over 10,000 votes ahead. A recount is notably unlikely to flip Georgia at this point.

10,195 to be exact. Unless there's a tabulation error somewhere, it's over. Biden has won Georgia. A recount cannot overturn a margin like that.

[politicallefty]

NBC calls NC for Trump.

That's it. 306-232.

[politicallefty]

What's up with Trump's hair? He does not look the same.

[politicallefty]

I can't believe he would show himself like this. He looks awful. Wow. I never thought I'd see him like this.

[politicallefty]

I found a live stream. Just try to jump to a spot earlier where Trump was speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K43WveeSexg&ab_channel=NBCNews

[politicallefty]

Obama and Bush were in the 40s too. It’s just that there wasn’t a clear majority of people that had a clear opinion about them one way or another. Obama was at 45. Bush was at 45. Their disapproval was also 45. Trump was close or at 45 but had a disapproval at 51 or 52. He only got 47% of the vote.

Relative to their approval ratings in the exit polls, both Bush and Obama underperformed them. They were both at 53-46 approval/disapproval. I've noted that before. A select few may approve and vote against you, but virtually no one will vote for you if they disapprove. I'm not sure what to believe about this year because I have a very hard time believing an exit poll showing that the electorate was giving Trump a net positive 50-49 approval rating. However, it is clear that his approval rating among the electorate was higher than anyone thought before.

[politicallefty]

Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

Because she was being generous and only said half.

[politicallefty]

Kinda funny that Delaware was the first state with official results and now Georgia the first state to ascertain Trump’s loss at the National Archives ...

Also: I didn’t know that Stacey Abrams is an Electoral College member for Biden. I thought they’d choose more obscure people for this job.

I read somewhere that Hillary is a New York elector. Being an elector ain't the arcane sinecure it used to be.

She is, as are Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, among others. The latter two were also electors for Hillary in 2016. I noticed a few states have their governors as electors if they're the same party. Apparently, the main restriction on electors is this:

[...] no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.