CA-UC Berkeley: Biden +39

[Devout Centrist]

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

Well, the San Joaquin Valley is pretty similar to rural Iowa in some respects. Not as white, of course, but Biden will likely do better than Clinton in places like that. Cities like Richmond and Hercules resemble much of the Mahoning Valley, too. Old heavy industry and company towns.

Of course, you're the missing the point. I think Biden will do better than Clinton in every county that I listed earlier.

[DrScholl]

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).

[MT Treasurer]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

Goodbye Devin Nunes!

God.
I sure hope you are correct.

[Greedo punched first]

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

Well, the San Joaquin Valley is pretty similar to rural Iowa in some respects. Not as white, of course, but Biden will likely do better than Clinton in places like that. Cities like Richmond and Hercules resemble much of the Mahoning Valley, too. Old heavy industry. towns.

Of course, you're the missing the point. I think Biden will do better than Clinton in every county that I listed earlier.

The San Joaquin Valley is also more urban than Iowa. Bakersfield's urban core, Fresno, and Stockton all vote Democratic.

[Epaminondas]

Assuming a 9 points swing to Biden this November, here are the winning margins of GOP congressmen in 2018:
1st district: 9.8%
4th district: 8.3%
22nd district: 5.4%
50th district: 3.4%

Someone will be shaking in their boots.

[Sbane]

One has to be obtuse to not see how this poll is bad news for Trump in AZ.

[Devout Centrist]

The San Joaquin Valley is also more urban than Iowa. Bakersfield's urban core, Fresno, and Stockton all vote Democratic.

Parts of it are, for sure, but there's a good deal of small towns and rural places interspersed. Places like Gustine, Santa Nella, and Los Banos come to mind.

[Sir Mohamed]

Lean R

In all seriousness, Biden definitely gets more than 63% for sure, likely around 65-66%. His ceiling is just under 70% I assume. Trump barely cracked 30% in 2016, and there is going to be a lot less rd party vote this time around. Definitely looks bright for all sitting Dem reps and the prospects in CA-25. I'm not sure even a result like this would endanger Mr. Nunes, although I'd enjoy to see him lose.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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. 

[DrScholl]

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. 

The Democratic percentage in California barely moved in 2016, but the Republican percentage fell by 6%. The Republican percentage fell by 5% in Texas from 2012 to 2016. It's not exact, but it is close. Universal swing is real.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Stop enabling Del Tachi!