2020 Presidential Election Results & Exit Polls commentary thread

[South Dakota Democrat]

Friendly reminder that the electoral college is still the dumbest system around for electing a President.

You speak facts. Weird how so many Americans care more about corn than people.

California shouldn't dictate to the other 49 states who gets to be president.

What a dumb statement.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Source: NYTimes Swing Map

Oh look, it’s East River vs West River in South Dakota! Any South Dakota posters know why East River swung towards Trump, while West River swung towards Biden?

Isn't West River more "Western" in character, whereas East River is more like the rural Midwest?

Essentially

[South Dakota Democrat]

Didn’t they call gore president elect for 30 days until supreme court ruled otherwise?

No, not at all.

[South Dakota Democrat]

This is just getting sad

https://mobile.twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1326298952774381575

Well, I immediately see an error right off the bat:

So when you divide the number of votes cast in Wisconsin — 3,278,963 as of Nov. 5 — by the voting-age population in Wisconsin (4,536,293 as of 2019, according to the elections commission), you get a turnout rate of 72.3%. That’s the highest rate ever behind the 2004 election, but solidly in the range of past presidential contests here.

Recent presidential election turnouts in Wisconsin:

2020 — 72.3%
2016 — 67.3%
2012 — 70.4%
2008 — 69.2%
2004 — 72.9%
2000 — 67%

It is also worth noting that while Biden received about 250,000 more votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did in 2016, Trump exceeded his own 2016 totals by 14.6% percent, or about 200,000 votes.

Source:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/05/fact-check-wisconsin-voter-turnout-line-past-elections/6176028002/

--

But sure, let's just keep saying Wisconsin had a 90% turnout. 

Did you guys know that Wisconsin had 90% turnout?

Math is hard, PQG.

[South Dakota Democrat]

This is just getting sad

https://mobile.twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1326298952774381575

Well, I immediately see an error right off the bat:

So when you divide the number of votes cast in Wisconsin — 3,278,963 as of Nov. 5 — by the voting-age population in Wisconsin (4,536,293 as of 2019, according to the elections commission), you get a turnout rate of 72.3%. That’s the highest rate ever behind the 2004 election, but solidly in the range of past presidential contests here.

Recent presidential election turnouts in Wisconsin:

2020 — 72.3%
2016 — 67.3%
2012 — 70.4%
2008 — 69.2%
2004 — 72.9%
2000 — 67%

It is also worth noting that while Biden received about 250,000 more votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did in 2016, Trump exceeded his own 2016 totals by 14.6% percent, or about 200,000 votes.

Source:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/05/fact-check-wisconsin-voter-turnout-line-past-elections/6176028002/

--

But sure, let's just keep saying Wisconsin had a 90% turnout. 

Did you guys know that Wisconsin had 90% turnout?

Math is hard, PQG.

My worst subject by far.  Anyway, I'm not even sure where this "90% turnout" thing came from, but it's one of the most common pieces of "evidence" put forth of funny business. 

That, along with the ridiculous misinformation that "more people voted than were registered to vote in Wisconsin."  They're nuts.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Here is my view on RECOUNTS whether you like it or not.

Since the Florida Fiasco in 2000 the State of Florida has come a long way. They have a State Election Law that says if the margin between two Candidates are within 0.50 there is a Machine Recount and if it's within 0.25 there is a Manual/Hand Recount of the Over/Undervotes. IMO, that's how it should be.

And for Congressional District Races IMO a Recount should only be granted if it's within 0.25, a Manual one if it's within 0.10.

Everyone of the 50 States in the Nation should apply this FL State Law for Statewide Races. It's ridiculous to think that the AZ margin is less than 13K and well within 0.50 yet there will be no Recount.

If FL Law would be applied we would have Recounts in WI, AZ and GA.

As of right now, this would lead to a machine recount in GA rather than a hand recount (margin currently 0.28).

[South Dakota Democrat]

Here is my view on RECOUNTS whether you like it or not.

Since the Florida Fiasco in 2000 the State of Florida has come a long way. They have a State Election Law that says if the margin between two Candidates are within 0.50 there is a Machine Recount and if it's within 0.25 there is a Manual/Hand Recount of the Over/Undervotes. IMO, that's how it should be.

And for Congressional District Races IMO a Recount should only be granted if it's within 0.25, a Manual one if it's within 0.10.

Everyone of the 50 States in the Nation should apply this FL State Law for Statewide Races. It's ridiculous to think that the AZ margin is less than 13K and well within 0.50 yet there will be no Recount.

If FL Law would be applied we would have Recounts in WI, AZ and GA.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but you'd likely run into conflicts with letting states have jurisdiction over handling their elections. 

Very true.  Republicans are supposed to be for local control and all that jazz (not that they mind doing away with that when it suits them).

[South Dakota Democrat]

306 it is.

Biden wins 306 after tanking in the 305!

Burn!

[South Dakota Democrat]

Again, congrats to Fox and the AP on this.

Just because Biden won in the end doesn't mean the call wasn't premature.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Again, congrats to Fox and the AP on this.

Just because Biden won in the end doesn't mean the call wasn't premature.

No, it means they had solid data and understood what it meant--somebody mentioned several pages ago they made the call based on precinct-level data they had as far as where the outstanding votes were.

Yeah, no, that's just utter B.S.  Them calling it definitely indicated they thought it would be a larger margin than will end up being the case. You simply don't call a race when you think it'll be in the 10-20k vote range.  No, you're wrong.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Again, congrats to Fox and the AP on this.

Just because Biden won in the end doesn't mean the call wasn't premature.

Just because it was close doesn't mean it was premature

Yeah, no, that's just utter B.S.  Them calling it definitely indicated they thought it would be a larger margin than will end up being the case. You simply don't call a race when you think it'll be in the 10-20k vote range.  No, you're wrong.

They call it when they're 99.5% sure of the result, not when they're 99.5% sure it won't be close, more than 10-20k vote difference, or anything else. Yes they probably thought it wouldn't be close because the confidence interval probably spread several percent. But the moment they call it, a razor thin margin might still possible.

Nah.  There was always a chance Trump would win when they made the call.  Just turned out the remaining batches weren't that friendly to him. 

[South Dakota Democrat]

https://twitter.com/HKrassenstein/status/1327218805114875904?s=19

This is obvious.  He's going ballistic because he knows what's coming.

I believe people should be good to this man and give him some hugs. He lost the election but I don't believe he can mentally handle it. Being mean to him is just cruel and heartless.

Is this a joke?

Does he need a safe space?

[South Dakota Democrat]

Biden up by only 2.4% in Nevada.

Did most of the remaining Clark County ballots split 50/50? That's surprising.

How much is still left to count?

Mildly surprising, yes, but keep in mind that Clark isn't that Democratic.  It's just that the vast majority of the state population lives there, so even a modest win in Clark is enough to win statewide.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Comparing the pre-election polls to the exit polls as well as the results, 2 things stand out in terms of what the pre-election polls, both at the state level and national level appear to have got wrong.

1. Consistently in state and national polls, the swing towards Trump among Hispanics was picked up as was his marginal gains with blacks and losses among college whites vs 2016, what the polls failed to capture was that there would be no large swing of non-college whites towards Biden, the only explanation is the polls were reaching a disproportionately anti Trump group of non-college whites.

2. The polls accurately captured how democrats would vote as well as how independents would swing to voting for Biden this year compared for Trump in 2016 what the polls missed was how many Republican defections there would be, the NYT/Siena poll in NV for example only had Trump winning Republicans by an 82% margin. For whatever reason the polls were reaching a particularly anti-Trump group of republicans.


Basically it seems the pre-election polls got two things wrong, they were sampling a disproportionately democratic leaning group of non college whites and they were sampling a disproportionately anti Trump group of Republicans, the two things can of course be related.

I guess it was something like the NYT calling random towns in PA and the non-college whites who picked up the phone were librarians who were democrats and that threw off their whole non-college white sample. Would not surprise me if pollsters oversampled the types of non-college whites who vote more democrat like librarians, teachers etc and under sampled those who vote Republican. 

I think you need to do some research into how to become a librarian, and how to become a teacher.  These would not be "non-college" folks.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Based on the combined vote margins in the deciding states (WI+GA+AZ), this was a closer election than 2016 (PA+WI+MI)!

This framing is not exactly accurate. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the deciding states here because Biden crossed 270 with them before Arizona and Georgia were called. When you add up those three you get a margin of over 234,000 votes and that is really what decided this election.

That just isn't correct. If Biden had lost 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan would have just pushed Biden over 270 before Arizona flipped to Trump and Georgia stayed Trump, pushing him back above 270. It doesn't matter what order the states are called in lol--all that matters is the eventual electoral college outcome. And a world where WI, AZ, and GA go Trump is a world where Trump wins. Thus, WI+AZ+GA is the Biden margin of victory.

You're moving the goal posts. All Biden needed was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and he flipped them.. Regardless of how you play with the math, Biden clearly won this election by more than Trump did in 2016.

That's not how it works...

Are you familiar with the concept of a tipping point?

[South Dakota Democrat]

Based on the combined vote margins in the deciding states (WI+GA+AZ), this was a closer election than 2016 (PA+WI+MI)!

This framing is not exactly accurate. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the deciding states here because Biden crossed 270 with them before Arizona and Georgia were called. When you add up those three you get a margin of over 234,000 votes and that is really what decided this election.

That just isn't correct. If Biden had lost 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan would have just pushed Biden over 270 before Arizona flipped to Trump and Georgia stayed Trump, pushing him back above 270. It doesn't matter what order the states are called in lol--all that matters is the eventual electoral college outcome. And a world where WI, AZ, and GA go Trump is a world where Trump wins. Thus, WI+AZ+GA is the Biden margin of victory.

You're moving the goal posts. All Biden needed was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and he flipped them.. Regardless of how you play with the math, Biden clearly won this election by more than Trump did in 2016.

That's not how it works...

Are you familiar with the concept of a tipping point?

Let me put it like this. Biden won the states that put Trump over the top in 2016 by more than Trump won them by in 2016. Some people seem to be trying to say that Arizona and Georgia saved Biden when that simply isn't true. Biden would have won without both of them. Just because they are the tipping point does not mean that they saved Biden.

Yeah, but if Biden wins MI and PA but loses WI, AZ, and GA, he loses.  So MI and PA are not relevant to this discussion.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Regarding the post you just deleted, DrScholl, no, I'm not trying to be argumentative for no reason at all.  I'm being argumentative because your argument makes no sense.

[South Dakota Democrat]

In today's episode of very rational PredictIt trading, Trump to win the electoral college by 280+ electoral votes is surging to an all-time high of 11 cents.

I love how NC is valued at 99 for Trump, yet Michigan is only at 89 for Biden, despite the fact his lead in the state is nearly twice the size as Trump's in NC.

If Biden is up due to voter fraud in MI, then who is to say Trump isn't up due to voter fraud in NC or FL? MAGA cultists aren't the brightest.

That's the understatement of the century.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Wow, Joe Biden's lead in Pennsylvania is now 82,000 and he's over 50%.

No Nut November just came to an end.

I see what you did there.

[South Dakota Democrat]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1330148622898515969

Oooooo I'm shaking!

[South Dakota Democrat]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1330148622898515969

Part of me is loving how salty he is about losing Georgia (and Georgia, specifically). 

I know, right?  I think it's a combination of his campaign being overconfident about it going into the election, as well as his surprise that the Republican machinery didn't steal it for him.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Just re-looking at the exits and I wonder if people are misinterpreting the data for race. Perhaps Trump's improvement with Blacks and Hispanics rests solely on his appeals to men? Black and Latino women voted close to how Black and Latino's overall have been voting in the 2010's. What changed was an increase with Black and Latino men - and I'm wondering if this has much less to do with Republican's making racial inroads as opposed to gender and education inroads.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/929478378/understanding-the-2020-electorate-ap-votecast-survey

You might be onto something.

[South Dakota Democrat]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1330148622898515969

Part of me is loving how salty he is about losing Georgia (and Georgia, specifically).  

This.

Why are Atlas liberals so upset about Trump becoming unhinged about the election results?  He has no chance in overturning the results.  We're literally watching him televise how his life is falling apart.  Just enjoy the show everyone.

Yes, let's all have fun watching somebody tell people with violent tendencies to "take back the country" and undermine the democratic processes.

Lets all sit back and watch with entertainment as Republicans show they are 100% willing to overthrow the election if an avenue were to ever open up.

It's this mindset that allowed people like Hitler to come to power, just watching on the sidelines and laughing, ignoring the danger that was in front of them.

Indeed, if Trump continues his antics, the idea that the election was illegitimate could be gaining traction among the Republican segment of the population. Everyone on this forum thinks that's ridiculous and that Trump is clearly a flailing sore loser, but then again this forum couldn't imagine that 47% in a turbocharged turnout election would vote for Trump.

If/when Trump launches his coup, in whatever form, it would be quite dangerous if he had 30-47% of the population behind him.

Trump's base has been brainwashed by him for years now.  They don't think covid is real.  They were going to view the election as fraudulent no matter what happened other than Trump winning.  There is nothing you can do to change their minds.  People here getting all worked up aren't going to change that fact.  Nor have the people complaining even suggested they are doing anything at all other than complaining here.

And your base is brainwashed too to believe that the blm and the destruction of our cities is acceptable. It really freaking isn't. We both know elements of the left did in fact committ violence this summer and I'll admit that elements of the right probably joined in. I am pretty far to the left on a great number of issues and voted for sanders in 2016 and 2020 but violence is never the answer. I believe Trump clearly losed to Biden but if we're going to heal this nation we have to condemn all violence be it left or right. We both must look in the mirror.

Also I believe Covid to be real. It is really sad I'll even admit that Trump burnt his own house down with his own liberterian small government inaction having to do with this virus.

There's never going to be any healing if we both can't admit that our sides have at least some wrongs on our hands. I know for a fact the left isn't peaceful and the actions taken by many leftist groups are completely unacceptable. I watched it on live streams and t.v for months.

Are you too misinformed to know that Trump's own FBI director has said that right wing extremist groups pose a much bigger threat than anything from the left wing, or are you just convinced he's part of the deep state?

[South Dakota Democrat]

So it seems like 4/5 NYC boroughs are done with absentee counting. The only one still counting is Brooklyn, and I think we’ll get a big NYC dump once BK finished, which should be soon.

https://vote.nyc/page/unofficial-absentee-totals

NYC isn't very regular, sounds like.

[South Dakota Democrat]

^ idk if this is fully accurate or not, but I believe that if MI were to just not certify, then the magic # threshold becomes lower. So getting to 270 wouldn’t even matter. So that would be a failed plan by Trump, but I could be wrong.

This is incorrect.