2020 Presidential Election Results & Exit Polls commentary thread

[Dr. Arch]

Where are they getting these ballots anyway?

Final absentees and validated provisionals from Fulton county.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What date does the Electoral College meet? Trump can try legal shenanigans until then but after that date there is constitutionally nothing he can do.

They vote on December 13 and the votes are counted/affirmed by Congress on January 6.

I'm sure Trump will continue our four-year-long national civics lesson by trying some sort of nonsense to rig the electoral college or prevent them from meeting, spawning a news cycle in which we must all learn the details of how the electoral college works and what the exact rules are that govern its activities.

[Hnv1]

GA is now 8K...don't see how Trump wipes that out

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Biden leads by 0.24%... if he gets above 0.5%, Trump is not eligible for a recount.

He only leads by 0.14%. Sadly, I don’t think he’ll be able to crack 0.5%. However, if he ends up with a ~10k lead, this should be large enough to withstand any recount.

[Hnv1]

can't believe I woke up and AP hadn't called PA or NV yet

[Helsinkian]

So what is stopping the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature from simply saying "We don't care what the official tally is. We are awarding all electors to Donald Trump"?

Some Trumpers talked about that before the election and Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Mark Levin's tweet that demanded such action (Twitter removed it).

[emailking]

So what is stopping the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature from simply saying "We don't care what the official tally is. We are awarding all electors to Donald Trump"?

Some Trumpers talked about that before the election and Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Mark Levin's tweet that demanded such action (Twitter removed it).

They said they won't do it. If they tried the governor would veto, unclear if he can veto that though (not court tested).

[NOVA Green]

Meanwhile we have tons of Republican and Republican Leaning voters abandoning a sinking ship from AZ to GA in 2020...

We can't underestimate the power of the Lincoln Project, the McCain Family, etc in moving these margins....

[NOVA Green]

So what is stopping the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature from simply saying "We don't care what the official tally is. We are awarding all electors to Donald Trump"?

Some Trumpers talked about that before the election and Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Mark Levin's tweet that demanded such action (Twitter removed it).

I believe the PA PUB controlled Legislature has already recently said they will not do that just a day or two back (Old Man Memory blurs with all of these additional data points....)....

[Sorenroy]

Given that it's been a whole 30 minutes and no one has posted everything, I want to reiterate the level of caution being used by the major networks. Everything I've heard is that their not calling states until they are at least 99.5% certain of the outcome. That's the chances of a one in 200 thing occurring. While it seems increasingly likely that the remaining states won't go to Trump, I don't think it's one in 200 chance unlikely that whatever's left ends up going his way. And, again, the election is called state by state, so even if Biden has multiple paths through multiple states, each state must individually pass that one in 200 threshold.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Given that it's been a whole 30 minutes and no one has posted everything, I want to reiterate the level of caution being used by the major networks. Everything I've heard is that their not calling states until they are at least 99.5% certain of the outcome. That's the chances of a one in 200 thing occurring. While it seems increasingly likely that the remaining states won't go to Trump, I don't think it's one in 200 chance unlikely that whatever's left ends up going his way. And, again, the election is called state by state, so even if Biden has multiple paths through multiple states, each state must individually pass that one in 200 threshold.

At this point I feel pretty confident saying there's not a 1-in-200 chance that Trump wins Pennsylvania.

There's 83,000 votes left and Trump needs 67% of them to win.  He's been getting about 25% of the vote for the last 1.5 million ballots and there's nothing unique about the remaining 83,000 ballots other than that they have some technicalities that makes them take longer to count.  What's more likely is that Biden will win 75% of them and end up winning PA by 80,000 votes.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

99.5% confidence is an absurd standard that they haven’t used before and for that matter weren’t using when they made their earlier calls.
And PA and Georgia have likely both passed it by this point.

[Tender Branson]

I have to say I totally underestimated after election day how many "naked" ballots, provisional ballots or simply ballots without a signature might remain in PA ...

People first estimated that Biden would win by 100k in the end, but it's more likely he'll win by 40-60k or something now, because of all the invalid ballots that they have to throw out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

99.5% confidence is an absurd standard that they haven’t used before and for that matter weren’t using when they made their earlier calls.
And PA and Georgia have likely both passed it by this point.

Fox says 93% confidence for Nevada. They don't have a meter for any of the other states, though.

[SingingAnalyst]

Assuming current numbers hold up (Biden wins GA, NV, PA; Trump wins AK and NC; Biden wins 306-232):
1. This is the first election since 1992 in which GA voted Dem while FL voted GOP.
2. This is only the third election since 1948 in which AZ voted Dem.
3. This is the first time since ME and NE began allocating EVs by congressional district that both states were split. (NE alone was split in 2008 and ME alone was split in 2016).
4. I'm sure there are other firsts or first-in-a-whiles.

[Blair]

I read that before they used 'reasonable doubt' but now they're having to use 'plausible doubt'; so basically if any GOP talking head can claim they're wrong they won't call it. Doesn't explain Arizona though.

Given that it's been a whole 30 minutes and no one has posted everything, I want to reiterate the level of caution being used by the major networks. Everything I've heard is that their not calling states until they are at least 99.5% certain of the outcome. That's the chances of a one in 200 thing occurring. While it seems increasingly likely that the remaining states won't go to Trump, I don't think it's one in 200 chance unlikely that whatever's left ends up going his way. And, again, the election is called state by state, so even if Biden has multiple paths through multiple states, each state must individually pass that one in 200 threshold.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Assuming current numbers hold up (Biden wins GA, NV, PA; Trump wins AK and NC; Biden wins 306-232):
1. This is the first election since 1992 in which GA voted Dem while FL voted GOP.
2. This is only the third election since 1948 in which AZ voted Dem.
3. This is the first time since ME and NE began allocating EVs by congressional district that both states were split. (NE alone was split in 2008 and ME alone was split in 2016).
4. I'm sure there are other firsts or first-in-a-whiles.

Building off number 3, from what I can tell, this will be the first time since 1896 that two states will split their electoral votes without considering faithless electors. In 1896, it was Kentucky and California.

[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).

[Tender Branson]

Some calculations:

For Biden to reach 80 million votes, the turnout needs to be anywhere between 155-159 million and Biden needs to get 51.0-51.5%

Currently, there are 148 million votes and CA has ca. 3.5 million left.

Biden could net 2.5 million out of CA, which brings him to 77.5 million.

Maybe 0.5 million in IL and NY ?

78.5 million.

I think 80 million is still doable with what is left.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It has become clear that no network will call any other states for Biden unless they are 110% certain of his win, taking into account the outside chance that a reality-warping, Cthulhu-like monster from another dimension enters our realm of existence and retroactively changes the votes on some PA/NV ballots from Biden to Trump.

[BlueSwan]

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).

Good post.

One thing I find weird is the polling though. In 2016 we saw polls pretty much severely underestimating Trump throughout the midwest.

This year, polls were still off in general in the midwest, but while they were WILDLY off in Minnesota's neighbouring swingstates of Wisconsin & Iowa (misses of roughly 7 points in both of those states), Minnesota wasn't really far off at all (last 538 polling average lead was 9,2%, while the actual lead is currently 7,1%).

I guess maybe there are just less conspiracy nutcases in MN?

[Hnv1]

any big vote dumps we should expect in the next 12 hours?

[ObamaMichael]

Biden's lead in AZ now just shy ok 30K. What do you guys think?

[T'Chenka]

Can anybody confirm Philly was counting through the night? I thought I heard that or read that. There should be a big vote dump this morning then, right? One that might cause the big networks to call PA / the election?

[DaleCooper]

Biden is at right about .5% in the lead in PA, with most of the outstanding votes from Philadelphia and Allegheny County. He should be above that soon.