Should we trust the decision of Biden's campaign more?

[ProgressiveModerate]

In 2020 for instance, in hindsight it seems like both campaigns had a better understanding of the true electoral picture than most pundits ever did. This could be seen in a state like Nevada which got relatively a lot of spending in 2020 even as most pundits wrote it off as likely D - the state ended only voting for Biden by 2% and swung right from 2016. It seems like both Biden and Trump teams knew it was in play.

In a recent 2024 thread, I saw some people complain about the Biden campaign spending money in Florida and Texas - but why don't we just trust the campaign knows what they're doing and is doing this because they believe it'll be a good investment, likely based on a lot of data and research that isn't available to us. It might not even be to win the state Presidentially but rather to try and win some other downballot races - we saw something similar where both campaigns spent a decent amount on Maine media markets for the Senate race.

Why do we - random folks on a political forum mostly with no real political experience act like we know better?

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Why do we - random folks on a political forum mostly with no real political experience act like we know better?

Well, this is the internet after all

[GAinDC]

In most cases, we don’t know better, but we have a right to share our opinions

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

How dare you suggest life long professionals have more insight into their field then internet hobbyists!

[Bush did 311]

Hillary wasted every cent she spent on Texas. Beto couldn't win it and Biden has a 600,000 vote hole to climb out of which is unlikely in a single cycle.

I do think Biden's campaign is much more competent than Hillary's. He spent all of election day covering every corner of PA in 2020 so he clearly knew what was up. We'll see though.

[Mehmentum]

Campaign staff are fallible, and you're never going to get closer to the truth by blindly assuming they're doing everything optimally.  See Clinton 2016 for a campaign full of experienced professionals that bellyflopped.  It's also just not fun to unquestioningly follow the campaigns.

At the same time, you're right that the campaigns have access to far more information and expertise than we do.  We shouldn't assume that they're making mistakes without considering the possibility that they know something we don't, or are taking other actions we don't know about.

For example, I heard a lot of criticism when the campaign talked about the polls being unreliable.  A lot of people were saying that the Biden campaign was complacent and putting their heads in the sand.  But of course public messaging about strategy doesn't always reflect the campaigns real beliefs about strategy.  No campaign wants to go out and say 'yeah, people hate us'.  It's possible that the Biden people are high in their own supply, but you need to look deeper into the behavior of the campaign to answer that.  

The investment in Texas and Florida could be evidence to back this up.  On the other hand we don't know how much they're putting in these states and if that money really could be more effectively spent in an oversaturated battleground state.  We've also seen Biden be very active on the campaign trail vs. running a rose garden campaign.

[Progressive Pessimist]

They seem to be doing everything right if you ask me. They're heeding warnings and not taking anything for granted while having a coherent message that's both affirmative and anti-Trump.

I personally trust them, and always knew I would be able to.

[Gustaf]

Just want to note that there is a little unfairness in saying the Biden campaign was smarter than the Clinton campaign - most people, including the Trump campaign themselves, did not anticipate the Trump 2016 performance. 2020 on the other hand was easy to extrapolate from 2016 so it was easier to analyze that election correctly.

[wbrocks67]

No campaign is infallible but I will say that the Biden campaign made it known in 2020 that the races were tighter than public polling suggested, and they were right. I remember they did some type of Zoom call or something where they actually released some of their internal polling (or averages, at least) for some states and most of it IIRC was closer than the public polling at the time.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One small update; Becca Siegel someone high up in the Biden campaign claimed this was the Biden’s campaigns final 2020 forecast in key states which is honestly eerily accurate. The x-axis is Biden’s share of the 2 party vote.

Notice the large variance in the variance of the distributions - apparently this is due to some states like GA and AZ having more helpful voter info stats than WI which it sounds like has almost nothing. Was a really interesting talk, and like how she said it’s not about what states can we win or do we need to win, but what states increase our odds of winning the most?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

One small update; Becca Siegel someone high up in the Biden campaign claimed this was the Biden’s campaigns final 2020 forecast in key states which is honestly eerily accurate. The x-axis is Biden’s share of the 2 party vote.

Notice the large variance in the variance of the distributions - apparently this is due to some states like GA and AZ having more helpful voter info stats than WI which it sounds like has almost nothing. Was a really interesting talk, and like how she said it’s not about what states can we win or do we need to win, but what states increase our odds of winning the most?

What’s the height of the mean here?

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-frustration-confidence-win-november-rcna149430

We got this media headline yesterday. I don't  know if it's just Biden projecting positivity or if the campaign is seeing something we aren't, but this could back up the premise of this thread.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2016, Hillary's campaign headquarters famously ignored their own campaign in Michigan's warnings and took Michigan for granted.

[Crumpets]

Trust the plan! Where we Joe one, we Joe all!

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Trust the plan! Where we Joe one, we Joe all!

Damn, that's brilliant...I'm going to steal this.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We just don't know about Harris being Veep, it would be catastrophic if he replaced Harris but my signature makes it very clear on where I stand on Harris, I am supporting Newsom in 28.  Rs like OSR likes to point out Biden flaws but she is deeply flawed Veep

I have been talking about Harris privately blunt public, Obama told Biden to pick her instead of Rice. Do you think if Abrams or Alsobrooks whom Newsom probably would pick are gonna have these issues no

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

One small update; Becca Siegel someone high up in the Biden campaign claimed this was the Biden’s campaigns final 2020 forecast in key states which is honestly eerily accurate. The x-axis is Biden’s share of the 2 party vote.

Notice the large variance in the variance of the distributions - apparently this is due to some states like GA and AZ having more helpful voter info stats than WI which it sounds like has almost nothing. Was a really interesting talk, and like how she said it’s not about what states can we win or do we need to win, but what states increase our odds of winning the most?

What’s the height of the mean here?

Basically it’s the likelihood of a given outcome. In CO, their models were pretty “confident” about Biden getting 57% in a head-to-head with Trump. In Iowa, their models weren’t as “confident” and thus the likelihoods of given outcomes were seen as less predictable while expecting a range of about 42-48% for Biden in a head-to-head.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these graphs also tell you not only by how much you expect Biden to get, but also what his odds of winning are. Add up all the area under the curve on each side of 50% to get the odds for each candidate. They were basically 100% sure that Biden would win Colorado, they saw Arizona and Georgia as basically pure toss-ups, and they saw Ohio as very much a long shot.

Given that I’m assuming these graphs were from a Bayesian statistics-based simulation, “confidence” isn’t really an appropriate word.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One small update; Becca Siegel someone high up in the Biden campaign claimed this was the Biden’s campaigns final 2020 forecast in key states which is honestly eerily accurate. The x-axis is Biden’s share of the 2 party vote.

Notice the large variance in the variance of the distributions - apparently this is due to some states like GA and AZ having more helpful voter info stats than WI which it sounds like has almost nothing. Was a really interesting talk, and like how she said it’s not about what states can we win or do we need to win, but what states increase our odds of winning the most?

What’s the height of the mean here?

Basically it’s the likelihood of a given outcome. In CO, their models were pretty “confident” about Biden getting 57% in a head-to-head with Trump. In Iowa, their models weren’t as “confident” and thus the likelihoods of given outcomes were seen as less predictable while expecting a range of about 42-48% for Biden in a head-to-head.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these graphs also tell you not only by how much you expect Biden to get, but also what his odds of winning are. Add up all the area under the curve on each side of 50% to get the odds for each candidate. They were basically 100% sure that Biden would win Colorado, they saw Arizona and Georgia as basically pure toss-ups, and they saw Ohio as very much a long shot.

Given that I’m assuming these graphs were from a Bayesian statistics-based simulation, “confidence” isn’t really an appropriate word.

Yep good explainer. I would area under all these curves should be equal and represents all the possible outcomes. What strikes me though is the huge differences in variation - in particular the WI variation strikes me as quite extreme still having a notable tail for cases where Biden got under 40% of the vote or over 60% of the vote neither of which ever seemed realistic.

[DaleCooper]

Yes, I think so. Another one in 2024 is that from the beginning the Trump campaign seems to have been aware that RFK Jr. pulls almost exclusively from his voters, even though fools online and in infotainment were saying otherwise.

What concerns me about Florida isn't that Biden will lose it by double digits, or whatever the commentators are saying, it's that he'll spend 200 million dollars to lose Florida by four points when that could've funded a machine in every single other swing state.

[DaleCooper]

Just want to note that there is a little unfairness in saying the Biden campaign was smarter than the Clinton campaign - most people, including the Trump campaign themselves, did not anticipate the Trump 2016 performance. 2020 on the other hand was easy to extrapolate from 2016 so it was easier to analyze that election correctly.

I don't know about that. Hillary's campaign seemed staggeringly terrible. Sure, they were unprepared for how the swing states would evolve, but that wasn't their only fault. Weren't they even wasting money on safe states because they wanted a popular vote blowout? I can forgive them for being overconfident about Wisconsin given the fake polls and Obama's performance, but there is no excuse for such bad decisions on all other fronts. 

[Progressive Pessimist]

In 2016, Hillary's campaign headquarters famously ignored their own campaign in Michigan's warnings and took Michigan for granted.

Biden's campaign doesn't seem to be taking anything for granted though. If anything, with investing in Florida, they're too ambitious.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Trump campaign seems to have been aware that RFK Jr. pulls almost exclusively from his voters, even though fools online and in infotainment were saying otherwise.

What makes you think that?

[DaleCooper]

Trump campaign seems to have been aware that RFK Jr. pulls almost exclusively from his voters, even though fools online and in infotainment were saying otherwise.

What makes you think that?

Comments they've been making for months.

[Bush did 311]

I assume they're running Biden again because they plugged all the other possible candidates into their big election simulating supercomputer and determined he had the best chance of winning, despite the difficulties. Campaigns obviously have much better data than pollsters. I don't know what it is but my imagination is pretty wild - the full raw data on all votes in all precincts, party members, donors, primary ballot requests for each party from every person voting - that persons friend's and family connections and their propensity to vote. Could get pretty detailed.

Or.... if you really want to get tinfoily they WANT him to lose. Maybe their simulations show the economy collapsing in a year or two and it is unstoppable at this point, and they don't want a democrat in the White House to take the blame, so they're trying to throw the election while keeping it close without doing too much damage downticket.

Both assumptions are predicated on the notion that these are intelligent people making sane rational choices.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Trump campaign seems to have been aware that RFK Jr. pulls almost exclusively from his voters, even though fools online and in infotainment were saying otherwise.

What makes you think that?

Comments they've been making for months.

Biden has also been going after RFK, such as doing a photo-op with the rest of his family.