Who do you think will win the 2020 US Election?

Who will win the 2020 US Election

  • Trump

    Votes: 223 84.5%
  • Biden

    Votes: 41 15.5%

  • Total voters
    264

Neo

Pelican
Gold Member
Looking at the early voting data and comparing percentages, it's looking good for Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and other states.

This is just a quick glance at percentages of early ballots by modeled party affiliation compared to 2016.

PA however the dems have a huge lead something like 60%+ to 20%+. A little worrisome.

The x-factor are the independents...and where they are leaning...they could make or break this election.

Also RINOs cucking could break him, and Ds voting R could save him.

I'd say it's a coin flip at this point and a very close election.
 
Last edited:

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member
Looking at the early voting data and comparing percentages, it's looking good for Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and other states.

This is just a quick glance at percentages of early ballots by modeled party affiliation compared to 2016.

PA however the dems have a huge lead something like 60%+ to 20%+. A little worrisome.

The x-factor are the independents...and where they are leaning...they could make or break this election.

Also RINOs cucking could break him, and Ds voting R could save him.

I'd say it's a coin flip at this point and a very close election.

“Looking at the early voting data and comparing percentages, it's looking good for Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and other states.“

That would win him the election. Wouldn’t need PA.
 

JiggyLordJr

Kingfisher
(((Nate Silver))) is a Joo and is not to be trusted. Can you envision a scenario in which he predicts Trump a winner? If not, then he’s compromised. Plain and simple. IIRC this guy was completely off in 2016, and can be safely disregarded in this election. Did I mention he’s Jewish? Close that tab and open Rasmussen. His intel is much more sound, even from an independent perspective.
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
RE: Nate Silver

He wouldn't have a career if he attempted to do his models and polling fair and accurate. His pumping of statistical noise is what keeps him employed. Nobody would have him on shows if he was actually saying "Trump is pulling ahead in Michigan and is leading in Florida".

It is just a big circle jerk with those MSM types. I am sure many know deep down Trump is in good shape to get to the finish line with the W but none will ever admit it. They can be 100% wrong and then just pivot to hating on Trump and all is normal for them.
 

asdf

Sparrow
RE: Nate Silver

He wouldn't have a career if he attempted to do his models and polling fair and accurate. His pumping of statistical noise is what keeps him employed. Nobody would have him on shows if he was actually saying "Trump is pulling ahead in Michigan and is leading in Florida".

It is just a big circle jerk with those MSM types. I am sure many know deep down Trump is in good shape to get to the finish line with the W but none will ever admit it. They can be 100% wrong and then just pivot to hating on Trump and all is normal for them.
100% this. He's a soft leftwing grifter who whispers what the leftists want to hear while maintaining an image of a "by the books" numbers guy.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
He actually had Trump with 29% odds in 2016 on election day, far above any other mainstream outlets. He was off on FL (which was close in his model so understandable) and way off on PA, WI and MI. Compare the 2020 forecast as of today; he's got Trump way down in the same 4 states, roughly similar in PA, WI, Mi, but Trump is also nowhere near the percentage to win in red states like Georgia, Iowa, Arizona. Even Texas is way down from last time.

The reality is that immigration/ internal migration has eroded Trump support in red states in a predictable, natural manner, while his, let's say spotty, track record for delivering on campaign promises drove people away and hasn't brought many new people in. I keep waiting for the polls to tighten, but they just aren't. As of right now, there would need to be monumental polling failures across the board for Trump to win. Thing is, that can't be discounted, since the "trusted" polls are run by the same mainstream media outlets who have been relentlessly pushing to overthrow him for four years.

Nonsense. Robert Barnes has commented on this and the joke analysis of water boy Silver. The betting markets had higher than Silver's probability, and it was so off in any case, it's worthless to mention. He was "better than other mainstream outlets" is a weird way of calling him great garbage.

As of 2016, there were monumental polling errors. In reality, these had been errors in the making for a much longer time period - and border on pure propaganda rather than what you would call "error" in our language.

Donald Trump is winning right now and winning big. The most important point is that if it's close at all, Trump holds the advantage in nearly all of the meaningful states. He is the incumbent, and Biden is a worse candidate than Clinton, no matter what they say. It's breathtaking that people are falling for this propaganda again when they have already seen its lies in action - and in a much harder scenario to win.

If you don't consider polls like Quinnipiac to be monumental failures, something that we literally know, I don't know what to tell you. The cherry on top is that Trafalgar of all the "mainstream polls" outdid them all last time, and is predicting Trump again in many places, but is being disregarded again. I wonder why? I can't fix stupid, but I can point out how one should think if they can follow it.
 

Blitz

Sparrow
Nonsense. Robert Barnes has commented on this and the joke analysis of water boy Silver. The betting markets had higher than Silver's probability, and it was so off in any case, it's worthless to mention. He was "better than other mainstream outlets" is a weird way of calling him great garbage.

As of 2016, there were monumental polling errors. In reality, these had been errors in the making for a much longer time period - and border on pure propaganda rather than what you would call "error" in our language.

Donald Trump is winning right now and winning big. The most important point is that if it's close at all, Trump holds the advantage in nearly all of the meaningful states. He is the incumbent, and Biden is a worse candidate than Clinton, no matter what they say. It's breathtaking that people are falling for this propaganda again when they have already seen its lies in action - and in a much harder scenario to win.

If you don't consider polls like Quinnipiac to be monumental failures, something that we literally know, I don't know what to tell you. The cherry on top is that Trafalgar of all the "mainstream polls" outdid them all last time, and is predicting Trump again in many places, but is being disregarded again. I wonder why? I can't fix stupid, but I can point out how one should think if they can follow it.

Betting only has Trump at 34%, not far off Nate from 2016. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/
Yes, significantly better than 13% on 538, but hardly Trump winning big. I do agree about propaganda; the polls showing Biden up 10 nationally and double digits in the swing states don't match up mathematically, so they can only be assumed to be MSM voter suppression. But the existence of vote suppression isn't evidence of the existence of a big Trump win, when there's only anecdotal evidence (big rallies!) of him being close. Remember, he had the same energy, rallies etc in 2016 and got smoked in the PV and only won the states that matter by 70k total votes.
 

Mike_Key

Robin
“Looking at the early voting data and comparing percentages, it's looking good for Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and other states.“

That would win him the election. Wouldn’t need PA.
Yes, it seems like it's up to PA, MI and WI ...

Remember North Carolina was tricked by Black Skin Obama (Half White-boy) the first time in 2008. They were not fooled in 2012.

Also, remember Wisconsin Democrats played Communist hard-ball with republicans and No Knock Political police raids (Check the Newspapers if you don't believe me). They may try to steal their State away from Trump.

With Kenosha/Minneapolis/Fake Hate Crimes Juicey Smollet, ETC ALL, I hope folks are turning to Trump.

Edit:

Also remember, Obama and Obamacare had many companies firing people due to fines - to the tune of $200-$300 Million per company with many employees needing to be covered with healthcare.
 

homersheineken

Kingfisher
He's way off, like last time. It looks like it's around 50-50 this time around, Trump is closing the gap. Pollsters are gaslighting the public, just like they tried to do in 2016.

This won't have any impact on his career, they'll blame Russia or white supremacism in case Trump wins again.

My work phone number has been passed around like it was in the red light district. And the previous owners were just as liberal.

Every day I get messages from Moveon, Sierra Club and various other lefty causes.

And every day I troll them telling them how Biden is the answer and the blue wave is coming on.... I can't be the only one doing this...
 

bucky

Ostrich
Nonsense. Robert Barnes has commented on this and the joke analysis of water boy Silver. The betting markets had higher than Silver's probability, and it was so off in any case, it's worthless to mention. He was "better than other mainstream outlets" is a weird way of calling him great garbage.

As of 2016, there were monumental polling errors. In reality, these had been errors in the making for a much longer time period - and border on pure propaganda rather than what you would call "error" in our language.

Donald Trump is winning right now and winning big. The most important point is that if it's close at all, Trump holds the advantage in nearly all of the meaningful states. He is the incumbent, and Biden is a worse candidate than Clinton, no matter what they say. It's breathtaking that people are falling for this propaganda again when they have already seen its lies in action - and in a much harder scenario to win.

If you don't consider polls like Quinnipiac to be monumental failures, something that we literally know, I don't know what to tell you. The cherry on top is that Trafalgar of all the "mainstream polls" outdid them all last time, and is predicting Trump again in many places, but is being disregarded again. I wonder why? I can't fix stupid, but I can point out how one should think if they can follow it.

Would it be reasonable to say that you're guaranteeing a Trump win, then?
 

Neo

Pelican
Gold Member
My work phone number has been passed around like it was in the red light district. And the previous owners were just as liberal.

Every day I get messages from Moveon, Sierra Club and various other lefty causes.

And every day I troll them telling them how Biden is the answer and the blue wave is coming on.... I can't be the only one doing this...

I'm doing the same thing :squintlol:
 

homersheineken

Kingfisher
Just early voted at the public library.

After I voted I took off my mask (which was pulled down to my chin) and a Karen librarian said, "Sir you have to keep your mask on until you leave the building." I replied "That's a great idea Karen!", sarcastically.

Then I went to the gun range and shot 100.

 

Cobra

Hummingbird
Gold Member
So, I've been following the polls and other indicators almost rabidly these days. Reason being, I'm an analytical guy and having been a public company auditor, and finance guy, tend to think of both qualitative and quantitative factors when assessing the chances of anything happening. It took me a while to write this down and I don't post a lot. That said, feel free to rip this apart as meaningfully as you can because we can learn from it.

The Going Concern concept
In the CPA or audit world, which I used to be immersed in, if you will, there is a concept called "Going Concern." This is quite simply an assessment of a company by its auditor as to its ability to continue as a business profitably. For example, if a new technology overtakes the competitive advantage of a company, it will have a hard time continuing as a Going Concern. Companies that are doing well and continue as Going Concerns have an additional value to them beyond just its assets and liabilities. This is the additional premium a buyer would pay for this company if they were to purchase it in the market. This "premium," also known as "Goodwill" decreases as the companies ability to continue as a Going Concern also decreases. Auditors will typically engage valuation professionals to assess the value of a company every year in order to see if this "Goodwill" has gone up or down, also known as impairment. The valuation professionals typically employ methods such as a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis to value the company and its major segments. A DCF simply looks at projections of revenues and expenses 5 to 10 years into the future and values them based on the present value of those dollars. Those revenues and expenses are based on future events that are to take place, future market movements, lawsuits, etc. These events are ascertained from many sources including wall street analysts but also company records and data. Every single thing is considered in the DCF models and valuation analysis, not just opinions of analysts (think of pollsters). Anyways, my point is, why wouldn't we consider factors aside from the polls when we project something out!

Election projections vs Finance Projections
In reviewing existing polls, I've found many pollsters don't disclose their methodology like my valuation colleagues have to in the Finance world. As I mentioned above, valuation professionals consider every damn factor that could affect a company's expenses. For example, the likelihood of an open lawsuit is seen to have some probability of success or failure. Pollsters, on the other hand, are like Wall Street analysts who also don't disclose their methodology as to why they came up with their projections. We're just supposed to trust them (?!?). That said, these analysts are front and center asking CEOs "tough" questions on earnings calls (when companies release their earnings every quarter). Just like pollsters asking tough questions to the average Joe who tends to make him or herself look better (like the CEO or CFO make themselves look). Analysts have an incentive to push companies against the grain, just like pollsters I imagine. Whereas, my valuation colleagues always had an incentive to get to the bottom of a Going Concern issue. Otherwise, no audit professional is going to want to sign off on an audit opinion. Auditors don't sign off on analyst projections. They sign off on sound valuations and sound methodology resulting in a solid analysis. So why do we trust polls that don't consider extraneous factors?

Nate the "toolbox" Silver and his "Analysis"
Guys like Nate Silver of 538 do election projections, like Wall Street analysts but they sure DON'T consider additional factors that are at the bottom of our election environment. That includes, historical data, incumbency, rally numbers, etc. None of these are given a value in 538's projections. Maybe they are but in reading articles on that site, I wouldn't know. As a guy that understands how projections work in a quantifiable world of Finance, this is absolutely nuts to me. Nate Silver simply comes up with the likelihood of something happening based on pollsters' assessments in a "statistical" manner, NOT as a "valuation" assessment based on ALL facts and data. A lot of these pollsters, by the way, from what I understand don't release their methodologies either, like my valuation professionals do. So it could be garbage in, garbage out. There are no standards of polling and no standards of analysis, unlike the valuation and audit space where there are strict standards. So dudes like Nate Silver can strut around and no one would be the wiser to question him. Of course, Nate gives himself an "out" by saying that he's not a pollster but he's just out to make an assessment. If that's the case, to a wise mind, you would need to think why wouldn't he consider factors OUTSIDE of the polling environment, such as incumbency when making his assessment. It would be reasonable and meaningful to put a value on that, no? Otherwise, it just tends to be dry opinion. I tend to believe that he was off last time, not because of some "unforeseen" uneducated white electorate, but rather his lack of foresight in considering all factors in a meaningful manner. Same s*it he's doing now and getting away with.

The Manure in Nate Silver / 538's most recent analysis
Case in point, even he knows that he's about to be upended based on his most recent drivel (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-joe-biden-toast-if-he-loses-pennsylvania/). Choice quote from the article " The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania, though." Yeah, no s*it Sherlock! Actually, I would like to know how many of you fellow members can see through the pile of manure he put in this article. Anyways, going back to my earlier points , for PA, a more meaningful assessment from Nate and his crack team would be to check how many oil jobs there are in PA and the risk of people losing them (based on Biden's "oil shutdown" comment). Model it against the projections and see what you get. Again, no talk of this.

How about the "Laptop from Hell." Why not look at just twitter trends or Google trends as to what's going on? Nope! According to Nate and left wing pundits, let's just ignore it altogether like it doesn't affect the projections at all (?!?). How about Joe not campaigning at all? Just forget about that too? Come on man!

To finish off, the article actually ends up being really informative in that it provides additional nuggets. The truth is that if Trump wins PA, Biden needs MI, WI and MN. I want to say MN was won by a thin margin by Hillary in 2016. The likelihood of him winning all these states? I don't know. Also, Nate compares Ohio to PA, and says that Ohio "correlates" to PA, in that if he loses PA, it's hard for him to imagine winning in Ohio. Let's take that in reverse and imagine Trump wins in Ohio. Doesn't that also mean he will win PA. Again, Come on Man!

There are also additional nuggets in there about Biden doing worse with black voters, which should not be a huge surprise. Also he says " Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error, but not that much more." Stuff like this is why this dude isn't trustworthy and now it's more obvious that he's switching gears. Correct me if you think differently.

Anyways, I've been thinking about this a lot and figured I would lay it out at some point.
 

Neo

Pelican
Gold Member
I like the analysis.

I put Nate Silver in the intellectual but idiot camp. Nassim Taleb came up with that term. Not only is his methodology sketchy, but his ego and 'intelligence' blind him from seeing the intangibles.

Someone who is born and raised in Ohio (or any other state) and has traveled extensively in and met various people in the state has a better pulse on the political situation than Nate. But guys like Nate disregard the 'normal folk.'

It's the same thing when you're growing up and you meet people from town to town. I can guess with high certainty regarding cities or towns that I'm very familiar with and whether they will be red or blue. I had a friend test me with the 2016 map once, and got around 90% correct. I have 30+ years experience meeting lots people from those places. I even do it now in new places and check if I'm right.

Has Nate Silver lived in Ohio or PA? Is he a social guy with tons of friends from there? Probably not. But he can tell you with his methodology that they are 'correlated.' Please, this is the same ivory tower BS that got Trump elected in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Blitz

Sparrow
So, I've been following the polls and other indicators almost rabidly these days. Reason being, I'm an analytical guy and having been a public company auditor, and finance guy, tend to think of both qualitative and quantitative factors when assessing the chances of anything happening. It took me a while to write this down and I don't post a lot. That said, feel free to rip this apart as meaningfully as you can because we can learn from it.

The Going Concern concept
In the CPA or audit world, which I used to be immersed in, if you will, there is a concept called "Going Concern." This is quite simply an assessment of a company by its auditor as to its ability to continue as a business profitably. For example, if a new technology overtakes the competitive advantage of a company, it will have a hard time continuing as a Going Concern. Companies that are doing well and continue as Going Concerns have an additional value to them beyond just its assets and liabilities. This is the additional premium a buyer would pay for this company if they were to purchase it in the market. This "premium," also known as "Goodwill" decreases as the companies ability to continue as a Going Concern also decreases. Auditors will typically engage valuation professionals to assess the value of a company every year in order to see if this "Goodwill" has gone up or down, also known as impairment. The valuation professionals typically employ methods such as a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis to value the company and its major segments. A DCF simply looks at projections of revenues and expenses 5 to 10 years into the future and values them based on the present value of those dollars. Those revenues and expenses are based on future events that are to take place, future market movements, lawsuits, etc. These events are ascertained from many sources including wall street analysts but also company records and data. Every single thing is considered in the DCF models and valuation analysis, not just opinions of analysts (think of pollsters). Anyways, my point is, why wouldn't we consider factors aside from the polls when we project something out!

Election projections vs Finance Projections
In reviewing existing polls, I've found many pollsters don't disclose their methodology like my valuation colleagues have to in the Finance world. As I mentioned above, valuation professionals consider every damn factor that could affect a company's expenses. For example, the likelihood of an open lawsuit is seen to have some probability of success or failure. Pollsters, on the other hand, are like Wall Street analysts who also don't disclose their methodology as to why they came up with their projections. We're just supposed to trust them (?!?). That said, these analysts are front and center asking CEOs "tough" questions on earnings calls (when companies release their earnings every quarter). Just like pollsters asking tough questions to the average Joe who tends to make him or herself look better (like the CEO or CFO make themselves look). Analysts have an incentive to push companies against the grain, just like pollsters I imagine. Whereas, my valuation colleagues always had an incentive to get to the bottom of a Going Concern issue. Otherwise, no audit professional is going to want to sign off on an audit opinion. Auditors don't sign off on analyst projections. They sign off on sound valuations and sound methodology resulting in a solid analysis. So why do we trust polls that don't consider extraneous factors?

Nate the "toolbox" Silver and his "Analysis"
Guys like Nate Silver of 538 do election projections, like Wall Street analysts but they sure DON'T consider additional factors that are at the bottom of our election environment. That includes, historical data, incumbency, rally numbers, etc. None of these are given a value in 538's projections. Maybe they are but in reading articles on that site, I wouldn't know. As a guy that understands how projections work in a quantifiable world of Finance, this is absolutely nuts to me. Nate Silver simply comes up with the likelihood of something happening based on pollsters' assessments in a "statistical" manner, NOT as a "valuation" assessment based on ALL facts and data. A lot of these pollsters, by the way, from what I understand don't release their methodologies either, like my valuation professionals do. So it could be garbage in, garbage out. There are no standards of polling and no standards of analysis, unlike the valuation and audit space where there are strict standards. So dudes like Nate Silver can strut around and no one would be the wiser to question him. Of course, Nate gives himself an "out" by saying that he's not a pollster but he's just out to make an assessment. If that's the case, to a wise mind, you would need to think why wouldn't he consider factors OUTSIDE of the polling environment, such as incumbency when making his assessment. It would be reasonable and meaningful to put a value on that, no? Otherwise, it just tends to be dry opinion. I tend to believe that he was off last time, not because of some "unforeseen" uneducated white electorate, but rather his lack of foresight in considering all factors in a meaningful manner. Same s*it he's doing now and getting away with.

The Manure in Nate Silver / 538's most recent analysis
Case in point, even he knows that he's about to be upended based on his most recent drivel (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-joe-biden-toast-if-he-loses-pennsylvania/). Choice quote from the article " The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania, though." Yeah, no s*it Sherlock! Actually, I would like to know how many of you fellow members can see through the pile of manure he put in this article. Anyways, going back to my earlier points , for PA, a more meaningful assessment from Nate and his crack team would be to check how many oil jobs there are in PA and the risk of people losing them (based on Biden's "oil shutdown" comment). Model it against the projections and see what you get. Again, no talk of this.

How about the "Laptop from Hell." Why not look at just twitter trends or Google trends as to what's going on? Nope! According to Nate and left wing pundits, let's just ignore it altogether like it doesn't affect the projections at all (?!?). How about Joe not campaigning at all? Just forget about that too? Come on man!

To finish off, the article actually ends up being really informative in that it provides additional nuggets. The truth is that if Trump wins PA, Biden needs MI, WI and MN. I want to say MN was won by a thin margin by Hillary in 2016. The likelihood of him winning all these states? I don't know. Also, Nate compares Ohio to PA, and says that Ohio "correlates" to PA, in that if he loses PA, it's hard for him to imagine winning in Ohio. Let's take that in reverse and imagine Trump wins in Ohio. Doesn't that also mean he will win PA. Again, Come on Man!

There are also additional nuggets in there about Biden doing worse with black voters, which should not be a huge surprise. Also he says " Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error, but not that much more." Stuff like this is why this dude isn't trustworthy and now it's more obvious that he's switching gears. Correct me if you think differently.

Anyways, I've been thinking about this a lot and figured I would lay it out at some point.

Since I posted a couple– what could be seen as– defences of Nate Silver above, I'll wade in a bit here. I agree that the "oil shutdown" by Biden should affect his poll numbers, but any polling that includes that as part of the outcome becomes subjective rather than an objective count. Without knowing the specific science/ stats behind polling, assumption is they're asking how people would vote if it were right now. The pollster can't be subjective about "oil shutdown" or laptop from hell because the assumption has to be the voter has already internalized that and it's reflected in their poll/ vote, whichever way it leans them.

Having said that, Nate is becoming more partisan as he dismisses Rasmussen or Trafalgar as essentially internal R polls (not sure why that's a negative- demonstrates R strategy if nothing else) without making the same assumption about MSM polls from companies who have been actively seeking to overthrow Trump for 4 years. But to my mind that means he's placing his analysis on the results of the polls, or more reflexively, a cope at good R polls. Does that mean he imports that bias into the overall projection analysis? Who knows, but looking at individual polls absent of aggregate analysis, and the Trump numbers have not been good. Though, they have been steadily, incrementally improving in the last two weeks or so.

So to just look at individual polls, do we look at the outlier Rasmussen and Trafalgar polls and assume that's what the reality is, that those companies alone have used proper analytical frameworks like you mention above? Like I said in one of the previous posts, I wouldn't discount that because of how seditious the mainstream media has been towards Trump. But we're moving forward largely on faith at that point.

FWIW, on the assumption Trump keeps the red states from 2016 and wins PA again, he wins, even if Biden gets all of MN, MI and WI.
 
Top