Election 2020

[revo]

The S&P500 has a great history of predicting the outcome of the Presidential Election.

Since 1928, the S&P500 has had an 87% success rate in predicting results, and it's been correct in every election since 1984. It's based on the index's performance in the three months prior to the election. If the index performance is up, the incumbent party is predicted to win; if it's down, the incumbent party is predicted to lose. It's been right in 20 of 23 elections since 1928. The only times it's been wrong was in 1956, 1968 and 1980. In 1968, the incumbent LBJ decided not to run for re-election and it was arguably the most tumultuous election cycle in American history. In 1980, the Iran hostage drama and a recession were the prevailing factors, even if the S&P 500 did rally in the 3 months prior to the election. There was no drama in 1956; Ike was just an extremely popular president and war hero and easily won re-election despite a -3.2% S&P500 return in those prior 3 months.

Election day is November 3rd.

The S&P500 Index on August 3rd was 3,294.61.

The S&P500 Index on September 21 is 3,254.25.

The S&P500's return in the August 3-November 3 period leading up to election day is currently:

-1.22%

[onejayhawk]

So, your contention is that he just needs to increase his vote total approximately 8 million from 2016 and garner the most votes in the history of any presidential election by about 1.5 million. And that task seems "doable" to you. And we are the ones with the alt-reality? Trump may very well win and I will agree that if Trump gets the most votes in presidential history, yes, Biden cannot beat it. But your numbers are clearly pulled directly out of your ass, despite your eminent qualifications as a world-renowned physicist.

Pretty close, especially the bolded part. You need to get out more.

Having the most votes is just a product of population growth. The factor from 2016 - 2020 is 1.02, ie a 2% increase. So, Hillary's 2020 equivalent is bit over 67 MM. It is simple arithmetic. It's not the end number; it's the percentage of turn out. Trump has a very motivated base. One might even say pissed off.

J

[Sour Masher]

Thanks umjewman and revo for the quick and factual replies to 1jay--saved me the trouble.

And thanks 1jay for using numbers this time. I know why you generally choose not to, because they inevitably contradict the claims you are trying to make. But it is interesting to see the reasoning behind them. Part of me was afraid you might actually have some evidence to support Trump's reelection, but if all you got is the belief that Trump will garner 8 million more votes than he did in 2016 (far outpacing population growth), than I feel pretty good about Biden's chances. The idea that Trump's vote total would actually go up after how poorly he has handled the pandemic is absurd. But then again, so is the cognitive dissonance that allows a Trump supporter to deny that Trump has handled it horribly.

[onejayhawk]

So by your twisted pretzel logic, there are 220 million eligible voters but if only 43% support Trump, then 57% do not. So by your 5th grade math, that's 125,400,000 potential Biden voters compared to just 95,000,000 potential Trump voters. In addition, you conveniently forgot that out of these "220 million eligible voters" Trump only received ~62m of them in 2016. The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that 100 million of these eligible voters sit every election out. The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that he's presided over the biggest shitstorm since the 1960s and done next to nothing about it, and the Independents have taken notice to a 60%-65% ratio against him. The real reality, not OneJay reality, is the fervor to replace this ineffective and incompetent asshole is so large that Biden almost doesn't even factor into the thinking of why you should vote for him. The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that the Dems win the popular vote every presidential election cycle now and your shit-feeding hero only won certain battleground states by 10,000 votes in 2016 and hasn't gained ANY support since then. In fact, he's lost a tremendous amount of support and that's backed up by not only current polls but actual elections in these states and districts where Republican support has dropped wildly. So please stop with your asinine certainties of how this election will play out because it can go either way, but is certainly trending against your hero.

As I said, you need to get out more. If you cannot handle both New Republic and National Review, your sourcing is too narrow.

For starters, 100 million voters do not sit every election out. That has never happened. So deal with facts. 75% of the base is less than the Democrats managed in 2018.

I break the blocs down this way:

• Hate Trump
• Don't hate Trump but don't like Biden
• Don't like Trump but like his results
• Love Trump

State any quibbles before we go on.

I'm not sure I trust the S&P 500 factor. 2020 has been an atypical year for the markets.

The idea that Trump's vote total would actually go up after how poorly he has handled the pandemic is absurd. But then again, so is the cognitive dissonance that allows a Trump supporter to deny that Trump has handled it horribly.

It's very easy to imagine Trump's vote goes up substantially. 2% inflation is a million. An increase of over 3 million votes, 2012 vs 2016, went to Gary Johnson and another 0.7 million to Evan McMullin. Substantially all of those are usually Republican. For comparison, Jill Stein increase 0.5 million and write ins were up almost 1 million.

The idea that Trump handled his administration poorly is simple myopics. An object appraisal disagrees.

J

[umjewman]

Pretty close, especially the bolded part. You need to get out more.

Having the most votes is just a product of population growth. The factor from 2016 - 2020 is 1.02, ie a 2% increase. So, Hillary's 2020 equivalent is bit over 67 MM. It is simple arithmetic. It's not the end number; it's the percentage of turn out. Trump has a very motivated base. One might even say pissed off.

J

Okay, I'll give you your 2% increase and that brings Trump to around 64.5-65 million votes, and that assumes he has not lost a single voter from 2016, a dubious proposition at best. Your "simple arithmetic" states that he has maintained all of his voters from 2016 and has, in fact, added another 6 to 6.5 million supporters for this election. His "motivated, pissed off" base already voted for him in 2016, so they are not part of the additional votes that you posit are going Trump's way.

[revo]

As I said, you need to get out more. If you cannot handle both New Republic and National Review, your sourcing is too narrow.

For starters, 100 million voters do not sit every election out. That has never happened. So deal with facts. 75% of the base is less than the Democrats managed in 2018.

You claimed "220 million eligible voters."

In 2016, 130 million actually voted.

According to your initial eligible voting figure, that's 90 million who chose to sit out, no? Or were they all with you on Planet OneJay?

[GwynnInTheHall]

[umjewman]

As I said, you need to get out more. If you cannot handle both New Republic and National Review, your sourcing is too narrow.

For starters, 100 million voters do not sit every election out. That has never happened. So deal with facts. 75% of the base is less than the Democrats managed in 2018.

State any quibbles before we go on.

J

2016 turnout: eligible voters approximately 250M. Votes: 138M
2012 turnout: eligible voters approximately 235M. Votes: 129M
2008 turnout: eligible voters approximately 229M. Votes: 131M
2004 turnout: eligible voters approximately 219M. Votes: 122M
2000 turnout: eligible voters approximately 209M. Votes: 105M
1996 turnout: eligible voters approximately 196M. Votes: 96M.

So, there's my first quibble. You say that 100M sitting out the election has never happened. Looks like about 100M do sit out virtually every presidential election.

[GwynnInTheHall]

2016 turnout: eligible voters approximately 250M. Votes: 138M
2012 turnout: eligible voters approximately 235M. Votes: 129M
2008 turnout: eligible voters approximately 229M. Votes: 131M
2004 turnout: eligible voters approximately 219M. Votes: 122M
2000 turnout: eligible voters approximately 209M. Votes: 105M
1996 turnout: eligible voters approximately 196M. Votes: 96M.

So, there's my first quibble. You say that 100M sitting out the election has never happened. Looks like about 100M do sit out virtually every presidential election.

[Sour Masher]

2016 turnout: eligible voters approximately 250M. Votes: 138M
2012 turnout: eligible voters approximately 235M. Votes: 129M
2008 turnout: eligible voters approximately 229M. Votes: 131M
2004 turnout: eligible voters approximately 219M. Votes: 122M
2000 turnout: eligible voters approximately 209M. Votes: 105M
1996 turnout: eligible voters approximately 196M. Votes: 96M.

So, there's my first quibble. You say that 100M sitting out the election has never happened. Looks like about 100M do sit out virtually every presidential election.

#altfacts, #fakenews, #getoutmore

[umjewman]

#altfacts, #fakenews, #getoutmore

I was out plenty this weekend. Had to coach two games of youth soccer, two games of youth baseball, and a 40th birthday party for a friend. Also got dragged apple picking by my wife, but she got me home in time for football Sunday, so hooray.

#gettingoutmore

[Steve 2.0]

I was out plenty this weekend. Had to coach two games of youth soccer, two games of youth baseball, and a 40th birthday party for a friend. Also got dragged apple picking by my wife, but she got me home in time for football Sunday, so hooray.

#gettingoutmore

All of this at your age? WOW!!

[Sour Masher]

I was out plenty this weekend. Had to coach two games of youth soccer, two games of youth baseball, and a 40th birthday party for a friend. Also got dragged apple picking by my wife, but she got me home in time for football Sunday, so hooray.

#gettingoutmore

Apple picking is fun....me and the fam scored 20 lbs of Honeycrisps this weekend for a cool $20. But your weekend was definitely more packed then mine. In fact, I'd say you get out too much--take a breather .

[umjewman]

All of this at your age? WOW!!

I'm not going to lie. I was hurting. I've only been in my 40's for a month and a half - I don't know how you did it for so many years.

[umjewman]

Apple picking is fun....me and the fam scored 20 lbs of Honeycrisps this weekend for a cool $20. But your weekend was definitely more packed then mine. In fact, I'd say you get out too much--take a breather .

As long as there are apple cider donuts as a reward at the end of the day, I'm good with the apple picking.