Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Haley's positives were huge, so much so that there really were Trump campaign staff advising him to dump Pence for her.

She's as sure as anyone to run for the nomination in 2024, and I don't see anyone in the GOP who'll stop her. I'd love to see Hannity try, as I'm 100% sure he'd get his big and little head handed to him.

And given that the racist, misogynistic portion will be given a choice between Haley and either Susan Rice or Kamala Harris, I think I know who they'll vote for. Cynical, yes, but true nonetheless.

I hope you are right about your party. It would do my heart good to see the GOP put up Nikki Haley. As much as I disagree with her, I'd respect her as the nominee infinitely more than Trump, or the Fox talking heads that are rumored to make a run. It would bring back a little respectability to the party to have a serious candidate run again.

ETA: Sadly, given the attitudes of a lot of guys, such a match up may be the only way a woman gets elected in the country--if voters have to choose between two of them.

[frae]

I don't like using poorly rated polls to show anything, but this is interesting. Trafalgar a strong R leaning pollster that in 2018 had Cruz +9 (won by 2) Gov Kemp +12 (won by less than 2) and McSally +2 (lost by 2.5) shows Trump up 6 in Texas 49 - 43. With the poor lean of Trafalgar shown in 2018 this really does show the shift in Texas is real for this cycle as of now. All the same caveats Texas is not the tipping point state, but it sure could make 2024 interesting if we are going into that election cycle with a truly purple Texas.

Cook political changes a few more congressional races today, they moved 5 house races today, 4 toward D and 1 toward R.

As of today Cook has the house at...

221 Solid, lean or, likely D

186 Solid, lean, or likely R

There are 28 tossups with 15 held by D and 13 held by R. Democrats currently hold 232 seats after a wave election, but are positioned to reasonable look to hold or gain on that number. 28 tossups are not likely to all break one way so if they split evenly the D would be at 235.

The suburbs are killing the Republicans chances right now in a lot of these districts, previously safe districts have seen a radical shift since 2016. If you lose the urban areas and the suburbs it is a lot harder to find a majority when your only reliable block of voters is rural.

[frae]

The 538 model is out and has Biden as winning 71/100 runs. Have not got to dig into it yet, but glad to have it back.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

[frae]

In case some of the other subtle dog whistles missed you, for the racists in the way back...

[heyelander]

The 538 model is out and has Biden as winning 71/100 runs. Have not got to dig into it yet, but glad to have it back.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

seeing anything less than 95/100 makes me feel a bit ill.

[The Feral Slasher]

seeing anything less than 99.99999999999995/100 makes me feel a bit ill.

fixed.

[chancellor]

seeing anything less than 95/100 makes me feel a bit ill.

As it should. As of 10/24/16, Hillary Clinton had an 85/100 chance of winning according to 538, 92/100 by other sites. I'll also note that Nate Silver's team was putting up some red flags much earlier than any other pollsters about risks the Clinton campaign had, which, as has become the norm for Democratic campaigns, they pretty much ignored.

And, again to Nate and his team's credit, they tried to best account for undeciededs, state variations, and unusual outcomes - all of which, using normal methods, indicated a Clinton win from 90/100 to 99.5/100 - and they still missed.

[Ken]

fixed.

I'm getting lost among your 5 quadrillion iterations, which one did you say went Trump's way again?

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm getting lost among your 5 quadrillion iterations, which one did you say went Trump's way again?

Give me a minute to look it up. There is a lot of data

[GwynnInTheHall]

Give me a minute to look it up. There is a lot of data

You got 30 seconds for a google search, that's it--you know the rules.

[Ken]

Give me a minute to look it up. There is a lot of data

Let me know if you need any help. I can direct you to Steve, he does the heavy lifting around here.

[heyelander]

I'm getting lost among your 5 quadrillion iterations, which one did you say went Trump's way again?

we call that one "The Hawaii/DC Scenario"

[frae]

As it should. As of 10/24/16, Hillary Clinton had an 85/100 chance of winning according to 538, 92/100 by other sites. I'll also note that Nate Silver's team was putting up some red flags much earlier than any other pollsters about risks the Clinton campaign had, which, as has become the norm for Democratic campaigns, they pretty much ignored.

And, again to Nate and his team's credit, they tried to best account for undeciededs, state variations, and unusual outcomes - all of which, using normal methods, indicated a Clinton win from 90/100 to 99.5/100 - and they still missed.

A bit of Irony that this first model is the exact numbers of the last model they had out in 2016. I like Nate and he was the closest model in 2016 giving Trump that 29% chance and people who were irate with him just don't understand probability. It was basically a 3/10 chance that Trump was going to win according to 538 in 2016 and people acted like it was a certainty that Clinton would win. None of us would willingly take a chance with our lives if the chance of death was 3/10.

[Ken]

None of us would willingly take a chance with our lives if the chance of death was 3/10.

3 in 10 never happens. It's like a good hitter getting a hit.

[The Feral Slasher]

3 in 10 never happens. It's like a good hitter getting a hit.

are you talking about my fantasy team or a larger context ?