Election 2020

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'd put Biden's chances of winning Texas at 40%. Which doesn't mean anything, of course, because it's below 50%, so if Trump wins Texas, I can say I expected that, and if Biden wins Texas, I can say I was higher on his chances than a lot of people were. Ha.

But I think what I'm thinking here is that if for some reason the white Rust Belt male voter still favors Trump more than the polls realize, and the Midwest swings toward Trump a little like it did in 2016, that while Republicans as a party play well in Texas, Trump personally does not the way he does in the Midwest (or has in the past). And that might be enough to move Texas bluer than a few of those other swing states in the situation where they are really close to going red. I think the polls are probably better than they were in 2016, and Biden's polling margin in those states is bigger than Clinton's was, but nonetheless, polling is a tricky business, and unexpected things can happen that affect different areas of the country differently. In Texas there has always been a huge latent blue vote (both in the Rio Grande Valley, where early voting turnout is up but not astoundingly so, and in the urban centers, where population has grown and turnout is really high this cycle). I've never had hope that those voters would actually turn out to the polls, but the early voting numbers have me wondering.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I read a county-by-county analysis of the potential turnout effects in Texas, and the summary basically was that if turnout is historically high in the Rio Grande Valley, that's 300k extra votes for Biden. If it's historically high in the suburbs, that's 400k extra votes for Trump. If it's historically high in the smaller cities, that's 100k extra votes for Trump. And if it's historically high in the largest urban counties, that's 900k-1.2 million extra votes for Biden. That's a net 700k-900k vote shift to Biden in the high turnout scenario. That's out of a likely 11 million total votes cast (17 million total registered voters).

The margin in Texas in 2016 was 800k votes.

[Sour Masher]

I read a county-by-county analysis of the potential turnout effects in Texas, and the summary basically was that if turnout is historically high in the Rio Grande Valley, that's 300k extra votes for Biden. If it's historically high in the suburbs, that's 400k extra votes for Trump. If it's historically high in the smaller cities, that's 100k extra votes for Trump. And if it's historically high in the largest urban counties, that's 900k-1.2 million extra votes for Biden. That's a net 700k-900k vote shift to Biden in the high turnout scenario. That's out of a likely 11 million total votes cast (17 million total registered voters).

The margin in Texas in 2016 was 800k votes.

Again, I hope it turns out that way. I want the higher turn out to be fueled by a recognition that the SOB in office needs to go. I see that only pushing it close, but I still don't see Biden winning Texas. And even if he somehow does, if it is dependent on unprecedented turn out, that is not sustainable, so Texas would go back to being red long term. Still would be great as a one off, though.

[Sour Masher]

TLP is dumping tons of ads today. This is another one trying to take down Graham. In May 2016, Graham said: "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it." He was wrong about the GOP getting destroyed then, but I sure hope he is right in 2020, because he and the rest of the Trumpers sure do deserve it. I know I keep harping on Graham, but I cannot get over how a man who voted against party in 2016--he did not vote for Trump in 2016--ended up becoming one of the biggest lampreys suckling on the bloated shark that is Trump. He knew what was right and said as much before almost any other Republican in office, and he still fell in line completely and utterly, turning from one of his staunchest critics to one of his most ardent defenders. I will never understand how he sold his soul like that.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Again, I hope it turns out that way. I want the higher turn out to be fueled by a recognition that the SOB in office needs to go. I see that only pushing it close, but I still don't see Biden winning Texas. And even if he somehow does, if it is dependent on unprecedented turn out, that is not sustainable, so Texas would go back to being red long term. Still would be great as a one off, though.

There is some chance of Democrats taking a chamber in the Texas state house in a wave election, which would be important since this will be the redistricting legislature, and Texas congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered in Republican favor. Also, there are demographic trends that are pushing Texas purple. The Hispanicization of Texas is one that people have been touting for a long time, but it hasn't had the effect that people have expected because (a) Hispanics in south Texas who reliably vote Democratic don't turn out to vote, and (b) Hispanics in other parts of Texas don't favor Democrats by huge margins. But Democratic growth in the large urban and suburban areas is the trend that is actually moving Texas purple.

I agree that Texas will still lean somewhat red for the near future in any normal election cycle, but I think it will be more in the realm of Arizona and Florida in that regard, rather than being reliably and solidly red like its neighbors Oklahoma or Louisiana. A run-of-the-mill Democratic candidate will still be at a disadvantage to win statewide election, but a good Democratic candidate will have a chance that they haven't had in the past.

[frae]

Just to prove the you an find a poll anywhere that says what you want here are 3 polls from the blue wall states by Univ Wisc Madison saying Biden's lead is growing...

"Biden has substantial leads over Trump among “likely” voters. Likely voters are defined as registered voters who also report that they are “certain” to vote or have already voted. In contrast to prior ERC surveys this year, Biden has crossed the crucial 50% mark in all three states. Compared to the previous survey in September, Biden’s leads have grown from +6 to +10 in Michigan, from +4 to +8 in Pennsylvania, and from +4 to +9 in Wisconsin."

https://news.wisc.edu/new-polls-show-biden-with-growing-leads-in-three-battleground-states/

[Sour Masher]

A run-of-the-mill Democratic candidate will still be at a disadvantage to win statewide election, but a good Democratic candidate will have a chance that they haven't had in the past.

Doesn't Beto fit that bill? I know he faded fast in the primaries, but he looked like the ideal candidate running against Cruz. Even I started to hope he could pull it off, but when the rubber hit the road, it didn't happen. And my understanding is that Cruz isn't the most beloved person in Texas.....or anywhere. Although, I suppose the gun thing could have tanked Beto where another candidate in a presidential election might be able to navigate that better. I don't recall when Beto went full gun ban, though. I think it was after he lose to Cruz.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Doesn't Beto fit that bill? I know he faded fast in the primaries, but he looked like the ideal candidate running against Cruz. Even I started to hope he could pull it off, but when the rubber hit the road, it didn't happen. And my understanding is that Cruz isn't the most beloved person in Texas.....or anywhere. Although, I suppose the gun thing could have tanked Beto where another candidate in a presidential election might be able to navigate that better. I don't recall when Beto went full gun ban, though. I think it was after he lose to Cruz.

Yes, Beto fits that bill. I think some of his weaknesses were exposed in the presidential primaries, but yes, he definitely fits that bill. I think the demographics have shifted a little in the Democrats favor from 2018 to 2020 and will continue to shift.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Btw, Ted Cruz's favorability was slightly positive in Texas going into the 2018 election, and his job approval rating was several points above that.

Donald Trump's job approval rating in Texas is very close to breakeven (average of 47.2% approve and 47.0% disapprove over the past year).

[Kevin Seitzer]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ood-for-biden/

[frae]

Bloomberg is putting $15 million dollars into Texas and Ohio for Biden. We all will have different opinions on how much a late push will matter, but I don't see it hurting. I am all for Biden playing for as many states as he can go give himself options.

From a polling standpoint Wisconsin and especially Michigan look gone for Trump. That leaves one logical path to the WH for him, win all the other 2016 states. There are no pickups out there MN, NH, and NV polling are not tightening.

So that map would be 280-258 if we give Trump both of Ne-2 and ME-2 also. Now I think NE-2 goes to Biden and ME-2 is a coin flip. So you basically would have a score that looks something like one of these outcomes

280-258
279-259
278-260

Those would all be Trump wins if he holds the rest of the 2016 map. So the only state in play that he can lose if he holds everything else is Iowa. That would keep him over 270. So any other state he loses would send the election to Biden or a tie (AZ 11 if Trump wins both NE-2 and ME-2) The most likely state to tip that remains PA after that is AZ, FL and NC who are all slight leans to Biden and then get to GA and IA that I think are true tossups by odds and then TX which is a lean to Trump. Fun fact Alaska is more likely to go to Biden than Michigan to Trump.

So where are we with a week left? If you concede MI and WI we are in a spot where any 2016 state other than IA going to Biden gives him over 270 if you give him NE-2. If MI and WI go the only way I can get to a tie is AZ to Biden and Trump wins both ME-2 and NE-2. NE-2 is tipped toward Biden about the same way PA is and in fact Trump is going to campaign there. I don't think the tie happens because of PA, but that is now the only way I can get a tie. IA + ME-2 and NE-2 don't get Biden to a tie.

88/12 as of this morning on 538, hopefully it keeps inching up as we run out of days and outside events to impact the model.

[chancellor]

From a polling standpoint Wisconsin and especially Michigan look gone for Trump.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Reports on early balloting in Wisconsin has the local Dems in full-on arm waving panic. I've seen two results, with one +2 for the GOP and another +6 for the GOP.

[frae]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Reports on early balloting in Wisconsin has the local Dems in full-on arm waving panic. I've seen two results, with one +2 for the GOP and another +6 for the GOP.

Hmmmm I am going to need something to go on, where have you seen it? What I have read is Wisconsin doesn't even track party affiliation of absentee/mail ballots...

"The party is in search of missing absentee ballots. Of about 1,706,771 Wisconsin voters who requested absentee ballots, 1,344,535 have returned them. That means 366,236 ballots are still out there.

The wayward ballots could make the difference between President Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr. winning the White House: Though Mr. Biden has maintained a steady polling lead in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump carried the state in 2016 by the razor-thin margin of 22,748 votes.

Wisconsin does not report the party affiliation of voters who request absentee ballots. But in states that do report affiliation, nearly two-third of voters who requested ballots this fall have been Democrats, who polls have found to be more concerned about avoiding polling places amid the pandemic than Republicans are."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/27/us/trump-biden-election

Are you talking about straight up early in person voting on exit poll data? According to elect project about 330K have voted early in person...

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/WI.html

If the in person vote tilts Republican that doesn't surprise me at all, but there have been almost 1.1 million mail ballots returned by mail according to elect project and those almost certainly will tilt to Biden as there is no way to poll that data since WI won't report party affiliation and I don't think you are siting a poll done by anyone i can find of people who have voted by mail? The times article says 1.3 million have been returned so maybe elect project just hasn't updated regardless my point is if you are siting internal polls of people who did in person voting I'd say that makes sense if it is a poll of people who voted by mail I would need to see the cross tabs and how they polled to buy it.

[frae]

And as I dig around Twitter more we get over 1.4 million of those mail votes returned now...

[revo]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Reports on early balloting in Wisconsin has the local Dems in full-on arm waving panic. I've seen two results, with one +2 for the GOP and another +6 for the GOP.

I haven't seen anything on this either. Link? I checked the Wisconsin state site and like Frae said, they don't track party affiliation on early or absentee voters.