2012, not 2016, is the best comp for the 2020 Election.
Why? Undecideds.
2016 had an unprecedentedly high number of undecided voters, and polls don't capture whims of undecideds.
Currently, only ~10% of voters fit this category, roughly in line with 2012 numbers.
Why? Undecideds.
2016 had an unprecedentedly high number of undecided voters, and polls don't capture whims of undecideds.
Currently, only ~10% of voters fit this category, roughly in line with 2012 numbers.
In 2012, Obama polled +/- 1% of 50% in SEVEN swing states (@RealClearNews)
In 2016, Clinton polled +/- 1% of 50% in ZERO swing states
In 2020, Biden is polling +/- 1% if 50% in SIX swing states (@FiveThirtyEight)
Given this & comparable % of undecideds, 2012 is far better comp
In 2016, Clinton polled +/- 1% of 50% in ZERO swing states
In 2020, Biden is polling +/- 1% if 50% in SIX swing states (@FiveThirtyEight)
Given this & comparable % of undecideds, 2012 is far better comp
Why is 50% important? Obviously, the closer a candidate is to 50%, the more insurmountable their lead (i.e. undecideds/other can't swing result).
The more undecideds/other, the more possible it is for them to swing the result.
Which is why 2016 is a bad comp to 2020.
The more undecideds/other, the more possible it is for them to swing the result.
Which is why 2016 is a bad comp to 2020.
So, it's then important to account for polling errors.
When we talk polling errors, we are NOT talking about margin, but how much the poll OVERESTIMATED a candidate's support.
(Polls are intended to estimate support, not detect how undecideds will vote)
When we talk polling errors, we are NOT talking about margin, but how much the poll OVERESTIMATED a candidate's support.
(Polls are intended to estimate support, not detect how undecideds will vote)
https://twitter.com/RealCarlAllen/status/1304668059584651265?s=19
In 2012, undecideds broke decisively for Obama, but more importantly, polls only OVERESTIMATED the support of either candidate by a MAXIMUM of 1.7%
On top of that, in only THREE states (out of 13) was the overestimation more than 1%.
Polls are EXCELLENT at detecting vote floor.
On top of that, in only THREE states (out of 13) was the overestimation more than 1%.
Polls are EXCELLENT at detecting vote floor.
So, let's unilaterally impose a 2012-style polling error on Biden across the board for no real reason other than "what would happen."
And let's also give Trump a huge chunk of all those undecideds and error margin.
Basically, a Trump best case (highly unlikely) scenario.
And let's also give Trump a huge chunk of all those undecideds and error margin.
Basically, a Trump best case (highly unlikely) scenario.
What happens?
He wins the expected-red states, and FL, NC by a couple points.
PA and NV are close, Biden wins AZ and WI by a couple, and comfortably wins MI, NH.
Even in this BEST CASE for Trump, he needs a miracle upset in Nevada or PA..and another miracle elsewhere.
He wins the expected-red states, and FL, NC by a couple points.
PA and NV are close, Biden wins AZ and WI by a couple, and comfortably wins MI, NH.
Even in this BEST CASE for Trump, he needs a miracle upset in Nevada or PA..and another miracle elsewhere.
The *only way* Trump wins in 2020 is if he flips voters currently committed to Biden, or if committed Biden voters don't turn out.
I suspect this is why Trump is putting so much effort into a voter suppression campaign.
Biden being at or near 50% in swing states isn't beatable
I suspect this is why Trump is putting so much effort into a voter suppression campaign.
Biden being at or near 50% in swing states isn't beatable
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
