Who wants a few US Presidential election charts? I can hardly hear you there at the back, but I'll take that as a yes!

The polls were off in 2016.

In the 12 states that are in play in the US in 2020, 5 ended up with Trump as winner despite the forecast pointing to Clinton:
In 2020 those same 12 states look a lot more likely to be going for the Democrats and Biden than they did in 2016 for Clinton:
Among the 39 states and districts not listed Biden has 216 electoral votes and needs another 54 to win.

Trump has 127 and needs another 143 to win.
If we assume that the polls are as off as they were in 2016, and subtract that from the 2020 forecast, 3 states become toss-ups: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and Georgia:
If all those 4 states, and Texas, Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina as well, are all won by Trump, he wins with 280 Electoral Votes, ten more than needed.
If Biden wins just one of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and Georgia, however, he wins 270 or more Electoral Votes and the election.
Florida is likely to be the first of those 4 states where a result is known and perhaps even on election night (very early Wednesday morning for us in Northern Europe) as per @FiveThirtyEight (projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-resul…):
If Florida does go for Biden he'd need just another 35 Electoral Votes to win the election. Any three of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona would do.
In other words, if Trump lost Florida he would have to win two of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to win the election.

So pay attention to Florida on election night (early Wednesday morning)! It's probably the first and best indication of the winner we'll get.
Suffice to say the ball game would change dramatically if Biden pulls off an upset and wins one of Ohio, Texas, Georgia or North Carolina.

Texas and Florida for Biden would be game over Trump as would Florida and two of North Carolina, Georgia and Ohio for Biden.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Peter A. Løhmann

Peter A. Løhmann Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ploehmann

31 Oct
#swfc A big roll of the dice by Monk here!

Wildsmith, IMHO the best 'keeper at the club, given the chance to make no. 1 his.

Iorfa bringing much needed physicality and pace to a Börner and Palmer in the back three.

Windass at the tip of the three in midfield?
I really hope we use a similar ploy to when Luongo played a Libero role, as three centre backs can leave us too depleted further up the pitch against Wycombe's 4-2-3-1. The reason 3-5-2 went out of vogue in the early 2000s was precisely because teams turned to lone front men.
Three defenders in a line against one striker means space elsewhere for the attacking team.

So unless we tep it up, we'll be heavily outnumbered when we're on the ball, if Wycombe pad central areas like they did in their successful game against Watford: Image
Read 9 tweets
31 Oct
"What's the matter with Reading? (and xG)"

Some interesting discussion (if you're a footy data 🤓 like me at least!) Thursday on the use of Expected Goals (xG), which Reading's wild start to the season has brought a spotlight on.

A few thoughts from me below.

[thread]
The good people at @FiveThirtyEight supply their match level xG and non-shot xG data for a lot of leagues, and from 2016, on their site for free: projects.fivethirtyeight.com/soccer-api/clu…

That's the data I've used in the rest of the tweet thread.
A word of caution, of course, that xG and non-shot xG data aggregated at match level *can* be misleading:

In a probalistic sense, ie. "how likely is the win?", it's better to have one shot all game that is 0.5 xG, a 50% probability of a goal, than 20 shots that are 0.025 xG each
Read 13 tweets
25 Aug
#swfc are the bookies' second favourites for relegation behind only Wycombe (oddschecker.com/football/engli…), because of our 12 points deduction (pending appeal (yeah, not really)).

How high is the mountain we have to climb in historical terms then?

@NTT20Pod asked me to have a look.
Below are the teams that just survived (21st) and were the final team relegated (22nd) in the last 22 seasons of the Championship.

The difference between teams in 21st is a lot narrower than for teams in 22nd:

Half the teams in 21st won between 48 and 50 points.
Half the teams in 22nd won between 42 and 49 points.

Vindication for the old rule of thumb for 50 points as the target for survival in the Championship.

That makes the target for survival for Wednesday 62 points.

62 points would typically see a club finish exactly midtable.
Read 8 tweets
6 Aug
#swfc -12 points for 2020-21. What does that points deduction mean for us then - and what could it mean for the future?

Below a thread looking into:

1) How does P&S work again?

2) What does it all mean?

3) How much can we spend now then?
P&S, Profitability & Sustainability. The @EFL's version of UEFA's Financial Fair Play.

It means we cannot lose more than £39m in the current season and the two seasons before that combined.

At the end of 2019-20 that £39m limit was for the period July 2017 to June 2020.
The loss limit of £39m is always for a rolling three years - and that's key.

Wolves, when winning the division in 2017-18, lost £31m that season alone.

But because they only lost a combined £5m in the previous two seasons, they didn't break the £39m limit (via @SwissRamble):
Read 14 tweets
16 Jul
How many points are #swfc likely to be deducted then?

A Championship club director and one club executive wants 12 and 21 points deducted from #swfc as per @TheAthleticUK (theathletic.com/1930889/2020/0…).

(Long) thread below.

tl;dr: 8 (@OwlsAlive-esque!) and we'd survive by 2 points.
The independent Disciplinary Commission have concluded hearings and is expected to rule on Wednesday's case before the end of the season.

There's still reasonable hope we won't be deducted anything and fingers remain crossed that's the outcome. So, below, it's all hypothetical:
The Disciplinary Commission will, most likely, rule on two things:

1) Can the sale of Hillsborough be included in the 2017-18 accounts?

2) Does the sale figure of £60m represent "fair market value" for Hillsborough or should it be revised downwards?
Read 38 tweets
25 Apr
#swfc Chansiri DOES have a lot to answer for, as Waddle says in the article.

But I think Waddlee's criticism is slightly misguided:

It would've been fitting at the end of Carvalhal's tenure, but not so much now IMHO. I'll try to explain why in the thread below.

[1/?]
I've been as critical as anyone of the (lack of) leadership at our club, but there HAVE been steps made to change things (albeit too small)

[2/?]
1) We have a recruitment setup, the two people brought in by Bruce, that works in tandem with the infamous "transfer committee" (which is now apparently just Paixao) and our manager.

[3/?]
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!