The US Presidential election prediction thread

[GordonS]

Oh, as for that "so-and-so was right in 2016" thing; yeah, and Paul the Octopus was right 85.7% of the time in the 2010 World Cup. The real question is how they got it right.

[Wee-Bey]

It's shaping up for either the biggest heist in history or some absolute scenes if it goes tits up.

 

[DrewDon]

6 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

I've not read through the whole of this thread from 2016, but Pepp and JLD were both on the money on the first page. Dom Dom not so much.

 

Reading that thread makes me oddly miss Banana's contributions to this sub-forum, despite disagreeing with him on literally everything. A genuine character. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

A genuine arsehole. Good riddance.

[Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier]

8 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

8 hours ago, Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier said:

Trump to pull it out of the fire and win. Gives Boris a bumper trade deal in exchange for our NHS. 

Is that a prediction or a hope ? It's a simple question.

A tongue in cheek prediction. My hope? Trump gets utterly trumped.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

A tongue in cheek prediction. My hope? Trump gets utterly trumped.

Good man, take a greenie.

[LongTimeLurker]

8 hours ago, GordonS said:

Obviously bullshit poll is obvious.

21% of black voters approve of him and are going to vote for him? Suuuuuure....

This New York Times article that is worth a look:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/upshot/election-polling-racial-gap.html

Things appear to be less racially polarised this time because Joe Biden appeals to white voters more than Hillary Clinton did with the flip side being that Trump has gained to a certain extent among non-white voters.

[Dunning1874]

10 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

New public holiday: John McCain Day 33/1

Launches massive campaign with celebrities including Ellen and Jimmy Kimmel to help the US Army hire more female and LGBTQ drone operators. 4/1

Latin America coup: 8/11

John Kasich and/or Jeff Flake given cabinet posts: 1/20

[Aladdin]

I'm still confident in a democratic clean sweep. If Biden loses this pollsters may as well give up. America might as well give up too.

Think Biden will get enough of the suburban female vote and rallied the black vote compared to 2016 to win.

[madwullie]

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

No idea if this real, but as a pollster that seems to be exclusively used by the Express, it probably is. Do you have their exact and dated polls for Brexit and 2016?

Derek Shan. Say no more. 

[madwullie]

10 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Trump didn't know what Q-Anon was until about 5 weeks ago but they're definitely dedicated enough to sustain something.

How would the sealed indictments that are being opened any day now, wait for it, wait for it, narrative survive a trump loss?

He's had 4 years to do all the stuff that's been predicted and he hasn't even managed to make any kind of decent start on the wall, let alone expose the clones of Hanks, Obama etc and lock them all up

Edited November 2, 2020 by madwullie

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

9 hours ago, GordonS said:

Obviously bullshit poll is obvious.

21% of black voters approve of him and are going to vote for him? Suuuuuure. 

 

I doubt if it'll be as high as that, but there are a certain amount of coloured/latino voters who are very, very big on the law and order ticket, and because of that are natural Republican voters. 

Not all coloured/latino/Hispanic voters in the States are radicals calling for social justice. A significant number are extremely conservative and as such are attracted to Trump's rhetoric. 

[LongTimeLurker]

8 hours ago, GordonS said:

Oh, as for that "so-and-so was right in 2016" thing; yeah, and Paul the Octopus was right 85.7% of the time in the 2010 World Cup. The real question is how they got it right.

A note of caution from Michael Moore:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/michael-moore-bidens-poll-lead-is-not-an-accurate-count

Listen, don’t believe these polls, first of all,” Moore said. “And second of all, the Trump vote is always being undercounted. Pollsters, when they actually call a real Trump voter, the Trump voter is very suspicious of the Deep State calling them and asking them who they’re voting for.”

I'm in wait and see mode on this because I'm not totally sure the mainstream pollsters can be trusted to not get into a cycle of group think on questionable polling numbers that fit the desired outcome of the American elite when the raw numbers they obtain before they get into applying weightings to try to more accurately gauge shy Trump "deplorables" will be in line with what the people that are commissioning the polls very much want to hear and report through the mass media. We'll find out soon enough. Even allowing for that factor a 10% national lead should translate to a Biden win but it's in no way surprising that Michael Moore would be reaching for the panic button again.

[Gaz]

I noticed a lot of folk are putting faith in the boy who has predicted every US election since 1984.

Because I was massively bored last night, I went through them all:

1984 - Reagan v Mondale
1988 - Bush v Dukakis / Bentsen
1992 - Clinton v Bush
1996 - Clinton v Dole
2000 - Bush v Gore
2004 - Bush v Kerry / Edwards
2008 - Obama v McCain
2012 - Obama v Romney
2016 - Trump v Clinton

Of those nine elections, how many of those were genuinely too close to call, and hence an accurate 'prediction'? '84 and '88 were widely predicted to be an absolute landslide for the Republicans and this is what happened, similar in '92 and '96 for Clinton. 2000 was too close to call, but essentially you're still looking at a 50-50 prediction. 2004 was quite close, but 2008 and 2012 were predicted to have Obama win comfortably, which is what happened. 2016 was too close to call.

I'm not sure about putting much faith in a person who has 'accurately' predicted nine elections, of which six were absolute shoe-ins and the other were 50-50 shots. It's hardly Nostradamus levels of prediction.

[Gaz]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

A note of caution from Michael Moore:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/michael-moore-bidens-poll-lead-is-not-an-accurate-count

Listen, don’t believe these polls, first of all,” Moore said. “And second of all, the Trump vote is always being undercounted. Pollsters, when they actually call a real Trump voter, the Trump voter is very suspicious of the Deep State calling them and asking them who they’re voting for.”

It's essentially their version of Shy Tory Syndrome.

[EdinburghPar1975]

The closer it gets to the election day the more i'm 'concerned' that we could see Biden get a huge amount of the popular votes and a higher percentage than HIlary had and Trump will just be able to scrape through with the EC votes in the swing states. 

It's looking like Biden might have done enough but i certainly wouldn't be ruling Trump out. Whatever happens i reckon it'll be more interesting after Election Day than what actually happens on the night.

[LongTimeLurker]

42 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

....Not all coloured/latino/Hispanic voters in the States are radicals calling for social justice. A significant number are extremely conservative and as such are attracted to Trump's rhetoric. 

...and there appear to be more angles of attack against Joe Biden on his record over race related issues than there were with Hillary Clinton. He's old enough to have been active politically when school busing/desegregation was the hot button issue in the Archie Bunker era. Stuff he is alleged to have said in that context is now being dredged up and repeated ad nauseam on social media by Trump supporters to target black voters. Hopefully having Kamala Harris as running mate (zero chance Trump would do something similar as Bible Belt evangelicals is where he feels a need to shore up his base given some of his past escapades on the Howard Stern Show etc) is enough to remind people that they need to look first and foremost at what is happening in the present day.

Edited November 2, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[Donathan]

It looks bleak for Trump - if the state polls are accurate this time - they have adjusted to take account of the white uneducated male vote - then he is struggling big time.
 

 
 
 
If there are no toss-ups and those polls are accurate then the map looks like this:
 

 
Polls in toss-up states that were on his side - Georgia, Arizona, Ohio - are now polling for a Biden win.
 
If the pollsters get this wrong then they may as well pack up and go home.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have a score on Trump to get 180-209 college votes so I hope he holds Ohio tbh

[Gaz]

Biden taking Texas would be absolute SCENES.

[harry94]

43 minutes ago, Gaz said:

I noticed a lot of folk are putting faith in the boy who has predicted every US election since 1984.

Because I was massively bored last night, I went through them all:

1984 - Reagan v Mondale
1988 - Bush v Dukakis / Bentsen
1992 - Clinton v Bush
1996 - Clinton v Dole
2000 - Bush v Gore
2004 - Bush v Kerry / Edwards
2008 - Obama v McCain
2012 - Obama v Romney
2016 - Trump v Clinton

Of those nine elections, how many of those were genuinely too close to call, and hence an accurate 'prediction'? '84 and '88 were widely predicted to be an absolute landslide for the Republicans and this is what happened, similar in '92 and '96 for Clinton. 2000 was too close to call, but essentially you're still looking at a 50-50 prediction. 2004 was quite close, but 2008 and 2012 were predicted to have Obama win comfortably, which is what happened. 2016 was too close to call.

I'm not sure about putting much faith in a person who has 'accurately' predicted nine elections, of which six were absolute shoe-ins and the other were 50-50 shots. It's hardly Nostradamus levels of prediction.

You can reasonably argue his 2000 prediction should be counted as being wrong. When the Republican lawyers got the counting stopped, Bush was leading by 537 votes. You had a case in one county where this ridiculous ballot design led to a fringe candidate pick up a few thousand votes that were very obviously intended for Gore, which would have easily flipped the state. When you see the sheer no of voters purged from registration, it's blatant that the whole thing was a massive con and Gore probably was the legitimate winner.

2004 was also seen as a bit of a write off with Bush the overwhelming favourite, his popularity was >50% post 9/11 to election day, the Republicans even did well in the mid terms which is almost unheard of for a ruling party. It was actually a surprise how close that ended up to one state and when the exit polls showed Kerry winning. I think it was viewed quite similarly to 2012 where the incumbent just wasn't very popular.

Pre the 2016 election, there was an article which anonymously polled Republican operatives in Pennsylvania on what they felt their chances were and the consensus was that Clinton would take it (although a few lone voices). That's a scenario where you have people near ground level who have extensive amounts of voter data and they didn't even see the scale of it coming. Easy to reassess things in hindsight and find the warning signs but very skeptical when people come out with their 'feelings' on things like this, may as well flip a coin.