2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[N.E. Brigand]

Biden's lead in AZ is actually smaller than what he's made it up to in GA. Wonder why they called one but not the other. And Trump's NC lead is substantially larger than either.

I have no idea why NC hasn't been called. Cunningham conceded his Senate race yesterday and I thought the Presidential would be right behind but so far crickets.

AZ was called by Fox and AP last week because the statisticians determined that there weren't going to be enough votes for Trump in the outstanding ballots to overtake Biden. Given how much that gap narrowed in the days that followed, it was a bold call, but ultimately the statisticians at the other news outlets agreed. I'm not sure they'd make the same decision regarding GA even if the GA SoS hadn't ordered an audit-recount thing. The GA race is tight. Not Florida 2000 tight, but tight.

While the Trump-Biden margin is narrower than the Tillis-Cunningham margin, I think that the main reason the race wasn't called is that, in theory, it could be decided by a large pool of mail ballots that were permitted to arrive after Election Day, ballots that Republicans had sued in October to prevent North Carolina from counting. That suit failed, but I think there's a fear that calling the state for Trump before they're counted (but have they been by now?) could give Trump ammunition for a new suit that would disenfranchise those voters.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The deadline for ballots to arrive in North Carolina was yesterday, November 12, and I think they said that they were waiting until then to count the mail ballots. I assume the race will be called soon. Probably today, I would guess.

[N.E. Brigand]

Most of the lawyers representing the Trump campaign's lawsuit in Pennsylvania have withdrawn from the case, with the campaign's consent (they all work for the firm Porter Wright). The sole remaining attorney representing the campaign in that state specializes in divorce cases.

[elengil]

The sole remaining attorney representing the campaign in that state specializes in divorce cases.

Oh good, Trump'll have lots of experience there...

[elengil]

I suppose it's a bit of a stretch to put this here, but it does tie directly into the "results/reactions" of the 2020 Election so...

Watch this video. It's... something else

[N.E. Brigand]

One thing to be remember is that it takes a year or more for good voting data to be available for those trying to understand in fine detail which voters picked which candidates. Researchers need time to gather the detailed files listing all the voters, and the precincts they voted in, and how those precincts voted, and then to match that data to other information about those voters. Every supposedly detailed analysis you're seeing now is based on very incomplete information, often gathered from exit polls, which are notoriously unreliable. So take studies like this with a grain of salt:

Data show Lincoln Project ads were often ineffective

It may be true! And there are some potentially important lessons in there.* But it's based on pre-election panels, and having seen how far from the final results even much more thorough and expansive polls were this year, we have no good way of matching these panels' results accurately to the actual vote.

*I am struck by viewers who became more likely to vote for Trump after seeing an ad that talked about him calling veterans "suckers" and "losers." To me, that implies that those viewers refused to believe that Trump had said such a thing and that the ad therefore was a smear against him.

In general, the findings seem to be that positive ads about Biden were the most effective at getting people to say they would vote for him.

[elengil]

To me, that implies that those viewers refused to believe that Trump had said such a thing and that the ad therefore was a smear against him.

/Sigh/ none so blind...

But I agree broadly that positive messages do better than negative, regardless of the target, though there are always exceptions.

[River]

N.E., I agree it's far too early for a proper post-mortem. One interesting thing to note about the Lincoln Project is it was initiated by former Republican operatives to divert Republican votes from Trump. They weren't trying to persuade a huge swath of people. They were trying to persuade GOP-inclined voters who were already wobbly about Trump (in other words, those who already believed Trump would never say such things about the troops weren't the target audience in the first place). The idea was if they chipped off enough, Trump would fall . It's becoming apparent that, in some House and Senate races, these voters ultimately split their tickets, voting against Trump at the top of the ballot but for the GOP candidates the rest of the way down.

By the way, I look on the Lincoln Project with wide open eyes. I'm glad they took the position they did, but, as far as how Trump and the current incarnation of the GOP came to be, they've got dirt all over themselves. They are Dr. Frankenstein, fighting the monster of their own creation.

AZ was called by Fox and AP last week because the statisticians determined that there weren't going to be enough votes for Trump in the outstanding ballots to overtake Biden. Given how much that gap narrowed in the days that followed, it was a bold call, but ultimately the statisticians at the other news outlets agreed.

Considering that the number of ballots left to count is now less than Biden's lead, that shouldn't have been a difficult call to make.

Like I've said before, if/when the guys who do the election calls get together and have beer I expect there to be lots of good-natured back and forth about the AZ 2020 Presidential and who called it when and why. Wish I could be a fly on the wall when it happens because I'm sure it'll be hilarious. Unless it turns to ritual combat (also known as a technical discussion). Then it'll be interesting and educational.

[Dave_LF]

All states called now, with no further surprises. A pretty compelling map for Biden in the end, with electoral votes from every region of the country (though he'd have missed the plains if Nebraska didn't do the district thing, and Florida and Alaska are both arguably regions unto themselves).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

CNN calls it a "landslide for the president-elect" after undoubtedly mocking Trump for describing his own victory in 2016 by the exact same electoral margin as a landslide.

[N.E. Brigand]

N.E., I agree it's far too early for a proper post-mortem. One interesting thing to note about the Lincoln Project is it was initiated by former Republican operatives to divert Republican votes from Trump. They weren't trying to persuade a huge swath of people. They were trying to persuade GOP-inclined voters who were already wobbly about Trump (in other words, those who already believed Trump would never say such things about the troops weren't the target audience in the first place). The idea was if they chipped off enough, Trump would fall . It's becoming apparent that, in some House and Senate races, these voters ultimately split their tickets, voting against Trump at the top of the ballot but for the GOP candidates the rest of the way down.

By the way, I look on the Lincoln Project with wide open eyes. I'm glad they took the position they did, but, as far as how Trump and the current incarnation of the GOP came to be, they've got dirt all over themselves. They are Dr. Frankenstein, fighting the monster of their own creation.

I loved the Lincoln Project ads (even linked to two of them in this forum the day before the election) and appreciated their efforts. But they didn't have to persuade me.

[N.E. Brigand]

CNN calls it a "landslide for the president-elect" after undoubtedly mocking Trump for describing his own victory in 2016 by the exact same electoral margin as a landslide.

"306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic." -- Kellyanne Conway, Nov. 28, 2016

[Dave_LF]

I wouldn't call either one a landslide, but Biden is a lot closer since he actually won the popular vote, and pretty handily too.

[elengil]

I wouldn't call either one a landslide, but Biden is a lot closer since he actually won the popular vote, and pretty handily too.

I think that's the point. They weren't landslides, by any means. But Trump and his mouthpieces, of course, had to insist it was, the biggest in US history, the best evar! So, of course, if 306 was a landslide for Trump, it must be a landslide again for Biden. It's basically just salt in the wound.

[River]

I wouldn't call either one a landslide, but Biden is a lot closer since he actually won the popular vote, and pretty handily too.

Yep.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Remarks yesterday from Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday at the dedication of a military museum:

You see, we are unique among armies. We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king, or queen, a tyrant, or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual.

No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe, or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airmen, marine, coast guardsmen, each of us will protect and defend that document regardless of personal price.

https://news.yahoo.com/gen-milley-oath- ... 01751.html

[River]

The oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is taken throughout the Executive Branch (no idea about the other two). I had to do it when I started my two-year postdoc fellowship with NIST. Everyone in the White House did it too. It is something I've thought on a lot these past four years.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, but the fact that he felt necessary to point out that our military does NOT take an oath to a dictator is telling.

[River]

I understand. And the fact everyone in the White House has also taken the same oath is also telling. Oaths are only as good as the people who swear them. It is therefore fortunate that the military has its own structure for promotions, leaving Trump with fewer options to handpick a compliant crew.

Also, apparently the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security is refusing to fire the guy who announced the 2020 election was secure and there is no evidence of fraud.

[Dave_LF]

Gee, I wonder who that statement might have been meant for? If the purpose was to put him on notice, I approve.