"Please take the fact that we are not ahead by double digits"

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[RKP5637]

1. We must always remember what happened in 2016 with HRC. n/t

[stillcool]

5. Paul Manafort giving internal polling data...

about Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, to the Russians? Or maybe the Russians ability to get into elections offices, voting rolls, registrations etc., etc. There's way, way, way too much we don't remember about 2016. All the frigging articles, and all the books, and who cares?

[dubyadiprecession]

2. I'm expecting Biden win of 52% to trump's 47%

I just think my numbers are more realistic.

[Ms. Toad]

7. That may well be -

And we could still lose the presidency, since electoral votes determine the presidency.

[greenjar_01]

9. Any updates?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14265643

[Ms. Toad]

10. Nope. I've had 150 students with an essay a week to grade,

through yesterday - so I can do short breaks, but not the time to do the kind of state-by-state analysis that requires. One more set of papers and I may have the free time to do it. (That's why I did the quick 5-state model to demonstrate the concept.)

[greenjar_01]

12. Love to see how Biden would win by 7 million + votes and still lose electoral college

Interested in your fascinating analysis.

Everyone understands the concept. Let's see analysis.

Let's even say we're just at +3 million total votes this year, and a 52-47 split, like the one you just responded to.

139,000,000 total votes (mind you, far lower than the 150,000,000 some forecast)

72,280,000 Biden
65,330,000 Trump

That's 6,950,000 votes. I'd love to see a state-by-state breakdown that shows how that works, and isn't laughable.

Not saying you can't do it. Just that you haven't.

[Ms. Toad]

13. I fundamentally disagree that everyone understands the concept -

Since people here (by and large) keep focusing on the national numbers - and many get freaked out when people who uderstand the electoral math suggest the race is in the bag.

[greenjar_01]

14. OK...you just want to make a general argument so people understand the concept

Carry on.

[Ms. Toad]

15. I want to remind people that the national numbers are relatively meaningless,

As Biden's campaign manager also seems to be doing.

I don't want a repeat of 2016, when people were so complacent they felt free to not vote, or to vote for 3rd party candidates.

[greenjar_01]

16. Relatively meaningless...I suppose the "relatively" protects you from an absurdist position

Like, you wouldn't argue that it's possible to lose the national popular vote by 20 million votes and still win the electoral college. I mean real-world possible, not theoretical physics.

Wait, you don't think that, do you? You couldn't get to a reasonable state-by-state where one candidate won by 20 million nationally but lost the electoral college, right?

How about 15 million?

10 million?

That relatively is sure doing a lot of work for you, in any case.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Here you go.

Current 538 prediciton = 53.3% - 45.4% popular vote.

Trump could pull out an electoral win by taking these states with an average of 54% for Trump
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming

If Biden takes the remaining states with an average of 60%.

That list is one of 11 scenarios 538 currently suggests could generate an electoral win for Trump. The percentages I used for the average vote tallies is less than the unweighted average of the currently predicted outcomesas to Republican votes.

The state in which Trump has the strongest support is predicted to win72%/26%. Biden has 14 states he is predicted to win with vote totals of 60% and 90%, so Biden is more likely to out-perform in the popular vote in states in which an extremely high popular vote does not gain him any electorla votes. (e.g. CA & NY - each predicted to win by 64%;

So it this is the non-ludicrous example of a Biden electoral win even stronger than 53-46 you requested, that still results in an electoral college loss.

[greenjar_01]

21. Not a single poll has Trump taking 54% of the vote in

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arizona. Not one is even close. he doesn't have over 47% in those states in any poll whatsoever.

In any case, I'd like to see population numbers, not percentages.

Nice try, but not non-ludicrous.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Knock yourself out. n/t

[greenjar_01]

23. Meh

You demonstrated the absolute stretch you have to do to come up with a plausible scenario. Even there, it failed. So, yeah, I guess we're at an impass, and that's at a low turnout model.

[Ms. Toad]

24. You asked for an example. I gave you one

One that even 538 polls lists as plausible.

Averages are just that - averages. That's why I gave you the ranges, as well.

You want to play with the numbers beyond that - knock yourself.

Touting the popular vote as indicative of anything is what is ludricous, when we don't decide who is president that way.

[greenjar_01]

25. You and I both know Trump isn't winning the bulk of the current battlegrounds

(you include Iowa and Ohio as well) with 54% of the vote. to call it a plausible scenario is to stretch credulity. You don't even believe it yourself. If that's what's required for the math of a 7 million popular vote loss to translate into an electoral college win, you essentially prove the point: it is prohibitively unlikely, and ludicrous. But, you like to lecture people you think know less than you about the electoral college, so you've held on to this fantasy. Knock *yourself* out with this silliness.

[Ms. Toad]

26. If you have issues with the states or the percentages, tell it it to 538. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

27. FWIW - Both Iowa and Ohio are currently at 53%+ for Trump.

Unfortunatelymy scenario was not silliness. I just wish people had paid more attention.

Hoping we can still pull this out - but it is extremely close, as I suggested it might be.

[padfun]

3. You can vote all you want, but

If you don't stop the cheating, you will lose. Voting is only one part of the equation.

I mean, Hillary won by THREE MILLION votes. That is not a small number. She got the votes, but lost due to cheating. Not by lack of votes.

[Ms. Toad]

8. She lost because she lost the electoral vote.

Nothing matters, except the electoral vote. It doesn't matter how far ahead the nationa popular vote is.

[stillcool]

11. You'd think 2016 was legit...

I keep thinking about Manafort meeting with Kilimnick, to give him internal polling data about Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, and continued doing so for months. Those 4 states. And Russia got into state voting systems. Not that they did anything. We don't have to win, we have to win by astronomical proportions.

[uponit7771]

18. THANK YOU !!! I don't get the attitude of Just Vote but this is for a later date

[dsc]

4. So what is her theory for why all the national polls are wrong?

I can see saying, yes we are ahead by double or near double digits nationally but states X,Y, and Z are problems but she is saying the polls are wrong and apparently have been for a bit of time. I guess my question is, if her pollster is figuring this out, why isn't at least one other one?

[greenjar_01]

6. O!

Berliner.

[uponit7771]

17. In a four way she could be correct, in a two way we're blowing Trump out of the water but we know...

.. the race isn't two way cause of TPC

[USALiberal]

19. In other words "send us some money" which I understand! Nt