well he said if he was president he would have shut us down longer and would have done it again during the resurgence. How is he going to shut down the virus without shutting down the economy?
More access to rapid testing, more contact tracing, trying to encourage more mask wearing and social distancing through cultural acceptance, having a centralized strategy, etc. It won't be like he is going to flip a switch and this goes away. The irony is that probably 2 to 3 hundred thousand will die in the coming year and that will be used against him. But that is starting to be baked in from where we are today. Just like us having another 100k dead over the next 2 or 3 months is starting to be baked in. One can do a better job at this point in time, but that job will not be the same better job that could have been done earlier. We're really in a pickle. It isn't entirely anyone's fault, but we still need to get serious and quit saying shit that isn't true. Which currently is happening many times a day by the POTUS. It won't solve everything and didn't cause everything, but it is having a negative effect.
And Biden doesn't have to be elected for us to do a better job. The GOP (Senate) can help Trump out of the current messaging that more or less doubles down on a fantasy. We just have to get real on the situation, no matter what is ultimately done. I can understand and respect those who question the burden being put on the young who have little mortality risk, so long as we are being real that the consequences to folks over 60 are very [uck fay]ing real and they should be well aware of their situation.
Interesting map from Nate Silver. If polls are as wrong as they were in ‘16 it’s 335 electoral votes for Biden. But several BIG states are CLOSE.
These elections are so close in terms of popular vote, no wonder folks at are at each other's throat. It's so "winner takes all" when the difference between the winners and losers is not much.
Like, in Florida, half the state's voters will feel disenfranchised. It's set. Just a matter to wait and see which half. That's bad.
Guy that runs Trafalgar has worked on a bunch of GOP campaigns. I know he was right in 2016 but I still take that poll with a grain of salt.
Yeah I hear you. But they also think they are capturing the shy voter effect better than others. With undecideds lower this year, I hope we aren’t seeing a lot of that. But seems like something to keep an eye on.
Yeah, and don't forget that the Texas Supreme Court already ruled on curbside voting and allowed it Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Yeah I think most of the error in Michigan and Wisconsin was not capturing non-college-educates white voters well, which most have tried to correct. Trafalgar still claims the effect is there and Michigan and Wisconsin voters are just straight up lying.
The thing here, though, is there are two main issues: 1. This assumes the polls are wrong in the same amount despite polling having adjusted for their 2016 mistakes in undercounting non-college educated whites. 2. This also assumes all mistakes will go in favor of Trump.
This and tons of undecideds going for Trump. I don't think the polling in 2016 was actually that bad, of the decided people. 2012, interestingly enough, had more polling errors in many respects, but it called a smaller win for Obama than occurred. So, it wasn't really noticed.
It also assumes things aren't different every year in a different way. For all we know, there are all new sources of polling error influencing things in whichever way. These are always to be taken at face value. It's a sampling of demographics representative of the state or nation. A sample. Populations can differ from samples, and the % difference between a win or a loss is tiny. If elections were 60/40 proportions, this would be solid as hell. They aren't.
They just "believe it", that Trump people are shy to tell anonymous pollsters they are voting for Trump. You know, those Trump people being notoriously shy in supporting their guy.
