Rachel Bitecofer electoral college evaluation: Biden 289-Trump 181!

[Hortensis]

That's the exciting takeaway offered at this midpoint. This is a pretty long piece. But as the bits I posted show, it's full of evaluations of historic and sociological context so that reading almost any paragraph is likely to be interesting.

A Post-Democratic Primary Update to the Bitecofer Model
March 24, 2020

As the Democratic primary winds down, with a Biden nomination a delegate-math inevitability even if contests remain on the calendar, it is time for one of the few updates I plan to my forecast, this one, the post-primary update. Of course, this update comes at a time of incredible turmoil, not only in America, but worldwide, as the unprecedented COVID19 pandemic unfolds ...

In the July 2019 release of this forecast, I said that little could occur that could alter the basic contours of this election cycle: Democrats are fired up in a way they were not in 2016 because of negative partisanship powered by backlash to Trump and thus would increase their turnout significantly and be less likely to defect to third-party candidates. I also said, “barring a significant shock to the system, Democrats recapture the presidency.” ...

Democrats, no doubt, are hopeful that as spring turns to summer and the scope of the economic damage begins to set in, a similar situation as befell George W. Bush will befall Donald Trump. While that’s not impossible, there have been important changes in mass political behavior over the past decade that suggest that Trump might be able to evade Bush’s fate. My dissertation research finds a sharp change in public opinion starting in 2008-2009 as two events unfold simultaneously — the collapse of the American economy and the election of America’s first black president — findings that are also confirmed by the Pew Research Center’s polarization research. And elections over the past decade have bucked trends of decades past, making candidates whose scandals or behaviors would have once been disqualifying competitive for public office by the virtue of partisanship — candidates such as Roy Moore in Alabama, who lost out on a Senate seat by just over a point despite multiple allegations of child molestation that emerged during his candidacy.

A recession will certainly provide a potent test of the old “fundamentals” models that my research challenges. Make no mistake about it: If “the economy, stupid” still matters, it needs to matter here, and it should put the presidency completely out of grasp for Trump. Along with the state-level analysis presented here, economic fundamentals models under a recession will predict dismal electoral prospects for Trump. I assume these models have elements in them to prevent them from making forecasts akin to the Reagan/Carter map from 1980, which of course we will not see because the electorate of 1980, which was rich in liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and a Southern realignment hitting its stride is long gone.

Now, the parties are largely ideologically homogenous and partisanship has evolved to become a social identity, an individual’s “ride or die,” which makes the prospect of red states breaking in favor of Biden seem unlikely, especially given the salience of white racial identity in contemporary Republican politics.

If the economic-fundamentals models retain even half of their old vitality, what we should see this fall is something on par with Obama’s 2008 Electoral College dominance of John McCain, which was produced under similar, collapse-in-progress economic distress. As of today (March 24th), I’m not willing to say such a map is absolutely impossible but I’m bearish on it as two critical components of that 2008 map, Indiana and Missouri, have drifted sharply to the right over the past decade, each becoming about 5 points more Republican and tossing both of their incumbent Democratic senators out of office in 2018 in what was a blue wave year. To recreate an Obama map takes more than turnout surges of Democrats and Independents. ...

But even without a big assist from the looming recession, by avoiding a Sanders nomination, and with it, total party meltdown, Democrats are well-positioned for the fall general election. The changes to my original ratings from July 2019 reflect this reality and are universally positive for Democrats. ...

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

[drray23]

1. It better be way more than 289.

At this point, Trump should suffer a rout of epic proportions.

[TwilightZone]

3. That's with 68 still in the toss-up category.

A lot of red states just aren't going to dump Trump, regardless of the circumstances, so 289 is pretty solid with another 68 possible.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Depending on the body count come November, I think Trump could lose all 50 states nt

[TwilightZone]

5. Not happening.

Their only sources of information are Fox News, Trump, and other right-wing garbage. They're already parroting the "Democrats are responsible for the delays" nonsense. Even if Grandma dies, they still won't blame Trump.

It's a cult. They'll go down with their leader if they have to, never understanding what he's done to them.

[MyOwnPeace]

8. I agree!

Even with the "Daily Clown Show" that he gives, some polls STILL have him in the mid to high 40's. If they're not going to dump him for being stupid live-on-camera, they're not gonna' dump him come November.

[Polybius]

22. And three are even higher

Gallop has him at 49 now, and The Hill has him at 50. Economist/YouGov today has him at 47%. These are not right-wing polls either.

[LenaBaby61]

31. Gallup is right-leaning, open-ended shit poll, YouGov is an online poll.

IF you remember last years Gallup/Harris polling, it had tRump and Pres. Obama tied 50/50 as the most admired man. Thing is, when you dug into the polling data that Gallup/Harris polling used, it was OBVIOUS (To me at least) that the polling methodology they used was a total SHAM.


"Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result. ... In 2013, the accuracy of Gallup polling on religious faith was questioned."


Online poll

"Proponents of scientific online polling state that in practice their results are no less reliable than traditional polls, and that the problems faced by traditional polling, such as inadequate data for quota design and poor response rates for phone polls, can also lead to systemic bias."

[Polybius]

34. Maybe I was just being too pessimistic

Your optimism is a breath of fresh air.

[Hortensis]

10. This wish is why I pasted the bits I did about Republicans.

These aren't the Grand Old Party Republicans of the old days. Those who still identify with that party have become intensely corrupted (my words) by extreme partisanship. Almost no depravity is too great for them to support, and a huge if in this analysis is whether even great economic misfortune would cause significant numbers of loyalists to toss their team jerseys in the trash.

[TwilightZone]

11. Trump transcends their identity with the GOP.

The main reason I think he won't be dumped en masse by the masses in the red states is because they're not members of the GOP as much members of the Trump cult. I'm not sure anything, including a significant number of deaths, can get through the cult wall. I think they'll just buy his crap that everything is the fault of Democrats.

I could certainly be wrong, but I'd be shocked if his approval drops below 35% and probably more like 37%. That's enough to still win a bunch of red states, though not enough for anything beyond that.

Bush dropped into the 20s because of the financial crisis, but his following was party-affiliated and not a cult. I think Trump's fans are so entrenched in all-things-Trump that we won't see that kind of drop. I hope I'm wrong.

[Hortensis]

13. She seems so agree. Except that the pathology is the extreme

polarization which caused them to vote for a depraved whackjob and which would continue even if COVID killed Trump off within the month. It'd just be transferred to whoever was hustled into his place as candidate. Who knows, might even gain strength?

[TwilightZone]

14. That's an interesting thought.

I think a lot of the worst of it is specific to Trump, so I'm not sure how much of it would transfer to another candidate. On the other hand, a more reasonable candidate would regain some of the disaffected conservatives and right-leaners who've been put off by Trump. So, the overall nuttiness might decline, but a different candidate might have a larger audience.

[Polybius]

18. Never in a million years

It's impossible for any candidate these days to win more than 45, and that's pushing it. We are much more divided than 30 years ago. We need to run like we're 10 points behind.

[IluvPitties]

2. America is ready for an adult in the WH.

Four years of a toddler in his 70s is more than enough.

[MyOwnPeace]

9. Not only READY......

America NEEDS an adult in the WH!

[BlueIdaho]

6. Full Speed Ahead! nt.

[Dopers_Greed]

7. Does this take into account Trump soaring COVID approval?

[Hortensis]

12. Oh, yes. She has real doubts that the kind of erosion

in support W saw at the end will happen to Trump given the hyper polarization of today. This analysis is in spite of that. But it does require at least some fallaway due to economic failure.

[Thekaspervote]

15. Where are you reading that?

[Dopers_Greed]

16. Look at any recent polling

All are giving him a huge bump from COVID.

Of course this can change though. Many probably think it's under control until the mass deaths start.

[Dopers_Greed]

17. Also, a link

https://news.gallup.com/poll/298313/president-trump-job-approval-rating.aspx

[DarthDem]

19. Gallup is utterly discredited

Next try Rasmussen.

[rockfordfile]

49. Why are you

Why are you pushing right-wing gallup crap? and the others are questionable.

You do know majority of Americans blame trump for the virus outbreak level, and majority distrust trump.

[DarthDem]

20. Who is Rachel B.?

This piece was fantastic: in-depth and well-reasoned. Who is she?

[Hortensis]

24. She's an elections forecaster, but a bit of an outlier,

who became famous after nailing the 2018 midterms results. She works from the direction of demographics of electorates in various areas and the results of previous elections rather than polling/survey data.

While checking for what she has to say, I came on this from Politico:

THE NEW RULES An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter

What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is**? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

** Except for Sanders, which she saw as potentially disastrous.

[DarthDem]

33. Thanks! What makes her an outlier?

Her methodology?

[Hortensis]

35. :) Didn't come in the usual path. Methodology. Results.

Whatever, she's not hanging with others in the groupthink safe space.

[DarthDem]

36. Thanks

Looking forward to more of her analysis.

[Turin_C3PO]

21. So,

we must mobilize voters of color and young voters, according to the analysis. That sounds about right to me. We can definitely win this thing but proper strategy is a must.

[totodeinhere]

23. Just out of curiosity, what did she predict in 2016? n/t

[Hortensis]

25. She was new and didn't do a forecast. But it was a huge

learning experience for her, including the massive failure of traditional prediction techniques and their failure to explain even afterward.

That Politico article also discusses this.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

(Btw, my own explanation for the complete failure in this century of traditional polling to explain what voters on the left want includes a disbelief that political polling industry would be the ONLY one that wasn't infiltrated and corrupted by the RW power blocs. Corrupted media like the AP, NYT, CNN need seemingly honest data to support their subversive themes. Just asking questions designed to produce false pictures to sabotage every hopeful Democratic campaign in the nation would do it. It was the enormous widespread enthusiasm for Warren's big battles, which contradicted all the polling pictures, that made me realize the entire industry might not be incredibly and routinely incompetent.)

[totodeinhere]

27. Thanks. n/t

[Aerator]

26. Ohio cancels in person primary

Ohio house just passed a Bill canceling in person primary. You now have to print out a form fill it out and request a mail in ballot .The mail in ballot is due in by April 28th .I look for ohio voting to drop

[BidenBacker]

28. Not sure what's going up faster

Trump's approval rating or coronavirus cases/deaths...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

At this rate, come November we'll either all be dead or voting for Trump. If forced to choose between the two, I'll take the former.

[Hortensis]

29. :) Not sure there'd be an "or." It would be very risky to

keep people in power who've proven we can be worth more dead than alive to them.

As it is, dreadful mistakes in voting/not voting in 2016 are going to cause many to pay with their lives, and/or those of loved ones.

[Turin_C3PO]

30. I'm almost positive

his approval rating will go back down. This is a “rally around the flag” event and won’t last very long, IMO, especially as he reveals even more of his incompetence.

[BidenBacker]

32. I was just being a little sarcastic in that last post and agree

I think it's good that they're coming out with ads right now highlighting his incompetence and how Trump only exacerbated the virus.

It may smack of politicization of a crisis, but looking at it coldly it's best to strike while the iron is hot. When the virus goes away (hopefully sooner than later) some people who are now scared shitless will inevitably gradually go back to "normal" and may forget what a horrible job this administration did to prepare for the problem or mitigating it once it arrived. Wait too long and these ads won't have the same kind of long-term impact. Best to hit them with ads now while they are filled with fear...that will drive the message home so that when the crisis does eventually pass the lesson will still linger.

When people vote in November we want them thinking "we thankfully dodged a bullet...but that damn Trump loaded the gun and fired it". People can call this "shameless politicization" or "psychological warfare" or whatever the hell they want but I call it "saving lives in future crises". Next time might be a natural disaster (like 1000s dying in Puerto Rico for lack of relief support that didn't get enough coverage because it wasn't mainland US)...or 1000s dying in a war he stupidly starts (like he damn near did in Iran recently)...or 1000s dying because of horrendous policy blunders (like our Kurdish allies and their families getting slaughtered in Syria and Turkey)...and on and on and on.

This assclown is a walking disaster waiting to happen and whatever it takes to wake people the hell up is fair game in my book. I can elevate but I also have no qualms whatsoever about getting down in the mud if need be. Michelle Obama said "when they go low...we go high". Noble concept but I say "when they go low...we go high, low and everywhere in between".

[Hortensis]

37. Yes, but factor in that COVID will be killing in November.

Whether that's the current wave still sweeping the nation or an early upswing after a hot-weather lull in cases and deaths (which we desperately need) isn't known yet. But since humans haven't developed immunity, and we won't have a vaccine by then, repeated waves of outbreaks are expected.

Democrats could not artificially "politicize" this pandemic even if we wanted to because the Trump pandemic in America IS a Republican political product.

Republican senators and congressmen have always been heavily involved in the pandemic legislation we passed, both supporting and opposing, and some of them know a great deal about pandemic disease and medication development. As legislators, they were involved in the very successful containment of deadly SARS and MERS during the Obama admin, the great national efforts required to limit Swine flu deaths when that got loose, and the setup of the new pandemic control office.

This time, in power, the Republican leadership knowingly chose to BLOCK and DELAY action to stop the first cases of 2019-nCoV in our nation from spreading into a pandemic until it was far too late to contain. McConnell et al could have blocked Trump's destructive actions at any time by making him an offer he really couldn't refuse. And as this holocaust develops, many Republicans in congress and across the nation are STILL blocking and delaying (and many are not). Having to try to work with the ones in congress as if they were still gentleman colleagues must be a very grim business for our Democrats these days, but those are the conditions of this battlefield.

The Republican congressional leadership's fully-informed blocking and delaying isn't theory, it's fact. VP Biden, out of government, issued his first public call for action on January 15, but he would have been getting reports on and speaking to his former colleagues well before. The Republicans' motives and goals are open to question, but the stark evidence of their deliberate inaction and three months of attempts to deceive America into complaisance is extremely well established -- by them.

So my question is, by the time November comes, will a majority of the electorate have come to accept that the unthinkable IS happening here?

[Awsi Dooger]

40. We're going to have to get incredibly lucky in two respects

Where the virus stands approaching election day, and how Trump is perceived to have handled it.

Basically threading a needle.

I expect it to work in favor of the incumbent. Almost everything does. I saw it with Rick Scott here in Florida and how he squeezed the hurricanes to his advantage. Bottom line, the decision maker gets to stand up there every day and address the public.

[Turin_C3PO]

42. It would help

if the media gave equal time to Biden. Right now, they’re once again giving Trump hours of free airtime. They apparently didn’t learn from 2016.

[BidenBacker]

43. I don't blame the media

because I don't see how they could possibly do otherwise at the moment. We are in the midst of a national emergency and Biden is just a "normal" citizen who holds no office (and is not even the formal damn Dem nominee yet) so it's only natural that our official "leaders" (however incompetent and clueless they are) who do hold the reins of power and have the authority to actually do something be given the vast majority of airtime. Maybe if Joe was still in the Senate it would be different but it is what it is. This is one reason why Cuomo has shot into the national limelight as of late...being the sitting Governor of a state under siege gives him the airtime to offer a contrast to what Trump is doing, or not doing.

Either this thing goes away over time in which case things can return to "normal" and the political process resumes with Joe getting more of the available airtime or it doesn't...in which case it means the medical maelstrom and financial turmoil has continued throughout the spring and into the summer. If that should be the case that can't possibly be good for Trump. It's that "rally around the flag" effect you mentioned in a recent post. Folks tend to only rally for so long if they don't see positive results, be it a terrorist attack or a dumb war that was started under false pretense. Patience will wear thin if this thing continues week after week and month after month.

Nobody knows how this will unfold so we'll just have to sit back and watch what happens. I am not nearly as pessimistic as others as to what this means for the Democrats' chances and I think AD's Vegas friends are gonna lose some money this November and I'm glad to hear he didn't plop a few of his own bucks down for whatever reason.

[Turin_C3PO]

44. What you're saying is no doubt true,

I just don’t like it! Lol. Maybe it’s good Trump is getting all this airtime. He gets crazier and crazier as the days go by and that undoubtedly favors us.

[BidenBacker]

45. Vent away, buddy!

That's what forums like this are for...it's way cheaper than therapy. And you don't even have to leave the safety of your house and venture out into Coronavirus Country!

It's too damn bad that the effing Republicans banned online poker to help pass the time...I played literally tens of thousands of hands (maybe hundreds of thousands!) on several different poker sites and it was a blast. That asshole Trent Lott snuck the ban into some Homeland Security bill they passed after 9/11...while conveniently allowing online betting on horses to continue. His Tennessee is a big breeding ground for racehorses...funny how that works, huh?

You can still bet on politics, though. Biden & Trump neck and neck but they haven't even reached the 1st furlong yet. LONG way to go in this race and I know which horse I'd bet on.

2020 Presidential Election Odds: Trump Not Favored For First Time As Biden Emerges As New Favorite

https://www.actionnetwork.com/politics/2020-presidential-election-odds-chances-donald-trump-joe-biden-betting

Tracking 2020 Election Odds: Donald Trump Is Still the Favorite vs. Joe Biden

https://www.actionnetwork.com/politics/2020-election-odds-presidential-race-donald-trump-joe-biden

And back and forth they go.

[rockfordfile]

50. wtf are you talking about?

Rick Scott is a crook and most likely messed with enough crap to get in office. We already know Americans blame trump for the outbreak and the majority distrust trump on the virus handling.

[BidenBacker]

41. I had just seen

an article about the government warning of another wave later this autumn or winter before I read your post. Great, I really woulda preferred looking to the World Series or some cold-weather football games than another round of this damn virus that is still on its first-round upswing!

I've given up on expecting or even hoping the Republicans will do what's best for the country a long time ago. But what confounds me is how time after time again the GOP rank-and-file continually votes against their own best financial interest...and this is what empowers their "leaders". So I don't suppose it should be all that shocking if they also vote against their own best medical interest as well. It shows you just how effective the media be it FOX News or social media or talk radio or wherever the hell else they get their "news" and "info" has been in brainwashing the masses. Sometimes I swear it must be a cereal box!

And it ain't just the conservative dummies who are susceptible to this brain poison they are always spitting out...I have some very intelligent friends and family members who I can have some very pleasant conversations with on a variety of topics but when it comes around to politics they spout some of the stupidest shit you've ever heard in your life. Did you know that Obama was responsible for letting Exxon & Mobil merge???

Man, the Republican elite must be laughing all the way to the bank every day and I bet they get down on their knees and give thanks to God every night for having such ignorant flocks of sheep to lead around. While we Democrats stupidly chain ourselves to science. It's a curse, I tell ya!

[rockfordfile]

51. Most likely

Most likely Biden as President next year will still be dealing with this situation.

[rockfordfile]

47. It's not

Gallup is a pos pollster. It seems a few sanders and trump supporters like to push that one.

[Awsi Dooger]

38. Rachel Bitecofer has no clue regarding situational influence

Only a world class ignoramus would compare 2020 to 2008. The 2008 cycle was after two Republican terms and Bush stuck in very low approval since Katrina in August 2005. In 2020 Trump is in the most favorable situation imaginable, an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. The benefit of a doubt toward that incumbent is surreal. Only Jimmy Carter has lost in that spot in more than a century. The only applicable situational example during Bitecofer's studied time frame is Barack Obama in 2012.

It takes next to nothing for swing voters to return to that camp, after deviating in the recent midterm. That's why the small polling bump that Trump has received due to coronavirus is much more likely to be permanent than we'd prefer to believe. The massive approval spikes due to events like 9/11 are obviously fragile and destined to evaporate. This situation is completely different since swing independents disgustedly detoured away from Trump in early 2017 and have never returned, but as David Plouffe pointed out today coronavirus is a case of Americans rooting for the president to succeed. Absolutely correct. If a crucial 2-3 percent of those lost voters decide he passes the leadership test they'll return to Trump without second thought. As I have emphasized for years, Hispanics are guaranteed to return to the incumbent in strange percentage because they always do.

Trump would have lost in November 2017. He would have lost in November 2018. He would have lost in November 2019. He is currently favored to win in November 2020 due to overwhelming benefit of incumbency and now the partial return of those swing voters. I would certainly wager on Trump right now. In fact, over the past week many of my sharpest friends from Las Vegas have wagered huge on Donald Trump. They are aware of the same situational factors as I am. When you wager for a living you realize that situational impact is everything. It destroys day to day details. It destroys flimsy analysis that is laughably ignorant of the situational variance from cycle to cycle.

Rachel Bitecofer is correct in one respect: The outcomes are forecastable years in advance. But it is due to situational application, not anything that she spotlighted. Those Las Vegas friends are chiding me for not wagering on Trump. One of them said that it's no different than 2004, that I know damn well I should wager big on the incumbent due to the situational aspect but I'm not doing it only because I can't stand the idea of him winning.

Yes, that is certainly true.

The electoral college slant toward the GOP merely adds to Trump's advantage. For example, every time there's a poll with a 3 point Biden lead nationally, that means Biden actually trails. Trump's support is going to be understated, just like 2016. The simplistic angry whites who support Trump don't trust media and don't trust polling. But they will vote. Biden needs at least 3 points national edge to barely win the electoral college. Even 3 points might not be enough. If national polling says he leads by 3 then it's almost certainly at least 1-2 points below that, before we ever get to the electoral college mess.

I'm worried that Biden is not special enough. We nominated a guy who has lost the nomination twice before and didn't come close either time. Those weaknesses tend to show up once he is the nominee. I'll continue to insist that among our late choices Michael Bloomberg was easily the best opportunity to defeat Trump. He has teflon. He has financial street credit. Trump is giving Americans $1200. Bloomberg could have gotten up there and insisted that $1200 is nothing, that he would have provided much more. Swing voters would believe him. Bloomberg could have rattled off one specific after another that he would have done to boost the economy and small businesses during the pandemic.

The most asinine aspect of this primary season was when Elizabeth Warren lanced our best hope to defeat Trump, and somehow we cheered her for it instead of recognizing that it was merely another example of her incompetent instincts.

[rockfordfile]

48. Trump will lose a lot of States

you keep pushing right-wing talking points.

[Peacetrain]

39. Holy cow!!!

[radius777]

46. Biden's numbers have been constant.

In the primaries he was national leader for a long time, then slipped, then his numbers snapped back to form on Super Tuesday.

Biden has consistently led Trump in national polling by +7 on average. (Harry Enten spoke about this the other day).

Biden is boring and gaffe prone but is viewed as genuine and empathetic - and experienced. I think this is what insulates him from attacks. People know/like 'Uncle Joe' even though he's not exciting.

He did much better with white working class voters (including in the Midwest/blue wall states) this time than Hillary did, who struggled against Bernie in this regard.

Biden's weakness is youth and progressives. Latino support is OK but could be better. Harris is still the best choice for VP because she's a star with the resume to be president. Warren may boost progressives but has little appeal to PoC. Klobuchar is another Kaine would not inspire the Obama coaliton enough.

This could be more 1980 than 2004, as the economy falls apart (recession, high unemployment) due to the pandemic and Trump's bungling of it.

The lack of rallies etc and social distancing helps Joe and hurts Trump.

Basically I think Joe will win the GE the same way he won the primaries. It will seem as though he's running a weak campaign, then will suddenly spring back and win by a good margin.

But we're going to have to work hard, also on downballot races.