Trump vs. Biden on Favorability

[BrotherFease]

These ratings are compliments of the RCP website.

2020
Biden - 48% positive, 46% negative (+2%)
Trump - 42% positive, 55% negative (-13%)

2016
Clinton - 42% positive, 54% negative (-12%)
Trump - 38% positive, 59% negative (-21%)

Unlike Clinton, Biden has a favorable view by the American public, where as Trump has a largely negative view.

Also, Biden has a 7% lead in the national popular vote, Clinton had about a 3% lead.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Sitting here watching all this play out I cannot help but think about all the numbers, analysis, what have you pointing to a very different picture than what actually happened in 2016.

I get that things are different and I get that we now see what kind of President that Trump really is, but I am unconvinced these numbers even looking like an uptick from 2016 will translate to everything being wished for this time around.

This is all familiar territory we are in... too familiar.

 

[Carolina]

I think too many people think that the 2016 fluke has set a precedent that does not exist. Trump won by razor thin margins in 3 key States on a complete fluke. I doubt that will repeat twice in a row.

 

[Captain Adverse]

These ratings are compliments of the RCP website.

2020
Biden - 48% positive, 46% negative (+2%)
Trump - 42% positive, 55% negative (-13%)

2016
Clinton - 42% positive, 54% negative (-12%)
Trump - 38% positive, 59% negative (-21%)

Unlike Clinton, Biden has a favorable view by the American public, where as Trump has a largely negative view.

Also, Biden has a 7% lead in the national popular vote, Clinton had about a 3% lead.

Hmm...according to "polling."

Anyone who's observed my comments on polling which were made long before the 2016 election knows I have little faith in that process, although aggregates sometimes help.

Statistics was my "Math" option to satisfy that requirement for my first undergraduate degree. I learned how statistics and polling can be skewed either intentionally to support an objective, or unintentionally by subconscious confirmation bias.

I've since learned the same holds true for "studies," and other forms of data reporting.

I decide how I vote, act, or otherwise deal with life based on my own views, research, and life experiences.

I know how I am going to vote. Most people in this Forum seem to have made up their minds too.

If the members of this Forum who support Biden are so certain he is going to win, then who are the trying to convince with all these threads on "He is certain to win?"

Certainly not me...and I don't see much change between those who support Biden and those who don't in this Forum either.

 

[JasperL]

Sitting here watching all this play out I cannot help but think about all the numbers, analysis, what have you pointing to a very different picture than what actually happened in 2016.

I get that things are different and I get that we now see what kind of President that Trump really is, but I am unconvinced these numbers even looking like an uptick from 2016 will translate to everything being wished for this time around.

This is all familiar territory we are in... too familiar.

I agree. For some reason I clicked on this thread, but I am trying to ignore polling this time around. This far out it's irrelevant, and a huge advantage Trump has this time around is he's the sitting President, and can do a lot of things to help get himself reelected. I'm not talking corrupt, although that's clearly possible, but just using the arms of the government to steer things his way at the right time. And he's got all the money he will need. Those are massive advantages.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think too many people think that the 2016 fluke has set a precedent that does not exist. Trump won by razor thin margins in 3 key States on a complete fluke. I doubt that will repeat twice in a row.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

We do not get to sugarcoat that Hillary was that bad of a candidate and the DNC horribly mismanaged the effort in key states she needed to win, but lost because of key districts in those states that Obama won solidly twice over.

Everyone told her what she wanted to hear, that she was a rockstar with no chance to lose... and ended up losing to Trump of all people in spectacular fashion.

It was not a fluke. Hillary, the DNC, and a complicit media backing all got arrogant and complacent... and I am starting to see it play out again.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I agree. For some reason I clicked on this thread, but I am trying to ignore polling this time around. This far out it's irrelevant, and a huge advantage Trump has this time around is he's the sitting President, and can do a lot of things to help get himself reelected. I'm not talking corrupt, although that's clearly possible, but just using the arms of the government to steer things his way at the right time. And he's got all the money he will need. Those are massive advantages.

I am legit concerned, especially with Democrats doubling down on nominating someone way too old, with plenty of baggage and that seemingly party insider aristocracy thing going on totally ignoring their formula of wining a national election.

You are right in that Trump has time, the power of the office, and seemingly plenty of useful idiots willing to give him money between now and November.

 

[Helix]

Vote against Tweety.

 

[Mycroft]

These ratings are compliments of the RCP website.

2020
Biden - 48% positive, 46% negative (+2%)
Trump - 42% positive, 55% negative (-13%)

2016
Clinton - 42% positive, 54% negative (-12%)
Trump - 38% positive, 59% negative (-21%)

Unlike Clinton, Biden has a favorable view by the American public, where as Trump has a largely negative view.

Also, Biden has a 7% lead in the national popular vote, Clinton had about a 3% lead.

RCP???

Oh...you mean that site that averages bogus polls to get a bogus average.

Yeah...moving on...

 

[Chomsky]

Sitting here watching all this play out I cannot help but think about all the numbers, analysis, what have you pointing to a very different picture than what actually happened in 2016.

I get that things are different and I get that we now see what kind of President that Trump really is, but I am unconvinced these numbers even looking like an uptick from 2016 will translate to everything being wished for this time around.

This is all familiar territory we are in... too familiar.

I think too many people think that the 2016 fluke has set a precedent that does not exist. Trump won by razor thin margins in 3 key States on a complete fluke. I doubt that will repeat twice in a row.

Let's not forget a couple key differences between '16 & '20. The electorate is polarized & hardened; no one's moving. It's the most stable race we've ever seen. Perhaps consequently, the undecideds this time around is 5%, vs 13% in 2016.

In addition, undecideds generally break against the incumbent by nature. They broke 2:1 against Hillary, who ran as an incumbent. This time Trump will be the incumbent.

So with a static hardened race with only 5% undecided, where does Trump get the pts he needs? Even if he took 60% of the undecideds (unlikely IMO), that's only half a point.

I think the only way Trump currently wins, barring some substantive changing event, is with voter or tabulation suppression.

 

[Chomsky]

RCP???

Oh...you mean that site that averages bogus polls to get a bogus average.

Yeah...moving on...

RCP (& 538) were highly accurate in 2016. They called it within a point. That's more accurate than the polling of earlier cycles.

 

[Chomsky]

Hmm...according to "polling."

Anyone who's observed my comments on polling which were made long before the 2016 election knows I have little faith in that process, although aggregates sometimes help.

Statistics was my "Math" option to satisfy that requirement for my first undergraduate degree. I learned how statistics and polling can be skewed either intentionally to support an objective, or unintentionally by subconscious confirmation bias.

I've since learned the same holds true for "studies," and other forms of data reporting.

I decide how I vote, act, or otherwise deal with life based on my own views, research, and life experiences.

I know how I am going to vote. Most people in this Forum seem to have made up their minds too.

If the members of this Forum who support Biden are so certain he is going to win, then who are the trying to convince with all these threads on "He is certain to win?"

Certainly not me...and I don't see much change between those who support Biden and those who don't in this Forum either.

Yet RCP called 2016 w/i 1.1 pts.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yet RCP called 2016 w/i 1.1 pts.

Really?

I guess all the MSM, and the general population at-large were not aware of this.

Since back then all the MSM, with the possible exception of Fox, were declaring a 90+% chance of a Hillary victory.

Something else to consider in 2016 AND in 2020. We are well aware that all the Big Blue States contain sizeable Democrat populations. So when predicting the popular vote I don't think anyone was surprised when 4 million Californians voted for Hillary (as opposed to 2 million who voted for Trump) giving her a 2 million "popular vote" non-victory. So polls declaring something similar do not impress me. :shrug:

I am not sure who will win, Trump or Biden. Biden has over 90% of the MSM on his side, which is a major factor.

On the other hand, as discussed elsewhere, and similar to 2016, we know many people are hiding how they really feel about this election, which means a truly "silent" majority who may surprise the polls come November.

 

[Chomsky]

Really?

I guess all the MSM, and the general population at-large were not aware of this.

Since all the MSM, with the possible exception of Fox, we declaring a 90+% chance of a Hillary victory.

Something else to consider in 2016 AND in 2020. We are well aware that all the Big Blue States contain sizeable Democrat populations. So when predicting the popular vote I don't think anyone was surprised when 4 million Californians voted for Hillary (as opposed to 2 million who voted for Trump) giving her a 2 million "popular vote" non-victory. So polls declaring something similar do not impress me. :shrug:

Yes.

RCP had Hillary +3.2 on election day, and the final result was Hillary +2.1.

Reference: (RCP) General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yes.

RCP had Hillary +3.2 on election day, and the final result was Hillary +2.1.

Reference: (RCP) General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

...And she still lost.

(You quoted me accurately, but before I had finished...as my tagline warns. So you missed the below.)

...I am not sure who will win, Trump or Biden. Biden has over 90% of the MSM on his side, which is a major factor.

On the other hand, as discussed elsewhere, and similar to 2016, we know many people are hiding how they really feel about this election, which means a truly "silent" majority who may surprise the polls come November.

 

[Chomsky]

...And she still lost.

(You quoted me accurately, but before I had finished...as my tagline warns. So you missed the below.)

Just wondering? Why don't you 'preview' your post, and proof it, before you post?

(You can get to 'preview' via the 'advanced' tab)

Granted I often edit after I post, too. But not intentionally.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Just wondering? Why don't you 'preview' your post, and proof it, before you post?

(You can get to 'preview' via the 'advanced' tab)

Granted I often edit after I post, too. But not intentionally.

Honestly?

1. I did not know about the preview, and

2. I am often trying to get my post in before it goes to page three, because IMO very few people seem to read past page 2, and even fewer past page 3.

Item 2 above comes from personal annoyance seeing how many people just jump in with a one or two line "snap comment." Usually IMO formed as a fallacious ad hominem or negative deflection seeking "likes" or "reactions" as opposed to real debate.

 

[MovingPictures]

Honestly?

1. I did not know about the preview, and

2. I am often trying to get my post in before it goes to page three, because IMO very few people seem to read past page 2, and even fewer past page 3.

Item 2 above comes from personal annoyance seeing how many people just jump in with a one or two line "snap comment" usually IMO a fallacious ad hom or deflection seeking "likes" not debate.

Personally, the preview often formats my posts in a way where they look like ****, and so sometimes the only to make it readable is to first see how it will format when posted.

 

[MovingPictures]

Yes.

RCP had Hillary +3.2 on election day, and the final result was Hillary +2.1.

Reference: (RCP) General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

What people often miss about the polling in 2016 is that the nailed the vote % of Clinton pretty good. The problem was that there were undecided voters in double digits that either leaned conservative and come home to the party in the final days, or broke for Trump because of the Comey debacle.

Marquette and Monmouth polled WI the most and predicted Clinton would get 45-46% of the vote, which she did. Wisconsin was the state best polled and the one that most accurately predicted the state of the race.

YouGov, Morning Consult, Marquette, FOX and RattMuffin all have Biden hitting 49-52%, which is a good omen for Biden.

 

[Chomsky]

Honestly?

1. I did not know about the preview, and

2. I am often trying to get my post in before it goes to page three, because IMO very few people seem to read past page 2, and even fewer past page 3.

Item 2 above comes from personal annoyance seeing how many people just jump in with a one or two line "snap comment." Usually IMO formed as a fallacious ad hominem or negative deflection seeking "likes" or "reactions" as opposed to real debate.

Ah, I suspected that might be possible. Well, there ya' go. I missed your birthday last year, this is my gift to you! :2razz:

(If you start using it, I bet you like it)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Vote against Tweety.

I'll vote against the candidate with dementia.

 

[Chomsky]

Personally, the preview often formats my posts in a way where they look like ****, and so sometimes the only to make it readable is to first see how it will format when posted.

Interesting. It works flawlessly, for me.

Perhaps it's due to your browser type, or the editor mode you've selected in the software (I use 'standard'). But like I said, it works perfectly for me.

 

[MovingPictures]

Interesting. It works flawlessly, for me.

Perhaps it's due to your browser type, or the editor mode you've selected in the software (I use 'standard'). But like I said, it works perfectly for me.

It's probably the browser (Chrome), but I'm too lazy to modify it. :2razz:

 

[Chomsky]

What people often miss about the polling in 2016 is that the nailed the vote % of Clinton pretty good. The problem was that there were undecided voters in double digits that either leaned conservative and come home to the party in the final days, or broke for Trump because of the Comey debacle.

Marquette and Monmouth polled WI the most and predicted Clinton would get 45-46% of the vote, which she did. Wisconsin was the state best polled and the one that most accurately predicted the state of the race.

YouGov, Morning Consult, Marquette, FOX and RattMuffin all have Biden hitting 49-52%, which is a good omen for Biden.

But despite missing the undecideds going for Trump 2:1, the polling aggregate was essentially within a point (1.1). That is phenomenal.

The trouble is there's more quality pollsters at the national level, vs the state level. And there's fewer polls for a given state. That makes state polling, even via aggregators, much more tricky & unreliable.

But I will say this: If Biden can beat Trump by 4pts or more nationally, I think he's in. 3 pts would seem to be the crossover point, IMO.

 

[Puigb]

I agree. For some reason I clicked on this thread, but I am trying to ignore polling this time around. This far out it's irrelevant, and a huge advantage Trump has this time around is he's the sitting President, and can do a lot of things to help get himself reelected. I'm not talking corrupt, although that's clearly possible, but just using the arms of the government to steer things his way at the right time. And he's got all the money he will need. Those are massive advantages.

I agree with this. In fact, I consider Biden the underdog despite polling. I hope he pulls it off, but I'm not sure he will, for a variety of reasons.