Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 04:49 PM Sep 2020

The shy Trump voter.

Lots of talk of this.

I do think they exist but I think the polling actually picks up on their existence.

And it did in 2016.

No, they're not saying they won't vote.

No, they're not saying they support the Democrat.

They're likely either saying they support a third party candidate or are undecided.

To be clear: not all undecided voters are these shy Trump voters - but I would assume a vast majority of them are.

And they were four years ago.

Take Michigan from 2016.

Hillary's final average in polling was 47%.

Hillary won 47% of the vote.

The average of polls were spot-on when it came to Hillary's support.

Trump's final average in polling was 43%.

He won 47.3% of the vote.

The average of polls were significantly off with Trump's support.

But if you do the math, 47+43 is 90% - that means, 10% in the final average of polls were undecided or going to vote third party.

Trump was able to grab an additional four-percent of support and essentially tie Hillary.

Hillary basically got zero of those undecided voters.

And she lost because of it.

In Wisconsin, Hillary's final average was 46.8.

She won 46.5 of the vote.

Essentially the same.

Trump?

His final average was 40.3.

He won 47.2.

A seven-point jump.

But again, math: 46.8+40.3=87.1% - so, 12.9% remained undecided/third party.

Trump was able to essentially win those supporters and it boosted his average polling by seven-points.

In Pennsylvania, Hillary's final average was 46.8.

Hillary won 47.5 of the vote.

Trump's final average was 44.7.

He won 48.2 of the vote.

Math once more: 46.8+44.7=91.5, or 8.5% undecided/third party.

In this instance, Hillary increased her total by .7 but Trump increased his by 3.5 (the smallest of these three states).

BUT in each of these states, Hillary's polling position remained largely the same. It barely budged. Trump's position, though, increased, as those voters who had claimed they were undecided went to him in significant numbers.

So, what about 2020?

Knowing what we know about 2020, that Trump probably could perform better than his polling positions based on this reality, it becomes all the more imperative Biden poll as close to 50% as possible for this reason.

Looking at these same three states, here is the current polling position for both candidates, along with the amount of undecided voters:

Michigan:

The average poll has Biden leading 47.8 to 43.

This is not good news. This is exactly a mirror image of Hillary's lead from 2016. Biden is only doing a smidge better than Hillary's final polling position in this state. There's the same level of undecideds, as well.

BUT this average is being skewed by one poll that has Trump leading - Trafalgar Group (R) that was released last month.

IF you just focus on the September polls, the average changes:

48.75 for Biden and 42 for Trump.

So, Biden is closer to 50% - but not quite.

The problem is that there's still 10% undecided - as was the case with Michigan in 2016.

IF things hold, and Trump does four-percent better like he did in 2016, and Biden doesn't improve on his numbers, the final result will be:


(Current average): Biden 47.8, Trump 47.0.

Biden wins - but by the narrowest of narrow margins.

(September average): Biden 48.75, Trump 46

Biden wins by a narrow margin but not nearly as narrow.

But there is one caveat - third party supporter.

In Michigan, in 2016, they made up 5.75% of the vote. I doubt they'll make up that level in 2020.

So, your hope is that those third party voters don't go to Trump or he wins Michigan. If they go to Biden, Biden wins by a more comfortable margin.

In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, it's a bit better for Biden. His average lead right now is 50.1% in Wisconsin. So, even if Trump sees a surge of support from those silent or shy voters - it's likely not going to be enough to put him over the top in Wisconsin.

In Pennsylvania, Biden's at 48.7% - so, close but not quite at 50%. Remember, though, Hillary actually increased her total here by .7% from the polls. If Biden does similarly, he's at 49.2%. Trump at 44% is pretty much where he was in 2016, as well. If he adds 3.5 to that, Biden wins 49.2-47.5. Pretty narrow. That also means 3.3% vote third party. I think that's a bit high. So, if Biden and Trump both get a point from that, Biden wins 50.2 to 48.5, which seems possible - or if Biden gets two-percent third party, and Trump gets none, Biden wins 51.2-47.5, which seems reasonable too and likely closer to what a final result will look like.

So, is the shy Trump voter real? I think so. Are they going to win the election for Trump? IF it were held today, I'd say no. But it means the states Biden needs to win will be, as they were four years ago, extremely close again and that Biden's best hope is to be as close as possible to 50% average in all these states - something Hillary struggled with.

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The shy Trump voter. (Original Post) Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 OP
The EC was rigged in shithole's favor . . Iliyah Sep 2020 #1
Up until it happened, everyone said the EC was going to save the Democrats in 2016. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #3
Nate Silver says BainsBane Sep 2020 #26
It didn't cost her the election because of Pennsylvania... Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #27
and Trump is targeting Minnesota, BainsBane Sep 2020 #28
It's possible for sure... Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #29
Obama was exceptional BainsBane Sep 2020 #30
Agree with the overall premise rufus dog Sep 2020 #2
In my old 'con leaning, well-off neighborhood, there are relatively few prez signs up yet. empedocles Sep 2020 #9
Repubs are going to vote for him, a given rufus dog Sep 2020 #11
You completely ignored the 40%+ of American voters who didn't vote in 2016. Blue_true Sep 2020 #4
I can only go by what the polls say. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #5
You do have to wonder about the undecideds at this point. TheRealNorth Sep 2020 #6
My parents are shy Biden supporters. musicblind Sep 2020 #7
Yep. I think we're going to see a lot of shy Biden voters. backscatter712 Sep 2020 #8
I think shy and silent are misleading... Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #10
I just now saw this but still wanted to answer. musicblind Sep 2020 #33
THIS rufus dog Sep 2020 #13
Great Work, But I'll Dissent With The Conclusion ProfessorGAC Sep 2020 #12
Thanks for the post. I was triggered to post it by a recent Florida survey. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #14
The Shy Trump voter is a myth- it was a polling error well documented Fiendish Thingy Sep 2020 #15
Thanks. But did you read my post? Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #16
Did you read my post? The Rust Belt swing in Trump support was due to polling error Fiendish Thingy Sep 2020 #17
I did. I asked if you read my post because you're replying with an irrelevant comment. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #18
And I am suggesting that "shy" Trump voters simply weren't counted in polls Fiendish Thingy Sep 2020 #19
I get what you're saying. I'm saying it's irrelevant to my post. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #21
Hillary said in her book that her polling numbers were correct. betsuni Sep 2020 #20
I agree polls were largely correct. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #22
I'm assuming there'll be more early voting this time, which will help Biden. betsuni Sep 2020 #23
Plus, there's fewer undecided voters this go around - both nationally and in these three states. Drunken Irishman Sep 2020 #24
Thanks for your thoughtful BainsBane Sep 2020 #25
The elephant in the room... albacore Sep 2020 #31
I agree. Was the first election after the repeal of the Voting Rights Act. betsuni Sep 2020 #32

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
1. The EC was rigged in shithole's favor . .
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 04:58 PM
Sep 2020

Hopefully we will be able to stop it this time. That is why we must come out in huge numbers.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
3. Up until it happened, everyone said the EC was going to save the Democrats in 2016.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:06 PM
Sep 2020

No one contemplated a situation where Hillary would win the popular vote but lose the EC. That was just not in the discussion. It only became in the discussion through Democrats neglecting three states they've relied on for years - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Hillary completely wrote off Wisconsin. She personally didn't campaign in the state ONCE during the 2016 campaign. Not once. Michigan wasn't much better.

It wasn't rigged in his favor. Democrats took those states for granted and it cost 'em in that election.

We know the rules of the game, and we let the other side beat us at those rules. Trump was appealing to a significant level of support in these states and we had no counter message.

In 2012, in the final weeks of the campaign, Obama traveled to Wisconsin three times, including twice in the final week of the campaign (as well as the day before election day).

It sucks but it was the Democrats who rigged the EC by not taking those three states seriously.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
26. Nate Silver says
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 12:54 AM
Sep 2020

Hillary's ground game didn't cost her the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/

There are several major problems with the idea that Clinton’s Electoral College tactics cost her the election. For one thing, winning Wisconsin and Michigan — states that Clinton is rightly accused of ignoring — would not have sufficed to win her the Electoral College. She’d also have needed Pennsylvania, Florida or another state where she campaigned extensively. For another, Clinton spent almost twice as much money as Trump on her campaign in total. So even if she devoted a smaller share of her budget to a particular state or a particular activity, it may nonetheless have amounted to more resources overall (5 percent of a $969 million budget is more than 8 percent of a $531 million one).

But most importantly, the changes in the vote from 2012 to 2016 are much better explained by demographics than by where the campaigns spent their time and money.

See link above for more.
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
27. It didn't cost her the election because of Pennsylvania...
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 01:10 AM
Sep 2020

And he's right. Even if she had campaigned more in Wisconsin and Michigan, winning both those states, she still doesn't win without Pennsylvania or Florida.

The problem is that she still neglected those states and that's why they were lost.

She visited Pennsylvania just three times between August and the end of September. It wasn't until days before the election that she had actually had multiple visits to the state in a month and it was because they saw the polls shifting and that she was dangerously close to losing the state. She either didn't poll in Michigan or Wisconsin or her polling was incorrect because she didn't make near as frantic of a play for either.

But where I differ from Nate Silver is the months leading up to November. Had she done a couple more campaign rallies there in October, instead of three rallies in Ohio, which was starting to move away from her, maybe she wins that state too.

The point is, if the EC is rigged against the Democrats, it's because of the Democrats' message in states that were absolutely solidly Democratic in past elections. Obama was never at risk of losing Michigan, Pennsylvania or even Wisconsin despite Paul Ryan being from there. And because of that, he was well positioned to win the election and why Romney was the underdog.

In fact, Obama was always in a better position at the state level than national. It's a big reason those national polls felt off and why some even thought maybe Obama could lose the popular vote but win the EC.

But the Democrats' message in these states has gone kaput the last 8 years. They've lost a significant amount of support in Ohio and while they seem to be rebounding in Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, I'm thinking that's more to do with Working Class Joe's appeal to white voters than anything else - and that's a concern because in four years or eight when Biden isn't running, does that support stay?

Probably not.

Fortunately, the Democrats are close flipping Arizona and North Carolina - two states that will make up for losing Wisconsin and Michigan. Add Texas and Georgia and that'll rig the EC in their favor for a generation unless the GOP somehow moderates.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
28. and Trump is targeting Minnesota,
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 01:30 AM
Sep 2020

Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2020, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

my state, hard. Fortunately Biden was just here too.

Every election, Democrats do seem to spend a lot of energy on trying to win red states they think are within striking distance. Beto's campaign is an example. I think it would take a miracle for Biden to win Texas. If what we believe to be blue states need shoring up, I hope the campaign does so.

Regarding Hillary's ground game, I don't know that it would have helped. There was so much hatred baked in against her that it was hard to overcome. I think that was part of what led the undecideds you reference to move toward Trump. They already knew they hated Hillary. It frustrates me because all of the anti-Hillary sentiment was based on ignorance and propaganda, but Trump has shown us that the truth simply doesn't matter.

The other small but potentially significant group is the self-described progressives who think Biden isn't good enough to vote for. They frustrate me most of all, and I attribute the rightward shit of the country to their efforts over the past few decades. The only statistic I can point to regarding that is the unusually high number of votes for Stein in those key states that Clinton lost.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
29. It's possible for sure...
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 02:02 AM
Sep 2020

I respect the shit out of Hillary and she absolutely got a raw deal but she just did not play well in the rust belt region. A lot of it is tied to Bill, whose policies I think a lot of those states blame for their lackluster economy today. Plus, whether it was for her own issues or just a 30 year hit job that did it, she struggled relating to those workers.

I think Biden plays well to that crowd. You saw how he interacted with voters in that Scranton town hall and why he is the best equipped to go up against Trump, whereas Hillary might be the best equipped to go up against a Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, two candidates who likely had their own issues relating to working class whites.

And that's the frustrating thing about presidential politics. Often times, like sports, it's all about the pesky match ups. Certain candidates play well versus other candidates. I think Biden is exceptional for this time, this race, but I honestly don't know how he'd play against someone other than Trump.

The only candidate I felt could run against pretty much anybody and win was Obama. Obama transcended everything - he played in the rust belt, played better in the South, energized younger and older voters. He was about as much as we'll ever get to a consensus candidate - a guy who could go against any candidate and just work 'em no matter what. There was never a need for a perfect match up because he matched up well with every single opponent. No one had an advantage on him. He was, in many ways, those New England Patriot teams - just a complete force.

I don't know if we'll ever see that again. I don't see any candidate currently who has that level of awesomeness to rally liberals and moderates like Obama did - and a big reason he won Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania the way he did in 2012, despite everything going against him, is because he won the moderate vote and kept progressives. Hillary did well with progressive voters in those states, but she lost significant ground with moderate voters.

I'm hopeful Biden can somehow expand that advantage with moderates because if he does, he'll win the election pretty easily.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
30. Obama was exceptional
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 02:22 AM
Sep 2020

Kamala has a lot of talent. I can see her being a strong presidential candidate in 4 yrs. I don't expect Biden to stay in office beyond one term.

 

rufus dog

(8,419 posts)
2. Agree with the overall premise
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:04 PM
Sep 2020

I don't believe the undecideds will break as great for tRump. Some might be shy MAGAts, but historically there have always been undecideds and they tend to break against the incumbent.

It also matters if the poll is LV models from the 2016 election or the 2018 election. Dems were extremely motivated to vote in 2018, expect the same this time.

empedocles

(15,751 posts)
9. In my old 'con leaning, well-off neighborhood, there are relatively few prez signs up yet.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:46 PM
Sep 2020

However, a too common sight is for signs supporting local 'cons for local office. I suspect more than a few of these homes are 'shy', or embarrassed to have a trump sign - but many of them might still vote trump.

 

rufus dog

(8,419 posts)
11. Repubs are going to vote for him, a given
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:52 PM
Sep 2020

Are those people afraid to tell a pollster they are MAGAt's? I think the more likely are the Indy's who are truly just Repukes.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
4. You completely ignored the 40%+ of American voters who didn't vote in 2016.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:23 PM
Sep 2020

News reports indicate that some of them are voting this time and appear to be heavily for Biden. Some of the non voters thought that Hillary had the election, so voting didn’t take priority for them, I know some of those who are determined not to make that mistake this time around. Trump basically maxed out his possible vote in 2016, I can not see voters who were registered in 2016 but who didn’t vote favoring him, as early voting interviews are confirming, Biden are running away with those people. If just 10% of the voters who didn’t bother to vote in 2016 vote, my argument is that Trump will face a disadvantage that he can’t possibly overcome.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
5. I can only go by what the polls say.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:26 PM
Sep 2020

I am assuming the polls are accounting for those new time voters in their LV models.

TheRealNorth

(9,435 posts)
6. You do have to wonder about the undecideds at this point.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:36 PM
Sep 2020

There may be a few that are weighing Biden or 3rd Party, but if you are trying to decide between Biden and Trump after 4 years of seeing what Trump is, you are probably in the tank for Trump and just don't want to admit it.

musicblind

(4,484 posts)
7. My parents are shy Biden supporters.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:37 PM
Sep 2020

They live in a very, very red town. They voted for Trump in 2016 but were convinced he'd "pivot" to the center. Now, they are voting for Biden and have even donated to Biden. However, because of where they live, they are afraid to put up a yard sign. They don't want their house rolled or their safety threatened.

We drove around the neighborhood to look, and all we saw were Trump signs. We couldn't find even one Biden sign. (Note: This county when 80% for Bush in 2004 and has only gotten redder. It's hell here.) So, they decided it wouldn't be wise to advertise they are supporting him.

Then, this past week, they were having dinner with two missionary friends of there's and the two missionaries, who are normally very, very nice people, were extolling all the fictitious virtues of Trump. My parents finally broke and told them they were supporting Biden and listed many of the things Trump has said and done. Things got heated fast and they were unable to convince the two missionaries to support Trump, but they were shocked that these two people did not know any of the horrible things Trump had done. (Part of this is because they don't have the internet or cable and solely rely on right-wing radio for their "unbiased" news.)

That altercation with those two missionaries (who are also my God parents) was enough to convince them they needed to remain completely silent about who they are supporting. They're in their 70s and tensions in this county are so high I fear they could get hurt.

Sorry for the long rant full of typos, I just wanted to demonstrate why I believe their are a lot of shy Biden supporters out there, too.

(Ps. My Dad has never voted for a Democrat before and my Mom hasn't since Jimmy Carter. This is a huge shift for them, and they are going all in. They are voting a straight Democratic ticket. They were going to split their ticket between Biden and Tillis until Tillis came out in support of replacing RBG. They don't like many of RBG's opinions, but they hate 100% of hypocrisy.)

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
8. Yep. I think we're going to see a lot of shy Biden voters.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:39 PM
Sep 2020

They live in red towns, with obnoxious MAGAts intimidating them, or they've got family members giving them shit.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
10. I think shy and silent are misleading...
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 05:47 PM
Sep 2020

I don't mean in the context of expressing their support publicly. I mean, when polled, who do they say they'll vote for?

Do you think your parents would tell a pollster they're undecided even if they support Biden? If so, that would be a likely strong comparison and I don't know how many of those exist.

musicblind

(4,484 posts)
33. I just now saw this but still wanted to answer.
Thu Sep 24, 2020, 11:26 PM
Sep 2020

Yes, they would tell a pollster because that is private, and the pollster likely wouldn't be local. For this same reason, I think shy Trump voters would be honest with pollsters, too.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is going to be a huge polling gap this time around. I'm more concerned with Trump not counting absentee votes.

 

rufus dog

(8,419 posts)
13. THIS
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 06:00 PM
Sep 2020

Dems always provide excuses. FUCK THAT SHIT!

If you are a shy MAGAt,.... then you are a piece of shit immoral person, you should be shy regarding your disrespect for Democracies and your support of known racist.

If you are a proud MAGAt,.... you should be verbally abused for supporting the Orange Shitstain!

Fuck them, time to start taking the abuse directly to them.

ProfessorGAC

(64,425 posts)
12. Great Work, But I'll Dissent With The Conclusion
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 06:00 PM
Sep 2020

I think a case can be made that some of the late deciders had:
- A propaganda rooted of mistrust or dislike of HRC.
- A willingness to go with the unknown quantity to "shake things up".
There is no such 25 year campaign to stir up Biden hate. PINO is no longer an unknown quantity or an outsider.
Hence, direct numerical comparison with 2016 is distorted by 2 extrinsic, but subjective, elements.
I appreciate the effort, you make fair points, and your write up is solid.
But, I don't think this comparison works.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
14. Thanks for the post. I was triggered to post it by a recent Florida survey.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 06:26 PM
Sep 2020

The Florida survey was released today by CBS/YouGov and Biden led by two-points in this one. It was down from their last survey where he led by six. What stood out to me was that Biden actually didn't lose support. He was at 48 in their last poll and is still at 48 (the last poll being from July). Where the gains came to shrink the margin by four was Trump. He went from 42 to 46.

Biden didn't grow his support at all. But Trump did. That's why I rationalized undecideds were breaking for Trump - at least in Florida and maybe those undecided voters were always Trump voters just shy about it and now feel comfortable admitting they support him.

Or it's noise.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
15. The Shy Trump voter is a myth- it was a polling error well documented
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 07:36 PM
Sep 2020

Many pollsters over sampled college educated voters/under sampled non-college voters in 2016.

That has been corrected (in 2018).

I highly doubt we will see such major swings from polling to actual votes this time.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
16. Thanks. But did you read my post?
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 08:10 PM
Sep 2020

I am guessing you did not. You read the headline and decided to reply.

This isn't about polling errors. It is about the fact that in three states, WI, MI and PA, Hillary's overall results were right on the money to the average of all the polls. Trump's were not. Trump saw a significant increase compared where he was polling in the final average of polls. I suggest this was the shy Trump voter - people who told pollsters they were undecided when they really weren't undecided. After all, you'll see people here today say, "how can anyone truly be undecided?"

The fact is, the polls were right when it came to Hillary's support and were wrong when it came to Trump's. Because of this, and the fact there was a significant amount of undecided voters in these states, it's not hard to deduce that Trump won a great deal of those undecided voters and that's what propelled him in front of Hillary in those three states.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
17. Did you read my post? The Rust Belt swing in Trump support was due to polling error
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 08:27 PM
Sep 2020

Because they under sampled non-college voters, Trump’s support seemed weaker than it actually was.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
18. I did. I asked if you read my post because you're replying with an irrelevant comment.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 08:50 PM
Sep 2020

I am not talking one specific poll. I am talking an average of polls, which include outliers and inaccurate polls, that show, on the whole, Hillary's number essentially hit what the polls were suggesting, on average. If what you're saying was the root cause, it would have also impacted Hillary's numbers, as she would have seen a significant drop in her support due to the polling misjudging the sample (less non-college voters likely means Hillary is getting a larger share of the vote than she did). This is not the case. In those three states, Hillary's total essentially matched the totals of the polling average.

Trump's did not. Trump saw an increase in his support because he won the group of people in these polls who were saying they were undecided. In Michigan, 10%, on average, remained undecided/supporting a third party. In Wisconsin, it was a whopping 13%. In Pennsylvania, it was 8.5%.

This jibes with surveys taken after the election.

In Wisconsin, he won undecided voters 59-30 over Hillary.
In Michigan, it was 50-39.
In Pennsylvania, it was 54-37.

There's simple mathematical evidence to suggest the polls weren't off - it was that the high amount of undecideds meant Hillary's lead was not safe. She rarely came close to 50% in an average of polls from all swing states and since she failed to grow her support with those undecided voters, Trump surged ahead of her and won those battle grounds.

I am suggesting that the undecided voters were, in fact, shy Trump voters - people who were afraid to admit they were going to vote for Trump but were going to vote for him no matter what. So, they said they weren't decided. The polls picked up on the fact they weren't decided, as I pointed out, but in the end, Trump won those undecided voters overwhelmingly and it cost Hillary the election.

I do believe the 'shy' Trump voter exists but the best way to understand their impact is by just looking at the total undecided voters.

Right now, there's 6.6 undecided/third party in Pennsylvania. 6.5 in Wisconsin and 9.2 in Michigan. There's fewer undecided voters a month and a half out from the election than on election day four years ago. That's a good sign for Biden, as it means these shy Trump voters might be fewer than four years ago.

Now that isn't to say every undecided voter is a Trump supporter in disguise. I do believe there were some undecided voters, or maybe even some reluctant Hillary supporters, who moved third party or to Trump after the Comey e-email letter.

But let's assume Biden does just as badly as Hillary among undecideds, which I doubt he will, and he's still better off.

Take Michigan. Currently, 9.2 undecided. If Biden won 39% of 9.2, that's what, 3.5%? That boosts him to 51.3 statewide, which seems reasonable.

The fact there's so few undecided voters right now is a good thing. But clearly four years ago, they played a significant role in people missing the potential Trump victory.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
19. And I am suggesting that "shy" Trump voters simply weren't counted in polls
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 08:55 PM
Sep 2020

So they weren’t “shy”, they were ignored.

Yes, the undecideds broke in Trump’s favor, but the the undersampling has been shown to have been a major factor in polls missing the mark on Trumps support.

The non-college voters who were undecided Or who supported Trump simply weren’t Captured accurately in polling in 2016- they are now, which is why I’m not worried about “shy” Trump support.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
21. I get what you're saying. I'm saying it's irrelevant to my post.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 11:02 PM
Sep 2020

That is all.

I am not talking specific polls. I am talking an average of polls. If every single poll was off, as you say, Hillary's support would've been off too - that is not the case. In these three states, when you average out the final polls, the polls were 100% correct on Hillary's support.

That means, on the whole, the polls were accurate. The only thing they couldn't account for were the undecided voters, which broke heavily for Trump. That has nothing to do with their poll sampling and everything to do with voters telling pollsters they weren't decided. I theorize many of these voters were, in fact, Trump supporters too shy to admit to pollsters they supported Trump.

I based this on several facts:

1. The average of all polls had an unusually large undecided population - especially on election day. Typically, undecideds narrow significantly the days before the election. It's rare that they remain at, or above, 10% in state polling averages - as they did with two state averages: Michigan (10%) and Wisconsin (13%).

2. The average of polls hit Hillary's support almost exact. This tells me the sampling was not off on the whole. Your sample can't be off dramatically and only effect one candidate. It would have impacted Hillary's numbers too. What you're suggesting would make sense if, say, Hillary's support in the averages went from 52 to 47 and Trump's went from 43 to 47 or whatever. But that isn't the case. Hillary's support didn't budge. They got her support correctly.

3. I posted evidence that undecideds broke heavily for Trump, which plays into my narrative about shy Trump voters.

I have backed up every one of my claims. You really haven't.

I feel comfortable saying I am right here and the evidence I posted pretty clearly lays out that fact.

Have a good night.

betsuni

(25,136 posts)
20. Hillary said in her book that her polling numbers were correct.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 09:29 PM
Sep 2020

Says polls looked good in the swing states, in Wisconsin they looked good for Russ Feingold too. There was no surge in Republican turnout. Was the ones staying home, undecideds who went with Trump in the final days, or voting third party.

"Were all the polls wrong? We know that some surveys were off, especially in Wisconsin, especially at the end. It's likely that some Trump voters refused to participate in surveys and so their feedback was missed, and that some people weren't truthful about their preferences. But overall, national polls in 2016 were slightly more accurate than they were in 2012. ... Exit polls would later find that voters who were still making up their minds in those finals days broke strongly for Trump. ... That late surge was enough to put all these states in Trump's column."

But Biden won't have an email, Comey letter, WikiLeaks, third party problem like Hillary did.

In the final weeks, "Google searches about WikiLeaks were particularly high in swing areas with large numbers of undecided voters, like Cambria Country in Pennsylvania and Appleton, Wisconsin. In other words, a lot of people were online trying to get to the bottom of these crazy claims and conspiracy theories before casting their votes. Too often, what they found was more misinformation and Russian-directed propaganda. Together, the effects of the Comey letter and Russian attack formed a devastating combination. Silver concluded after the election that if it hadn't been for these two late-breaking factors, I likely would have won Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by about 2 points. Instead, I lost all four by less than 1 point on average, and Michigan by just two-tenths of a point."



 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
22. I agree polls were largely correct.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 11:05 PM
Sep 2020

The biggest takeaway from the polls that we missed from 2016 was that the amount of undecideds made any Hillary lead not safe. In these three states, she led - but she did not lead by a margin larger than the overall undecided totals. So, that meant if the undecideds broke heavily for Trump, for whatever reason (Trump voters were shy and saying they were undecided when they weren't, or legitimately were undecided voters who decided in the last couple days to support him because of the Comey letter), the margins were going to narrow significantly.

They did. Undecideds broke for Trump by a ridiculous amount and it was enough to push him over the top in those states.

betsuni

(25,136 posts)
23. I'm assuming there'll be more early voting this time, which will help Biden.
Sun Sep 20, 2020, 11:23 PM
Sep 2020

Protection from October Surprises. In Wisconsin in 2016, 72% voted on Election Day. Michigan, 73%.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
24. Plus, there's fewer undecided voters this go around - both nationally and in these three states.
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 12:23 AM
Sep 2020

The biggest one is Michigan but Michigan is being impacted by a weird Republican-leaning poll that had Trump up from last month.

If you look at just September's polls, Biden leads 48.75 to 46. That's only 5.25 undecided. About what I expect.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
25. Thanks for your thoughtful
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 12:49 AM
Sep 2020

and sobering analysis. I found it very interesting.
I'm very concerned about closes races because that's when malfeasance, whether throwing out votes and voters or Russian hacking, can make a difference. Somehow we've got to get those numbers up.

albacore

(2,387 posts)
31. The elephant in the room...
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 03:22 AM
Sep 2020

I read every post in this thread carefully, and I certainly understand and appreciate the observations about what the Dems did or did not do...what Hillary did or did not do... that caused the loss.

I would like to point to the pachyderm on the premises....

Clinton lost the EC because she lost the popular votes in 3 key states by a grand total of 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260.

After all the non-tinfoil-hat information has come out about voting machines and hacked totals, we should include the possibility that the Russians - who attacked all 50 states' elections - may have jiggered just a few votes. Those few votes told the tale.

Add voter suppression... people who polled that they were voting for Clinton, but who never got the chance to actually vote because of voter suppression...and you have another possible explanation.

Those factors are going to be with us this year. In spades.

We have to get out the blue vote... and keep it up. Drive people to the fucking polls...call our kids.. have them call their friends.
The margin - in actual votes, not poll numbers - has to be large enough to overcome whatever dirty or digital tricks the trumpers and their allies throw at Biden/Harris.

betsuni

(25,136 posts)
32. I agree. Was the first election after the repeal of the Voting Rights Act.
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 03:36 AM
Sep 2020

Russian interference. The U.S. is such a big country, many difference between states. Hard to definitely prove things.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The shy Trump voter.