Some 2020 General Election Polls

[pp4me]

Trump has 91% chance of being reelected according to model that has correctly for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced.

Sure....

This is by no means a normal year, nor a normal primary season, nor a normal anything. You can find anyone with any opinion out there on anything.

In 2016 my vote for Trump was more about "anyone but Clinton"

In 2020 my vote will be for "anyone but Trump"

There were a lot of middle of the road people like me who gave Trump the win because of a strong dislike for Clinton (obviously in IL, it did not matter). Now after 4 years, my bet is those people swing the other way.

So you are going for looting, rioting, and tearing down statues, because that's what you'll get with Democrats in charge.
My opinion is that not many people will pick that option.

They won’t pick that option if they realize that’s what it is. But I’m not sure how many people realize it yet. Plenty of people are still just turned off by “mean tweets”.

Call me a pessimist but I don't see the violence ending just because Trump gets re-elected. My expectation is that the mob will become even more enraged and double down in their efforts because they didn't get their way. In other words TDS at Defcon 1. I think they actually want Trump to respond with force and if he gets re-elected, he may very well have to give them what they are asking for. So I can actually see voters choosing the path of appeasement in electing Biden.

What really needs to happen, IMO, is for local voters to vote to take back their cities, not look for Donald Trump to save the day.

[Cortopassi]

What really needs to happen, IMO, is for local voters to vote to take back their cities, not look for Donald Trump to save the day.

Pretty sure cities (at least larger ones) aren't looking for Trump to save the day.

[pp4me]

What really needs to happen, IMO, is for local voters to vote to take back their cities, not look for Donald Trump to save the day.

Pretty sure cities (at least larger ones) aren't looking for Trump to save the day.

The Democrat mayors and governors have been giving terrorists free rein in their cities.
The residents are starting to realize exactly whose fault that is, and it's not Trump's fault.

BLM needs to be exposed for what it really is - a marxist organization intent on overthrowing America. You have to admit they are very clever in the way they are going about it. "Black Lives Matter" - who can disagree with that? You've even got Republicans saying they support their goals and even more astonishing most of corporate America now. Disagree and you're a racist.

[Cortopassi]

What really needs to happen, IMO, is for local voters to vote to take back their cities, not look for Donald Trump to save the day.

Pretty sure cities (at least larger ones) aren't looking for Trump to save the day.

The Democrat mayors and governors have been giving terrorists free rein in their cities.
The residents are starting to realize exactly whose fault that is, and it's not Trump's fault.

But now he's going to be the "law and order" president after almost 4 years in office? Convenient that this coincides with so much other stuff that is causing him pain? Another 4 years of Trump is going to get these cities exactly what? More tweets about how many murders are happening in Chicago with zero in terms of plans to help?

Somehow, I don't think if you elected a republican mayor and republican city council members in Chicago that they'd have some magical formula that is going to fix things.

[Mark Leavy]

Somehow, I don't think if you elected a republican mayor and republican city council members in Chicago that they'd have some magical formula that is going to fix things.

It shouldn't matter what party the mayor is from, but we do have some formulas. Not exactly magic, and a little flawed, but they work quite fast and are better than the current situation.

Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani

In Giuliani's first term as mayor the New York City Police Department, under Giuliani appointee Commissioner Bill Bratton, adopted an aggressive enforcement and deterrence strategy based on James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows research. This involved crackdowns on relatively minor offenses such as graffiti, turnstile jumping, and aggressive "squeegeemen," on the principle that this would send a message that order would be maintained and that the city would be "cleaned up."

At a forum three months into his term as mayor, Giuliani mentioned that freedom does not mean that "people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it".[1]

Giuliani also directed the New York City Police Department to aggressively pursue enterprises linked to organized crime, such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center on the West Side (Gambino crime family). By breaking mob control of solid waste removal, the city was able to save businesses over $600 million.

One of Bratton's first initiatives was the institution in 1994 of CompStat, a comparative statistical approach to mapping crime geographically in order to identify emerging criminal patterns and chart officer performance by quantifying apprehensions. The implementation of CompStat gave precinct commanders more power, based on the assumption that local authorities best knew their neighborhoods and thus could best determine what tactics to use to reduce crime. In turn, the gathering of statistics on specific personnel aimed to increase accountability of both commanders and officers. Critics of the system assert that it instead creates an incentive to underreport or otherwise manipulate crime data.[2] The CompStat initiative won the 1996 Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government.[3]

[Cortopassi]

Ok, I do not dispute what Giuliani did.

What I don't know, and what is more important (to me), is, did it materially improve the lives of the people in those areas? Certainly if there was less crime, their lives improved to some level. But did it result in a population that was simply afraid of cops, or one that now felt freer, and jobs came into those areas and schools got better, etc?

I have to believe, if I don't want to get into a depression, that almost everyone wants to succeed at something. Nobody wants to become a gang member, a thief, a drug pusher, etc. if they have opportunities?

So did the stricter enforcing result in a better outlook, or simply result in lower crime with no other benefits? Sure, being safe is important, but if it didn't help also with more opportunities, they are still stuck in that rut.

[vnatale]

Ok, I do not dispute what Giuliani did.

What I don't know, and what is more important (to me), is, did it materially improve the lives of the people in those areas? Certainly if there was less crime, their lives improved to some level. But did it result in a population that was simply afraid of cops, or one that now felt freer, and jobs came into those areas and schools got better, etc?

I have to believe, if I don't want to get into a depression, that almost everyone wants to succeed at something. Nobody wants to become a gang member, a thief, a drug pusher, etc. if they have opportunities?

So did the stricter enforcing result in a better outlook, or simply result in lower crime with no other benefits? Sure, being safe is important, but if it didn't help also with more opportunities, they are still stuck in that rut.

It did totally transform Time Square.

Vinny

[sophie]

Ok, I do not dispute what Giuliani did.

What I don't know, and what is more important (to me), is, did it materially improve the lives of the people in those areas?

JEEEEEEZZZZUUUUUSSSS Cortopassi, are you kidding me with this??????

Why do you think I live in NYC now? I can 100% guarantee you that I would not if Giuliani had not been elected as mayor, and crime continued as it was in the 1980s.

Spend 5 minutes online and look for evidence of the contrast between Then and Now (or Recently anyway). Look up crime statistics, "white flight" etc. Here's a great example for you: Bryant Park. It used to be a drug den that no sane person would enter unless they were suicidal. Now it's a beautiful midtown oasis with a skating rink, outdoor popup stores and awesome food concessions.

When it comes right down to it, I strongly suspect that for most people - the sane ones anyway, i.e. excluding de Blasio or the crazy Council members - virtue signaling by paying lip service to Black Lives Matter will take a back seat when they realize we are going back to the crime-ridden days of the 1980s, and they connect the dots and realize that reduced policing is how that happens.

In the 1980's, being "soft on crime" was a political death sentence, and crime-fighting was about the first 5 things on every successful politician's platform. Which should also tell you just what people think of having to live with crime, despite the odious media message that not wanting to live in a crime-ridden community makes you a racist. Remember the Willie Horton ads and what that did to Michael Dukakis? 4 months may be too short a time to effect that political shift, but all the same I bet that the Trump campaign will find a way to emulate that example. If they are successful, the Democrats will be crushed in November if they don't change their tune about policing. Which they won't.

[Cortopassi]

Ok, I do not dispute what Giuliani did.

What I don't know, and what is more important (to me), is, did it materially improve the lives of the people in those areas?

JEEEEEEZZZZUUUUUSSSS Cortopassi, are you kidding me with this??????

Why do you think I live in NYC now? I can 100% guarantee you that I would not if Giuliani had not been elected as mayor, and crime continued as it was in the 1980s.

Spend 5 minutes online and look for evidence of the contrast between Then and Now (or Recently anyway). Look up crime statistics, "white flight" etc. Here's a great example for you: Bryant Park. It used to be a drug den that no sane person would enter unless they were suicidal. Now it's a beautiful midtown oasis with a skating rink, outdoor popup stores and awesome food concessions.

When it comes right down to it, I strongly suspect that for most people - the sane ones anyway, i.e. excluding de Blasio or the crazy Council members - virtue signaling by paying lip service to Black Lives Matter will take a back seat when they realize we are going back to the crime-ridden days of the 1980s, and they connect the dots and realize that reduced policing is how that happens.

In the 1980's, being "soft on crime" was a political death sentence, and crime-fighting was about the first 5 things on every successful politician's platform. Which should also tell you just what people think of having to live with crime, despite the odious media message that not wanting to live in a crime-ridden community makes you a racist. Remember the Willie Horton ads and what that did to Michael Dukakis? 4 months may be too short a time to effect that political shift, but all the same I bet that the Trump campaign will find a way to emulate that example. If they are successful, the Democrats will be crushed in November if they don't change their tune about policing. Which they won't.

Did not mean to step on toes. I am showing you that I know zero about NY. Just like many people likely consider Chicago some murder capital of the world, which the vast majority of the city is not.

But I want to focus on one thing -- schools. All the improvements Giuliani made, did that materially improve the outcomes of kids in poor neighborhoods? If I am a NYC resident, am I still hesitant, or outright scared, to send my kids to public schools in certain areas?

That is the problem, in my mind, that is the root of most everything.

[sophie]

This is really blowing my mind. Are there really people out there who don't understand that quality of life is inversely correlated with crime rate? So I'm supposed to be concerned about high crime only if it demonstrably impacts schools in poor neighborhoods, and never mind things like whether I feel safe going out after dark? I used to be perfectly fine with riding the subway home alone from midtown at 1am. Not sure I'd want to do that now, and no one in their right mind would have done that in the 1980s. And when I went to med school in another high-crime Eastern city, everyone carried around an extra wallet with $20 in it for muggers, because that way the mugger wouldn't make off with your driver's license and credit cards, and might not kill you because you didn't have enough money for them. And there was a murder of a student every year. I'm supposed to pretend like this is a non-issue?

Fortunately, most people are smarter than this. Or least they were in the 70s and 80s when "white flight" was a thing. That consisted of non-criminals/taxpayers (i.e. cannon fodder for criminals who were also expected to pay for welfare services for said criminals) leaving the city in droves.

All I can say is that the media sure has done its job very, very well.

[sophie]

In the 1980's, being "soft on crime" was a political death sentence, and crime-fighting was about the first 5 things on every successful politician's platform. Which should also tell you just what people think of having to live with crime, despite the odious media message that not wanting to live in a crime-ridden community makes you a racist. Remember the Willie Horton ads and what that did to Michael Dukakis? 4 months may be too short a time to effect that political shift, but all the same I bet that the Trump campaign will find a way to emulate that example. If they are successful, the Democrats will be crushed in November if they don't change their tune about policing. Which they won't.

You mean like this? https://twitter.com/i/status/1276995624588709888

Hmmm. Too long & complicated, too much right-wing jargon, pitched to the Trump base and not to the average voter. The Willie Horton ad was rock simple and did not tax the brain matter to make the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

p.s. view this now. Only a matter of time before that is banned from Youtube.

[Cortopassi]

This is really blowing my mind. Are there really people out there who don't understand that quality of life is inversely correlated with crime rate? So I'm supposed to be concerned about high crime only if it demonstrably impacts schools in poor neighborhoods, and never mind things like whether I feel safe going out after dark? I used to be perfectly fine with riding the subway home alone from midtown at 1am. Not sure I'd want to do that now, and no one in their right mind would have done that in the 1980s. And when I went to med school in another high-crime Eastern city, everyone carried around an extra wallet with $20 in it for muggers, because that way the mugger wouldn't make off with your driver's license and credit cards, and might not kill you because you didn't have enough money for them. And there was a murder of a student every year. I'm supposed to pretend like this is a non-issue?

Fortunately, most people are smarter than this. Or least they were in the 70s and 80s when "white flight" was a thing. That consisted of non-criminals/taxpayers (i.e. cannon fodder for criminals who were also expected to pay for welfare services for said criminals) leaving the city in droves.

All I can say is that the media sure has done its job very, very well.

It's not as black and white as you put it Sophie, is it? Of course I don't want crime to run rampant. Or defund police. Never said that.

But as years and years of killings have shown in Chicago, with more and more cops, there is some other root cause to this issue. I still believe no child wants to grow up to become a criminal, and a good education would cement that into their brains.

Of course, that needs to happen in a safe area to have any chance. One with a working stable family, ideally.

Going down the rabbit hole here of things that have been brewing and tried to be fixed for decades.

[Tortoise]

It's not as black and white as you put it Sophie, is it? Of course I don't want crime to run rampant. Or defund police. Never said that.

But as years and years of killings have shown in Chicago, with more and more cops, there is some other root cause to this issue. I still believe no child wants to grow up to become a criminal, and a good education would cement that into their brains.

Of course, that needs to happen in a safe area to have any chance. One with a working stable family, ideally.

You correctly identified the root cause: A dearth of stable two-parent families in the ghetto.

The reason why so many black teenage boys join gangs is because most of them are raised by single mothers and lack a father figure. The gang members provide those boys with the strong male influence that they instinctually crave but are missing at home. The gangs teach the boys how to become men. Not good, law-abiding men with character... but men nonetheless.

[Cortopassi]

I agree completely.

It seems that whenever that problem is raised, even by black men and women, you get crucified. It is like a third rail that is untouchable by anyone.

[flyingpylon]

I agree completely.

It seems that whenever that problem is raised, even by black men and women, you get crucified. It is like a third rail that is untouchable by anyone.

That should tell you something...

[sophie]

In a way I don't care what the root cause is - especially if the black community itself doesn't care. It can't be fixed by more government largesse or indeed by any outside force, if that's where you're going with this. The government's job is to protect me from people who do, in fact, want to grow up to be criminals. That is properly the function of policing. It is not the government's job to enforce morality.

The police are an effect of the problem not the cause. The whole point of my posts are that NYC's experience has indeed proven that more police and stricter law enforcement is what lowers crime and improves quality of life for non-criminal residents who (unike the criminals) contribute positively to the city's character. Before this year, it was reasonable to question whether the large drop in crime that coincided with Giuliani's law enforcement measures could indeed be attributed to that (as correlation does not have to imply causality). It was even proposed that availability of abortion to low-income communities was the cause of the crime drop (read the book "Freakonomics). However, recent events have provided very strong evidence that Giuliani's step-up of law enforcement (and not abortion) was indeed the secret sauce: reversing those policies has almost immediately led to a significant increase in crime. Taken together, I think it's pretty much beyond question that effective policing is what controls crime. If you have another method that is PROVEN to be effective, I'm all ears. And, understand that "wishing" and "proving" are two different things.

Sure, it would be great if the black community were to decide to fix their social problems. It would certainly benefit city budgets too. But that's like wishing that hurricanes will never happen, assuming that your wish can become reality if you wish hard enough, and therefore you don't need to build dikes/levees.

[vnatale]

In a way I don't care what the root cause is - especially if the black community itself doesn't care. It can't be fixed by more government largesse or indeed by any outside force, if that's where you're going with this. The government's job is to protect me from people who do, in fact, want to grow up to be criminals. That is properly the function of policing. It is not the government's job to enforce morality.

The police are an effect of the problem not the cause. The whole point of my posts are that NYC's experience has indeed proven that more police and stricter law enforcement is what lowers crime and improves quality of life for non-criminal residents who (unike the criminals) contribute positively to the city's character. Before this year, it was reasonable to question whether the large drop in crime that coincided with Giuliani's law enforcement measures could indeed be attributed to that (as correlation does not have to imply causality). It was even proposed that availability of abortion to low-income communities was the cause of the crime drop (read the book "Freakonomics). However, recent events have provided very strong evidence that Giuliani's step-up of law enforcement (and not abortion) was indeed the secret sauce: reversing those policies has almost immediately led to a significant increase in crime. Taken together, I think it's pretty much beyond question that effective policing is what controls crime. If you have another method that is PROVEN to be effective, I'm all ears. And, understand that "wishing" and "proving" are two different things.

Sure, it would be great if the black community were to decide to fix their social problems. It would certainly benefit city budgets too. But that's like wishing that hurricanes will never happen, assuming that your wish can become reality if you wish hard enough, and therefore you don't need to build dikes/levees.

How do the demographics during all these time periods fit in with the rise / decline in crime?

Isn't crime correlated to a certain male age range group (guessing 15 - 30 years old)? Therefore, all things being equal, more crime when there are more in this age group and a decline in crime when there are less in the age group?

Vinny

[vnatale]

What I just wrote regarding Giuliani and crime reduction was not unique to me but was something I'd read years ago. A quick Bing search finds this:


How much credit does Giuliani deserve for fighting crime?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2007 ... ing-crime/

"Demographics have an awful lot to do with this, and these are very, very large social forces," said Jeffrey Fagan, co-director of the Center for Crime, Community and Law at the Columbia Law School in New York. "It's hard to imagine policing, no matter how smart and effective it is, giving the kind of leverage ... to move a macro force like crime."

Debunking the Myth of Rudy Giuliani "Crime fighter"
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1 ... me-fighter

Four years after Giuliani’s tenure as mayor (1994-2001), the DOJ summarized crime trends from 1994-2005: "Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined[everywhere], reaching the lowest level ever in 2005."



Vinny

[sophie]

How do the demographics during all these time periods fit in with the rise / decline in crime?

Isn't crime correlated to a certain male age range group (guessing 15 - 30 years old)? Therefore, all things being equal, more crime when there are more in this age group and a decline in crime when there are less in the age group?

Vinny

You're welcome to try to prove that the reproductive rate among blacks suddenly increased 18-26 years ago, after remaining stable for more than 2 decades. Best of luck with that.

Alternatively, you are welcome to move to Bed-Stuy, continue to advocate for reduced policing, and then let us know how it works out.

[sophie]

Well people, apparently black activitists disagree with you about the role of policing in crime control. I just came across a remarkably honest Washington Post article that must have somehow got past their BLM censors, and literally I burst out laughing when I read this little gem:

Gerald Griggs, vice president of the Atlanta NAACP and a lawyer, blamed police for much of the recent crime, suggesting they have not been doing enough.

"A lot of the onus for the violence falls right at the feet of law enforcement," he said. "There are certain elements in our community that don't take a break when the police take a break. You're sworn to protect and defend, but when there are a few rogue [police] being held accountable you decide to shirk your responsibility? That speaks volumes about why people were protesting to begin with."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

[Libertarian666]

Well people, apparently black activitists disagree with you about the role of policing in crime control. I just came across a remarkably honest Washington Post article that must have somehow got past their BLM censors, and literally I burst out laughing when I read this little gem:

Gerald Griggs, vice president of the Atlanta NAACP and a lawyer, blamed police for much of the recent crime, suggesting they have not been doing enough.

"A lot of the onus for the violence falls right at the feet of law enforcement," he said. "There are certain elements in our community that don't take a break when the police take a break. You're sworn to protect and defend, but when there are a few rogue [police] being held accountable you decide to shirk your responsibility? That speaks volumes about why people were protesting to begin with."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Whoever let that article through will probably be canceled.
Even though it blames the police for not doing their jobs after being vilified by the politicians who tell them what to do (and not to do), which is absurd and very unfair, I'm sure it isn't nearly rough enough on the police for BLM.

[Kriegsspiel]

You're welcome to try to prove that the reproductive rate among blacks suddenly increased 18-26 years ago, after remaining stable for more than 2 decades. Best of luck with that.

Whoever let that article through will probably be canceled.

To combine these two points, Peter Frost recently posted about a peer reviewed study that was removed from the literature without cause. It was from a researcher who had previously done work on cognitive differences between populations. He discusses some implications.

[Libertarian666]

You're welcome to try to prove that the reproductive rate among blacks suddenly increased 18-26 years ago, after remaining stable for more than 2 decades. Best of luck with that.

Whoever let that article through will probably be canceled.

To combine these two points, Peter Frost recently posted about a peer reviewed study that was removed from the literature without cause. It was from a researcher who had previously done work on cognitive differences between populations. He discusses some implications.

There cannot be any cognitive differences between populations, because that would be RAYCISS!!
Therefore, the explanation of the fact that Ashkenazis have 20% of the Nobel Prizes (a larger percentage if you count only the real Prizes, not the fake ones in economics and "peace"), despite being much less than 1% of the world population, is "Jewish privilege" or something like that.

[Libertarian666]

You're welcome to try to prove that the reproductive rate among blacks suddenly increased 18-26 years ago, after remaining stable for more than 2 decades. Best of luck with that.

Whoever let that article through will probably be canceled.

To combine these two points, Peter Frost recently posted about a peer reviewed study that was removed from the literature without cause. It was from a researcher who had previously done work on cognitive differences between populations. He discusses some implications.

Oh, there was cause all right: Marxism.

[Ad Orientem]

General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 51, Trump 40 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D)* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Biden 47, Trump 44 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9


Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 45 Biden +6
Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Gravis Biden 53, Trump 43 Biden +10
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 42 Biden +6
Missouri: Trump vs. Biden SLU/YouGov Trump 50, Biden 43 Trump +7
Montana: Trump vs. Biden PPP (D) Trump 51, Biden 42 Trump +9
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 47, Trump 46 Biden +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 42 Biden +8
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth Biden 53, Trump 40 Biden +13
Texas: Trump vs. Biden OAN/Gravis Trump 46, Biden 44 Trump +2
Texas: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Trump 46, Biden 45 Trump +1
Texas: Trump vs. Biden Dallas Morning News Trump 43, Biden 48 Biden +5
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 42 Biden +6



# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error

(Edit: I added the NBC/WSJ poll that was released about an hour after I posted the above.)