Some 2020 General Election Polls

Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:15 am

sophie wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:46 am
drumminj wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:10 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:57 pm
As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.
I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.
Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.
This is incorrect. No one is being held responsible for anyone else's illegal acts.

Let's do a thought experiment.
Suppose Person A kidnaps Person B from Country C and brings him into Country D illegally.
Does Person B have a right to remain in country D? No.
Would sending him back to Country C be a punishment? No. It would be a recognition of the fact that he doesn't have a right to remain in Country D.

In the present case, Person B is a DACA recipient, Person A is the parent, Country C is their country of origin, and Country D is the US.

DACA recipients are not US citizens, nor are they permanent residents.
Thus, they have no right to remain in the US.
Deporting them back to their country of citizenship is not punishment for anyone's illegal acts; it is a recognition that they don't have any right to remain here.
Last edited by Libertarian666 on Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:16 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:59 pm

I am extremely suspicious of executive power and I'm certain that the Presidency is far too powerful today, much more than the Founders intended.

But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

He also hasn't gotten us into any new wars and is in fact drawing down overseas troops.

There are of course things I disapprove of, notably the incredible spending spree that the government has been on, but that is still primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch. Of course he has the veto, but what would people say if he vetoed one of the relief bills, which veto would probably be overridden anyway.

So overall, he is the least non-libertarian President of my lifetime. And when you consider what the Democrats would do if they got their hands on the White House, I'm all in for re-electing him.
Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike. Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors. This is helpful because it brings attention to the issue i.e. the risks of absolute or near absolute power accumulated in one person and one branch of government. This is why I urge similarly minded people to reach out to their members of Congress and raise the issue. If enough people do so, that's how issues get addressed in a democracy, and hopefully we can right-size the Presidency for our collective benefit whomever might be in the office, Republican, Democrat or other.

I've had people tell me that a preponderance of power in the Presidency is a good thing because it allows the President to break Congressional gridlock. I say Congressional gridlock is a legitimate problem, but imbalanced power in another branch is the wrong solution, or at least trades one problem for another. Again, this is not a Trump issue, but an Office issue. Trump has done us all a big favor by casting light on it, but of course the media has given him no credit for it.
Last edited by glennds on Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:33 am

stuper1 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:57 pm
The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.
The latter part of your statement is not accurate. Immigration laws vary from country to country quite dramatically. This is not to say the US laws are good, bad or anything else. But acquainting oneself with how other countries handle immigration is a good exercise if you care about the issue. It's a complicated issue that balances legal issues against human rights issues against political ideologies. There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal residency. In many countries illegal entry is not a crime at all. Many countries make exception for asylum seekers, but many do not.

A few resources:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nts/#close

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ ... ooklet.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:36 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:15 am
DACA recipients are not US citizens, nor are they permanent residents.
Thus, they have no right to remain in the US.
Deporting them back to their country of citizenship is not punishment for anyone's illegal acts; it is a recognition that they don't have any right to remain here.
I think the difference in your example is that the kidnapped person is returned relatively quickly to resume their normal life in Country C, and never has an opportunity to build a life in Country D.

In the case of the DACA recipients, many of them have lived here for most of their lives and often aren't even aware of their legal status until they start wanting to do things like apply for jobs. You're right that technically it's the same situation, but at the same time...it's not.

I think this is just one of the many unfortunate results of the longtime official policy of ignoring (and hence condoning) illegal immigration. That's why, at the same time that I am arguing for DACA, I also firmly believe we need a merit-based immigration system, better security on the southern border, tighter rules for asylum applicants (i.e. "fleeing poverty" or a condition that is the responsibility of the originating country's government are both ridiculous and should be immediately disallowed), zero tolerance for illegal immigration, and mandatory E-verify for all employers of any size, public or private. And as a bonus, we need to get rid of the birthright citizenship deal.

In other words, deal with the source of the problem but we have to recognize that the consequences of failed policies need to be cleaned up.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:30 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:02 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:56 am
What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny
This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.
Just ONE of the many reasons why I consider Biden to have low to NO integrity.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:54 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:16 am

Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike.

Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors.
Your previous two sentences are mutually contradictory. Is the comparison relevant or irrelevant?

Assuming that it is relevant, please cite examples of his brazenness, and compare them to the following (incomplete) list of what Obama did:
1. Made treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate (see FATCA enforcement actions directed against foreign governments).
2. Unilaterally declared DACA without any authority to do so.
3. Weaponized the intelligence community and other government agencies against the incoming administration.
4. Used the IRS to attack conservative non-profit organizations.



I agree that the Presidency is too powerful and should be reined in. Of course the media hasn't given him credit for it, as they never give him credit for anything.
What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began. The pattern seems to be after every disaster, war or major calamity, additional powers were accrued, and permanently. Meaning we've only added to the power of the office, never deleted.

So if you feel Trump is good and Obama was bad, that's your prerogative. What I am saying is the preference is irrelevant because both have or had too much power.

Trump's helpful brazenness in my view is his blatancy about broadcasting his power. For example on April 13,2020 he declared "When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."
On March 12, 2020, Trump said "I have the right to do a lot of things people don't know about".

You can use words other than brazenness. Maybe forthcoming, honest, boasting, grandstanding, baleful? Pick your word. But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future. Other presidents that were more verbally circumspect about their power would not have even triggered the question (at least for me). Nixon might have been one exception because he talked quite brazenly about both his extensive authority and immunity (see the May 1977 Nixon Frost interviews i.e. that things that would otherwise be illegal are legal if the President does them).

Again, to be clear, none of this commentary is about a particular President. It's about the Office itself.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by stuper1 » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:21 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:33 am
stuper1 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:57 pm
The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.
The latter part of your statement is not accurate. Immigration laws vary from country to country quite dramatically. This is not to say the US laws are good, bad or anything else. But acquainting oneself with how other countries handle immigration is a good exercise if you care about the issue. It's a complicated issue that balances legal issues against human rights issues against political ideologies. There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal residency. In many countries illegal entry is not a crime at all. Many countries make exception for asylum seekers, but many do not.

A few resources:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nts/#close

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ ... ooklet.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php
Admittedly I don't know much about immigration laws either of the USA or any other country. I briefly looked at one of the links you posted. Basically, it said that some countries don't call it a crime if you enter illegally -- they just deport you without calling you a criminal. Other countries call you a criminal and then deport you. Either way you get deported. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the DACA situation where we're discussing amnesty for DACA people rather than deporting them.

Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:37 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:21 pm
Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.
Simple answer: NO. And it absolutely astounds me that the U.S. somehow is viewed by the world as the only country without the right to determine who it will accept as immigrants. Somehow, merit-based immigration here is "racist" - but it's the way it's done virtually everywhere else.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:40 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:21 pm

Admittedly I don't know much about immigration laws either of the USA or any other country. I briefly looked at one of the links you posted. Basically, it said that some countries don't call it a crime if you enter illegally -- they just deport you without calling you a criminal. Other countries call you a criminal and then deport you. Either way you get deported. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the DACA situation where we're discussing amnesty for DACA people rather than deporting them.

Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.
I can't think of an example country that would let you do that, especially working under the table.
There are some countries that want immigration for economic stimulation, but they are far fewer than they used to be. And even then, they are seeking model immigrants, not the types that are typically at issue in DACA. Germany has tried to maintain a humanitarian stance regarding admitting refugees and migrants that are asylum seekers, especially from war torn places like Syria and parts of Eastern Europe.

You're right, emigrating to other countries is not especially easy. A lawyer friend of mine looked into emigrating abroad and came to the opinion that American citizens are not particularly desirable, at least after 2016. This was the case in New Zealand, Australia and Japan. Poor guy ended up back in the US, back to a law firm and back to the grind, dreams on hold.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:54 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm
What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began.
Actually the event/person you're looking for is John Yoo, a legal advisor to George Dubya. He worked tirelessly to expand Presidential power, starting with his famous memos justifying waterboarding of Iraqi and Guantanamo prisoners. When Obama came into office, I thought he would reverse that change and act to limit Presidential power - which he actually said he would do during his campaign. However he did exactly the opposite.

Tech's list of Obama's use of presidential power is only a start. I'd add the NSA surveillance program that Snowden acted to reveal and the drone strikes in several places without Congressional authorization. And lest I forget, the illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign.

Trump has simply continued what is now a long-standing precedent, because it suits his purpose. I would point out that he's mainly used it not to wage undeclared wars or set up domestic spying, but to accomplish a detailed deregulation program that likely contributed in no small part to the healthy pre-COVID economy, implement some of his immigration plans (which he intends to help this country, although some might disagree) and patch holes that Congress has left due to its dysfunction & inability to act.

Of course you also have to take care to translate Trump's "brazen use of power" appropriately. Here's how you should read it: "We the mainstream media disapprove of Trump's latest executive order, maybe because we don't like it but mostly because we don't like Trump." And like Libertarian666, I also find it interesting that virtually any of his actions are interpreted as "authoritarian" while his lack of action is interpreted as "he is failing to do X" where X is an action for which he would be condemned as an authoritarian dictator if he did it. So I just kind of ignore that whole scene. It's much easier than tying yourself up in knots trying to understand it.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:05 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:54 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:16 am

Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike.

Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors.
Your previous two sentences are mutually contradictory. Is the comparison relevant or irrelevant?

Assuming that it is relevant, please cite examples of his brazenness, and compare them to the following (incomplete) list of what Obama did:
1. Made treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate (see FATCA enforcement actions directed against foreign governments).
2. Unilaterally declared DACA without any authority to do so.
3. Weaponized the intelligence community and other government agencies against the incoming administration.
4. Used the IRS to attack conservative non-profit organizations.



I agree that the Presidency is too powerful and should be reined in. Of course the media hasn't given him credit for it, as they never give him credit for anything.
What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began. The pattern seems to be after every disaster, war or major calamity, additional powers were accrued, and permanently. Meaning we've only added to the power of the office, never deleted.

So if you feel Trump is good and Obama was bad, that's your prerogative. What I am saying is the preference is irrelevant because both have or had too much power.

Trump's helpful brazenness in my view is his blatancy about broadcasting his power. For example on April 13,2020 he declared "When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."
On March 12, 2020, Trump said "I have the right to do a lot of things people don't know about".

You can use words other than brazenness. Maybe forthcoming, honest, boasting, grandstanding, baleful? Pick your word. But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future. Other presidents that were more verbally circumspect about their power would not have even triggered the question (at least for me). Nixon might have been one exception because he talked quite brazenly about both his extensive authority and immunity (see the May 1977 Nixon Frost interviews i.e. that things that would otherwise be illegal are legal if the President does them).

Again, to be clear, none of this commentary is about a particular President. It's about the Office itself.
So you refuse to answer whether the comparison with previous Presidents is relevant or irrelevant? You claimed both in successive sentences. Which is it?
Why is that difficult to answer?
Not difficult to answer. It's not relevant.
I only pointed Trump out because he has helped recently flag the issue as a topic (for me) by talking about it. Perhaps I can add Ted Koppel because his recent news story did the same. But for my purposes it is irrelevant to compare previous Presidents because they were all holders of the same office. It is the office that I am commenting on.
Comparing the Presidents themselves is not relevant to my post.

I think the power of the Executive Branch of the US government has expanded beyond what was contemplated originally and ought to be reined in for the future.

Did I answer your question?
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:13 pm

sophie wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:54 pm
glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm
What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began.

Of course you also have to take care to translate Trump's "brazen use of power" appropriately.
I think I see what I need to clarify. When I say Trump was brazen, I just mean with his mouth.
I am not commenting on his use of power either more or less than any other presidents.

Please do not feel moved to defend Trump based on my comments in this thread. I am not criticizing him, but I am criticizing the office he holds, and I am doing so more for the future than as a commentary on past holders of that office.

I hope this clarifies.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:25 pm

OK glennds. You did weave those two topics rather seamlessly in your posts, so your clarification is appreciated.

FWIW - I'll defend anyone who I think is wrongly accused. I think Trump is being wrongly accused of quite a lot, excepting his brazen mouth & tweets. You won't get much argument there. However, his words & tweets, like that of any other President, do not carry the force of law and thus will not have lasting impact.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:37 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:51 pm
Even if one ... might think Koppel a deranged maniac as his demeanor might imply
I laughed out loud at this, btw!
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:42 pm

Tech, why are you not a minarchist? From Wikipedia:
A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:01 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:52 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:42 pm
Tech, why are you not a minarchist? From Wikipedia:
A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.
Because the monopoly of force inherent in any government means that there is no way for the subjects to prevent even a minimalist state from increasing its own power by ignoring the rules it is supposed to follow.
I'm trying to get my head around how a country would defend itself without a military. I can somewhat understand private police for internal needs but I'm flumoxed by what would substitute for military (for external threats). I'm thinking about the old adage "nature abhors a vacuum" and what that would mean re. a country of anarcho-capitalists not getting sucked up by another country with a powerful dictator/military or similar government.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:57 am

Only a handful of new polls since I last posted on Monday. Obviously all predate the convention, but FWIW...


General Election: Trump vs. Biden Echelon Insights Biden 51, Trump 38 Biden +13
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 50, Trump 40 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 45, Trump 39 Biden +6


New Jersey: Trump vs. Biden DKC Biden 52, Trump 33 Biden +19
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Biden St. Anselm Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Morning Call Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4


# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 3%.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:51 pm

Been a while since I've updated this thread. All polls listed below are from this week (Sunday to present). Where multiple polls for the same state/general election exist the newer are on top.


General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 53, Trump 42 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NPR/PBS/Marist Biden 54, Trump 43 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
General Election: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 47, Trump 40 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden JTN/RMG Research* Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12

General Election average of national polls via 538 Trump 41.8% / Biden 52.3% Biden +10.5


Alaska: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Trump 45, Biden 39 Trump +6
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
Colorado: Trump vs. Biden KUSA/SurveyUSA Biden 50, Trump 40 Biden +10
Florida: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 48, Trump 48 Tie
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Biden 48, Trump 45 Biden +3
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 49, Trump 47 Biden +2
Florida: Trump vs. Biden St. Pete Polls Biden 49, Trump 47 Biden +2
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Florida Atlantic University Biden 51, Trump 47 Biden +4
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden WXIA-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Hawaii: Trump vs. Biden HNN/Civil Beat Biden 61, Trump 28 Biden +33
Indiana: Trump vs. Biden SurveyUSA Trump 49, Biden 42 Trump +7
Iowa: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 49 Tie
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Pan Atlantic Biden 50, Trump 40 Biden +10
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 54, Trump 43 Biden +11
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden EPIC-MRA Biden 48, Trump 39 Biden +9
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 46 Biden +6
Minnesota: Trump vs. Biden KAAL-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 47, Trump 40 Biden +7
Missouri: Trump vs. Biden SLU/YouGov Trump 52, Biden 43 Trump +9
Montana: Trump vs. Biden PPP (D) Trump 52, Biden 46 Trump +6
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden Las Vegas Review-Journal* Biden 44, Trump 42 Biden +2
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 46 Biden +6
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Biden Boston Globe/Suffolk* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Biden UNH* Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12
New Jersey: Trump vs. Biden Stockton University Biden 56, Trump 36 Biden +20
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 49, Trump 49 Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Susquehanna Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 46, Trump 42 Biden +4
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
Ohio: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 51, Trump 46 Biden +5
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
South Carolina: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Trump 49, Biden 41 Trump +8
Virginia: Trump vs. Biden Roanoke College* Biden 54, Trump 39 Biden +15
Washington: Trump vs. Biden KING-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 55, Trump 34 Biden +21
West Virginia: Trump vs. Biden MetroNews* Trump 53, Biden 39 Trump +14
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7



# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 4%.

A few observations...

* We are in the bottom of the 9th inning. The opportunities to drastically alter the current trajectory of the election are now few.
^ Trump has narrowed the polls in Florida such that the state may be within reach, albeit barely. The polls are still much worse than what he was facing in 2016.
* Excepting Texas (which did not show up in the last six days of polling) there are no large electoral vote rich states that are in the solidly or likely Trump column.
* The rust belt states that Trump carried by his finger tips, and which propelled him to victory in 2016, look to be mostly outside of his reach. Ohio is the lone exception.
* Most of the polls that were off in 2016 were nonetheless within their respective margins of error. Most polling entities have adjusted their methodologies to compensate for the possibility of undercounting Trump supporters.
* Out of an abundance of caution I have expanded the margin of error to 4% for color coding.

As of this post there are 17 days to the general election.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:02 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:51 pm
Been a while since I've updated this thread. All polls listed below are from this week (Sunday to present). Where multiple polls for the same state/general election exist the newer are on top.


General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 53, Trump 42 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NPR/PBS/Marist Biden 54, Trump 43 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
General Election: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 47, Trump 40 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden JTN/RMG Research* Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12

General Election average of national polls via 538 Trump 41.8% / Biden 52.3% Biden +10.5


Alaska: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Trump 45, Biden 39 Trump +6
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
Colorado: Trump vs. Biden KUSA/SurveyUSA Biden 50, Trump 40 Biden +10
Florida: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 48, Trump 48 Tie
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Biden 48, Trump 45 Biden +3
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 49, Trump 47 Biden +2
Florida: Trump vs. Biden St. Pete Polls Biden 49, Trump 47 Biden +2
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Florida Atlantic University Biden 51, Trump 47 Biden +4
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden WXIA-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Hawaii: Trump vs. Biden HNN/Civil Beat Biden 61, Trump 28 Biden +33
Indiana: Trump vs. Biden SurveyUSA Trump 49, Biden 42 Trump +7
Iowa: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 49 Tie
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Pan Atlantic Biden 50, Trump 40 Biden +10
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 54, Trump 43 Biden +11
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden EPIC-MRA Biden 48, Trump 39 Biden +9
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 46 Biden +6
Minnesota: Trump vs. Biden KAAL-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 47, Trump 40 Biden +7
Missouri: Trump vs. Biden SLU/YouGov Trump 52, Biden 43 Trump +9
Montana: Trump vs. Biden PPP (D) Trump 52, Biden 46 Trump +6
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden Las Vegas Review-Journal* Biden 44, Trump 42 Biden +2
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 46 Biden +6
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Biden Boston Globe/Suffolk* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Biden UNH* Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12
New Jersey: Trump vs. Biden Stockton University Biden 56, Trump 36 Biden +20
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 49, Trump 49 Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Susquehanna Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 46, Trump 42 Biden +4
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
Ohio: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 51, Trump 46 Biden +5
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
South Carolina: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Trump 49, Biden 41 Trump +8
Virginia: Trump vs. Biden Roanoke College* Biden 54, Trump 39 Biden +15
Washington: Trump vs. Biden KING-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 55, Trump 34 Biden +21
West Virginia: Trump vs. Biden MetroNews* Trump 53, Biden 39 Trump +14
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden NY Times/Siena* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7



# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 4%.

A few observations...

* We are in the bottom of the 9th inning. The opportunities to drastically alter the current trajectory of the election are now few.
^ Trump has narrowed the polls in Florida such that the state may be within reach, albeit barely. The polls are still much worse than what he was facing in 2016.
* Excepting Texas (which did not show up in the last six days of polling) there are no large electoral vote rich states that are in the solidly or likely Trump column.
* The rust belt states that Trump carried by his finger tips, and which propelled him to victory in 2016, look to be mostly outside of his reach. Ohio is the lone exception.
* Most of the polls that were off in 2016 were nonetheless within their respective margins of error. Most polling entities have adjusted their methodologies to compensate for the possibility of undercounting Trump supporters.
* Out of an abundance of caution I have expanded the margin of error to 4% for color coding.

As of this post there are 17 days to the general election.
Given my avatar, you can probably guess which poll I think has it right. ;D ;D ;D
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:39 am

Not surprising given his affinity for coal, West Virginia is firmly in the Trump column. The Democrats are not making any effort to contest the state.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:42 am

Polls since Saturday. Newer are on top.


General Election: Trump vs. Biden YouGov Biden 48, Trump 37, Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Jorgensen vs. Hawkins NY Times/Siena Biden 50, Trump 41, Jorgensen 2, Hawkins 0 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Jorgensen vs. Hawkins JTN/RMG Research Biden 51, Trump 43, Jorgensen 2, Hawkins 1 Biden +8


Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Arkansas: Trump vs. Biden Talk Business/Hendrix College* Trump 58, Biden 34 Trump +24
Colorado: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Colorado/YouGov Biden 47, Trump 38 Biden +9
Florida: Trump vs. Biden UNF Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 47, Trump 48 Trump +1
Kentucky: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Trump 56, Biden 39 Trump +17
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden MIRS/Mitchell Research* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
Missouri: Trump vs. Biden Missouri Scout* Trump 51, Biden 45 Trump +6
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post* Biden 49, Trump 48 Biden +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Trump 47, Biden 48 Biden +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Trafalgar Group (R)* Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 51, Trump 46 Biden +5


Average of national polls Biden +10.3%

# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 4%.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by jalanlong » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:48 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm

But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future.
That would be helpful if it made most citizens think about that. Unfortunately I feel like all it does is make the average person focus on getting the "right" person in the office as opposed to reducing the power of the office itself.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:32 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:01 pm
Ad Orientem wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:42 am
Polls since Saturday. Newer are on top.


General Election: Trump vs. Biden YouGov Biden 48, Trump 37, Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Jorgensen vs. Hawkins NY Times/Siena Biden 50, Trump 41, Jorgensen 2, Hawkins 0 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Jorgensen vs. Hawkins JTN/RMG Research Biden 51, Trump 43, Jorgensen 2, Hawkins 1 Biden +8


Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Arkansas: Trump vs. Biden Talk Business/Hendrix College* Trump 58, Biden 34 Trump +24
Colorado: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Colorado/YouGov Biden 47, Trump 38 Biden +9
Florida: Trump vs. Biden UNF Biden 48, Trump 47 Biden +1
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 47, Trump 48 Trump +1
Kentucky: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Trump 56, Biden 39 Trump +17
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden MIRS/Mitchell Research* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
Missouri: Trump vs. Biden Missouri Scout* Trump 51, Biden 45 Trump +6
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post* Biden 49, Trump 48 Biden +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Trump 47, Biden 48 Biden +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Trafalgar Group (R)* Biden 48, Trump 46 Biden +2
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Reuters/Ipsos Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 51, Trump 46 Biden +5


Average of national polls Biden +10.3%

# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 4%.
That looks a lot more red and purple than the previous ones. Add in all the Trump voters who aren't admitting it, and you have a different picture.

A couple quick points...

* These are the polls that have popped up over the last few days. In this case there happen to be more polls showing states that are safely Republican and are not being contested by the Democrats.
^ I expanded the color coding for within the margin of error from 3% to 4% in the last post out of an abundance of caution.
* Some of the polls are not highly rated. (i.e. Trafalgar has a D- rating for accuracy and reliability at 538).
* Most of the really reputable polling entities adjusted their methodologies after 2016 to factor in the likelihood of closeted Trump supporters.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:53 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:48 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:48 pm

But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future.
That would be helpful if it made most citizens think about that. Unfortunately I feel like all it does is make the average person focus on getting the "right" person in the office as opposed to reducing the power of the office itself.
Good point. The same argument applies to the power scope and limits of Congress (legislatively) and the Judiciary, not just limited to SCOTUS. All three of these branches have progressively drifted, expanded in scope of powers. Executive branch gets the most attention because it vests in one person, but the others deserve some scrutiny also.
It should be a concern to anyone that governmental branch power is a true one way street, only accrues, never decreases. It would be a mind blowing fantasy to imagine political leaders advocating reduction in their own authority. Could you even imagine a President (from any party) doing that?
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:25 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:32 pm
* Most of the really reputable polling entities adjusted their methodologies after 2016 to factor in the likelihood of closeted Trump supporters.
Is that truly the case? I hadn't seen anything about that. Even if they were, it's unlikely they're fully accounting for the extent of the "silent" vote, as I would expect it's become much more extensive in the era of "cancel culture" and firings or prosecutions for holding unpopular political views.

I also took a look at these numbers and immediately thought, Wow, Trump could win this. A silent Trump vote of just a few percent plus a mail-in ballot "penalty" of 1% or so for the Democrats could easily overcome these Biden margins. And these are mostly major battleground states, where the outcome really matters.
Post Reply