State of the race - what I see

Taking a look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls in the battleground states, I am seeing results that are odds with their interpretation of who is leading the race for president in 2020. President Trump currently has 205 electoral college votes.  Joe Biden currently has 201 electoral college votes and there are 132 electoral college votes that have not yet been decided.*

In the swing states I'm seeing the following results based on the available RCP aggregation of polls: 

-- Texas has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 52.7% and Biden has 47.3% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 5.4%. 

-- Florida has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Pennsylvania has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 50.1% and Biden has 49.9% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 0.1%. 

-- Ohio has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 52.3% and Biden has 47.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 4.6%. 

-- Georgia has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 50.3% and Biden has 49.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 0.6%. 

-- Michigan has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 49.4% and Biden has 50.6% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 1.1%. 

-- North Carolina has a total of 3 valid polls. Trump has 51.1% and Biden has 48.9% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 2.2%. 

-- Virginia has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 49.4% and Biden has 50.6% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 1.2%. 

-- Arizona has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. 

-- Wisconsin has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. 

-- Minnesota has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 48.8% and Biden has 51.2% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 2.4%. 

-- Colorado has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Nevada has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 43.8% and Biden has 56.2% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 12.3%. 

-- Iowa has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- New Mexico has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- New Hampshire has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Maine has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 39.3% and Biden has 60.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 21.3%. 

As for electoral college wins: most are still toss-ups if you look at the validity of the state polls.

Texas (38) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Florida (29) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Pennsylvania (20) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Ohio (18) --Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Georgia (16) -- Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Michigan (16) -- Biden would get the electoral college votes.

North Carolina (15) -- Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Virginia (13) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Arizona (11) No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Wisconsin (10) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Minnesota (10) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Colorado (9) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Nevada (6) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Iowa (6) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

New Mexico (5) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

New Hampshire (4) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Maine (4) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

*These results are based on the following parameters; polls taken in the last 14 days, with a sample size of at least 500 among likely voters, with a margin of error of less than 4.1%, among pollsters rated C+ or better, using the Pollster Tracking by FiveThirtyEight.com, and removing 538's allocated pollster bias and my calculated temporal pro-Clinton bias vs. actual election results from 2016. States must have at least 2 valid polls to be considered.

Realistically I think both Texas and Iowa belong in the Trump column, which would up his electoral college total to 249.  With that he still needs to hold Arizona, and either Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania to put him over the 270 needed to win.

The president is in good but not great shape electorally, according to the evidence offered by pollsters (which has been presented as very bad for the president).  The reality may be very different.  But even if the president is in great shape, there's a movement afoot to delegitimize his potential win if not outright steal the election for Biden.  Every vote matters, as long as it is a real vote.  And in addition, the Republicans need to hold the senate and win back congress in order to implement Trump's agenda to drain the swamp, stand up to China, and make America great again.

UPDATE:  In my map I have assumed Florida for president Trump, where elsewhere I have left it as no current winner.  I think Trump will win Florida but I cannot call it that way based on the evidence.  Given that, I would add Florida to the "realistically in Trump's column" paragraph but as a must hold.  Otherwise the analysis holds up. Barring this craziness.

The Biden "bounce"

The only way Joe Biden gets any momentum from his primary win in South Carolina is if he manages a strong enough showing on Super Tuesday and a few other candidates drop out after the electoral delegate deluge.  That won't be Bloomberg, but if Buttigeig and Klobuchar drop out there's a good possibility Biden picks up the lion's share of their delegates.

That's a big if:  Bloomberg could do well and gain the momentum instead.  He's trying to buy the nomination and it will be interesting to see if he can. 

And there's another big if: should Warren drop from the race, her support would most like coalesce around Sanders.  So Biden's momentum in the longer term requires Warren to remain in the race as long as possible.

There are a lot of IFs with respect to Joe Biden winning the nomination and even if he manages to pull it off, he is so flawed and now so politically wounded that he's basically an unwinnable candidate for president.

Trump supporters, you might need this

Just breathe.

Donald Trump is toast according to probably 90% of pundits and 99% of media talking heads.  He's not. He might be close, but then again, maybe not. Against the constant barrage of media onslaught, questionable but clearly trending polls comes this from esteemed analyst Sean Trende;

If you look at the RCP Average, Clinton hasn’t so much surged as Trump has lost support since the beginning of the month, which suggests those voters are still gettable for him.

That is because the fundamentals of this race indicate it will be close. The second-term president with middling approval ratings, the modest growth, and the historic unfavorability of the two candidates continually exert gravity on the contest downward to a tie. When Trump is “best behavior” Trump, the race is competitive. When he isn’t, Clinton pulls to a lead. If Trump were to be “best behavior” Trump for the remaining four weeks and conduct himself in the third debate as he did in the second, he might close the gap again. Indeed, the NBC/WSJ poll released over the weekend actually suggests Trump made up some ground in the aftermath of the debate.

But don't get too excited too fast, Trende says it's possible, but goes on to say it's not probable;

I don’t think that will happen. For one thing, Trump feels “unshackled” (whatever that means), suggesting that he doesn’t want to be “best behavior” Trump.

More importantly, though, I don’t think Clinton and the Democrats will let him...

Fair points. Indeed I've started to wonder whether Trump can sustain an impressive run for longer than 10 days.  He's reflexive in his responses and Democrats know it.  Those reflexes don't always serve him well. He's like a bull distracted by a red cape at times.  And I agree with Trende, Trump will need to string together about 25 days of great behavior, not just 10.  That's a longshot bet for those of us hoping Trump can win and bust up the intransigence of Washington D.C. power.

But Trump has surprised multiple times in the past and he is capable of doing it again.  And polling data has become an instrument to shape public opinion as opposed to reflecting it.  They'll have to come back to earth for the sake of their own integrity over the last week or two.  If there is a deliberate bias now, it will change then.  If there isn't this will be a Clinton blowout.

Shut up with your white privilege crap. All Americans are privileged.

I haven't really been following the story behind the University of Missouri protests. However, when the first demand posited to the university president is that the he acknowledge his own white privilege, then whatever the reason for the original concern, no matter how well it may have been founded, has gone off the rails.

We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1-­9-­5-0 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege, recognize that systems of oppression exist, and provide a verbal commitment to fulfilling Concerned Student 1-9-5-­0 demands. We want Tim Wolfe to admit to his gross negligence, allowing his driver to hit one of the demonstrators, consenting to the physical violence of bystanders, and lastly refusing to intervene when Columbia Police Department used excessive force with demonstrators.

Really? Really?  Shouldn't the gross negligence piece far exceed the concern about white privilege of the president? Apparently not - it comes after the white privilege in the first of many demands. By the way, why does each demand have 12 sub-demands in it?

Having little background so far, I will not defend the president of the university. Perhaps every other demand is legitimate, I don't know. But the white privilege statement is simply ridiculous.

Everyone living in America is privileged not to be living in Bangladesh, or Syria. Everyone living in America is privileged to be living in a country with so much opportunity - if not at the University of Missouri the somewhere else. You don't like the university, leave. If enough people do, it will simply go out of business. Everyone in America is privileged to have so much freedom that simply does not exist elsewhere to the same degree. You want to renounce that privilege and feel shame for being American too? Leave. I for one, along with literally millions of other people of every color, would be happy to take your place as a citizen in America. Unfortunately we can't. 

The inclusion of that among all of the other demands diminishes all the rest of them. Racial issues should be dealt with on the face of the specific issues.  Saying that every white person has an inherited advantage is ridiculous.  It hasn't helped me one bit.  And there are white people far poorer and less well off than I am.

 Trying to  make someone feel guilty for being born white does not advance racial harmony one iota.  It does not engender empathy at all from anyone other than those who already agree with you. It puts someone on the defensive and immediately creates an adversarial interaction. You are in a sense restricting change by taking that approach. How is that not self-evident?

RNC Chairman’s Race - who cares?

For those of you interested, National review has the latest RNC Chairman’s Race Tally.  The interest isn't there like last time around when Michael Steele won but it should. be.  With everyone focused on the swearing in ceremonies in Congress, there isn't enough focus on whether Michael Steele has done a good job in his role as chair.

Yes the GOP won 63 net new seats in Congress, but there's also issues with RNC debt levels and the weak get out the vote effort during the mid-terms.  Arguments have been made that the midterm victories had little to do with Steele's efforts and more to do with grassroots rejection of Democrats' overreach during the last two years.

Did President Obama Really Say 'Mongrel'?

The President went on The View yesterday and said some more things about race that are frankly a little confusing. From the Beer Summit to the Shirley Sherrod situation, the President seems to shoot from the hip when it comes to racial issues and then deal with the damage afterwards.  Keep in mind that while the President may have known the questions in advance (I don't know for sure if that's the case), he certainly would have been unscripted as compared to a teleprompter speech. He may have had some talking points to work with, but it's a free form discussion in large part. It shouldn't come as a surprise that President Obama has some Biden-esque moments on open forum situations - coming to mind immediately are his gaffes with Jay Leno on the Special Olympics or his campaign trail talks about visiting 57 states.  But this gaffe might be more problematic.

An Obama Presidency erases American hypocrisy?

Let me preface this with a comment that I am in no way racially motivated. This represents an analysis of a supposedly post-racial presidential race.

I received an email from a friend who knew someone heading back to the US on Nov. 4th to vote in order to prove that America is a hypocrite (that's a broad, vague statement, but I'm assuming it's with regards to electing a black president).

What a silly notion. The United States would have no problem electing a black president, but this was true before Obama. Go back to 1996 or 200 and if Colin Powell had run he could have won. People assuming there is a glass ceiling without trying to break through are an unfortunate lot. America, more than anywhere else in the world is the land of opportunity and that, is colour-blind. Using a ceiling as an excuse for failure is just not trying hard enough. And it guarantees a failure.

Hypocrisy exists in the fact that many rich donors routinely support Democrats rather than Republicans, either out of guilt or out of the fact that they know the Democrat party loves tax loopholes that allow the rich to get away with obscene tax savings they don't deserve. And yet the Democratic party is the one subtly promoting class warfare - with it's tax the rich approach to everything. Did you ever wonder why they would act opposed to their self-interest? Here's a hint - they don't.

The Republican view of equality is equality of opportunity, the Democrat view is equality of outcome. That is not equality, it's socialism. You are more deserving of success than someone who didn't make it because of (i) your efforts at self improvement in school and afterwards (ii) your work ethic and (iii) your specific skills. You should not feel guilt over it, because you've earned your success. If you want to level the playing field, you don't pay more tax, you make sure everyone else has the same opportunity for quality education. You do that either through competition like school vouchers, or having teachers meet certain qualifying criteria (for example). In any case, you do not re-distribute the wealth.

Let me give you a quick analogy. Think of a football game. A level playing field is just that, not one sloped towards one end. Republicans want to ensure that the field is level before the game starts. What Democrats want to do is avoid a 56-10 final score, so they don't level the playing fields, they shave points of the winning side and give them to the losers. In essence, making the final score 36-30. Now I ask you this - what is the incentive for either team in that scenario to workout, to practice, to devise new plays to run? Not much.

The hypocrisy exists in the fact that for 50 years the Democrats have been championing racial equality under a false premise. Support us and we will support you. 50 years of welfare have made things worse - single parent families have gone way up in the black community during the last 50 years as replacing fathers with a welfare cheque has re-enforced a dependency environment and created a circular process - poverty leads to welfare to broken families which leads to a lower pursuit of higher education which leads to more poverty. And this circular process also leads to a dumbing down of the American workforce (broader than just by race).

The hypocrisy exists in hiring quotas that put unqualified people into certain jobs rather than ensuring that they are educated properly to do those jobs well.

The hypocrisy exists in creating a culture of dependence rather than independence. You know the old proverb about giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish?

Seriously, if someone is voting for Obama to prove a point or for racial reasons, they are being short-sighted. What if he turns out to be terrible because he wasn't really well vetted? How much harder does that make it for the next black candidate, even if they are exceptionally qualified? There will be an inherent scepticism before he/she has a chance. What does that do for equality of opportunity? Yes, America is in need of a black president, but in my opinion this is just not the right guy. The timing of getting a black president doesn't matter, what matters his ability. The same goes for a woman VP or any other group that feels excluded. Hell, I'd vote for a cross-dressing, Vietnamese albino midget if I thought his policies made sense. And I'd do it in a heartbeat. What matters is the content of their character, their vision and their ideas.

The hypocrisy is in voting to prove you aren't a hypocrite (as person or as a nation). The idea that America is overdue for a black President is not justification for voting that way. Does that mean a woman has to be elected next, then a homosexual, then a Mormon, then a Latino, then an amputee, etc.? Just so there can have been a one of everything? There's more groups to satisfy that way than there are cycles to vote in.

The biggest hypocrisy is that the first black President, won in large part due to his skin color. America did not really prove it's become post-racial. In fact it may have proven that to some people the superficial matters more than the man. And for the enlightened intellectual 'elite' the reality of that has yet to set in.