Rachel Bitecofer electoral college evaluation: Biden 289-Trump 181!

[Awsi Dooger]

38. Rachel Bitecofer has no clue regarding situational influence

Only a world class ignoramus would compare 2020 to 2008. The 2008 cycle was after two Republican terms and Bush stuck in very low approval since Katrina in August 2005. In 2020 Trump is in the most favorable situation imaginable, an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. The benefit of a doubt toward that incumbent is surreal. Only Jimmy Carter has lost in that spot in more than a century. The only applicable situational example during Bitecofer's studied time frame is Barack Obama in 2012.

It takes next to nothing for swing voters to return to that camp, after deviating in the recent midterm. That's why the small polling bump that Trump has received due to coronavirus is much more likely to be permanent than we'd prefer to believe. The massive approval spikes due to events like 9/11 are obviously fragile and destined to evaporate. This situation is completely different since swing independents disgustedly detoured away from Trump in early 2017 and have never returned, but as David Plouffe pointed out today coronavirus is a case of Americans rooting for the president to succeed. Absolutely correct. If a crucial 2-3 percent of those lost voters decide he passes the leadership test they'll return to Trump without second thought. As I have emphasized for years, Hispanics are guaranteed to return to the incumbent in strange percentage because they always do.

Trump would have lost in November 2017. He would have lost in November 2018. He would have lost in November 2019. He is currently favored to win in November 2020 due to overwhelming benefit of incumbency and now the partial return of those swing voters. I would certainly wager on Trump right now. In fact, over the past week many of my sharpest friends from Las Vegas have wagered huge on Donald Trump. They are aware of the same situational factors as I am. When you wager for a living you realize that situational impact is everything. It destroys day to day details. It destroys flimsy analysis that is laughably ignorant of the situational variance from cycle to cycle.

Rachel Bitecofer is correct in one respect: The outcomes are forecastable years in advance. But it is due to situational application, not anything that she spotlighted. Those Las Vegas friends are chiding me for not wagering on Trump. One of them said that it's no different than 2004, that I know damn well I should wager big on the incumbent due to the situational aspect but I'm not doing it only because I can't stand the idea of him winning.

Yes, that is certainly true.

The electoral college slant toward the GOP merely adds to Trump's advantage. For example, every time there's a poll with a 3 point Biden lead nationally, that means Biden actually trails. Trump's support is going to be understated, just like 2016. The simplistic angry whites who support Trump don't trust media and don't trust polling. But they will vote. Biden needs at least 3 points national edge to barely win the electoral college. Even 3 points might not be enough. If national polling says he leads by 3 then it's almost certainly at least 1-2 points below that, before we ever get to the electoral college mess.

I'm worried that Biden is not special enough. We nominated a guy who has lost the nomination twice before and didn't come close either time. Those weaknesses tend to show up once he is the nominee. I'll continue to insist that among our late choices Michael Bloomberg was easily the best opportunity to defeat Trump. He has teflon. He has financial street credit. Trump is giving Americans $1200. Bloomberg could have gotten up there and insisted that $1200 is nothing, that he would have provided much more. Swing voters would believe him. Bloomberg could have rattled off one specific after another that he would have done to boost the economy and small businesses during the pandemic.

The most asinine aspect of this primary season was when Elizabeth Warren lanced our best hope to defeat Trump, and somehow we cheered her for it instead of recognizing that it was merely another example of her incompetent instincts.