Michigan just flipped to Biden. Barring a miracle or legal fuckery, Trump has lost. We cannot allow him to bend reality to that somehow not being the case.
This looks like it will ultimately go to Biden, but still too early to call as of yet. The Senate looks to be staying red so it will be a largely uneventful 4 years.
I probably won't post as much in the next political era. It simply won't be as interesting.
Interesting to note that Trump did better with every demographic this time around except white men. The exact opposite of what you would expect if you listen to the news.
This looks like it will ultimately go to Biden, but still too early to call as of yet. The Senate looks to be staying red so it will be a largely uneventful 4 years.
I probably won't post as much in the next political era. It simply won't be as interesting.
It was an interesting time no doubt, my most worthy adversary. I also don't know how much I have left in the tank for this anymore. I always felt if Trump was removed I would leave this battlefield, so to speak. I might feel different in a couple weeks, and we still don't know what shenanigans will take place. It's been nice to discuss things we can agree on in other threads, like the greatness of Morrowind.
The Biden Latino outreach was shit. On the one hand, they did the responsible thing and didn't try to kill more people by canvassing for the last three months. But the numbers in Florida in Texas aren't good on that front. But, again, they were essentially punished for acting responsibly while the Trump campaign was holding rallies that are literally killing people.
Yeah I'm going to have to see more numbers to buy this. I'm curious where the final Texas vote ends up. It's now a 6% margin, which still means they clipped that lead down from 9%. Disappointing but still significant progress towards a goal that will transform US politics.
And the Arizona result belies some of this concern about the Latino vote. I'm sort of thinking what we saw instead was just the very peculiar demographics of Florida at work. It really is the only part of the nation so far where we are seeing Trump increase his 2016 margins.
To be honest, people shouldn't be talking about how this is bad for Democrats. It's disappointing in the short term, but the long term electoral health of the party is good.
What's the future for the Republican party? That's the real urgent question. One popular vote win the past eight presidential elections is a worse performance than the New Deal era.
The polling is, once again, reasonably close nationally, but absolutely broken on the state level. I will have to own up to the reality that there are, in fact, Trump voters who are simply not being picked up in these polls. Massive amounts of them. Whether it is because they are "shy" hasn't been established, but the polls are not catching them when Trump is on the ballot. So I'm taking my L on that one right now.
Mathematical formulas are only as good as the assumptions used to formulate them...
What's the future for the Republican party? That's the real urgent question. One popular vote win the past eight presidential elections
It, quite literally, does not matter. The popular vote divide is an artifact of polarization at the extremes and actually means very little electorally. Trump won the popular vote in the vast majority of states, which is why he won in 2016 in the first place. Subtract California alone, and Trump wins the popular vote nationally. California is a deep blue stronghold and is simply not going red, so appealing to Californians isn't a winning strategy. Speaking to the rest of the country is.
It just goes to show how one or two big states with extreme politics can mangle the data on the rest of the country and obscure the reality.
The fact that it came so close, it could still go either way as I type this, when all the mainstream pundits were swearing up and down this was going to be a knock out landslide, Texas was in play and Biden had a big lead, etc, is reassuring. Yet again, the opinion makers and pundits demonstrate they know very little about very little and, like so many others in this country nowadays, let their personal biases interfere with what is right in front of their face.
Democrats have now won 7 of the past 8 popular votes for president.
And a popular vote should never determine an election with a population this size and this much geographical differences.
Yes, it should. Unless you think arbitrarily drawn lines by settlers and government agencies have more worth than human beings.
Yep. And here is a scenario (Canadian):
Toronto wants to make a big for the Olympics. To raise money for the bid, the federal government will impose a new international shipping tax that comes in through boats.
This tax does not effect the largest population, but the benefits go directly to them. At the same time, lower populated areas like Halifax, will be hit but their voice and economy isn’t as important as Toronto’s in a popular vote situation.
Or Toronto gets to use PEI as their dump. All garbage from Toronto goes to PEI, freeing up Ontario’s landfills. The 160,000 population of PEI shouldn’t have a say in that decision. An extreme example but still an example of how higher density populations can bully lower ones in popular vote settings.
A referendum is not the same as a population choosing their representatives. But even so, the Electoral College does not benefit small states.
What's the most important state everyone talked about in this election? Pennsylvania -- the fifth most populous state. What's been one of the most important states in recent presidential elections? Florida. The fourth most populous state.
And I reiterate what I said above, demographic changes are going to slide Texas very quickly into this category.
What states don't we really talk about alot during the election? New Hampshire. Nevada. Iowa. Still competitive states!
As I said previously, splitting the electoral college votes by that states actual vote is a better and more accurate system than the winner take all and would probably improve turnout in non swing states.
My point: a just simplified just ‘the popular vote’ has more negatives than positives. A hybrid system, like a parliamentary system, is better for representation.
The fact that it came so close, it could still go either way as I type this, when all the mainstream pundits were swearing up and down this was going to be a knock out landslide, Texas was in play and Biden had a big lead, etc, is reassuring. Yet again, the opinion makers and pundits demonstrate they know very little about very little and, like so many others in this country nowadays, let their personal biases interfere with what is right in front of their face.
Democrats have now won 7 of the past 8 popular votes for president.
And a popular vote should never determine an election with a population this size and this much geographical differences.
Yes, it should. Unless you think arbitrarily drawn lines by settlers and government agencies have more worth than human beings.
Yep. And here is a scenario (Canadian):
Toronto wants to make a big for the Olympics. To raise money for the bid, the federal government will impose a new international shipping tax that comes in through boats.
This tax does not effect the largest population, but the benefits go directly to them. At the same time, lower populated areas like Halifax, will be hit but their voice and economy isn’t as important as Toronto’s in a popular vote situation.
Or Toronto gets to use PEI as their dump. All garbage from Toronto goes to PEI, freeing up Ontario’s landfills. The 160,000 population of PEI shouldn’t have a say in that decision. An extreme example but still an example of how higher density populations can bully lower ones in popular vote settings.
A referendum is not the same as a population choosing their representatives. But even so, the Electoral College does not benefit small states.
What's the most important state everyone talked about in this election? Pennsylvania -- the fifth most populous state. What's been one of the most important states in recent presidential elections? Florida. The fourth most populous state.
And I reiterate what I said above, demographic changes are going to slide Texas very quickly into this category.
What states don't we really talk about alot during the election? New Hampshire. Nevada. Iowa. Still competitive states!
As I said previously, splitting the electoral college votes by that states actual vote is a better and more accurate system than the winner take all and would probably improve turnout in non swing states.
My point: a just simplified just ‘the popular vote’ has more negatives than positives. A hybrid system, like a parliamentary system, is better for representation.
I mean it's way better than the current system, but it's still unnecessary. I don't have the energy to get into the Federalist Papers or John Locke right now but let's just take a pair of American platitudes.
1. All men are created equal
2. No taxation without representation
You cannot be kosher with those platitudes while creating systems of unequal representation. Doing so means that you effectively believe that some men are more equal than others. Even if you're not willing to say it aloud.
The fact that it came so close, it could still go either way as I type this, when all the mainstream pundits were swearing up and down this was going to be a knock out landslide, Texas was in play and Biden had a big lead, etc, is reassuring. Yet again, the opinion makers and pundits demonstrate they know very little about very little and, like so many others in this country nowadays, let their personal biases interfere with what is right in front of their face.
Democrats have now won 7 of the past 8 popular votes for president.
And a popular vote should never determine an election with a population this size and this much geographical differences.
Yes, it should. Unless you think arbitrarily drawn lines by settlers and government agencies have more worth than human beings.
Yep. And here is a scenario (Canadian):
Toronto wants to make a big for the Olympics. To raise money for the bid, the federal government will impose a new international shipping tax that comes in through boats.
This tax does not effect the largest population, but the benefits go directly to them. At the same time, lower populated areas like Halifax, will be hit but their voice and economy isn’t as important as Toronto’s in a popular vote situation.
Or Toronto gets to use PEI as their dump. All garbage from Toronto goes to PEI, freeing up Ontario’s landfills. The 160,000 population of PEI shouldn’t have a say in that decision. An extreme example but still an example of how higher density populations can bully lower ones in popular vote settings.
A referendum is not the same as a population choosing their representatives. But even so, the Electoral College does not benefit small states.
What's the most important state everyone talked about in this election? Pennsylvania -- the fifth most populous state. What's been one of the most important states in recent presidential elections? Florida. The fourth most populous state.
And I reiterate what I said above, demographic changes are going to slide Texas very quickly into this category.
What states don't we really talk about alot during the election? New Hampshire. Nevada. Iowa. Still competitive states!
As I said previously, splitting the electoral college votes by that states actual vote is a better and more accurate system than the winner take all and would probably improve turnout in non swing states.
My point: a just simplified just ‘the popular vote’ has more negatives than positives. A hybrid system, like a parliamentary system, is better for representation.
I mean it's way better than the current system, but it's still unnecessary. I don't have the energy to get into the Federalist Papers or John Locke right now but let's just take a pair of American platitudes.
1. All men are created equal
2. No taxation without representation
You cannot be kosher with those platitudes while creating systems of unequal representation. Doing so means that you effectively believe that some men are more equal than others. Even if you're not willing to say it aloud.
I honestly think we are on the same page with very minor differences. I just misunderstood you the first time around.
The polling is, once again, reasonably close nationally, but absolutely broken on the state level. I will have to own up to the reality that there are, in fact, Trump voters who are simply not being picked up in these polls. Massive amounts of them. Whether it is because they are "shy" hasn't been established, but the polls are not catching them when Trump is on the ballot. So I'm taking my L on that one right now.
Mathematical formulas are only as good as the assumptions used to formulate them...
The aggregators like 538 aren't the problem. The polling is the problem. They can only work with the data they have. It isn't AS off as it seemed it was last night, but it's still WAY off in the battlegrounds.
Subtract California alone, and Trump wins the popular vote nationally.
Why do conservatives think chopping off 10% of the country they don't like is an argument you can make in defense of democratic norms?
Edit to add: Also your math is bad. Clinton's margin in Cali was about +4.7 million. Trump will lose the national popular vote by more than that. So I guess there's another 5% you want to justify arbitrarily excising?
The polling is, once again, reasonably close nationally, but absolutely broken on the state level. I will have to own up to the reality that there are, in fact, Trump voters who are simply not being picked up in these polls. Massive amounts of them. Whether it is because they are "shy" hasn't been established, but the polls are not catching them when Trump is on the ballot. So I'm taking my L on that one right now.
Mathematical formulas are only as good as the assumptions used to formulate them...
The aggregators like 538 aren't the problem. The polling is the problem. They can only work with the data they have. It isn't AS off as it seemed it was last night, but it's still WAY off in the battlegrounds.
Finding people willing to be polled is the problem. I haven't answered one cold call in 3 months and I'm not alone. I used to wonder why I never got called in these polls. Now I get so many robo-calls and bullshit texts that they couldn't even pay me to participate in one. The formulas try to make up for the fact that people just aren't as willing to participate as they used to be.
Trump's tweet this morning is way more "woe is me" than "we are going to war". Since they have the Senate (maybe), I don't think Republicans are going to go to bat on overturning a national election for this piece of shit. In the end, Trump talks a big game, but he doesn't have the stomach to pull off what he wants to. And the Biden camp is handling this INFINITELY better than the Gore team in 2000. They are signaling they are the presumptive winners, and the conventional wisdom taking hold is exactly that. Also working in their favor is this:
Subtract California alone, and Trump wins the popular vote nationally.
Why do conservatives think chopping off 10% of the country they don't like is an argument you can make in defense of democratic norms?
Edit to add: Also your math is bad. Clinton's margin in Cali was about +4.7 million. Trump will lose the national popular vote by more than that. So I guess there's another 5% you want to justify arbitrarily excising?
The Post Office legitimately failed to deliver hundreds of thousands of ballots. This wasn't a hoax, it was intentional, and it may have materially effected the margins we are currently seeing:
I just want to note that it's the Electoral College system that gives large states like California and New York their power. We don't think about it this way because we focus on the states that are contested.
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation. A popular vote would crack California's vote, diluting its power in a pool of voters. As opposed to having a unified vote in a pool of Electors.
I just want to note that it's the Electoral College system that gives large states like California and New York their power. We don't think about it this way because we focus on the states that are contested.
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation.
Giving arbitrary lines on a map politicial power has lead to tyranny of the minority where one party has lost 7 of the last 8 votes but has placed 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.
This election is gonna look ALOT different 72 hours from now, minus the disappointment in the Senate, which is very real. This is not gonna be particularly close in a historical sense. It's gonna be LESS close than 2012.
Subtract California alone, and Trump wins the popular vote nationally.
Why do conservatives think chopping off 10% of the country they don't like is an argument you can make in defense of democratic norms?
Edit to add: Also your math is bad. Clinton's margin in Cali was about +4.7 million. Trump will lose the national popular vote by more than that. So I guess there's another 5% you want to justify arbitrarily excising?
Why do liberals think turning small states into occupied territories with virtually no electoral power is any way to run a democracy? I can ask loaded questions too. There is no "democratic norm" being violated when Republicans pick up the majority of states but fail to pick up California. In fact, it makes a good case that they are more representative of the different groups that compromise the country than if the opposite happened, and they were soundly rejected by the majority of states but won by massive margins in the two most populated areas.
I thought it was obvious I was comparing the 2016 state vote with the 2016 popular vote, the only comparison that makes sense. And I double checked that for good measure, and I'm right about that.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation.
You can't talk about a lack of representation but want Presidential elections to be decided by a mere popular vote, which makes large parts of the country lose representation entirely and permanently. The EC has its flaws as does any winner take all system, which is why I agree with Deltago's view that a split electoral system by vote proportions is the right way to go.
I just want to note that it's the Electoral College system that gives large states like California and New York their power. We don't think about it this way because we focus on the states that are contested.
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation. A popular vote would crack California's vote, diluting its power in a pool of voters. As opposed to having a unified vote in a pool of Electors.
I'd be game for that. I'd go further and say that no president should represent less than 50% of voters. If neither party can get a plurality, a 2nd election is held with only the two leading vote getters on the ballot. No 3rd party bullshit allowed. Choose one or the other or don't vote in the run-off...
Why do liberals think turning small states into occupied territories with virtually no electoral power is any way to run a democracy?
I mean, if you think lines drawn by a government, in an ad hoc fashion over several centuries deserve more respect than human beings, I dunno if you can say you're someone who believes in personal liberty.
And apparently you don't think "all men are created equal" is a democratic norm here.
Edit to add: Frankly your histrionics reveal an unwillingness to be honest in this debate, I have to say. I haven't called for abolishing the tenth amendment, so plenty of power is still given to each state. This "occupied territory" point is absurd, and frankly offensive to marshal in defense of wanting to control the federal government despite getting fewer humans to support your side.
Secondly you're not getting "zero representation" you are getting representation proportional to the number of humans that live in your area. Why should you get more representation than humans who live in a different part of the country? Because you don't like that part?
I just want to note that it's the Electoral College system that gives large states like California and New York their power. We don't think about it this way because we focus on the states that are contested.
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation. A popular vote would crack California's vote, diluting its power in a pool of voters. As opposed to having a unified vote in a pool of Electors.
I'd be game for that. I'd go further and say that no president should represent less than 50% of voters. If neither party can get a plurality, a 2nd election is held with only the two leading vote getters on the ballot. No 3rd party bullshit allowed. Choose one or the other or don't vote in the run-off...
This is exactly how the majority of democracies on the planet function.
I just want to note that it's the Electoral College system that gives large states like California and New York their power. We don't think about it this way because we focus on the states that are contested.
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation. A popular vote would crack California's vote, diluting its power in a pool of voters. As opposed to having a unified vote in a pool of Electors.
I'd be game for that. I'd go further and say that no president should represent less than 50% of voters. If neither party can get a plurality, a 2nd election is held with only the two leading vote getters on the ballot. No 3rd party bullshit allowed. Choose one or the other or don't vote in the run-off...
This is exactly how the majority of democracies on the planet function.
So, I can have a package shipped across the ocean in less than a week, but the USPS can't get ballots to local election offices in a month? Yeah, that's fishy...
Why do liberals think turning small states into occupied territories with virtually no electoral power is any way to run a democracy?
I mean, if you think lines drawn by a government, in an ad hoc fashion over several centuries deserve more respect than human beings, I dunno if you can say you're someone who believes in personal liberty.
And apparently you don't think "all men are created equal" is a democratic norm here.
Hyperbole. States exist for a reason, that reason is to represent you and your interests. People in Idaho shouldn't have to rely on people thousands of miles away, who never interact with them nor think about them, to vote for their interests. Geography isn't outdated, it is still very real. Some states have different occupations, incomes, lifestyles, they are different people with different needs. Giving a handful of major groups in the U.S dictatorial power over the rest will never serve those who don't live in one of the 146 counties (out of over 3000) that host half the population.
Why should these blue counties rule over
all of the grey counties, and why on earth would we even think for a second that if they did rule over them, they would act in their interests rather than in their own? How often do you think about the needs of Lancaster county? They border me and even I don't.
Bottom line, state by state representation is the only fair way to account for all groups in the United States without anyone being left behind.
You can't talk about a lack of representation but want Presidential elections to be decided by a mere popular vote, which makes large parts of the country lose representation entirely and permanently. The EC has its flaws as does any winner take all system, which is why I agree with Deltago's view that a split electoral system by vote proportions is the right way to go.
This literally makes no sense. They still have representation. Equal representation. Completely equal representation. Every single vote would count, and would count equally.
Biden's probably going to win WI/MI and maybe PA and GA. His path to 270+ is very strong. The polls missed heavily in the upper midwest, and with Latino voters elsewhere. National polls look like they were less off.
We're going to have to see how that all shakes out. In 2018, the polls were above average in quality (although still missed Florida).
Comments
This looks like it will ultimately go to Biden, but still too early to call as of yet. The Senate looks to be staying red so it will be a largely uneventful 4 years.
I probably won't post as much in the next political era. It simply won't be as interesting.
It was an interesting time no doubt, my most worthy adversary. I also don't know how much I have left in the tank for this anymore. I always felt if Trump was removed I would leave this battlefield, so to speak. I might feel different in a couple weeks, and we still don't know what shenanigans will take place. It's been nice to discuss things we can agree on in other threads, like the greatness of Morrowind.
Yeah I'm going to have to see more numbers to buy this. I'm curious where the final Texas vote ends up. It's now a 6% margin, which still means they clipped that lead down from 9%. Disappointing but still significant progress towards a goal that will transform US politics.
And the Arizona result belies some of this concern about the Latino vote. I'm sort of thinking what we saw instead was just the very peculiar demographics of Florida at work. It really is the only part of the nation so far where we are seeing Trump increase his 2016 margins.
What's the future for the Republican party? That's the real urgent question. One popular vote win the past eight presidential elections is a worse performance than the New Deal era.
Mathematical formulas are only as good as the assumptions used to formulate them...
It, quite literally, does not matter. The popular vote divide is an artifact of polarization at the extremes and actually means very little electorally. Trump won the popular vote in the vast majority of states, which is why he won in 2016 in the first place. Subtract California alone, and Trump wins the popular vote nationally. California is a deep blue stronghold and is simply not going red, so appealing to Californians isn't a winning strategy. Speaking to the rest of the country is.
It just goes to show how one or two big states with extreme politics can mangle the data on the rest of the country and obscure the reality.
As I said previously, splitting the electoral college votes by that states actual vote is a better and more accurate system than the winner take all and would probably improve turnout in non swing states.
My point: a just simplified just ‘the popular vote’ has more negatives than positives. A hybrid system, like a parliamentary system, is better for representation.
I mean it's way better than the current system, but it's still unnecessary. I don't have the energy to get into the Federalist Papers or John Locke right now but let's just take a pair of American platitudes.
1. All men are created equal
2. No taxation without representation
You cannot be kosher with those platitudes while creating systems of unequal representation. Doing so means that you effectively believe that some men are more equal than others. Even if you're not willing to say it aloud.
I honestly think we are on the same page with very minor differences. I just misunderstood you the first time around.
The aggregators like 538 aren't the problem. The polling is the problem. They can only work with the data they have. It isn't AS off as it seemed it was last night, but it's still WAY off in the battlegrounds.
Why do conservatives think chopping off 10% of the country they don't like is an argument you can make in defense of democratic norms?
Edit to add: Also your math is bad. Clinton's margin in Cali was about +4.7 million. Trump will lose the national popular vote by more than that. So I guess there's another 5% you want to justify arbitrarily excising?
Finding people willing to be polled is the problem. I haven't answered one cold call in 3 months and I'm not alone. I used to wonder why I never got called in these polls. Now I get so many robo-calls and bullshit texts that they couldn't even pay me to participate in one. The formulas try to make up for the fact that people just aren't as willing to participate as they used to be.
New York...........
(City)
But winning 55 of 538 electoral votes is 10.2%
Clinton's 8.75 million votes there was only 6.7% of the vote.
There were more Trump voters in California than Pennsylvania. The Electoral College gave them zero representation. A popular vote would crack California's vote, diluting its power in a pool of voters. As opposed to having a unified vote in a pool of Electors.
100% correct.
Giving arbitrary lines on a map politicial power has lead to tyranny of the minority where one party has lost 7 of the last 8 votes but has placed 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.
Why do liberals think turning small states into occupied territories with virtually no electoral power is any way to run a democracy? I can ask loaded questions too. There is no "democratic norm" being violated when Republicans pick up the majority of states but fail to pick up California. In fact, it makes a good case that they are more representative of the different groups that compromise the country than if the opposite happened, and they were soundly rejected by the majority of states but won by massive margins in the two most populated areas.
I thought it was obvious I was comparing the 2016 state vote with the 2016 popular vote, the only comparison that makes sense. And I double checked that for good measure, and I'm right about that.
You can't talk about a lack of representation but want Presidential elections to be decided by a mere popular vote, which makes large parts of the country lose representation entirely and permanently. The EC has its flaws as does any winner take all system, which is why I agree with Deltago's view that a split electoral system by vote proportions is the right way to go.
I'd be game for that. I'd go further and say that no president should represent less than 50% of voters. If neither party can get a plurality, a 2nd election is held with only the two leading vote getters on the ballot. No 3rd party bullshit allowed. Choose one or the other or don't vote in the run-off...
I mean, if you think lines drawn by a government, in an ad hoc fashion over several centuries deserve more respect than human beings, I dunno if you can say you're someone who believes in personal liberty.
And apparently you don't think "all men are created equal" is a democratic norm here.
Edit to add: Frankly your histrionics reveal an unwillingness to be honest in this debate, I have to say. I haven't called for abolishing the tenth amendment, so plenty of power is still given to each state. This "occupied territory" point is absurd, and frankly offensive to marshal in defense of wanting to control the federal government despite getting fewer humans to support your side.
Secondly you're not getting "zero representation" you are getting representation proportional to the number of humans that live in your area. Why should you get more representation than humans who live in a different part of the country? Because you don't like that part?
This is exactly how the majority of democracies on the planet function.
Unfortunately the U.K. is not one of them
Hyperbole. States exist for a reason, that reason is to represent you and your interests. People in Idaho shouldn't have to rely on people thousands of miles away, who never interact with them nor think about them, to vote for their interests. Geography isn't outdated, it is still very real. Some states have different occupations, incomes, lifestyles, they are different people with different needs. Giving a handful of major groups in the U.S dictatorial power over the rest will never serve those who don't live in one of the 146 counties (out of over 3000) that host half the population.
Why should these blue counties rule over
all of the grey counties, and why on earth would we even think for a second that if they did rule over them, they would act in their interests rather than in their own? How often do you think about the needs of Lancaster county? They border me and even I don't.
Bottom line, state by state representation is the only fair way to account for all groups in the United States without anyone being left behind.
This literally makes no sense. They still have representation. Equal representation. Completely equal representation. Every single vote would count, and would count equally.
Biden's probably going to win WI/MI and maybe PA and GA. His path to 270+ is very strong. The polls missed heavily in the upper midwest, and with Latino voters elsewhere. National polls look like they were less off.
We're going to have to see how that all shakes out. In 2018, the polls were above average in quality (although still missed Florida).