131 stories
·
1 follower

New national polls are disastrous for Trump — and state polls aren’t much better

2 Comments and 3 Shares
President Donald Trump isn’t catching up with Democratic nominee Joe Biden, according to new 2020 election polls. | Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Joe Biden’s polling lead has gotten huge. But Trump could still make up a lot of ground.

With millions of votes already cast and just three weeks until Election Day, President Donald Trump does not appear to be making up ground in his reelection race against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

An ABC News/Washington Post national poll released Sunday found Biden leading Trump with likely voters by 12 percentage points, 54 percent to 42 percent, with the Libertarian and Green Party candidates together attracting just 3 percent of likely voters. The poll was conducted entirely after Trump’s October 5 discharge from Walter Reed Medical Center, where he was treated for Covid-19. It shows Biden doubling his lead from the last ABC/Post poll, which found Biden up 6 percentage points in late September.

These days, a 12 percentage point national lead for Biden is largely in line with overall polling averages. FiveThirtyEight gives the Democratic candidate a 10.4 percentage point average lead, while Real Clear Politics puts Biden’s average lead at 9.8 percentage points.

And the ABC/Washington Post results align with other recent polls as well. The University of Southern California’s tracking poll also posted new findings on Sunday and found Biden up 11.75 percentage points. A massive Pew Research Center poll, which surveyed more than 10,500 voters, showed a 10 point lead for Biden earlier this week.

This has been a steady race, with Biden holding a meaningful lead throughout the campaign — a marked difference from 2016, when the polls were much more volatile. Trump needs good news if he’s going to turn his campaign around. He’s not getting it.

Trump continues to poll poorly in key swing states

All of these polls were conducted nationally, and, of course, presidential elections are not won by the national popular vote. However, Trump hasn’t made much progress in the battleground states he will need to win to secure 270 votes in the Electoral College, either.

Fresh CBS News polling, taken from October 6 to 9, found Biden leading Trump by 6 percentage points in Michigan and tied in Iowa, both states that Trump won in 2016. The new polling also showed Biden enjoying a 6 percentage point edge in Nevada, a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that Democrats want to hold in 2020.

New battleground-state polls from Baldwin Wallace University showed Biden beating Trump in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (with a 5 percentage point lead in the former and a 7 percentage point lead in the latter).

If he can’t win at least one state in the Midwestern trifecta — Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin — that won him the White House in 2016, Trump effectively has no path to 270 Electoral College votes, barring the highly unlikely scenario that he is able to flip states considered safely Democratic on election night.

In the most important swing states, the odds are against Trump right now, based on FiveThirtyEight’s polling average:

  • In Michigan, Biden is averaging an 8 percentage point lead over Trump
  • Biden enjoys an average lead of 7.3 percentage points in Pennsylvania
  • Biden is also leading Trump by 7.2 percentage points on average in Wisconsin

Two of the more Republican Midwestern states, Iowa and Ohio, are also drifting away from Trump after he won them by 8 percentage points or more in 2016:

  • Biden currently holds a 1 percentage point lead in the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Iowa
  • The former vice president is also ahead by an average of 0.7 percentage points in Ohio

Biden also leads Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points in both Arizona and Florida, two additional states Trump won in 2016 that Democrats don’t need to win to prevail in the Electoral College, but that would pad the margins of a Biden victory — making it harder for the president to challenge the results.

Trump, meanwhile, doesn’t appear to be in serious competition to win any of the states where Clinton triumphed in 2016. Minnesota and Nevada have been considered the most likely targets for any map expansion on Trump’s part, but Biden is leading by 9.2 percentage points in the former and 6.8 percentage points in the latter, per the FiveThirtyEight averages.

Taking Biden’s strength in national and state polling together, FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 election forecast gives Biden 86 in 100 odds of winning the presidency. That is substantially higher than Clinton’s 71 percent chance on Election Day 2016.

Biden’s strong polls don’t mean he will win the presidency

Biden’s apparent advantage doesn’t mean Trump can’t win, as Real Clear Politics analyst Sean Trende emphasized on Twitter. Because of the Electoral College’s rightward lean, Trump could lose the popular vote by several percentage points and still win enough states (by holding onto Florida, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, for starters) to win a majority in the Electoral College.

How could that happen? Well, the polls could tighten over the final weeks of the race, as undecided voters make up their minds, and perhaps as Republicans skeptical of Trump ultimately decide to stick with their party. Pollsters could also be missing some Trump voters, leading them to underestimate his support as they did in critical states in the 2016 election.

In an interview with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner, Trende pointed to Trump’s job approval — currently a few points higher (43.6 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average) than his average support in election polls (41.9 percent) — as one possible indicator of Trump’s ability to make up ground in the final weeks.

But, at this point, it seems fair to say everything would need to break right for Trump, and the polls would once again need to be significantly wrong, for the president to win another term. The New York Times has a feature that estimates what the 2020 result would be if the state polls are as far off as they were in 2016 and, even under that scenario, it still projects a Biden win.

Of course, when using polls to attempt to predict future events, it is important to never say never. The 2016 election was a searing reminder that events with a 1-in-4 or 1-in-6 chance of happening can, and do, happen.

But with millions of people having already voted — and many others having already made up their minds — the polls suggest time may be running out for Trump to shake up the 2020 campaign.


Will you help keep Vox free for all?

The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
2 public comments
rlauzon
13 days ago
reply
Gotta keep up the false Narrative, I suppose.
JimB
13 days ago
reply
Don't be complacent. Vote for Biden, the candidate that isn't trump!

Nurses Unite!

1 Comment and 2 Shares

A huge win for the National Nurses Union and all those who undertake the herculean task of organizing the South!

It’s a new day at HCA’s Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, for registered nurses, for their patients, their community, and as a message to nurses and all workers across the South.
 
In the first private sector hospital union election win in North Carolina, the largest at any nonunion hospital in the South since 1975 – RNs at Mission voted this week by a stunning 70 percent to join the nation’s largest RN union to secure a powerful voice for improved care and workplace safety. For labor as a whole, it is also believed to be the largest union election win in the South in 12 years.

The nurses voted by 965 to 411 –  a 70 percent landslide – to join the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, in a secret, mail-in ballot election conducted and counted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The vote count was completed early Thursday morning.

NNOC will now represent 1,800 RNs at Mission. Overall, NNU, the largest U.S. union of RNs, represents more than 155,000 RNs.
 
Along the way, the Mission RNs prevailed over a heavily funded anti-union campaign by the hospital owner, HCA, the largest hospital system in the United States, and arguably the most politically and economically influential giant in the hospital industry.
 
The nurses endured months of delay before the election was held in a state with the second lowest unionization rate in the country. They confronted a regulatory climate hostile to unions and workers’ rights passed down by corporate interests and the Trump administration. They also faced the added challenge of conducting a huge union organizing campaign in the midst of the most dangerous pandemic in a century.

Next is the challenge of actually getting a contract, but the large majority of victory is extremely promising that the hospital won’t be able to stall out of this.

If the union movement is ever going to recover in this nation, organizing the South is absolutely necessary. If anything it’s even more so than it was in 1950 because so many more jobs are there now than in the deindustrializing states of the old industrial union belt. This is a gigantic victory and we should cheer the NNU.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
rlauzon
37 days ago
reply
How stupid.

The purpose of a union is to protect the incompetent. By voting to unionize, they have just admitted that they have a bunch of incompetent nurses in their organization.
fancycwabs
37 days ago
No, no. That's just police unions.
rlauzon
37 days ago
My dad was in the teacher's union for 40+ years. I worked with the UAW for 15 years. It's not just the police union. It's **every** union.
fancycwabs
37 days ago
All the Fox News personalities are protected by SAG - AFTRA oh wait maybe you have a point.
rlauzon
37 days ago
So are CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. and the rest of the Media.
sfrazer
36 days ago
This is largely a problem with how unions are run in the US (compared to, say, Germany) -- The unions have no stake in how the company fares, they get all their power from the membership of the union. If they had a stake in the success of the company, they'd be more willing to let poor employees go. All of this ignores that health-care shouldn't be a market-based business, of course.

Ignore the CDC, former top health experts say. Some states already have

1 Comment and 2 Shares
A security guard walks on the grounds of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S, on Saturday, March 14, 2020.

Enlarge / A security guard walks on the grounds of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S, on Saturday, March 14, 2020. (credit: Getty | Bloomberg)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is promoting policies that will prolong the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, states and local leaders should disregard the agency and strike out on their own. That’s according to Harold Varmus, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist and former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Rajiv Shah, the former administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and current president of the Rockefeller Foundation.

The two laid out their argument against the CDC in a searing opinion piece in the New York Times Monday, titled: “It Has Come to This: Ignore the CDC.”

Varmus and Shah’s dramatic disavowal of the country’s leading public health agency was spurred by its abrupt changes last week to COVID-19 testing guidance, which now discourage testing of people who have been exposed to the pandemic coronavirus, but do not have symptoms.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
rlauzon
53 days ago
reply
So it's "follow the CDC guidelines" when it's helpful to the Narrarive.

But when the CDC publishes facts that counter the Narrative, it's "ignore the CDC".

Wow! Can Lefties get more hypocritical than that?
nocko
53 days ago
Blocking users on Newsblur, when?
rlauzon
53 days ago
When Lefties can see their own hypocracy? No, that will never happen.
rlauzon
53 days ago
Maybe when Snowflakes can handle opinions that don't match their own? No. That won't happen either.
nocko
53 days ago
Presumably you support "Freedom"... I'd prefer to have the freedom to choose not to see "I'm a high school republican"-level analysis. Think of it like a free markets (you like those, right?). Feel free to post your comments, but you're selling worthless garbage. We should be able to choose not to buy it.
nocko
53 days ago
If anyone else would appreciate a 'block user' feature, perhaps this is the best place for feedback: https://forum.newsblur.com/t/please-please-can-we-have-a-block-user-option/6529/5

CDC guide to reopening was trashed by the Trump admin. It just leaked

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Huge facade for CDC headquarters against a beautiful sky.

Enlarge / Signage stands outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S, on Saturday, March 14, 2020. (credit: Getty | Bloomberg)

Public health experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have leaked their recommendations on how to safely reopen businesses amid the COVID-19 pandemic—after officials in the Trump administration rejected the guidance and allegedly told CDC officials their plan would "never see the light of day."

The 17-page document (PDF found here) was initially set to be published last Friday but was nixed. Instead, it was released to the Associated Press by a CDC official who was not authorized to release it.

The guidance lays out detailed, phased recommendations for how to safely reopen child care programs, schools, day camps, faith communities, businesses with vulnerable workers, restaurants, bars, and mass transit. Though some of the general points laid out already appear on federal websites—such as an emphasis on hand hygiene—the document uniquely offers tailored recommendations for each type of business.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
rlauzon
170 days ago
reply
That's because the CDC guide to reopening **was** trash.
SteveRB511
170 days ago
On the other hand, being trashed by an administration lead by a juvenile pathological liar does indicate that it may have a lot going for it and serves as a positive endorsement to read it.
rlauzon
170 days ago
Only to ignorant leftie elites. The real pandemic is Trump Derangement Syncrome - not COVID-19.
SteveRB511
170 days ago
That response sounds quite emotionally charged. Every day Trump tells on himself, as does his record even before he became a presidential candidate. One doesn't need detractors like MSNBC & CNN on the left or apologists like Fox on the right to let people who are willing to open their eyes to see what he is. Quite frankly, the level of mindless emotionalism that American politics is degenerating down to and the overall lack of quality presidential candidates in a country of over 328 million is quite disturbing with respect to the future of this country. As a life-long Republican, the lack of a thoughtful, intelligent, and capable conservative leader as a presidential candidate is particularly troubling.

Meanwhile, in Austin... pic.twitter.com/TDl9JItUbG

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Meanwhile, in Austin... pic.twitter.com/TDl9JItUbG







3482 likes, 467 retweets
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
rlauzon
175 days ago
reply
He's lying. It was me. Wife made beans last night.

As more studies roll in, little evidence that hydroxychloroquine works

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Kimberly Wyss, from Ventura, Calif., dons surgical gloves aboard the hospital ship USNS <em>Mercy </em>(T-AH 19).

Enlarge / Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Kimberly Wyss, from Ventura, Calif., dons surgical gloves aboard the hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19). (credit: flickr)

A study observing COVID-19 patients has found no evidence that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, touted as a possible treatment for COVID-19, made a difference to the chance that patients would need a ventilator. The results also suggested that patients treated with hydroxychloroquine had a higher rate of death than those who weren’t treated with the drug.

The study was not a randomized clinical trial, which means that the evidence it offers is tentative and should be interpreted with caution. It was also published on preprint server medRxiv, which means it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

But interpreting the evidence with caution does not mean disregarding it completely. This study is one of a growing number telling us that we don't yet know enough about hydroxychloroquine, adding more weight to the argument that we need to wait for better-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials before we start widespread use of a drug with significant side effects.

Premature

Some small studies have given us reasons to think that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could have potential as treatments for COVID-19. In some cases, the findings come from experiments in cultured cells, which won't necessarily translate directly to using the drugs in sick humans. In others, the findings come from small studies that have critical flaws like using very small groups of patients, having no control group, or excluding patients who died from analysis.

“Normally, such research would be deemed hypothesis-generating at best,” wrote doctors Jinoos Yazdany and Alfred Kim in an opinion piece in the Annals of Internal Medicine. And they were released at the same time that other early studies were finding no evidence that these drugs help COVID-19 patients.

However, early hype—including repeated promotion from President Trump—led to a runaway train of enthusiasm for the drugs. The Food and Drug Administration authorized treatment of COVID-19 patients with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine despite the lack of good evidence for their efficacy, sparking backlash from former FDA leaders.

These drugs have a range of possible adverse effects, including serious cardiac damage. Using them for critically ill COVID-19 patients therefore not only runs the risk of not helping, but also of actively harming people. The worldwide run on the drugs and resulting shortages are also a problem for patients using them for conditions like lupus, where they have been found to be effective.

A range of clinical trials are now underway to establish whether these drugs are actually beneficial. In the meantime, the FDA authorization means that there is a growing pile of data from patients who have been treated with them.

Testing on the fly

The US Veterans Health Administration is a national system of clinics, hospitals and other medical centers. Because it’s a single organization, data on patients is gathered in a consistent way, which makes it easier for researchers to compare apples with apples.

A team of researchers used VHA data to track the outcomes of confirmed COVID-19 patients at veterans hospitals who were treated with just hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus an antibiotic, or neither of the drugs. They found that 27.8 percent of the 97 patients treated with just hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 11.4 percent of the 158 patients who weren’t treated with hydroxychloroquine at all, and 22.1 percent of the 113 patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic. Rates of ventilation were similar across the three groups.

This evidence is weaker than a randomized controlled trial because the patients who were given different treatments may have had other important differences to begin with. In a randomized trial, patients are assigned different treatments (or a placebo) randomly, which means that different groups should all have a roughly similar mix of people who are very sick or only a little bit sick, old and young, and so on.

In a retrospective study like this one, the doctors may have given the hydroxychloroquine treatment only to the sickest patients, in which case we’d expect that group to have worse outcomes. There are ways to try to account for this lack of randomization in the statistical tests that researchers use to calculate the risks across different groups, but these adjustments require the researchers to work out what other factors might complicate the analysis—a difficult challenge with a random population like this one.

The patients also weren’t representative of the wider population. They were all men and all older than 59 years, which means that the results wouldn’t necessarily be the same in younger groups or among women.

The results don’t mean that hydroxychloroquine is definitely useless or that clinical trials should be halted. Recent NIH guidance for clinicians treating COVID-19 patients says that there currently isn’t enough evidence to recommend for or against treating with hydroxychloroquine, and that remains true.

But they do offer more evidence suggesting that we don’t yet know enough to forge ahead with using the drugs as treatment. The authors of the study acknowledge the shortcomings of their own work but argue that the results nonetheless “highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

Read Comments

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
rlauzon
184 days ago
reply
So Ars is now Leftie Propaganda. Good Bye.
Next Page of Stories