Joe Biden is more likely to win the 2020 election than Donald Trump
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Resolved: As of now (June 2020), Joe Biden is more likely than Donald Trump to win the election.
- Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
- Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
- Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
- Third-party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
- Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
- Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
- Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
- Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
- Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
- Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
- Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
- Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
- Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
- Contests: There are no serious contests for the incumbent party nomination
- Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president
- Third-party: There are no significant third party or independent campaigns, as of right now
- Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
- Party mandate: Not only did Trump lose 41 seats in the House of Representatives, but they also got clobbered in the popular vote tally. The GOP lost the House popular vote 44.8% to 53.4% . Even though they picked up seats in the Senate, they lost the Senate popular vote by 20 points . Trump also lost the popular vote in 2016 by more than 2 million votes.
- Short-term economy: With the COVID-19 crisis, we've lost millions of jobs and are now in recession. The unemployment rate is well over 13%, and that's probably an undercount .
- Social unrest: Obvious
- Scandal: Obvious as well. Even if you disagree with impeachment, the facts remain that Trump has had a scandalous presidency. I doubt Fauxlaw will challenge this key
- Incumbent charisma: Trump is no national hero, and he is nowhere near as charismatic as Reagan, Kennedy, or FDR were.
- Foreign/military success: Trump has failed to achieve any major foreign military success. He said he would defeat ISIS in 30-days, but he hasn't. He failed to achieve what Obama achieved by killing bin Laden or Bush did by toppling Hussein.
- Foreign/military failure: Trump has failed to secure America from Russian hacking, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, making the middle east a more dangerous place, and his negotiations with North Korea have also failed. We also recently learned that Russia put a bounty on US troops in Afghanistan.
- Wisconsin: Biden is up by about 8 points 
- Michigan: Biden is up by about 5 points 
- Pennsylvania: Biden is up by 5-6 points 
- Arizona: Biden is up by about 5-11 points 
I.a For an argument demonstrating why and how Joe Biden is likely to be elected over Donald Trump, Donald Trump was the target of Pro’s argument, and not that Joe Biden would be a better President. Pro offers 13 points, 6 of which must disfavor an incumbent President to spell his loss. If the argument were mashed potatoes taste better than ice cream, then the criticisms against ice cream yield a victory: It’s fattening, it doesn’t hold up in heat, kids prefer it on their face than in their mouth… but how do these demonstrate that mashed potatoes taste better? Is it inferred? I am not convinced.
I.b Pro lists 7 of 13 points; seven ice creams over mashed potatoes, if you will. We’ll address a few:
I.b.1 Party mandate:Yes, Trump lost seats in the midterm, 2018, but so did Obama in 2010, Bush 43 in 2006, Clinton in 1994, Bush 41 in 1990, Reagan in 1982. It’s typical for a president to lose House seats in a first midterm.[i]
I.b.2 Short-term economy:Standard economic assessment declares a recession only after two full quarters of loss by measure of real GDP. “…the long-term macroeconomic trend in most countries has been economic growth. Along with this long-term growth, however, have been short-term fluctuations when major macroeconomic indicators have shown slowdowns or even outright declining performance, over time frames of six months up to several years, before returning to their long-term growth trend. These short-term declines are known as recessions.”[ii] Not enough months, yet, for the argument. It’s already climbing, again.[iii]
I.b.3 Social unrest: There has been social unrest virtually continuously from June 2015 when Trump declared his candidacy to the present presidential election cycle of 2020, and all one on side of the political spectrum due to the continued belief that Trump is an illegitimate President, though elected by Constitutional means.[iv]
I.b.4 Scandal:Pro challenged that I will not address this factor. As above, the scandal is entirely one-sided, and began before the election of 2016. Russia collusion, the Steele dossier, Bob Mueller Report, Stormy Daniels, the pee tapes, Putin’s puppet, the Wall, takedown of NAFTA, the Iran Deal, NATO, Covid-19 response, et al, are all entirely Democrat-originated and fed ‘scandals’ lapped up by a radical mob.[v]
I.b.5 Foreign/military success:Moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. At least since 1992, every President has promised to move the US Embassy to, and declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol, but only Trump did it.[vi] Five more Pro BoP fails.
II Rebuttal: Polls: as of now, speculation
II.a Political polls have several flaws up to about 6 weeks prior to the election, and, sometimes, even after that.
II.a.1 The target polling sample population is of registered voters. Registered voters are notoriously fickle about actually voting as a block, regardless of candidate. Between 2000 and 2016, the percentages of registered voters who voted are: 54.2, 60.4, 62.3, 57.5, and 49.9.[vii]
II.a.2 These values average 56.8%, meaning 43.2% of registered voters since 2000 did not vote. The more accurate polling sample population is likely voters,but until six weeks prior to the election, about mid-September, that sample population is unknown.
II.a.2.A And yet, Pro claims that by barely half of registered voters, they will “more likely” elect Joe Biden. Less than half of registered voters is not likely enough. BoP failure by Pro.
II. b There’s an interesting comment from Pew Research about polling accuracy: “A comprehensive review of polling accuracy published in 2018 found that ‘relying on vote intention polls from more than 200 elections in 32 countries over a period of more than 70 years, there is no evidence that poll errors have increased over time….’”[viii]
II.b.1 The agenda of that statement is the claim that polling accuracy evidence shows no “poll errors have increased” over time. That’s a self-serving statement to ignore the obvious: the statement does not mean there are no errors; just that errors have not increased. In other words, political polls have errors, but, like the media, Pew Research is not going to admit it. There are other polling errors, and they include:
II.b.1.A Political polls ask too many questions. According to the Six Sigma Black Belt Certification Manual,[ix] [a statistical analysis model, and I am a certified SSBB, retired] polling questions should number no more than ten. After that, polling subjects tire of the poll, and will likely give any answer just to be rid of the poll.[x]
II.b.1.B Polls use a statistical model called Margin of Error,which is a pre-determined calculation of polling accuracy based on the sample population quantity. MoE is reflected as a plus/minus percentage reflecting a margin that is fully twice the percentage noted, such as ±3%, meaning that the total scope of potential error is 6%. MoE means that of a sample population of n,the expected error rate applied against the poll results is potentially in error by that percentage. The best MoE that can be achieved is probably ±2.5%.[xi] The details of political polls report an MoE of, rarely ±3%, typically more, making them augmentively less accurate.
II.b.1.C The sample population group nis a carefully calculated number based on a desired MoE, and is is intended to represent the entire population; in this case, of likely voters, which is not the full adult population of the U.S., but consists only of registered voters who, in fact, plan to vote. So registered voters is an invalid population because half of them will not vote. For an MoE of ±3% in the 2016 election, the sample population must have been n= 1,068 respondents to the poll.[xii] Few political polls collect that many samples.
II.b.1.D Of the sample population n,it is expected that an equivalent number of political parties by population be in the polling sample, i.e. the equivalent number of Democrats and Republicans, at least. This is seldom the case. In 2016, a Pew Research poll of Sept 15-18 polled a total of 1,000 adults [insufficient number] of which 365 were Democrats, 325 were Republicans, and the balance were undeclared or Independent.[xiii] The MoE was ±4.1% [too high] for registered voters.[xiv] The resulting poll [surprise!] favored the election of Hillary Clinton.
II.c Pew Research published an article following the 2016 election asking why the polls had that election so wrong. They said, “Pollsters don’t have a clear diagnosis yet for the misfires, and it will likely be some time before we know for sure what happened.”[xv] One might refer them to the above arguments, II.b.1.A – II.b.1.D, and the nearest Six Sigma Black Belt. Six Pro BoP fails.
III Argument: Why Trump will win in 2020
III.a A few Trump successes:
III.a.1 Every president since 1992, at least, has promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. None but Trump did it.[xvi]
III.b No President since Truman dared to meet face-to-face with North Korea. Trump did.[xvii]
III.c No President, Roosevelt through Obama, Republican or Democrat. Passed a tax cut package the size of Trump’s. His corporate tax cut was 43%, largest in a century.[xviii]
III.d No modern president since Roosevelt, at least, has achieved the minorities’ unemployment rate reached by Trump.[xix]
III.e Carter’s Iran disaster was legendary. Obama’s deal ensured Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2025. He caved to Iran, giving them $1.3B plus $400M in cash.[xx]
III.f Clinton declared a substantive deal in 1994 with NoKo, but never met with Rocketman’s father. The deal was violated almost immediately, which was meant to deter NoKo’s advances in achieving a nuclear missile delivery system. They have it, and have had it since 2002.[xxi]
III.g Obama’s economy lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history in 2011, costing us billions in new interest payments on the debt.[xxii]
III.h Obama’s increase in market value was by artificial infusion of cash [Q.E.] from the Federal Reserve. Artificial infusion cannot sustain the market, and it didn’t. People look at the rise of the market during Obama, but ignore its numerous falls. While overall, the market grew from 8,000 to 18,000, it also lost 6,000 points in his 8 years; a net gain of an ordinary 4,000 points.[xxiii]
See comments for list of references.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, to the Congress and to publish this determination in the Federal Register.The suspension set forth in this determination shall take effect after you transmit this determination and the required accompanying report to the Congress.
S&P, Aug. 5, 2011: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. …
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee [of Congress] decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.
I.a It appears by forfeit of the last 2 rounds, half the rounds, I regret that Pro has fully forfeited the debate. Nevertheless, I will offer a final defense and conclusion:
II Defense: A review of defended arguments
II.a Pro proposed that Professor Allen Lichtman offered 13 factors, and six of which, if false, would spell defeat for President Trump in re-election. Of the 13 factors, I demonstrated over rounds 1 & 2 that Lichtman’s list failed to find Trump lacking in Party mandate, social unrest, scandal, foreign/military success, political polls, incumbent charisma, and foreign/military failure, 7 of the 13 factors, and Pro already acknowledged that Trump had 4 of them already in his favor, or 11 of 13 factors are in Trump’s favor. Failed BoP by Pro.
II.b In Pro’s r2, he refuted my r1 rebuttal that Trump’s move of the U.S. Embassy was a weak success because Palestine complained about it. My r2 rebuttal to the weak claim went unchallenged in Pro’s r3, by forfeit, thus securing the foreign policy/military failure claimed by Pro. Failed BoP.
II.c In Pro’s r2, he refuted my r1 rebuttal that Trump’s handling of NoKo was a failure. My return defense demonstrated that no President since Truman, including Truman, ever met face-to-face with the NoKo leader, but that Trump has done so twice. The defense went unchallenged in Pro’s r3, by forfeit, thus securing the foreign policy/military failure claimed by Pro. Failed BoP.
II.d In Pro’s r1, Pro claimed Trump’s tax cut was not the biggest in history. I acknowledged it was not, making 1 of 2 Lichtman factors Pro wins. It’s not enough; Pro claimed there must be 6 failures for the incumbent to lose the election. Failed BoP.
II.e In Pro’s r1, he claimed that Trump failed on the economy. I rebutted in r2 that a major hit to the economy was the Obama failure to maintain our AAA credit rating, lost in 2011. Pro’s reply in his r2: “So what?” My r3 defense was that the U.S. has maintained a prime, AAA rating since 1949, and lost it only during Obama’s watch. That defense went unchallenged in rt3, r4 by forfeit. Failed BoP.
II.f In my r1, I challenged Pro that Trump’s handling of Covid-19 was a failure by polling statistics. In my r2, I defended my sourced claim that the polls were flawed by an insufficient poll sample, an excessive margin of error, and skewed Party numbers favoring Democrats. Pro never responded to my defense, forfeiting r2, r3. Failed BoP.
III Unchallenged rebuttals
III.a In my r2, I challenged Pro to demonstrate that Joe Biden was the full measure of Barack Obama, worthy to inherit the former President’s legacy. The challenge went unmet. Failure by Pro.
III.b In my r2, I challenged Pro to offer positive reasons why Joe Biden would win the election, rather than concentrating on tearing down President Trump. This challenge, as well, went unmet. Failure by Pro.