US Election Week 2020

[Sheilbh]

People will comment on politics at work, but things are kept civil. I mean, my senior boss is very conservative, and I'm fairly liberal, but we work quite well together because we align generally quite well on work stuff.

Yeah in the workplace you still have to be able to work with people. I don't know many of my colleagues opinions - I mean, I have a few colleagues who are SNP supporters, work with some clients who support Brexit and at least one who was a massive Trump fan (since moved to another firm). You just get on with it.

Edit: Oh and I have one colleague who is very involved in the Greens

[Tonitrus]

It's good for people to discuss such things outside their echo chambers.

I often wondered myself whether this taboo is good for democracy.  On the one hand, you clearly want to avoid situations where people get at each others' throats in the workplace.  On the other hand, workplace is the one place where people of different political views are intermingling.  Maybe it would help keep the heat down if we had people discussing politics where there is some pressure to keep things civil.

I'm more specifically in the military-workplace context.  I think it is very important there.

But I also wondered if the difference might be that for Brits (as I understand it), their head of the armed forces is technically good Queen Liz, while our Commander in Chief is a more political office.

[Syt]

In other election news, the new Mississippi flag has been approved.

[Caliga]

MAH HERITAGE 

[Solmyr]

If you want even more excitement:

[Caliga]

CNN just called Wisconsin for Biden (the first flip state they've actually called).

[Barrister]

Former Wisconsin Governor (and full-on Trump supporter) on Twitter:

After recount in 2011 race for WI Supreme Court, there was a swing of 300 votes. After recount in 2016 Presidential race in WI,
@realDonaldTrump
numbers went up by 131.

As I said, 20,000 is a high hurdle. #Election2020

https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/1324002777597677569

[Sheilbh]

But I also wondered if the difference might be that for Brits (as I understand it), their head of the armed forces is technically good Queen Liz, while our Commander in Chief is a more political office.

I think that's key. And it's one of the bits where I think the monarchy is a little more than a technicality - the forces, from my experience, take the Queen and their royal patron pretty seriously. There's a lot of respect.

While no politician is entitled to respect. I think it's true of British society in general (for the Queen - probably not Charles) but especially strong in the military.

It must be really challenging in the US military at the minute. Because the Queen does the "dignified" bits of the state here and in the US Presidents have traditionally been able to pivot and know when they act as head of state. Trump doesn't.

The flipside is that the military in the UK do not like being dragged into politics or used as a prop. The only politician I can think of who's done the speech with a backdrop of soldiers is Blair and it went down badly (and was seen to reflect badly on commanders for letting it happen) and even there it's only for "state" matters not politics. I've never seen us go as far as the Aussies in this video, but I hope something similar would happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heDGha25f9w

[alfred russel]

I wonder if the reason polls got it so wrong this year was because of the shy Trump voters that were assumed to not exist anymore.  If you think about it, you've got more to be shy about in 2020 than in 2016 if you're voting for Trump. 

It may also be that Trump voters are not even shy with others, but rather themselves.  They don't want to say out loud that they're going to vote for that man, because they are ashamed of it.  They're just going to quietly vote for him, because reasons.  The deplorables in the trucks aren't ashamed of it, but maybe a Republican doctor is.

The "shy trump voters" gets some ridicule because of how in your face Trump support is in rural areas around here...and I want to say it is insane. I don't get it at all, but Trump even got over 90% of the vote in one Georgia county with turnout off the charts. He had a rally in Rome, Georgia (a small town) a few days ago and it was basically standing room only 2.5 hours before the rally--there was a story of a guy who was decided to skip I guess the big event of the past few years in Rome (Trump visiting) so he could keep going door to door to try to encourage people to vote.

But in urban/suburban areas...I'm in a really wealthy congressional district that went for Romney over Obama 61-38 (23 point margin). In 2016, those margins were destroyed--Trump only won by a point --48-47. I don't see much visible support for Trump, but half of people must be supporting him. I don't know anyone at work that admits to supporting Trump, but coworkers are very open about supporting Biden.

I had the thought on the way to the polls--it was a terrible impression for last minute voters. The largest Trump sign in the area had been vandalized, and some stores boarded up due to the election.

[crazy canuck]

But I also wondered if the difference might be that for Brits (as I understand it), their head of the armed forces is technically good Queen Liz, while our Commander in Chief is a more political office.

I think that's key. And it's one of the bits where I think the monarchy is a little more than a technicality - the forces, from my experience, take the Queen and their royal patron pretty seriously. There's a lot of respect.

While no politician is entitled to respect. I think it's true of British society in general (for the Queen - probably not Charles) but especially strong in the military.

It must be really challenging in the US military at the minute. Because the Queen does the "dignified" bits of the state here and in the US Presidents have traditionally been able to pivot and know when they act as head of state. Trump doesn't.

The flipside is that the military in the UK do not like being dragged into politics or used as a prop. The only politician I can think of who's done the speech with a backdrop of soldiers is Blair and it went down badly (and was seen to reflect badly on commanders for letting it happen) and even there it's only for "state" matters not politics. I've never seen us go as far as the Aussies in this video, but I hope something similar would happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heDGha25f9w

That is great. 

[merithyn]

But something I agree with Republicans on is that ballots should be received by election day to be counted. What a mess it could be in a truly close election to have ballots floating around unsecured, and ambiguity on when they were put into the system. Plus everyone is on pins and needles for days. Get the ballots out to voters with plenty of time for them to return them, and from there it is on the voter.

After you put it in the mail box the amount of time it takes to get to the counters is out of your hands.  I think a post mark deadline, which is what Iowa does, is perfect.

Agree. And it follows the guidelines for our military, too.

[Caliga]

CNN just called Wisconsin for Biden (the first flip state they've actually called).

AP now calling Wisgahnsin for Biden too.

[The Larch]

CNN just called Wisconsin for Biden (the first flip state they've actually called).

AP has called it too (they had also called Arizona last night).  Maybe Michigan will be called soon now?

[Solmyr]

Does all this calling actually mean jack shit?

[Valmy]

Does all this calling actually mean jack shit?

Not officially. The election is actually held at some point between now and the New Years when all the electors get together.