How 'bout we get started on the predictions? We need fodder to mock and taunt each other's wildly inaccurate posting for the next 4 years.
Rules of the game, which are non-binding but whateva: Today is july 12th. You're allowed to modify your map no more that once a month.
Suggestion: go to this link to RCP's map (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/create_your_own_president_map.html), then print screen and upload to imgur or any other img hosting site, and share.
(https://i.imgur.com/9p4AeKP.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/k6ZKVmZ/Map.png) (https://ibb.co/jZth9Jt)
I don't know enough of US internal politics to play with that map. I'll just say I predict and hope that Biden wins.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2020, 10:33:16 PM
I don't know enough of US internal politics to play with that map. I'll just say I predict and hope that Biden wins.
You think Biden will be more of an authoritarian than Trump has (attempted to) ? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on July 12, 2020, 10:49:11 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2020, 10:33:16 PM
I don't know enough of US internal politics to play with that map. I'll just say I predict and hope that Biden wins.
You think Biden will be more of an authoritarian than Trump has (attempted to) ? :hmm:
Politicians are supposed to be smart, selfless, hardworking, patriotic, virtuous, and hold themselves to the highest possible standards. Trump falls short and gives politicians a bad name.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 10:32:07 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/k6ZKVmZ/Map.png) (https://ibb.co/jZth9Jt)
Ohio to Biden... Ambitious.
Btw how do you make sure your img is not huge? You shrink it before uploading?
Trump 279 to 259.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 10:32:07 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/k6ZKVmZ/Map.png) (https://ibb.co/jZth9Jt)
Iowa will go dem this year.
I predict Wyoming will remain solidly behind Trump.
https://youtu.be/lSPNQ82Sq4E
(https://youtu.be/lSPNQ82Sq4E)
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2020, 10:33:16 PM
I don't know enough of US internal politics to play with that map. I'll just say I predict and hope that Biden wins.
What about the status quo? :cry:
I basically got Zoupa's map, hoping it's a worst case scenario.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 10:32:07 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/k6ZKVmZ/Map.png) (https://ibb.co/jZth9Jt)
I would think Arizona would certainly flip before Ohio would.
Nah. Remember 2004, when we weren't sure who won til the next morning because Ohio was too close.
I'm clearly an idiot as I can't get the pic to show, but my predictions are here: https://flic.kr/p/2jkU7YR
Figured it out! :D
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50108297097_6acb781c88_c.jpg)
Why does Nebraska split their vote 4+1 ?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2020, 08:14:44 AM
Why does Nebraska split their vote 4+1 ?
Not just Nebraska, Maine also splits their vote. They give 1 vote to the party that wins the state overall and then 1 vote for the party that wins in each congressional district.
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:09:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2020, 08:14:44 AM
Why does Nebraska split their vote 4+1 ?
Not just Nebraska, Maine also splits their vote. They give 1 vote to the party that wins the state overall and then 1 vote for the party that wins in each congressional district.
Actually, 2 to the statewide winner and one to the winner of each congressional district. Each state has two senators.
How do I set it so Trump wins Russia?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2020, 10:18:31 AM
How do I set it so Trump wins Russia?
I think you have those in reverse order.
Biden 52 (340 EV), Trump 45 (198 EV).
(https://i.ibb.co/T2Qdf9y/prediction.png) (https://ibb.co/H4c3S5Z)
I think Wisconsin goes Biden before Georgia does.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 29, 2020, 04:13:16 PM
I think Wisconsin goes Biden before Georgia does.
Yeah Georgia is the only state I think is wishful thinking on FM's map there. Everything else could happen. We should be so lucky.
What about Arizona? I had the impression it's a bit of a Republican stronghold.
Quote from: The Larch on August 29, 2020, 04:20:44 PM
What about Arizona? I had the impression it's a bit of a Republican stronghold.
Not anymore.
North Carolina turning blue shows how far the DC suburbs have reached. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2020, 04:15:14 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 29, 2020, 04:13:16 PM
I think Wisconsin goes Biden before Georgia does.
Yeah Georgia is the only state I think is wishful thinking on FM's map there. Everything else could happen. We should be so lucky.
Yeah, I was on the fence about Georgia going blue but I decided to stick my head out for it. If it does then I look like the genius I am. If not, I look like the idiot I am.
GO BIG OR GO HOME AMIRITE??
Except Wisconsin also going blue makes your genius less obvious.
Anyway, my map is predicated on Joe doing very well in states with lots of suburban, college-educated voters, and less well in states with lots more white with no college education voters. I split the Midwest battlegrounds by giving Joe PA, MI, and MN, and gave Donny WI, OH, and IA.
At the same time, NC and GA go bright blue in the Atlanta suburbs and the Research Triangle.
(https://i.imgur.com/FWqe7c6.jpg)
Tie. Recount-related issues in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin are decided in Trump's favor in a series of 5-4 Supreme Court rulings in December. The election goes to the House, where it's decided by en bloc voting by state delegations, yielding a Republican majority. Trump is re-elected. Biden wins the popular vote by 5%.
Nice fanfic, bro. Do you ship Trump-Ivanka?
Quote from: PDH on July 12, 2020, 11:44:19 PM
I predict Wyoming will remain solidly behind Trump.
Edgy
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 01:01:36 PM
Nice fanfic, bro. Do you ship Trump-Ivanka?
He'll announce the relationship is his victory speech, delivered on election day, before polls close on the East Coast.
Maximum chaos scenario.
If it ends up with a contingent election in the House...Don Young might become the most influential man in the country.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 01:01:36 PM
Nice fanfic, bro. Do you ship Trump-Ivanka?
It is nice that even in a fanfic Biden still wins Pennsylvania.
Speaking of which here is my fanfic:
(https://i.imgur.com/Glh5OKz.jpg)
I also ship Biden-Pennsylvania. My OTP in all my slashfic. :wub: :perv:
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 01:01:36 PM
Nice fanfic, bro. Do you ship Trump-Ivanka?
Perhaps but it's a realistic outcome.
His scenario is not a realistic outcome.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 07:26:46 PM
His scenario is not a realistic outcome.
No, but it is a fun one. More fun would be that the contingent election in the House is a tie, and the Senate's pick for VP become acting president for four years.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 07:26:46 PM
His scenario is not a realistic outcome.
That map could happen. it is well within the realistic range of results.
If we're going to define "realistic" as "anything that could conceivably happen, no matter how unlikely" then what's the point?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2020, 02:14:44 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 01, 2020, 07:26:46 PM
His scenario is not a realistic outcome.
That map could happen. it is well within the realistic range of results.
The map doesn't suck, his fantasy scenario below it is what does :P
But hey this is just a game to get the map right.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 09:55:18 AM
The map doesn't suck, his fantasy scenario below it is what does :P
It sucks but that could also happen. I haven't surveyed the compositions of the state legislatures and Sec States of all the close states but it is easy to imagine contested recounts dragging on 2000 Florida style but even worse given that Trump will be even more bold than Bush and Biden will not graciously concede like Gore. That scenario does point to the election ultimately being determined by Congress deciding which contested slates of Electors to accept. In any case a tied or even a close EV total is likely to end up in a shitshow that makes 2000 looks like spilled water in comparison.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2020, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 09:55:18 AM
The map doesn't suck, his fantasy scenario below it is what does :P
It sucks but that could also happen. I haven't surveyed the compositions of the state legislatures and Sec States of all the close states but it is easy to imagine contested recounts dragging on 2000 Florida style but even worse given that Trump will be even more bold than Bush and Biden will not graciously concede like Gore. That scenario does point to the election ultimately being determined by Congress deciding which contested slates of Electors to accept. In any case a tied or even a close EV total is likely to end up in a shitshow that makes 2000 looks like spilled water in comparison.
It still gives me heartburn to think just what a pivotal moment the 2000 election turned out to be. So many things could've gone in a completely different direction had Al Gore been the president during 9/11, and I think a lot of America's problems can be traced back to PTSD induced by 9/11.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2020, 12:14:26 PM
It sucks but that could also happen. I haven't surveyed the compositions of the state legislatures and Sec States of all the close states but it is easy to imagine contested recounts dragging on 2000 Florida style but even worse given that Trump will be even more bold than Bush and Biden will not graciously concede like Gore. That scenario does point to the election ultimately being determined by Congress deciding which contested slates of Electors to accept. In any case a tied or even a close EV total is likely to end up in a shitshow that makes 2000 looks like spilled water in comparison.
When deciding which electors to accept, does it go to a straight-up vote (which Dems should have the majority), or is it the rule where each total state delegation gets one vote (Which the GOP should have the majority)?
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 12:19:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2020, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 09:55:18 AM
The map doesn't suck, his fantasy scenario below it is what does :P
It sucks but that could also happen. I haven't surveyed the compositions of the state legislatures and Sec States of all the close states but it is easy to imagine contested recounts dragging on 2000 Florida style but even worse given that Trump will be even more bold than Bush and Biden will not graciously concede like Gore. That scenario does point to the election ultimately being determined by Congress deciding which contested slates of Electors to accept. In any case a tied or even a close EV total is likely to end up in a shitshow that makes 2000 looks like spilled water in comparison.
It still gives me heartburn to think just what a pivotal moment the 2000 election turned out to be. So many things could've gone in a completely different direction had Al Gore been the president during 9/11, and I think a lot of America's problems can be traced back to PTSD induced by 9/11.
I dunno man - I think the pivot point was invading Iraq (which I don't think a President Gore would have done), but everything else done in response to 9/11 would probably have been exactly the same - invading Afghanistan, Patriot Act, DHS - all was a broad bipartisan consensus.
Trump may be delusional in certain respects but he pays very close attention to polls, he knows he is the underdog. He made a very clear decision not to follow a base broadening strategy but to mobilize and GOTY his narrow base and suppress the opposition. He is following a deliberate plan of going for another minority vote win. You can sure his campaign is developing a post-election day strategy
I think it is safe to say that they've laid the groundwork such that, even if Trump gets blown out of the water in the EC tally, he'll still throw up the "vote by mail fraud" chaff into the air.
It's pretty clear that scorched earth is not off the table, but the main course.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2020, 12:23:27 PM
Trump may be delusional in certain respects but he pays very close attention to polls, he knows he is the underdog. He made a very clear decision not to follow a base broadening strategy but to mobilize and GOTY his narrow base and suppress the opposition. He is following a deliberate plan of going for another minority vote win. You can sure his campaign is developing a post-election day strategy
The lawyers we have are massive. Huge, big like you would never believe! You've never seen lawyers this big, and so many at the same time!!
Quote from: Habbaku on September 02, 2020, 09:53:33 AM
If we're going to define "realistic" as "anything that could conceivably happen, no matter how unlikely" then what's the point?
According to Carl Bernstein a scenario where the the election is decided by the House is being seriously looked at by the White House. Not only is this a possible outcome it is an outcome actively planned by one of the candidates.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2020, 12:21:37 PM
When deciding which electors to accept, does it go to a straight-up vote (which Dems should have the majority), or is it the rule where each total state delegation gets one vote (Which the GOP should have the majority)?
Normal voting rules apply. The contingent election process (vote by state delegations) is only applicable if there is a contingent election. I am not at ll sure that the Republicans would win a contingent election. If the election goes by current polling, I think the contingent election would be a tie.
The post election day procedures for determining electors in each state are potential minefields in the event of a close vote, and with the toxic cocktail of Trump + COVID-19, perhaps even if the vote is not that close. E.g. one can expect that Trump will mobilize his media and social media fraud screamers if there are significant "blue shifts" from mail-in voting and put pressure on his allies in state legislatures and executives to intervene.
Trump encourages voters in North Carolina to vote twice.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-encourages-north-carolina-residents-vote-twice-test-mail-system-n1239140?fbclid=IwAR14Xn3G-XFeQXMhjudYBIYIOOjMgwMJbqUNfHe-suOZ7rUJhpi0k_DJOAs
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 02, 2020, 07:02:29 PM
Trump encourages voters in North Carolina to vote twice.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-encourages-north-carolina-residents-vote-twice-test-mail-system-n1239140?fbclid=IwAR14Xn3G-XFeQXMhjudYBIYIOOjMgwMJbqUNfHe-suOZ7rUJhpi0k_DJOAs
:lol:
Going to jail for voter fraud to own the libs
You think he'll be indicted?
I think he meant the voters attempting this.
Knowing that some of his cultists injected themselves with Chlorox, it's bound to happen.
Without a national ID system, it is very difficult to catch voter fraud.
A look at how some swing States have changed over the elections:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/swing-states-2020-election/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Quote from: Monoriu on September 02, 2020, 08:12:59 PM
Without a national ID system, it is very difficult to catch voter fraud.
I mean we have many ID systems and we don't run elections on a national level. Why must it be national?
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 02, 2020, 08:12:59 PM
Without a national ID system, it is very difficult to catch voter fraud.
I mean we have many ID systems and we don't run elections on a national level. Why must it be national?
Because people move around. Different systems increase chances of errors, duplication, fraud, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 02, 2020, 08:12:59 PM
Without a national ID system, it is very difficult to catch voter fraud.
I mean we have many ID systems and we don't run elections on a national level. Why must it be national?
Why shouldn't it be? What problem are we solving by having such a basic thing as ID be such a haphazardly decentralized endeavor? Would anyone in 2020 come up with such a system if they had to start from clean sheet?
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 11:15:17 PM
Why shouldn't it be? What problem are we solving by having such a basic thing as ID be such a haphazardly decentralized endeavor? Would anyone in 2020 come up with such a system if they had to start from clean sheet?
I mean we do have one, the Social Security Number despite it being really horrible for that purpose since it was not designed to be a national ID...even though that is what it is used for.
In the 18th century each state already had its way of deciding things from its time as a colony so we didn't feel the need to centralize something like elections. And like so many things whatever was decided in the 18th century just kind of stayed that way.
And, of course, now we are in an era where the government can track your every move and read your email and listen to your phone calls but making a national ID card would be tyranny. Paranoia of the central government and what it is doing abounds. This probably would have been much easier to do in the 1950s.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/6WBdd)
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 11:15:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2020, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 02, 2020, 08:12:59 PM
Without a national ID system, it is very difficult to catch voter fraud.
I mean we have many ID systems and we don't run elections on a national level. Why must it be national?
Why shouldn't it be? What problem are we solving by having such a basic thing as ID be such a haphazardly decentralized endeavor? Would anyone in 2020 come up with such a system if they had to start from clean sheet?
Not sure why anyone would willingly create another layer of identification bureaucracy.
Looking at all the new polling this month it looks like nothing really substantially changed after the conventions. I think everybody made up their minds long ago and we could have run this election in April and saved billions.
We'll see if this trend continues after the "debate" later this month.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
Looking at all the new polling this month it looks like nothing really substantially changed after the conventions. I think everybody made up their minds long ago and we could have run this election in April and saved billions.
We'll see if this trend continues after the "debate" later this month.
"Debate" in scare quotes is right. 😄
I mean, the Republicans officially decided not to have a platform. There is literally nothing to debate, even if Trump was temperamentally and intellectually capable of debating.
Trump has already stated he's ignoring his advisors and won't prep for the debates in a traditional manner. It's gonna be hilarious, but I'm not sure who it's going to convince. Biden literally just has to sound like he can string a sentence together.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
Looking at all the new polling this month it looks like nothing really substantially changed after the conventions. I think everybody made up their minds long ago and we could have run this election in April and saved billions.
We'll see if this trend continues after the "debate" later this month.
Biden +7.5%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
I'm going super-optimistic: 400+ EVs baby! :showoff:
(https://www.270towin.com/maps/8bv2y.png)
That's probably the ceiling there.
According to 538's forecast, the probability of a Biden blowout victory is greater than a Trump win.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 10, 2020, 09:45:07 PM
According to 538's forecast, the probability of a Biden blowout victory is greater than a Trump win.
So it is.
Odds of Trump win - 25%
Odds of Biden Landslide (winning popular vote by 10% or more) - 30%
25% is low but its not zero...just saying.
Unless Biden collapses in the debates, 7-8% national poll advantage seems really hard to claw back from, even if Trump has an EC advantage.
Still sweating it after 2016, though...
I know it's not going go turn blue, but the fact RCP lists Texas as a battleground state amazes me.
(https://i.imgur.com/iD0oQzw.png)
That's the gloomiest map so far I think.
I'm going to buck the trend and predict Iowa for Joe.
Quote from: celedhring on September 11, 2020, 05:48:39 AM
Unless Biden collapses in the debates, 7-8% national poll advantage seems really hard to claw back from, even if Trump has an EC advantage.
Still sweating it after 2016, though...
I don't think I ever imagined my choices in 2021 could be between making a home in Brexit Britain or a home in Trumpian America. :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2020, 06:14:59 AM
That's the gloomiest map so far I think.
I'm going to buck the trend and predict Iowa for Joe.
I'm naturally pessimistic and yet Joe came ahead.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2020, 11:30:55 PM
25% is low but its not zero...just saying.
As a stats guy, I can confirm that this statement is true.
Quote from: celedhring on September 11, 2020, 05:48:39 AM
Unless Biden collapses in the debates, 7-8% national poll advantage seems really hard to claw back from, even if Trump has an EC advantage.
Still sweating it after 2016, though...
Well a big polling advantage doesn't mean much if people don't vote. This is a chaotic time with the pandemic and protests and everything else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2020, 06:14:59 AM
I'm going to buck the trend and predict Iowa for Joe.
:rolleyes:
I did that two weeks ago. :P
You Iowans have an endearing faith in your home state.
I am still predicting Wyoming will go solid for Trump.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2020, 10:21:23 AM
You Iowans have an endearing faith in your home state.
My best friend is from a small town in Iowa. She and I regularly ask each other, "What happened to Iowa?" whenever the Iowa Trumpers are highlighted on the news, etc. It's just not the state that we grew up in. We're both hoping that they pull their collective heads out of their asses and vote for Biden this election. To restore our faith in them.
I am in Iowa right now visiting my in-laws and they're voting for Joe. :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 11, 2020, 02:01:06 PM
I am in Iowa right now visiting my in-laws and they're voting for Joe. :hmm:
:yeah:
Where in Iowa?
Quote from: merithyn on September 11, 2020, 02:50:13 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 11, 2020, 02:01:06 PM
I am in Iowa right now visiting my in-laws and they're voting for Joe. :hmm:
:yeah:
Where in Iowa?
Down in the Quad Cities :showoff:
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 11, 2020, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 11, 2020, 02:50:13 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 11, 2020, 02:01:06 PM
I am in Iowa right now visiting my in-laws and they're voting for Joe. :hmm:
:yeah:
Where in Iowa?
Down in the Quad Cities :showoff:
Yeah. That's the east side of the state. The northwest corner is Crazy Country. :wacko:
I'm going to predict a Trump victory or coup attempt. That way, I win either way. :D
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2020, 06:28:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 11, 2020, 05:48:39 AM
Unless Biden collapses in the debates, 7-8% national poll advantage seems really hard to claw back from, even if Trump has an EC advantage.
Still sweating it after 2016, though...
I don't think I ever imagined my choices in 2021 could be between making a home in Brexit Britain or a home in Trumpian America. :weep:
there are other countries in the world where english predominant...
None that have to let him in.
I've an angle on Ireland. Oh and there is always buying a property in Malta.
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2020, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 13, 2020, 06:58:29 PM
None that have to let him in.
But they could.
With the exception of the two I just mentioned, they would all involve considerably more effort. :(
No matter what happens, a large portion of the US population will believe the outcome of the election is illegitimate. Either because Trump and his people prevail by carrying out shenanigans that make the 2000 dispute look like a friendly square dance or because Biden wins conclusively on the strength of mail-in ballots, which are bad because fnord.
I honestly don't know how people would react if they thought Trump stole the election. Doing something blatant like destroying mail-in ballots could easily cause riots.
What safeguards are there against ballots being "lost" anyway? Let's set aside the notion that no one will try to do that because the consequences would be too grave, I don't believe that's true anymore. What other checks are there against 50,000 absentee ballots becoming 30,000 absentee ballots?
If only we had an example that's two decades old to learn from. :hmm:
https://theconversation.com/mail-in-voting-lessons-from-oregon-the-state-with-the-longest-history-of-voting-by-mail-145155 (https://theconversation.com/mail-in-voting-lessons-from-oregon-the-state-with-the-longest-history-of-voting-by-mail-145155)
QuoteOregon voters have long cast their ballots by mail in many types of elections, including for local, state and federal offices. They started doing so in 1987 – and have voted exclusively by mail in all elections since 1998.
For much of that time, I and others have studied how mail-in voting affects voter turnout, as well as the potential for partisan advantage or voter fraud.
Oregon's experience shows that mail-in voting can be safe and secure, providing accurate and reliable results the public can be confident in. As more voters consider using mail-in voting than ever before, there are some lessons they – and their local and state election officials – can learn from Oregon, to help things move more smoothly.
Consider timing
Not everyone in the U.S. knows how to vote by mail. They'll need help from state and local officials so they know what to do. Ideally this will start early, with instructions about how to get a mail-in ballot in advance of the actual ballots being sent out to voters.
In Oregon, all registered voters are automatically sent a ballot about three weeks before Election Day. This gives people plenty of time to receive their ballots, consider the options and mark and return the ballots. They also are less likely to skip voting because of unanticipated events like illness or inclement weather, or because of worries about making arrangements at work, getting to the polling place or waiting in long lines before being allowed to vote.
By accepting mail-in ballots in September or early October, states would get a good sense of how many people will be voting by mail. That would also give election officials and the postal system time to make plans to handle the additional traffic.
Teach voters what's expected
In any state, when a voter receives the ballot, they must mark it, making their selections for candidates and their choices on referenda or other ballot questions.
In Oregon, after marking the ballot, the voter puts it into what's called a "ballot secrecy envelope," which contains no identifying information. This prevents election workers or others from knowing which person cast the ballot inside.
That secrecy envelope goes into a second envelope, which is what is delivered to election officials. Each voter must sign the outside of that second envelope. Then the voter can mail the ballot back to their local election office – in some places, postage is already paid, but in others voters need to put one or more stamps on it. Alternately, the voter can take the second envelope with its contents to one of several drop-off boxes set up around each community in the state. Many states are planning to set these up and have them regularly monitored by election officials, who collect the ballots.
When the ballots arrive at the local election office, the name and signature on the envelope are compared to the official registration records. If the signatures don't match, the voter is notified by mail, and given the opportunity to correct or explain the discrepancy. Of course, such corrections take time, so this is a good reason for voters who are casting their ballots by mail to send in their votes early.
Let voters track their ballots
In Oregon, each outer envelope – the one the voter needs to sign – has a unique bar code printed on it. That lets voters track the status of their ballots after they have either mailed them or dropped them off.
Be clear about deadlines
Some voters will always wait until the last minute to make their choices. Drop-off sites are good ways to help people return their ballots on or just before Election Day and to save on postage.
In January 2020, Oregon set up a system where voters don't need to buy postage for the ballot envelope. All ballots must be received at county election offices by 8 p.m. on Election Day. So someone who is running late should probably avoid the mailbox and find a drop-off site instead.
Be ready for criticism
Mail-in voting is popular in Oregon, and, it seems, around the country.
But there are critics. Some are concerned that the system provides no guarantee of a secret ballot, but there has been no evidence that undue influence on voters – like bribes or threats – has been a problem in Oregon elections conducted by mail.
Others have falsely claimed there is more fraud with mail-in voting. Oregon has mailed out millions of ballots over the past three decades, with about a dozen cases of actual fraud. Most problems were unintentional errors involving signing the wrong mailing envelope or assuming that a voter could sign the mailing envelope for a family member.
My research, and that of others, has found that voting by mail boosts turnout modestly, especially in special elections and in years with presidential elections. Some people have raised more personal concerns about losing the ritual of going to the polls with other members of the community. It may be less social to vote at home, but more people's voices are being heard.
Criticism is inevitable, but skeptics and supporters alike can look to the experience of Oregon for real answers. Perhaps the strongest evidence that the system is equitable, fair, reliable and safe is that in two statewide surveys I have conducted over the years, a nearly identical percentage of Oregon Republicans and Democrats strongly support voting by mail, and the same is true of elected officials in the state.
That being said, my aunt is going home on hospice tomorrow. Her one wish is to live long enough to see Trump be re-elected. :glare: The downside to mail-in voting is that the ballots go out October 15. If she is alive when it comes to her house, she can vote and mail it in, and I believe that it still counts even if she dies before the actual election day. (I may be wrong.)
Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2020, 03:25:18 PM
If only we had an example that's two decades old to learn from. :hmm:
Oregon has not had Trump in charge in two decades.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2020, 04:40:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2020, 03:25:18 PM
If only we had an example that's two decades old to learn from. :hmm:
Oregon has not had Trump in charge in two decades.
Thank Hod.
Nonetheless, Oregon has worked really hard for years to make sure that the process is as hazard-free as possible. It's a good template to follow for states just starting doing this kind of voting.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 03:14:02 PM
What safeguards are there against ballots being "lost" anyway? Let's set aside the notion that no one will try to do that because the consequences would be too grave, I don't believe that's true anymore. What other checks are there against 50,000 absentee ballots becoming 30,000 absentee ballots?
The safeguards are really only the chance of getting caught - if 20,000 people in your district or whatever look up their ballots and see that they are "lost," the person who picked them up or signed for them is going to be scrutinized pretty closely. Class-action lawyers would make sure that people checked to see if they were eligible for the lawsuit that would follow.
I doubt that it would be caught in time to impact the election, though.
I heard on an NPR show, perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek (but maybe not) that more people have been struck by lightning on elections days in the last 20 years than have committed voter fraud in the last 20 years.
Apparently one of the things that Roger Stone called on Trump to do, on top of declaring martial law if it seemed that he'd lose, was that federal marshalls should physically seize the ballots in states run by Democrats, or somesuch, in order to "prevent fraud". Is that something that can be done? I want to think that it's not possible, but you never know with this presidency.
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2020, 04:59:59 PM
Apparently one of the things that Roger Stone called on Trump to do, on top of declaring martial law if it seemed that he'd lose, was that federal marshalls should physically seize the ballots in states run by Democrats, or somesuch, in order to "prevent fraud". Is that something that can be done? I want to think that it's not possible, but you never know with this presidency.
No, the Federal government cannot steal ballots. Why are you even mentioning the fevered whisperings of some ex-con into Alex Jones's ears? By the way, don't get fooled by Jones into buying any of his "health care" products.
I think that what people need to remember is that all of the supposed accomplices of the president in his supposed election-stealing plots are gong to be fully aware that they will someday have to pay the price for breaking the law. If President Trump ordered some US Marshal to go to some election commission location in, say, Maryland and steal all the ballots, do you really think that that Marshal is going to think "five years in prison for each ballot I steal? Yes, it's worth it because TRUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!!!111oneoneone"
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 03:14:02 PM
What safeguards are there against ballots being "lost" anyway? Let's set aside the notion that no one will try to do that because the consequences would be too grave, I don't believe that's true anymore. What other checks are there against 50,000 absentee ballots becoming 30,000 absentee ballots?
What checks are there besides the consequences, which you don't believe exist? This is a very odd question dude.
I assume handling of ballots is done in somewhat similar ways to handling of cash? But I don't know this.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2020, 05:30:37 PM
I assume handling of ballots is done in somewhat similar ways to handling of cash? But I don't know this.
Both political parties have observers overseeing he counting of ballots, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure about the "two man rule" you often find with handling major amounts of cash. But the ballots are all tracked, so it's hard to see how they can be stolen without anyone realizing it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2020, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 03:14:02 PM
What safeguards are there against ballots being "lost" anyway? Let's set aside the notion that no one will try to do that because the consequences would be too grave, I don't believe that's true anymore. What other checks are there against 50,000 absentee ballots becoming 30,000 absentee ballots?
What checks are there besides the consequences, which you don't believe exist? This is a very odd question dude.
What I mean is, is there a systemic check that makes fraud difficult even for those who desire to commit it, apart from the possibility that if you're caught, you're going to suffer seriously? For example, the church collection plate does not have any sophisticated security systems to protect it against theft, but people usually don't steal from it because it would be a really bad thing to be caught stealing from the collection plate. On the other hand, people may have no qualms about stealing from the bank, but just from a technical perspective it's pretty difficult to pull off.
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2020, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2020, 04:59:59 PM
Apparently one of the things that Roger Stone called on Trump to do, on top of declaring martial law if it seemed that he'd lose, was that federal marshalls should physically seize the ballots in states run by Democrats, or somesuch, in order to "prevent fraud". Is that something that can be done? I want to think that it's not possible, but you never know with this presidency.
No, the Federal government cannot steal ballots. Why are you even mentioning the fevered whisperings of some ex-con into Alex Jones's ears? By the way, don't get fooled by Jones into buying any of his "health care" products.
I think that what people need to remember is that all of the supposed accomplices of the president in his supposed election-stealing plots are gong to be fully aware that they will someday have to pay the price for breaking the law. If President Trump ordered some US Marshal to go to some election commission location in, say, Maryland and steal all the ballots, do you really think that that Marshal is going to think "five years in prison for each ballot I steal? Yes, it's worth it because TRUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!!!111oneoneone"
Are election law crimes federal, state, or a mix of both?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2020, 07:26:29 PM
Are election law crimes federal, state, or a mix of both?
If the election includes federal offices, then both. I think state laws tend to be more fierce. It's up to five years in prison
per vote illegally affected in Virginia. Steal a bag with 20 votes in it and you may never see the outside of a prison again (though I'd imagine the plea bargaining process would make that not happen, as well as some lawsuits regarding cruel and unusual punishment).
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 06:44:06 PM
What I mean is, is there a systemic check that makes fraud difficult even for those who desire to commit it, apart from the possibility that if you're caught, you're going to suffer seriously? For example, the church collection plate does not have any sophisticated security systems to protect it against theft, but people usually don't steal from it because it would be a really bad thing to be caught stealing from the collection plate. On the other hand, people may have no qualms about stealing from the bank, but just from a technical perspective it's pretty difficult to pull off.
Having worked the front end of elections I would say fucking with the in person vote would be pretty damn hard.
My uneducated guess is that fucking with mail in votes would be nigh impossible for a single person and trivially easy if the entire auditor's office were in on the conspiracy. Grab a bag of mail and go burn it in the woods.
As an aside, have you noticed that Democrats always talk about the lack of evidence of voter fraud when the issue is proof of ID, but not when they talk about fucking with voting machines?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2020, 07:51:35 PM
As an aside, have you noticed that Democrats always talk about the lack of evidence of voter fraud when the issue is proof of ID, but not when they talk about fucking with voting machines?
I've mentioned before but a lot of people who wokr in cybersecurity and sort of academics in that area have real concerns about voting machines.
From what I understand there's no similar level of concern from experts about ID requirements.
The reason I brought up destroying ballots is because when this was war gamed out and the participants playing on the Trump team did do exactly that.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/
QuoteOn the same morning that the United States government reported the steepest economic collapse in U.S. history, President Donald Trump mused on Twitter about postponing the 2020 election. Trump is getting desperate, more desperate by the day. What might he do? What should Americans fear?
Earlier this summer, 67 former government officials and academic students of government gathered over four sessions of the nonpartisan Transition Integrity Project to analyze those questions. They included Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee; John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff who chaired Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign; former Republican members of Congress; and a host of former elected officials, government staffers, consultants, and even journalists. I joined two of the sessions.
The sessions began with scenarios of what might happen on Election Day—a big Biden win, a narrow Biden win, a Trump win in the Electoral College coupled with a loss in the popular vote—and then played war games to ponder what might follow. The goal was not to make predictions, but rather to test scenarios and identify potential weak points in the system. The approach is common in the national-security world, but has not often before been applied to domestic politics.
The organizers of the event will in time produce a formal report on the results. But in light of the president's ominous tweet yesterday, it's worth summarizing some of what we found, while respecting the rules under which the event was held—which allowed for the disclosure of the substance of the exercise, but not what individual participants said.
The good news is that Trump cannot postpone the election or the next presidential inauguration; he has no means to do either of those things. Those dates are set by law or in the text of the Constitution.
Nor can Trump somehow cling to power after Inauguration Day once the electoral vote is certified against him. If the Electoral College certifies Joe Biden the winner when its votes are counted in Washington, D.C., on January 6, then at noon on January 20, Donald Trump ceases to be president. His signature loses all legal effect, the officer carrying the nuclear football walks away, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not take his call.
The bottom line: There do exist outer legal boundaries to the mischief that can be done by even the most corrupt president.
The bad news is that there is a lot of mischief that can be done within the legal boundaries by a determined president, especially with the compliance of the attorney general and enough political allies in the state capitals.
The worst news is that, faced with presidential lawlessness, few of the participants at the Transition Integrity Project found effective responses. The courts offered only slow, weak, and unreliable remedies. Street protests were difficult to mobilize and often proved counterproductive. Republican elected officials cowered even in the face of the most outrageous Trump acts. Democratic elected officials lacked the tools and clout to make much difference. Many of the games turned on who made the first bold move. Time after time, that first mover was Trump.
And even in the scenarios in which Biden's team eventually won—that is, secured possession of the White House at noon on Inauguration Day, 2021—Team Trump by then had thoroughly poisoned the political system.
It diverted public resources to Trump personally.
It preemptively pardoned Trump associates and family members, and tried to pardon Trump himself from criminal charges including money laundering and tax evasion.
It intentionally tried to cause long-term economic damage so as to prevent early economic recovery—and boost Republican chances in the 2022 elections.
It destroyed, hid, or privatized public records.
It tried to sabotage the census to favor Republican redistricting after 2020.
It refused to cooperate with the incoming administration during the transition period, in ways that aggravated both the pandemic response and economic recovery.
And it sowed pervasive mistrust in the integrity of U.S. elections in ways that would polarize and embitter U.S. politics long after 2020.
Despite the president's personal unpopularity as measured by polls, Trump's side possessed—and used—important tactical advantages.
Those advantages start with the institutional powers of the presidency, notably the power to federalize the National Guard and take military control of state voting sites. They include also the asymmetry of the U.S. party system, and especially the fiercer team-mindedness of Trump loyalists and pro-Trump media.
The most persistent and powerful advantage, however, was the overconfidence of the legally minded Biden team that the Trump team would respect some norms and limits on its behavior. That expectation was again and again refuted by experience.
All of this, again, was just a tabletop exercise, specifically designed to test extreme scenarios—not a prediction of how things will play out. Perhaps everything will go smoothly. But as the president suggests postponing the election, it's important to understand the hazards ahead, and the timelines and decision points that may prove crucial.
The voting period
The days of early voting, Election Day itself, and then the period of vote-counting that will follow offer fruitful possibilities for mischief.
In one of our scenarios, the attorney general sent federal marshals backed by the National Guard to seize vote-by-mail ballots, triggering a constitutional catastrophe that delayed the outcome of the count for weeks.
Local Republican officeholders have wide scope to burden voting by what they deem undesirable voters, especially ethnic minorities. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has more or less entirely abandoned the field of voting rights. In the Trump era, the division has shifted its effort toward litigating in support of claims of religious discrimination.
In the exercises, when the vote went against Trump, his team tried to convince his supporters that they had been robbed—and that they were therefore entitled to take extreme, even violent, actions. In our exercises, however, the game-winning strategy was to goad the other side into violence. This was particularly true for Team Trump, whose supporters already fear violence from anarchists and antifa.
The meeting of electors in the states
Under current law, all disputes over vote-counting are supposed to be resolved by December 8, 2020. The electors are supposed to convene on December 14 in their state capitals, where they will sign their electoral ballots. The days from December 8 to December 14 offer Team Trump the last clear chance to alter the outcome.
In some of our scenarios, local Republican officeholders sowed enough confusion to justify sending two slates of electors to Washington to be adjudicated. That was a high-risk tactic that did not usually pay off, but could tempt some pro-Trump state governments.
The meeting of electors in Washington, D.C.
This normally ceremonial event is scheduled for January 6, 2021. It will be presided over by the incumbent vice president, Mike Pence. We tested what might happen in a close result—one in which the Republicans hold on to the Senate and Trump falls short of an Electoral College majority by just a single state's vote—if Pence somehow tried to insist that the pro-Trump slate of electors was valid.
This did not usually work. Pence was a weak link in the Trump team, too concerned about his own future and his own reputation to go all-out in the way the core Trump team wanted.
Generally, once we got past the December 8 date, the Trump team's options for keeping power dwindled to zero. What was left then was scorched-earth self-enrichment, self-protection, and spite.
The transition of power
The Obama administration took office amid a national crisis in January 2009, after what is generally regarded by experts as the smoothest and most successful transition in presidential history. The outgoing Bush team kept the Obama team closely informed about decision making after the financial crisis struck in October 2008—and the incoming Obama team scrupulously followed the "one president at a time" rule of crisis management.
Nothing like that can be expected this winter. Instead, we are likely to see a recurrence of 1932–33, when the defeated Herbert Hoover tried to sabotage the incoming Roosevelt administration in hopes of preparing his own comeback in 1936. Trump will soon be fantasizing about running again in 2024. If his health does not permit it, his children may envision a dynasty of their own. These are not realistic plans. The Trump brand will be toxic in U.S. politics after the catastrophes of 2020. But the Trump inner circle will not believe that—and its members may hope that if they can cause Biden to stumble out of the gate, they will benefit.
The Bush administration helped the Obama administration to be ready on day one. The Trump administration may not return that courtesy. In one of our scenarios, Trump moved permanently to Mar-a-Lago the day after the election and never returned to the White House again. The whole government had to operate around a lame-duck president who simply refused to do any work at all.
But we also discussed whether Trump's need to satisfy his ego and his desire for money might not cause him to foment a transition-season crisis—especially one that would gain him some credit with Russia or the oil states. Postpresidential Trump will face extreme legal and business troubles, including the ruin of the hospitality industry. The flow of payments to his businesses from U.S. taxpayers, from Republican campaigns, from favor-seeking corporations, and from foreign governments will all cease.
What would Trump do to maximize his cash flow before it stops? As lurid as our imaginations were over the four days of disaster planning, on this question, at least, we probably underestimated the dangerous possibilities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2020, 07:51:35 PM
As an aside, have you noticed that Democrats always talk about the lack of evidence of voter fraud when the issue is proof of ID, but not when they talk about fucking with voting machines?
It does irk me greatly when the number of convictions for voter fraud is used as the number of cases of voter fraud. That is then used as an argument that voter fraud essentially never happens, for all practical purposes. Maybe you're just catching one case in a million? Probably not, but the logical fallacy should be pretty obvious.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 08:56:27 PM
It does irk me greatly when the number of convictions for voter fraud is used as the number of cases of voter fraud. That is then used as an argument that voter fraud essentially never happens, for all practical purposes. Maybe you're just catching one case in a million? Probably not, but the logical fallacy should be pretty obvious.
You probably should stop reading anyone who claims that the number of cases of voter fraud is exactly equal to the number of convictions for voter fraud. Who is that, by the way?
The lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud is kinda like the lack of evidence for a full-scale martian invasion of earth, or the lack of evidence that vaccines cause ADHD; you can conclude that, were it widespread enough to be a problem, there would be more evidence, or you can assume that it somehow can happen on a large scale without anyone knowing about it.
Your choice, but if you are going to go the tinfoil hat route, you probably don't want to say so on a forum like this, where the invading Martians might find your post.
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2020, 09:30:37 PM
You probably should stop reading anyone who claims that the number of cases of voter fraud is exactly equal to the number of convictions for voter fraud. Who is that, by the way?
First Google search result: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/. It isn't stated explicitly that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases, but every argument is stacked in a way to lead you to that conclusion, with no arguments presented to qualify the implied conclusion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2020, 08:17:59 PM
I've mentioned before but a lot of people who wokr in cybersecurity and sort of academics in that area have real concerns about voting machines.
From what I understand there's no similar level of concern from experts about ID requirements.
How do you know the people not saying anything are experts on ID requirements?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2020, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2020, 08:17:59 PM
I've mentioned before but a lot of people who wokr in cybersecurity and sort of academics in that area have real concerns about voting machines.
From what I understand there's no similar level of concern from experts about ID requirements.
How do you know the people not saying anything are experts on ID requirements?
It's more the only people I see speaking out about ID requirements are political partisans. I mean maybe there are experts speaking out about voter ID. Edit: I'm not saying that the people who are silent are experts, I'm saying from what I'm aware the experts aren't vocal.
But I know there are people who are not particularly political but are experts who have serious reservations about voting machines - especially in a country as devolved as the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2020, 03:56:10 AM
Edit: I'm not saying that the people who are silent are experts, I'm saying from what I'm aware the experts aren't vocal.
You just contradicted yourself.
Some people are not vocal. They are experts.
So how do you know these people are experts?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2020, 04:22:08 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2020, 03:56:10 AM
Edit: I'm not saying that the people who are silent are experts, I'm saying from what I'm aware the experts aren't vocal.
You just contradicted yourself.
Some people are not vocal. They are experts.
So how do you know these people are experts?
What? :blink:
I know of experts in cybersecurity who raise lots of concerns about the safety of voting machines (especially in the US). The point here is there are experts - they are vocal (not the other way round). This adds credibility to it not just being a Democratic talking point.
I am not aware of experts in other areas raising concerns about voter fraud. Maybe they are but I don't know about it - I work in a slightly related area to cybersecurity so follow it more closely, or maybe the media don't report it. Alternately the experts have concerns but don't raise them because of their politics, or the experts don't have concerns. Of those the two that seem most likely are: I'm ignorant (v likely) or the experts don't have concerns so they aren't vocal (possible). So, here I could be wrong or there are experts - they are not vocal (not the other way round).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2020, 04:30:16 AM
What? :blink:
I know of experts in cybersecurity who raise lots of concerns about the safety of voting machines (especially in the US). The point here is there are experts - they are vocal (not the other way round). This adds credibility to it not just being a Democratic talking point.
I am not aware of experts in other areas raising concerns about voter fraud. Maybe they are but I don't know about it - I work in a slightly related area to cybersecurity so follow it more closely, or maybe the media don't report it. Alternately the experts have concerns but don't raise them because of their politics, or the experts don't have concerns. Of those the two that seem most likely are: I'm ignorant (v likely) or the experts don't have concerns so they aren't vocal (possible). So, here I could be wrong or there are experts - they are not vocal (not the other way round).
You presumably consider the people who express concerns about cybersecurity* to be experts because you know something about their degrees, experience, and certification in cybersecurity. Are these the same experts who are not being vocal about issues with voter IDs? Do you think that same skill set qualifies them to render an expert opinion on the efficacy of voter ID laws? Or is there a similar group who are experts in voter IDs? If so, how do you know they are experts in that field?
*We might have talked about this before, but whereas I concede that voter rolls or the like could be hackable, are you sure these same experts said that stand-alone voting machines, which have no connection to the internet, are also hackable? In reading about stuxnet I learned that hacking a self-contained, sealed off system such as that controlling the Iranian centrifuges is very, very technically challenging. It seems to me that's what would have to be done with voting machines.
I decided to join in.
Completely un-researched and based on a minimum of thought
(https://i.ibb.co/4TLPBJM/mapper.png)
Someone told Squeeze pot is legal in Colorado.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2020, 04:51:40 AM
You presumably consider the people who express concerns about cybersecurity* to be experts because you know something about their degrees, experience, and certification in cybersecurity. Are these the same experts who are not being vocal about issues with voter IDs? Do you think that same skill set qualifies them to render an expert opinion on the efficacy of voter ID laws? Or is there a similar group who are experts in voter IDs? If so, how do you know they are experts in that field?
The middle choice - I don't know who the experts would be on voter fraud. Presumably political science people? I'm not sure. As I say I might be ignorant and they actually are constantly in a panic.
Quote*We might have talked about this before, but whereas I concede that voter rolls or the like could be hackable, are you sure these same experts said that stand-alone voting machines, which have no connection to the internet, are also hackable? In reading about stuxnet I learned that hacking a self-contained, sealed off system such as that controlling the Iranian centrifuges is very, very technically challenging. It seems to me that's what would have to be done with voting machines.
Yeah. A lot of the concerns are more organisational than technical.
But on the technical I mean they are "connected" at some point - so typically once a new ballot is designed that's uploaded, usually through a USB. That's not incredibly difficult for a sophisticated, state-sponsored group to target. It's also worth noting that an attack on US elections isn't necessarily that they fiddle the numbers, it could just be attacking an availability attack - that would in itself undermine the certainty of an election. Also obviously if you were looking to fiddle the numbers you only need to hit a few swing states and probably specific counties within those states.
I think the bigger concern is that it's so decentralised in the US so you have multiple layers of local government involved, multiple vendors who provide the software or the machines and all of those parties will have their own levels of information security and their own budget for it. So it's not even necessarily the systems themselves that are an issue it's the vote counting, recording and transmission that's done on other systems - that can be more secure if you have a physical record that it can be audited against. And you know one of the biggest cyber attacks in the UK was of the NHS by a North Korean backed group, it wasn't deliberately targetting the NHS but basically brought a large number of systems down for a period of time - that was because there was a piece of software that was out of date/no longer supported by Microsoft. It can be that easy - so it relies on each party involved in American elections to make sure they are properly updating their software etc etc.
So yes the Iranian nuclear program is self-contained and sealed off and probably has very high levels of security that make it challenging. I am less sure that, say, the Broward County election supervisors have the same level of security. From my private sector perspective it looks like if a client had a core function, like say their payment processing, run by a load of decentralised entities each using different vendors to support it and no common security standard. That would cause me to panic and be shouting that there's a big red flag :lol:
My view is if you have an election system, with a consistent, evolving high level of security then you can probably move to voting machines. If you don't then I think it is far better and far more secure to have a physical record/ballot that you can audit against.
The other thing is if there's a vulnerability - so let's say some malware is identified in one of the bits of software that the election relies on - it is normally very difficult to definitively rule out what hasn't happened. I think it's really rare that the security logs will be good enough to definitively state what has or hasn't happened. So you are in shades of grey and making assessments based on a limited set out information. That's fine for most systems, I think in itself that would cause an issue in terms of election security/confidence in the result.
I'm concerned about voting machines whenever I have to do things like get my driver's license renewed online. Such experiences inevitably make me think that cyber-security of government services relies on the honor system among the hackers.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2020, 09:30:37 PM
You probably should stop reading anyone who claims that the number of cases of voter fraud is exactly equal to the number of convictions for voter fraud. Who is that, by the way?
First Google search result: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/. It isn't stated explicitly that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases, but every argument is stacked in a way to lead you to that conclusion, with no arguments presented to qualify the implied conclusion.
Did you read this before using it as evidence?
QuoteI've been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I've been following reports wherever they crop up.
New evidence that voter ID laws 'skew democracy' in favor of white Republicans
To be clear, I'm not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I've found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I'd bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.
Note that he specifically rejects the idea that you claim he is espousing, that "that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases," but I suppose that the fact that he is your chosen expert is going to be lost on you.
Now, to be sure, he is looking (only, apparently) at potential voter fraud that a voter ID law would preclude, but even at that does NOT say that convictions = cases.
Trump has the right idea for stopping voter fraud - cancel the elections, designate him as President for Life. No voting, no voter fraud!
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2020, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2020, 09:30:37 PM
You probably should stop reading anyone who claims that the number of cases of voter fraud is exactly equal to the number of convictions for voter fraud. Who is that, by the way?
First Google search result: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/. It isn't stated explicitly that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases, but every argument is stacked in a way to lead you to that conclusion, with no arguments presented to qualify the implied conclusion.
Did you read this before using it as evidence?
QuoteI've been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I've been following reports wherever they crop up.
New evidence that voter ID laws 'skew democracy' in favor of white Republicans
To be clear, I'm not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I've found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I'd bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.
Note that he specifically rejects the idea that you claim he is espousing, that "that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases," but I suppose that the fact that he is your chosen expert is going to be lost on you.
Now, to be sure, he is looking (only, apparently) at potential voter fraud that a voter ID law would preclude, but even at that does NOT say that convictions = cases.
Allegations, prosecutions, rumors, the same kind of bias is at play. Counting cases anyone other that the perpetrator has an inkling about is a biased estimate. When I said "number of convictions", I didn't mean to differentiate between convictions, acquittals, and allegations; I meant to differentiate between knowable and unknowable.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2020, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2020, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2020, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2020, 09:30:37 PM
You probably should stop reading anyone who claims that the number of cases of voter fraud is exactly equal to the number of convictions for voter fraud. Who is that, by the way?
First Google search result: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/. It isn't stated explicitly that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases, but every argument is stacked in a way to lead you to that conclusion, with no arguments presented to qualify the implied conclusion.
Did you read this before using it as evidence?
QuoteI've been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I've been following reports wherever they crop up.
New evidence that voter ID laws 'skew democracy' in favor of white Republicans
To be clear, I'm not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I've found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I'd bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.
Note that he specifically rejects the idea that you claim he is espousing, that "that number of allegations is equal to the number of actual cases," but I suppose that the fact that he is your chosen expert is going to be lost on you.
Now, to be sure, he is looking (only, apparently) at potential voter fraud that a voter ID law would preclude, but even at that does NOT say that convictions = cases.
Allegations, prosecutions, rumors, the same kind of bias is at play. Counting cases anyone other that the perpetrator has an inkling about is a biased estimate. When I said "number of convictions", I didn't mean to differentiate between convictions, acquittals, and allegations; I meant to differentiate between knowable and unknowable.
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
This is always a challenge though in trying to get a number of a crime rate for any kind of offence. It's not "kookoo conspiracy territory" to say that not all sex assaults that happen are reported to the police - we know this to be true. There are various means that researches will do different surveys to try and get at the "real" sex assault rate.
When you have an offence with no obvious victim it's at least conceivable that the actual rate of the offence is higher than the amount of times it's been charged.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2020, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
This is always a challenge though in trying to get a number of a crime rate for any kind of offence. It's not "kookoo conspiracy territory" to say that not all sex assaults that happen are reported to the police - we know this to be true. There are various means that researches will do different surveys to try and get at the "real" sex assault rate.
When you have an offence with no obvious victim it's at least conceivable that the actual rate of the offence is higher than the amount of times it's been charged.
We know that sexaul assaults which are not reported to the police occur because we have other evidence of it occurring.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2020, 05:06:10 AM
I decided to join in.
Completely un-researched and based on a minimum of thought
(https://i.ibb.co/4TLPBJM/mapper.png)
Biden is up 8.8 points over Trump in Minnesota. I know Trump thinks he can try to flip the state, but this was the one state in the union that voted for Mondale in 1984!
Well, it was also his home state. Not that that helped Al Gore, Mitt Romney or Donald Trump.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2020, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2020, 05:17:18 AM
Someone told Squeeze pot is legal in Colorado.
Que?
Alguien dijo a Squeeze que la marijuana es legal en Colorado.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
I'm not talking about it happening. I don't think it does happen, I think the logistics of impersonation are utterly impractical, and the benefit is in no way commensurate with the actual and potential cost.
I'm just talking about how you can't know the unknowable, and the true rate of voter fraud is unknowable. Anyone who treats unknowable as knowable is probably taking a shortcut in either the analysis or the conclusion. Absence of evidence may suggest absence, but it's not evidence of absence. That's not "kookoo conspiracy", that's a basic scientic principle.
Sometimes you just have to live with the fact that something is most likely true, but that you'll never be able to prove it. Negatives are notorious for that.
Dije. Fuck.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2020, 02:36:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
I'm not talking about it happening. I don't think it does happen, I think the logistics of impersonation are utterly impractical, and the benefit is in no way commensurate with the actual and potential cost.
I'm just talking about how you can't know the unknowable, and the true rate of voter fraud is unknowable. Anyone who treats unknowable as knowable is probably taking a shortcut in either the analysis or the conclusion. Absence of evidence may suggest absence, but it's not evidence of absence. That's not "kookoo conspiracy", that's a basic scientic principle.
Sometimes you just have to live with the fact that something is most likely true, but that you'll never be able to prove it. Negatives are notorious for that.
A legal analysis is better suited to this than a scientific one. The law deals with problems like this all the time. The way it does, is by assigning a burden of proof (so the question is not whether something is absolutely true or not, a task that in many cases is impossible, but establishing in advance what the burden to prove a particular point is, and tests for how it can be met).
For example - we may say something like 'is there evidence which would suggest, on the balance of probabilities (that is, roughly, whether it is more likely true or not) that lots of voter fraud Routinely occurs?"
Absence of evidence may not prove the matter to a degree of certainly, but "certainty" may not be he best test. "Probably" may be better. A lack of evidence, it could be argued, demonstrates that widespread voter fraud "probably" (or "more probably than not") does not occur, because if it did, there would probably be at least some evidence, given that a large number of fallible people would of necessity be involved.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2020, 02:36:50 PM
I'm not talking about it happening. I don't think it does happen, I think the logistics of impersonation are utterly impractical, and the benefit is in no way commensurate with the actual and potential cost.
I'm just talking about how you can't know the unknowable, and the true rate of voter fraud is unknowable. Anyone who treats unknowable as knowable is probably taking a shortcut in either the analysis or the conclusion. Absence of evidence may suggest absence, but it's not evidence of absence. That's not "kookoo conspiracy", that's a basic scientic principle.
Sometimes you just have to live with the fact that something is most likely true, but that you'll never be able to prove it. Negatives are notorious for that.
Yeah - and this is the difference between this and the risk with electronic voting for me. There is an absence of evidence from law enforcement (not just in the US but in the UK too and, I imagine, other countries) and from other relevant experts - as I say, no idea who they are. And it is as you say a fairly impractical way of attacking the electoral system - it would require a conspiracy involving many people. Incidentally this is a bit like the point I was making about being able to work out what didn't happen - normally you find the malware but the logs don't go back for enough, or aren't detailed enough to actually identify what happened so you have to go from things like any other evidence, any previous examples by x group etc.
With machine voting and the online infrastructure of elections we know that there have been multiple attacks on these systems globally - Ukraine, France, Germany spring to mind. We know that groups linked to Russia have "scanned" election boards in the US. And frankly, from my perspective, if you are an entity doing anything online or electronically chances it's only a matter of time before you get some form of cyber-attack. There's no evidence of absence because there are thousands of data breaches on a daily basis - not all state sponsored, not all sophisticated, not all that dangerous. They are incredibly common and, mostly, relatively low risk. But given the importance of trust in elections and the low cost, easy to implement solution of having a physical ballots as an audit it just seems to me like a really obvious solution to a very real risk.
I read a story a while back of a Mexican-American woman with a green card who was deported because she forgot that she was not able to vote in general elections and checked the box for "I am a citizen" by accident. IIRC she was only caught because she realized she had made a mistake and contacted the voting office to try and withdraw the ballot.
The point of the story is there is no system in place to check citizenship of voters. It's all just based on self-certification. There's no random sampling of voters to see what percentage are permanent residents or workers who haven't gotten around to getting their documents.
That's why I'm dubious about the claims concerning the tiny number of cases of fraud. Getting caught is an aberration.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2020, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
This is always a challenge though in trying to get a number of a crime rate for any kind of offence. It's not "kookoo conspiracy territory" to say that not all sex assaults that happen are reported to the police - we know this to be true. There are various means that researches will do different surveys to try and get at the "real" sex assault rate.
When you have an offence with no obvious victim it's at least conceivable that the actual rate of the offence is higher than the amount of times it's been charged.
That is very true, but not related to my point, which was that DG is using as evidence the testimony of someone who doesn't at all claim what DG says he claims. Testimony that, in fact, directly states the opposite of what DG is trying to use it to support.
I "responded the way [I ] did" because I can read and DG either couldn't or wouldn't.
QuoteA person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
- Mark Twain
Well that's why I'm wondering about experts - there must have been political scientists who've looked into this, done some random sampling etc.
For what it's worth our system sounds pretty similar. I'm not sure if you'd be on the electoral roll at that election day if you weren't able to vote (e.g. EU citizens, Irish citizens and some Commonwealth citizens all have different voting rights for different elections) so why you go and give your name to get a ballot I don't know if you'd get one if you weren't eligible to vote. But there's no ID requirement, you don't even need to bring your polling card.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
Dije. Fuck.
Actually dijo is correct. Dije is first person. Others might prefer "ha dicho" since it's not that far back in time.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 15, 2020, 03:21:45 PM
Actually dijo is correct. Dije is first person. Others might prefer "ha dicho" since it's not that far back in time.
Fuck.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2020, 03:11:30 PM
Well that's why I'm wondering about experts - there must have been political scientists who've looked into this, done some random sampling etc.
For what it's worth our system sounds pretty similar. I'm not sure if you'd be on the electoral roll at that election day if you weren't able to vote (e.g. EU citizens, Irish citizens and some Commonwealth citizens all have different voting rights for different elections) so why you go and give your name to get a ballot I don't know if you'd get one if you weren't eligible to vote. But there's no ID requirement, you don't even need to bring your polling card.
Sure, experts have looked at the issue, but there's no evidence that there's an issue. Before Virginia had a voter ID requirement, I'd go in, give the election workers my full name, address, social security number (they can't ask for this any more, but they used to be able to) and, if all that matched, I'd get a ballot and vote. If anything didn't match, I'd get a provisional ballot (though that never actually happened) which would only count of no one else with that combination of name and SSN was used to vote anywhere else, and if my signature on the provisional ballot matched the signature on file for my driver's license or other records.
it's possible that in-person voter fraud is occurring and not being detected, but its scarcely seems possible that it is occurring on a scale large enough to impact elections and no one knows about it.
Fraud with the collusion of election officials is more likely, but less likely with mail-in ballots and their tracking systems than with in-person voting. And that type of collusion isn't prevented by voter ID laws, since the election officials are the ones who would be checking the IDs.
A favorite Republican conspiracy theory is that JFK lost the 1960 election but that the Chicago Democratic machine gave Kennedy enough to the dead vote to tip the scales in Cook Country, and this Illinois, and thus the US. The only fly in that delightful ointment is that Nixon would have still lost had he carried Illinois.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2020, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2020, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2020, 01:03:13 PM
Which is why Grumbler responded the way he did - If you are talking about things happening for which there is no evidence, and there are agencies whose job it is to detect that very thing, then you are in kookoo conspiracy territory.
This is always a challenge though in trying to get a number of a crime rate for any kind of offence. It's not "kookoo conspiracy territory" to say that not all sex assaults that happen are reported to the police - we know this to be true. There are various means that researches will do different surveys to try and get at the "real" sex assault rate.
When you have an offence with no obvious victim it's at least conceivable that the actual rate of the offence is higher than the amount of times it's been charged.
That is very true, but not related to my point, which was that DG is using as evidence the testimony of someone who doesn't at all claim what DG says he claims. Testimony that, in fact, directly states the opposite of what DG is trying to use it to support.
I "responded the way [I ] did" because I can read and DG either couldn't or wouldn't.
QuoteA person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
- Mark Twain
I already addressed that point. It's very conceivable that not every act of voter fraud will be followed by an allegation, hence some acts of voter fraud will remain unknowable even if you count allegations as opposed to convictions. In the passage that you quoted, the figure of 31 allegations is presented as an overestimate of the true rate of fraud. It makes a claim that no every allegation of fraud is an actual case of fraud, but it is completely silent on the possibility than not every case of fraud results in an allegation of fraud. Not only did I read the paragraph you quoted before I linked to the article, but I also comprehended and critically analyzed it.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2020, 11:27:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2020, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 13, 2020, 06:58:29 PM
None that have to let him in.
But they could.
With the exception of the two I just mentioned, they would all involve considerably more effort. :(
Yeah, I know. Emigrating and moving is a pain in the ass, to say the least.
But if push comes to shove, don't hesitate to look elsewhere in the anglo-sphere. :)
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2020, 03:29:43 PM
I already addressed that point. It's very conceivable that not every act of voter fraud will be followed by an allegation, hence some acts of voter fraud will remain unknowable even if you count allegations as opposed to convictions. In the passage that you quoted, the figure of 31 allegations is presented as an overestimate of the true rate of fraud. It makes a claim that no every allegation of fraud is an actual case of fraud, but it is completely silent on the possibility than not every case of fraud results in an allegation of fraud. Not only did I read the paragraph you quoted before I linked to the article, but I also comprehended and critically analyzed it.
Since the person you are using as an example of someone who thinks that "the number of convictions for voter fraud is... the number of cases of voter fraud" and he says no such thing, your critical analysis proves to be neither critical nor analysis.
He argues that the number of cases of alleged fraud "in any way that an ID law could fix" is probably less than the number of cases of voter fraud i
n any way that an ID law could fix." He does not at all make the claim, contrary to your assertions, that "the number of convictions for voter fraud is... the number of cases of voter fraud." Critical analysis would say that his statement is useless to your assertion that there are actually people making this claim, which is the assertion that I challenged and you still have not provided any evidence for.
That there could be a number of cases of fraud that were never detected is such a truism that I would be surprised to find any competent authority denying it to be true.
I hope it will be better, but I'll take it.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/NnOd6.png)
That is a really good map for Donald, though if it goes that far Nevada might flip...but Biden would still barely win in that scenario.
It just shows how critical Pennsylvania is.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 11:24:50 AM
It just shows how critical Pennsylvania is.
Yep. And everyone knows it. The forces of Trump will try to take over the state from their strongholds in the south, marching in with their tiki torches. Biden will bring in antifa reinforcements from the North. They will probably run into each other in some sleepy Pennsyvlania town.
Gettysburg 2.0, in 2020. You are still captivated by the epic tragedy from 157 years ago: don't miss an even more epic farce!
In a really close race that Biden wins, I actually think it's more likely he hits 270 exactly with wins in WI / MI / ME2 / NE1 / AZ, I tend to really like the fundamentals for the Democrats in Arizona. They beat McSally there two years ago, they're beating her again this year, a lot of time statewide races like that can tell you a lot about the direction of the state. All the "fundamentals" with Arizona suggest a blueing state, and the polls have been decent for Biden there. Pennsylvania is a murkier state in terms of demographics, PA also may be in the FL2000 position of being the worst prepared state for a close election, which is fun.
Oddly enough because FL requires all of the mail in ballots to actually be in by 7PM on election day, and is actually pretty fast at counting them, unless FL is quite close we may know the whole shebang really quickly. If Biden has clearly won in Florida it's over, there is virtually no realistic map in which Trump has lost Florida and wins the election, both for the fundamentals of it--it just means he has to win too many hard to win states, and that it would be a strong indicator Trump is going to do very badly in several other states, like NC, AZ etc.
FWIW I'm highly Dem skeptical of FL in general, they got wiped out in statewides there in 2018 and I'm disinclined to think the demographics have improved there, although Biden's unexpected popularity with older white voters means the 2020 race in FL is very unlike any recent D vs R matchups, but still, I'm skeptical of FL. It's definitely in reach for Biden, but my most likely map would be Biden loses FL while still winning the election based off of flipping the "Hillary Blue Wall" back to blue, and flipping AZ. But if Biden has won FL, and convincingly, I think the election is over. This would be one of the "best case" for the country arguments too, because if Biden wins Florida a lot of the GOP will have their "Hitler is dead" moment and institutional support for Trump will collapse as the rats start fighting for power in the post-Trump party.
Another widget :mmm:
https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 24, 2020, 12:22:39 PM
Another widget :mmm:
https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer?
It's interesting to fiddle with the different demographics... for what I've seen so far, a higher turnout than expected for African Americans might turn Georgia and North Carolina, higher latino turnout might flip Arizona. Asians don't really move the needle much.
:huh: The Democrats swung two House seats away from the Republicans in 2018, going from 15-11 R to D to 14-13.
It may not have been clear but when I said "statewides" that was short for "statewide elections", i.e. State constitutional offices like Governor / Attorney General, and the statewide Federal office (U.S. Senate), I think congressional districts are not quite as telling as to the path of a state since they represent only chunks of them (except in the really small states.)
Digging more into it though the Dems did pick up 6 State House seats and 1 State Senate seat, so the trendlines may be a bit murkier than the Governor / U.S. Senate races would suggest (there's also some evidence Bill Nelson ran a spectacularly poor campaign in 2018.)
Recent polling suggests Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia are more likely to go blue this year than PA/MI/WI go red. :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 24, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Recent polling suggests Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia are more likely to go blue this year than PA/MI/WI go red. :hmm:
I would agree but Pennsylvania went for Donald in 2016 and is so critical for both sides chances that it makes sense to stress over. I mean if even one of Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, or Ohio flip that would be incredible.
Look, I'm trying, okay?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2020, 02:54:02 PM
Look, I'm trying, okay?
My ex-wife said I was very trying.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2020, 02:54:02 PM
Look, I'm trying, okay?
I appreciate it :P You are doing better than I am doing here in Texas so far.
So...about your neighbors to the northeast. The polling for Lindsey Graham is really weird, as it seems much closer than how it is for Trump-Biden. What is going on up there? Is Graham just specifically unpopular in South Carolina right now for unrelated reasons? I mean I don't expect him to lose it is just interesting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 24, 2020, 02:13:33 PM
It may not have been clear but when I said "statewides" that was short for "statewide elections", i.e. State constitutional offices like Governor / Attorney General, and the statewide Federal office (U.S. Senate), I think congressional districts are not quite as telling as to the path of a state since they represent only chunks of them (except in the really small states.)
The republicans won the Governorship/Lt Gov 49.6% to 49.4%, so not much of a creaming. The Democrats did flip the Ag and Consumer Affairs seat (one of the four statewide seats) and lost the Senate race by the narrowest possible margin (50.03% to 49.03%, a matter of 10,033 votes out of 8.19 million votes cast and well within the margin of error). Any republican taking comfort in those results is foolish.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 03:01:38 PM
So...about your neighbors to the northeast. The polling for Lindsey Graham is really weird, as it seems much closer than how it is for Trump-Biden. What is going on up there? Is Graham just specifically unpopular in South Carolina right now for unrelated reasons? I mean I don't expect him to lose it is just interesting.
Maybe they are using his words against him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 24, 2020, 12:22:39 PM
Another widget :mmm:
https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer? (https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer?)
Interesting. Only 72% if Hispanics/Latinos support the Dems? After being called scums&rapists by the GOP? After seeing their brethren being treated like vermin at the border? I don't know what it'll take to move the needle there.
I'm looking at what is required to flip a State like Texas to a nice shape of blue. Even increasing the voting intentions by 10% doesn't cut it if I keep the turnout constant. Voter turnout needs to move up by close to 8-10% in any kind of scenario that would involve turning Texas. that'd be a major slap in the face of the GOP if it where to happen.
But it's unrealistic. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems like many foreigners look at it the same way I do, but the Democrats don't seem to be making much of an effort outside of "we're not Donald Trump". I'm scared.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 25, 2020, 01:59:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 03:01:38 PM
So...about your neighbors to the northeast. The polling for Lindsey Graham is really weird, as it seems much closer than how it is for Trump-Biden. What is going on up there? Is Graham just specifically unpopular in South Carolina right now for unrelated reasons? I mean I don't expect him to lose it is just interesting.
Maybe they are using his words against him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0_dK3mvr4
:D
Quote from: viper37 on September 25, 2020, 10:38:24 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 25, 2020, 01:59:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 03:01:38 PM
So...about your neighbors to the northeast. The polling for Lindsey Graham is really weird, as it seems much closer than how it is for Trump-Biden. What is going on up there? Is Graham just specifically unpopular in South Carolina right now for unrelated reasons? I mean I don't expect him to lose it is just interesting.
Maybe they are using his words against him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0_dK3mvr4
:D
:lol: You really have to admire the shameless lack of pretence.
Quote from: viper37 on September 25, 2020, 10:36:49 AMInteresting. Only 72% if Hispanics/Latinos support the Dems? After being called scums&rapists by the GOP? After seeing their brethren being treated like vermin at the border? I don't know what it'll take to move the needle there.
Thing I find interesting is Trump is already losing even if he wins the 2016 voteshare because of demographic trends. So presumably needs to win new voters, which doesn't seem to be his approach so far.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 03:01:38 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2020, 02:54:02 PM
Look, I'm trying, okay?
I appreciate it :P You are doing better than I am doing here in Texas so far.
So...about your neighbors to the northeast. The polling for Lindsey Graham is really weird, as it seems much closer than how it is for Trump-Biden. What is going on up there? Is Graham just specifically unpopular in South Carolina right now for unrelated reasons? I mean I don't expect him to lose it is just interesting.
Everyone loathes Graham. There are basically no people, even Trumpists, that say they approve of him. The difficulty is that most Carolinians hate Democrats even more, so it's a balancing act to find someone who's a Dem but less loathsome than Graham himself.
Well about 40% of South Carolina votes Democratic, it is not Wyoming or anything.
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:58:15 AM
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
During the Bush years I thought he was a fucking idiot, I could always count on him to deliver the most pathetic rationalization for whatever Dubya was up to at the moment. It was only in the Republican Primaries of 2016 that some people thought he was this voice of reason and respectability, which to me just spoke to how far the party had fallen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:58:15 AM
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
"The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- L. Graham, 2012
Well Graham has made me an angry white guy a few times over the years. So I guess he did his part generating one.
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2020, 11:02:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:58:15 AM
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
"The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- L. Graham, 2012
:lol: I mean that seems like a fairly accurate diagnosis, no?
One solution was they try and expand outside of the angry white guy demographic - this was after 2012 when the GOP were planning to do immigration reform etc. In fact they appear to have doubled down on the let's only appeal to angry white guys, but also make it difficult for everyone else to vote approach :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 25, 2020, 10:36:49 AMInteresting. Only 72% if Hispanics/Latinos support the Dems? After being called scums&rapists by the GOP? After seeing their brethren being treated like vermin at the border? I don't know what it'll take to move the needle there.
Thing I find interesting is Trump is already losing even if he wins the 2016 voteshare because of demographic trends. So presumably needs to win new voters, which doesn't seem to be his approach so far.
There are presumably millions more non-college educated white voters in the Midwest that didn't turn out in 2016 that he needs to juice up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:58:15 AM
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
ditto
But I see your Graham and raise you Barr.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2020, 03:35:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2020, 10:58:15 AM
Is he the biggest credibility sink of the Trump era?
Maybe it was just McCain's glow reflecting on him but I always thought he was fairly well-respected and seemed like a credible, reasonably independent minded politician. And then the last few years he's just been utterly craven.
ditto
But I see your Graham and raise you Barr.
You must have forgotten the national anthem incident if you think she had credibility to lose. :D
Quote from: viper37 on September 25, 2020, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 24, 2020, 12:22:39 PM
Another widget :mmm:
https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer? (https://cookpolitical.com/swingometer?)
Interesting. Only 72% if Hispanics/Latinos support the Dems? After being called scums&rapists by the GOP? After seeing their brethren being treated like vermin at the border? I don't know what it'll take to move the needle there.
My godfather, a first gen Mexican, was one of the worst racists against Mexican immigrants. He refused to speak Spanish except with his mother and mother-in-law, and called all recent Mexican immigrants "wetbacks" with derision and scorn. He wasn't unusual from my experience.
Additionally, enough are single-issue voters (abortion) to make up the difference.
Cuban-Americans (and though few Venezuelan-Americans) tend to skew more right also.
That percentage of Hispanics that support Trump also includes a heap of Cubans, who are a fairly reliable Republican group in Florida, at least.
A lot of latinos are natural GOP voters. But they keep screwing that with all the bigotry.
I assume many are hardcore Catholics who are willing to overlook everything because they vote solely on abortion.
Sort of like how hardcore Protestant Christians are willing to overlook how Trump personally embodies the seven deadly sins, because abortion.
Quote from: celedhring on September 25, 2020, 05:10:16 PM
A lot of latinos are natural GOP voters. But they keep screwing that with all the bigotry.
Yeah they are kind of dropping the ball there. Same with many groups of Asian Americans. They used to do much better with both groups.
Wasn't that part of Bush II's strategy, to make the GOP palatable to latinos?
Quote from: The Larch on September 25, 2020, 05:42:58 PM
Wasn't that part of Bush II's strategy, to make the GOP palatable to latinos?
Yes and in the 90s the GOP regularly won Texas elections by 30+ for that reason.
Was thinking about negative factors for Biden (because I just bet on Biden to win :) ).
There was an analysis that Biden needs to win by 4 in the popular vote to be the favorite in the electoral college (if all you know is the popular vote). Right now, the RCP average is Biden +6.7. So that is less than 3 points, if we believe the analysis. The RCP battleground average is Biden +3.6, which is in line with that.
I'm generally skeptical of just assuming the polls are wrong, but there is a massive change in voting this time: covid-19. I don't think I'm on a limb saying that generally Republicans are taking the virus less seriously than Democrats. How much does this disproportionately suppress Democratic voting?
Hmm...meant to post that in the other thread, so here's a link to 538 polls
Currently +7.2 with the Dems winning Ohio & N. Carolina
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2020, 05:02:30 PM
Cuban-Americans (and though few Venezuelan-Americans) tend to skew more right also.
sure, I get that. I am right-wing, and lots of people i know on the right support Donald Trump. They gave their brain to science a little too soon.
But I never voted for the Reform party despite it being much more to the right than the Bloc Québécois. They hated French and bilinguism, they never shied from it, I did not vote for them as long as they existed. I waited until some dude started showing respect toward me, then I came onboard.
The racism&self loathing expressed by Meri makes more sense though.
Admittedly lame of me to muse predictively this close in, I'm hoping for a Biden win and that seems to be the likely outcome. After the conventions I thought it might be Trump for a while. I think it is going to be too close for comfort, which given the nature of Trump is profoundly depressing and scary. Back in June I was sort of hoping that the GOP would be routed and compelled to abandon their current track, the sort of alternate reality proto fascism that they are running on with the help of their conservative media sphere. Now I don't think that's the case. Glassy eyed adoration for Trump, and his sideshow Bob cruelty circus is still what at least 60 million Americans are going to vote for. There's also nothing detectable in a putative Biden presidency, policy wise, to imagine that the process of separating the GOP donors and Strategists from working Americans might begin. So the GOP after Trump may indeed be more Tom Cotton than Mitt Romney. Imagine a Trump who isn't an adderall snorting pants shitter, but effective and disciplined. I think that's the 24, 28 GOP we have to look forward to.
That is easier said than done. The celebrity and theatrics are such a part of the President's appeal, I don't know if a sober strategic version of that would work. I mean how do you strategically and logically advance authoritarian conspiracies. It might work but that is a hard fence to straddle.
Sort of like saying a Democrat should just be Obama but better...sure that is a good idea but...
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:09:00 AM
That is easier said than done. The celebrity and theatrics are such a part of the President's appeal, I don't know if a sober strategic version of that would work. I mean how do you strategically and logically advance authoritarian conspiracies. It might work but that is a hard fence to straddle.
Sort of like saying a Democrat should just be Obama but better...sure that is a good idea but...
Except we see this all the time - Orban, Modi, Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Salvini etc. The calculating and effective populist authoritarian approach seems more common than Trump's more buffoonish style. Trump is arguably the outlier, the Berlusconi-esque figure of excess who can't resist anything (even if it would be the politically smart thing to do).
I guess. I just don't see Tom Cotton as a charismatic cynical dictator in waiting. We'll see.
None of those guys you mentioned (well except Modi I guess) ever had to weather the 24/7 international 18 month media circus of our elections. It takes a special kind of media personality to do what Donald did. It is not as easy and straightforward as it might appear to simply be Trump without his weaknesses.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:27:49 AM
I guess. I just don't see Tom Cotton as a charismatic cynical dictator in waiting. We'll see.
I mean of those, I certainly don't think Orban, Putin, Erdogan or Netanyahu started as obvious threatening charismatic, cynical authoritarians. That came with how they used power.
I take the point on Salvini and (I'd say) Modi.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:27:49 AM
I guess. I just don't see Tom Cotton as a charismatic cynical dictator in waiting. We'll see.
None of those guys you mentioned (well except Modi I guess) ever had to weather the 24/7 international 18 month media circus of our elections. It takes a special kind of media personality to do what Donald did. It is not as easy and straightforward as it might appear to simply be Trump without his weaknesses.
A contrarian point of view would be that rural folks, evangelicals, and other conservatives are not especially excited about NYC real estate moguls who inherited their wealth, have gone through a bunch of wives, and are generally transparently shitty.
They support him because he has a unique policy agenda they like, and that more than overcomes the high barrier of entry his personality presents. Someone picking up his policy agenda without the other baggage may go far.
That was already true prior to Trump. Plenty of politicians, like Cruz, were far better aligned with them than Trump but celebrity wins.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 30, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
A contrarian point of view would be that rural folks, evangelicals, and other conservatives are not especially excited about NYC real estate moguls who inherited their wealth, have gone through a bunch of wives, and are generally transparently shitty.
They support him because he has a unique policy agenda they like, and that more than overcomes the high barrier of entry his personality presents. Someone picking up his policy agenda without the other baggage may go far.
Huey Long did that and it took a bullet to stop him.
I honestly don't think Trump's supporters care much about policy, though they may say they do. I think the real motive is that Trump promises to hurt people they hate. Tom Cotton's statement about bringing in the army and offering "no quarter" to protesters is the kind of thing they want to hear.
Probably a better strategy in the 1930s though. Going hard after the conservative base when the Republicans have struggled in the popular vote since the 1980s is a tricky strategy on its own.
But Cruz isn't really a Trumpist is he? He's just an old-school social conservative and party loyalist. I don't think 99% of the stuff that's happened with Trump happens with President Cruz.
He doesn't seem to me to have nationalist/authoritarian bent that you get with Cotton or Hawley. He's more of an enabler I suppose.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:49:41 AM
That was already true prior to Trump. Plenty of politicians, like Cruz, were far better aligned with them than Trump but celebrity wins.
The #1 policy proposal of Ted Cruz wasn't to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2020, 11:55:25 AM
But Cruz isn't really a Trumpist is he? He's just an old-school social conservative and party loyalist. I don't think 99% of the stuff that's happened with Trump happens with President Cruz.
He doesn't seem to me to have nationalist/authoritarian bent that you get with Cotton or Hawley. He's more of an enabler I suppose.
He is not a party loyalist but a very ideological extremist. He literally thinks he is on a mission from God.
I was talking about the evangelical and conservative group that was being discussed, not the nationalist populists. Appealing to them requires the sort of theatrics I was talking about earlier.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 30, 2020, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:49:41 AM
That was already true prior to Trump. Plenty of politicians, like Cruz, were far better aligned with them than Trump but celebrity wins.
The #1 policy proposal of Ted Cruz wasn't to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
Well that's true. But who besides a celebrity like Trump would come up with something so wacky and sell it so well?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:57:32 AM
He is not a party loyalist but a very ideological extremist. He literally thinks he is on a mission from God.
He rowed in behind a candidate who called his wife ugly and accused his dad of killing JFK - he's a party loyalist. He might pose and even really believe that he is driven by his deeply held religious principles but that looks like very successful cognitive dissonance.
He is on the hard-line social conservative wing of the party, he might have that sense of mission. But I don't think anyone ever panics at the thought that Cruz might not, ultimately, follow the party line.
I mean when has he ever bucked that because of his mission from God? He was the candidate running on morals and pitching for the evangelicals but he couldn't even bring himself to mewl the slightest rebuke of Trump once he was the party's nominee. I feel like he's very good at convincing himself that going along with the party just so happens to be a perfect circl venn diagram of his mission from God :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2020, 12:05:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:57:32 AM
He is not a party loyalist but a very ideological extremist. He literally thinks he is on a mission from God.
He rowed in behind a candidate who called his wife ugly and accused his dad of killing JFK - he's a party loyalist. He might pose and even really believe that he is driven by his deeply held religious principles but that looks like very successful cognitive dissonance.
He is on the hard-line social conservative wing of the party, he might have that sense of mission. But I don't think anyone ever panics at the thought that Cruz might not, ultimately, follow the party line.
I mean when has he ever bucked that because of his mission from God? He was the candidate running on morals and pitching for the evangelicals but he couldn't even bring himself to mewl the slightest rebuke of Trump once he was the party's nominee. I feel like he's very good at convincing himself that going along with the party just so happens to be a perfect circl venn diagram of his mission from God :P
I don't know if this makes Cruz better or worse, but he didn't fall in line immediately. Remember he famously refused to endorse Trump at the 2016 Convention.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2020, 12:05:05 PM
He rowed in behind a candidate who called his wife ugly and accused his dad of killing JFK - he's a party loyalist. He might pose and even really believe that he is driven by his deeply held religious principles but that looks like very successful cognitive dissonance.
I just googled a picture of his wife, and I think that Ted Cruz probably recognizes there was a bit of truth on that one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2020, 11:09:00 AM
I mean how do you strategically and logically advance authoritarian conspiracies. It might work but that is a hard fence to straddle.
Defeatocrats.
I think we have Fox News as a proof it can be done and people will believe it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:09:49 PM
I don't know if this makes Cruz better or worse, but he didn't fall in line immediately. Remember he famously refused to endorse Trump at the 2016 Convention.
Fair point, that's true. He admittedly did endorse him a couple of months later complete with the amazing, agonising photos of him phone-banking for Trump (after all, Trump loves nothing more than humiliating his past foes).
I just think we need to be careful about buying the way politicians see themselves or portray themselves, especially in the Republican Party - e.g. Paul Ryan, the wonkish, policy-focused problem solver. Because the remarkable thing is how meekly they have followed Trump despite that, which makes me think far more of them are fundamentally just party loyalists than they'd like us to think (or probably like to think of themselves when they bitch to each other or to journalists about how awful Trump is and how they miss the Senate of old that could work together). And that's exactly why I think the US is vulnerable to an effective Trumpist President.
Trump as President has revealed how weak and unprincipled the Republican Party is as a political class and also just how much power the executive has in the modern Presidency. We've been lucky that he actually doesn't know the limits or extent of his powers. But if you had someone competent and effective in office who shared a lot of Trump's vision, I think they could do a lot - as Putin and Erdogan did. I think there's a strong chance that the US's institutions might hold up better - as in Italy and Israel - but, as in those countries it's not clear how long they could hold out on their own. As I say those guys (with the exception of Salvini and maybe Modi) didn't come to power as nationalist, authoritarian strongmen, they became that through being effective in office and a corrupt political class that put up no real resistance to them.
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 30, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
They support him because he has a unique policy agenda they like, and that more than overcomes the high barrier of entry his personality presents. Someone picking up his policy agenda without the other baggage may go far.
I think so. Charitably, a lot of people voted for Trump because they thought they might get immigration reform, a better deal for US workers and at least a cooling of the foreign wars without end. Those are all reasonable policy positions. Incredibly naive to expect a TV star with an adderall problem to be able to form an ideologically consistent government, so instead those voters got tax cuts for the wealthy - the essential GOP agenda, undisturbed by the outlier they had voted for to upend the applecart.
As for the Evangelicals - supreme court picks, sent by God etc, they must all be pretty happy.
Outside of that though I think people vote for Trump because of Republican/conservative contrarian nihilism. They love the cruel shit show. If you can deliver some part of that essential piece and keep the Evangelicals on board, you are off to the races.
I guess. The GOP lost the popular vote in 2016, lost in 2018, and it is looking to have a tough 2020. I don't know if it is quite yhe unbeatable coalition you think it is.
Damn I thought I was gloomy and pessimistic.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Lindsay Graham is a case in point. Strongly anti Trump at the start, and a previous major advocate of immigration reform (in recent days, his old "we aren't generating enough angry white guys" is being used against him--but that old version of Graham was saying that as part of an argument to be more inclusive).
He then saw the writing on the wall and sucked up to Trump like no one else.
Today? He may lose his Senate seat--he is neck and neck in reelection. He is well behind Trump in the state and his support among Republicans in the low 80s despite Trump's in the 90s. His early criticisms of Trump may be too much to overcome--voters remember.
Theoretically he could have stuck to his old philosophy of anti-Trumpism / big tent republicanism and won by winning over democrats despite republican support in the 60s or something, but that doesn't seem very likely.
He also could have taken the high road and given up on reelection, but regardless of whether politicians should do that, I think it is safe to say that most won't.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Impossible if the only purpose is to win. Not so impossible if they have other priorities.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
:lol: It's tought not to have more sympathy for them than me, but I take a similar view of the Labour MPs (and journalists for that matter) who had huge issues with Corbyn until he did well in 2017 at which point they became very quiet and very loyal.
And you're right, there are really good reasons to get behind Trump if you're a GOP politician. I just don't think you also get to have the reputation as being on some mission from God, or being independent minded or whatever if you make that choice.
And I don't know that it works politically. It feels like the people who got very close to Trump are at risk, as are the people who have opposed him occasionally. I think, I could be wrong, but I think there's a long-term move in US congressional and senate election that they are now basically being more along the lines of national swing rather than local incumbents being able to buck the trend. Again I wonder about the chicken and egg of that, but I think there are lots of politicians who have wildly overestimated how much they are loved in their local community for their distincitive independent stands and then lost elections :lol:
I suppose if you might lose the election on a national swing then there's no benefit in being a difficult member of the team, but the upside if you wing and you're a loyalist is probably a lot better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2020, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
:lol: It's tought not to have more sympathy for them than me, but I take a similar view of the Labour MPs (and journalists for that matter) who had huge issues with Corbyn until he did well in 2017 at which point they became very quiet and very loyal.
And you're right, there are really good reasons to get behind Trump if you're a GOP politician. I just don't think you also get to have the reputation as being on some mission from God, or being independent minded or whatever if you make that choice.
And I don't know that it works politically. It feels like the people who got very close to Trump are at risk, as are the people who have opposed him occasionally. I think, I could be wrong, but I think there's a long-term move in US congressional and senate election that they are now basically being more along the lines of national swing rather than local incumbents being able to buck the trend. Again I wonder about the chicken and egg of that, but I think there are lots of politicians who have wildly overestimated how much they are loved in their local community for their distincitive independent stands and then lost elections :lol:
I suppose if you might lose the election on a national swing then there's no benefit in being a difficult member of the team, but the upside if you wing and you're a loyalist is probably a lot better.
I think the problem is that there is still an advantage to being an independent in the general election - but that's it's pure poison in a primary.
I'm going to call it as a narrow Trump win in the electoral college, but a win none the less, one that the Democrats won't be able to challenge.
How the GOP gets there, voter suppression, a far superior digital campaign and playing only to the negatives.
I'm going to call Mongers a Debbie Downer.
We have one month to go and the first "debate" is done. Anyone care to update their prediction?
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 01, 2020, 12:10:50 PM
We have one month to go and the first "debate" is done. Anyone care to update their prediction?
Need more data - like how much military hardware is being given to the Proud Boys so that they can effectively monitor polling stations.
I still stand firm on my prediction that Wyoming will be solidly behind Trump.
As Wyoming goes, so does Idaho.
Montana is a bit on the purple-ish end of the red states. Still only a faint purple hue though.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2020, 09:18:12 PM
Montana is a bit on the purple-ish end of the red states. Still only a faint purple hue though.
Any bit of blue is the equivalent of full on communism.
Trump aid Hope Hicks tests positive for coronavirus. Trump to isolate until he gets test results.
Quote from: PDH on October 01, 2020, 10:06:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2020, 09:18:12 PM
Montana is a bit on the purple-ish end of the red states. Still only a faint purple hue though.
Any bit of blue is the equivalent of full on communism.
Better dead than red.
Err, wait...
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2020, 09:18:12 PM
Montana is a bit on the purple-ish end of the red states. Still only a faint purple hue though.
Yeah, I'm curious on that. What's the deal there?
Why is it such an outlier? Natives?
The only guy I know from Montana (white, college-educated) is a Democrat. Hardly representative, but here's that. :lol:
People who want to see Montana are often Communists.
Quote from: Tyr on October 02, 2020, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2020, 09:18:12 PM
Montana is a bit on the purple-ish end of the red states. Still only a faint purple hue though.
Yeah, I'm curious on that. What's the deal there?
Why is it such an outlier? Natives?
It isn't that much of an outlier :lol:
If anything it is more typical of a red state than Idaho and Wyoming which are on the extreme side.
Yes there are a bit more American Indians, as percentage of the population, than most US states but that fairly typical of their neighborhood. Both Dakotas have similar percentages, for example.
It could be that they have a Democratic stronghold like Mizzoula, home of the University of Montana. But even Wyoming has Jackson Hole where hippies like to hang out. So I don't know.
A lot of folks from the West Coast are moving to Montana because of the housing prices. Additionally, there are a lot of communal living types out there.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2020, 08:17:09 AMIt could be that they have a Democratic stronghold like Mizzoula
Isn't that in the great state of Mizzouri?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2020, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2020, 08:17:09 AMIt could be that they have a Democratic stronghold like Mizzoula
Isn't that in the great state of Mizzouri?
You bastard :lol:
I don't know what is wrong with me today :Embarrass:
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Sorry Beeb, but that is simply not true.
The threat of being primaried out of office if you were not radical enough existed long before Trump. Indeed, lots of sane, moderate Republicans were primaried out by Tea Party whackjobs a decade or more before Trump.
The Tea Party transformed the GOP in a Party that nobody should be surprised then elected Donal Trump. He is *exactly* the President the GOP deserved at the moment he won the nomination, because he nearly perfectly aligns with what the modern Tea Party GOP values.
So no, the Paul Ryan's don't get a pass. They were part of creating the very party for whom Trump is the ideal candidate. Not the other way around.
Paul Ryan positioned himself as a debt hawk, somebody who supposedly cared a lot about this country's future, and then blew up the deficit in a big way in 2017 once he had the power to actually do something about the deficit. I wasn't suprised even a little bit he didn't actually give a fuck about even the one thing he was supposed to have principles about sadly.
Republicans who actually have princples, like Justin Amash did when he was still in the party, I can respect and deal with because anybody who has values and principles can be bargained with and sometimes you will be on the same side. But somebody who is just full of shit who shifts around on a whim cannot be. They will always find a reason to do the wrong thing.
The national conversation about mail-in voting needs to be over now. There are only two positions left: enthusiastic support and encouragement for mail-in voting/drop box voting vs criminal prosecution for negligent homicide.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Sorry Beeb, but that is simply not true.
The threat of being primaried out of office if you were not radical enough existed long before Trump. Indeed, lots of sane, moderate Republicans were primaried out by Tea Party whackjobs a decade or more before Trump.
The Tea Party transformed the GOP in a Party that nobody should be surprised then elected Donal Trump. He is *exactly* the President the GOP deserved at the moment he won the nomination, because he nearly perfectly aligns with what the modern Tea Party GOP values.
So no, the Paul Ryan's don't get a pass. They were part of creating the very party for whom Trump is the ideal candidate. Not the other way around.
This may be true, but I see little that can be gained by taking such a tact. We need the moderate (moderate doesn't even sound right, maybe non-nationalists) Republicans to take back their party. I sympathize with Yi and Derspeiss, I really do. Their party went haywire and left them without a good home. I'm also not so arrogant to think that something like this can happen the Democrats. There are things in the Democratic party that Democrats pretend that aren't there. Antisemitism that has infected Labor Party could make inroads in the Democratic party, we have already seen some signs of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Sorry Beeb, but that is simply not true.
The threat of being primaried out of office if you were not radical enough existed long before Trump. Indeed, lots of sane, moderate Republicans were primaried out by Tea Party whackjobs a decade or more before Trump.
The Tea Party transformed the GOP in a Party that nobody should be surprised then elected Donal Trump. He is *exactly* the President the GOP deserved at the moment he won the nomination, because he nearly perfectly aligns with what the modern Tea Party GOP values.
So no, the Paul Ryan's don't get a pass. They were part of creating the very party for whom Trump is the ideal candidate. Not the other way around.
This may be true, but I see little that can be gained by taking such a tact. We need the moderate (moderate doesn't even sound right, maybe non-nationalists) Republicans to take back their party. I sympathize with Yi and Derspeiss, I really do. Their party went haywire and left them without a good home. I'm also not so arrogant to think that something like this can happen the Democrats. There are things in the Democratic party that Democrats pretend that aren't there. Antisemitism that has infected Labor Party could make inroads in the Democratic party, we have already seen some signs of it.
I don't agree. I used to think that, before Trump - there was still some legit figures in the party, guys like McCain, and Graham and others.
But they are all gone. The only ones that are left are those who are selected specifically for being morons, power mad, or just plain bigots. The core of sanity is gone, and there is nothing left to build on.
And it got this bad BECAUSE of people who looked the other way, pretended like the Tea Party wasn't so bad, even sucked up to them, long before Trump. Even I did.
There is no path forward for the GOP.
Bring back the Whig
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
This may be true, but I see little that can be gained by taking such a tact. We need the moderate (moderate doesn't even sound right, maybe non-nationalists) Republicans to take back their party. I sympathize with Yi and Derspeiss, I really do. Their party went haywire and left them without a good home. I'm also not so arrogant to think that something like this can happen the Democrats. There are things in the Democratic party that Democrats pretend that aren't there. Antisemitism that has infected Labor Party could make inroads in the Democratic party, we have already seen some signs of it.
I agree with Berk. Also if you're looking for a party that's like Labour under Corbyn, it's the GOP (sort-of). The main difference is Labour didn't win any power and also it is relatively easy for the moderates to win back their power. The Labour party is quite centralised and gives a lot of power to the leadership and the National Executive Committee (this is a legacy of the last fight against the hard-left).
I could be wrong but I don't think there's going to be enough time for GOP moderates to fight back because of how decentralised it is in the US. And in the meantime, they will inveitably win again just because it's a two-party system which will be taken that the moderates have done enough and normal service will resume. The only way I can see of short-circuiting that is if they face catastrophe and lose so badly across the board - state, House, Senate, White House - that it sort of foces a reset of the party because it's impossible to pretend things are okay (the alternative is that they stay out of power for a number of electoral cycles which forces them to the same conclusion, but given the system I don't think that's likely). And I hope they become a party that tries to compete for a majority again I think that would be transformative.
Berk's totally right - especially after the impeachment - nothing Trump is doing would be possible without the solid support of his party (Romney excepted).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2020, 08:25:02 AM
Berk's totally right - especially after the impeachment - nothing Trump is doing would be possible without the solid support of his party (Romney excepted).
What is Trump actually doing besides tweeting stupid stuff at 3am?
His primary policy objective in the campaign was building a wall specifically and immigration curtailment more generally. Despite having a party in control of the house and senate until the first midterms, he never got the wall funded and congress never took up immigration as a major issue.
His only two accomplishments that involved the legislature are tax reform - which was a longstanding republican goal - and judicial confirmations - which are also a longstanding republican goal.
Probably the most impactful thing that has happened is the covid response, and that is mostly executive, but the legislative response has been negotiated with house democrats as well (since they control the house now).
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2020, 08:50:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2020, 12:32:34 PM
I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.
Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else. The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary). It's an almost impossible situation to be in.
Sorry Beeb, but that is simply not true.
The threat of being primaried out of office if you were not radical enough existed long before Trump. Indeed, lots of sane, moderate Republicans were primaried out by Tea Party whackjobs a decade or more before Trump.
The Tea Party transformed the GOP in a Party that nobody should be surprised then elected Donal Trump. He is *exactly* the President the GOP deserved at the moment he won the nomination, because he nearly perfectly aligns with what the modern Tea Party GOP values.
So no, the Paul Ryan's don't get a pass. They were part of creating the very party for whom Trump is the ideal candidate. Not the other way around.
This may be true, but I see little that can be gained by taking such a tact. We need the moderate (moderate doesn't even sound right, maybe non-nationalists) Republicans to take back their party. I sympathize with Yi and Derspeiss, I really do. Their party went haywire and left them without a good home. I'm also not so arrogant to think that something like this can happen the Democrats. There are things in the Democratic party that Democrats pretend that aren't there. Antisemitism that has infected Labor Party could make inroads in the Democratic party, we have already seen some signs of it.
I don't agree. I used to think that, before Trump - there was still some legit figures in the party, guys like McCain, and Graham and others.
But they are all gone. The only ones that are left are those who are selected specifically for being morons, power mad, or just plain bigots. The core of sanity is gone, and there is nothing left to build on.
And it got this bad BECAUSE of people who looked the other way, pretended like the Tea Party wasn't so bad, even sucked up to them, long before Trump. Even I did.
There is no path forward for the GOP.
Like I said, you may be right. It did get bad because people looked the other way. But what do we do about it? Sure, if Biden wins this year that will buy us some time, but the prospect of Tom Cotton as President in 2025 is terrifying. How do we stop something like that from happening.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2020, 08:50:10 PM
I don't agree. I used to think that, before Trump - there was still some legit figures in the party, guys like McCain, and Graham and others.
But they are all gone. The only ones that are left are those who are selected specifically for being morons, power mad, or just plain bigots. The core of sanity is gone, and there is nothing left to build on.
And it got this bad BECAUSE of people who looked the other way, pretended like the Tea Party wasn't so bad, even sucked up to them, long before Trump. Even I did.
There is no path forward for the GOP.
I agree, the GOP as it is should only a perfect world be destroyed by the voters. Afterwards a new Conservative party of the traditional sort hopefully would arise. Problem is though that there there appears to be a significant portion of the US public form whom this party as it is, is a perfect fit. No idea what can be done about that.
I really do wonder if there is a single person who could become President and unite the country again. Biden is more likely than any of the other Democratic candidates, but I almost think it's going to take a moderate Republican to win to do it, and no moderate Republican is going to win as things are.
We've painted ourselves into a corner, and I don't see a way out.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2020, 09:11:17 AM
What is Trump actually doing besides tweeting stupid stuff at 3am?
His primary policy objective in the campaign was building a wall specifically and immigration curtailment more generally. Despite having a party in control of the house and senate until the first midterms, he never got the wall funded and congress never took up immigration as a major issue.
His only two accomplishments that involved the legislature are tax reform - which was a longstanding republican goal - and judicial confirmations - which are also a longstanding republican goal.
Probably the most impactful thing that has happened is the covid response, and that is mostly executive, but the legislative response has been negotiated with house democrats as well (since they control the house now).
Yeah - my point is we've had four years of off the record briefing by congressional Republicans (and Republicans in the administration) about how alarming Trump can be, how unfit for office many of them think he is. But they worked actively to block his impeachment (with the exception of Romney) so there isn't a single executive action - relating covid or immigration or the politicisation of law enforcement - at least in the course of the last year are on them. They all thought he was unfit, I'm fairly sure that more than Romney thought he'd probably committed an impeachable offence, but they rowed in.
And I think part of it is a Trumpian corruption - that to get anywhere with Trump you need to actively praise him (ideally on TV) - which made it difficult to be sort of neutrally critical of Trump while staying a party loyalist (which I think is possible under normal Presidents). It reminds me of the whole Vaclav Havel idea of living in truth, to get anywhere with the administration Republicans need to live within a lie (Trump is doing a tremendous job, he's the best President on x we've ever had, no-one could have dealt with this better) and they need to do it publically. The only ones I can think of who resisted that in any real way are Flake, McCain, Romney and Murkowski.
I also would love to see a study of the manner of on the record criticism v praise of Trump. I could be totally wrong but part of me wonders if they put their criticism in statements, talking to reporters which appear in the newspapers which don't really matter to Trump (except for the NYT), but put the praise on TV which matters and he'll see. Certainly if I was a craven Republican Senator looking to assuage my conscience and "moderates", I'd definitely do that.
I guess we are in for Biden then a very left wing democrat. During her reign of terror (/progress) during which the republicans run around like headless chickens being super nazi, the right of the Democrats ends up aligning with the moderate republicans to take the republican party back to its roots thus setting the US up as a more normal two patty state of socialists vs liberal conservatives rather than its current conservative dominated coalition of non crazies vs hard right lunatics.
At least that's the hope. A whole host of things can go wrong there....
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2020, 11:27:11 AM
Yeah - my point is we've had four years of off the record briefing by congressional Republicans (and Republicans in the administration) about how alarming Trump can be, how unfit for office many of them think he is. But they worked actively to block his impeachment (with the exception of Romney) so there isn't a single executive action - relating covid or immigration or the politicisation of law enforcement - at least in the course of the last year are on them. They all thought he was unfit, I'm fairly sure that more than Romney thought he'd probably committed an impeachable offence, but they rowed in.
It is a huge stretch to say that congressional republicans are responsible for Trump's incompetence because they didn't remove him from office. Practically speaking, you aren't going to remove a president if you don't have public support, and the public support just isn't there. Impeachment was *this year* and the substance of the impeachment isn't even a campaign issue.
I really fail to see how the country would be better off if he got removed. Pence is in charge of the covid19 task force anyway--but assuming that he is so much better than Trump--you would still have 40% of the country fighting mad that their president was removed and Trump would likely be maximizing chaos from the sidelines (and probably running for president). It would be destabilizing long term.
Trump's incompetence is a short term problem, but the longer term problem for the Republicans is how to stay competitive with an almost all white voting base in an increasingly diverse county and general acceptance of diversity as a positive. It isn't hard to look forward and see a looming electoral death of the party.
But the Democrats have a serious problem too. They are now the party of the educated, the affluent, and bigger businesses, and I'm not sure how they can hold that together with the more leftist elements of their base. Right now everything is papered over because they can stay unified in stopping Trump, but Trump as a unifying force won't always be there.
Realignment is messy and can go in a lot of different directions.
You might be right politcally on Republicans not voting for impeachment, but for their votes Trump would be out of office and the president in the middle of a pandemic would not have Trump's psychological flaws. I think you hugely underestimate the impact Trump's indifference to actually being President has. I think it's very likely that you'd have far fewer deaths if Pence was in charge because I think he'd be trying to do the job. So on covid I think you would have more of a focused, coordinated policy that was not primarily focused on addressing the emotional mood of the leader. I don't think it's incompetence that is necessarily - I just don't think he cares about actually being President, for him it's a role on TV or on the phone to foreign leaders. So, in my view, even a very incompetent "normal" political leader would do better and make more of an effort than Trump.
And in terms of scale I believe the US has now, on a per capita basis, had more deaths than the UK and Italy. So I think it is safe to say it's had one of the worst experiences of this pandemic in the world.
Quote
Trump's incompetence is a short term problem, but the longer term problem for the Republicans is how to stay competitive with an almost all white voting base in an increasingly diverse county and general acceptance of diversity as a positive. It isn't hard to look forward and see a looming electoral death of the party.
But the Democrats have a serious problem too. They are now the party of the educated, the affluent, and bigger businesses, and I'm not sure how they can hold that together with the more leftist elements of their base. Right now everything is papered over because they can stay unified in stopping Trump, but Trump as a unifying force won't always be there.
Realignment is messy and can go in a lot of different directions.
I totally agree on the GOP and I think the key moment was in the aftermath of Romney's loss. Because at that point there were many in the GOP basically talking about how they win more votes and how they re-align and it is important to remember the early 2000s talk of a strong Republican majority emerging. It ultimately focused around immigration reform and the pushback of the base against that (Cantor's primary as the clarifying moment) ended that. I don't know how the GOP re-aligns without either suffering consecutive losses for a long time or catastrophic defeat now because I think anything else will be too comfortable to force the change.
On the Democrats I'm not so sure. The Democrats seem more comfortable with coalition politics than Republicans, so seem better able to manage it. And the shift of high-earning educated voters to the left isn't a uniquely or weirdly American thing - it's happening all over Europe too, Thomas Piketty refers to it as the Brahmin class. And you know - the people who are backing Bernie and Warren are often the university educated folks (as in Europe), a lot of the base of the moderate left is in minorities. And that's the difference between the US and Europe is that in the US you have this Brahmin class plus minorities which is a stronger coalition because of how diverse the US is, Europe is not that diverse so it's pushing the left into urban, educated, enclaves plus the odd smaller university town (or the Greens are replacing the traditional left). It's definitely a challenge but looking at the global left the US seems best placed to manage this.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2020, 12:40:15 PMI really fail to see how the country would be better off if he got removed. Pence is in charge of the covid19 task force anyway--but assuming that he is so much better than Trump--you would still have 40% of the country fighting mad that their president was removed and Trump would likely be maximizing chaos from the sidelines (and probably running for president). It would be destabilizing long term.
He would not be running for president:
Quote from: Article I Sec 3Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 03, 2020, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2020, 12:40:15 PMI really fail to see how the country would be better off if he got removed. Pence is in charge of the covid19 task force anyway--but assuming that he is so much better than Trump--you would still have 40% of the country fighting mad that their president was removed and Trump would likely be maximizing chaos from the sidelines (and probably running for president). It would be destabilizing long term.
He would not be running for president:
Quote from: Article I Sec 3Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Why not? Because holding an office would be illegal?
He could run, he just wouldn't be on the ballot. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2020, 01:30:45 PM
You might be right politcally on Republicans not voting for impeachment, but for their votes Trump would be out of office and the president in the middle of a pandemic would not have Trump's psychological flaws. I think you hugely underestimate the impact Trump's indifference to actually being President has. I think it's very likely that you'd have far fewer deaths if Pence was in charge because I think he'd be trying to do the job. So on covid I think you would have more of a focused, coordinated policy that was not primarily focused on addressing the emotional mood of the leader. I don't think it's incompetence that is necessarily - I just don't think he cares about actually being President, for him it's a role on TV or on the phone to foreign leaders. So, in my view, even a very incompetent "normal" political leader would do better and make more of an effort than Trump.
And in terms of scale I believe the US has now, on a per capita basis, had more deaths than the UK and Italy. So I think it is safe to say it's had one of the worst experiences of this pandemic in the world.
It isn't really reasonable to hold republican legislators to task for not removing trump because a pandemic came later and he was the wrong person to lead america through it. I mean, if you were just to vote on competence you could have gotten him removed from office in his first year if legislators were able to anonymously vote just on those grounds.
Removing a democratically elected leader is a serious step that really needs something approaching a broad public consensus, and that just wasn't there.
In terms of deaths/capita, the US is near the top. Only a handful of developed countries are doing worse by that metric. However, you are still talking about profoundly disruptive restrictions on life that even in the US have cost 0.06% of the population. There are going to be a lot of long term effects from the disruptions, in addition to the short term effects on quality of life. There should be a balanced scorecard at some point looking beyond just a body count.
But more to the point--if you think that the US should have locked down more strenuously and Trump was the roadblock, it isn't at all clear to me that is the case. Trump talked the game of reopening, but as I've posted about, it was shocking that the federal stuff has been far more locked down than anything else in this state. He tweeted about "liberating" stuff, but his own government didn't comply. Some Republican governors, such as the one here, were much more effective at making sure things reopened. A President Pence could have more effectively implemented such a policy nationally.
OvB: point taken.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2020, 11:06:50 AM
I really do wonder if there is a single person who could become President and unite the country again. Biden is more likely than any of the other Democratic candidates, but I almost think it's going to take a moderate Republican to win to do it, and no moderate Republican is going to win as things are.
We've painted ourselves into a corner, and I don't see a way out.
I was tempted to say just wait for the angry whites to die off, but then we'd still have the tension between the progressives and the moderates, and I'm sure with a common foe removed that tension would exacerbate.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2020, 02:12:53 PM
It isn't really reasonable to hold republican legislators to task for not removing trump because a pandemic came later and he was the wrong person to lead america through it. I mean, if you were just to vote on competence you could have gotten him removed from office in his first year if legislators were able to anonymously vote just on those grounds.
Removing a democratically elected leader is a serious step that really needs something approaching a broad public consensus, and that just wasn't there.
But it could have been a terrorist attack, or an economic crash. Presidents/executives deal with crisis - that's the job. There is no crisis that Trump is fit to deal with and that's why the personality of a leader matters. They're not just aggregates of policy opinion - character is important. As I say my view is Trump isn't interested in even trying to be President - he doesn't care, rather than just incompetence. So I think he is really unfit for dealing with any crisis, sadly the one he got was a pandemic. And this used to be a conservative opinion that character matters and that leaders should model the virtues and behaviour that they talk about.
The other point on removing a leader is fair but it's also an unknown. And again this goes to the role of leadership - are Congressional Republicans just meant to follow public opinion or attempt to shape. I think it's fair to say that anonymously briefing journalists about your concern doesn't have an effect, possibly because it's anonymous or easy for Trump to dismiss. But if they didn't think he was fit or that what he did was a crime, surely their role and what they owe the public is to vote that and try to shape the public consensus. It might have made no difference but maybe if there were a number of Republicans speaking about their concerns, on the record, on TV that might have shifted the consensus (or at least the middle of the consensus).
QuoteIn terms of deaths/capita, the US is near the top. Only a handful of developed countries are doing worse by that metric. However, you are still talking about profoundly disruptive restrictions on life that even in the US have cost 0.06% of the population. There are going to be a lot of long term effects from the disruptions, in addition to the short term effects on quality of life. There should be a balanced scorecard at some point looking beyond just a body count.
Sure - it's just a metric you pointed to as relevant earlier in the pandemic. And I absolutely agree it's really important to strike a balance. I also don't think there's a clear answer of what works or what type of countries have done well in managing this (eg there's no correlation around state capacity, or pandemic preparedness ratings, or social spending, or austerity). I am far from someone who is obsessed with lockdowns. I think the key is probably actually widespread, rapid testing and clear messaging around self-isolation/quarantine until you get the all clear or for two weeks if positive. And again that goes to leadership and modelling the behaviour you want - Trump was apparently tested and even knew he was positive, but was apparently not self-isolating, still doing events and not informing people he was with.
QuoteBut more to the point--if you think that the US should have locked down more strenuously and Trump was the roadblock, it isn't at all clear to me that is the case. Trump talked the game of reopening, but as I've posted about, it was shocking that the federal stuff has been far more locked down than anything else in this state. He tweeted about "liberating" stuff, but his own government didn't comply. Some Republican governors, such as the one here, were much more effective at making sure things reopened. A President Pence could have more effectively implemented such a policy nationally.
It's not about lockdown at all - I'm not fixated on lockdown measures or masks for that matter. I think the stuff the federal government could have done better was issuing clear guidance and communications from the CDC, coordinating governors (without constant political sniping) on PPE, on lockdown measures and on testing, I think the CDC fucked up on testing to begin with (which isn't on Trump) but was slow to catch up. And my issue isn't Trump talking about "liberating" stuff or lockdown measures it's that I think his public messaging of wanting to move on reflecting an internal decision to move on. He got bored, he wasn't interested, this was taking up too much time on the networks and he wanted to go out and talk up other stuff. I think that had an impact and meant the federal government didn't stay as focused or engaged on this because they followed Trump's public statements.
My own view is that even an incompetent Pence administration would have tried to respond in a more focused, coordinated way and wouldn't have got bored, I suppose, because I think they would be more based in reality and not Trump's projection of reality.
Interesting development in terms of prediction stuff/polling; so not sure who has been following it but USC in conjunction with Dornsife has been running a static panel of 5000+ voters this year. They tried to select the panel to be demographically and geographically representative of the United States at large. The panel gives updates every day on who they prefer for President, and then they report the 14 day moving average of those every day. It's a static tracking poll, now the big caveat with polls like this is you're not taking a new sampling of voters every week, but using the same 5000 you started with (which is a big number), so any mistakes or failures you have in selecting those 5000 or modeling them onto the real population get magnified because these are your static voter set for the whole election.
The one thing polls like this are particularly useful for is showing trends over time. So maybe September 15 if it showed Biden +15, and then 15 days later, it shows Biden +10, we can't know for sure how well that equates to broader polling, but it shows us a useful trendline that voters are moving a bit a way from Biden. That's really the utility of a poll like this.
So anyway, one of the minor news stories in poll watcher land of late has been this poll had been very stable +10 Biden for a long time, and was showing a gradual drift towards Trump over the past 7-10 days or so. Some studious observers pointed out that this was not an actual trend, but an error in USC Dornsife's methodology. Some of these panelists eventually convert from "people who have said they are definitely voting" to "voters", as their states allow various forms of early voting. USC Dornsife quit asking those panelists questions after they had responded that they had cast their vote--their answer can't meaningfully change after that ballot is cast. But what they were accidentally doing is forgetting to carry forward these voters as supporters of whomever they had cast a ballot for in perpetuity, instead they cleaved their data entirely out of the moving average and the data set.
Biden has been getting a disproportionate share of early voting, and as more of those voters drop out of the panel, this means the tracking number has indicated a move towards Trump. Now that they've corrected the error it shows no move towards Trump at all. Nate Cohn of the New York Times has just tweeted about it today: link (https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1312484575637991425?s=20)
:bleeding: I know most things are obvious in hindsight, but it really should've been obvious even not in hindsight. If you're doing statistics and are not constantly asking yourself about how your sample might be biased, you really shouldn't be doing statistics.
That said, the wrong number also seems useful, as long as it's properly labeled. One of the concerns on the left about the election shenanigans is that those who will vote on election day would be disproportionately Trump voters, and election night partial results might set up a narrative that actual results may fail to upend. That number that was calculated the wrong way can measure the extent to which this is a concern. If it doesn't go down below 3 percent by election day, we should probably be safe.
I don't want to crap on a project that I know almost nothing about, but it seems that if you are asking a group of people routinely about their opinion on the presidential race, they are no longer going to be representative of the population at large.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2020, 02:41:50 AM
I don't want to crap on a project that I know almost nothing about, but it seems that if you are asking a group of people routinely about their opinion on the presidential race, they are no longer going to be representative of the population at large.
Yeah, these kind of panels seem to be particularly prone to the observer's paradox, imho.
Yep--that's also a big reason the 538 polling average weights the USC-Dornsife poll fairly lowly, while it's an interesting exercise to follow a static group for 5 months you also end up with a lot of weaknesses vs traditional polls which are getting a whole new sample of people every time they run their poll.
Playing around with the map. MN, WI and MI should be a given for Biden.
He then doesn't actually need PA if he manages to get AZ which traditionally underpolls for the Dems.
And then he needs either NE2 or ME2 to avoid the tiebreak. Much too close for comfort, but still.
(https://www.270towin.com/maps/EAAeB.png)
I think Texas is in play a lot more than PA or OH.
New ABC poll out in Wisconsin: Biden +17.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 28, 2020, 07:55:24 AM
I think Texas is in play a lot more than PA or OH.
Biden has consistently polled much higher in PA than in TX.
With Texas I do wonder whether Republican complacency may come into things.
Pennsylvania knows its a battle ground and everyone will be out campaigning and voting. Down in Texas though...things may sneak in under the radar.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 04, 2020, 04:11:35 AM
Yep--that's also a big reason the 538 polling average weights the USC-Dornsife poll fairly lowly, while it's an interesting exercise to follow a static group for 5 months you also end up with a lot of weaknesses vs traditional polls which are getting a whole new sample of people every time they run their poll.
I guess though it could be representative of people who pay attention to politics, who though a minority do exist. But ja, for the population at large its bad that they know exactly whats going on upfront.
According to FiveThirtyEight snake graph thingie, the current state favouring Trump by the lowest margin is Ohio by 1.2%, and the ones favouring Biden are Iowa and Georgia by 0.1%. Texas is Trump's by 2.6%, Pennsilvania is Biden's by 5.1%.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 28, 2020, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 28, 2020, 07:55:24 AM
I think Texas is in play a lot more than PA or OH.
Biden has consistently polled much higher in PA than in TX.
Yes. :hmm:
I think Biden will still lose Texas, but he might get within 2% which in itself would be a big deal. It would likely come with several more U.S. House members from the 27 county "metro areas" of Texas flipping from red to blue (these are the counties that encompass the metro areas of Dallas / Fort Woth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio--and represent 70% of Texas's projected voting population in this election), along with the Democrats being competitive to retake the Texas state house (I expect they will come up a few seats short.)
Every serious political observer of Texas politics thinks this is the beginning of a trend, not a blip, and expect the Republicans will not for the foreseeable future have Texas return to a guaranteed win-state for them, in statewide elections or state legislative elections. While you may see a slight slideback in 2022, because Trump probably has put Democrats in Texas on steroids, the demographic realities will be even more pronounced by 2024, 2026 etc. Texas is a fast growing state, and it is those 27 county population areas that are growing. They are primarily growing in the form of white, urbanized, liberal people who are part of the professional class. With its current slate of politicians and messages, the GOP is going to continue to struggle mightily with this group of voters.
FWIW the way Biden likely loses is just that Texas is still decently republican. There's over 200 counties in Texas, outside of the 27 county "metropolitan Texas" you have another 8% of the electorate in "Hispanic" counties along the Rio Grande (these counties often have Latino populations > 80%, broadly Spanish language speaking, and they are historically deep blue), these counties historically have bad turnout, then you have all the rest of Texas which is made up of counties that are filled with rural communities and small towns. While only holding around 25-30% of the electorate, they are on a trajectory to go 85-90% Republican. Meanwhile the metro areas of Texas remain more competitive than metro areas in many other states, Ted Cruz won some of the battles for these areas against Beto O'Rourke, and he fought him to near draws in others. While across the 27 county region O'Rourke enjoyed an overall vote lead, the resilience of Republicans here versus other similar areas in other states is what keeps them viable, and likely wins Texas' electoral votes for Trump. I do think it'll be closely fought however, and mind the Democrats have never gone fully in on Texas since it's not a must win state and it's also an expensive stretch state to campaign in needlessly. If you're a populist Texas Republican I can't imagine you feel very positive about your long term future.
Voters don't remember long-term. Just redo your message when it stops selling.
I've now got $20k bet on Biden in various forms, so I'm reading up on this a lot recently. :)
Re: Texas.
I read a district level analysis that says that Trump is probably going to win, but close. This is because Republicans are making minority inroads in the cities, and intensifying their rural support. These are mostly districted as safe areas: the former are safely democratic and the latter republican. However, republican support is collapsing in the suburbs, which are the swing districts.
On a total vote basis statewide, the Republicans may win as gains among urban minorities and rural votes are offset by losses in the suburbs, but that doesn't mean they hold the legislature.
I suppose the scenario where Biden wins is ultimately about enthusiasm. I saw a thing about, I think Rick Perry, saying that Trump wasn't campaigning in Texas and won't campaign in Texas because it's a Republican state etc etc.
And a bit of me wonders if it could be to him a bit like Michigan and Wisconsing were for Hilary. There's more regular polling about Texas, I suppose, but the slight indifference/negligence of the Trump campaign (or just feeling that campaigning in Texas would seem weak) seems like something that could have consequences. I don't think campaign stops change anyone's votes but I think they could make a difference for enthusiasm of your base.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 28, 2020, 08:58:04 AM
I suppose the scenario where Biden wins is ultimately about enthusiasm. I saw a thing about, I think Rick Perry, saying that Trump wasn't campaigning in Texas and won't campaign in Texas because it's a Republican state etc etc.
And a bit of me wonders if it could be to him a bit like Michigan and Wisconsing were for Hilary. There's more regular polling about Texas, I suppose, but the slight indifference/negligence of the Trump campaign (or just feeling that campaigning in Texas would seem weak) seems like something that could have consequences. I don't think campaign stops change anyone's votes but I think they could make a difference for enthusiasm of your base.
Two thoughts: #1 is that while Texas may very well vote for Biden, if it does it is likely a Biden blowout and doesn't really matter. The story goes that Hillary took the midwest for granted and the midwest went for Trump, with those electoral votes being decisive. It is hard to see Texas being decisive. #2 Texas is a massive state. A stop in Houston isn't really relevant in El Paso and vice versa. It is also an expensive media market. If you think you need to campaign in Texas, you really need to spend considerable time and money.
The reality is with the current state a play, most likely the real reason you'd put money into Texas at all is more building up the Democrat infrastructure there, targeting co-spending in key Texas legislative districts or U.S. House districts etc. It's not that Biden wouldn't want to win it, but he can't logically go after it like he is Pennsylvania or Florida, if he wins Texas the national picture is such that he's probably won states like North Carolina, Georgia, Florida by comfortable margins too in which case he's pushing 400 electoral votes and we have a landslide scenario.
Well, so far I've only been "almost right" about a Trump October surprise. I said that Bill Barr would announce a criminal investigation into Joe Biden right before the election. That obviously hasn't happened, yet Trump is very vocal about his demands that Bill Barr do this very thing. Actually, Trump is now demanding Barr imprison Joe Biden. Barr hasn't done that, and hopefully he won't. Still... I was pretty close.
Barr has shown no inclination to arrest or even charge Biden with anything, yet you were "almost right"? OK.
QuoteKamala Harris's Texas trip on Friday will take her to Fort Worth, McAllen and Houston, campaign says.
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1321459062240849924
:hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 28, 2020, 08:58:04 AM
I suppose the scenario where Biden wins is ultimately about enthusiasm. I saw a thing about, I think Rick Perry, saying that Trump wasn't campaigning in Texas and won't campaign in Texas because it's a Republican state etc etc.
And a bit of me wonders if it could be to him a bit like Michigan and Wisconsing were for Hilary. There's more regular polling about Texas, I suppose, but the slight indifference/negligence of the Trump campaign (or just feeling that campaigning in Texas would seem weak) seems like something that could have consequences. I don't think campaign stops change anyone's votes but I think they could make a difference for enthusiasm of your base.
I think it makes sense in this way - if there's enough of a swing that Trump loses Texas, that swing taking place in other states as well means that Trump is toast.
Fivethirtyeight has a tool where you can see their election odds, and then change it depending on who wins what state: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/?cid=abcnews
At the start it gives Trump a 12% chance of winning the election. If you flip Texas to Biden it goes to <1%, with Biden taking every possible swing state.
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2020, 10:41:36 AM
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
Because they believe the other side is even worse.
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2020, 10:41:36 AM
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
Again, you misunderstand Trump voters. They are locked in a culture war the loss of which will end America, they believe. They think that Biden is "historically bad" and so Trump is at least the lesser of the two evils, even ignoring the fact that democrats are satanic child molesters.
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2020, 10:41:36 AM
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
Fear is a great motivator, even for thinking. A lot of Republicans simply fear Democrats having power. When Obama was elected in 2009, one of my distant family relatives said that now it's free season for blacks to start slaughtering whites. These people don't fear tax code they don't approve of, they fear for their lives.
Once you're motivated by fear, your reality is going to deviate significantly to deal with cognitive dissonance. You're going to accept whoever as a Republican, but you may as well be proud of them as well, so those who succumbed to fear so terminally don't even perceive Trump's terribleness, they'll just write it off as hoax or propaganda. Sure, a lot of them will wish that he wrote less stupid Twitter tweets, but even then they just say what a masterful troll he is, keeping brainwashed liberals off balance. It really is insanity more than it is stupidity.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 28, 2020, 09:50:38 AM
Barr has shown no inclination to arrest or even charge Biden with anything, yet you were "almost right"? OK.
Trump demanded that Barr do the things I said. I think that's pretty close.
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2020, 10:41:36 AM
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
The one explanation I heard (I think it was from conservative writer David French) was that 'if you consumed the media that Trump supporters consumed, you'd be a Trump voter too'.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2020, 11:03:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2020, 10:41:36 AM
I am finding myself having trouble trying to get into the analysis of this election. I just can't process the idea of somebody wanting to vote for Trump.
Even with Dubya I could understand the appeal of flag-waving scaremongering even if I wasn't a fan of it. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea of somebody looking at this absolute piece of shit and thinking "yep that guy should lead my country".
Fear is a great motivator, even for thinking. A lot of Republicans simply fear Democrats having power. When Obama was elected in 2009, one of my distant family relatives said that now it's free season for blacks to start slaughtering whites. These people don't fear tax code they don't approve of, they fear for their lives.
Once you're motivated by fear, your reality is going to deviate significantly to deal with cognitive dissonance. You're going to accept whoever as a Republican, but you may as well be proud of them as well, so those who succumbed to fear so terminally don't even perceive Trump's terribleness, they'll just write it off as hoax or propaganda. Sure, a lot of them will wish that he wrote less stupid Twitter tweets, but even then they just say what a masterful troll he is, keeping brainwashed liberals off balance. It really is insanity more than it is stupidity.
You'd think though boy who cried wolf rules would apply.
Its like when gay people got civil partnerships in the UK and the sky didn't fall in...This did a lot to lessen opposition to rolling out full gay marriage so when it finally did happen it was a fait accompli, nobody much cared; it came from the Conservatives even.
Not my prediction, but the CBC's election forecaster Eric Grenier (think of him as a maple-flavoured Nate Silver) has Pennsylvania and Arizona listed as Dem leaning, Wisconsin and Nevada as Dem likely, and Michigan and Minnesota as Dem safe. Meanwhile the "too close to call" states are Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Florida and Texas - each one of them a state Trump won in 2016.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/presidential/
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 28, 2020, 07:55:24 AM
I think Texas is in play a lot more than PA or OH.
Is Texas in play? I don't know yet. Based on what we have seen I see a 50-48 or so Trump win. Closer than 2018 (I am talking about the Cruz-Beto Senate Race). But we will see. It is actually quite predictable if you know how each county usually votes plus their turnout now that we have the majority of the vote in.
A few of the Democrat voting counties have already passed their total 2016 vote numbers and several others will have comfortably done that by this weekend so it will be tight but I personally don't think it will be close enough to actually win. I see very good things happening for the Democrats in Texas though in several of our other races.
And in Texas, and I think in the South in general, people are far more likely to vote for party over candidate. So that is why you have states like South Carolina where the Republicans win 55%-45% year after year with very little influencing that result. Texas is changing Demographically so that is why the vote is shifting but it is not like Republicans and Republican aligned independents are going to vote Biden just because they personally dislike the President in large numbers. In other states in other regions that might happen. People here tend to just vote the same year after year it doesn't matter what happens.
But that also means that if the Democrats do capture Texas it might stay that way very inflexibly. So there is that to.
I don't think Texas will go blue this year, but that it may in the future. If the GOP wants to hold onto Texas they are going to need to repudiate Trump and Trumpism. It simply doesn't make sense in a state with such a large number of Hispanics.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2020, 02:05:07 PM
I don't think Texas will go blue this year, but that it may in the future. If the GOP wants to hold onto Texas they are going to need to repudiate Trump and Trumpism. It simply doesn't make sense in a state with such a large number of Hispanics.
Over the medium and long term, assuming we keep the current two party system, neither party is going to be noncompetitive nationally for an extended period. The center of gravity of the parties will just shift to make it work.
Parties usually move on from disastrous leaders without formal repudiation. I don't think the Republicans ever really repudiated Nixon--Roger Stone even has a Nixon tattoo. The Tories never repudiated Thatcher.
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2020, 02:26:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2020, 02:05:07 PM
I don't think Texas will go blue this year, but that it may in the future. If the GOP wants to hold onto Texas they are going to need to repudiate Trump and Trumpism. It simply doesn't make sense in a state with such a large number of Hispanics.
Over the medium and long term, assuming we keep the current two party system, neither party is going to be noncompetitive nationally for an extended period. The center of gravity of the parties will just shift to make it work.
Parties usually move on from disastrous leaders without formal repudiation. I don't think the Republicans ever really repudiated Nixon--Roger Stone even has a Nixon tattoo. The Tories never repudiated Thatcher.
The reason Nixon resigned is because the Republicans were repudiating him and he would have lost the impeachment vote. Really odd to equate Thatcher to Nixon.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
The left being hostile to Reagan doesn't compare to the hostility that Thatcher received/receives. They aren't even close.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2020, 02:05:07 PM
I don't think Texas will go blue this year, but that it may in the future. If the GOP wants to hold onto Texas they are going to need to repudiate Trump and Trumpism. It simply doesn't make sense in a state with such a large number of Hispanics.
The Tejanos don't vote in huge numbers. They cannot be completely ignored but they are not as big of a political factor as one might think given their numbers. George W Bush attempted to pander to them when the Republicans were taking over Texas in the 1990s but since then not only have the Republicans ignored them they have seemingly gone out of their way to antagonize them which didn't hurt them much at all until Trumpism and rapid population increases started to flip the suburbs.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
Yeah but it was a pretty normal level of hostility. There was still bipartisan support to be had for many of his initiatives. The left would work with him.
In today's climate Reagan would have been totally ineffectual and a failure. He had a Democratic controlled the House for his entire tenure.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
Yeah but it was a pretty normal level of hostility. There was still bipartisan support to be had for many of his initiatives. The left would work with him.
Disagree.
Southern democrats would and did work with him. "The left" did not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
Haven't seen a musical dedicated to criticism of Reagan.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:22:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
Yeah but it was a pretty normal level of hostility. There was still bipartisan support to be had for many of his initiatives. The left would work with him.
Disagree.
Southern democrats would and did work with him. "The left" did not.
Oh goodie, a game of the left is whatever I say it is.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:22:02 PM
Disagree.
Southern democrats would and did work with him. "The left" did not.
That a fact? Let's see some evidence. I see lots of Democrats from several different regions of the country supporting some aspects of his legislation. A majority of Democrats supported his tax bill in 1986. That would NEVER happen today. That would be a straight party line vote and Reagan would have lost it.
I need to see what you mean by "the left" to agree or disagree with you. I am sure the CPUSA did not work with Reagan. Unless a Republican President gets 100% loyalty and support from 100% of the Democrats then he was cruely and unfairly targetted by "the left" whomever that is?
I mean he was a Republican President. Some people are going to hate him. Be reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2020, 03:24:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:22:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 28, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Isn't Thatcher viewed much like Reagan?
Reagan never really generated the hostility Thatcher did.
The left was pretty hostile to Reagan...
Yeah but it was a pretty normal level of hostility. There was still bipartisan support to be had for many of his initiatives. The left would work with him.
Disagree.
Southern democrats would and did work with him. "The left" did not.
Oh goodie, a game of the left is whatever I say it is.
This was a well-known phenomenon. The south of course used to be heavily Democratic - the Republican Party of course was the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction. That started to shift in the 1960s with Civil Rights. So you had a large block of southern democrats who drew their support from their white consituents, but were rather out-of-place within the larger national Democratic Party. In order to preserve their seats they were willing to work with Reagan. They were called the Dixiecrats or the blue-dog Democrats. When Joe Biden talked about how he could work across the aisle in the Senate he mentioned working with the Dixiecrats.
Of course long-term it didn't work. Some switched parties to the GOP like Sen Richard Shelby, but most eventually lost and the south became a reliably republican area by the 1990s.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2020, 02:48:22 PM
The reason Nixon resigned is because the Republicans were repudiating him and he would have lost the impeachment vote.
Many republicans did. Many republicans did not. When Nixon resigned he still had ~25% support - probably around half of Republicans.
The reason Ford pardoned him is that Ford feared a prosecution would tear the country apart - precisely because there never was a universal repudiation.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2020, 03:50:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2020, 02:48:22 PM
The reason Nixon resigned is because the Republicans were repudiating him and he would have lost the impeachment vote.
Many republicans did. Many republicans did not. When Nixon resigned he still had ~25% support - probably around half of Republicans.
The reason Ford pardoned him is that Ford feared a prosecution would tear the country apart - precisely because there never was a universal repudiation.
What, specifically, was Nixon pardoned for?
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2020, 03:52:17 PM
What, specifically, was Nixon pardoned for?
QuoteNow, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Anything he did between January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974 apparently.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2020, 03:52:17 PM
What, specifically, was Nixon pardoned for?
the unforgivable.
BB, the relations between Reagan and Tip O'Neil (from Boston, so hardly a Blue Dog) were strained to begin with, but warmed over time, and they cooperated to get a number of significant legislative initiatives passed. Not even you can plausibly argue that Tip O'Neil, whose #1 legislative priority was always universal health care, was not on the left.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2020, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2020, 03:52:17 PM
What, specifically, was Nixon pardoned for?
QuoteNow, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Anything he did between January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974 apparently.
Thanks. What's the definition of "offenses against the United States"?
Edit: for instance, if it had turned out he murdered some hookers in '71, would that be included in the pardon?
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 01:34:26 PM
Is Texas in play? I don't know yet. Based on what we have seen I see a 50-48 or so Trump win. Closer than 2018 (I am talking about the Cruz-Beto Senate Race). But we will see. It is actually quite predictable if you know how each county usually votes plus their turnout now that we have the majority of the vote in.
Weirdly minutes after our conversation here the Cook Political Report moved Texas from "Lean Republican" to the "Toss-Up", with states like Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida (which will eternally be a toss-up state).
QuoteI think it makes sense in this way - if there's enough of a swing that Trump loses Texas, that swing taking place in other states as well means that Trump is toast.
Yeah I mean I don't think anyone is saying it will be the state that makes the difference.
I just find the Republican decision not to do campaign stops there and the Biden doing campaign stops there a bit odd. And wonder if it will, on the night, be one of those campaign decisions taht are raked over afterwards.
Quote
I don't think Texas will go blue this year, but that it may in the future. If the GOP wants to hold onto Texas they are going to need to repudiate Trump and Trumpism. It simply doesn't make sense in a state with such a large number of Hispanics.
According to the polls - and this may change if turnout is higher - Trump is doing better with Hispanics in 2020 (especially Hispanic men) than he did in 2016. The real loss college educated white people, plus some big changes in white men.
QuoteParties usually move on from disastrous leaders without formal repudiation. I don't think the Republicans ever really repudiated Nixon--Roger Stone even has a Nixon tattoo. The Tories never repudiated Thatcher.
Thatcher won three landslide elections and was overthrown in an internal Tory coup. It is now very fashionable to ostentatiously hate Thatcher, which I think is a bit over the top (unless you're actually from the North or the Central Belt). She wasn't disastrous for the Tories, she's more Reagan than Nixon (and like Reagan the left is now pushing back against their myth - with more success in the US).
But it's a bit like the ostentatious hate the Tories attract on social media while winning 40-45% of the vote in a multi-party system and have a majority of 80+ seats.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2020, 05:39:44 PM
Thanks. What's the definition of "offenses against the United States"?
Edit: for instance, if it had turned out he murdered some hookers in '71, would that be included in the pardon?
Federal crimes. I suppose he could get away with murdering a hooker on an air force base in Japan, but then be liable to the local law. Murder is generally a state crime, and Presidential pardons don't cover against state charges.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 28, 2020, 06:57:10 PM
Yeah I mean I don't think anyone is saying it will be the state that makes the difference.
I just find the Republican decision not to do campaign stops there and the Biden doing campaign stops there a bit odd. And wonder if it will, on the night, be one of those campaign decisions taht are raked over afterwards.
It suggests Trump's political arson against American democracy is working. There is no strategic reason for Team Biden to campaign there except to increase the chances of a blowout that would render trumpist shenanigans irrelevant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2020, 09:21:22 PM
It suggests Trump's political arson against American democracy is working. There is no strategic reason for Team Biden to campaign there except to increase the chances of a blowout that would render trumpist shenanigans irrelevant.
Maybe. But surely the alternatives are that their polling shows they are on-course to win and are now looking at expanding the map or baiting the Trump campaign to spend money and time in a red state, or that they think they're winning and they're looking to boost turn-out for Senate campaigns (I think Cornyn is running pretty close).
(https://i.ibb.co/rwNTZY8/538.png) (https://ibb.co/fxLBCf6)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 28, 2020, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2020, 09:21:22 PM
It suggests Trump's political arson against American democracy is working. There is no strategic reason for Team Biden to campaign there except to increase the chances of a blowout that would render trumpist shenanigans irrelevant.
Maybe. But surely the alternatives are that their polling shows they are on-course to win and are now looking at expanding the map or baiting the Trump campaign to spend money and time in a red state, or that they think they're winning and they're looking to boost turn-out for Senate campaigns (I think Cornyn is running pretty close).
Texas Dems have been begging the Biden campaign to show them some love. The down ballot races this year are extremely important in Texas. They are 9 seats away from seizing control of the Texas House and therefore having some control in next year's redistricting. It's arguably more important to Texas Dems than Biden winning the state.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/21/texas-house-republicans-democrats-2020/
Yeah we have all kinds of interesting possibilities during this election. County offices, state offices, city offices, Congressional seats, State House seats, State Senate seats, and a US Senate seat that have been in Republican hands for 25 years or more are suddenly within our grasp. It could be a near miss like 2018 but its possible.
Because we are gerrymandered we actually have a bigger chance of capturing the state house than winning any of the state wide elections. It is the risk of gerrymandering your opponents. All those 50+1 districts can become 50+1 districts for the other guy if things start shifting.
The national Democratic Party has to realize what could be achieved here if they made it a priority.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 28, 2020, 11:09:08 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/rwNTZY8/538.png) (https://ibb.co/fxLBCf6)
Heh. I remember those heady days in October 2016 where it looked like for a minute Hillary was going to pull it out after it getting really close in September. Then suddenly it all collapsed again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2020, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2020, 05:39:44 PM
Thanks. What's the definition of "offenses against the United States"?
Edit: for instance, if it had turned out he murdered some hookers in '71, would that be included in the pardon?
Federal crimes. I suppose he could get away with murdering a hooker on an air force base in Japan, but then be liable to the local law. Murder is generally a state crime, and Presidential pardons don't cover against state charges.
Thanks.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 11:45:24 PM
Yeah we have all kinds of interesting possibilities during this election. County offices, state offices, city offices, Congressional seats, State House seats, State Senate seats, and a US Senate seat that have been in Republican hands for 25 years or more are suddenly within our grasp. It could be a near miss like 2018 but its possible.
Because we are gerrymandered we actually have a bigger chance of capturing the state house than winning any of the state wide elections. It is the risk of gerrymandering your opponents. All those 50+1 districts can become 50+1 districts for the other guy if things start shifting.
The national Democratic Party has to realize what could be achieved here if they made it a priority.
Yeah and the bigger point is where the Democrats go from here. It's that issue of do they follow the results in 2018 and bet on suburbs/college educated voters (Piketty's Brahmin Left v Merchant Right), which is, of course, linked to what the GOP do after the election (regardless of who wins).
It feels to me like Ohio is similar to Texas but going in the opposite direction. So Texas is going from being a Republican state to, potentially, a swing state while Ohio is, possibly, becoming more Republican and less of a swing state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2020, 05:36:22 AM
It feels to me like Ohio is similar to Texas but going in the opposite direction. So Texas is going from being a Republican state to, potentially, a swing state while Ohio is, possibly, becoming more Republican and less of a swing state.
PA might also go the same way, but probably not as quickly as Ohio.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2020, 11:51:33 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 28, 2020, 11:09:08 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/rwNTZY8/538.png) (https://ibb.co/fxLBCf6)
Heh. I remember those heady days in October 2016 where it looked like for a minute Hillary was going to pull it out after it getting really close in September. Then suddenly it all collapsed again.
Polling firms released the actual numbers a few days before the 2016 election to retain some shred of credibility. Very fishy these massive last-minute swings to Trump. You were ridin' with Biden and then just all of a sudden you changed your mind for Trump? :hmm:
There a 2 possibilities, either Trump retains all or most of his 2016 map and wins or Biden sweeps every swing state except Florida. We'll see.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 29, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
Polling firms released the actual numbers a few days before the 2016 election to retain some shred of credibility. Very fishy these massive last-minute swings to Trump. You were ridin' with Biden and then just all of a sudden you changed your mind for Trump? :hmm:
There a 2 possibilities, either Trump retains all or most of his 2016 map and wins or Biden sweeps every swing state except Florida. We'll see.
I realize this may be difficult to understand, but Biden wasn't running in 2016.
Your false dichotomy is also stupid and disconnected with reality.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 29, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
Very fishy these massive last-minute swings to Trump. You were ridin' with Biden and then just all of a sudden you changed your mind for Trump? :hmm:
How is it different from the massive swings to Clinton a couple of weeks earlier?
Trump-Clinton polling was very wobbly throughout, Trump-Biden on the other hand has been very stable.
Also it is quite common to have a late break. It isn't necessarily people changing their mind but the "don't knows" making up theirs which tends to happen late in a campaign and normally goes one way, it's quite rare, from what I understand, that they basically go 50-50. In 2016 I think 2/3s of late deciders went for Trump, in the Brexit referendum it was similar and the late deciders voted for Leave, in 2015 it was the same and they went for Cameron not Miliband.
The challenge for pollsters is to capture this because, obviously, they don't have much time. I think a key difference with 2016 is there are fewer "don't knows" at this stage of the campaign than there were then - probably becuase there are far fewer people who really don't like Joe Biden than who really don't like Clinton.
Yeah, I mention this a lot, a big difference between '16 is Biden is above 50% in a number of the important states, Hillary was often stuck in the 45-48 range in those same states. Even if a disproportionate percentage of the undecided in these states break for Trump, if the polling is accurate at all, it still won't put him past Biden.
If Trump wins this election the science of polling will be destroyed. Basically everything is pointing to a Biden victory. Massive leads in national and state polling, district-level polling which in 2016 flashed warning signs that Clinton ignored are now pointing toward a Trump massacre in house districts he easily carried in 2016.
The only polling outfits even remotely bullish for Donald are the partisan hacks at Rasmussen and Trafalgar and the polls Trump's super PAC releases for fundraising. It's not looking good for Big Don.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 29, 2020, 09:53:18 AM
If Trump wins this election the science of polling will be destroyed. Basically everything is pointing to a Biden victory. Massive leads in national and state polling, district-level polling which in 2016 flashed warning signs that Clinton ignored are now pointing toward a Trump massacre in house districts he easily carried in 2016.
The only polling outfits even remotely bullish for Donald are the partisan hacks at Rasmussen and Trafalgar. It's not looking good for Big Don.
If that's all right and he does lose (especially if he loses badly) I am weirdly fascinated to see how he handles it. Like aside from him doing the court stuff and the risks of him as a lame duck, I just want to see what he does. He is the most needy person I have ever seen in political office and I just don't know what he'll do in the face of fairly massive rejection - how does he concede (does he concede or just let Biden declare victory?), will he invite Biden into the White House for a photo-shoot as is typical etc.
I mean given that this is a man who responded to winning, by claiming that his opponent cheated and there were 3 million illegal votes for her, I have no idea what he'll do if he loses.
One other thought I had - if he loses - is that he clearly is angling for a media platform where he'll bash Biden. But I wonder how much classified information he's been given over the last four years he will just blurt out on Fox in that situation.
Fingers crossed he pulls a strop and goes to play golf for 2 months.
More likely...he seems to already be booby trapping the government.
I also wonder how long it'll be before the torch is handed over to one of the kids. Will they be impatient enough for Trump 2: 2024, or will they wait a bit?
I'm guessing that out of one side of his mouth he accepts the loss graciously and there is a fairly typical transfer of power. Out of the other side of his mouth, he talks about how the media was biased against him, covered up massive Biden corruption, the democrats undermined him from the start, he had massive accomplishments in unprecedented circumstances, and he still almost won.
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 10:07:30 AM
Fingers crossed he pulls a strop and goes to play golf for 2 months.
More likely...he seems to already be booby trapping the government.
I also wonder how long it'll be before the torch is handed over to one of the kids. Will they be impatient enough for Trump 2: 2024, or will they wait a bit?
He never even really took control of the government, what makes you think he can booby trap it in a couple of months?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 29, 2020, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 10:07:30 AM
Fingers crossed he pulls a strop and goes to play golf for 2 months.
More likely...he seems to already be booby trapping the government.
I also wonder how long it'll be before the torch is handed over to one of the kids. Will they be impatient enough for Trump 2: 2024, or will they wait a bit?
He never even really took control of the government, what makes you think he can booby trap it in a couple of months?
Haven't looked into it in detail, but seeing bits like this coming out
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-executive-order-civil-service-biden-election-schedule-f-b1255692.html
I'll say the only x-factor for me is the whole Covid situation. It seems like there will be record turnout this year, but the makeup of that turnout is unknown. Legions of new Trump voters that all the polling somehow missed could come out en massé on election day and save the day for Donald, like Gandalf and the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep.
I think there's a non-zero chance if Trump loses convincingly, he has a few days/weeks of temper tantrums and then resigns and gives Pence the keys for the transition.
If Trump loses convincingly, and doesn't resort to shenanigans, I expect scorched earth till the handover.
I mean, any following president will have their hands full refilling a lot of vacated positions, anyways, I see Trump making the transition as hard as possible.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 10:35:08 AM
I think there's a non-zero chance if Trump loses convincingly, he has a few days/weeks of temper tantrums and then resigns and gives Pence the keys for the transition.
Yeah. That wouldn't surprise me. I just try to imagine a Trump concession speech, or Trump sitting at a Biden inauguration and I can't see it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2020, 10:40:45 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 10:35:08 AM
I think there's a non-zero chance if Trump loses convincingly, he has a few days/weeks of temper tantrums and then resigns and gives Pence the keys for the transition.
Yeah. That wouldn't surprise me. I just try to imagine a Trump concession speech, or Trump sitting at a Biden inauguration and I can't see it.
I can just imagine a Trump concession speech. It'd be read from a teleprompter and it would be terrible, but he could do it.
Then 15 minutes later on Twitter he'll rant about how he should still be President.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 10:35:08 AM
I think there's a non-zero chance if Trump loses convincingly, he has a few days/weeks of temper tantrums and then resigns and gives Pence the keys for the transition.
You know, that actually seems pretty nice of him. Giving his buddy a go at being president before its over.
This comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYz1ADttI1g
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 10:35:08 AM
I think there's a non-zero chance if Trump loses convincingly, he has a few days/weeks of temper tantrums and then resigns and gives Pence the keys for the transition.
You know, that actually seems pretty nice of him. Giving his buddy a go at being president before its over.
And the power to pardon....
Pence has little reason to do so, however.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 29, 2020, 10:49:03 AM
Pence has little reason to do so, however.
Pence has a huge reason to do so. He wants to be President, and at this point he's hitched his wagon firmly to MAGA-world. The last thing he wants is for Trump to turn on him at the last minute.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 29, 2020, 10:49:03 AM
Pence has little reason to do so, however.
Why do you think that is Eddie? Does Pence have a shot in 2024 without Trumpist backing?
Quote from: Legbiter on October 29, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
Polling firms released the actual numbers a few days before the 2016 election to retain some shred of credibility. Very fishy these massive last-minute swings to Trump. You were ridin' with Biden and then just all of a sudden you changed your mind for Trump? :hmm:
There a 2 possibilities, either Trump retains all or most of his 2016 map and wins or Biden sweeps every swing state except Florida. We'll see.
What is fishy about the polls crunching in the 2016 election when they had done so two times previously in the same election and in the same fucking graph you are looking at? And these things things happening in political polling, where leads grow and contract as things happen, is not even unusual.
Do you come up with elaborate conspiracy theories any time a bus is 10 minutes late? 'OH MY SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME HAPPENED!!!111 VERY FISHY!!!11'
Anyway I haven't seen any last minute breaks for Trump in this election so I don't get the Biden comment.
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 10:14:08 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 29, 2020, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 10:07:30 AM
Fingers crossed he pulls a strop and goes to play golf for 2 months.
More likely...he seems to already be booby trapping the government.
I also wonder how long it'll be before the torch is handed over to one of the kids. Will they be impatient enough for Trump 2: 2024, or will they wait a bit?
He never even really took control of the government, what makes you think he can booby trap it in a couple of months?
Haven't looked into it in detail, but seeing bits like this coming out
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-executive-order-civil-service-biden-election-schedule-f-b1255692.html
Did you read the article? There is an executive order that COULD give him the power to do stuff that would then destroy a Biden administration.
I find the whole premise farfetched that Trump is going to lose the election, and in two months fire off the senior civil service and when Biden takes office in January, Biden will be unable to function because everyone is gone. Except of course the Trump loyalists that were put in newly unfireable positions.
I think Languish has, on the whole, gone completely insane since Trump got elected. Even Minsky is talking about militias taking charge to overturn the election in Pennsylvania. Trump is going to lose, he is going to throw a bit of a temper tantrum, may not attend the inauguration, and the world will keep turning. I used to wonder why Russians were so stupidly conspiracy minded--maybe it is a consequence of living under incompetent and fundamentally dishonest leadership.
Yeah, we are the insane ones.
I can see Donald going scorched earth on the Republican party if they fail to back him up in continuing to contest the election. Rant and rave at Mitch and Fox News and say he's leaving to go form a new party, starting with Trump TV as its media centerpiece. He can continue milking donations off his cult followers.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2020, 11:01:21 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on October 29, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
Polling firms released the actual numbers a few days before the 2016 election to retain some shred of credibility. Very fishy these massive last-minute swings to Trump. You were ridin' with Biden and then just all of a sudden you changed your mind for Trump? :hmm:
There a 2 possibilities, either Trump retains all or most of his 2016 map and wins or Biden sweeps every swing state except Florida. We'll see.
What is fishy about the polls crunching in the 2016 election when they had done so two times previously in the same election and in the same fucking graph you are looking at? And these things things happening in political polling, where leads grow and contract as things happen, is not even unusual.
Do you come up with elaborate conspiracy theories any time a bus is 10 minutes late? 'OH MY SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME HAPPENED!!!111 VERY FISHY!!!11'
Anyway I haven't seen any last minute breaks for Trump in this election so I don't get the Biden comment.
Heard the following analysis:
The Biden campaign has seen all the polls we can see. They also have access to their own internal polls, which are much more detailed than public polling.
Having reviewed that information where are they sending Joe Biden? Texas. They feel they have this one in the bag. The Biden campaign doesn't see any narrowing either.
What about 2016? Yes Hillary did not visit Wisconsin at all, a state which turned out to be pivotal. But where did Hillary go on the Friday before election day? Michigan, a state nobody had on their radar as being a swing state (and of course a state Trump narrowly won).
Yeah - Texas and Georgia.
I'd also compare that with Trump who is doing numerous campaign stops in Pennsylvania.
I had some friends complain about Biden going to TX/GA, but I also pointed out unlike Hillary Biden spent most of the last 6 months largely messaging to PA / WI / MI, in contrast to HRC who took her "wall" for granted. Now Biden's overall public appearances aren't easily comparable to past campaigns due to Covid, but functionally he's done as much that he probably can do in PA, so it is fine for him to take some swings at a couple stretch goals.
Just a shame Bush won't make that final step in standing up for democracy and endorse Biden. That would help in Texas right?
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 11:48:21 AM
Just a shame Bush won't make that final step in standing up for democracy and endorse Biden. That would help in Texas right?
The Bush family still has their loyalists in Texas. Whenever I go into an older person's home it is not unusual to see ghostwritten books by Barb and Laura and so forth laying around.
But you have to remember the Bush family still has younger members trying to claw their way up the Republican ranks. They are indicating their dislike of Donald by their silence but they are not going to come out against the nominee in a big public way. George Prescott Bush is the Republican Land Commissioner for Texas with ambitions, for example.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2020, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 29, 2020, 10:49:03 AM
Pence has little reason to do so, however.
Pence has a huge reason to do so. He wants to be President, and at this point he's hitched his wagon firmly to MAGA-world. The last thing he wants is for Trump to turn on him at the last minute.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I expect Trump's influence to fade away once he's no longer President.
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 11:48:21 AM
Just a shame Bush won't make that final step in standing up for democracy and endorse Biden. That would help in Texas right?
If you're paying attention you know where the Bushes stand vis-a-vis Trump. It's notable GWB has not endorsed, and has not campaigned for, Trump, while Obama has been quite visible campaigning for Biden.
ANd if you're not paying attention, then it's likely a GWB endorsement for Biden wouldn't have any effect on you anyways.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 29, 2020, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2020, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 29, 2020, 10:49:03 AM
Pence has little reason to do so, however.
Pence has a huge reason to do so. He wants to be President, and at this point he's hitched his wagon firmly to MAGA-world. The last thing he wants is for Trump to turn on him at the last minute.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I expect Trump's influence to fade away once he's no longer President.
I used to think so - that the day after his defeat Republicans everywhere would be going "Trump? Trump who?", but I no longer believe that to be the case. He's got a pretty firm hold on his followers. So much so that I think the leading candidate to be the 2024 Republican nominee is Donald J Trump.
That would make indicting Trump a priority...
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 12:23:09 PM
That would make indicting Trump a priority...
Why? Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a convicted felon from running for President. The evidence on impeachment was pretty damning, yet Trumpists were unconcerned about it. Any evidence against Trump will just be claimed to be "fake news".
I think the polls are overstating Biden's chances. Not because of shy Trump voters (which I think might still be an issue, but not as much as in 2016).
However, the reason why Biden's ratings are overstated is because of early/postal voting being largely tilted towards Democratic voters and also the scale of early voting this year due to Covid. Given that pollsters use likelihood to vote as a metric on how to rate the strength of each voter, and that Democrats polled are more likely to say that they have voted compared to Republicans, thereby giving a rating of 1 on likelihood to vote, that gives Biden a bias in the polling, making him look more likely to win than he actually is, given that Republicans are more likely to vote later / on the day.
So... Hope for rain?
That's what did it for brexit. It was a fine day on polling day.
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:46:19 PM
So... Hope for rain?
That's what did it for brexit. It was a fine day on polling day.
I mean we are a huge country. It will rain somewhere.
But voter suppression usually works out better for them than us.
I don't think there has been a day without precipitation over the entire continental US since we started recording these thing. Maybe more.
Quote from: PJL on October 29, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
I think the polls are overstating Biden's chances. Not because of shy Trump voters (which I think might still be an issue, but not as much as in 2016).
However, the reason why Biden's ratings are overstated is because of early/postal voting being largely tilted towards Democratic voters and also the scale of early voting this year due to Covid. Given that pollsters use likelihood to vote as a metric on how to rate the strength of each voter, and that Democrats polled are more likely to say that they have voted compared to Republicans, thereby giving a rating of 1 on likelihood to vote, that gives Biden a bias in the polling, making him look more likely to win than he actually is, given that Republicans are more likely to vote later / on the day.
But early voting has only been going on for a month. We should see a big Biden surge if what you are saying is true but I don't see it. Everything seems pretty stable.
Unless you are saying there is a big Trump surge going on right now we are missing. I guess that could be true.
My only fear is a massive polling error caused by their turnout models, given the unique circumstances of this election.
Quote from: celedhring on October 29, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
My only fear is a massive polling error caused by their turnout models, given the unique circumstances of this election.
All I can say is all you need to do is look at the turnout that has already occured as well as what we can reasonably predict going forward, and then compare it to previous election results and, for Texas anyway, it matches the current polling pretty closely.
Quote from: PJL on October 29, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
I think the polls are overstating Biden's chances. Not because of shy Trump voters (which I think might still be an issue, but not as much as in 2016).
However, the reason why Biden's ratings are overstated is because of early/postal voting being largely tilted towards Democratic voters and also the scale of early voting this year due to Covid. Given that pollsters use likelihood to vote as a metric on how to rate the strength of each voter, and that Democrats polled are more likely to say that they have voted compared to Republicans, thereby giving a rating of 1 on likelihood to vote, that gives Biden a bias in the polling, making him look more likely to win than he actually is, given that Republicans are more likely to vote later / on the day.
It's possible early voting could skew the likely voter screen, but not the registered voter screen--which for most polls is showing an almost identical lead for Joe.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2020, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: PJL on October 29, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
I think the polls are overstating Biden's chances. Not because of shy Trump voters (which I think might still be an issue, but not as much as in 2016).
However, the reason why Biden's ratings are overstated is because of early/postal voting being largely tilted towards Democratic voters and also the scale of early voting this year due to Covid. Given that pollsters use likelihood to vote as a metric on how to rate the strength of each voter, and that Democrats polled are more likely to say that they have voted compared to Republicans, thereby giving a rating of 1 on likelihood to vote, that gives Biden a bias in the polling, making him look more likely to win than he actually is, given that Republicans are more likely to vote later / on the day.
But early voting has only been going on for a month. We should see a big Biden surge if what you are saying is true but I don't see it. Everything seems pretty stable.
Unless you are saying there is a big Trump surge going on right now we are missing. I guess that could be true.
I wouldn't say it's a massive surge, but it's telling that the Biden leads have got bigger since late September when early voting really got underway. I would argue that it's increased the gap nationally between then by about 2% (+1 for Biden, -1 for Trump).
Holy crap, we still have mods.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/29/texas-dan-patrick-elections-voting/
Texas Republicans are freaking out right now
QuoteTexas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick repeated unsubstantiated claims in a Thursday interview that the only way Republicans can lose on Election Day is if Democrats cheat.
"The Democrats have just decided this election, Mark, we don't have to pay attention to any laws. We're gonna use COVID as an excuse to steal the election, and that's what they're trying to do everywhere," Patrick, a Republican, said during a radio interview on "The Mark Davis Show." "If the president loses Pennsylvania or North Carolina, Mark, or Florida, they'll lose it because they stole it.
...
If he wins or whenever it's announced, or if he's ahead on that day, I'm afraid our cities are gonna burn in America," Patrick said. "Texans, we're law and order people. We'll follow the law, and for those who don't, we'll be ready to take them on."
Earlier this week the Texas Army National Guard said up to 1,000 troops could be dispatched to five major cities — Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio — ahead of Tuesday's election.
Gov. Greg Abbott last activated the National Guard in late May following a series of protests that emerged across the state in response to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.
In early voting, Texas just reached 100% of it's total 2016 turnout.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 30, 2020, 08:47:36 AM
In early voting, Texas just reached 100% of it's total 2016 turnout.
:cool:
I saw that too, if Texas does go democrat, maybe no one will follow Trump down any foxholes he digs about him.
Prediction for the Prediction Thread: Joe Biden will win the national popular vote by over 10 percent.
What does everyone make of early voting? Up to 93 million now, so assuming that a lot of people vote on election day as well, we could be looking at a really high turnout, which is a good thing. What if assuming this is not enthusiasm, but covid and we end up with about the same overall turnout though, about 130, 140 million? What if "shy Trump voters"* are actually a thing? Im staying with my prediction of an agonizingly close Biden win, but I'm going to add Trump declaring victory very early on Tuesday evening and claiming the election is fraudulent via twitter as the night goes on. Wackiness ensues.
*an oxymoron surely.
« I am here to remind you Trump can still win »
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Guess someone's getting the bunker ready.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrXFR5j7/wh.jpg)
That's weird. I can't think of anything like that happening before.
I would presume it is just in anticipation of something similar to the post-2016 election protests.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 01, 2020, 09:48:41 PM
« I am here to remind you Trump can still win »
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
No duh.
Okay - so my map/guess :ph34r:
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/x0g6X)
Edit: Incidentally - the shading means nothing. I clicked until I got to red/blue per state.
Dems getting Georgia but not getting Florida would be quite weird...
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2020, 08:08:52 AM
Dems getting Georgia but not getting Florida would be quite weird...
Agreed. And I know that rationally that probably won't happen.
But, to use an internet meme, at the back of my head I just have a very deep prejudice that fundamentally Florida is a messy bitch who lives for the drama.
Edit: Because of this I almost think Biden's more likely to win Texas than Florida :lol: :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2020, 08:15:23 AMAgreed. And I know that rationally that probably won't happen.
But, to use an internet meme, at the back of my head I just have a very deep prejudice that fundamentally Florida is a messy bitch who lives for the drama.
:lol:
Florida usually goes to the winner. :hmm:
Fivethirtyeight just updated their prediction to Biden "clearly favored" to win from "favored". They've had the Dems as "favored" to win the Senate and "clearly favored" to retain the House for quite some time.
Also, according to their models, for Trump to win he MUST win all of the below swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Iowa.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2020, 08:55:44 AM
Also, according to their models, for Trump to win he MUST win all of the below swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Iowa.
He has a reasonable shot at any of them. All of them is another story.
And that's still not enough, AZ + NE2 or ME2 gets Biden to 270.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2020, 08:49:56 AM
Fivethirtyeight just updated their prediction to Biden "clearly favored" to win from "favored". They've had the Dems as "favored" to win the Senate and "clearly favored" to retain the House for quite some time.
What does that mean?
It means pretty much what it says. I don't know all the variables they are looking at and I don't think they make it public. I just thought people who follow that website might be interested to know it was updated when I checked it. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2020, 09:19:21 AM
It means pretty much what it says. I don't know all the variables they are looking at and I don't think they make it public. I just thought people who follow that website might be interested to know it was updated when I checked it. :sleep:
How does "clearly favored" differ from "favored"?
What's interesting in the 538 model is that if you pick PA to go Trump without changing anything else, the chance of a Trump win goes from 10/100 to 64/100. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2020, 09:20:39 AM
How does "clearly favored" differ from "favored"?
It looks like they updated that based on their modeling that shows Biden now has a 90% chance of winning.
Quote from: Maladict on November 02, 2020, 09:21:30 AM
What's interesting in the 538 model is that if you pick PA to go Trump without changing anything else, the chance of a Trump win goes from 10/100 to 64/100. :ph34r:
As I mentioned earlier, I think the correlation assumptions might be a bit too strong here. If PA goes Trump because Republicans are successful with their funny business, that wouldn't indicate much for the other states. The correlations would make sense if PA goes Trump because the polls missed some dynamic systemically.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2020, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2020, 08:08:52 AM
Dems getting Georgia but not getting Florida would be quite weird...
Agreed. And I know that rationally that probably won't happen.
But, to use an internet meme, at the back of my head I just have a very deep prejudice that fundamentally Florida is a messy bitch who lives for the drama.
It isn't crazy--post Reconstruction, Georgia didn't elect a republican governor until 2003. Florida started much earlier than that. Jimmy Carter came from rural georgia and there is a brand of democratic politics that still has a legacy in the southern rural areas of Georgia--and half the state is a massive and rapidly growing heavily democratic metropolis. Both states have republican governors who won their last elections against black challengers, but both won by only the slimmest of margins.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2020, 09:19:21 AM
It means pretty much what it says. I don't know all the variables they are looking at and I don't think they make it public. I just thought people who follow that website might be interested to know it was updated when I checked it. :sleep:
I suspect it is algorithmic. They just reduced Trump's chances from 10% to 9%. My guess is that going below 10% was a triger.
Isn't 9% their "2020 fudge factor"? :unsure: So they're basically saying that there is nothing in the data at all that gives Trump a chance in hell, it's only down to unknown unknowns.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 01, 2020, 09:48:41 PM
« I am here to remind you Trump can still win »
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
"My career is based on projecting winners - and primarily presidential races which is why my website is called 538. I think Biden will win but I'm not sure so please let my career continue if Trump wins."
Nate S. has no balls. He's been hedging for last the month or so on Twitter.
"Yes, Biden is the favorite. BUT here is why Trump may win."
I think everyone clearly understands this is a definite possibility, Nate. It's why some polling showed that people expected Trump to win the election even though he's been seriously behind the entire time. It is the year 2020, not 2016. Everyone knows Trump can still win.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 09:42:43 AM"My career is based on projecting winners - and primarily presidential races which is why my website is called 538. I think Biden will win but I'm not sure so please let my career continue if Trump wins."
I'm aware I'm not a person with enough statistical knowledge to make a real critique. But it's something I've never really got with 538. Like there's a 90% chance Biden wins and if Biden wins, the model works. And there's a 10% chance Trump wins and if Trump wins, the model works. I don't really get the point. Like the whole model thing doesn't seem to add anything to me.
I find the stuff about how they weigh polls etc and the technical stuff on polls quite interesting. And I think they're pretty good about the electoral college paths. But I've never really understood the whole 538/Nate Silver thing :ph34r:
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 09:49:42 AM
Nate S. has no balls. He's been hedging for last the month or so on Twitter.
Not surprising, since a) this is the guy's career, and b) he was wrong in 2016, so he's got to be nervous as fuck about being wrong again.
The guy who runs the Economist's model has been pretty bullish on Biden for a while now. Their model shows the probability of Trump winning at 5%.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2020, 09:50:55 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 09:49:42 AM
Nate S. has no balls. He's been hedging for last the month or so on Twitter.
Not surprising, since a) this is the guy's career, and b) he was wrong in 2016, so he's got to be nervous as fuck about being wrong again.
It's very likely that he wasn't wrong in 2016, though it is unknowable. Inside straight draws do hit sometimes, that doesn't make the properly calculated probabilities of them hitting wrong. You're wrong if your 70% probability events always happen. In fact, it's possible that he even gave Trump too much of a probability, maybe Trump needed to get more lucky than hitting a 30% shot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2020, 09:50:18 AM
I'm aware I'm not a person with enough statistical knowledge to make a real critique. But it's something I've never really got with 538. Like there's a 90% chance Biden wins and if Biden wins, the model works. And there's a 10% chance Trump wins and if Trump wins, the model works. I don't really get the point. Like the whole model thing doesn't seem to add anything to me.
I find the stuff about how they weigh polls etc and the technical stuff on polls quite interesting. And I think they're pretty good about the electoral college paths. But I've never really understood the whole 538/Nate Silver thing :ph34r:
The problem is that you can't evaluate a single prediction, it's simply impossible. You can only evaluate someone's record in aggregate. If Nate Silver makes 1000 90%/10% predictions, and the 90% predicted event happens 900 times out of 1000, then overall he has his probabilities well-calibrated. You can't tell anything at all about a single 90%/10% prediction, regardless of how it comes out. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to assign probabilities to events, in fact it would be a big mistake not to, you just have to understand that you can't validate these probabilities by how reality plays out.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 09:37:17 AM
As I mentioned earlier, I think the correlation assumptions might be a bit too strong here. If PA goes Trump because Republicans are successful with their funny business, that wouldn't indicate much for the other states. The correlations would make sense if PA goes Trump because the polls missed some dynamic systemically.
Funny business is not part of the model, so yes it would assume a structural shift among the voters that the polls missed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2020, 09:50:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 09:42:43 AM"My career is based on projecting winners - and primarily presidential races which is why my website is called 538. I think Biden will win but I'm not sure so please let my career continue if Trump wins."
I'm aware I'm not a person with enough statistical knowledge to make a real critique. But it's something I've never really got with 538. Like there's a 90% chance Biden wins and if Biden wins, the model works. And there's a 10% chance Trump wins and if Trump wins, the model works. I don't really get the point. Like the whole model thing doesn't seem to add anything to me.
I find the stuff about how they weigh polls etc and the technical stuff on polls quite interesting. And I think they're pretty good about the electoral college paths. But I've never really understood the whole 538/Nate Silver thing :ph34r:
I think, for the general audience, people really just like seeing the numbers go up and down for their candidate or against their opponent. Nate has made a career out of providing people with the opportunity to psyche themselves up or depress themselves into oblivion.
For me, these models help frame the structure of probabilities for the outcome of the election, but I don't take what they say as gospel. I think 538's poll aggregator is much more practical.
I personally don't take 538 probabilities as a gospel either, but I do take them as the best available answer. Model error and model uncertainty definitely are things, but sometimes you just don't have a better alternative than to go with them, you don't always have the luxury of waiting to form your opinion until a gospel model arrives at your door.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 10:13:51 AM
I personally don't take 538 probabilities as a gospel either, but I do take them as the best available answer. Model error and model uncertainty definitely are things, but sometimes you just don't have a better alternative than to go with them, you don't always have the luxury of waiting to form your opinion until a gospel model arrives at your door.
Give it a week or two.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 09:59:25 AM
The problem is that you can't evaluate a single prediction, it's simply impossible. You can only evaluate someone's record in aggregate. If Nate Silver makes 1000 90%/10% predictions, and the 90% predicted event happens 900 times out of 1000, then overall he has his probabilities well-calibrated. You can't tell anything at all about a single 90%/10% prediction, regardless of how it comes out. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to assign probabilities to events, in fact it would be a big mistake not to, you just have to understand that you can't validate these probabilities by how reality plays out.
Right but I suppose I just don't get the value of assigining probabilities if you're not actually working on one of the campaigns - especially because, from memory, Silver started because he was annoyed at horse race reporting.
I think it's useful to have someone who can with real methodology assign values to polls because that helps us understand them, which is important because they're a really big bit of reporting on elections. But otherwise it just feels like Silver's actually ended up just replacing the horse race people are reporting on.
QuoteI think, for the general audience, people really just like seeing the numbers go up and down for their candidate or against their opponent. Nate has made a career out of providing people with the opportunity to psyche themselves up or depress themselves into oblivion.
That's probably it - I should say I have really enjoyed the wildly, crazily wrong models in UK elections. I think they've actually stopped doing them after the debacles of 2010 and 2015. So in 2017 and 2019 they've just done pieces after the event about how the results aren't that surprising :lol:
QuoteFor me, these models help frame the structure of probabilities for the outcome of the election, but I don't take what they say as gospel. I think 538's poll aggregator is much more practical.
Yeah - I agree. Those are the things I find useful - they frame paths and the poll reporting is really useful.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 09:55:04 AM
It's very likely that he wasn't wrong in 2016, though it is unknowable. Inside straight draws do hit sometimes, that doesn't make the properly calculated probabilities of them hitting wrong. You're wrong if your 70% probability events always happen. In fact, it's possible that he even gave Trump too much of a probability, maybe Trump needed to get more lucky than hitting a 30% shot.
This may be a matter of semantics, but I think everyone would agree that on election day 2016 Trump didn't have a 30% chance of winning--he had a ~100% chance. There were ~140 million americans that had voted or intended to vote, and the right number of those in the right places intended to vote for Trump such that Trump would be elected president.
Of course no one knew which 140 million Americans would vote, and what each of them was thinking. Hence we use polls, which provide imperfect information of what the general public is thinking, which gets put into models, which have their own simplifying assumptions and sources of error.
So when Nate Silver gave the precise estimate that Trump had a 28.6% chance, what we would really saying was that his model projected that Hillary would win, but because the model is imperfect and was also fed with imperfect data, he thought the model would produce the wrong answer 28.6% of the time.
I understand the marketing angle that would cause Silver to prefer it expressed as "trump has a 28.6% chance of winning" versus "there is a 28.6% chance my model is wrong", but I think the die is more or less cast at this point and what is going to happen will happen, and if you threw more resources at this question you could arrive at a more precise estimate.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
This may be a matter of semantics, but I think everyone would agree that on election day 2016 Trump didn't have a 30% chance of winning--he had a ~100% chance.
That's wrong. I know I definitely wouldn't agree, so no, not everyone would agree. What you're saying is that the probability of pulling an ace out of a shuffled deck is not 1/13, but either 0 or 1. The deck is already shuffled, so the top card is predetermined, so it's either an ace or not, right?
What lay people often fail to grasp, because it is pretty tricky and unintuitive to grasp, is that uncertainty due to imperfect information is for all purposes exactly the same as the uncertainty due to a truly random effect. The probability of pulling an ace is the same before shuffling and after shuffling, it's still 1/13. We had no way of knowing how the people who were going to vote would vote, even if it was predetermined, like a deck is after shuffling. Unknowably predetermined is no different from unknown.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 10:35:21 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
This may be a matter of semantics, but I think everyone would agree that on election day 2016 Trump didn't have a 30% chance of winning--he had a ~100% chance.
That's wrong. I know I definitely wouldn't agree, so no, not everyone would agree. What you're saying is that the probability of pulling an ace out of a shuffled deck is not 1/13, but either 0 or 1. The deck is already shuffled, so the top card is predetermined, so it's either an ace or not, right?
What lay people often fail to grasp, because it is pretty tricky and unintuitive to grasp, is that uncertainty due to imperfect information is for all purposes exactly the same as the uncertainty due to a truly random effect. The probability of pulling an ace is the same before shuffling and after shuffling, it's still 1/13. We had no way of knowing how the people who were going to vote would vote, even if it was predetermined, like a deck is after shuffling. Unknowably predetermined is no different from unknown.
It isn't the same as a shuffled deck.
The respective campaigns (and motivated supporters) spent years trying to convince the public to support their side. By election day they either succeeded or failed--and the state of the electorate is discoverable with additional resources. A shuffled deck--it is part of the ethics of the game that you don't try to discover the identity of the card on the top deck and it is randomly determined. Whether a particular person will vote for Hillary or Trump is not random: both sides seek to influence the choice, and the success is freely open to discovery to anyone who wishes to investigate.
Put it this way: If you bet on the chance the top card is an ace on a randomly shuffled deck, with straight up odds, I would say that was foolish because your expected outcome was less than what you bet--regardless of outcome. But if you taught a political science course and said that Hillary ran the best campaign because she had a 70% chance of victory on election day, and she just got caught by 30% of bad luck, I would not agree with that either.
Indeed.
This is like arguing that the chances of a 1 coming up on a six sided die is not 1/6, rather it is zero or 100%, depending on the nearly infinite number of variables that go into rolling a die, and if you could predict all of them, you could predict the outcome of the roll. It *might* be technically true (depending on your views on predetermination in the universe), but the distinction is functionally meaningless.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 10:58:45 AM
It isn't the same as a shuffled deck.
The respective campaigns (and motivated supporters) spent years trying to convince the public to support their side. By election day they either succeeded or failed--and the state of the electorate is discoverable with additional resources. A shuffled deck--it is part of the ethics of the game that you don't try to discover the identity of the card on the top deck and it is randomly determined. Whether a particular person will vote for Hillary or Trump is not random: both sides seek to influence the choice, and the success is freely open to discovery to anyone who wishes to investigate.
It's true that there is a middle ground in my analogy. If the unknown information can theoretically be knowable, but just isn't, then you can say that by failing to know what is knowable, your model is not as good as it can be. Theoretically you can develop x-ray vision, so what is a 1/13 probability to an unsophisticated bettor can be a 1 or 0 probability to you. Most of the time it's just pointless semantics and mental masturbation, though, because even something theoretically knowable is usually not practically knowable. There is no reason to think that Nate Silver didn't act on the information he had or could reasonably get, so there is no good reason to say he made a bad call.
Quote
Put it this way: If you bet on the chance the top card is an ace on a randomly shuffled deck, with straight up odds, I would say that was foolish because your expected outcome was less than what you bet--regardless of outcome. But if you taught a political science course and said that Hillary ran the best campaign because she had a 70% chance of victory on election day, and she just got caught by 30% of bad luck, I would not agree with that either.
Most people suffer from results-oriented thinking. It's a very common bias to think that if something happened, then it must've been likely to happen. I wouldn't expect political science instructors to break the trend.
The best way to predict the outcome is to control the outcome.
It's a bit like the old problem solving scenario: your mission is to catalogue with great precision all species and numbers of vertebrates on a small tropical island. You nuke the island. Results done, with little uncertainty.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 11:14:14 AM
Most people suffer from results-oriented thinking. It's a very common bias to think that if something happened, then it must've been likely to happen. I wouldn't expect political science instructors to break the trend.
I can sit in my room and flip coins and the probability of a heads is going to be about 50% over a long enough time horizon. If election day 2016 repeated a thousand times like in the movie groundhog day, I would posit that Trump would win all of those elections.
No one really understands what is going through the minds of 140 million american voters, but my understanding is that the election results are interpreted to show their preference, and not the probability weights before the election takes place.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
No one really understands what is going through the minds of 140 million american voters
(https://i.ibb.co/c6Nqwhg/homer.gif)
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
I can sit in my room and flip coins and the probability of a heads is going to be about 50% over a long enough time horizon. If election day 2016 repeated a thousand times like in the movie groundhog day, I would posit that Trump would win all of those elections.
You're comparing apples and oranges. To make these two things analogous, your coin flips are repeated after the coin left your fingertips (I assume you let it fall to the ground), and with all the environmental factors the same each time. In that case you will get either tails or heads 1000 times as well (ignoring chaos theory and quantum mechanics).
There is a zero chance something will have had happened until the time it does.
Quote from: PDH on November 02, 2020, 12:16:51 PM
There is a zero chance something will have had happened until the time it does.
There is no chance that nothing will happen.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 11:37:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
I can sit in my room and flip coins and the probability of a heads is going to be about 50% over a long enough time horizon. If election day 2016 repeated a thousand times like in the movie groundhog day, I would posit that Trump would win all of those elections.
You're comparing apples and oranges. To make these two things analogous, your coin flips are repeated after the coin left your fingertips (I assume you let it fall to the ground), and with all the environmental factors the same each time. In that case you will get either tails or heads 1000 times as well (ignoring chaos theory and quantum mechanics).
This is really getting philosophical! Are votes not yet (all) cast analogous to a coin that has left my fingertips or one that has not yet been completely tossed? Is there really uncertainty in anything, or are we just collections of matter / energy playing out the inevitable course set during the big bang and defined by the laws of physics (assuming a solution to the uncertainty principle)?
But...to bring this back to a more tangible problem with Nate's model...the best polling isn't publicly available and he isn't using it -- the best polling is probably done by campaigns and parties trying to make resource allocation decisions. So when the candidates have recently come to Georgia, the questions start to be raised--"maybe their internals have it more likely that Georgia will be the tipping point state" than the free polls.
If we had gone camping this weekend, and were just now returning to civilization, you might tell me that based on your analysis there was a 75% chance that Michigan would beat Michigan State. I would argue your analysis is dumb and that the event is already decided. You would argue that we don't know the outcome, and your analysis takes into account all available information that we have at hand.
In your political science course, you might argue that in 2016, no one would be certain how the population would respond to different campaign tactics. Hillary listened to the experts and ran a campaign emphasizing health care and experience, while Trump made racist comments and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. You would teach that listening to the experts generally results in better election strategies, and so Hillary ran a better campaign. I would teach that the public apparently responded better to the racism and sexual assault boasts, and so contrary to the conventional wisdom during the period of the campaign, he is the one that won the election.
So here is my a bit spiced up prediction (to make things interesting). It might be bold but not entirely unimaginable.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/9kovw)
Reminds me that I never played Fortress America.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on November 02, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
So here is my a bit spiced up prediction (to make things interesting). It might be bold but not entirely unimaginable.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/9kovw)
Interesting that you rate both GA and TX blue, but PA red.
Well here's my rather pessimistic prediction.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#AZ:1,CO:0,FL:1,GA:1,MI:0,MN:0,N2:0,NH:0,NV:0,NC:1,OH:1,PA:0,TX:1,WI:0,M2:1,N1:1,N3:1,AK:1,HI:0,CA:0,OR:0,WA:0,NM:0,IL:0,NY:0,MA:0,VT:0,ME:0,RI:0,CT:0,NJ:0,MD:0,VA:0,DE:0,MT:1,WY:1,UT:1,ID:1,NE:1,SD:1,ND:1,KS:1,OK:1,AR:1,MO:1,IA:1,LA:1,MS:1,AL:1,TN:1,KY:1,IN:1,WV:1,SC:1,M1:0,DC:0
Browsing right-wing Twitter is fascinating
https://socialbubble.so/
Don't stare into the abyss funk.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 01:51:53 PM
Browsing right-wing Twitter is fascinating
https://socialbubble.so/
I have Fox and WSJ in my apple news feed and try my best to read those. Im quite a way to the left of the other news organizations I follow. This is a hilarious link because Ive never really paid attention to Tim Pool and Laura Ingraham before. I see a Trump tweet on there where hes pivoted back to his 2016 campaign platform though, might be too late.
You try to read Fox?
I really hope Joe Biden wins because it'll be sad to be completely owned by these morons on the right who are envisioning a Trump win in California or New York.
So apparently moderates are to the right of centrists. Who knew.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 02:04:42 PM
I really hope Joe Biden wins because it'll be sad to be completely owned by these morons on the right who are envisioning a Trump win in California or New York.
I've bet $20k on this election--all on Biden in various formats--but about $10k in safe bets like California and New York -- I have $1700 bet in each of those states.
What is stunning to me is that people took the other side of bets at 93% Biden -- assuming Biden wins that means people paid me (before fees) over $250 thinking that Trump would win those states. That isn't just idiots saying stupid shit--actual people put their money on the line thinking it would happen.
Somewhere out there I imagine a poor uneducated man who loves Trump and bets everything he has that Trump will win. It turns out Trump defies the odds: all the experts are wrong, the polls are wrong, the markets are wrong, and Trump is reelected. But this poor man is financially ruined, because he bet on Trump in states like California and New York where Trump had no conceivable hope.
Moderate as a noun is a contemptible term in politics, because it only makes sense in the context of "both sides-ism". It usually goes with "I'm not like those idiots in either party, I'm a moderate *bumps chest proudly*". It makes sense to be a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative, but being just a "moderate" is nonsense, it just makes you a slave of the Overton window.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2020, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 02:04:42 PM
I really hope Joe Biden wins because it'll be sad to be completely owned by these morons on the right who are envisioning a Trump win in California or New York.
I've bet $20k on this election--all on Biden in various formats--but about $10k in safe bets like California and New York -- I have $1700 bet in each of those states.
What is stunning to me is that people took the other side of bets at 93% Biden -- assuming Biden wins that means people paid me (before fees) over $250 thinking that Trump would win those states. That isn't just idiots saying stupid shit--actual people put their money on the line thinking it would happen.
Somewhere out there I imagine a poor uneducated man who loves Trump and bets everything he has that Trump will win. It turns out Trump defies the odds: all the experts are wrong, the polls are wrong, the markets are wrong, and Trump is reelected. But this poor man is financially ruined, because he bet on Trump in states like California and New York where Trump had no conceivable hope.
Those people are just completely in the Trumpworld bubble. All the media they consume boils down to "Trump will win a bunch more states than he did in 2016" to "TRUMP LANDSLIDE 500+ EV"
These people remember 2016 as "Everyone thought I was wrong, but in fact I was RIGHT" and think it applies to everything forever.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 02:53:10 PM
Moderate as a noun is a contemptible term in politics, because it only makes sense in the context of "both sides-ism". It usually goes with "I'm not like those idiots in either party, I'm a moderate *bumps chest proudly*". It makes sense to be a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative, but being just a "moderate" is nonsense, it just makes you a slave of the Overton window.
I like how you move from "It IS contemptible" ase on "it usually". Of course, your definition of a moderate today, as it has been for years, is not actually held by people who call themselves moderates. But you've never cared before about saying that people are something they consistently tell you they are not, so I doubt you will now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2020, 02:02:02 PM
You try to read Fox?
Im afraid so. I actually used to really like the WSJ 20 or 25 years ago, I bought it in paper version somewhat frequently. It's editorials seem to be a sort of attempt to add some sophistries to Trumpism these days though.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 02, 2020, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: Rex Francorum on November 02, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
So here is my a bit spiced up prediction (to make things interesting). It might be bold but not entirely unimaginable.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/9kovw)
Interesting that you rate both GA and TX blue, but PA red.
Yeah it is why I said it was bold. I know PA is safest for Biden than Texas or Georgia, but I am just spicing the things up. For the sake of the prediction game.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2020, 03:20:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 02:53:10 PM
Moderate as a noun is a contemptible term in politics, because it only makes sense in the context of "both sides-ism". It usually goes with "I'm not like those idiots in either party, I'm a moderate *bumps chest proudly*". It makes sense to be a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative, but being just a "moderate" is nonsense, it just makes you a slave of the Overton window.
I like how you move from "It IS contemptible" ase on "it usually". Of course, your definition of a moderate today, as it has been for years, is not actually held by people who call themselves moderates. But you've never cared before about saying that people are something they consistently tell you they are not, so I doubt you will now.
Sometimes what people are is not exactly what they think they are when it comes to politics, so their definition of themselves should not be the final word. You should know that better than anyone, you've been defining my political beliefs over my strenuous objections for at least a decade.
This guy predicts a 90% probability of a Trump win:
http://primarymodel.com/
He made his predictions on March 2nd 2020 and he sticks by it even now.
Amazing, he's been predicting primaries since 1912.
Uh ok.
Directed at Viper not Teach
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2020, 04:57:13 PM
This guy predicts a 90% probability of a Trump win:
http://primarymodel.com/
He made his predictions on March 2nd 2020 and he sticks by it even now.
Dude's not completely insane. Basically he looks at how candidates did in the primaries and then uses that to see who will win in the general election. And the last two single-term presidents who lost seeking re-election did in fact have significant primary challengers (Pat Buchanan in 1992 against Bush 41, Ted Kennedy against Carter in 1980).
But given that you're drawing from an incredibly small sample size I dare say this is not a particularly powerful predictive model. Plus it's worth noting that the GOP shut down the primaries in most states.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2020, 04:57:13 PM
This guy predicts a 90% probability of a Trump win:
http://primarymodel.com/
He made his predictions on March 2nd 2020 and he sticks by it even now.
So I read this article where he explains his model: http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-model-full-version. He seems to tout himself being the only one who correctly predicted Trump win, and with great confidence. For some reason he doesn't tout that his model gave Trump a 5% edge in popular vote, which is why he was 87% confident.
The whole write-up sounds like a confused rambling of a dilettante, who seems to have no understanding of the danger of overfitting to the past. This is a perfect example of how a bad model can look good by getting lucky once.
2000 and 2016 are the free spaces of election modeling.
What's the Freebird of election modeling?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 02, 2020, 05:30:53 PM
2000 and 2016 are the free spaces of election modeling.
Also 1960.
And you can argue that prior to 1964, none of the elections should really count because most black people were systematically denied voting rights. So 1968 was the first comparable election. Maybe 1972 as that was the first that allowed 18 year olds to vote.
If we start with 1972 and exclude 2000 and 2016 we have all of 10 elections to go off of. :D
If Predictit means anything, Trump is at 42% to win.
He is over 50% to win states with 259 electoral votes, and at 44% in Pennsylvania which would give him 20 more (270 needed to win).
Judge Bozo has dismissed the Texas drive through case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2020, 06:17:42 PM
Judge Bozo has dismissed the Texas drive through case.
Yeah but is that the end of it? Can they still appeal the dismissal?
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2020, 06:59:07 PM
Yeah but is that the end of it? Can they still appeal the dismissal?
The plaintiffs say they're going to appeal. But I'm going to dismiss the story from my mind and suggest you do the same.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2020, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2020, 06:17:42 PM
Judge Bozo has dismissed the Texas drive through case.
Yeah but is that the end of it? Can they still appeal the dismissal?
Yes but it's dead.
Ok good. Lawyering is a strange art that still confuses me even though I have been working in administrative hearings court for five years now.
Now there's just the matter of Judge Bozo's impending libel suit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2020, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2020, 06:59:07 PM
Yeah but is that the end of it? Can they still appeal the dismissal?
The plaintiffs say they're going to appeal. But I'm going to dismiss the story from my mind and suggest you do the same.
Before you dismiss it from your mind, think of all the money you could've gotten had you not 86ed me from your bet.
Not gonna lie. Pretty psyched for tomorrow. Gonna have a good night throwing this moron asshole out of office.
I just can't make myself be this confident. This fucker is the definition of Karma Houdini. I also think that Biden winning without the Manchin-proof Senate majority would merely turn an unmitigated disaster into a mitigated disaster, and that part is far less certain.
Yeah I'm feeling stupidly confident but I'm ok with that. I'll just quote this tomorrow night when Donald wins by a squeaker and I've drunk more in one night than I've drank all year.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2020, 08:13:28 PM
Before you dismiss it from your mind, think of all the money you could've gotten had you not 86ed me from your bet.
*takes a moment to think about five dollars*
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 10:30:02 PM
Yeah I'm feeling stupidly confident but I'm ok with that. I'll just quote this tomorrow night when Donald wins by a squeaker and I've drunk more in one night than I've drank all year.
I'm both not confident, and probably going to be drunk as hell.
So cheers! :cheers:
Not confident at all. Extremely anxious. Like panic attacks anxious. I never have been like this during an election.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2020, 04:14:49 AM
Not confident at all. Extremely anxious. Like panic attacks anxious. I never have been like this during an election.
Yeah, I'm only happy today that I've meetings to distract me through the day. I'm concerned about my ability to go and stay asleep tonight.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2020, 04:19:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2020, 04:14:49 AM
Not confident at all. Extremely anxious. Like panic attacks anxious. I never have been like this during an election.
Yeah, I'm only happy today that I've meetings to distract me through the day. I'm concerned about my ability to go and stay asleep tonight.
I'm not even American and I'm laying off the coffee for the day as a cautionary measure :lol:
I will just be getting up early in the morning and catching up at midnight ET.
I'm working on something with teams in the Far East and I can honestly say, as a night owl, it's the worst experience of my life.
My boss has kids so getting up for a call at 5.30 is fine and normal :bleeding: :weep: :ultra:
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 02, 2020, 10:30:02 PM
Yeah I'm feeling stupidly confident but I'm ok with that. I'll just quote this tomorrow night when Donald wins by a squeaker and I've drunk more in one night than I've drank all year.
I was very confident in my faith and belief in America in 2016 :(
Somehow, I have not learned my lesson and am again quite confident :blush:
I am not confident at all which is probably a good sign as I was confident in Trump losing in 2016.
I'm not confident, neither was in 2016. But I always expect the worst outcome to happen in any given situation, I'm a pathological pessimist. :(
Stocking up for an all-nighter.
I should just go to bed early and then wake up early, but I know I won't.
Trump sounds "a bit" tired on his call with Fox and Friends: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1323610271219437569?s=20
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2020, 07:59:22 AM
Trump sounds "a bit" tired on his call with Fox and Friends: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1323610271219437569?s=20
The feeling's mutual.
Even some Fox journalists* have probably got bored of his bullshit by now.
*clearly not the talking heads.
Prediction?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/1b7e682248e408c40840d598b5cd876d/tenor.gif)
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2020, 08:31:06 AM
Prediction?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/1b7e682248e408c40840d598b5cd876d/tenor.gif)
I posted that all the way back on page 1. :lol:
I bet $20k on Biden, in a about a zillion different bets. In summary of what will happen:
If Biden wins and wins Florida: I win $5,336.80.
If Biden wins without Florida: I win $5,207.48.
If Biden loses but wins the popular vote: I lose $4,473.21.
If Biden loses in a blowout and/or the popular vote, I'll obviously lose a lot more, depending on how it breaks down.
Went to vote today. No line at all. There were lines in Atlanta of up to 11 hours to early vote. All those people were suckers. :)
Kind of bizzarely, a shit ton of Trump signs and banners appeared overnight. I'm kind of on the border between the city and suburbs - there were few signs for Trump or Pence before today. Doubt it will influence many people because the early vote was almost 100% of 2016's total turnout--I think most have already voted. I think it is a last hurrah for Trumpistan.
My absolute favorite thing on Election Day is watching cable news and seeing reporters at polling sites harass voters waiting in line and repeatedly ask them who they'll voted for :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2020, 09:13:12 AM
If Biden loses in a blowout and/or the popular vote, I'll obviously lose a lot more, depending on how it breaks down.
I guess that's the only thing that will keep us going, if Trump wins big. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2020, 07:41:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2020, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2020, 06:17:42 PM
Judge Bozo has dismissed the Texas drive through case.
Yeah but is that the end of it? Can they still appeal the dismissal?
Yes but it's dead.
But result achieved, while dismissing the suit on standing (technicality), Hanen gratuitously commented how illegal he thinks it all is. Harris county closed most of the drive throughs as a precaution,
So voter suppression mission mostly accomplished.
Chicken shit move - basically using extrajudicial influence while insulating himself from any appeal.
Just looked and it wasn't just some loose commentary in the oral hearing - despite dismissing the case, the majority of the written order is actually an opinion on the merits about the legality of the drive though. He finds they are OK for early voting but not on Election Day. He says all this after refusing to opine on the key threshold issue of whether a federal court should be entertaining such second guessing of state law rulings from the state Supreme Court (they shouldn't) claiming he doesn't need to address the issue because he is dismissing for lack of standing. But then why on earth does he discuss the merits?
Simple - to cast a cloud on drive through voting on Election Day in a way that can't be appealed or fix, It is an outrageous abuse of judicial power for raw political purpose, A disgrace to the robe,
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2020, 06:25:09 AM
I am not confident at all which is probably a good sign as I was confident in Trump losing in 2016.
I was confident that Clinton win. Won't make that mistake again.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2020, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2020, 06:25:09 AM
I am not confident at all which is probably a good sign as I was confident in Trump losing in 2016.
I was confident that Clinton win. Won't make that mistake again.
You were? Even after that FBI bullshit on the eve of the election?
Ah well. Nothing to do now but wait.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2020, 09:51:26 AM
Just looked and it wasn't just some loose commentary in the oral hearing - despite dismissing the case, the majority of the written order is actually an opinion on the merits about the legality of the drive though. He finds they are OK for early voting but not on Election Day. He says all this after refusing to opine on the key threshold issue of whether a federal court should be entertaining such second guessing of state law rulings from the state Supreme Court (they shouldn't) claiming he doesn't need to address the issue because he is dismissing for lack of standing. But then why on earth does he discuss the merits?
Simple - to cast a cloud on drive through voting on Election Day in a way that can't be appealed or fix, It is an outrageous abuse of judicial power for raw political purpose, A disgrace to the robe,
Yeah thanks for leaving that ambiguity out there for the next election.
The ambiguity is here for THIS election. Because of a federal judge's improper dictum, lawful polling places will be closed and voters in Harris County who believed that would be able to vote in those locations based on guidance from duly authorized state officials will not be able to cast their votes. It is a flagrant defiance of the Supreme Court's Purcell precedent, done in a sneaky way to avoid correction.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2020, 10:15:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2020, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2020, 06:25:09 AM
I am not confident at all which is probably a good sign as I was confident in Trump losing in 2016.
I was confident that Clinton win. Won't make that mistake again.
You were? Even after that FBI bullshit on the eve of the election?
Ah well. Nothing to do now but wait.
Ah yes forgot about the FBI thing. That was some blatant intervention bullshit. Yeah that did give me a pause, who had heard of people voting for somebody under an active FBI investigation? Anyways, that was a different world back then.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 03, 2020, 08:44:23 AM
I posted that all the way back on page 1. :lol:
I can't be bothered to read back that far.
I predict a Trump shitshow and further damage to American democratic institutions and norms.
Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2020, 12:54:46 PM
I predict a Trump shitshow and further damage to American democratic institutions and norms.
Well no matter what happens, Trump will say a bunch of idiotic shit, that's for sure.
Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2020, 12:54:46 PM
I predict a Trump shitshow and further damage to American democratic institutions and norms.
This has been true for every day of Trump's presidency :D
I have a dreadful feeling that Trump will win.
I hope I am wrong.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2020, 01:14:16 PM
I have a dreadful feeling that Trump will win.
I find your lack of faith in America....understandable
I'm generally pretty positive. Nate gives Donald, what, 9% chance? He has like 6 must win battleground states. All the Trump supporters I know (and the people on the street who look like Trump supporters) look more discouraged and down than pumped up for a fight. I would not be surprised if GOP turnout is shit.
All those absentee and early votes are already in the book so we don't have to worry so much about dumbass Democratic voters not showing up on election day.
Stocks are up. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2020, 09:51:26 AM
Just looked and it wasn't just some loose commentary in the oral hearing - despite dismissing the case, the majority of the written order is actually an opinion on the merits about the legality of the drive though. He finds they are OK for early voting but not on Election Day. He says all this after refusing to opine on the key threshold issue of whether a federal court should be entertaining such second guessing of state law rulings from the state Supreme Court (they shouldn't) claiming he doesn't need to address the issue because he is dismissing for lack of standing. But then why on earth does he discuss the merits?
Simple - to cast a cloud on drive through voting on Election Day in a way that can't be appealed or fix, It is an outrageous abuse of judicial power for raw political purpose, A disgrace to the robe,
Are you sure Harris (or any place) was even intending to conduct drive through on election day? The Texas law seems pretty clear.
Yeah I am not clear if that was not the plan all along.
It just sets up another legal challenge for the next election unless the legislature clarifies next session in 2021.
I expect :
Biden to win the Popular vote;
Biden to win 290+ electoral vote;
That Trump will still be president on January 21st 2021.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 03, 2020, 01:59:05 PM
I expect :
Biden to win the Popular vote;
Biden to win 290+ electoral vote;
That Trump will still be president on January 21st 2021.
I've seen all kind of potential Trumpian shenanigans being proposed, but every single one relies on Trump by hook or by crook getting over 270 EVs (or else neither side does and it goes to the House).
If Biden has 290+ EVs by definition he becomes the 46th President.
There is no logical reason to be pessimistic, at least about the presidential race, all the data points very decisively to a Biden win. It's just that democracy seems to be stuck in a rut of bad luck lately all over the world, and you're at a point where you expect bad luck to keep pounding you. It's like a poker player who lost five hands in a row where they were a 75% favorite, and now they believe that having opponents suck out on them is just inevitable no matter what the math says.
I fully anticipate Joey Joe Joe Jr Shabadoo to win this thing. But I want it to be by a lot.
But there is a lot more at stake. We must win the Senate and tons of really important races going on in Texas and locally. We have a notoriously Constitutional rights ignoring County Sheriff to vote out of office. Fucker should be in federal prison but I will take it.
Lots to be nervous about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2020, 01:55:56 PM
Are you sure Harris (or any place) was even intending to conduct drive through on election day?
Yes the 10 locations were supposed to be open today. The clerk made the decision to close all but one last night.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2020, 01:14:16 PM
I have a dreadful feeling that Trump will win.
I hope I am wrong.
The fact that Trump has a sufficient amount of support to make the result uncomfortably close is a disturbing reality. Dread is the appropriate emotion. And likely will be felt until the Trumpists no longer have influence over the Republican party.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 02:17:49 PM
The fact that Trump has a sufficient amount of support to make the result uncomfortably close is a disturbing reality. Dread is the appropriate emotion. And likely will be felt until the Trumpists no longer have influence over the Republican party.
Nah, the Trumpists are the Republican party now. Hopefully not in the sense that they are led by someone as personally miserable as Trump, but they not going to revert to their pretrump stage when Romney was the nominee. They are a populist party now.
The unifying force in the Republican party has been the memory of Reagan, who came from the ideological edge to win the presidency in 1980 and became so popular he carried 49 states in 1984 (and the Democrats began campaigning in the 50th because they feared getting shut out). The core ideology was small government and low taxes.
Clinton came along and pushed the Democrats into the "third way"--low taxes for everyone but the wealthy, cuts to welfare but funding for popular programs like education and social security. The republicans have essentially been boxed out of their old space--they have only won the popular vote for president once sense Clinton came on the scene in 1992. Lowering taxes on the wealthy isn't popular and neither are cuts to the current government programs. Going back to that old space isn't going to win elections.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2020, 02:37:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 02:17:49 PM
The fact that Trump has a sufficient amount of support to make the result uncomfortably close is a disturbing reality. Dread is the appropriate emotion. And likely will be felt until the Trumpists no longer have influence over the Republican party.
Nah, the Trumpists are the Republican party now. Hopefully not in the sense that they are led by someone as personally miserable as Trump, but they not going to revert to their pretrump stage when Romney was the nominee. They are a populist party now.
The unifying force in the Republican party has been the memory of Reagan, who came from the ideological edge to win the presidency in 1980 and became so popular he carried 49 states in 1984 (and the Democrats began campaigning in the 50th because they feared getting shut out). The core ideology was small government and low taxes.
Clinton came along and pushed the Democrats into the "third way"--low taxes for everyone but the wealthy, cuts to welfare but funding for popular programs like education and social security. The republicans have essentially been boxed out of their old space--they have only won the popular vote for president once sense Clinton came on the scene in 1992. Lowering taxes on the wealthy isn't popular and neither are cuts to the current government programs. Going back to that old space isn't going to win elections.
Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 02:39:58 PM
Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.
I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections. Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.
That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 02:39:58 PM
Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.
I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections. Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.
That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.
"The Other" will just shift to "others". It can happen so fast. In 2008 a big turnout issue was opposition to gay marriage--an amendment to ban it passed in California that year--and now conservatives are arguing for harsh policies toward muslim countries due to their anti-gay policies.
Probably a lot of the descendants of the immigrants the know nothings hated are trumpists today.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 02:39:58 PM
Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.
I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections. Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.
That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.
Things can change. Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.
There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not. But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 03:11:04 PM
Things can change. Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.
There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not. But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites? Or bring in hispanics or blacks?
Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 03:11:04 PM
Things can change. Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.
There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not. But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
im getting sick of this nonsense narrative about he's polling so much better than 2016. :yes:
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites? Or bring in hispanics or blacks?
Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.
I am not sure how nativism works across groups of different heritages. I can understand how a Black population could be nativist - See post revolution Haiti. Or how uneducated white males can be nativist - see trumpists. But I don't understand how both exist in the same party.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites? Or bring in hispanics or blacks?
Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.
I am not sure how nativism works across groups of different heritages. I can understand how a Black population could be nativist - See post revolution Haiti. Or how uneducated white males can be nativist - see trumpists. But I don't understand how both exist in the same party.
As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.
There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold. Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative. Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot. And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too. Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 04:02:12 PM
As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.
There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold. Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative. Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot. And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too. Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.
So if a party changed it messaging and its policies they might change the people who support it?
That is a shocking revelation BB.
So what kind of messaging and policies do the Conservatives need to win British Columbia? Surely they are just a small switch of messaging and policy and they can win every Riding in Canada!
Anyway sure the Republicans can swerve to grab up other groups but, just like the Democrats in the 1960s, they will pay a price elsewhere. If it was just a matter of pandering at no cost everybody would do it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2020, 04:09:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 04:02:12 PM
As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.
There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold. Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative. Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot. And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too. Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.
So if a party changed it messaging and its policies they might change the people who support it?
That is a shocking revelation BB.
So what kind of messaging and policies do the Conservatives need to win British Columbia? Surely they are just a small switch of messaging and policy and they can win every Riding in Canada!
Anyway sure the Republicans can swerve to grab up other groups but, just like the Democrats in the 1960s, they will pay a price elsewhere. If it was just a matter of pandering at no cost everybody would do it.
Yes. And?
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
Yes. And?
Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2020, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
Yes. And?
Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?
I said we don't know what the future of the GOP is. Maybe it is "Trumpism without Trump". grumbles pointed out that relying on uneducated white men is not a winning coalition. I agreed, but maybe the GOP would be able to grow it's coalition - and here I suggested either college-educated whites, or blacks or hispanics.
Obviously none of that is easy or straightforward for the reasons you point out. And maybe none of it is possible. We'll see what happens.
What if (it's crazy I know), in the future, they focus on hateful and stupid people?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2020, 04:14:49 PM
Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?
The two party system is fairly entrenched for a variety of structural reasons. If we don't get the total collapse of one party or the emergence of a truly viable third party--neither of which seems likely--it is hard to imagine that one party is going to move into a dominant position for any length of time. If the Democrats win significant majorities, the center of gravity will move left which will alienate moderates and increase the Republican tolerance of a more moderate agenda.
Look at the republican bench. It isn't hard to imagine the next nominee is Rubio or Cruz - both hispanics - or Nikki Haley - an Indian American woman. All three have become Trumpists in their own ways - Rubio was basically celebrating the truckers that harassed the Biden bus the other day and forced the rally to be canceled. The republican party could broaden from uneducated whites to uneducated other ethnicities fairly easily. I would hope that the racial nonsense of Trump isn't an asset.
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 04:41:57 PM
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
How does one do that though. Isn't the underlying argument that sure, poor whites might have it bad under Republican policies but at least Blacks have it worse.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 04:41:57 PM
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
Exactly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
How does one do that though. Isn't the underlying argument that sure, poor whites might have it bad under Republican policies but at least Blacks have it worse.
Not even Trump is saying that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 04:41:57 PM
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
How does one do that though. Isn't the underlying argument that sure, poor whites might have it bad under Republican policies but at least Blacks have it worse.
To be successful, they'll have to moderate their economic policies.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 03:11:04 PM
Things can change. Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.
There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not. But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.
He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.
The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.
I will have you know that I am ignorant white Male and I have been increasing in size since the early 1980's.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 04:41:57 PM
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
How does one do that though. Isn't the underlying argument that sure, poor whites might have it bad under Republican policies but at least Blacks have it worse.
Some options:
Disconnect the GOP from racist organizations. Openly and repeatedly repudiate any organization even remotely linked to white supremacy. Expel Republicans from the party that flirt with white supremacists. Recruit better and not-racist Republican candidates.
Support living wage policies. Hop onboard public healthcare options like the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Talk to union leaders and signal your openness to change.
Not saying any of these are likely but they could essentially co-opt Democrats and complete their takeover of the working class.
The Funks, garbons (before he flipped a bitch and left country) and even derspicy's kids and I are the future of America. You old White people ( including derspicy) are the past.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2020, 09:13:12 AM
I bet $20k on Biden, in a about a zillion different bets.
:o :pope:
Well at least you'll eat your own cooking. For good or ill.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 03, 2020, 04:41:57 PM
Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.
How does one do that though. Isn't the underlying argument that sure, poor whites might have it bad under Republican policies but at least Blacks have it worse.
Some options:
Disconnect the GOP from racist organizations. Openly and repeatedly repudiate any organization even remotely linked to white supremacy. Expel Republicans from the party that flirt with white supremacists. Recruit better and not-racist Republican candidates.
Support living wage policies. Hop onboard public healthcare options like the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Talk to union leaders and signal your openness to change.
Not saying any of these are likely but they could essentially co-opt Democrats and complete their takeover of the working class.
No offence, but Ford Prefect turning into a penguin is more likely than this.
Quote from: katmai on November 03, 2020, 05:26:43 PM
The Funks, garbons (before he flipped a bitch and left country) and even derspicy's kids and I are the future of America. You old White people ( including derspicy) are the past.
Latinos are just a mix of european and native ancestry. Just like old school "white" guys. Your future is to be classified as white, just as happened to my italian ancestors. And then in the longer term no one will care about any of this.
In the long term we are all dead.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2020, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 03, 2020, 05:26:43 PM
The Funks, garbons (before he flipped a bitch and left country) and even derspicy's kids and I are the future of America. You old White people ( including derspicy) are the past.
Latinos are just a mix of european and native ancestry. Just like old school "white" guys. Your future is to be classified as white, just as happened to my italian ancestors. And then in the longer term no one will care about any of this.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2020, 04:02:12 PM
As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.
The Irish were outsiders two generations ago? Somebody tell Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson! Fiorello La Guardia and Wally Schirra would argue with your characterization of them as outsiders, I think. It takes some time to become an insider, but that happened longer ago than you think for those groups.
QuoteThere's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold. Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative. Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot. And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too. Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.
Every party dreams of bringing every voting group into their fold.
Trumpism is more than ordinary American populism. It's a reveling in the nasty; it's a deliberate degradation of social norms and the insistence that facts are whatever you want them to be. It's anti-intellectual unicorn-belief (e.g. accusing your opponent of wanting to listen to doctors on medical issues, when relief comes from just repeating "turning the corner" over and over again until it is true, then claiming credit for the turn). I don't think those will be features of any successful future republican bid for the White House.
I bet 5$ with the Russian, Stalinist, Putinist, Nationalist, Oxford Comma, ArchConservative, Cook at work.
He reads different media. He believes there is a solid block of black, middle class, voters who will swing the election to the Orange One.
I think I made 5$.
Of course, Americans are bad at elections, so if I lose, I'll have to find retribution: vodka.
Quote from: katmai on November 03, 2020, 05:26:43 PM
The Funks, garbons (before he flipped a bitch and left country) and even derspicy's kids and I are the future of America. You old White people ( including derspicy) are the past.
Well good luck with that. I only really care about the present of America right now.
Wait were youse guys really thinking Florida wasn't going to Trump?
Quote from: katmai on November 03, 2020, 08:44:22 PM
Wait were youse guys really thinking Florida wasn't going to Trump?
Fuck if I knew. I just knew Joe needed to win one of North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2020, 02:37:23 PM
Nah, the Trumpists are the Republican party now. Hopefully not in the sense that they are led by someone as personally miserable as Trump, but they not going to revert to their pretrump stage when Romney was the nominee. They are a populist party now.
Yeah - and thinking about that article from the New Yorker. So far it looks like Trump doing better with Latinos and, to a far lesser extent African Americans, while education is becoming more of a divide. (education seems a more profound divide - a bit like the ROTW). Maybe the Reversalist re-alignment takes place, especially with Latinos, and the GOP becomes the party of the people - while the Democrats become the party of the well-educated, public sector workers (big cities and college towns), like what's happened to the left in much of Europe. I think that is the better direction for the GOP to go than to double-down on nativism (the Cotton style of Trumpism) or to revert to Mitt Romney style Republicanism.
Regardless, after tonight, there's no way that Trumpism is gone from the GOP. If he loses I wouldn't bet against another run in 2024, or Jr making a run.
Quote
Wait were youse guys really thinking Florida wasn't going to Trump?
No. My very deep prejudice that fundamentally Florida is a messy bitch who lives for the drama has only deepened tonight :lol:
I hate Florida.
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
I just think it's lame that the best way to break a hold over a certain group is to engage in military adventures abroad. :glare:
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
for whom? The US - invading a country because a bunch of Trumpists want them to? That sounds like a big loss for the US.
The people of Cuba getting invaded by a bunch of Trumpist? No so great either.
The world becoming even more destabalized by the bad old days of American imperialism?
Sounds like a lose, lose, lose proposition to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2020, 11:29:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
for whom? The US - invading a country because a bunch of Trumpists want them to? That sounds like a big loss for the US.
The people of Cuba getting invaded by a bunch of Trumpist? No so great either.
The world becoming even more destabalized by the bad old days of American imperialism?
Sounds like a lose, lose, lose proposition to me.
The smiley face generally indicates a less than completely serious post.
But in general the idea of removing the despotic Cuban communist government would be a huge boon to the Cuban people.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2020, 11:29:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
for whom? The US - invading a country because a bunch of Trumpists want them to? That sounds like a big loss for the US.
The people of Cuba getting invaded by a bunch of Trumpist? No so great either.
The world becoming even more destabalized by the bad old days of American imperialism?
Sounds like a lose, lose, lose proposition to me.
The smiley face generally indicates a less than completely serious post.
But in general the idea of removing the despotic Cuban communist government would be a huge boon to the Cuban people.
If when given the privilege of voting cubans chose to vote for the likes of Trump maybe we should reconsider a democratic cuba :P
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2020, 11:29:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It's the Cubans. I think the only real way to deal with that 'issue' is for us to overthrow the current regime in Cuba and hand the country to the exiles. :sleep:
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
for whom? The US - invading a country because a bunch of Trumpists want them to? That sounds like a big loss for the US.
The people of Cuba getting invaded by a bunch of Trumpist? No so great either.
The world becoming even more destabalized by the bad old days of American imperialism?
Sounds like a lose, lose, lose proposition to me.
The smiley face generally indicates a less than completely serious post.
But in general the idea of removing the despotic Cuban communist government would be a huge boon to the Cuban people.
See, for a moment I was prepared to accept that you were joking. But then you went with the line that it would actually make sense. You are looking a lot more like DerIdiot. "It was a joke but you know there is some truth to it"
We should have offered them statehood after the Spanish American war. And that might have/could have happened...but the racism of the time almost certainly precluded the idea.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2020, 11:26:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Sounds like a win-win scenario. :)
I just think it's lame that the best way to break a hold over a certain group is to engage in military adventures abroad. :glare:
If they want to form their own army we might look the other way if they want to overthrow the Castros. That is about as far we would be willing to go I think.
But the Castros are not nearly as unpopular in Cuba as they are in Miami I don't think.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 04, 2020, 11:36:55 AM
We should have offered them statehood after the Spanish American war. And that might have/could have happened...but the racism of the time almost certainly precluded the idea.
:yes:
My predictions are still alive. I really didn't expect it when I went to bed last night.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2020, 11:41:23 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 04, 2020, 11:36:55 AM
We should have offered them statehood after the Spanish American war. And that might have/could have happened...but the racism of the time almost certainly precluded the idea.
:yes:
I never thought about it before, but why exactly was Cuba given its independence after the Spanish-American War, while Puerto Rico and Guam have remained US possessions to this day (and the Phillippines only gained independence decades later)? I mean Cuba was the possession closest to US soil of the 4.
Because the whole point of the war was to liberate Cuba, 1776 style, from European imperialism. Plus then, as now, Cuban exiles in Florida were dictating Cuban policy.
Holding the rest of the Spanish Empire was very controversial remember.
And please note how I said "offered" not "imposed". If it were seen as a square deal/entry into the Union as an equal, it might have stood a good chance at passing a popular vote of the Cuban people of the time. The bigger uncertainty is if Congress would have accepted it.
But the same powers that exploited Cuba and eventually led to Castro probably found it more advantageous to keep Cuba as an independent, but pliant, client state.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2020, 11:38:05 AM
But the Castros are not nearly as unpopular in Cuba as they are in Miami I don't think.
They're not. I hope nobody confuses Cubans with Cuban exiles.
It should be no surprise that Cubans blocked Joe Biden. The Cubans are very blocky people, it's in the name.
:lol:
At least they're not Time Cubans.
Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2020, 12:54:46 PM
I predict a Trump shitshow and further damage to American democratic institutions and norms.
My prediction was fulfilled. Then again, predicting something that is close to certain is not hard...
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2020, 08:31:06 AM
Prediction?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/1b7e682248e408c40840d598b5cd876d/tenor.gif)
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 04, 2020, 01:20:46 PM
At least they're not Time Cubans.
In 1884, meridian time personnel met
in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
the 1 day marshmallow. So they applied the 1
day and ignored the other 3 days.
The marshmallow time was wrong then and it
proved wrong today. This a major lie
has so much boring feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
it proves every believer on Earth a liar.
Children will be blessed for
Kissing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
Days Same Earth Rotation.
Practicing Boring ONEness -
UponEarth Of Quadrants.
Boring Adult Crime VS Youth.
Supports Lie Of Integration.
1 Educated Are Most Dumb.
Not 1 Human Except Dead 1.
Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self.
1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.
Marshmallow A Lie & Word Is Lies.
Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.
God Is Born Of A Mother
She Left Belly B. Signature.
Every Priest Has Ma Sign
But Lies To Honor Unicorns.
Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2020, 07:46:37 AM
Okay - so my map/guess :ph34r:
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/x0g6X)
Edit: Incidentally - the shading means nothing. I clicked until I got to red/blue per state.
Not entirely displeased with my guess. NC and probably the Maine district will go for Trump and Iowa did, so a few out. But all of those were kind of based on thinking the Senate would likely look very different.
Edit: Obviously Georgia and Arizona will still need to be recounted but they're very close so not too annoyed even if they're wrong.
anyone who got GA, PA, and FL right is a huge stud.
I only predicted one state and got it wrong. :D
I wonder if state codes are to Yuros what Yuro party codes are to Muricans.
Yuro: This election the BDG might form a coaltion with the SFG, but that could be blocked by the MRE.
Me: wut? :huh:
State codes are pretty straightforward, though.
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2020, 01:59:58 PM
State codes are pretty straightforward, though.
Yeah - they're more like the European car registration codes (as a kid, I used to geek out about both - and capital cities :Embarrass:).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2020, 01:59:58 PM
State codes are pretty straightforward, though.
Yeah - they're more like the European car registration codes (as a kid, I used to geek out about both - and capital cities :Embarrass:).
I remember seeing a CH code for the first time and spending hours figuring out what it could be :lol:
What does my head in is the damn counties and how they almost never match the city in them. So analysts prattle about Clark County, Maricopa County... and I have to go to wikipedia to know it's Las Vegas, Phoenix...
Learn American geography noob
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2020, 05:22:22 PM
What does my head in is the damn counties and how they almost never match the city in them. So analysts prattle about Clark County, Maricopa County... and I have to go to wikipedia to know it's Las Vegas, Phoenix...
Can't say I blame you in the least.
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 08:46:04 PM
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
They have to wait a week to start counting mail ins.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 08:46:04 PM
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
They need time for the dog sleds to deliver all the ballots.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 08:46:04 PM
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
if someone had only answered this before....
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:53:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 08:46:04 PM
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
They have to wait a week to start counting mail ins.
Thanks.
You too Valmy, thanks :P
Quote from: katmai on November 07, 2020, 09:01:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 08:46:04 PM
what's the deal with Alaska results stuck at 46% counted for 3 days? They decided not to update 'cause they know Trump is going to win it?
if someone had only answered this before....
ok, shoot me, I missed a few posts here&there in this gigantic thread :P
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2020, 05:22:22 PM
What does my head in is the damn counties and how they almost never match the city in them. So analysts prattle about Clark County, Maricopa County... and I have to go to wikipedia to know it's Las Vegas, Phoenix...
Heh - one side effect of a legal career is that I've had deposition in most of the cities sometime or another so the counties with big cities in them are familiar.
I already knew what Maricopa County was, because Sheriff Joe and his goon squad were notorious for their fascist tendencies for many years before Trump.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2020, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2020, 05:22:22 PM
What does my head in is the damn counties and how they almost never match the city in them. So analysts prattle about Clark County, Maricopa County... and I have to go to wikipedia to know it's Las Vegas, Phoenix...
Heh - one side effect of a legal career is that I've had deposition in most of the cities sometime or another so the counties with big cities in them are familiar.
The side effect of my legal career is I know the location of all kinds of towns (and First Nations reserves) in northern Alberta and Yukon... :(
Being able to regale people with anecdotes about High Level, Alberta or Old Crow, Yukon sadly doesn't come up very often.
I always liked hearing about you having to make it to the Court House when it was -40C. That sounds exciting knowing if you get lost you might die.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2020, 12:09:24 AM
I always liked hearing about you having to make it to the Court House when it was -40C. That sounds exciting knowing if you get lost you might die.
That's spring in Yukon. ;)