US Presidential Election 2020

Water John

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

Nope, they got the information from the insecure online voting systems as I had suggested earlier.

What did Trump do about for the last 4 years having been repeatedly warned?

stefanovich

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Funny how you are only concentrating on Iran but ignoring this



like i said earlier it is fascinating to see Trumpists get all "concerned" about election meddling at this hour while completely ignoring that Trump is on record requesting a foreign country to meddle and his people are in courts/jail for collusion in past.

I watched the press conference. You didn't. The FBI specifically stated Russia did nothing with the data.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

I watched the press conference. You didn't. The FBI specifically stated Russia did nothing with the data.

Ohh that makes it okay then.....

stefanovich

Water John wrote: »

What did Trump do about for the last 4 years having been repeatedly warned?

He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.

paul71

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Do you have any facts to prove your statement or only posting to spread fud and confusion?

I had a quick look, it was not even an FBI conference, it was Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe who is a politician in the Trump administration.

stefanovich

paul71 wrote: »

I had a quick look, it was not even an FBI conference, it was Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe who is a politician in the Trump administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eYQwNcnYFY

Big FBI sign in the background.

Director of the FBI speaks in the second half.

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.

If he was as concerned about it as he claims he could be and would be able to do quite a lot about it, but like with everything he pretends to care about nothing ever comes of it.

stefanovich

VinLieger wrote: »

If he was as concerned about it as he claims he could be and would be able to do quite a lot about it, but like with everything he pretends to care about nothing ever comes of it.

Democrats fighting tooth and nail against it.

Phoebas

stefanovich wrote: »

Director of the FBI speaks in the second half.

Trump should take note:

Christopher A. Wray wrote:

"You should be confident that your vote counts. Early unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism."

VinLieger

stefanovich wrote: »

Democrats fighting tooth and nail against it.

Yeah its the democrats fighting against election security....


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills

TomOnBoard

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

Nope, they got the information from the insecure online voting systems as I had suggested earlier.

Where exactly does the linked WaPo article say that?

amandstu

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

BonnieSituation

stefanovich wrote: »

Did anyone see the FBI press conference last night?

Iran has hacked voter data and are sending threatening emails to voters.

This is my favourite post in this entire thread.

amandstu

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This is my favourite post in this entire thread.

Why?

BonnieSituation

stefanovich wrote: »

Wow, so voter email addresses are available to everyone?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-press-conference-on-election-security-watch-live-stream-2020-10-21/

Seems the Iranians were sending threatening emails to democrats pretending to be from right wing pro trump groups.

Not sure who they are hoping to help or whether they just want to stoke unrest.

The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.

Kermit.de.frog

amandstu wrote: »

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

It's in Woodward's personal interest that Trump remains in the White House.

He's already gotten two books out of it.

amandstu

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's in Woodward's personal interest that Trump remains in the White House.

He's already gotten two books out of it.

Thanks for changing the subject.

droidus

amandstu wrote: »

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

Cant say for sure without hearing exactly what he said, but he may be referring to a lead in GOP new voter registrations in some states, or about enthusiasm.

For the former - there's very little evidence that new voter regs are correlated with significant margins in presidential elections, for the latter, there was some indications over the summer that Reps were more enthusiastic than dems, and then again in September when lack of Latino enthusiasm would affect Biden. As it stands, there's no evidence of an enthusiasm gap and both sides are doing extremely well with 80% of Democrats and 75% Republicans saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year and independents polling about 20% lower.

Given current levels of early voting, I think it's fair to say that things are going well for the dems right now. Whether this continues is another question, but my impression is that there are an awful lot of people hellbent on getting Trump out.

amandstu

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.

You'll have to spell it out

amandstu

droidus wrote: »

Cant say for sure without hearing exactly what he said, but he may be referring to a lead in GOP new voter registrations in come states, or about enthusiasm.

For the former - there's very little evidence that new voter regs are correlated with significant margins in presidential elections, for the latter, there was some indications over the summer that Reps were more enthusiastic than dems, and then again in September when lack of Latino enthusiasm would affect Biden. As it stands, there's no evidence of an enthusiasm gap and both sides are doing extremely well with 80% of Democrats and 75% Republicans saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year and independents polling about 20% lower.

Given current levels of early voting, I think it's fair to say that things are going well for the dems right now. Whether this continues is another question, but my impression is that there are an awful lot of people hellbent on getting Trump out.

With 40 million having already having voted with the polls showing what they do has this early voting made Trumps task harder as those votes are presumably "cemented in" with a pro Biden bias?

duploelabs

stefanovich wrote: »

He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.

Yes but guess what party leader in the senate has been sitting on a bill to prevent this kind of stuff?

BonnieSituation

amandstu wrote: »

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

RTÉ's reportage on the election the last while, and especially Brian O'Donovan's, has been remarkably soft on Trump and in fact, has sought to dampen down a lot of pro-Biden, or apparent pro-Biden reporting. It's weird.

Bob Woodward discussing things like that would not surprise me.

Quin_Dub

amandstu wrote: »

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

The statistical evidence says that Trump could lose the Popular vote by up to about 4% and still have a shot at the Electoral college.

Bidens' national lead is roughly twice that right now.

At the State level - If you look at 2016 and today , where he won he closed the gap and over took Clinton by taking the undecided voters.

So , anywhere the gap between the Two candidates is less than about 80% of the available undecided votes (excluding about 1.5% for the 3rd party candidates) Trump is in the hunt , if it's outside that range , he probably isn't in the running.

So take Arizona for example.

Biden is on 48.8% , Trump is on 45.4% so the gap is currently 3.4%

There's 5.6% not choosing those two , leaving about 5.6% available.

Subtract the 1.5% for the 3rd party and you have about 4.1% left on the table.

In 2016 , Trump gathered about 80% of the undecided vote on average so if he performed at a similar level again he'd gain an extra ~3.3%.

With Biden picking up the other 20% of the undecideds , that would leave it a narrow Biden win.

Biden 49.6% , Trump 48.7%

However , that assumes that the undecideds break heavily for Trump again. They could but it's hard to see it.

A large element of that break was down to a "Give it a go, what have we got to lose" reaction.

Not convinced that there's many that are going to make that call in Trumps favour this time

BonnieSituation

amandstu wrote: »

Why?

amandstu wrote: »

You'll have to spell it out

Ah come on now? Really? You can't see anything humorous or hypocritical in stef's posts?

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This is my favourite post in this entire thread.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah come on now? Really? You can't see anything humorous or hypocritical in stef's posts?

No more of nonsense please. These silly comments are adding absolutely nothing to the thread.

froog

most main polling companies have adjusted their models etc since 2016.

also as others have pointed out, 2016 polling was a lot more accurate than what some would have you believe.

trump is legitimately in big trouble right now.

amandstu

froog wrote: »

most main polling companies have adjusted their models etc since 2016.

also as others have pointed out, 2016 polling was a lot more accurate than what some would have you believe.

trump is legitimately in big trouble right now.

Yes,I was extremely disappointed but not equally surprised in 2016.


Clinton did in fact get most votes but her campaign was damaged by the reopening of the investigation into her emails immediately before the election.

(Faulty) perception counted for too much.

Zubeneschamali

amandstu wrote: »

How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

Nobody knows. The pollsters have updated their methods since 2016 to correct various errors. The 2018 polls were pretty accurate.

But maybe there is some new error. Thats why you see lots of people writing "Even if we knock 5% off Bidens lead for polling errors" stuff.

What you seldom see is people saying maybe the pollsters have corrected too far, and Biden is really further ahead, and will win 400 EVs. There is no reason to suppose polling errors will fall Trumps way this time.

MadYaker

OS_Head wrote: »

Ha, you mean asking Ukraine and China to investigate the Biden family of corruption. It's not the first time a President has asked a foreign power to investigate someone. The Senate believe that he acted in good faith by requesting an investigation. That is all that matters with this. Now did Pelosi et al impeach in good faith or was it just for political gain. I think after they loose the election, there will be some Democrats in the firing line, and it's about time.

A year later and Biden's laptop has surfaced. Turns out, what Trump knew on the Grapevine was true and the Bidens are as corrupt as they come.

You’re very confused about what’s actually happening.

Quin_Dub

amandstu wrote: »

Yes,I was extremely disappointed but not equally surprised in 2016.


Clinton did in fact get most votes but her campaign was damaged by the reopening of the investigation into her emails immediately before the election.

(Faulty) perception counted for too much.

That absolutely contributed to the heavy break to Trump from the undecided voters.

It didn't really change any Clinton voters minds , but the undecided vote took the "give him a shot" route.

That cohort don't really exist in sufficient numbers in enough places this time around.

amandstu

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater?

(if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

Christy42

amandstu wrote: »

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater (if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

I reckon most early voters are fairly safe voters anyway.

Still probably helps a bit. Stops people from suddenly being busy on the day or losing motivation. It helps but future proof is probably overselling.

Any uptick in voting will favour the Democrats massively.

amandstu

Christy42 wrote: »

I reckon most early voters are fairly safe voters anyway.

Still probably helps a bit. Stops people from suddenly being busy on the day or losing motivation. It helps but future proof is probably overselling.

Any uptick in voting will favour the Democrats massively.

See what you mean but would early voting have swung it for Clinton in 2016?

The unfortunate effect of the last minute reopening of the email investigation would have been somewhat lessened probably .....




Same dynamic might work in Biden's (the current "leader") favour this time around.

Is Obama going to be an asset for Biden now?

Do those drive-in rallies take from his shine if there is so little give and take with the audience?

Wonder what input he has to the electoral strategy

TomOnBoard

Quote: stefanovich
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

Nope, they got the information from the insecure online voting systems as I had suggested earlier.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Where exactly does the linked WaPo article say that?

So, I'll take it from your failure to provide evidence that you're just making stuff up and trying to further the 'widespread voting fraud' BS narrative that Trumpland is spreading to get ahead of a historic defeat of a sitting POTUS.

Colour me shocked!!!

droidus

amandstu wrote: »

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater?

(if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

Thats the prevailing wisdom, yes.

Looking at the numbers today. 45 million votes so far. Dems ahead in all swing states where party is recorded.

TomOnBoard

droidus wrote: »

Thats the prevailing wisdom, yes.

Looking at the number today. 45 million votes so far. Dems ahead in all swing states where party is recorded.

So, is that around 5 million votes a day? If so, over a hundred million will have voted before Nov 3. Awesome!

droidus

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, is that around 5 million votes a day? If so, over a hundred million will have voted before Nov 3. Awesome!

Im not sure it will continue at the same rate, but yes, that would be good.

Foxtrol

I think many analysts including Woodward are just covering their asses after 2016. Despite how they should know better they also hear the noise about how wrong the polls were in 2016, a claim that has been proven to be untrue in most cases. They don't want to say what nearly every metrics is pointing to as the most likely scenario incase it is used against them post election, as an example how wrong they were again.

It is a far easier and safer position to underestimate a Biden win than overestimate a Trump loss, despite how cowardly that is.

weisses

stefanovich wrote: »

The rallies are pointless. Makes him look like a joke.

Im saying that for the last 4 years.

spacecoyote

amandstu wrote: »

Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

1%? 2%?.... more?less?

I would have said that given the voter enthusiasm levels that those who say they're going to vote are voting.

As mentioned Clinton actually outperformed her polling of Democrats, so I wouldn't fully agree with Woodward. Trump won by taking the lions share of the undecided, which is a much smaller set of voters this time around

everlast75

https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1319289623089016832?s=19

This is quite something

is_that_so

Slightly left field but a study on how people in the US respond to hot button words.

How can the partisan divide be bridged when conservatives and liberals consume the same political content, yet interpret it through their own biased lens?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201020150509.htm

BonnieSituation

What time is the debate on at tonight?

Judging by the walk out from the Stahl interview it will be a cracker.

TomOnBoard

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What time is the debate on at tonight?

Judging by the walk out from the Stahl interview it will be a cracker.

2 AM Irish time AFAIK

Water John

Enthusiasm among his supporters voting for Trump is higher than those of Biden. That doesn't say anything about the numbers. Many voting for Biden with grim determination.

Foxtrol

Water John wrote: »

Enthusiasm among his supporters voting for Trump is higher than those of Biden. That doesn't say anything about the numbers. Many voting for Biden with grim determination.

From what I've seen enthusiasm has depended on how the question has been asked.

'Enthusiasm for candidate x' has Trump leading but they are quite close for supporters of both when the question is asking their 'Enthusiasm to vote in the election'. The latter is all that really matters.

duploelabs

Wasn't there a trumpet here recently saying trump supporters weren't engaging in voter suppression?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7aqaw/armed-men-who-claimed-to-be-hired-by-trump-showed-up-at-a-florida-polling-place

"Pinellas County elections supervisor Julie Marcus, a Republican, said that the men, dressed like security guards, arrived at an early voting site in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, pitched a tent, and told sheriff’s deputies they’d been hired by the Trump campaign, according to WFLA, NBC’s Tampa affiliate. They also said they’d be back on Thursday."

duploelabs

More intimidation of voters by trump supporters

https://www.krwg.org/post/report-trump-supporters-obstruct-and-intimidate-voters-albuquerque

" A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location"

stefanovich

duploelabs wrote: »

More intimidation of voters by trump supporters

https://www.krwg.org/post/report-trump-supporters-obstruct-and-intimidate-voters-albuquerque

" A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location"

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

pixelburp

Physical intimidation at polling stations is the actions of a tinpot dictatorship; equivocating over an online portal leveraging public data - this conversation was literally just had re. America's lax primacy laws - hardly rings true. Especially when the messaging over "poll watching" comes from the President himself. Playing a game of tit for tat doesn't reveal truth rather an attempt to ignore the context of what's happening. Trump is - however knowingly - trying to undermine the most basic of democratic principles. To safely, easily cast a vote.