US Presidential Election 2020

Itssoeasy

Sp after the great surprise from tucker Carlson getting lost and then being found, it seems mr Carlson has decided to lay off Hunter Biden. I think it’s fair to say that this change of heart is due to the big surprise being not as promised(or even close) and not that tucker Carlson has had a change of heart.

Also, that clip from Georgia on the previous page is glorious. The GOP don’t like it when people use facts.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not exactly sure what either of you are suggesting but (Fox News association sneers aside) the source is clearly credible and I see nothing to suggest they are not.

If the ballot turns out to be fake, direct your incredulity at them.


https://twitter.com/jakejakeny/status/1321918394241896448

So we've gone from the tucker Carlson excuse of 'the dog ate it' when the laptop went missing, to the 'note from the 'parent' given to the teacher' with this 'evidence'.

Who are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

The level of proof you seem to have been accepting when it comes to damming evidence against your foes has taken a trajectory not too dissimilar to trump's run in the polls as we get closer to election day.

Seriously, the level would not be accepted in a primary school.

You then say 'If the ballot turns out to be fake, direct your incredulity at them.' I think the majority will be directing our incredulity at you for accepting these as legitimate and no amount of virtue signalling will help the pain when you hit the floor of realisation that you've been completely and utterly duped

ancapailldorcha

No more talk of betting please. Posts deleted.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not exactly sure what either of you are suggesting but (Fox News association sneers aside) the source is clearly credible and I see nothing to suggest they are not.

If the ballot turns out to be fake, direct your incredulity at them.


https://twitter.com/jakejakeny/status/1321918394241896448

Riddle me this Pete: if you’re going to commit election fraud, a felony, why would you do in in a district Biden will win by 40 points in a state he’ll win by 30 pounds points?

The return on investment here is zero. It makes no sense. Maybe you’ve been taken in here.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No problem, should that happen, and as soon as I see the guts of the Politics forum carry all their gullibility for believing Trump was a compromised agent of the Kremlin, I'll post my mea culpas re the filled in ballots.

In other news, MN is not going the way of PA, thankfully:

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1321953042271506432

You’re thankful peoples votes won’t be counted? That is desperation

sydthebeat

It never ceases to amaze me how many trump supporters on here go from one out right lie to the next.... Never admitting the clear lies they have been caught out with previously.

Its like trumps grandiose narcissism is catching with them.

There is a complete psychological failure to recognise that their lies have been unearthed so they just blank it off and move onto the next clear brazen lie.

McFly85

I honestly wonder if we’ll ever manage to get to normal, even slightly.

And by normal I mean a degree of civility, people being elected based on their plans to deal with actual issues facing Americans and being able to disagree and debate eachother without resorting to personal family nonsense. Politics has always been dirty but the last 6 years or so have brought extreme bipartisanship to the point where someone being elected who you don’t agree with could incite violence. And what’s worse is these feelings of anger and resentment have been encouraged by the current administration.

Biden might win next week(I expect him to) but that won’t reset the state of politics. America has a real fight on its hands to maintain its democracy.

everlast75

I understand and reluctantly accept that politicians lie and can be two faced, but the about turn Trump has managed to instil in who have become some of his most fervent supporters is quite extraordinary.

I watched the 2016 campaigns all the way through. There was a visceral response to Trump by Cruz, Rubio, Graham etc. Again, I accept that in the run up to the 2020 Dem candidate being named, Harris took a swipe at Biden, as did others, but there was nothing like the way the Rep candidates in 2016 tore shreds off Trump.

Here is a clip of Graham, who actually appeared likeable (*gulp) back then

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1321935089308229638?s=20

What strikes me most is you can see how comfortable he is in speaking what he believes to be the truth. I cannot swallow that this is "just how politics" is and "they are all the same".

It would make you wonder how Trump has managed to call them all to heel to back him up so much in the 2020 campaign.

VinLieger

everlast75 wrote: »

It would make you wonder how Trump has managed to call them all to heel to back him up so much in the 2020 campaign.

The world and his mother know the answer when it comes to why Lindsay Graham changed his tune.

As for everyone else im guessing its something like money and russia, ie they took money they didnt know or care about where it was coming from and once trump became nominee it was slowly shown to them how deep they actually were in it without knowing.

Brussels Sprout

Larbre34 wrote: »

These court petitions undermine confidence in the vote and that's the last thing that's needed. In reality, "late" ballots would not add up to the margin of error anyway.

Judging by your post you're old enough to remember Florida in 2000 which was decided by 537 votes for a winning margin of 0.009%.

The fact that this matter could be critical to determining the election should be self evident by the fact that the two parties are already fighting tooth and nail in the courts about it and likely will be for the next week, at the very least.

Brussels Sprout

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No more talk of betting please. Posts deleted.

With all due respect can I ask what the issue is with discussing betting on the election?

The bets themselves reflect public sentiment which is of itself of interest to people discussing every other single aspect of this election.

The soccer and MMA forums are full of betting chat - it's just part and parcel of watching those activities and frankly the US election is as much entertainment as any sport - it has already become the largest event in history in terms of money wagered.

Betting is a legal activity in this country (it's not like people are asking for IPTV streams for example) and I can't see anything in the forum charter against it.

LuckyLloyd

He gave them the tax cuts they wanted. He gave them the type of noises on social issues they wanted. He gave them the judges they wanted. His base shouted by far the loudest of all factions of the GOP electorate. He took over the party.

Now they are deathly afraid of distancing from him for fear his base don’t punch their names down the ticket. There are some interesting times ahead.

Call me Al

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If the allegations are true you would hardly expect a Biden supporter to be the one bringing them forward.

But you would expect the tweeter to flag it with NYC Board of Elections, not just his fellow right-wing media hacks surely, yes?
Edit... because I see they had to reach out to him further down the tweet.

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

(Graham)
What strikes me most is you can see how comfortable he is in speaking what he believes to be the truth.

Graham was always a worm. He used to be McCains worm, with McCain gone, he glommed onto Trump. He never sincerely believed anything, he just signed for a different team.

Quin_Dub

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

With all due respect can I ask what the issue is with discussing betting on the election?

The bets themselves reflect public sentiment which is of itself of interest to people discussing every other single aspect of this election.

The soccer and MMA forums are full of betting chat - it's just part and parcel of watching those activities and frankly the US election is as much entertainment as any sport - it has already become the largest event in history in terms of money wagered.

Betting is a legal activity in this country (it's not like people are asking for IPTV streams for example) and I can't see anything in the forum charter against it.

##Mod Note##

Please don't discuss moderation on thread, send a PM with questions.

However, for clarity - Other forums can set whatever guidelines they like, but here we so not want this to devolving into discussions on odds or where to get the best return etc.

There are other fora for that.

Thanks

MJohnston

Trump's down to 10% probability in the 538 forecast, which doesn't mean a tonne, but it does mean we might see the elusive "Biden is clearly favored to win the election" make an appearance later today.

MJohnston

Oh and Ezra Klein and Nate Silver chat about the election for about an hour on Ezra's podcast here:
https://www.vox.com/21538214/nate-silver-538-2020-forecast-2016-trump-biden-election-podcast

STATS BABY

An Ciarraioch

What do posters here make of the Target Smart website that claims to model which way every state is leaning in early votes - overall, seems to be broadly in line with polling, but they're giving Trump a huge lead in Texas?

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com

is_that_so

There's an interview with Newt Gingrich via Fox who claims that Trump will get 326 electoral college votes and is based on polls he trusts. Given he got 304 in 2016, this seems quite mad.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/28/gingrich_map_of_trump_with_326_electoral_votes_looks_right_left_is_going_to_be_terribly_shocked.html

droidus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

What do posters here make of the Target Smart website that claims to model which way every state is leaning in early votes - overall, seems to be broadly in line with polling, but they're giving Trump a huge lead in Texas?

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com

They lean red and there's no registered early voter data for Texas so its all conjecture.

Overheal

is_that_so wrote: »

There's an interview with Newt Gingrich via Fox who claims that Trump will get 326 electoral college votes and is based on polls he trusts. Given he got 304 in 2016, this seems quite mad.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/28/gingrich_map_of_trump_with_326_electoral_votes_looks_right_left_is_going_to_be_terribly_shocked.html

Throwback to when Newt predicted a landslide win for Mitt Romney

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/newt-explains-why-he-was-so-wrong-083483

droidus

Jon Ralston has effectively called Nevada for Biden based on county analysis of early votes.

Brussels Sprout

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

What do posters here make of the Target Smart website that claims to model which way every state is leaning in early votes - overall, seems to be broadly in line with polling, but they're giving Trump a huge lead in Texas?

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com

I just posted this elsewhere on this exact topic:

There's a problem with using the voter registration data to project outcomes. Nate Silver talked about it on one of the recent 538 podcasts. It seems somewhat unintuitive but just because somebody is registered with a party doesn't mean that they will vote for their candidate. This is especially true with Trump.

He manages to both attract some registered Democrats to vote for him while at the same time repelling some registered Republicans completely. There's also the issue that some people may have switched allegiances decades ago but never bothered updating their registration data because they don't care about voting in primaries.

I think he actually said that the 538 model doesn't factor it in at all as a direct input.

TargetSmart have Nevada as a less than 1 point race, whereas 538 have that as a 90% chance of Biden winning due to the polling average of a 7% lead.

Quin_Dub

Here's where I'm at right now having seen the latest polling.

Biden is a very strong favourite at this point and I can see him winning with a total somewhere in the low 300's - In the 315-325 range.

However , Trump absolutely can still win.

His absolute ceiling however is the 306 he got last time - He will not win any state that he didn't win last time out , I'm pretty confident in that much at least.

He is absolutely still in the mix in several swing states

Ohio , Pennsylvania , Florida & Arizona are in play and he could win some of those. I really can't see them all falling his way however, at best he'll win one or two of them.

Bottom line If Trump can manage to turn a few of those close states it could get very close overall

If it comes down to a tight race in a single State - PA and FL look like the ones most likely to be of consequence then to be honest, all bets are off.

If either of those states ends up in legal battles then who knows what will happen.

Having said all that - Trump being in the required 240/250 range such that a battle over Florida or Pennsylvania becomes a decider whilst possible , is looking quite unlikely thus far.

Unlike 2016 , there hasn't been any late swing in the polling and more importantly there are almost no "undecided" voters to be added into the mix.

MJohnston

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I just posted this elsewhere on this exact topic:

TargetSmart have Nevada as a less than 1 point race, whereas 538 have that as a 90% chance of Biden winning due to the polling average of a 7% lead.

Nate Silver just tweeted on essentially this phenomenon:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1322188099703758850

The only thing you can realistically infer from early voting is turnout.

VinLieger

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's where I'm at right now having seen the latest polling.

Biden is a very strong favourite at this point and I can see him winning with a total somewhere in the low 300's - In the 315-325 range.

However , Trump absolutely can still win.

His absolute ceiling however is the 306 he got last time - He will not win any state that he didn't win last time out , I'm pretty confident in that much at least.

He is absolutely still in the mix in several swing states

Ohio , Pennsylvania , Florida & Arizona are in play and he could win some of those. I really can't see them all falling his way however, at best he'll win one or two of them.

Bottom line If Trump can manage to turn a few of those close states it could get very close overall

If it comes down to a tight race in a single State - PA and FL look like the ones most likely to be of consequence then to be honest, all bets are off.

If either of those states ends up in legal battles then who knows what will happen.

Having said all that - Trump being in the required 240/250 range such that a battle over Florida or Pennsylvania becomes a decider whilst possible , is looking quite unlikely thus far.

Unlike 2016 , there hasn't been any late swing in the polling and more importantly there are almost no "undecided" voters to be added into the mix.

The big problem being then if its close say biden in the 280s or even 290s regardless of popular vote percentage Trump will absolutely try and steal this via the courts.



I believe the only way to truly stop that is by a 306+ EC victory so trump cant confuse things by calling on the fact biden won less EC votes than trump did in 2016, because that will absolutely be one of their main strategies if it happens.

Quin_Dub

VinLieger wrote: »

The big problem being then if its close say biden in the 280s or even 290s regardless of popular vote percentage Trump will absolutely try and steal this via the courts.

I believe the only way to truly stop that is by a 306+ EC victory so trump cant confuse things by calling on the fact biden won less EC votes than trump did in 2016, because that will absolutely be one of their main strategies if it happens.

I don't disagree , but I think for Trumps legal challenge to be viable it has to be a single State or at the absolute most two.

If he needs to turn multiple states it's just not going to fly..

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Here is the bottom line IMHO when it comes to the US Supreme Court and voting. Says so much about who they are really.

According to the US Supreme Court an American has the right to bear arms and the government if it wants to try and take a gun away from you has to go to court to prove why. However voting not so much. If the government takes away someone's right to vote they can do so and then it is up to them to go to court to prove that the government is wrong.

So the bottom line is according to the US Supreme Court having a gun is a right but voting that is only a privilege not a right. As I said above it just says so much about who they are and the US as a country.

This must be a statement founded upon prejudiced ignorance.

There are a large number of cases going through the US legal system where the government has restricted the right to a firearm and the persons in question have had to go to the courts in order to prove the government wrong. Examples include any firearms-related case which has made it to the Supreme Court from Lopez to Heller. Indeed, the only reason why such cases exist in the US legal system is a claim of overreach by enacted legislation or ordinance. Once the government has decided something, be it voting or firearms (or free speech, or intrusions of privacy, or anything else that the legislature may decide is a good idea), it is up to the affected parties to pursue the matter.

I don't agree with that assessment.

The PA case was decided last week. It was 4-4, and not 5-3. Because it was tied, the lower Court decision stood.

Fair point, I misread the article.

paul71 wrote: »

Texas, where a student cannot use their university of Texas ID to vote but someone who has a concealed gun permit can.

This is a classic suppression tactic and it is the type of thing that is widespread, targeted at the educated, catering to the rapid right.

I believe we've been over this. Whether or not you believe a student ID is sufficient to vote is one thing, there is little doubt that a license to carry is subject to stricter standards of identification and issuance, superior to a driver's license (I didn't get fingerprinted for my driver's license, for example).

RobertKK

The biggest problem in the last election was Hillary Clinton despite winning the popular vote was not liked about many.
Four years later and the biggest problem Donald Trump has is he is Donald Trump, sort of similar to the problem Hillary Clinton had 4 years ago.
Biden should win by a bigger margin when it comes to the popular vote, whether it is enough to win overall I do not know.

An Ciarraioch

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's where I'm at right now having seen the latest polling.

Biden is a very strong favourite at this point and I can see him winning with a total somewhere in the low 300's - In the 315-325 range.

However , Trump absolutely can still win.

His absolute ceiling however is the 306 he got last time - He will not win any state that he didn't win last time out , I'm pretty confident in that much at least.

He is absolutely still in the mix in several swing states

Ohio , Pennsylvania , Florida & Arizona are in play and he could win some of those. I really can't see them all falling his way however, at best he'll win one or two of them.

Bottom line If Trump can manage to turn a few of those close states it could get very close overall

If it comes down to a tight race in a single State - PA and FL look like the ones most likely to be of consequence then to be honest, all bets are off.

If either of those states ends up in legal battles then who knows what will happen.

Having said all that - Trump being in the required 240/250 range such that a battle over Florida or Pennsylvania becomes a decider whilst possible , is looking quite unlikely thus far.

Unlike 2016 , there hasn't been any late swing in the polling and more importantly there are almost no "undecided" voters to be added into the mix.

Lean Tossup essentially said the same today:

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1322207725263245312