US Presidential Election 2020

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair point.

I do believe though, that with current media and social media bias, his support is understated.

As with his initial election, a large proportion of people support him, but not vocally.

It will be an interesting election.

Trump got the undecided vote last time as the alternative wasn't palatable to them. Trump has done nothing but court his base, their numbers alone are not enough to win him the election and he's done absolutely nothing to appeal to those undecided voters, if anything he's turned them away as shown by the disapproval rating.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I remember predictions of trump being roundly trounced in almost every report the day of the election.

You’re memory fails you or you were listening to people who didn’t know what they were talking about then. It was a statistical toss up for the entire campaign. Neither candidates was ever winning outside the margin for error.

Brian?

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1271451280993550337

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1271810824840110080?s=09

Election if tomorrow Trump would be routed.

So how does Trump win from here?

1 He needs Biden to drop out. Its easy to point out his flaws, but he is shutting out Trump where it matters, the swing states and the suburbs.

2 He needs to figure out a genuinely ground breaking strategy to get the job numbers roaring again. This would be a miraculous rabbit out of the hat.

Culture wars, xenophobia,judges etc aren't going to stop him or the Republicans getting routed November, he needs to go big etc.

I think you’re getting ahead of youreseld a bit there. I’d wait to see what the polls look like once 538 apply their model to them, rather than just the average.

It looks bad for Trump, but it isn’t terminal.

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair point.

I do believe though, that with current media and social media bias, his support is understated.

As with his initial election, a large proportion of people support him, but not vocally.

It will be an interesting election.

538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 shot in 2016, their model was never that definitive re. Clinton.

As for support, big difference between giving the hurler on the ditch a shot and defending 3 years of policy. I'm sure he maintains baseline support - not least because of US sports team politics - but indicators are he has haemorrhaged the middle ground and "independents".

You'd also imagine with the democrats there'll be a "once bitten, twice shy" element at play. 2016 was a low turnout, with democrats underwhelmed by Clinton.

One aberration does not make for a statistical model; and you can only be the outsider once.

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 shot in 2016, their model was never that definitive re. Clinton.

It's hilarious hearing Silver blow a gasket when he has to point out for the millionth time that 1 in 3 is actually quite likely a thing to occur.


There were a slew of factors in Trumps elector, from the systemic, such as the electoral college, to the nature of Clinton's candidacy - a singularly unpopular person, for personality, gender, and political reasons, last minute sabotage by Comey with respect to her emails, a failure in the media in how it's structured to provide disproportionate benefit to someone like Trump by giving him more air time and tacitly lending creedence to his nonsense (that hasn't improved much), as well as directed misinformation by both Trump's backers and Russia (inasmuch as they're not one and the same).


For Biden, he benefits from being associated with Obama, is generally affable, the scandals associated with him (Hunter Biden, the sexual assault allegation) are either lacking in substance or have failed to take hold for other reasons, as well as the fact that Trump is no longer the outside force coming in to shake up the system. He's had a chance to and he's failed, as well as bungling trade, COVID, possibly terminally damaging US soft power, and now presiding over the largest period of civil unrest and police violence since the 60s.


The only things Trump has succeeded at are things Republicans like to get done, but don't like to talk about, because they're evil, such as dismantling environmental protection.

greenfield21

Get rid of trump, biden comes in economy tanks- center right makes even more ground in the next election. Steve Bannon becomes president.
The key to the center right success over the next decade is weaker economic growth. That's the only way they can make ground now imo and thats not been the case the last few years. what we need is another downturn. Trump pandering to wall Street and talking up the market which is built on monopoly companies has not helped his cause either. If anything he's shot himself in the foot and needs more misery.

ExMachina1000

Inquitus wrote: »

Here's the current odds from oddschecker

Kamala Harris 9/2
Joe Biden 11/2
Bernie Sanders 6/1
Elizabeth Warren 7/1
Gavin Newsom 7/1
Kirsten Gillibrand 12/1
Amy Kloubchar 14/1
Joe Kennedy III 14/1
Kirsten Gillbrand 14/1
Tom Steyer 16/1
Oprah Winfrey 16/1
Eric Holder 20/1
Mark Cuban 20/1
Michelle Obama 25/1
Amy Klobuchar 20/1
Andrew Cuomo 25/1
Cory Booker 33/1
Tulsi Gabbard 33/1
Hillary Clinton 33/1
Eric Garcetti 33/1
John Hickenlooper 33/1
Sherrod Brown 33/1
Christopher Murphy 33/1
Mitch Landrieu 33/1
Mark Warner 40/1
Terry McAuliffe 40/1
Al Franken 50/1
Julian Castro 50/1
Mark Zuckerberg 50/1
Tim Kaine 50/1
Martin OMalley 50/1
Bill de Blasio 50/1
John Kerry 50/1
Jerry Brown 50/1
Jim Webb 66/1
Joe Manchin 66/1
Steve Bullock 66/1
Tammy Duckworth 80/1
Jay Nixon 80/1
Al Gore 100/1
Chelsea Clinton 100/1
George Clooney 100/1
Lady Gaga 100/1

What happened to Kamala Harris. The original favourite

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What happened to Kamala Harris. The original favourite

I put my original point to you about Trump getting the undecided votes, what has he done to bring them on board? As I said, the dissatisfaction number show that he hasn't

pixelburp

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What happened to Kamala Harris. The original favourite

She peaked way too early, and arguably lost a lot of favour when it turned out her record as a prosecutor against black Americans wasn't great (read into that however you choose). IMO of course. I reckon too she wasn't "showbiz" enough to carry a campaign, a bit too technical in the mould of Clinton. America has moved past the desire to elect a nerd.

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

I put my original point to you about Trump getting the undecided votes, what has he done to bring them on board? As I said, the dissatisfaction number show that he hasn't

What? Wrong reply I'd say. I asked about Kamala Harris. No worries

Water John

Kamala Harris's record as a procecutor isn't great.
VP will be a woman so rule out all the men, unless trans.
Odds would also favour coloured.
All Senate seats are vital, so put any Senator to one side.
Now begin to look at whose available.
Primarily someone with a public/media profile or a State Governor.

eagle eye

pixelburp wrote:

She peaked way too early, and arguably lost a lot of favour when it turned out her record as a prosecutor against black Americans wasn't great (read into that however you choose). IMO of course. I reckon too she wasn't "showbiz" enough to carry a campaign, a bit too technical in the mould of Clinton. America has moved past the desire to elect a nerd.

There was also the affair with a man 30 years her senior which helped her career in a big way.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What? Wrong reply I'd say. I asked about Kamala Harris. No worries

No, I'm just waiting on your response

The Phantom Jipper

Water John wrote: »

Kamala Harris's record as a procecutor isn't great.
VP will be a woman so rule out all the men, unless trans.
Odds would also favour coloured.
All Senate seats are vital, so put any Senator to one side.
Now begin to look at whose available.
Primarily someone with a public/media profile or a State Governor.

I think the fact she's a senator from California stands to her, it's a seat they can easily fill without running the risk of losing it.

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

No, I'm just waiting on your response

Oh right. What's the question again? Thanks.

As a matter of interest how long have you been waiting

Water John

High profile Mayors would also be on the list.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Oh right. What's the question again? Thanks.

As a matter of interest how long have you been waiting

What has Trump done to court the middle ground in order for him to win the election?

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

What has Trump done to court the middle ground in order for him to win the election?

I'll assess the data and get back to you a fortnight Tuesday

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I'll assess the data and get back to you a fortnight Tuesday

You just simply say you haven't a clue, as that's what appears to be the situation

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

You just simply say you haven't a clue, as that's what appears to be the situation

You mustn't know or else you wouldn't be asking the question.

Water John

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You mustn't know or else you wouldn't be asking the question.

Sometimes people ask a question, already knowing the answer. Can you figure a reason why?

ExMachina1000

Water John wrote: »

Sometimes people ask a question, already knowing the answer. Can you figure a reason why?

Looking for a gotcha moment to call their own

frag420

Water John wrote: »

Sometimes people ask a question, already knowing the answer. Can you figure a reason why?

Maybe to see if they are debating with people of equal intellect?

Podge_irl

StringerBell wrote: »

Fraud is not my step really, I responded to your comment about whether the registration is valid or not.

Aye, I was answering two posts at once. We still don't know if the registration is valid though, just that there is a restriction on how much he can use it as a residence. As to whether that invalidates it as a "permanent" residence for the purposes of voting registration, I haven't seen at least any definitive proof of such.

StringerBell

"Under the agreement, President Trump is only allowed to live at Mar-a-Lago for three non-consecutive seven day periods."

No mention of 6 weeks there and pretty definitively stating he can only live there for one week at a time, 3 times a year.

It's the usual short term job by Trump to solve one problem and creating more long term.

Took that from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/05/08/could-donald-trumps-dock-battle-with-mar-a-lago-neighbors-cost-him-millions-in-new-york-taxes/amp/

I would submit myself personally that when you have a restriction to live at a property no more than 7 consecutive days, 3 times a year it cannot be claimed as your permanent residence, causing issues for you in terms of tax liability and voting I would assume. This is not the ordinary person though so again, nothing will happen.

ExMachina1000

StringerBell wrote: »

"Under the agreement, President Trump is only allowed to live at Mar-a-Lago for three non-consecutive seven day periods."

No mention of 6 weeks there and pretty definitively stating he can only live there for one week at a time, 3 times a year.

It's the usual short term job by Trump to solve one problem and creating more long term.

Took that from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/05/08/could-donald-trumps-dock-battle-with-mar-a-lago-neighbors-cost-him-millions-in-new-york-taxes/amp/

I would submit myself personally that when you have a restriction to live at a property no more than 7 consecutive days, 3 times a year it cannot be claimed as your permanent residence, causing issues for you in terms of tax liability and voting I would assume. This is not the ordinary person though so again, nothing will happen.

Trump accepts no salary. Donated to charities that are rotated quarterly

Cody montana

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump accepts no salary. Donated to charities that are rotated quarterly

How much are his golf trips costing?

StringerBell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump accepts no salary. Donated to charities that are rotated quarterly

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble working out why you quoted me? I don't know what your comment either A. Backs up or B. Refutes

alchemist33

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump accepts no salary. Donated to charities that are rotated quarterly

He's made far more by staying in his own properties with his entourage and charging the state.

ExMachina1000

alchemist33 wrote: »

He's made far more by staying in his own properties with his entourage and charging the state.

That's not illegal though is it.

Igotadose

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump accepts no salary. Donated to charities that are rotated quarterly

Hm. Are the USDA, SBA and HHS charities now?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1341/take-no-salary/


Yes, he's donating his salary. Maybe now he's choosing charities but that wasn't the case earlier.

Some more details here: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164477/trump-donates-salary-hhs-coronavirus. This goes into how much the golf trips cost, too (which go into the revenue of the Trump Organization.) Unethical, yes. Illegal, no (hopefully that changes to 'not yet' and POTUS has to put his business holdings into a blind trust by law, at some point in the future.)

ExMachina1000

Igotadose wrote: »

Hm. Are the USDA, SBA and HHS charities now?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1341/take-no-salary/


Yes, he's donating his salary. Maybe now he's choosing charities but that wasn't the case earlier.

Some more details here: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164477/trump-donates-salary-hhs-coronavirus. This goes into how much the golf trips cost, too (which go into the revenue of the Trump Organization.) Unethical, yes. Illegal, no (hopefully that changes to 'not yet' and POTUS has to put his business holdings into a blind trust by law, at some point in the future.)

The position you are talking about is the president of the United states of America. Arguably the most powerful position on the planet in the richest country on the planet.

Some people are trying to pretend it should be some sort of low budget, low profile role.

Wise up

Rjd2

Brian? wrote: »

I think you’re getting ahead of youreseld a bit there. I’d wait to see what the polls look like once 538 apply their model to them, rather than just the average.

It looks bad for Trump, but it isn’t terminal.

Yeah that is fair.

However Trump needs to pray for no second spike, somehow bring a lot of jobs back which will be gone due to covid and maybe hope Biden adopts left wing policy that may play well online, but gives GOP operatives something to hurt him with in the suburbs.

Biden shutting down any talk of police abolition with option C is not a promising sign for those GOP people.

Trump has got his work cut to say the least.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's not illegal though is it.

Not exactly illegal, but every president before their businesses into a blind trust due to the emoluments clause. Trump didn't

Igotadose

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The position you are talking about is the president of the United states of America. Arguably the most powerful position on the planet in the richest country on the planet.

Some people are trying to pretend it should be some sort of low budget, low profile role.

Wise up

Oh, please do explain how these are charities now?

And I don't know what your 'Some people' comment is about - denigrating Trump for donating his salary? Not doing that, just pointing out he's not donating it to charity.

There's plenty to disparage Trump about, basically something new nearly every day. He's not drawing his salary, instead, he's giving it back to the government. Whoop-de-damn-doo.

How much is he earning on the side via renting his own properties back to the government?

Carfacemandog

Cody montana wrote: »

How much are his golf trips costing?

$136mn, almost exclusively at Trumps own resorts which is illegal but what else is new with this administration?

$136mn = 340 years of presidential salary ($400k/yr).

https://trumpgolfcount.com/

Brian?

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah that is fair.

However Trump needs to pray for no second spike, somehow bring a lot of jobs back which will be gone due to covid and maybe hope Biden adopts left wing policy that may play well online, but gives GOP operatives something to hurt him with in the suburbs.

Biden shutting down any talk of police abolition with option C is not a promising sign for those GOP people.

Trump has got his work cut to say the least.

100% agree. It’s an up hill struggle for Trump, but far from over.


It’s encouraging to see Biden pole so well in places like Az and Texas though.

Foxtrol

Brian? wrote: »

You’re memory fails you or you were listening to people who didn’t know what they were talking about then. It was a statistical toss up for the entire campaign. Neither candidates was ever winning outside the margin for error.

I hate that talking point so much. People either willfully or otherwise get this wrong again and again.

National polls were pretty much bang on regarding a Hillary popular vote win and electoral college flipped based on Trump winning a few states by a few thousand votes, which were nearly all within the margin of error.

The only thing that got it drastically wrong were the exit polls on election night and even Trump's own team have admitted their internal numbers were also looking terrible.

rossie1977

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What happened to Kamala Harris. The original favourite

Favourite with whom?

Betting odds in politics are notorious for being well off. Harris was never favourite in any polling.

Water John

Good piece here on, Biden seizing the winds of change and Trump caught on the wrong side.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/joe-biden-race-reforms-democrat-seizes-moment

eagle eye

Water John wrote:

Good piece here on, Biden seizing the winds of change and Trump caught on the wrong side.

You call it a good piece but I seen bias in it so I checked her last twenty articles and they are all against Trump so then I checked her twitter and it's all anti-Trump.
I'm not saying I disagree with what she's saying but if somebody is biased it's really pointless reading it because it's not about making your own mind, it's them telling you how to think. Same as Fox news going all in behind Trump, same as most media outlets these days.

moon2

eagle eye wrote: »

You call it a good piece but I seen bias in it so I checked her last twenty articles and they are all against Trump so then I checked her twitter and it's all anti-Trump.
I'm not saying I disagree with what she's saying but if somebody is biased it's really pointless reading it because it's not about making your own mind, it's them telling you how to think. Same as Fox news going all in behind Trump, same as most media outlets these days.

You can be repeatedly critical without being biased. I feel like "the author is biased" is the modern day way of saying "I disagree with the author".

However it's even stranger that you don't disagree with the author. It's a strange situation to be in where you become biased by writing about a topic frequently, and yet that used to be a sign of trustworthiness and expertise.

MLK would have been considered biased due to him repeatedly banging on about the same problems.

Podge_irl

No doubt people would now (and probably did then) criticise Edward R Murrow for being biased against Senator McCarthy. Being critical of someone who deserves criticism is not a show of bias. False equivalence and "two sides"ing everything is much worse.

Igotadose

Podge_irl wrote: »

False equivalence and "two sides"ing everything is much worse.

That's been the biggest downfall in the US, aggravated since Trump took office. There are no 'alternative facts.' Facts are facts. There is no 'Fake News." There's news, sometimes reports are wrong or more is learned about the story and it's revised. The two sides thing is ludicrous and obviously very dangerous, it's not there to 'stimulate debate' its to give an excuse for one side to try and shout down the other.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

You call it a good piece but I seen bias in it so I checked her last twenty articles and they are all against Trump so then I checked her twitter and it's all anti-Trump.
I'm not saying I disagree with what she's saying but if somebody is biased it's really pointless reading it because it's not about making your own mind, it's them telling you how to think. Same as Fox news going all in behind Trump, same as most media outlets these days.

How is it biased exactly? Even if she is always critical of Trump that doesn't mean she's biased. He's an objectively terrible POTUS and human being, you've said as much yourself.

It strikes me as lazy to read and article and dismiss it as biased. It takes work to refute the pints made, which is what we should all try to do.

Quin_Dub

The term "Biased" has been conflated with "Strongly held opinion/position" of late.

They are absolutely not the same thing , there is no question that that latter can lead to the former , but just because someone is consistent in their opinion does not inherently make them "Biased".


The fact that someone is "always negative about X" does not mean they are displaying Bias.

To reasonably accuse someone of Bias , you have to show that what they are saying is unfair or unjustified to the target of their statements.

pixelburp

rossie1977 wrote: »

Favourite with whom?

Betting odds in politics are notorious for being well off. Harris was never favourite in any polling.

Whatever about the politics, she initially had a lot of exposure. To be a cynic, I think the media initially latched onto her by dint of her race & gender; being a Californian senator probably also helping her superficially liberal credentials. Discounting Sanders & Biden's pre-existing popularity and status, she seemed to be the best of the rest of that crowded set of candidates. The "bussing" zinger was something of a viral highlight in those first debates, the kind of glibness American politics has been reduced to. Which is ironic given she's really more the kind of policy wonk that's just not in style anymore.

duploelabs

New poll shows Biden leading by 16 points in Michigan

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502902-poll-biden-leads-trump-by-16-points-in-michigan

pixelburp

duploelabs wrote: »

New poll shows Biden leading by 16 points

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502902-poll-biden-leads-trump-by-16-points-in-michigan

Sorry, but I think that poll is for Michigan only? Not that it changes things, that's an important state Trump won in 2016 (though not by much IIRC)

duploelabs

pixelburp wrote: »

Sorry, but I think that poll is for Michigan only? Not that it changes things, that's an important state Trump won in 2016 (though not by much IIRC)

Yes edited now