Who thinks Trump will win?

WrenBoy

Just on the Environmental issue I see Former Rep. Gov Rick Snyder of (Flint Michigan fame) is endorsing Joe Biden. Not a good look to tout the support of a guy responsible for the poisoning of an entire city and then lying about it under oath.

letowski

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, it's very simple.

Why would Bloomberg commit to spending €100,000,000 in Florida to get Harris/Biden elected? It's not the actions of a party that is confident of it's supposed lead in the polls...now, you could easily dismiss that point and I'd have no problem with that...

Now both of them (Harris/Biden) didn't manage to get more than a car load of supporters to turn out for them during their time in Florida, now you could easily dismiss that point too because there is nothing scientific in that!!!

We also can see that there is massive public support for Trump in Florida all up and down the state...now, you can dismiss that because there is nothing scientific in that either.

But we know the real issue back in 2016 was how many polls were wrong regarding the swing states in particular...

You don't want to take my point seriously, but do some digging, you'll see there is expected to be large gains in some very Democrat solid geographical areas' and demographics for Trump.

I think while I definitely agree there is alot of enthusiasm in the ground for Trump, I'm not sure does that translate fully to election day.

One thing everyone seems to agree on, from the market researchers, pollsters, media, etc, is that this election will have one of the largest, if not the largest voter turnout in US history. While the GOP have some effective voter suppression tactics, this isn't good news for Trump and especially GOP senators. This also correlates well with widespread agreement that there is a relatively small percentage of undecideds this election cycle, with more that 90% already know who they will vote for. Furthermore, this is off the back of the highest every voter turnout at the 2018 midterms in 100 years, in which the Democratic Party performed very strongly. Its worth remembering that the Democratic voter turnout stagnated in 2016.

So while enthusiasm may not be so visible for Biden, there definitely seems like alot of people are going to cast their vote nonetheless.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Just on the Environmental issue I see Former Rep. Gov Rick Snyder of (Flint Michigan fame) is endorsing Joe Biden. Not a good look to tout the support of a guy responsible for the poisoning of an entire city and then lying about it under oath.

It's not a bad look in any way, it's just the reality that a large proportion of Republicans lack faith in the President. Trump has actively deregulated environmental policy so he's not exactly an environmental spokesperson.

Silentcorner

letowski wrote: »

I think while I definitely agree there is alot of enthusiasm in the ground for Trump, I'm not sure does that translate fully to election day.

One thing everyone seems to agree on, from the market researchers, pollsters, media, etc, is that this election will have one of the largest, if not the largest voter turnout in US history. While the GOP have some effective voter suppression tactics, this isn't good news for Trump and especially GOP senators. This also correlates well with widespread agreement that there is a relatively small percentage of undecideds this election cycle, with more that 90% already know who they will vote for. Furthermore, this is off the back of the highest every voter turnout at the 2018 midterms in 100 years, in which the Democratic Party performed very strongly. Its worth remembering that the Democratic voter turnout stagnated in 2016.

So while enthusiasm may not be so visible for Biden, there definitely seems like alot of people are going to cast their vote nonetheless.

I'd agree with you regarding the turnout, it is going to be huge.

It has to be of major concern to see how little enthusiasm exists for the Democrats, this article is about Michigan, a state they lost in 2016 by 10,000 and yet there is no visible campaign let alone support...what gives?

https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/

We are talking about polar opposite campaigns here...there have been huge amounts of parades/boat parades/car parades nationwide that have not been organized by the Trump campaign they are organic public expressions of support....not to mention the thousands and thousands that turn up and que for hours before his rallies.

There was one Biden event mentioned in that article, about 8 supporters turned up...30 Trump supporters turned up...in a vital swing state 6 weeks out from an election.

I thought Trump would win in a landslide a few months ago, before the real election campaign began....witnessing both campaigns now in full swing, I haven't changed my mind.

hirondelle

hirondelle wrote: »

In terms of protecting the environment, I would say that unpicking the Clean Water Act (progressed by that well-known tree hugger Richard Nixon) allowing mining companies to dump contaminated wash from mining activities into headwaters is an example of Trump choosing commercial interests over and above protecting the environment.

A relevant example to think of here is the West Virginia coalfields (mountaintop removal mining)- the coal is washed near the point of extraction- and the process water returned to the watercourse. Trump is steering the EPA towards reducing the testing requirements by the mining companies. This introduces the potential for lovely flavours of cadmium, arsenic and other contaminants into the drinking water supply of the local populace (on a related note, I checked and 68% of the vote in WV went to Trump). So, Trump went for the industry (and the legacy jobs in a doomed industry) by reducing the requirement to test the water and publish the results instead of protecting the health of all the people relying on these water supplies.

All this dressed up as getting rid of "unnecessary" regulation by nasty "Big Government". Tell me Pete, are you personally in favour of a public water supply that is tested to ensure that human health is protected, or do you think the coal industry should be allowed to pollute it with impunity? Would you be happy with having water from these sources as your primary source of drinking water?

And a plea- if you do reply please don't "lol", it never, ever adds to the debate on adult fora.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'd agree with you regarding the turnout, it is going to be huge.

It has to be of major concern to see how little enthusiasm exists for the Democrats, this article is about Michigan, a state they lost in 2016 by 10,000 and yet there is no visible campaign let alone support...what gives?

https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/

We are talking about polar opposite campaigns here...there have been huge amounts of parades/boat parades/car parades nationwide that have not been organized by the Trump campaign they are organic public expressions of support....not to mention the thousands and thousands that turn up and que for hours before his rallies.

There was one Biden event mentioned in that article, about 8 supporters turned up...30 Trump supporters turned up...in a vital swing state 6 weeks out from an election.

I thought Trump would win in a landslide a few months ago, before the real election campaign began....witnessing both campaigns now in full swing, I haven't changed my mind.

I'm not American, and I don't claim to have insights into the mind of the "average" US voter, but isn't it entirely possible, that a lot of people in the US are just going to pop their vote in the mailbox, or arrive at the polling station and cast a vote for Biden- without entering into the realm of the media, through attending rallies, putting up banners or whatever in advance of that? There is a crashed economy and a pandemic.

The Trump rallies have the look (and I think he referred to them as) protest meetings- these people are appearing at rallies to make a statement on all the cultural touchstones that Trump keeps raking over- including masks. Are you extrapolating from the rallies that the few thousand that appears at each signifies what the intentions of the vast majority (landslide) of the 150 million voters will be? I don't get it. You may be in the US and be seeing it in a lot more detail than I am. I won't begin to debate polls as I wouldn't be able to add to it, but I would surmise that polling techniques have been subjected to much scrutiny since the last time and that they are probably more reliable (in as much as polls can be reliable)- and they are consistently presenting a different picture to yours.

namloc1980

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'd agree with you regarding the turnout, it is going to be huge.

What do you mean by huge turnout?

Silentcorner

namloc1980 wrote: »

What do you mean by huge turnout?

I mean a huge turnout

Gentlemanne

WrenBoy wrote: »

Just on the Environmental issue I see Former Rep. Gov Rick Snyder of (Flint Michigan fame) is endorsing Joe Biden. Not a good look to tout the support of a guy responsible for the poisoning of an entire city and then lying about it under oath.

namloc1980

Silentcorner wrote: »

I mean a huge turnout

Like what percentage or do you only deal in vague adjectives?

Carfacemandog

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, it's very simple.

Why would Bloomberg commit to spending €100,000,000 in Florida to get Harris/Biden elected? It's not the actions of a party that is confident of it's supposed lead in the polls...now, you could easily dismiss that point and I'd have no problem with that...

Now both of them (Harris/Biden) didn't manage to get more than a car load of supporters to turn out for them during their time in Florida, now you could easily dismiss that point too because there is nothing scientific in that!!!

We also can see that there is massive public support for Trump in Florida all up and down the state...now, you can dismiss that because there is nothing scientific in that either.

But we know the real issue back in 2016 was how many polls were wrong regarding the swing states in particular...

You don't want to take my point seriously, but do some digging, you'll see there is expected to be large gains in some very Democrat solid geographical areas' and demographics for Trump.

First, your claim on Bloomberg's spending assumes that having a 1.8% lead in the third highest state for electoral college seats, and the most well known 'swing state' in the nation means you have it all wrapped up and don't need to spend any more on campaigning there, which isn't the case. In fact, taking states for granted is part of what cost Clinton the election in 2016 - something which Trump supporters have been adamant about reminding people of constantly for four years now. They may want Biden to make similar mistakes, but that doesn't mean he will - and indeed in Florida, he certainly doesn't appear so.

If anything, I would be more concerned about reducing advertising in key swing states, which is what we have seen from the Trump campaign in recent weeks. We saw in 2016 what happens when you neglect swing states, and there is an irony in Trump doing the same in 2020.

Secondly, your claim about attendances is the same one that was used during the conventions a few weeks back, which Trump supporters were claiming were a sign he was ready to fly up in the polls on the back of it, which proved not to be the case. Biden supporters are far, far more likely to be avoiding public events and doing things like exercising social distancing, while Trump's campaign has outright rejected this and continued to pack people into tight spaces without masks or social distancing being observed much at all. Added to the fact that a large number of people would appear to be voting against Trump rather than for Biden who has been looking to catch the 'middle ground' while his opponent is only interested in preaching to the choir that is his base to serve his own ego.

Third, you seem to be claiming that Clinton was seen as having a clear and easy win in 2016 in Florida and/or that Trump romped home easily - neither happened, and the polling was within the margin of error. Poll aggregator 538 had Clinton on a 0.6% lead, while RCP had Trump on a 0.4% lead - in the end Trump won by 1.2%. All of this is also before factoring in that James Comey refused to release any damaging info on Trump in the 100 days before the vote, but was more than happy to do so with Clinton about two weeks out from the very same election which saw a sharp turn of opinion for undecideds to move to Trump, as well as some who were voting for Clinton to stay home... all of which happened so close to the election that it only showed on the very last polls prior to Nov 8th. Now what that also teaches us is that a late October surprise could swing voters, but a problem facing Trump this time around is that the undecideds are considerably fewer and that Biden's campaign is not making the same mistake of complacency seen by Clinton last time around. Bloomberg spending a further $100mn in Florida despite Biden having a lead at present.

The reason I said your last comment cannot be taken seriously is because of Trump's consistently poor showings among almost any non-white groups, and the clamoring by Trump supporters about things like Amish support (who make up about 0.07% of the population), or Hispanic and Latino support (when Biden leads this demographic by a margin similar figures to the 38% Clinton won it by in 2016) is evidence of this. This is what four years of race baiting and telling publicly elected representatives born and raised in the USA to 'go back' to their own countries, labeling nations in Africa as 'sh*tholes' while complaining about immigrants, and on and on.

Which Democratic areas and demographics is Trump doing very large gains with?

Silentcorner

namloc1980 wrote: »

Like what percentage or do you only deal in vague adjectives?

What a ridiculous question...a prediction of a percentage increase in voter turnout is completely useless unless I were to predict which demographic were likely to turnout out at which increased rate and what that would mean in each region/state...I'd be working for a campaign at that stage not wasting my time trying to answer ridiculous questions from someone who just doesn't like my contribution to an online forum.

namloc1980

Silentcorner wrote: »

What a ridiculous question...a prediction of a percentage increase in voter turnout is completely useless unless I were to predict which demographic were likely to turnout out at which increased rate and what that would mean in each region/state...I'd be working for a campaign at that stage not wasting my time trying to answer ridiculous questions from someone who just doesn't like my contribution to an online forum.

So you reckon there'll be a huge turnout but you have no idea what that means. Fair play. :pac:

Silentcorner

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Which Democratic areas and demographics is Trump doing very large gains with?

I've left the rest of your quote out as we can be going round in circles all day, like I said in my original post, I understand the legitimacy of dismissing my points...I do appreciate that spending changes and shifts for reasons we can only speculate...I just take a different view based on what I can see, that is all.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-has-latino-voter-support-s-strong-ever-why-haven-ncna1240168

https://www.rebelnews.com/gays_coming_out_for_trump

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/31/trumps-approval-rating-black-voters-soars-60-durin/

They are but three examples of a shift in support in key demographics...again, I accept that reports and polls are not dependable...there is a host of videos available of those demographics supporting Trump you can find them if you look....I am predicting a black vote for Trump at 20% by the way.

I must point out, I linked the video of the Amish because of how peculiar it is to see that community publicly support a president, not because I think it'll swing the election.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

I've left the rest of your quote out as we can be going round in circles all day, like I said in my original post, I understand the legitimacy of dismissing my points...I do appreciate that spending changes and shifts for reasons we can only speculate...I just take a different view based on what I can see, that is all.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-has-latino-voter-support-s-strong-ever-why-haven-ncna1240168

https://www.rebelnews.com/gays_coming_out_for_trump

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/31/trumps-approval-rating-black-voters-soars-60-durin/

They are but three examples of a shift in support in key demographics...again, I accept that reports and polls are not dependable...there is a host of videos available of those demographics supporting Trump you can find them if you look....I am predicting a black vote for Trump at 20% by the way.

I must point out, I linked the video of the Amish because of how peculiar it is to see that community publicly support a president, not because I think it'll swing the election.

Your first link contained the following statement.

It's no surprise, then, that many Latinos don't plan to vote for Trump in November. What may be a surprise is how many do.

I think you should pay attention to the first sentence as much as the second.

Your second link contained the following.

A survey of around 1,200 queer male Americans found that around 45 per cent – around 540 – plan to vote for Trump.

Notwithstanding that it is a conservative outlet, it still suggests that more than half won't vote for him.

You last link contained the following.

HarrisX-Hill survey finds Black support increases from 15% to 24%

I wouldn't take any of the above as evidence of any sort of shift in support worth paying attention to.

WrenBoy

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I love that show.

Outlaw Pete

hirondelle wrote: »

Tell me Pete, are you personally in favour of a public water supply that is tested to ensure that human health is protected, or do you think the coal industry should be allowed to pollute it with impunity? Would you be happy with having water from these sources as your primary source of drinking water?

Your categorization of the executive order is inaccurate. It was repealed so that the regulation could be changed ("review and rescind or revise") not removed. The objective was merely to address issues that businesses and farmers (big and small) were having, which is why the National Federation of Independent Business sued the Obama administration over the regulations, complaining that they were too broad and gave the federal government needless jurisdiction.

If you go to this link and watch a hearing on the issue you will hear many business owners and farmers (from 36min in) that were negatively affected by the regulation give evidence to that effect.

Some words from Sen Yaw and Sen Inhofe on the matter:

“I commend the Trump Administration’s steadfast commitment to providing greater clarity with regard to the regulations under Section 401, States like New York and New Jersey have been abusing their authority and hindering the development of energy infrastructure projects for far too long. As I’ve said before, these actions have stalled infrastructure development that is vital to creating new markets for Pennsylvania natural gas and related liquids, not only here at home, but across the northeast and world. The irony of the situation is that Pennsylvania natural gas would be a significant benefit in helping New York City reduce CO2 emissions.”

https://twitter.com/JimInhofe/status/1269030832666226691

Saying industry will be able to "pollute with impunity" is just scaremongering tbf.

hirondelle

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Your categorization of the executive order is inaccurate. It was repealed so that the regulation could be changed ("review and rescind or revise") not removed. The objective was merely to address issues that businesses and farmers (big and small) were having, which is why the National Federation of Independent Business sued the Obama administration over the regulations, complaining that they were too broad and gave the federal government needless jurisdiction.

If you go to this link and watch a hearing on the issue you will hear many business owners and farmers (from 36min in) that were negatively affected by the regulation give evidence to that effect.

Some words from Sen Yaw and Sen Inhofe on the matter:




https://twitter.com/JimInhofe/status/1269030832666226691

Saying industry will be able to "pollute with impunity" is just scaremongering tbf.

Ah come on- the purpose is exactly to reduce the impact on the polluters, pure and simple and you have linked to demonstrate the effects only on the potential polluters. Revise my eye, you are being wilfully naïve on this. It is part of Trump's broader strategy to pretend that environmental degradation is no barrier to economic growth. Would you trust the EPA (for example) to do the right thing by the people depending on these supplies? I'm not scaremongering, I'm reflecting what many people in the states are concerned with. You do understand the levels of pollution some of the intense agriculture and industry generates? You know that if it isn't dealt with by regulation these people will inevitable cut costs, particularly at a time when the EPA is being politicised.

Mic 1972

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well apparently a man with a stutter stutters and its "proof" he has dementia (according to some). Im just pointing out the hypocrisy of posters who say Biden looks fragile or has no energy yet never seem to see this in their dear leaders actions.

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

Tell me how

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

Will be easy to provide evidence so.

Please do.

namloc1980

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

Source for this fact?

Pa ElGrande

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1308746258140614657


The deplorables registrations are up.

hirondelle

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

The man has a stutter. He has adopted different techniques to overcome this, including a slight pause before he begins the particular words or phrases.

I would ask you to look at the situation with this as a possibility next time you watch him. Sure, he misspeaks every now and again, but I don't see genuine cognitive decline.

Silentcorner

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1308746258140614657


The deplorables registrations are up.

They might have decided that they are indeed racist and have confronted their white privilege after seeing all the riots/destruction/statue toppling/murder and mayhem in US cities over the summer and see Biden as the inspirational leader that most of the country (if the polls are to be believed) seems to think?

It's hard to take an article about 5 things Biden should be worried about and not mention the complete lack of an on ground campaign or support...you can be sure ordinary Americans have noticed it!!!

Pa ElGrande

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

In the US there is a the Goldwater rule, unless someone treating him is given permission to you will get no direct information on this topic. When Regan was in power they did pick up problems which was much satirised, it was only after he left the presidency that Alzheimer's became obvious and the gipper ended his days cleaning the leaves from the pool while the secret service replenished the leaves to keep him occupied.

Biden is in a US presidential election, and that is a stressful position for any candidate. Hillary Clinton was not able for it in 2016 and got sick during the campaign. You will see videos where Joe Biden appears clear and lucid, however there are also episodes that indicate he is under stress and struggling.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Biden has brain issues, it's a fact
There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality

And I'm sure you will.post evidence for this.

(Cue Biden had surgery 32 years ago)

Outlaw Pete

hirondelle wrote: »

Ah come on- the purpose is exactly to reduce the impact on the polluters, pure and simple and you have linked to demonstrate the effects only on the potential polluters.

If you listened to them you would know they were not merely "potential polluters".

Revise my eye, you are being wilfully naïve on this.

No, and this is the problem when you have overreaching legislation as it enables environmentalists and climate change activists to easily dismiss genuine issues.

It is part of Trump's broader strategy to pretend that environmental degradation is no barrier to economic growth.

You act as if he repealed the act on his own. He responded to complaints and from what I can see they were genuine.

Would you trust the EPA (for example) to do the right thing by the people depending on these supplies? I'm not scaremongering, I'm reflecting what many people in the states are concerned with.

The current administration are concerned about that which deserves to be concerned about also. You saying that what happened has meant industry can pollute with impunity is simply not true as they rolled regulations back, they did not just repeal it and leave nothing in place. New measures are coming too and I'm sure they will alleviate the more genuine of concerns.

You do understand the levels of pollution some of the intense agriculture and industry generates? You know that if it isn't dealt with by regulation these people will inevitable cut costs, particularly at a time when the EPA is being politicised.

Like I said, it's rolled back and far from the free for all you're implying there now is.

Cool, so Pete what safeguards has he put in place after deregulation? If he put nothing in place then he's actively put people in danger. While farmers had concerns it was not actively negatively impacting them. So there's a far greater negative impact to outright removing with no replacement.

landofthetree

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/polls-trump-biden-analysis/index.html

(CNN)Political watchers awoke Wednesday morning to the two best polls for President Donald Trump in the last six months.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found Trump 51% to former Vice President Joe Biden 47% among likely voters in Florida, a result within the margin of error. They also had Trump 49% to Biden 48% among likely voters in Arizona, again within the margin of error.
The results could make your head spin if you believe that Biden is well ahead.

No wonder Biden and Pelosi were panicking and started to condemn the riots.

Trump is building up momentum going into the debates.

Silentcorner

Why did the Democrat Party go with Biden...a man of his age would always struggle with the load of a campaign, I don't want to get into the most recent controversy regarding an interview he gave, but Americans will have to confront the possibility that he is not fit for office, now they made decide he is fine, an improvement on Trump...but the question has to be asked....why was Biden overlooked by the party membership twice when he was much younger for the nomination twice but is the man they've turned to now to beat Trump?

Was a younger politician not an option if not why not...what does it say about the Democrats?

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why did the Democrat Party go with Biden...a man of his age would always struggle with the load of a campaign, I don't want to get into the most recent controversy regarding an interview he gave, but Americans will have to confront the possibility that he is not fit for office, now they made decide he is fine, an improvement on Trump...but the question has to be asked....why was Biden overlooked by the party membership twice when he was much younger for the nomination twice but is the man they've turned to now to beat Trump?

Was a younger politician not an option if not why not...what does it say about the Democrats?

Harris was always supposed to be the nominee apparently until Tulsi ended her in the debate..Biden was the only one who could take out Sanders..

I have a really bad feeling about him and the debates..