US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Quin_Dub

Carfacemandog wrote: »

So Texas is suing multi other states in an effort to subvert their democratic systems.

And here I was thinking "states rights" was just a lie Republicans use to try and get away with racist and disciminatory practices...

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.

They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

Carfacemandog

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.
They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

We're really at a tipping point as to whether the GOP should be considered a criminal enterprise at this point, particularly after the last month. And at this stage, any claims of ignorance their supporters could previously try to hide behind are completely and utterly gone. They know what they are, and they support it anyway, while happily lying about the reasons why daily - "states rights" is today's one. There will be another tomorrow.

serfboard

Carfacemandog wrote: »

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

Manic Moran

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

Bad enough to change your vote?

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Bad enough to change your vote?

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

Tell me how

serfboard wrote: »

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

No. You and Seth Myers just don't get it.

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

It's not complicated, why can't people understand this?

Spanish Eyes

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

First Up

Tell me how wrote:

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

Why?

Jizique

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

Monday Dec 14 I think

Water John

Yeah Monday, we'll see how many GOP then acknowledge Biden as President Elect?

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

Did I say I would? Are you presuming which way I would have voted had I been in the state last time around? Do you mean to suggest that I will always vote for a Republican and not make an informed decision on the merits of the individual candidates?

Igotadose

What's interesting in the Texas AG suit, is the AG in question is under investigation by the FBI. Seems like he's angling for a pardon based on his raising the suit.

dogbert27

Igotadose wrote: »

What's interesting in the Texas AG suit, is the AG in question is under investigation by the FBI. Seems like he's angling for a pardon based on his raising the suit.

Without a doubt that's his angle.

Trump already tweeted that he was a patriot. Pardon is on the way,

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did I say I would? Are you presuming which way I would have voted had I been in the state last time around? Do you mean to suggest that I will always vote for a Republican and not make an informed decision on the merits of the individual candidates?

Always nice to answer a question with a question

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Always nice to answer a question with a question

Your question ignores previous context, and is without merit. I strongly suspect you are letting your biases get in the way of rational discourse.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your question ignores previous context, and is without merit. I strongly suspect you are letting your biases get in the way of rational discourse.

Based on current event, would you, if you had a vote, give him your tick?

Midlife

duploelabs wrote: »

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

With due respect that's quite unfair on the poster.

He is a Republician I believe who didn't/wouldn't vote for Trump so exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

I don't mean to offend, I respect your opinion and postings. I just think it's too easy in these conversations to telling someone what they believe/do and disagree with our own assumption without ever listening to them.

It's the great problem of our times in terms of political discourse.

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Based on current event, would you, if you had a vote, give him your tick?

Depends on the competition.

If you're expecting the perfect candidate you'd be waiting for ever. If one of the other candidates are better overall, no. If not, yes. Why, how do you select who to vote for?

He is a Republician I believe who didn't/wouldn't vote for Trump

Close. I'm an independent who didn't vote for Trump. (And have stated such in the past). However, the fact that I will take some Republican-held positions against Democrat ones seems to be taken by some posters here as being equivalent to a Republican so I might as well be labeled as one.

secondrowgal

This is a really interesting thread on vote flipping and discrepancies in Kentucky - home of #MoscowMitch


https://twitter.com/GrassrootsSpeak/status/1336713647050153984

MJohnston

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Carfacemandog

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

It's an interesting read, but you have to have faith in the electoral process. There's nothing here like georginin 2018 on face value at least.

Cant wait to see this trotted out as "both sides" though, while those doing so entirely ignore the fact that no nationally elected democrats (never even mind 17 states under their control) will support this.

secondrowgal

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Fair enough, but if you didn't go past the first tweet, how do you know it's a conspiracy theory or that it's ****ty logical reasoning? :cool: I haven't gone into myself in depth yet either, btw, because it's quite long. I just thought that it was interesting because she has actual sources and figures on voters, etc. (haven't checked those thoroughly either btw. Will do so when I have some time)

It was shared by someone that I haven't ever seen pander to conspiracy theories, which gives me the initial confidence. But of course, I should check it all out carefully too.

paul.duka

I feel that both sides (rep and demo) have very similar fears from each other... probably is not a conspiracy theory, but is true that from the last years, the untrust one each other has increased dramatically and is taking us to a very dangerous situation... each side will always exist, and we have to calm down and learn how to accept and live together with the other part

MJohnston

secondrowgal wrote: »

Fair enough, but if you didn't go past the first tweet, how do you know it's a conspiracy theory or that it's ****ty logical reasoning? :cool: I haven't gone into myself in depth yet either, btw, because it's quite long. I just thought that it was interesting because she has actual sources and figures on voters, etc. (haven't checked those thoroughly either btw. Will do so when I have some time)

It was shared by someone that I haven't ever seen pander to conspiracy theories, which gives me the initial confidence. But of course, I should check it all out carefully too.

Empirically, I do think the Republican party are far more likely to cheat their way to victory. I mean, that's not even a supposition, the way they gerrymander and suppress voting is well-documented and is 'cheating' in my mind.

Honestly, the way the Trump campaign is reacting, combined with the projection Trump usually indulges in, it almost seems to me like they tried to commit voter fraud but it didn't work out (though the way they leak, I doubt it).

However, I just haven't the time to go fact-checking that lady's tweet thread, and her using a very misleading stat in the first tweet really puts me off continuing!

ChikiChiki

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Yep - Twitter is a cesspit of mistruths. While it serves a purpose, it is a place where too many are allowed shout unsubstantiated nonsense.

Brussels Sprout

secondrowgal wrote: »

This is a really interesting thread on vote flipping and discrepancies in Kentucky - home of #MoscowMitch


https://twitter.com/GrassrootsSpeak/status/1336713647050153984

He didn't win by 57%. He won with 57%. That's a critical distinction.

He got 57% of the vote. Trump got 62% so McConnell trailed him but he still got enough support to beat McGrath by 19.6% despite some split ticket Trump/McGrath voting.

The logical fallacy at play here is that people think just because McConnell is unpopular with Kentuckians that he should have lost. That didn't happen because his opponent was even more unpopular.

TomOnBoard

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet,<b> because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.
</b>
I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Is an 18% Approval Rating estimate too low or too high?

MJohnston

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Is an 18% Approval Rating estimate too low or too high?

Too low. He had a 39% approval rating just before the election. https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/10/31/polls-mcconnell

I think the 18% is from one poll back in 2017. I don’t even know if it was a Kentucky-only poll either!

But even then, a Senate candidates approval rating doesn’t really matter as much on its own. What was McGraths, for example?

And it’s a R+25 state, or something like that. Which means McConnell could have been a whole 25 points less popular than his opponent and *probably still win*

In short - the numbers are wrong and she’s ignoring all the context of the state to make her argument.

McConnell is unpopular even in KY, but McGrath was less popular, and that’s all that matters.

I’ve discussed ideas of “registered R” and “registered D” elsewhere but in short - it’s a very flawed, lagging measure. You become registered to a party when you register to vote (or when you choose to change it in order to vote in primaries). You only need to do that after moving house or turning 18 (or being purged by Republicans from voter rolls). The number of people who haven’t moved house in decades is extremely high, and thus the party registration stats are sometimes decades out of date.