|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were Show nested quote + not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate?
Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things.
|
On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things.
So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view?
|
On October 28 2020 07:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards. That would be amazing. Instead, we shut down 21,000 Election Day voting locations during a historically high turnout, so I imagine these polling places having lines of hours and hours Wait, is Vice trustworthy on this? I don't recall reading much of anything coming from their political side https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdenn/the-us-eliminated-nearly-21000-election-day-polling-locations-for-2020
Vice is actually very good at investigative reporting and can be treated as a reliable source on those things.
However, most of their generic politics articles are basically going to be rewrites of other outlet's articles. They won't be wrong (according to MFBC they haven't failed any fact checks) but if you want the original story they're not the place to go.
In this case, though, it's one of their investigative articles, so yes, it is almost certainly correct.
Keep in mind they're definitely left of center for a US media outlet, but they're a decent source.
Some of these cuts are less nefarious than made out by the headline: KY cut its polling locations because it has never had early voting before, and with it as an option they should need fewer locations.
I'm planning on voting on election day. I live in Ohio and we delayed too long to reliably get an absentee ballot. We only have 1 early voting location for our city, while our election day office is in our suburb. So it should be less crowded (moved here this year. In 2018, my wife and I had to stand in line for four hours to vote, only living a mile down the street).
|
On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view?
1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for.
2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate.
3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive.
No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this.
|
|
|
United States10569 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ITH2RWB.png)
Realistically this is Trump's best shot with him needing any one of those 3 industrial states to win the election. If I were him, just consolidate all your money into one of those 3 states and pray that you maintain the southern states you won in 2016.
If Trump wins Wisconsin only, then its actually a 269 tie and Biden will be voted in by the House. Pretty interesting stuff, though I personally think Biden is going to landslide the North this time around.
|
On October 28 2020 09:26 FlaShFTW wrote:Realistically this is Trump's best shot with him needing any one of those 3 industrial states to win the election. If I were him, just consolidate all your money into one of those 3 states and pray that you maintain the southern states you won in 2016. If Trump wins Wisconsin only, then its actually a 269 tie and Biden will be voted in by the House. Pretty interesting stuff, though I personally think Biden is going to landslide the North this time around.
The problem for Trump is that none of those rust belt states (nor Arizona) look particularly competitive, and the most competitive states seem to be Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida.
If Biden wins any of those states, Trump is pretty much done for.
|
|
|
If it goes to a contingent election (general term for the tied election process in the US : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election ) then Trump wins.
That's because it's decided by very different rules rather than house votes - each state only gets one vote.
Each state delegation votes en bloc, with each state having a single vote. A candidate is required to receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. As a consequence of the state delegation voting method, the party that holds the majority in the House could still lose the contingent election if the minority party holds the majority of state delegations.
However, it is very unlikely that it goes to contingent for a reason that's easy to forget : faithless electors. While cracked down on somewhat since 2016 in a lot of states, 2016 had the largest number ever and Trump has only gotten less popular, and Biden's unfavorables are nothing like Hillary's.
And it only takes 1 of 538 people to mess up a tied situation.
It's also done by the NEXT congress, rather than this one.
|
The house vote is likely to go to trump. It is done under weird rules where the house pretends it is the senate and votes by state, which, like everything else, favours the Republicans.
Biden has to win in a landslide. That is his only path.
|
On October 28 2020 09:41 Nevuk wrote:If it goes to a contingent election (general term for the tied election process in the US : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election ) then Trump wins. That's because it's decided by very different rules rather than house votes - each state only gets one vote. Show nested quote +Each state delegation votes en bloc, with each state having a single vote. A candidate is required to receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. As a consequence of the state delegation voting method, the party that holds the majority in the House could still lose the contingent election if the minority party holds the majority of state delegations. However, it is very unlikely that it goes to contingent for a reason that's easy to forget : faithless electors. While cracked down on somewhat since 2016 in a lot of states, 2016 had the largest number ever and Trump has only gotten less popular, and Biden's unfavorables are nothing like Hillary's. And it only takes 1 of 538 people to mess up a tied situation. It's also done by the NEXT congress, rather than this one.
Just to make sure nobody is misled by "2016 had the largest number ever," Hillary lost 5 electoral votes and Trump lost 2 in 2016.
|
On October 28 2020 09:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 09:41 Nevuk wrote:If it goes to a contingent election (general term for the tied election process in the US : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election ) then Trump wins. That's because it's decided by very different rules rather than house votes - each state only gets one vote. Each state delegation votes en bloc, with each state having a single vote. A candidate is required to receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. As a consequence of the state delegation voting method, the party that holds the majority in the House could still lose the contingent election if the minority party holds the majority of state delegations. However, it is very unlikely that it goes to contingent for a reason that's easy to forget : faithless electors. While cracked down on somewhat since 2016 in a lot of states, 2016 had the largest number ever and Trump has only gotten less popular, and Biden's unfavorables are nothing like Hillary's. And it only takes 1 of 538 people to mess up a tied situation. It's also done by the NEXT congress, rather than this one. Just to make sure nobody is misled by "2016 had the largest number ever," Hillary lost 5 electoral votes and Trump lost 2 in 2016.
Correct, ty for the clarification. I didn't meant to give the impression it was a large number, just that it was a sizable enough number that it genuinely does reduce the chance of a contingent election by a decent margin, and it's something that has gotten less and less likely as the college has grown throughout the years, as even 1 faithless elector basically ruins a contingent election from happening. It was (7/538 = 1.3%) in 2016. It also goes both ways - a GH type could throw the election to Trump in a fit of pique, though I think it less likely than in 2016.
|
United States10569 Posts
On October 28 2020 09:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 09:26 FlaShFTW wrote:Realistically this is Trump's best shot with him needing any one of those 3 industrial states to win the election. If I were him, just consolidate all your money into one of those 3 states and pray that you maintain the southern states you won in 2016. If Trump wins Wisconsin only, then its actually a 269 tie and Biden will be voted in by the House. Pretty interesting stuff, though I personally think Biden is going to landslide the North this time around. The problem for Trump is that none of those rust belt states (nor Arizona) look particularly competitive, and the most competitive states seem to be Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. If Biden wins any of those states, Trump is pretty much done for.
How do you define competitive? Arizona is competitive lol, it's within 1 MOE, in fact RCP has it only as a 2 point difference right now with a decent amount of undecided voters within that population.
Obviously I agree with you that the most competitive states are those borderline Trump states, but let's say he sweeps those swing states like he did in 2016, he might legitimately have a chance to win one of those rust belt states randomly.
|
On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? [quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this.
I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" .
It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst".
|
I just voted today, I'm not a faithful person, but I have faith that Biden will win in a landslide.
|
On October 28 2020 10:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just voted today, I'm not a faithful person, but I have faith that Biden will win in a landslide.
It's really a strange feeling. I'm overwhelmed with typically reliable information telling me this but my anecdotal experiences say the opposite. Far more Trump support around me than in 2016 and reports of that all over but none of it quantified really in the data.
My analytical brain is telling me that Biden wins handily and Trump's better off spinning this all into a new more radical fox news than trying anything too drastic. My 2020 brain is telling me Biden barely wins in a squeaker, Trump throws a tantrum and Biden pulls a Gore between Nov 3 and whenever the process would best come to a conclusion on its own. Biden/Democrats would do it to prolong the legitimacy of SCOTUS rather than have them hand down a nakedly partisan ruling declaring Trump the winner despite what appears to be clear malfeasance on his part.
|
On October 28 2020 10:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just voted today, I'm not a faithful person, but I have faith that Biden will win in a landslide.
Voted Sunday when I found out the state SC decided mail in votes can't be thrown out due to signature matching.
|
United States10569 Posts
On October 28 2020 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 10:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just voted today, I'm not a faithful person, but I have faith that Biden will win in a landslide. It's really a strange feeling. I'm overwhelmed with typically reliable information telling me this but my anecdotal experiences say the opposite. Far more Trump support around me than in 2016 and reports of that all over but none of it quantified really in the data. My analytical brain is telling me that Biden wins handily and Trump's better off spinning this all into a new more radical fox news than trying anything too drastic. My 2020 brain is telling me Biden barely wins in a squeaker, Trump throws a tantrum and Biden pulls a Gore between Nov 3 and whenever the process would best come to a conclusion on its own. Biden/Democrats would do it to prolong the legitimacy of SCOTUS rather than have them hand down a nakedly partisan ruling declaring Trump the winner despite what appears to be clear malfeasance on his part.
Yeah I'm in the same boat. By all accounts, Biden should be winning states like Georgia, NC, Florida, and even Arizona, leaving Trump with just Ohio and Texas. Even then, Ohio isn't guaranteed.
On the other hand, the polls have actually started to slip for Biden in some states like PA and Minnesota where he was over the 50% average but now he's holding at 48-49% instead which allows that small window for Trump. And it bothers me to no end.
We can only hope and pray.
|
Trump is basically counting on a larger than 2016 sized polling error in state polls right now.
I'm not sure I buy it: all political polling firms are going to practically go out of business if they predict that Trump loses and he wins again. I think that they're pretty much all going to be trying to overrate Trump. It's not that I think Trump has no chance, but that I think it is roughly 5-6% instead of 12-13%.
Nate Silver has noted that they include pollsters with heavy partisan leans, even when they don't make a lot of sense, just as a sanity check for the model.
He also noted that if they excluded Rasmussen then Biden would gain about 1.5 points, but that it wouldn't really change their prediction much.
There's also stuff like Trump's mail in voting shenanigans seeming like they may backfire badly.
Democrats are saying they're going to drop off their mail in vote directly at double the rate of Republicans, which would prevent USPS shenanigans from affecting them (or court challenges to prevent counting after election day).
Here's a fun interactive from 538 - if you decide a battle ground state winner, it will tell you the overall odds for the election and update the odds for each state.
PA is pretty dramatic.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/?cid=abcnews
If Biden wins PA, he has a 97% chance to win, but only a 39% chance if he loses it. It's the tipping point >30% of the time on their model. (I think FL is the next closest, and that's because if Biden wins that Trump is toast, but counting out florida is always a smart bet for democrats).
No other state has quite the same effect, but it is a useful tool. It's basically almost entirely about PA for Trump, which is why Biden has been there 10 times recently. Biden's lead there is +5, much smaller than his national +8.
That tool will be really useful combined with this list to predict the winner. For instance, if Biden wins Ohio, he's almost certainly won PA too (same for IA), due to demographic similarities.
The only ones of these Trump can afford to lose and still maybe win are AZ and WI - chances are 3% and 5% Trump respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
