|
United States40776 Posts
On October 25 2020 05:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list. well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.” The letter says that he doesn't want to hear the opinions of app creators and people who look good on tv. He's complaining that people like that are telling him their political opinions. I'm not suggesting he thinks they should be forcefully silenced, I don't think rights come into it, he's saying they should stay in their lane. My issue with that is that some topics are big enough that they're relevant to everyone.
|
Northern Ireland20731 Posts
If I had an issue with corporate political pontificating it’s that it’s so often untethered from actual consultation with the rank and file workers who ultimately enable a company to be an entity with such clout and reach.
On the other hand I’m not sure why businesses wouldn’t assume political positions when they’re legally people for some reason.
|
On October 25 2020 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:01 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote: It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are 1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats) 2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right) 3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a 4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list. well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.” The letter says is that he doesn't want to hear the opinions of app creators and people who look good on tv. He's complaining that people like that are telling him their political opinions. I'm not suggesting he thinks they should be forcefully silenced, I don't think rights come into it, he's saying they should stay in their lane. My issue with that is that some topics are big enough that they're relevant to everyone.
ok, there is certainly some play in the text that slides into “stay in your lane.” but ultimately he takes issue with getting a mass email from a vendor, and sees it as a violation of privacy norms in business. you can say it’s not a big deal and that he should ignore the emails or mark them as junk, but it’s not really that strange to request that private information given for one limited purpose not be used for other purposes. would a series of emails about voting (for trump??) from your doctor not be annoying?
to take a step back though, what’s the over-under on votes gained by such an email? 1 vote? 0.5 votes? NEGATIVE votes caused by energizing borderline Trumpers? it’s so obviously such a dumb email for a vendor to send. who isn’t getting bombarded with such messaging from so many places that an email from a business vendor they deal with really makes the difference for Biden? it almost makes you think the email is just pure signaling: we are Team Blue. which also seems incredibly stupid to me. but i don’t run a business so what do i know.
|
On October 25 2020 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose. Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election. thanks, didn't know that. I would have expected them to do it after the election.
|
United States40776 Posts
Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list.
|
On October 25 2020 04:53 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum. I did listen to it but I wish they would go into the history more with less snark and sarcasm. There was a Frontline documentary last year that started with Mitch McConell's experience as a new senator 30 years ago when the Democrats blocked a Supreme Court nominee, and tracing his (and the Federalist Society's) role in court nominations up to the present day. It's kind of long at almost an hour but if anyone cares to watch: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ You saw the warning that they were just as far right of center as this thread is left of center (American context). The snark is valuable to help people understand the "own the libs" meshing in with an average right-wing political viewpoint. The articles at, say, the National Review are much better for people that can't filter the jibes. However, they're the ones that published "Against Trump," so you miss the opinion commentary that a more pro-Trump or Trump-curious viewpoint brings. Anyways, thanks for listening and always question your own bubble.
|
On October 25 2020 05:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose. Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election. thanks, didn't know that. I would have expected them to do it after the election.
NP. Whatever threats the 6-3 conservative court poses to people's rights are coming regardless of who wins the election. Taking issues to the supreme court is one of Republicans primary activities when they don't hold majorities. So really it's hard for me to say whether losing would make them more or less likely to drag all their issues to the 6-3 conservative supreme court to get favorable rulings.
|
On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list.
it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely.
|
On October 25 2020 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list. it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely. As the US becomes more and more tribal and everything gets politicised, even something as basic as the response to a healthcare crisis, is it really weird that companies get swept along in that? I would think its a logical consequence of where the country is going.
|
United States40776 Posts
On October 25 2020 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 05:22 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I don't think it's a good email and I wouldn't send it myself. And I agree it's not in line with business norms to ask users to vote a specific way (though I don't see how it's a privacy issue, they're not sharing or selling user info etc.). But I don't think it's a confusing email and I wouldn't reply with "stay in your lane". I see why someone would want to spam email about the issue and why they have an opinion on the issue. If my dentist was telling me to vote Trump I'd just switch dentist and put them on the ignore list. it’s a portentous sign, is it not, that there are quite a few stories like this about American business leaders? call it the great stagnation, call it the politicization of everything, but more and more executives these days don’t seem to adhere to the old “business is business” mentality. what is becoming of business? i don’t know whether the personalization of corporations is mystifying or demystifying or something else entirely. I think it’s good. I like knowing that the guy behind Oculus Rift is a literal Nazi before choosing a Vive. I like that Chick-Fil’A openly fund the criminalization of homosexuality in the third world. Within capitalism spending is supporting. You can’t patronize a business without implicitly endorsing and empowering the owners. The more of them that out themselves, the better. “Just business” was always a useful lie used by owners to separate what they do with your money from you giving them the money.
|
Finally watched the debate. I think this one went better for Trump, though not because he performed well, but because he was way too aggressive in the first one.
I'm a bit worried about how the larger audience received Biden's statements. On paper the words he said would make more sense than Trump's, but in the debate he often sounded like a rambling old man while Trump spoke clearly and vigorously.
|
Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media.
|
On October 25 2020 06:06 ThunderJunk wrote: Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media.
Is this sarcasm?
|
Murkowski will vote to confirm Barrett so there's no moonshot hailmary to stop Barrett.
While a 6-3 conservative court is scheduled to happen, it could get worse if Trump or another Republican wins in the next 8 years. Breyer's next to retire at 82 (barring unforeseen health issues with Thomas 72 or others).
If Breyer pulls a Ginsburg and doesn't retire if Biden wins (or can't make it through another Trump term), a 7-2 conservative court for a decade or so becomes a real possibility.
|
United States40776 Posts
On October 25 2020 06:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 06:06 ThunderJunk wrote: Watching my president speak fills my body with a surge of pure, American patriotism. I feel nothing but pride in my country. I love living in a democracy. I also love the electoral college.
I don't love the selection process for vice presidential candidates. Basically no one wanted Kamala Harris, but Biden chose her over Bernie Sanders because he didn't want to get upstaged... And he's 78 years old and a weak personality, so if he gets elected she has the highest chance out of any VP to ascend to the presidency - and this on the "merit" of being an easy-to-influence corporate sellout.
It would of course be better if we could have more than 2 major parties - And it would be ideal if the media could not be bought on partisan grounds. Last time I checked, CNN had literally 0 coverage of the Biden Laptop scandal.
But we have the debates to show us what the candidates are really about, and I'm proud as hell that President Donald Trump is strong enough to get his message through despite our horrible propagandist media. Is this sarcasm? I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
|
On October 25 2020 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Murkowski will vote to confirm Barrett so there's no moonshot hailmary to stop Barrett. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1320107299755692034While a 6-3 conservative court is scheduled to happen, it could get worse if Trump or another Republican wins in the next 8 years. Breyer's next to retire at 82 (barring unforeseen health issues with Thomas 72 or others). If Breyer pulls a Ginsburg and doesn't retire if Biden wins (or can't make it through another Trump term), a 7-2 conservative court for a decade or so becomes a real possibility. Confirmation is a go-go. Oddly enough Mondays vote date is also Hillary Clinton's birthday.Four years later and the salt is still being rubbed in.
|
On October 25 2020 01:32 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? If Trump wins both of those, I think he takes it, but I don't think he will win if he loses either
I think so too, and I think the most likely scenario is that Biden wins PA, while FL - like in so many previous elections - ends up being a coinflip, which either gives Trump a close loss (if FL picks Trump) or a pretty large loss (if FL picks Biden).
On October 25 2020 02:12 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? While I give you florida is in play PA is not at least for now. Not only is Biden around 50 % but you have to take the whole rust belt into account. There is most no Scenario where only PA goes red by itself. If the rust belt goes red it is going together and Biden is killing it in all of them.
I think you bring up a good point about the Rust Belt states potentially being a bit of a packaged deal, especially since the RB states went entirely to Trump in 2016 (except for Illinois, if that's even included). I definitely feel better about the RB states going to Biden than I felt in 2016 right before the Trump-Clinton election, but given Trump beating the odds in 2016, I'm still holding my breath when it comes to states he won last time (including PA).
On October 25 2020 02:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? For comparison, the 538 model shows no tightening in PA (87/13) and only small tightening in FL (70/30 vs 71/29). FL is in play, but PA is almost out of reach. RCP is better at showing faster trends but has the issue that it will overweight frequent or lower accuracy pollsters in comparison.
Yeah, I like using 538 and RCP and any other repository of polling data that can do a meta-analysis on the polls. In RCP, the average PA spread is +5.1 for Biden, which is surely better than not having a lead throughout literally all of June, July, August, September, and October, but if there's a small change + the natural margin of error, it could break towards Trump. My current evaluation of PA is basically "I think it's likely that Biden will win the state, but it's still one of the states that I'm going to click 'refresh' on, once a day, to make sure I stay up to date." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_biden-6861.html#polls
On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote: I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states? I don't see him winning unless he takes both. This is heavily reliant on the polling gap and stability over time. The kind of sweeps of +1-10 Dems he'll have to make if he loses one of those two are just too unbelievable. (Then again, a 2016 win of WI-MI-PA was so unbelievable that I second guess myself a lot more these days) I'd appreciate a few more polls released before election day to see if any races got better with that second debate performance.
I'm sure we'll get those polls in the upcoming week, and it'd be interesting to see if any state data had significant changes based on the second debate. I don't want to assume a causal relationship, but I think if multiple states / regions suddenly end up with a huge swing right after a debate (e.g., the Rust Belt), then there's probably reason to believe that a candidate said something that really did (or didn't) resonate with those constituents.
|
Prediction: Trump wins Florida, Biden nauseatingly barely wins PA due to the oil comments, ends up winning due to the ballots being received after voting day. Becomes a supreme court thing. 5-4 in favor of Biden.
|
On October 25 2020 07:56 Mohdoo wrote: Prediction: Trump wins Florida, Biden nauseatingly barely wins PA due to the oil comments, ends up winning due to the ballots being received after voting day. Becomes a supreme court thing. 5-4 in favor of Biden.
While I know that any sort of loss will be rejected by Trump and many of his supporters as "Democrats rigging the election", I would certainly appreciate *not* having the stress of your kind of hypothetical close call (although I'm sure it'll happen somewhere, and the places that it'll matter the most would be Florida and Pennsylvania). I'd love for each state to cleanly break either way.
|
Despite however the election goes, the Democrats have put up 0 or negative fight when it came to ACB getting confirmed. It's basically gonna happen. Republicans said "we made this precedent, now we're getting rid of it, fuck you" and the Democrat's response as a whole has been "yeah sure, I guess that's fine". It should have been an absolute non-starter for them, but they're still hanging in there trying to appease these Republican shitbags. And with that, their chances of doing much to actually move forward seems near 0. There's room to see if anything doesn't quite go as expected, but the typical pattern of Republicans setting the Democratic doormat down to be stepped on is holding just fine.
|
|
|
|