2020 US Election - Page 196

On November 06 2020 11:37 Kamisamanachi wrote:


lol. At this point, i will take this as valid explanation. I really think a country as rich as US should not have any problem with having voter ID's or efficient election count processes. and that too, when stakes are so high in the election for rest of the world too

On November 06 2020 11:37 Kamisamanachi wrote:


lol. At this point, i will take this as valid explanation. I really think a country as rich as US should not have any problem with having voter ID's or efficient election count processes. and that too, when stakes are so high in the election for rest of the world too

On November 06 2020 11:38 CorsairHero wrote:
In other news Steve Bannon got banned on twitter

On November 06 2020 11:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:

I add Montana to that list of states with strong independent/libertarian qualities that on occasion give Democrats a good surprise. Alaska and Montana definitely have a dominant Republican presence, but they don't vote party line if they see a Democrat they like. Though Bullock got blown out despite his good reputation in Montana as a governor. It would be hilarious if the mail-ins in Alaska actually end up electing Al Gross to the Senate and suddenly things aren't so pessimistic for Senate Democrats.

On November 06 2020 11:42 FlaShFTW wrote:

Clayton didn't move unless NYT is slow to update the county level map. Clayton still at 96% with 106572 votes total cast.

On November 06 2020 11:42 FlaShFTW wrote:

Where the hell are they finding these votes from?! no county moved on the NYT county data map.

On November 06 2020 11:43 WombaT wrote:

I listen to a British based political comedy podcast which frequently has an Indian on it whose chief angle on India is that bureaucracy doesn’t function whatsoever and as you say even then you can do a huge election pretty smoothly.

The episode where he explained Modi’s overnight removal of certain forms of currency being legal tender was both baffling, amusing and informative in equal amounts.

A bit sad though, India is fucking massive and a growing part of the world economy, unless you browse Indian websites you hear almost nothing of what’s going on over there. That said the same is kind of the case about internal Chinese affairs as well. So just a third of the world we largely ignore in media

On November 06 2020 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:

I'm sure Trump has an answer for that, lol

On November 06 2020 11:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:

I add Montana to that list of states with strong independent/libertarian qualities that on occasion give Democrats a good surprise. Alaska and Montana definitely have a dominant Republican presence, but they don't vote party line if they see a Democrat they like. Though Bullock got blown out despite his good reputation in Montana as a governor. It would be hilarious if the mail-ins in Alaska actually end up electing Al Gross to the Senate and suddenly things aren't so pessimistic for Senate Democrats.

On November 06 2020 11:44 Wegandi wrote:


The US has expansive means to let people vote. Does India also have mail in votes, absentee voting, day of voting, early voting, etc.? Granted some of this is way too drawn out. We learned here in FL after 2000 how to fucking count in a timely manner and make things more streamlined. Look how well we did this year.

On November 06 2020 11:38 Nevuk wrote:

There is public funding in the US for most elections, but you have to win the primary of a party that received >5% of the vote in the last election to get it. It's also not competitive amounts of money, just enough to actually run (Obama declined to take it in 2008 because he thought the system was broken. Still not sure what to make of that, but it definitely made him more beholden to wall street).

The primaries are the biggest barrier that requires money to win. There's a reason most of our politicians started out wealthy - that's what it takes to win, unless you're extremely talented politically and a good fit for the district (ie AOC).

While our system is expensive, a lot of it is probably wasted expenditures. Our most expensive stuff is for something of very dubious quality :
TV ads. More people see these from the campaign's youtube or twitter than from the actual TV, as generally everything is DVR'd and has commercials fast forwarded through, with the possible exception of sports. It's also not going to reach younger individuals who generally use netflix or Hulu plus or something without ads.

If money was all it took to flip races then Bloomberg would have won the primary, Hillary would be president and AOC would still be a bartender or have lost her last race. Money buys name recognition, as far as we can tell, but it can't make the voters like you.

Imo, a lot of money for a campaign is a sign that they have a lot of support in the first place : not a sign that they'll be able to use it to get more.

I'm wondering if this'll change without Trump on the ballot. He basically made caring about any scandal a partisan issue by his presence.

It was never a very strong effect, anyways- the last 538 analysis on this was that the biggest effect was politicians resigning due to shame. If they went to election, it was at most, 10 points off their final result.

On November 06 2020 11:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I kind of understand where the Fox and AP decision desks are coming from. Even if the correct move is un-calling at this point, the masses won't care if it turns out Biden (and I think that's still the more likely outcome). And they've already taken the credibility hit in the forecasting community, regardless of whether they un-call or not. It's basically like a 55/45 coin flip.

On November 06 2020 11:47 Kamisamanachi wrote:


India's bureaucracy is disaster and that's an understatement. and that currency removal was one of the joke decisions of this century anyone could have taken in a country like India