|
On November 04 2020 13:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why not call Florida, Ohio and Texas for Trump on NYT?
Apparently in Ohio, a lot of urban areas aren’t done counting. For FL or TX it’s waiting on mail in ballot counts.
|
WI looks like it will go for trump. Most large counties have reported a vast majority.
|
Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data?
|
United States10402 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why not call Florida, Ohio and Texas for Trump on NYT? Not sure tbh. Florida has been confirmed for Trump for the past hour at this point.
|
United States10402 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:14 Nebuchad wrote: Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data? Yeah idk what people are saying. I'm still unsure on the north states. Still waiting on those Arizona updates.
|
On November 04 2020 13:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why not call Florida, Ohio and Texas for Trump on NYT?
I think Ohio has a chance of still flipping?
Texas and FL need to be called though
|
On November 04 2020 13:14 Trainrunnef wrote: WI looks like it will go for trump. Most large counties have reported a vast majority. If i had to guess I'd say the African-American voter turnout is lower than 16', judging by Trump more than doubling his vote % in the bronx, maybe black Trump voters more energised..Biden needs far better results in Milwaukee than what he's getting right now.
|
On November 04 2020 13:14 Nebuchad wrote: Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data?
I think a lot of people aren't informed that because of how they count early votes PA is a blue shift state and not a red shift state like FL/NC, and that they've gone on record saying they won't have everything counted until Friday (and, indeed, several counties said they aren't going to bother tabulating early votes until tomorrow).
|
On November 04 2020 13:14 Trainrunnef wrote: WI looks like it will go for trump. Most large counties have reported a vast majority.
Not true. Most of Wisconsin's urban areas have yet to report a significant number of votes.
|
why did GA and PA stopped counting? and michigan also seems to have stopped counting.
|
On November 04 2020 13:14 Nebuchad wrote: Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data?
Trump is overperforming in the rural areas where he built up his lead in 2016 with 95%+ reporting in those rural areas.
|
On November 04 2020 13:12 Nevuk wrote:Btw a couple maps from 538 : it's pretty Biden favored if he holds onto AZ and IA even if he loses PA. Not allocated NC or GA since they have mail in ballots still (and a ton are still outstanding in those states). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#FL:1,OH:1,TX:1,AZ:0,NH:0,IA:0,PA:1But if he loses IA it turns into something of a nightmare scenario where a tie is extremely likely : 49 Biden-30 Trump - 21 (tie) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#FL:1,OH:1,TX:1,AZ:0,NH:0,PA:1It is also hard not to wonder if Dejoy's fucking with the USPS hasn't affected ballots more than expected.
Is this saying Biden has a >99 in 100 chance to win Wisconsin? He's currently 4% behind with 60% of expected votes in.
|
I'm just getting stressed out following this lol, time to lose myself in some games for a couple hours
|
United States43989 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:13 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:59 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:56 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:52 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:48 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:45 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:42 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:37 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:35 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities.
But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash.
That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it. I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket. But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim? No. I'm saying that despite lower GDP, we've managed to match China's market growth, and that the economy has been amazing - two separate thoughts. A large part of this (both the valuations and the economy) was the corporate tax cut, which was 100% Trump. US unemployment hit the lowest level for 50 years. Removing regulations has also supercharged the economy. To your point about fake buybacks and low rates, that's the QE. To the massive growth in SMEs, I award that to Trump's policies. If the growth was due to the tax cut then why did it start 8 years before the tax cut? That's a little silly. Sure, he inherited a growing economy. His policies turned it into a record-breaking one. But he didn't. Look at the SP500 growth by year from 2009 to 2020. The numbers don't support your claim. 2009 - 23% 2010 - 13% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 13% 2013 - 30% 2014 - 11% 2015 - (1%) 2016 - 10% 2017 (Trump's first year) - 19% 2018 - (6%) 2019 (year in which the tax cuts took effect, funded by huge deficit spending) 29% 2020 4% Trump performed less well, on average, than Obama. Which record do you think Trump broke on growth in valuations? He's in the bottom half of Presidents. He constantly tweets about it but the numbers simply don't support any conclusion but that the man is a liar. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey 17 was great, 18 ended on a major, but very short downturn, 19 was good, and 2020 is a pandemic. I think that's a quite good track record. Sorry, is the claim now that Trump has performed at a solid B average? Two posts ago it was that it was recordbreaking. He's 3rd out of the last 4 presidents in growth in market valuations and the guy he beat literally presided over the collapse of global capitalism. You keep shifting the goalposts. You started with Trump growing the economy at an unprecedented pace. You then changed that to Trump growing the valuation of major companies at an unprecedented pace while keeping the economy growing slowly. Now you're arguing that Trump grew the valuation of major companies at a below average rate but that you'd still give him a passing grade. Please argue your original claim, that Trump delivered record breaking growth. My original claim is that Trump grew the stock market on pace with China's, despite lower GDP growth, and that we have had an amazing economy. An economy is a multifaceted thing, and having the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years is in my mind at least, quite the accomplishment. I suppose if you argue semantics, that isn't recordbreaking though. I don't believe I'm moving goalposts, I believe you're misrepresenting what I have said. I think we can agree it's not fair to look at the market during a pandemic year, which has global consequences and knock-on effects throughout the stock market, but he grew the stock market an average of 14% YoY his first three years. On the topics of records, he also extended the bull market to be the longest in US history - which is why his 14% performance is fantastic. The market should have had a downturn - in fact the economy broke another record - the longest time without a recession in US History (which ended due to the pandemic). You claimed he grew the economy on par with China, then changed that to growing the SP500 valuation (on par with China? What would that even mean? It's not clear as you clearly intended this to be a GDP vs GDP comparison until I explained to you that Trump did not deliver meaningful growth in GDP)
You claimed it was recordbreaking growth when it was below both Obama and Bill Clinton growth. It broke no records.
You claimed it was caused by the tax cuts when there were 8 solid years of growth before the tax cuts and a recession 15 months after the tax cuts took effect.
At a certain point here you have to concede that some of these talking points simply don't hold up to the evidence. I'm not surprised that you hold these beliefs, they're claims that have been repeated over and over by Trump and his mouthpieces and you've clearly incorporated them into your worldview to an extent. But at a certain point you need to start letting evidence in. You've been lied to. The GDP growth that was promised in 2016 never happened. The tax cuts didn't start the stock market boom. The stock market boom wasn't even much of a boom.
|
On November 04 2020 13:18 starkiller123 wrote: I'm just getting stressed out following this lol, time to lose myself in some games for a couple hours make it single player or you'll probably get sucked back in lol
|
United States10402 Posts
JK Iowa just had some updates and Biden's lead down to 3 with 59% reporting.
|
On November 04 2020 13:14 Nebuchad wrote: Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data?
I think that a lot of people are having huge downers cause they wanted a biden 350 win. PA is going to have a lot of the vote still out for the next couple of days
|
On November 04 2020 13:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:14 Nebuchad wrote: Why is everybody acting like Biden is losing PA when the stats for the early voting had about 1m more democrats than republicans, I'm losing my mind on this do I have unreliable data? Trump is overperforming in the rural areas where he built up his lead in 2016 with 95%+ reporting in those rural areas.
Yeah but if many more democrats are voting by mail and those votes are not counted yet obviously Trump is going to be overperforming.
|
Couple of notes from 538's liveblog on when we will get results:
As you plan your sleep schedule for the rest of the week: We should have near-complete unofficial results from Wisconsin early tomorrow morning, as Milwaukee is expected to finish counting around 6 a.m. Eastern. Michigan originally said it would take until Friday to count all of its votes, but officials have revised that estimate to say they’ll be done tomorrow as well. Finally, Pennsylvania results probably won’t be known until Friday.
With 82 percent of the expected vote reporting in Ohio, we can see that an early lead for Democrats in the absentee ballots that were counted first has now turned into a Republican lead as Election Day votes were reported, as we expected. But as Nate said earlier, urban counties are somewhat underreported relative to the rest of the state, so that Election Day vote could shift again — and there are likely some more absentee ballots outstanding as well.
Also note that we're going to be getting large chunks of democrat/republican votes counted at once, since the vote allocation was so distinctly different (mail in vs in person). Can't really compare it to prior years where 60% of the vote was a reasonable expectation to be somewhat random.
|
Republicans look like they're edging out in the NC Senate race (Tillis vs Cunningham), the next most likely seat flip that the Democrats could have hoped for.
|
|
|
|
|
|