Tuco

You need to pay a subscription to OAN, right?

I guarantee you this will be the last election that Nebraska splits their EVs.

Wisconsin has same day registration. Milwaukee Journal Star

You know, when you compare what is actually happening to what you project would happen in a hypothetical situation where you invent the scenario and the reactions, it's easy to see where you get the both-sides comparisons. Hard to argue with that.

Consider how quickly the BLM movement has progressed. Four years ago, football players were getting blackballed for kneeling during the anthem. This year, basketball players boycotted playing in the playoffs, forcing a compromise where stadiums were used as polling places. It's amazing and fantastic. But any time you have such quick gains, you have to worry about how much has really been what...internalized, solidified...not sure the right word. In NE-2 House candidate ran 10-15 points behind Biden, maybe because the R incumbent was able to run a better campaign, but maybe because she was attacked on BLM type comments. There was a NE D state senator candidate who won in a red area, in part because her opponent was an idiot, but she avoided anything BLM related. Definitely anecdotal and speculative. But, regardless, I think Dems need to stick with the movement. It's not something you sacrifice. But they need to get better on how to push it.

A couple of theories: 1. "Black Lives Matter" is less palatable to many people than I hoped. I don't really believe in "shy" Trump voters, but I would buy that given a yes/no question on whether someone supports BLM, there are a fair amount of people who would give verbal support to it, or support to the idea that there are police reforms that are necessary, but aren't really solid behind either. That makes it susceptible to bullshit like saying it was Communist and anti-Christian. It made it susceptible to bullshit that mischaracterized defunding police. Once you give some of those supporters an excuse to vote against candidates who support BLM, they will. Since the Dems never really embraced the movement, they didn't work to define what it meant, so the Republicans did. 2. Many people are more afraid of the shutdowns than COVID. While they might dislike Trump's rhetoric on COVID, and think the government should be doing "more," they may be more immediately concerned with losing jobs and businesses if we go into a shutdown mode. I don't think the Dems did a good job of tying economic stability to controlling the pandemic. 3. Accurate polling may be impossible during an election cycle. I get dozens of calls from unknown numbers a day. I don't answer them. The people who do answer their phone may not represent a good cross-section of the voting public. Those are just some theories. I don't how you get evidence to validate or refute them. And, on #1 and #2, they are important enough that you can't just back off them. Maybe it's a question of how you market them.

I absolutely believe the government will need to sue him to recover shit. Not like trinkets that dignitaries gave him that are technically the government’s, but like historic shit that has been in the White House for 100 years. The only saving grace is his taste is horrible.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they don't certify it until all challenges are exhausted. Certifying means it is done. If it would not have made a difference, he definitely should have gone to Pennsylvania more. There is a problem. You repeated an absurd assertion on social media without verifying it first, despite the fact that it is really easy to verify. That is a major problem in our society right now.

Yes. Sorry. Tired math. Yes, the implication is there is a 160k dem advantage, but that implication is wrong because D+R does not equal 480k. -Shit. Nevermind. I just need to stop for a while.

It's also misleading. 478k ballots with a 2:1 Dem advantage makes people think that Dems have a 300k 160k advantage in ballots. They have a 74k ballot advantage, assuming no party and minor split evenly. Granted, he posted the party registrations, but the text is kind of bullshit. Nevermind. I'm wrong.

Ballots returned as a percentage of ballots requested: Party - Dems 82%, Rep 70.6%, No Party: 72.6%. Age - 18-24 : 65/3% - 25-34 : 69.7% - 35-44 : 73.5% - 45-55 : 75.6% - 56 to 65: 80.5% - 66+ : 85.1% link At this point, any mail in ballots should be deposited directly at drop boxes.

Either "no reporters" just means no recording devices, or Ernest has someone on the inside feeding him info. He seems like an established journalists, so I think the info is reasonably trustworthy.

I think there is certainly a possibility of a realignment, with some transitional period where a third party is generated, pulling significantly from both the conservative Dems and never-Trump Republicans - sort of the old guard. In Omaha, this is sort of thing is happening now. Kara Eastman is running as a progressive challenger to Republican Don Bacon. In 2016, Bacon had defeated Brad Ashford, a centrist Dem who had previously been a Republican. In 2018, Kara beat Brad in a close primary. In the 2020 primary, Brad's wife Ann Ashford was throttled by Kara, in roughly a 2:1 margin. A couple of weeks ago Brad endorsed Bacon against Kara. Earlier this summer, County Attorney Don Kleine, a registered Dem, decided not to press charges against a bar owner who had killed a black protester and claimed self defense. He was pressured into calling a grand jury, which indicted the bar owner. Eastman had called out the killing of the protester. Kleine criticized her for it. Now Bacon is running ads with an endorsement from Ashford and the criticism from Kleine. Kleine has even publicly stated he voted for Trump. It is definitely an old conservative white guy faction (both R and D) against the progressive Dem. Granted, I think a lot of this personal rather than policy, but there is a cultural difference that will lead to personal rifts. I could see that kind of dynamic happening on the local level elsewhere, and nationally. If the Dems win the White House, the Senate, and the House, there will be a lot of in-fighting on what needs to be fought for. That will put a lot of pressure on any existing cracks in the party. I think the progressives win control of the party. They are making too much money to be ignored. It is a little ironic.

In NE-1 (Lincoln + some Eastern Nebraska, except Omaha), Kate Bolz (D) always had a big uphill battle against Fortenberry (aka Googly-eyes Fartenberry). She has maybe a chance if a blue tsunami carries her. Last week she caught the Covid, and has significant symptoms. She is relatively young and in good shape, so chances of recovery are good. But damn, it sucks with all of the effort and stress of running for a Congressional seat, only to get a hammered in the final push with an illness that saps your energy and prevents you from directly interacting with your staff or the public. Tough way to finish the campaign.

If there is a major swing from the polls, either way, I think it's going to be because the turnout models are off. I don't either side are pretending to be undecided when called by pollsters. But, if young voters or minority voters don't turn out like the models assume, Trump may win. If young voters and minority voters turn out at higher rates than the models assume, it's Biden in a landslide. I think every indication in early voting is that this is going to be a huge turnout election. It's just a question of who is turning out. I try to avoid reading too much into EV breakdowns, but every state I spot checked had women early voting at significantly higher rates than men. In Texas, it's 54 to 45. Arizona is 49 to 43. (I'm guessing they are pulling gender off of first names, so some uncertainty.) Ohio 52/42. Florida 55/45. I think that is a good thing.

I wonder how much of that has to do with trying to win back blue collar voters. Not only are a lot of them indoctrinated with anti-Clinton bullshit, there are the legitimate complaints over NAFTA. Against a regular free-trade type Republican, it wouldn't be a big deal, but against Trump it's a liability.

This was Gorsuch's statement when they denied the extension of Wisconsin vote-by-mail receive date: To me that is an explicit statement that the federal courts should be interpreting how the state law is being applied. It doesn't matter that the state officials (SOS) or state judges (Texas SC) have decided it should be allowed. The Feds have stated they will determine if the application of the law is meeting how the law was written. In the end, it would just an egregious denial of voting rights to toss 100k votes, and I doubt it would happen, but I don't see how you can be confident that the Feds will just say "states' rights" and walk away from it.

Scanning through the last 12 hours of posts on this thread....it looks like the manufactured Hunter-gate has predictably fizzled.

Why give Pete HUD? Of all of his policy points I agreed with him during the debates, I can think of any that dealt with low income housing or urban housing. My preferences would be: 1. Secretary of Defense: The dude has a background in military and management consulting. One of his main pushes during the campaign was working on way to extract ourselves from perpetual war. I would love to see what he could do about streamlining the military and preparing for a post-war defense. And sure, having an openly gay man as the civilian head of the military would send a signal that we aren't going to give credence to gay stereotypes. 2. Secretary of State: He doesn't really have the experience for this one, but I thought his statements on the nature of our competition with China were good. Something about how focusing on who sells more washing machines was completely outdated. And, diplomacy will be part of ending perpetual war. 3. ...Energy maybe. He did talk a lot about engaging rural America and environmental solutions. I'm not nearly as excited about that.

Fucking hell. Washington Examiner (which is still shit) is reporting it as well. Fucking racist pieces of shit.

Text looks weird. Seems really short for a proclamation. Not seeing anything in the news on it. Not seeing anything in Trump's twitter vomit. Looks like bullshit.

Ok. I think maybe election day is heavy with the utes, but there does seem to be a disconnect on the 2020 final youth percentage. (Final is EV+election day). NBC is saying 18% of the final 8.92M, which is 1.6M votes., in 2016 Tuffts is saying 1.22M youth, or 13.7% of the 8.92M, in 2016 I am wondering if NBC was including registered voters in their "all voter" demographic. Still, if ~106k voted early in 2016 (per the Mark Elliot tweet) of the 1.22M who would eventually vote, election day had a shitton of youth voting on election day. (Ok, the Elliot tweet did not include the Friday before election day in 2016.) So, to me the bad news is that the youth have not exceeded their 2016 total votes yet. Their EV rates have not exceeded their final rate of 2016. The good news is they frequently wait until election day, and logic tells me that they are less likely to be concerned about COVID issues with voting then. Considering the party affiliation differential currently favoring the Republicans, that's a good thing.

I don’t know where you are only getting 2.2m votes on Election Day in 2016.

If the youth vote was 2% of EV in 2016 and it was up 600%, then it would be roughly 13% without any increase by anyone else. And their EV % would still be less than their % in the total vote on Election Day. It’s possible NBC’s numbers are bad, but there is nothing wrong with the math. The Tufts numbers could imply an issue with what youth % of total is.

Because compared to previous early voting, their turnout is high: (Credit to someone who pm'd me that.)