2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Voldemort86 2,259]

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

A cousin of mine in Red River County (godforsaken county east of Paris) went on FB and praised Mitt for voting his conscience during the impeachment. The whole county lit into her except for the local Philosopher King who hates Trump because he thinks he's just another Soros stooge. 

Many rural counties are uneducated pig styes who want to “ own the libs” no matter what. The facts and circumstances of things don’t seem to matter, it’s just “ are the libs being owned”?

I doubt over half of those people could pick out the states their god is expected to win on a map.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Voldemort86

[HenryJames 66,133]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,987]

 

[Guest Lobo]

22 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Yeah, but they're not gonna bother to vote as usual.  And oh yeah, they're responsible for 40% of the new Covid-19 cases.  This would be an outstanding year for 18-35 year olds to get their shit together.  #getoffmylawn 

[HenryJames 66,133]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,498]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Rachel Bitecofer makes a compelling argument that negative partisanship (and I count Trumpism as a form of party) is the controlling dynamic in our national politics. Meaning- our elections are being driven by opposition, not support.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

It was pretty obvious that a white man was going to have a built-in advantage. "Swing voters" look less like some intelligent professor looking guy reading about each candidate's policies and deciding last minute, and more like poor white folks in the rust belt who are in unions and at least have some understanding that Republicans are for the rich people. When balancing their own economic interests vs. their need to feel like they're still above minorities and women on the food chain, an old white man makes that decision pretty easy.

Swing voters are stupid.

(I know you probably already know all of this, Hank, just general commentary).

Really sucks that the cure to Trump is to make sure we avoid nominating a woman or a PoC because a white man is the smoothest path to winning the swing voters necessary. I guess having one black president, while it assuaged a lot of white guilt, hasn't really changed a whole lot.

Edited June 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, but they're not gonna bother to vote as usual.  And oh yeah, they're responsible for 40% of the new Covid-19 cases.  This would be an outstanding year for 18-35 year olds to get their shit together.  #getoffmylawn 

The kids voted in 2018.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,498]

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

The kids voted in 2018.  

Black Women put Doug Jones over the top on Roy Moore. 

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

50 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rachel Bitecofer makes a compelling argument that negative partisanship (and I count Trumpism as a form of party) is the controlling dynamic in our national politics. Meaning- our elections are being driven by opposition, not support.

Truth. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rachel Bitecofer makes a compelling argument that negative partisanship (and I count Trumpism as a form of party) is the controlling dynamic in our national politics. Meaning- our elections are being driven by opposition, not support.

It was the entire thesis of Biden’s primary campaign and Bernie has been running on negative partisanship for 30 years.  It’s an arms race of opposition.

[The Dog 44,066]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Ouch.

I think they may have oversampled Ds. If the "shy Trump voter" is still a think that's not the way to do it IMHO.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

10 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I will also say that saying wildly mean things about HRC worked because people saw her as corrupt and untrustworthy. When trump tries it with biden it will backfire, other than with his worthless base. 

Biden is going to pick Kamala and set her loose on Trump. Then joe can be positive and optimistic with feel good stories.

I would love to see this actually.  Warren is my homie, but Kamala is more of an attack dog.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Warren is my homie, but Kamala is more of an attack dog.

Michael Bloomberg would like a word with you. 

[honolulu horn 6,164]

I hope Dems stay focused and show up to the polls like underdogs rather than sit back, believe the polls, and assume they have it in the bag. 

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Michael Bloomberg would like a word with you. 

True, but I think Warren would just stupefy the dotard into silence, whereas Kamala could get him riled up and say some batshit nonsense.  And she has the opportunity to get him to say the n-word.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

3 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I hope Dems stay focused and show up to the polls like underdogs rather than sit back, believe the polls, and assume they have it in the bag. 

So much this. It's fucking June.  Let's not Leon Lett ourselves running into the end zone.

[Horn Dogg 3,927]

10 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I will also say that saying wildly mean things about HRC worked because people saw her as corrupt and untrustworthy. When trump tries it with biden it will backfire, other than with his worthless base. 

Biden is going to pick Kamala and set her loose on Trump. Then joe can be positive and optimistic with feel good stories.

A Kamala vs Trump debate would be awesome, I don’t think he could handle her.

[Storm the Field 5,296]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Ouch.

I think they may have oversampled Ds. If the "shy Trump voter" is still a think that's not the way to do it IMHO.

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So much this. It's fucking June.  Let's not Leon Lett ourselves running into the end zone.

A meaningless stumble in the way to the ultimate domination?

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

20 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I hope Dems stay focused and show up to the polls like underdogs rather than sit back, believe the polls, and assume they have it in the bag. 

Landslides tend to slide.  In an election that is not competitive, the winner's voters typically remain enthusiastic and energized, while it is the loser's voters who become dejected, dispirited, and demotivated to vote.  If this were to continue to election day, you could easily see the margin yawning into a 20-point victory for Biden.

[The Dog 44,066]

8 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

 

With all due respect to Nate, it's a D +10 sample. National party identification is D +4 according to the Pew Research Center. 

https://www.people-press.org/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Landslides tend to slide.  In an election that is not competitive, the winner's voters typically remain enthusiastic and energized, while it is the loser's voters who become dejected, dispirited, and demotivated to vote.  If this were to continue to election day, you could easily see the margin yawning into a 20-point victory for Biden.

[WBT 20,629]

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

True, but I think Warren would just stupefy the dotard into silence, whereas Kamala could get him riled up and say some batshit nonsense.  And she has the opportunity to get him to say the n-word.

Ah yes, the President vs VP debate.  The highlight of every campaign season.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

7 minutes ago, WBT said:

Ah yes, the President vs VP debate.  The highlight of every campaign season.

Yes yes.  Was thinking more in the twitter-sphere.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,498]

35 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I hope Dems stay focused and show up to the polls like underdogs rather than sit back, believe the polls, and assume they have it in the bag. 

No, no. I have NEVER seen the kind of focused, furious motivation among Democrats as I do right now. Not during he Bush years, not ever. People can't wait to vote. For the first time since it's founding. Democrats have a single focus that is the most important issue across the entire coalition. That's never happened since the advent of direct presidential elections. 

[The Dog 44,066]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, no. I have NEVER seen the kind of focused, furious motivation among Democrats as I do right now. Not during he Bush years, not ever. People can't wait to vote. For the first time since it's founding. Democrats have a single focus that is the most important issue across the entire coalition. That's never happened since the advent of direct presidential elections. 

I'd say in 2008 the Democrats were pretty motivated. 

[Storm the Field 5,296]

33 minutes ago, The Dog said:

With all due respect to Nate, it's a D +10 sample. National party identification is D +4 according to the Pew Research Center. 

https://www.people-press.org/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/

Their sample is nominally 38.5% D, 33.2% Ind, 28.3% R.

Pew says registration is 33% D, 34% Ind., 29% R. I presume the other 4% are green/libertarian/socialist..etc.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of disconnect here. So, lets go ahead and "unskew" to match Pew and knock 5.5% off the D sample, add 0.8% to Indies,  and add 0.7% to R. Congrats, I guess Trump is down 9-10 instead of 14.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Storm the Field

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, no. I have NEVER seen the kind of focused, furious motivation among Democrats as I do right now. Not during he Bush years, not ever. People can't wait to vote. For the first time since it's founding. Democrats have a single focus that is the most important issue across the entire coalition. That's never happened since the advent of direct presidential elections. 

I agree.  I am just not worried about Democratic enthusiasm in this election.

It's like football--and unfortunately our politics has come to resemble a sport in which our political party is our "team."  When the Longhorns suck, do you really feel motivated to go out to DKR and support them?  No.  You stay at home.  And maybe you watch on TV.  But maybe you don't.  The defeat just makes you tune out.  Electoral politics--especially for the low-information marginal voters on whom Trump relied in 2016--is no different.

And that's not just true of the fans.  You and I both know that teams will quit on a season.  We saw it in 1997 and in 2016--a team gets that loser vibe and they will absolutely quit on a coach.  And now that electoral politics is like a team sport, we ought to think of it as such.  If Trump starts to look like Charlie Strong, his team will fucking quit on him.  And then they'll lose to fucking Kansas.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,498]

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I'd say in 2008 the Democrats were pretty motivated. 

Democrats were extremely excited and motivated in 2008. This is different. I think turnout will be higher than 2008. The wildcard is coronavirus. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

1 hour ago, honolulu horn said:

I hope Dems stay focused and show up to the polls like underdogs rather than sit back, believe the polls, and assume they have it in the bag. 

Dems are pretty pissed right now and they should be. The leadership in the White House is a fucking joke. The orange idiot really asked his cabinet if “Finland is a part of Russia”.

lets face it. There’s a lot at stake in this election for all Democrats. Even the AOC type ones.

A Joe Biden win would most likely result in :  

- 2 Supreme Court nominations. These would be defensive because I think it’s Ginsburg and Breyer who are the oldest. They’re both dems. Hope to god that those 2 make it to November because conservatives are always highly motivated to vote with a Supreme Court vacancy.

- Biden would ensure the census is apportioned fairly for house seats. If trump wins again, he’s going to try and make sure illegals don’t count toward representation which would highly benefit house GOP.

- President Biden would probably be able to stop the Trump administrations lawsuit that’s trying to kill obamacare.

yeah...... there’s a lot at stake, but biggest of all we would get the most incompetent president maybe ever out of the white horse instead of extended for 4 more years.

[Pancho 44,860]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Democrats were extremely excited and motivated in 2008. This is different. I think turnout will be higher than 2008. The wildcard is coronavirus. 

This is correct.  How will the pandemic look in November?  Will we see a surge in early voting because people know the lines will be long as fuck on Election Day? 

I think the turnout in Georgia was a positive for Dems on the enthusiasm and overall turnout question marks people may have had.  Someone said on this website before that pandemic or not, they'd walk over broken glass to vote for Biden over trump.  I think we're starting to see that, yes, that is going to be true. 

You also know it's looking like it's true because trump is already trying to question the legitimacy of the election should he lose. 

[The Dog 44,066]

10 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Their sample is nominally 38.5% D, 33.2% Ind, 28.3% R.

Pew says registration is 33% D, 34% Ind., 29% R. 

I'm not seeing a whole lot of disconnect here. So, lets go ahead and "unskew" to match Pew and knock 5.5% off the D sample, add 0.8% to Indies,  and add 0.7% to R. Congrats, I guess Trump is down 9-10 instead of 14.

It's about credibility IMHO. They oversampled Democrats badly. 

For example, the latest Fox poll has Biden up 12 with a D+5 sample. They also ask people which party they lean so they can find out who is really independent and they found only about 13% were true independents (which dovetails with the earlier conversation on this thread). It doesn't fit Pew's numbers exactly either, but at least they got the split between the two major parties right. 

So as ugly as the NYT poll is for Trump, the Fox one is even uglier even though the margin appears smaller.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

It's about credibility IMHO. They oversampled Democrats badly. 

For example, the latest Fox poll has Biden up 12 with a D+5 sample. They also ask people which party they lean so they can find out who is really independent and they found only about 13% were true independents (which dovetails with the earlier conversation on this thread). It doesn't fit Pew's numbers exactly either, but at least they got the split between the two major parties right. 

So as ugly as the NYT poll is for Trump, the Fox one is even uglier even though the margin appears smaller.

Is it really oversampling in a national poll?  There are more Democrats in the US than republicans.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

It's about credibility IMHO. They oversampled Democrats badly. 

For example, the latest Fox poll has Biden up 12 with a D+5 sample. They also ask people which party they lean so they can find out who is really independent and they found only about 13% were true independents (which dovetails with the earlier conversation on this thread). It doesn't fit Pew's numbers exactly either, but at least they got the split between the two major parties right. 

So as ugly as the NYT poll is for Trump, the Fox one is even uglier even though the margin appears smaller.

At some point, you have to acknowledge that all the polls agree right now--Trump is down by double digits.  And that is a shocking place for an incumbent president to be as we near July 4 of an election year.  I'm thinking back, and it may be unprecedented (Jimmy Carter didn't really tank until the last two weeks of the campaign).

[Patrick Bateman 3,918]

 

[The Dog 44,066]

At some point, you have to acknowledge that all the polls agree right now--Trump is down by double digits.  And that is a shocking place for an incumbent president to be as we near July 4 of an election year.  I'm thinking back, and it may be unprecedented (Jimmy Carter didn't really tank until the last two weeks of the campaign).

Oh I agree he’s down big - too many polls showing he’s in serious trouble.

[Storm the Field 5,296]

 

['stache 21,824]

Since a fall spike in COVID is a near certainty now, the upside might be it'll hit just in time for voters to be sure to vote this fuck out of office. It'll help if European countries and other countries have smaller spikes.

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Since a fall spike in COVID is a near certainty now, the upside might be it'll hit just in time for voters to be sure to vote this fuck out of office. It'll help if European countries and other countries have smaller spikes.

I don’t see how weather is affecting this virus. It’s hot as shit in FL and TX right now. 

[Storm the Field 5,296]

15 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

Something iffy about that polling org. Their numbers jump around all over the place. Over the past 2 months, they've had polls showing everything from Biden +3 to Biden +14.

6/9: Biden +13 among RV, +10 among adults.

6/23: Biden +6 among RV, +8 among adults.

Does not compute. Oh well, toss it in the pile with the rest. That's what averages are for.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

44 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

A Joe Biden win would most likely result in :  

- 2 Supreme Court nominations. These would be defensive because I think it’s Ginsburg and Breyer who are the oldest. They’re both dems. Hope to god that those 2 make it to November because conservatives are always highly motivated to vote with a Supreme Court vacancy.

They need to survive til January, no?  Is there something that stops them in the transition period?  I have no doubt that the Rs would confirm a SCOTUS judge the day before inauguration, if possible.

[Guest Lobo]

Both Breyer and Ginsburg, if Biden should win in November, would step down from the Bench on 21 January.  If they can make it until NOvember, they can make it until January (provided neither gets Covid or the Flu).  If something happens to one of them between now and then, the shit hits the fan.  

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

They need to survive til January, no?  Is there something that stops them in the transition period?  I have no doubt that the Rs would confirm a SCOTUS judge the day before inauguration, if possible.

Well, the next Congress begins on January 3.  And realistically, they're not going to be able to confirm anybody during December.  So I think Thanksgiving is a pretty good date to calendar.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

They need to survive til January, no?  Is there something that stops them in the transition period?  I have no doubt that the Rs would confirm a SCOTUS judge the day before inauguration, if possible.

god that would be so crooked

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Both Breyer and Ginsburg, if Biden should win in November, would step down from the Bench on 21 January.  If they can make it until NOvember, they can make it until January (provided neither gets Covid or the Flu).  If something happens to one of them between now and then, the shit hits the fan.  

they'll wait until fall 2021 at least.  no justice likes to look that partisan.

[Guest Lobo]

I was being a bit hyperbolic, but I don't know that Autumn is realistic for them both, maybe one.  They are both in rough health.  But yeah, probably one in Winter and the other in late Summer (after the docket concludes in July-ish), before the October 2020 session begins.  I think they want to have the two vacancies close together, however partisan it may appear to force McConnell's hand.  America understands one empty seat and a fight about it in the Senate, happens every decade.  What they won't tolerate are two vacancies close to one another or even overlapping.  Trump's minions don't know enough about SCOTUS/Senate confirmation minutiae to put up much of a fight.  

[gmr548 16,584]

No, no. I have NEVER seen the kind of focused, furious motivation among Democrats as I do right now. Not during he Bush years, not ever. People can't wait to vote. For the first time since it's founding. Democrats have a single focus that is the most important issue across the entire coalition. That's never happened since the advent of direct presidential elections. 

I agree with this and it's keeping me optimistic. The Wisconsin special election was a big test case - Democrats showed they're literally willing to get COVID to vote these fucks out.

I'd say in 2008 the Democrats were pretty motivated. 

Yes but it's a little different in that Democrats had already largely neutered Bush by controlling both houses of Congress and Obama was very much a foregone conclusion by election day. Now the Senate is a dogfight, and Trump could be polling in the single digits and Democrats would either take the "Idk he might still win the Midwest" approach or the "FINISH HIM" approach. Neither would bring turnout down.

I expect shenanigans in GOP jurisdictions because this is a third world country now but I think we're going to see very high Democratic turnout.

[gmr548 16,584]

If Trump starts to look like Charlie Strong

Eh, his hands are just too small. He could never replicate the long finger photo.

[G650 14,267]

12 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

There's that 5-10% we've been arguing about. 

That's the 5% that @gmr548 is talking about. The 5% I am talking about are in the D column.