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

[SydneyCarton 47836]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I'm wondering, and I'm hoping and wish-casting entirely here, if this isn't the large corporations stepping in and realizing that a Trump presidency and unstable US Government isn't bad for business and their ability to continue to rake in cash, long term. I've been wondering and waiting for this to happen at some point, honestly. For the GEs, Fords, Apples of the world to actually start donating fucking money to campaigns em mass. 

[Goredho 17341]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I just don't know if I agree with this. I don't disagree with your statement at all, but I'm not so sure it won't be just as bad or worse if he wins. Especially after a delayed count of absentee ballots. His base is much more prone to violence, militarization, and they will be urged to just that. They're also less intelligent and much more likely to take a knee-jerk response, like say, driving across state lines as a 17 year old with a fucking long gun to "protect property." What do you think happens when you substitute "property" for "liberty" in those minds? I'm not sure either path is safer than the other. 

I think you are right.  If Biden wins, 40% of America won't accept it.  If Trump wins, 60% of America won't accept it.  Either way, the unrest and violence we see today is just a minor foreshadowing of what is to come.

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I just don't know if I agree with this. I don't disagree with your statement at all, but I'm not so sure it won't be just as bad or worse if he wins. Especially after a delayed count of absentee ballots. His base is much more prone to violence, militarization, and they will be urged to just that. I'm not sure either path is safer than the other. 

There's a lot of pent up anger/frustration over Trump, COVID, jobs, etc. And many people are impatiently waiting for him to lose in November. If he get's re-elected, we're done. Shit, even if Trump loses, we might be done. But I feel much more confident in the former. 

There will be violence after the election. If Biden wins, my hope is that it's short-lived and dissipates fairly quickly. If Trump wins, the shit will boil over and last a lot longer IMO. We're living in a ticking time bomb. 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

There will be violence after the election. If Biden wins, my hope is that it's short-lived and dissipates fairly quickly. If Trump wins, the shit will boil over and last a lot longer IMO. We're living in a ticking time bomb. 

This.  I don't know how widespread it will be, but this isn't going to be a fun 6 months or so.

[Mo Horn 8807]

Regardless of the results in November, the time between election day and inaugural day is going to be crazy. If Biden wins, who knows what Dotard, or his followers, will do but whatever it is will be disastrous. If Dotard wins, the protests we see now will be nothing compared to what we'll see, and Dotard will have military forces everywhere. He will be unleashed and nobody will stop him. 

[Jive Turkey 12567]

This is not comforting. 

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Jive Turkey

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  I don't know how widespread it will be, but this isn't going to be a fun 6 months or so.

Not trying to be an alarmist, but people need to really consider their surroundings and be smart about where they go over the next few months. Most people aren't going out in public too much during COVID, which is helpful in this particular regard. I think it's prudent to prepare for the worst. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not trying to be an alarmist, but people need to really consider their surroundings and be smart about where they go over the next few months. Most people aren't going out in public too much during COVID, which is helpful in this particular regard. I think it's prudent to prepare for the worst. 

 

Agree.  Glad I live in Austin and work from home.

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

11 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

This is not comforting. 

 

Not saying his info is wrong, but Silver has pivoted recently and is doing a lot of hedging.I think he's decided that his MO moving forward is to be the contrarian non-Republican polling expert. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[TXSG8R 3360]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not trying to be an alarmist, but people need to really consider their surroundings and be smart about where they go over the next few months. Most people aren't going out in public too much during COVID, which is helpful in this particular regard. I think it's prudent to prepare for the worst. 

 

People should be more concerned about public displays for either candidate regardless of who wins.  Car stickers or yard signs are going to make you a target.

[thepop 4409]

how is 70% "slightly favored"

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm wondering, and I'm hoping and wish-casting entirely here, if this isn't the large corporations stepping in and realizing that a Trump presidency and unstable US Government isn't bad for business and their ability to continue to rake in cash, long term. I've been wondering and waiting for this to happen at some point, honestly. For the GEs, Fords, Apples of the world to actually start donating fucking money to campaigns em mass. 

Corporations are much better at supporting their own interests as the soulless entities they are.  35% to 21% tax rate rate drop outside should have told you.

[Brisketexan 104537]

24 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm wondering, and I'm hoping and wish-casting entirely here, if this isn't the large corporations stepping in and realizing that a Trump presidency and unstable US Government isn't bad for business and their ability to continue to rake in cash, long term.

I have no idea if that's true....but it should be.

If any business of any size is thinking long-term, there can be no other conclusion that a Trump dynasty (and that's what this would be -- they know well that if Trump is re-elected, we are likely to have Trumpism as our form of government for decades to come) would be terrible for business long-term.  Civil unrest and violence is bad for business.  The US being a pariah state, where foreigners don't travel here and spend money, and our citizens don't travel and participate in international business, is bad for business.  A shitload more dead Americans is bad for business.  Counter-productive protectionism and a single-minded focus on dead and dying industries (let's make coal great again!) is bad for every other business.  Irreparably damaged consumer confidence (over half the country will not have ANY faith in having a stable country or job in the coming years, so will be loathe to spend money) is bad for business.

Trumpism is good for business in one respect: siphoning off all the dollars possible in the immediate term.  If you are crooked enough to suck Trump's dick, you'll get some lucrative gov't contracts and other favoritism.  You will get continue to get some beneficial tax treatment, at the expense of supporting and developing the infrastructure necessary for your business to thrive (functioning transportation networks, functioning postal service, a functional rule of law).  And that's about it.  To the extent that American businesses as a whole were amoral, and wanted to get while the getting was good, I think they've about maxed out the net-good they can get from this admin.  A continuation of this admin offers a lot more downside than it offers upside.

A broad base of businesses prospers in peaceful countries.  Only the president's cronies prosper in unstable shithole countries.  The bulk of businesses will not be able to be insiders with the POTUS, so they will suffer under a continued regime.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Corporations are much better at supporting their own interests as the soulless entities they are.  35% to 21% tax rate rate drop outside should have told you.

Yeah corporations aren’t gonna save us. Volkswagen and I.G. Farben out front shoulda told ya.

[SydneyCarton 47836]

10 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Corporations are much better at supporting their own interests as the soulless entities they are.  35% to 21% tax rate rate drop outside should have told you.

I'm fully aware of that. Believe me. A Biden presidency likely is going to cost me unimaginable money.

At the same time, and this is a general problem in this country in the largest big picture sense, people love to bitch and moan about tax rates, etc. But they fail to take into account the opportunities living and working in the United States allow for people to earn wealth in the first place. To have a good education, to be able to make money in a free market, to be able to improve your station. They don't ever equate a fucking dollar amount to the things America has provided them (and take for granted) in regards to the ability to show up and make money in the first place, and then bitch about Taxes. But don't think that corporations aren't smart. The Oil Industry knew climate change was a fucking thing 40 years ago and have taken steps to maximize money in the short term while preparing for other avenues of industry in the long run. 

A tax rate is a big deal, but when the risk around having a country at all to pay the higher taxes, well it isn't much of a choice. How much money is Apple or Amazon making in the middle of a civil war? Or a president who goes full autonomous and just starts gobbling up resources or demand companies like Microsoft pay a kickback for allowing them to buy TikTok? Or to be less extreme, who's making money when the economy goes completely to fucking shit and no one has any money to spare. 

We don't do those calculations. But somewhere, high up in rarefied air, some CEOs and billionaires are doing that math. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by SydneyCarton
Brisket nailed it.

[SydneyCarton 47836]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah corporations aren’t gonna save us. Volkswagen and I.G. Farben out front shoulda told ya.

I didn't say save. I said donate money. Obviously the people need to do their part as well. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm fully aware of that. Believe me. A Biden presidency likely is going to cost me unimaginable money.

At the same time, and this is a general problem in this country in the largest big picture sense, people love to bitch and moan about tax rates, etc. But they fail to take into account the opportunities living and working in the United States allow for people to earn wealth in the first place. To have a good education, to be able to make money in a free market, to be able to improve your station. They don't ever equate a fucking dollar amount to the things America has provided them (and take for granted) in regards to the ability to show up and make money in the first place, and then bitch about Taxes. But don't think that corporations aren't smart. The Oil Industry new climate change was a fucking thing 40 years ago and have taken steps to maximize money in the short term while preparing for other avenues of industry in the long run. 

A tax rate is a big deal, but when the risk around having a country at all to pay the higher taxes, well it isn't much of a choice. How much money is Apple or Amazon making in the middle of a civil war? Or a president who goes full autonomous and just starts gobbling up resources or demand companies like Microsoft pay a kickback for allowing them to buy TikTok? Or to be less extreme, who's making money when the economy goes completely to fucking shit and no one has any money to spare. 

We don't do those calculations. But somewhere, high up in rarefied air, some CEOs and billionaires are doing that math. 

I think the tax rate math (and tax deferment math) is much easier.

[SydneyCarton 47836]

Just now, Jiggy-Z said:

I think the tax rate math (and tax deferment math) is much easier.

Sure. It's easy to get your news from Facebook these days too. 

Highly successful people, rich people, and people who perceive that they have more to lose than "average" folks are usually willing to do the extra leg work to make sure they stay on top and have an advantage. Or did you think the house in Vegas and the sportsbook are just doing surface level math? You think the Koch brothers basically invented the concept of investing heavily into local politics as a lark, or because they play the long game? 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

18 minutes ago, thepop said:

how is 70% "slightly favored"

It's actually pretty close to the odds 538 gave Hillary . . . and we know how that turned out.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I didn't say save. I said donate money. Obviously the people need to do their part as well. 

Corporations typically donate to both parties to hedge their bets on whoEver wins leaving them alone. I would love for that to change this year but I doubt it.

[G650 14074]

4 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

I think the tax rate math (and tax deferment math) is much easier.

It's not. Seriously. I'm not a billionaire, but I do own a sizeable local business and whether you are Coca Cola or  Mom and Pop down on the corner, the business environment always trumps (no pun) the tax rate. The tax rate doesn't really matter when you aren't making money. @SydneyCarton is actually spot on. Corporate America is absolutely doing math right now. Stability and predictability is the single most valuable asset a business has, and we are in the opposite right now.

[Bama Chick 28596]

 

That’s President Selina Myer, Bill.

Show some gotdamn respect.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

Stability and predictability is the single most valuable asset a business has, and we are in the opposite right now.

Agreed.  My very small startup is trying to bring a product to market, and our administration's wishy-washy trade policies are making it extremely difficult to develop coherent, intelligent, and stable manufacturing plans.  We have enough problems without trying to figure out what our costs will be to better than 30% error margins.

[SydneyCarton 47836]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

It's not. Seriously. I'm not a billionaire, but I do own a sizeable local business and whether you are Coca Cola or  Mom and Pop down on the corner, the business environment always trumps (no pun) the tax rate. The tax rate doesn't really matter when you aren't making money. @SydneyCarton is actually spot on. Corporate America is absolutely doing math right now. Stability and predictability is the single most valuable asset a business has, and we are in the opposite right now.

Dont act so surprised, Your Highness. 

[Red Five 40627]

In a bunch of those "Trump wins" scenarios that make up 30% of their model, Trump is winning Oregon, New Mexico, and Colorado. 

[ChiTownDoc 21097]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I agree, shit gonna light up.  We should be voting by internet. If we can figure out secure methods to file taxes we should be able to figure out secure methods to submit our votes. 

This.  And you can log in to see what your vote was counted as after the fact just to confirm.  

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's actually pretty close to the odds 538 gave Hillary . . . and we know how that turned out.

Which actually make's Silver take less convincing, as Joe Biden's polling numbers right now are much better than Hillary's right before Election Day (when he gave her those odds).

[Bruh Man 3160]

So Biden raised 300M in August and the previous record was 193M by Obama in Sept '08? I think I remember sending Obama a few bevo bucks that month. Joking aside, that's pretty damn impressive.

[Dahobbs 17420]

10 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

This.  And you can log in to see what your vote was counted as after the fact just to confirm.  

It is a terrible idea. The internet is not secure enough for voting. Anyone in cyber security will tell you the same. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dahobbs

[thepop 4409]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's actually pretty close to the odds 538 gave Hillary . . . and we know how that turned out.

Sure, but that doesn't make 70% mean "slightly"

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

47 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not saying his info is wrong, but Silver has pivoted recently and is doing a lot of hedging.I think he's decided that his MO moving forward is to be the contrarian non-Republican polling expert. 

Silver can be arrogant at times but I don't think he's hedging anything but rather just reports what his model shows. Trump having a 31% chance to win is pretty high. 

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Which actually make's Silver take less convincing, as Joe Biden's polling numbers right now are much better than Hillary's right before Election Day (when he gave her those odds).

Silver's model is factoring in the time left until the election. He's said somewhere (I can't find it) that if the model were told the election were tomorrow, Biden's percentage would be over 90%.

If the polling remains more or less stagnant (I think it's tightened some from a month ago, probably with a national 5-6 point lead for Biden instead of 8-9), expect the 70% to slowly but steadily increase.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is a terrible idea. The internet is not secure enough for voting. Anyone in cyber security will tell you the same. 

Isn't he just advocating that one be able to check whether their vote was recorded correctly via the internet?

Or are you saying that electronic scan-n-vote kiosks are also a bad idea?

[G650 14074]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Silver can be arrogant at times but I don't think he's hedging anything but rather just reports what his model shows. Trump having a 31% chance to win is pretty high. 

Yeah, it seemed very straightforward to me.

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

Just now, Longhornmaniac8 said:

Silver's model is factoring in the time left until the election.

That's makes his model even more questionable. Polling has been steadier in this election than any in recent memory. 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

the trump gop/fox news lives in grievance.  it's the cornerstone of their platform.  on november 4th, they can start all over again.

i'm not exactly sure what they should do with their feelings, but i'm leaning towards fuck their feelings.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

22 minutes ago, G650 said:

It's not. Seriously. I'm not a billionaire, but I do own a sizeable local business and whether you are Coca Cola or  Mom and Pop down on the corner, the business environment always trumps (no pun) the tax rate. The tax rate doesn't really matter when you aren't making money. @SydneyCarton is actually spot on. Corporate America is absolutely doing math right now. Stability and predictability is the single most valuable asset a business has, and we are in the opposite right now.

Yes there are other factors.  I am a business owner as well as a CPA and the tax rate always matters even when you are losing money.  I think some of you are downplaying the rate drop and its effect especially when coupled with deregulation and dark money. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Isn't he just advocating that one be able to check whether their vote was recorded correctly via the internet?

Or are you saying that electronic scan-n-vote kiosks are also a bad idea?

The original post he was quoting said "we should be voting by internet." That is a terrible idea. Really, having voting machines connected to the internet at all is a terrible idea. But, I'm all for being able to confirm your vote was recorded correctly.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

FYI, from google searches here are Silver's previous percentages going into election day:

2016: Trump 29%

2012: Obama 91%

If your team was in a Super Bowl or whatever and you had a 25% chance to win, that's not bad. You're in the game and can win. you would rather be on the 75% side but 25% isn't an impossible hill to climb.

There's a misconception by some, that pollsters including Silver said that Trump was going to lose in 2016. That isn't how he presents his results. And from all accounts, the Trump campaign thought they were going to lose and they were all surprised that they won. Their internal polling also must have favored Hillary. 

[Dbeasy 14962]

Sure. It's easy to get your news from Facebook these days too. 
Highly successful people, rich people, and people who perceive that they have more to lose than "average" folks are usually willing to do the extra leg work to make sure they stay on top and have an advantage. Or did you think the house in Vegas and the sportsbook are just doing surface level math? You think the Koch brothers basically invented the concept of investing heavily into local politics as a lark, or because they play the long game? 

Yes, but what should the really, really, really good looking people, like me, be doing?

[Anastasis 23390]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The original post he was quoting said "we should be voting by internet." That is a terrible idea.

Why really any worse than mail in, or even electronic counting.  It's the 21st century.  We all manage almost every part of our life, finances, utilities, communications, etc. via the internet.  Are there issues that would need to be addressed, sure.  Are they insurmountable?  I doubt it.  

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

That's makes his model even more questionable. Polling has been steadier in this election than any in recent memory. 

 

No it doesn't. It's a simple fact that with more time until the election, there's more time for things to change. There is considerable uncertainty with a lot of things right now, not the least of which is the impact of COVID. As the time decreases, results today become more predictive for something in the very near future.

I agree that polling has been pretty steady, but when using a predictive model you have to factor in the time until the election .

[Dahobbs 17420]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Why really any worse than mail in, or even electronic counting.  It's the 21st century.  We all manage almost every part of our life, finances, utilities, communications, etc. via the internet.  Are there issues that would need to be addressed, sure.  Are they insurmountable?  I doubt it.  

They really really are, at least with existing technology and cryptographic methods. I'm happy to link you to the huge volume of research on this issue. No serious expert in cyber security would support voting through the internet.  It is a really bad idea. 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The original post he was quoting said "we should be voting by internet." 

Got it, my bad.

[Rougarou 594]

It's a good start to the Biden Presidency for many Texans and should not hurt the chances to turn Texas Blue, but only help.

Biden: "I am not banning Fracking". 

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-fracking-not-banning-95ac7370-aa0e-47d9-98b2-fb9b3bc93bee.html

[Bateshorn 9897]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

FYI, from google searches here are Silver's previous percentages going into election day:

2016: Trump 29%

2012: Obama 91%

If your team was in a Super Bowl or whatever and you had a 25% chance to win, that's not bad. You're in the game and can win. you would rather be on the 75% side but 25% isn't an impossible hill to climb.

There's a misconception by some, that pollsters including Silver said that Trump was going to lose in 2016. That isn't how he presents his results. And from all accounts, the Trump campaign thought they were going to lose and they were all surprised that they won. Their internal polling also must have favored Hillary. 

It goes to my operative theory that a bunch of Democrats who didn’t really care for Hillary thought the election was in the bag, so they didn’t vote/got their Jill Stein on. Add in another group of traditional GOP voters who thought Trump was trash, hated Hilary, so pulled a Gary Johnson Lever. Again thinking Trump couldn’t win, so they didn’t have to do the unthinkable and vote for the off putting competent governance lady.

Adding in the undecideds breaking heavily to Trump due to the Comey letter and you get the orange shitgibbon hitting a triple lindy.

[Anastasis 23390]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

They really really are, at least with existing technology and cryptographic methods. I'm happy to link you to the huge volume of research on this issue. No serious expert in cyber security would support voting through the internet.  It is a really bad idea. 

If those risks are insurmontable for electronic voting via the internet, seems like many of the same or similar election security risks exist in one form or the other with methods such as mail in. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If those risks are insurmontable for electronic voting via the internet, seems like many of the same or similar election security risks exist in one form or the other with methods such as mail in. 

Voting via the internet presents unique challenges, in particular in relationship to the ease of intercept and access on a wide scale. You hate when people suggest impossible things in the context of the pharmaceutical industry and medical research. This is the same thing except on the subject of voting security and cryptography. What you're suggesting has been rejected by the field. 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Voting via the internet presents unique challenges, in particular in relationship to the ease of intercept and access on a wide scale. You hate when people suggest impossible things in the context of the pharmaceutical industry and medical research. This is the same thing except on the subject of voting security and cryptography. What you're suggesting has been rejected by the field. 

How do those risks compare to those for shopping, paying bills & taxes, etc. over the internet?

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How do those risks compare to those for shopping, paying bills & taxes, etc. over the internet?

Those things don't determine the transfer of power of the most powerful nation on earth. The incentive to hack those things, particularly at scale, is astronomically less than an election. And the damage that can be caused is less than the damage caused by hacking an election. Too much is at stake in a election to make it susceptible to being directly hacked.  Online shopping is generally secure enough for online shopping. But it isn't perfectly secure and is often compromised. But the benefits outweigh the risks. The risks associated with voting by internet are too great. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dahobbs