Jump to content

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

Patrick Bateman

By Patrick Bateman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

I am so thrilled tonight! I spoke with my mom and asked her how my dad was taking the election. She said after every network declared Biden the winner, he turned off Fox News and said “Well, glad t

HenryJames
HenryJames
Thatguy
Thatguy

This was my experience in Galveston County, except for one thing. I came in and presented my ID to the geriatric at the front who printed out my pin number. I took my pin number to a table where two B

Posted Images

yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Election night is going to test this country in a way that it hasn't been tested since the Civil War. 

When Donald Trump declares victory on election night, it's gut check time.

I have no idea what will happen.

"Red Mirage"

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-phantom-win-election-1528948

Mail-in ballots will be deemed "not real votes", there will be claims of a "stolen election" while mail-in ballots are being counted after Tuesday. not good.

It may get very ugly.

Edited by yoladu
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Tom said:

 

 

 

I'm equally concerned that half of all Democrats polled are planning on voting by mail with all the nonsense going on with the USPS.  I'd given up on that idea a while ago.  

Yep, I am definitely voting in person and early. The question will be : how early? will be looking for the sweetspot to avoid wait times and exposure to the unwashed masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's not even bad for his brand. He's had his ass kicked in business like a dozen times. In this instance, he'll say I told you the election was rigged, I'm the last American Hero who fought for Democracy. Brand restored. 

Grievance is his brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for posting this. @henrygandorfwas asking this question the other day.

yep, exactly.  this was basically what i had read way back (though i like this format better).  using practical statistical analysis, there's a number that is just mathematically impossible to overcome.  that number seems to be between 5-6 pts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'll call it.  The first debate will go so horribly for Trump that he'll not do the second two, claiming they're rigged.

He'll never back out of a POTUS debate.  His base will claim he destroyed Biden in all 3 events, just as they did in 2016, even though it was blindingly obvious to anyone with a mildly functional brain stem that Hillary crushed him in 2 debates and still legged out a close victory in the 3rd.

Donald Trump could walk out on the first night, drop his pants, take a giant Big Mac dump on stage, walk off without saying a word the entire evening, and FOX and his base would shout from the rooftops that he had killed Biden and that there would be no need to hold the other 2 debates or the election, because 538-0 is in the bag.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37455

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

And this is a 5-12 point race. Depending upon how things break/turnout. 

And that's why Trump is already planting the "election fraud" seeds with his base.  I'm scared of what his NRA redneck army is capable of when they believe he's been fucked over.

Meanwhile, Stephen Miller and Uncle Vladdy and the rest of the cabal are working to steal it themselves.  

It's crazy to think that one side is going to try to steal the election, then lose it fairly, then convince about a hundred million people that it was actually stolen from them, then...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29360

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Abolish the Electoral College. 

 

It's bullshit. If Nate is right, we should just add about 3 percentage points for Trump on any national poll to ascertain the chances of winning. It's baked into the cake for Rs.

Edited by bolverk
Make it 4 percentage points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, yoladu said:

is he going to have to pivot back to xenophobia? Get those caravans gassed up!

Trump will spend the next two months throwing shit at the wall. None of it will work except with his dipshit base who will lap it up like the lapdogs that’s they are. He will lose and then bitch on Twitter about it for weeks. A few of his supporters will murder some people, mainly blacks and Hispanics but a few whites too. Then it’s hop on a plane to a Russian embassy somewhere  the day before the Inauguration after pardoning every white federal criminal in the country.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

2-3 points: 46% - aka the Hillary Zone (coin flip)

and how fucked is the Electoral College? We are in an environment now where is a Presidential candidate that wins the popular vote by 1% or less only has a 6% chance of winning the actual election?!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18963

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's bullshit. If Nate is right, we should just add about 3 percentage points for Trump on any national poll to ascertain the chances of winning. It's baked into the cake for Rs.

Maybe as much as 4, to be sure. 
this isn’t always the case for the GOP by the way. If you were reading Silver he was touting it the opposite way/ to Obama’s advantage, in 2012

its basically a function of “how

much do California and NY hate the GOP candidate- vs how much does Texas like the GOP candidate. If you want t to get really quick and dirty back of the envelope calculations going on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18963

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, yoladu said:

2-3 points: 46% - aka the Hillary Zone (coin flip)

and how fucked is the Electoral College? We are in an environment now where is a Presidential candidate that wins the popular vote by 1% or less only has a 6% chance of winning the actual election?!!

That’s unique to Trump and the loathing so many Californians have for him. If he was even remotely competitive there this wouldn’t be the way it read. Not arguing that’s a good thing or bad thing for the Electoral college- just explaining why it is in this instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem17

hookem17 485

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, yoladu said:

2-3 points: 46% - aka the Hillary Zone (coin flip)

and how fucked is the Electoral College? We are in an environment now where is a Presidential candidate that wins the popular vote by 1% or less only has a 6% chance of winning the actual election?!!

For some reason, framing it in the inverse is even more infuriating. Even if Trump loses the popular vote by 1%, he still has a 94% chance to win the election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29360

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If Biden wins, some D coalition in the House needs to present a National Popular Vote bill in early 2020. Maybe people will take the complaints more seriously when you want to abolish the EC after your party has just won it. 

 

 

Barring that, I think the best way to recalibrate the Electoral College to better reflect population distribution among the state (aside from the decennial Census) would be to increase the number of representatives in the House so that the average number of constituents in each district is closer. Besides, there's no way a congress person can adequately represent the voice of 750,000 people. The districts are just too large now.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25865

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Yeah, I loathe the electoral college, it’s an abhorrent structural relic of our racist past, but our current situation is a function of the fact Californians really, really, really hate Trump. 

I'm so proud of my state that ...well, it's getting dusty in here.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20635

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Yeah, I loathe the electoral college, it’s an abhorrent structural relic of our racist past, but our current situation is a function of the fact Californians really, really, really hate Trump. 

California wipeout is what happens when one political party completely ignores the entire state. It's in everyone's best interests for the Republican Party to actually acknowledge climate change, gun control, and health care and present policies. 

The electoral college is not the result of this mess. It's the cause. 

 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Barring that, I think the best way to recalibrate the Electoral College to better reflect population distribution among the state (aside from the decennial Census) would be to increase the number of representatives in the House so that the average number of constituents in each district is closer. Besides, there's no way a congress person can adequately represent the voice of 750,000 people. The districts are just too large now.

i get your point and all.. but more House reps? that might be like throwing gasoline on a dumpster fire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s unique to Trump and the loathing so many Californians have for him. If he was even remotely competitive there this wouldn’t be the way it read. Not arguing that’s a good thing or bad thing for the Electoral college- just explaining why it is in this instance. 

remember, when you say "californians", you're talking about people who live here in california.  we have a large % of residents who are not native californians.  i don't have charts and graphs, but i would imagine that number is as big here as anywhere in the country.  certainly bigger than texas (although i'm sure the ca -> tx numbers are somewhat accurate).

so when we say californians loathe him, that represents americans (and foreign-born) from all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25865

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

California wipeout is what happens when one political party completely ignores the entire state. It's in everyone's best interests for the Republican Party to actually acknowledge climate change, gun control, and health care and present policies. 

The electoral college is not the result of this mess. It's the cause. 

 

 

I'd add "not assfucking high SALT people" too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25865

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

remember, when you say "californians", you're talking about people who live here in california.  we have a large % of residents who are not native californians.  i don't have charts and graphs, but i would imagine that number is as big here as anywhere in the country.  certainly bigger than texas (although i'm sure the ca -> tx numbers are somewhat accurate).

so when we say californians loathe him, that represents americans (and foreign-born) from all over.

I agree with the above.  Just attend any professional sporting event in CA; you'll find a sizable chunk of the crowd rooting for the visitor.  It seems that everybody here is from somewhere else.  I've always believed that the military has a lot to do with that.  In my father's case, he found Camp Pendleton and it's surroundings to be more appealing than Greater Lubbock, so he never went back "home".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45477

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, yoladu said:

"Red Mirage"

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-phantom-win-election-1528948

Mail-in ballots will be deemed "not real votes", there will be claims of a "stolen election" while mail-in ballots are being counted after Tuesday. not good.

It may get very ugly.

This would be so bad.  I really think Dems need to switch their messaging to "only vote by mail if you really have a compromised immune system, otherwise mask up, social distance, and get the fuck to the polls, early if possible."  Or something like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18963

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Yeah, I loathe the electoral college, it’s an abhorrent structural relic of our racist past, but our current situation is a function of the fact Californians really, really, really hate Trump. 

Sure.  Imagine a counterfactual where the Dems nominated someone super liberal, liberal enough that they were going to win California by 5 points, but were going to lose Texas by 25 points.  The chart would read completely as an inverse of what it currently reads.  The dem candidate winning the popular vote by 1 point would have essentially a 100% chance of winning the election. The dem losing the popular vote by 1% would have a 95% chance of winning the EC, and so on down the line.  

Since this is just numbers, I will leave it at that. I was showing the work for why this is the situation we find ourselves in in 2020, for those who might not know or consider why those numbers read the way they do.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18963

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

remember, when you say "californians", you're talking about people who live here in california.  we have a large % of residents who are not native californians.  i don't have charts and graphs, but i would imagine that number is as big here as anywhere in the country.  certainly bigger than texas (although i'm sure the ca -> tx numbers are somewhat accurate).

so when we say californians loathe him, that represents americans (and foreign-born) from all over.

I meant it not in any metaphysical sense but merely as "people who vote in California in 2020".  It's an incredibly limited point explaining merely why the numbers on the chart look the way they do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18963

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I agree with the above.  Just attend any professional sporting event in CA; you'll find a sizable chunk of the crowd rooting for the visitor.  It seems that everybody here is from somewhere else.  I've always believed that the military has a lot to do with that.  In my father's case, he found Camp Pendleton and it's surroundings to be more appealing than Greater Lubbock, so he never went back "home".  

Same as Houston.  Nobody is from Houston.  Nobody is from California.  *Nobody obviously not to be taken literally in this sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

 If I were forced to put money on it, I'd say no. But nothing about the last 4+ years has made sense. I never thought he'd get the nomination, much less win last time. Nothing surprises me anymore, and nothing is for sure. I'm taking nothing for granted. 

I'm in the same place -- I think this race is a shitload closer to 50/50 than any folks around here will admit.  Oh, and I knew he was going to get the nomination and win, within a few weeks of him announcing his candidacy.  The writing was on the wall, and the soil was prepped for exactly his kind of candidacy.

4 hours ago, Lobo said:

It's not enough just to vote.  We're gonna have to contend with voter suppression, miscounts in swing states, deceit, fraud, etc.  
 

He has to lose at the polls, lose at the final EC count, lose the court battles, get convicted of crimes in New York, and then die painfully alone in Florida, and his grave shat upon. 

You guys just looking to get a sticker on Election Day are already part of the problem. 

The movement must be eviscerated, otherwise his close ballot loss just becomes a rallying point. 

Definitely this.  Even if Biden wins (IF).....that ain't victory.  It's not Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and papers being signed on the deck of the Missouri.  It's Midway.  All we will have done is won the opportunity to try to win the war.

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Nobody did.  But in hindsight, I think that it is understandable. He was the culmination of decades of the GOP governing contrary to their stated principles (fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc.).  That was all bullshit, they have no core governing principles, and as that became apparent it gave an opening to a narcissistic con man to squeeze out the establishment, take over the brainless base, and fill the void with whatever he wanted.

Ahem.  Not "nobody."  Some of us saw him winning for exactly the reasons you pointed to.  Any illusions that the GOP had any governing principles died the day Obama was elected, when they decided that their sole governing principle was "fuck that Kenyan muslim fascist communist terrorist."  That approach got traction, attracted incredible passion, and has governed our country for 10 years now (2010 midterm elections brought it to power, and it really hasn't looked back -- nominating Romney was their only mistake. Had they nominated a Trump in 2012, the GOP would have won).

We're fighting for a lot in November, but make no mistake -- we're just fighting to bring an end to the beginning, not the beginning of the end (see, I made a reference to BOTH fronts in WWII).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13391

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So Electoral College whining appears to be today's topic. 

The EC is a good thing and accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to accomplish. @bolverk is correct that the real issue is the House being grotesquely undersized. 

Exactly, if you doubled the size of the House, then the EC would naturally be better proportioned to actual population.  The small states would still be overindexed in the EC for their population but much less than today.

If/when Texas and Florida switch to blue, the GOP is screwed in terms of winning the WH but I think there is a natural tendency for both parties to find the right balance when it comes to their ideals. Both will go as far as they can to the extremes while still maintain a certain number of moderates. If TX/FL go blue, the Dems will become more progressive/liberal and the GOP more moderate. None of this happens overnight but it happens.

Issues that fired up conservatives a decade aren't even mentioned anymore. Obamacare and gay marriage don't even come up even though they were top of the list recently. Everyone has shifted to the left on both so they don't matter. 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I meant it not in any metaphysical sense but merely as "people who vote in California in 2020".  It's an incredibly limited point explaining merely why the numbers on the chart look the way they do.  

right.  but whether you meant it or not, there's an attitude from the right of "well, the only reason the popular vote skews the way it does is because of all the crazy radical liberal californians."  the implication is that this state has its own brand of people who were born here, raised here, live here, and have always thought one way.  the reality is that this state pretty well mirrors america as a whole, in terms of demographics.  we have everything here, including plenty of red-blooded, trump-loving, gun-toting republicans.

if arkansas, oklahoma, louisiana, mississippi, and alabama were one giant state, you could make the opposite red/blue argument about that state and its effect on the pop vote/ec.  the difference is that the people who reside there are mostly from there, and don't mirror what america overall really looks like.

it's very dismissive to blame or label the state the way some do. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure.  Imagine a counterfactual where the Dems nominated someone super liberal, liberal enough that they were going to win California by 5 points, but were going to lose Texas by 25 points.  The chart would read completely as an inverse of what it currently reads.  The dem candidate winning the popular vote by 1 point would have essentially a 100% chance of winning the election. The dem losing the popular vote by 1% would have a 95% chance of winning the EC, and so on down the line.  

Since this is just numbers, I will leave it at that. I was showing the work for why this is the situation we find ourselves in in 2020, for those who might not know or consider why those numbers read the way they do.  

thanks for your posts, made me think about all this a bit differently.

so instead of Counterfactual and looking back to the Reality... it would imply that Trump is the more radical and polarizing of the two candidates, despite Trump's claims otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Same as Houston.  Nobody is from Houston.  Nobody is from California.  *Nobody obviously not to be taken literally in this sense.

you really think houston (or anywhere in texas) is comparable?

a majority of the people i grew up with in houston currently reside in houston.  i would guess there are some other texas transplants.  hou -> dallas and dallas -> houston and so forth.  but it's nothing like what california is like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

nominating Romney was their only mistake. Had they nominated a Trump in 2012, the GOP would have won).

No way Trump beats Obama.  Not in 2012, not in 2016, not ever. 

I actually think that Romney running in 2016 might have cleared the deck of some establishment types and potentially prevented a Trump nomination. And I think that Romney would have wiped with floor with HRC.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...