2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Drakle]

It is impossible for Trump to win fairly. He would be the incumbent in the worst economic situation, with the worse favourables, with the biggest favorability gap between him and the challenger, to ever win reelection if he was reelected. Even he knows it. At his rallies, he talks non stop about throwing out ballots and stopping the count. The GOP has already gone crazy with electoral suppression. That isn't winning fairly. They know they are a minority, lording it over a majority, and taunting them. Trump won a squeaker of a victory, and he spent 4 years, not reaching across the aisle, but non stop attacking everybody who isn't a cultist, and destroying the economy and health of America.

Clinton would have won, with less than a per cent more of the vote, on top of her 2 percentage point popular vote lead. Biden is up anywhere from 7 to double digits. Even if the EC disadvantage dramatically expands, he has more then enough of a buffer to win.

Biden losing, is asking yourself to either believe that polling suddenly just became the worst it ever was in the modern era, even with constant innovation and adjustments to prior errors.

or to believe that the people who loudly proclaim 'we will steal this election', will try and steal it.


Also, it is Republicans and Trump supporter who say democracy is bad, 'we are a republic, not a democracy', and support anti-democracy judges and legislation. Democrats rhetorically are all for democracy and legislate accordingly.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is on the ballot in 5 states today. If passed, about 48% of all EC votes will be in states that have signed on, which means there is a chance that by 2024 another state or two will have passed it and thus the EC will be made irrelevant.

The Compact is basically when states pass laws which bind their EC votes to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of who won in that state. Once enough states have passed it such that they represent 270 EC votes in total, the EC becomes irrelevant and we will have our Presidents decided by popular vote.

The states where it's on the ballot:

• Maryland

• Virginia

• Ohio

• South Carolina

• Colorado (it already passed the state legislature in Colorado and was enacted but there is a new referendum this year which could reaffirm or override the legislature)

 

[JPetroski]

It is impossible for Trump to win fairly. He would be the incumbent in the worst economic situation, with the worse favourables, with the biggest favorability gap between him and the challenger, to ever win reelection if he was reelected. Even he knows it. At his rallies, he talks non stop about throwing out ballots and stopping the count. The GOP has already gone crazy with electoral suppression. That isn't winning fairly. They know they are a minority, lording it over a majority, and taunting them. Trump won a squeaker of a victory, and he spent 4 years, not reaching across the aisle, but non stop attacking everybody who isn't a cultist, and destroying the economy and health of America.

Clinton would have won, with less than a per cent more of the vote, on top of her 2 percentage point popular vote lead. Biden is up anywhere from 7 to double digits. Even if the EC disadvantage dramatically expands, he has more then enough of a buffer to win.

Biden losing, is asking yourself to either believe that polling suddenly just became the worst it ever was in the modern era, even with constant innovation and adjustments to prior errors.

or to believe that the people who loudly proclaim 'we will steal this election', will try and steal it.


Also, it is Republicans and Trump supporter who say democracy is bad, 'we are a republic, not a democracy', and support anti-democracy judges and legislation. Democrats rhetorically are all for democracy and legislate accordingly.

I have to agree with you. There's no way a Trump win isn't "suspect" to be exceptionally generous. I expect him to be completely blown out.

This is fine by me. Biden is an ok guy who won't go out of his way to ostracize others, and Washington has darn near zero impact on my life, anyway. Life will go on and it'll be good to let the left fix everything, as they claim to be capable of. If they go too crazy, they'll get reeled in at midterms, anyway.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yes I will take the pretend. You’re honesty for your disregard of your neighbors has us on the precipice of war. You think re-electing Trump is going to stop BLM the next time a cop kills someone stupidly? Or is it going to stop antifa from confronting white nationalist rallies? Or maybe you think the women who have marched before and continue to protest this man and his administration will just be cowed because he is re-elected?

Antifa was not marching against white supremacists. They were marching against law and order, including fire bombing courthouses. You literally are saying you prefer violence to order. What's with that?

At least if Biden wins he will not vindictively punish his political adversaries or try to force fealty through extortion over states that do not line up with him. You know the more I think about it the more th support for Trump is nothing short of hateful bullfeathers.

Why not? The Democrats were vindictive when they lost.

yea death spiral. No matter what time line you choose using fossil fuel kills civilization. The end of this century? Maybe the next? You can’t grow food to feed 11 billion people when less then a third of the land is left arable. It’s funny. Ag departments in the rural states are warning you guys about this but you just ignore it because talk radio and the Koch brothers tell you to. ******* lemmings off the stupidest cliff man ever came upon.

Pollution is a problem, but not a civilization killing one. AGW isn't even a serious problem.

Objectively, a Clinton presidency would have less American deaths by this point.

This is crazy talk. Clinton would have more troops in harm's way. Mark Cuomo would still have put COVID positive people into unprepared senior care facilities. Objectively, you cannot even make a reasonable case.

Today is a good day to bake cookies, or brownies, or pies, or anything else delicious. I think my wife is going to make us some crepes this afternoon.

Need the munchies for the late night.

It is impossible for Trump to win fairly. He would be the incumbent in the worst economic situation, with the worse favourables, with the biggest favorability gap between him and the challenger, to ever win reelection if he was reelected. Even he knows it. At his rallies, he talks non stop about throwing out ballots and stopping the count. The GOP has already gone crazy with electoral suppression. That isn't winning fairly. They know they are a minority, lording it over a majority, and taunting them. Trump won a squeaker of a victory, and he spent 4 years, not reaching across the aisle, but non stop attacking everybody who isn't a cultist, and destroying the economy and health of America.

It's very possible for Trump to win fairly. It's why he talks of Democrats cheating.

Clinton would have won, with less than a per cent more of the vote, on top of her 2 percentage point popular vote lead. Biden is up anywhere from 7 to double digits. Even if the EC disadvantage dramatically expands, he has more then enough of a buffer to win.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

Biden losing, is asking yourself to either believe that polling suddenly just became the worst it ever was in the modern era, even with constant innovation and adjustments to prior errors. or to believe that the people who loudly proclaim 'we will steal this election', will try and steal it.

It's not the Republicans who would try to steal. Remember 2000, when Al Gore lost a fair election. It is not possible to examine the facts and reach a different conclusion.

Also, it is Republicans and Trump supporter who say democracy is bad, 'we are a republic, not a democracy', and support anti-democracy judges and legislation. Democrats rhetorically are all for democracy and legislate accordingly.

I'm not clear on where this is going. Both sides remind you that it is a representative republic when the occasion suits.

I give you that Democrats are all rhetoric. Will Rogers used to say, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." That said, I voted both parties in this election.

J

 

[uppi]

I assume another complainant could file another suit, although not in time to have any effect on this election. The ruling wasn't on the merits of the claim, and my suspicion is that the judge said publicly how he would have ruled as a kind of warning to the proponents of these "drive-through" ballots: "Get your legislative [act] together and get this done properly, 'cause next time I'll have to find for the other side."

I read it as virtue signaling: "I am doing my part on voter suppression, but I won't be the one who throws out 100k votes".

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're preaching that AGW isn't a problem now, then you owe more to its victims if you're wrong. No court will enforce it, but morality does.

Good luck convincing a denier to hand over money when they could spend it on themselves

The other didn't.

If there was sufficient differential risk from this activity, it would have expressed itself in ways that people would have noticed. It would have lost him the election.

It's not the Republicans who would try to steal.

This isn't true. Part of Trump's appeal is that he'll do anything to win. His base wants him to engage in every single dirty trick available

 

[EgonSpengler]

I read it as virtue signaling: "I am doing my part on voter suppression, but I won't be the one who throws out 100k votes".

Yes, that's possible. I prefer to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt than assume he's a [tool] who lacks the courage of his convictions, but you do you, man.

 

[Gorbles]

Are you really... arguing that a conspiracy that has been discovered can no longer be described as a conspiracy? To the point where you feel it's worth singling that out as a point of contention and trying to make out it's some crazy belief that only I hold? Can you see why I've had a go at you a few times for littering your responses with pointless rabbit holes and asides? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (because I'm having a good day) and assume this is somehow not something you do deliberately, but can you please explain why you thought this whole definition of "conspiracy" thing was worth quibbling over?

I'm arguing that it doesn't require much looking for, as per your claim of people going looking for conspiracies. It's hardly a rabbit hole, is it? You claimed something of Democrat voters and their supporters, worded in such a way that states they deliberately go out of their way to call foul on an arguably-democratic election.

Not only, if the conspiracy is discovered and true, does it render said election undemocratic (thus undermining your entire criticism of said voters and supporters), but it also means they don't have to go looking for it. Which means they're not innately disdainful of election results that don't go their way.

I was charitable to you too! I even said what I originally believed. However, you are now starting to vanish down the pit of arguing semantics and then blaming it on others.

I'll again be charitable and assume this is you realising you started to dig this pointless pit and are backing away from it, rather than trying to pin it on me somehow.

You were the one correcting the semantics of conspiracy, and ignoring my repeated clarification that it was your assertion that people went looking for such. At best, we're both guilty. C'est la vie.

How exactly does it do that? Pretty sure I said something along the lines of "let's not pretend disdain for democracy is something that's unique to Trump voters". How does someone else claiming that Trump and his voters don't disdain it at all work against that? Unless by "work against" you just mean "doesn't 100% match". I guess I'll have to conspire (good word that) with Joij21 in future to make sure we present a united front... for some reason.

It works against your criticism of Democrat voters and supporters by the fact that they are both voting and not demanding that Biden win by referendum alone.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a consistent interpretation that works for both parties.

 

[Zelig]

A disdain for democracy seems pretty prevalent on the losing side these days in general. If Trump manages to win I doubt we're going to see much "respecting the democratic decision" going on from the Democrat side.

If Trump manages to win the popular vote, I expect the Democrat side will be too busy bemoaning the end of empiricism to worry overmuch about platitudes to the democratic decision.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I voted in person today. Couldn't trust republican Wisconsin Supreme Court trying to void my absentee ballot, so I figured the best bet for my vote to count was to vote the day of.

Went to polls at 7:45 after dropping kids off at school, saw the long line, turned around and figured I would check in later. At 9:30 went back, line just as long, so I figured, Ok, let's just get this done with. First asked a guy who was leaving how long it took him and he said an hour. The line wrapped around the back parking lot of the church in seemingly a random pattern. Of course the early voters parked their car in this parking lot, so parts of the line had to disperse a bit at times to let people pull out.

Once I got in the building (was told they originally were only allowing 5 voters in the building at a time, but later expanded it to 11), I was in and out with registering and voting in 5 minutes. Total time spent was about 50 minutes. There was an 'observer' there, looked like he was probably a reporter from the local, weekly paper if I had to guess.

Pen and paper voting, fed into a machine that displays a counter of the number of votes cast, and between the two machines together was at 650 or so at 10:20 AM. Don't think that would include absentee ballots, as I would think they count those after polls close, but could be wrong. About 2,000 voted in 2016.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If there was sufficient differential risk from this activity, it would have expressed itself in ways that people would have noticed. It would have lost him the election.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/31/trump-study-coronavirus-rallies-433760

I call that differential risk.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Biden will win the popular vote; the question is by how much. Winner take all electoral college needs to go.

 

[El_Machinae]

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/31/trump-study-coronavirus-rallies-433760

I call that differential risk.

Not significant enough to damage his election chances. Voters needed to know somebody who died or got seriously ill. It didn't happen, because people had different framings of the risk and then Trump won by out-campaigning Biden

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not significant enough to damage his election chances. Voters needed to know somebody who died or got seriously ill. It didn't happen, because people had different framings of the risk and then Trump won by out-campaigning Biden

Oh sure, it won't sway any votes. I'm aware of that. But it's not because of the risk. It's because a study like this won't register. It's Libruls making stuff up to make Trump look bad. Like any news that's negative towards Trump. It only hardens their conviction that they're the victims because we're afraid of all the Truths Trump is telling.

Their bubble is more airtight than an otter's anus.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it is a different framing of risk. Democrats thought that rallies would significantly increase death. As in socially significantly. They didn't want to have one because they were afraid of damaging somebody they knew.

Trump's rallies didn't cause that damage. And so the cohort that wasn't willing to risk itself for democracy loses

 

[Farm Boy]

Pen and paper voting, fed into a machine that displays a counter of the number of votes cast, and between the two machines together was at 650 or so at 10:20 AM. Don't think that would include absentee ballots, as I would think they count those after polls close, but could be wrong. About 2,000 voted in 2016.

Almost every state, and every battleground state, has gone 100% paper ballots. Which is blessedly sane given the alternatives.

 

[CKS]

I have the day off today, thanks to a new Illinois law. I went to vote around 10 am. I drove, because my wife said she wanted to go to McDonalds and get coffee as soon as I was done, but otherwise it would have been a 10 minute walk. Two precincts vote at my local polling place, an alternative school. They moved us from a conference room into the gym this year, with separate doors for going in and going out.

The entire time I was there, there were 4 other people in to vote. I did have to wait about 30 s between checking in and getting my ballot, because there were some alphabetizing issues with the person in front of me and they couldn't find his page. There was a guy from the other precinct commenting that he couldn't believe that he was only the fifth person to vote in person today. (I was number 83.) The booths were spaced quite widely, but only one other person was actually voting during the time I was marking my ballot (paper and pen).

I really wish that everyone else could have this kind of voting experience.

 

[Farm Boy]

Getting the day off is wonderful if you're a teacher. It kinda boned the hell out of all the farmers trying to do corn now that their kids are off school. Bunch of bored kids in cabs(it's fun for like 2 hours). Sister has bailed me out for now. But that's definitely an IL dynamic. Federalize the holiday already! Screw these statehouse stooges.

 

[JPetroski]

It took about 8 minutes or so of standing in line but then I went at 6:30, which is probably a busier time. I think we have 4 stations for a population of 20,000 (18 and over).

 

[Ferocitus]

Good luck, Americans! I sincerely hope you get the president you deserve.
But if Kanye doesn't win, please don't get angry and fire at the ceiling - consider the upstairs neighbours.