Prediction Thread

[Sommerswerd]

I think you underestimate how close it was : a few thousand votes for Trump in some key states and it would have been a tie that would have gone in Trump's favor.
More precisely 11k (AZ) + 12k (GA) +20k (WI) and Trump wins thanks to the weird tie rules. That's tighter than 2016 (around 70k votes needed for Clinton to win).

I'm not underestimating anything. I said everything you just said in my post.

2016 wasn't close either in terms of the EC or the popular vote.

You're doing the same thing that I pointed out in my earlier post. You're mixing apples and oranges. Specifically, you're mixing EC "close" with national popular vote "close" and state popular vote "close"... depending on which suits your narrative that "it was close". It wasn't "close"... unless you selectively cherry pick to make it so.

 

[AdrienIer]

I define close as "the number of votes needed to change the outcome is small". It was microscopic in 2020.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I define close as "the number of votes needed to change the outcome is small". It was microscopic in 2020.

But that's not a useful metric because of how elections work in the EC dynamic. It always only takes one drop each to make a row of full glasses overflow, but it makes a big difference whether we are filling them with an eyedropper or a firehose.

I understand your point, the three closest States had relatively close margins in Biden's favor. Point taken. However that only matters because of the EC, which wasn't close. Those three states were close in popular vote, but the national popular vote wasn't close. So the election being "close" is an illusion created by the EC.

So on the one hand, if I say "The election wasn't close, Biden won by 7 million votes, with most votes in history and the highest percentage margin of victory in over 80 years", you will, understandably say "But vote totals don't matter, all that matters is the Electoral College". But then when I say "I agree, and the Electoral College wasn't close either", you then reply "But look at the vote totals!"

This is the point I kept making during the election about the national polls and the percentage margin lead that Biden had. I kept making the point over and over that if Biden had a certain percentage lead in the national polls, that would be a strong indicator of how he would fare in the electoral college, because the numbers are linked... and if Biden's lead slipped underneath a certain percentage, he would lose the EC, despite winning the popular vote, because again... one is predictive of the other. Once Biden's national polling lead got to a certain threshold, it was an indicator that the races in the close states would swing in his favor and vice versa.

The bottom line is Biden and/or "Not Trump" was way more popular, overwhelmingly so. That's why he won all the "close" states.

 

[caketastydelish]

I leaned towards that view as well... but given the failure to concede and all the allegations of voter fraud etc... I went back and looked... and realized that Biden was leading BIGLY in pretty much every poll, long before COVID became a major thing in the US, let alone the botched (non)response to it. So in retrospect I think that's just wishful thinking on the Republicans' part. He was losing regardless. COVID certainly didn't help, but he was going to lose anyway.

I would like to think you're right but don't forget that Hillary was also killing Trump in the polls.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I would like to think you're right but don't forget that Hillary was also killing Trump in the polls.

No, she wasn't. Trump would regularly catch up to her in the polls, and sometimes even eclipse her. In fact, two months out from the election, it was actually Trump who was ahead in most polls. Also, her margins were way tighter with Trump all along, always either within the margin of error or close to it (1-6% leads), whereas Biden was more often polling with 7-10% leads and only very rarely did Trump ever post a poll showing him leading,

And the final, day before election polling showed her with a roughly 2-3% lead on Trump, which is exactly what she ended up getting.

So the polls were certainly wrong in predicting that she would win the Presidency, but they were right that she would win the popular vote.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think at most 5 GOP senators will vote to convict Trump in the impeachment trial. Thus falling short of the required 2/3 of the Senate for conviction, will be acquitted.

I don't think he will run in 2024 but he will make continual noise like he is going to run until at the last minute he backs one of his kids to run. Whichever kid does run, they will get their ass handed to them in the primaries.

This is assuming the NY State investigations go nowhere. If it does look like he's going to be sent to prison, I still say he flees to Russia.

I was off by 2! (7 voted to convict in the end)

Re: Fleeing to Russia - see this post

 

[Gori the Grey]

I was off by 2! (7 voted to convict in the end)

Re: Fleeing to Russia - see this post

And you go see this one

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/trumps-rump.666953/page-15#post-16055800

 

[Samson]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Now that is what I call optimism.

I am merely pleasantly surprised there have not already been some.

I sadly predict there will be at least one this year.

 

[GenMarshall]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

 

[Zkribbler]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

True dat or as EnglishEdward predicts, this year.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I predict that Trump will not be reinstated in Aug of 2021 as he predicts.

 

[Kaitzilla]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

Don't forget the slaughterbots!

 

[Sommerswerd]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

Nah. Too expensive. Anyone who could afford that could buy a much cheaper, less elaborate way to blow something up from long range.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wait for the price point to shift? The "right human for the job" was probably cheaper than a cell phone in the 90s, but now they're terrific bomb parts.

If for no other reason they're significantly faster to produce regardless of their relative worth when it comes to destroying them.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We shall see the first self driving car bomb this decade.

The UN concluded that Turkey used an autonomous drone in the Libyan civil war which was allowed to designated its own targets and attack them without human input.

Nah. Too expensive. Anyone who could afford that could buy a much cheaper, less elaborate way to blow something up from long range.

As with all technologies, it'll get cheap in a hurry once it's mainstream.

 

[innonimatu]

As with all technologies, it'll get cheap in a hurry once it's mainstream.

Not really. Bombs are expensive to produced - lots of energy embodied there. But what is quite expensive always is also guarding them until use, or until they expire and have to be replaced. Drones don't change that. And longer-range bombs have to be better-guarded because if somehow lost they can be used against their previous owners. If they can be used to selectively and accurately hit high-value targets they cost of keeping them in reliable hands is creases a lot over the cost or simply stockpiling "dumb bombs" to be dropped by complex systems.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Nah. Too expensive. Anyone who could afford that could buy a much cheaper, less elaborate way to blow something up from long range.

80% of new cars in the UK are provided as contract cars where the
terrorist purchaser only has to pay a lump sum deposit to get hold of one.

And a car bomb doesn't need efficient or expensive explosives; certain agricultural
fertiliser and sugar will suffice; I believe the only tricky thing is sourcing the detonator.

 

[Zardnaar]

80% of new cars in the UK are provided as contract cars where the
terrorist purchaser only has to pay a lump sum deposit to get hold of one.

And a car bomb doesn't need efficient or expensive explosives; certain agricultural
fertiliser and sugar will suffice; I believe the only tricky thing is sourcing the detonator.

As a teenager I used to try and make my own gunpowder and a smokebomb.

Mixing certain fertilizers with suger and a bit of sulphur makes and interesting smoke bomb.

Not hard to turn it into an actual bomb.

 

[Samson]

Don't forget the slaughterbots!

No, they look like this:

Rotary Wing Attack Drone Loitering Munition System

KARGU® is a rotary wing attack drone that has been designed for asymmetric warfare or anti-terrorist operations. It can be carried by a single personnel in both autonomous and manual modes.
KARGU® can be effectively used against static or moving targets through its indigenous and real-time image processing capabilities and machine learning algorithms embedded on the platform.

• Autonomous and Precise Hit with Minimal Collateral Damage
  
• Embedded and Real-Time Object Tracking, Detection and Classification
  
• Image Processing-Based Control Applications
• Tracking Moving Targets

From the UN:

Logistics convoys and retreating HAF were subsequently hunted down and remotely engaged by the unmanned combat aerial vehicles or the lethal autonomous weapons systems such as the STM Kargu-2 and other loitering munitions. The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true “fire, forget and find” capability.
​