The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

By all means, show the math then! Show how Trump's vote count changes based on how someone votes. That's the math.

Thats the math you want to do. If 10,000,000 vote in another scenario and 5.55 M vote for candidate A whereas 4.45 M vote for B, B loses. Now candidate C is running against candidate B and people decide they can't vote for either. 1.5 m decide not to vote, 2/3rds of which would vote for C if they had to the other 1/3rd going to B. In the new scenario 4.45M vote for B and 4.05M vote for C, C loses. If the remaining 1.5M would have voted C wins 5.05M to 4.95M.  

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Honestly though, its not worth the debate because I am in the camp those people aren't going to matter. I think there will be enough people voting that it won't make a difference 

That's one way to go, but if that's how Biden approaches it then it means Trump can expand his voting base but Biden cannot. Seems like a poor strategy for a political campaign.

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's one way to go, but if that's how Biden approaches it then it means Trump can expand his voting base but Biden cannot. Seems like a poor strategy for a political campaign.

I'm not saying Biden shouldn't try and reach people but keep spinning false narratives. All I said is in November the number of people not voting in protest isn't going to be significant enough to matter. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

Thats the math you want to do. If 10,000,000 vote in another scenario and 5.55 M vote for candidate A whereas 4.45 M vote for B, B loses. Now candidate C is running against candidate B and people decide they can't vote for either. 1.5 m decide not to vote, 2/3rds of which would vote for C if they had to the other 1/3rd going to B. In the new scenario 4.45M vote for B and 4.05M vote for C, C loses. If the remaining 1.5M would have voted C wins 5.05M to 4.95M.  

This is where your math falls apart. You make an assumption about how non-voters would actually vote. Problem is that mathematically, there's an equal chance non-voters would vote for B.

 

In order for this to work the non-voters need to be convinced not only to vote but to vote for C in higher numbers than for B (probability of voting for C higher than voting for B), which is what I've been saying the whole time. Simply getting non-voters to vote is NOT THE SAME as convincing them to vote for Biden.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

I'm not saying Biden shouldn't try and reach people but keep spinning false narratives.

You should reread what I posted. Note the use of the word "if":

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's one way to go, but if that's how Biden approaches it then it means Trump can expand his voting base but Biden cannot. Seems like a poor strategy for a political campaign.

 

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

All I said is in November the number of people not voting in protest isn't going to be significant enough to matter. 

You could be right, but I'd rather try to convince as many people as I can.

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, RedDenver said:

This is where your math falls apart. You make an assumption about how non-voters would actually vote. Problem is that mathematically, there's an equal chance non-voters would vote for B.

 

In order for this to work the non-voters need to be convinced not only to vote but to vote for C in higher numbers than for B (probability of voting for C higher than voting for B), which is what I've been saying the whole time. Simply getting non-voters to vote is NOT THE SAME as convincing them to vote for Biden.

I missed a comma. I meant to say if the 1.5 million would have voted, C wins. I did make an assumption on how nonvoters would vote, 2/3rds to C and 1/3rd to B. 

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You should reread what I posted. Note the use of the word "if":

 

You could be right, but I'd rather try to convince as many people as I can.

You assume I was giving campaign advice 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

I missed a comma. I meant to say if the 1.5 million would have voted, C wins. I did make an assumption on how nonvoters would vote, 2/3rds to C and 1/3rd to B. 

We disagree on that assumption being the default.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You assume I was giving campaign advice 

I did not. I showed how your position would apply if Biden's campaign held the same position.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

We disagree on that assumption being the default.

Its not the default its an example. What percentage of nonvoters would vote Trump if they had to vote in your opinion? 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I did not. I showed how your position would apply if Biden's campaign held the same position.

I'm not sure why they would hold that position publicly though? I was making a prediction. Of course they aren't going to pack it in now and say ya know we've done enough enough people are going to vote. 

[teachercd]

Did I read it correctly...700 more stories about Kavanaugh compared to Biden...Ha...

 

 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Its not the default its an example. What percentage of nonvoters would vote Trump if they had to vote in your opinion? 

I'm guessing close to 50% based on how polarized US politics is and how non-voters probably don't pay as much attention to the details in politics. But a quick internet search didn't find me any polling on non-voters, so I'd be interested in any data.

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, RedDenver said:

I'm guessing close to 50% based on how polarized US politics is and how non-voters probably don't pay as much attention to the details in politics. But a quick internet search didn't find me any polling on non-voters, so I'd be interested in any data.

I'd imagine at this point the data is limited on that, we may have a better idea closer to election time. I will concede there is a vast amount we don't really know and I am not considering in the very simplistic example I provided. There was a never Bernie faction that wouldn't have voted in the alternate scenario. People will change their minds one way or another between now and Novmber. I think I've gotten too caught up in this little debate because ultimately I think turnout will be pretty high this election though that could be affected by COVID 

[Danny Bateman]

This discussion has gotten a bit too in the weeds for me, but I will say this:

 

It's fine for voters, including progressives, who are on the fence to wait and see how things shake out before making up their mind. But at a certain point it will come off as almost insulting to the rest of us if they continue to say they won't vote for Biden unless he does X or Y or Z. Like Biden's good enough for the rest of us but not them unless they get certain conditions met. Voting is largely done of of self-interest anyway but if after the past four years you won't do what you can to dump Trump without having demands met it comes across a bit selfish and callous towards those suffering under Trump.

 

Some, I assume like Kulinski, are in effect saying that they're comfortable enough with another four years of Trump that they're willing to sit on their hands if their conditions are not met. That certainly doesn't demonstrate empathy or a desire to help those hurt by this administration to me. They can take their principled stands but that does not render them immune from value judgments from the rest of us.

 

But this is just my perspective. I'm not voting for Biden because he gives me everything I want. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff. I'm voting for him because he's the alternative to Trump our system gave us and I care about the people Trump is hurting.