The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

Moiraine said:
That is potentially true, but it's less likely this time. I was just looking at Michigan, and they aggregated polls were off by 3.4 points in 2016. They had Clinton winning by 3.4 and she lost by 0.23. But there were a whopping 12.6% of people undecided.

Biden is currently up by 5.1 and 5.5% of people are undecided. If the polls are off by the same amount as last time, Biden still wins.
Click to expand...


Allegedly these errors were corrected for mid-term polling in 2018. If you had info on how much more/less/same accurate those polls were, that would be telling.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I honestly don't know what will happen tomorrow. But if Joe Biden wins, you will be allowed to own all the guns you want, worship your God however you want, and hate whomever you want in the privacy of your own home. Our economy and economic ideology will continue largely on the same path it has been on through Trump, Obama, Bush....basically most of American history. If you are one of the people who will have to pay slightly more in taxes, congratulations -- you are earning over $400,000 a year and your tax rate will still be considerably lower than it was during those decades when America was Great. The federal deficit -- which soared under Trump as it does most Republican administrations, — will soar at a slightly lower rate. China will remain a powerful adversary and valuable trade partner and because of this conundrum, Joe Biden is likely to be as inconsistent in his China policy as Donald Trump. Under Biden, the American military will remain the most powerful in the world by an exponential factor. People with better experience and greater respect will take over cabinet and advisory positions to the benefit of all. There will be an attempt to better fund social programs, reinstate regulations that were vindictively over-turned, and seek environmental solutions that are long overdue, and potentially beneficial to the economy. You don't have to view them as infringements on your personal freedoms. In most cases they make our world a better place. There aren't many card carrying Socialists out there, but they would laugh at anyone describing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as socialists. There aren't many true fascists out there, either, and most of us would like to keep it that way. There are two sides to every story, but right now one of them is dangerously insane. If you love America and can't bring yourself to vote for Joe Biden, it would be sporting of you not to vote for Donald Trump. He's that bad. 
Click to expand...
Perhaps the post of the this election cycle.  :thumbs :worship :clap

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
But I'm mindful of the warning Michael Moore gave in 2016 and repeated this year: Many Trump supporters prefer the shadows, thwarting the pollsters, and avoiding judgement for supporting a racist, divisive, possibly insane President. Given the chance to be anonymous, they still bring big numbers that will be breaking late. 
Click to expand...
To your point, while I was driving around during noon today, doing 'honey-dos', I heard Rush give a lot of credibility to the Iowa poll where it shows Biden fading and Trump rising.  This is giving hope to trumpists that 2016 is about to repeat itself.  I understand that the Iowa poll is supposedly has this reputation of high integrity and low bias.   So this is the hope tRump supporters are cling to today.

The actual poll here:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2020/10/31/election-2020-iowa-poll-president-donald-trump-leads-joe-biden/6061937002/

This CNN article below reflects what Rush was saying and what Michael Moore is saying and what you, Guy, are saying - it aint over until it is over. And it won't be over when it 'should' be over.   If Trump is lagging behind slightly on election night, we will have lawsuit jungle like we've never seen before - making 2000 seem like a pebble on the road. If Trump somehow has a lead, we will see lawsuits trying to shut down counting to 12 midnight election day.  What is needed is an early electoral blowout to take the wind out of trump's lawsuit sails.

The article goes into CYA mode at the end to paint the picture both ways. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/politics/iowa-poll-selzer/index.html


A new Des Moines Register/Selzer and Co. poll from Iowa likely voters has President Donald Trump leading Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by a 48% to 41% margin.
The average poll in Iowa has Trump up by 2 points.
What's the point: Let's be very clear, Biden is the favorite in polling to take back the White House. He leads in the swing states necessary to get 270 electoral votes, and those leads are wider than the ones Hillary Clinton had four years ago.
The Selzer poll is an exception to that rule. If it is correct, Trump is in a far better position than assumed, and we could be in for a much closer race than many expect.
Click to expand...
 
 

But as I noted at the top, the average poll in Iowa paints the picture of a race that is too close to call. There are plenty of polls taken within the last few weeks that show Biden or Trump slightly ahead or slightly behind (Monmouth University, New York Times/Siena College and Quinnipiac University).
The reason why the Selzer poll gives Democrats chills and Republicans hope is the history of the Selzer poll. Four years ago, the final Selzer poll had Trump up by an identical 7 points in Iowa. Trump won by 9 points.
Just like then, this 2020 poll comes in the midst of polling in a lot of other states that have Trump in trouble.
Moreover, the 2016 example is not the only time in which Selzer was unafraid to publish a seeming outlier that proved to be correct. (The 2008 Democratic Iowa caucuses were another example.)
All that being said, there are many reasons to doubt that this Iowa poll is really telling us all that much. While Selzer is a fantastic pollster, every pollster has the occasional outlier. Selzer has been wrong before. Pollsters aren't magicians. It's the sign of a good pollster that they are willing to publish polls that don't look like other ones.
Click to expand...





 
Trump supporters read the below and believe Biden is fearing a trump win.  :laughpound

https://www.axios.com/biden-campaign-under-no-scenario-will-trump-be-declared-winner-on-election-night-a2de120b-7529-4a8d-af5a-cc7cf5723fe2.html

The Biden campaign is preparing for a long election night, and is warning the country — and the media — to ignore any victory declaration from President Trump before all the ballots are counted.

Why it matters: Trump has told confidants that he will prematurely declare victory on election night if he looks like he’s "ahead," even if crucial states haven't finished counting. “Under no scenario will Donald Trump be declared a victor on election night,” Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a briefing Monday.

The big picture: The Biden campaign has focused its efforts on convincing its supporters to either vote by mail or vote early in person.

  • On Monday, the campaign made the case that Biden has three pathways to 270 electoral votes, with the easiest route running through Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
  • The campaign also argued that the early numbers show that they have banked enough votes to make a Trump victory difficult to achieve on Election Day.
  • The campaign believes Trump will need 61% of the vote on Election Day to win in Wisconsin, and 62% in North Carolina, O’Malley Dillon said.
  • In Arizona, she put the figure at 60% to overcome the votes the Biden camp thinks the former vice president has already won
Click to expand...
  • .
 
Federal judge just ruled against yet ANOTHER Texas Republican attempt to toss ballots.

They've tried this particular move several times and keep getting slapped down.


 
Danny Bateman said:
Federal judge just ruled against yet ANOTHER Texas Republican attempt to toss ballots.

They've tried this particular move several times and keep getting slapped down.
Click to expand...
Trump is in for a world of hurt if he thinks judges are going to throw out legit votes because Donald Trump said so. s#!tty strategy to lean on, as evidence by recent rulings - even by conservative judges. 

 
Danny Bateman said:
Federal judge just ruled against yet ANOTHER Texas Republican attempt to toss ballots.

They've tried this particular move several times and keep getting slapped down.
Click to expand...




Not entirely on the topic of these 100,000 but I believe a county should be allowed to supplement polling places if they need more. It's ridiculous that the # of polling places per person is vastly different in so many places, and a lot of it is decided by GOP state legislatures. IMO a fair law would be that a county can add enough polling places to equal the least polling places per person in the state. So if there is a county with 2 polling places for 8,000 people, any county in the state should be able to have 1 polling place per 4,000 people if they are willing to make it happen.

But a better solution would be a federal law that makes that requirement and the states can get federal funding to make sure it happens.


It is kind of related to the 100,000 though. They were trying to make it easier for those people to vote during Covid. The GOP is claiming OTHER counties are disenfranchised because this one made it easier. And it's a disgusting argument because the GOP are reducing polling places in Democratic areas all over the place. I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that it is still harder to vote in this county.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Not entirely on the topic of these 100,000 but I believe a county should be allowed to supplement polling places if they need more. It's ridiculous that the # of polling places per person is vastly different in so many places, and a lot of it is decided by GOP state legislatures. IMO a fair law would be that a county can add enough polling places to equal the least polling places per person in the state. So if there is a county with 2 polling places for 8,000 people, any county in the state should be able to have 1 polling place per 4,000 people if they are willing to make it happen.

But a better solution would be a federal law that makes that requirement and the states can get federal funding to make sure it happens.
Click to expand...


Isn't this in part what the Voter Rights Act tried to enforce, before the Supreme Court struck it down a few years ago?

 
knapplc said:
Isn't this in part what the Voter Rights Act tried to enforce, before the Supreme Court struck it down a few years ago?
Click to expand...
Probably - I think the southern states or other states with a history of racism had to prove they were being fair. Then once the Voting Rights Act went away they started back with openly racist decisions on how many polling places an area got. It needs to be made a federal law and then when the Supreme Court strikes it down, add more SCJ.

 
When you get slapped down without comment by the Texas Supreme Court (yesterday) which is currently 9-0 Republicans, you should maybe reassess whether the argument is making is s#!tty.

I would also add that the only reason some of these innovations that make it easier to vote, like drive-thru voting and 24-hour voting centers to accommodate those who work odd hours, exist in Harris County is because this guy was appointed to serve as the interim Harris County Clerk and Chief Elections Officer by the Harris County Commissioners Court, who voted 3-2 along party lines to approve the appointment. The three Democrats on the court won elections in either 2016 and 2018. The two from 2018 won their seats by 1.0 and 1.6 pts, respectively.

Which brings us the long way around back to the real point, here...

Elections have consequences. :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top