Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

Options
1…268269271273274…306

Comments

  • Options
    #8102
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,226 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    stefanovich wrote: »
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

    Nope, they got the information from the insecure online voting systems as I had suggested earlier.

    What did Trump do about for the last 4 years having been repeatedly warned?


  • Options
    #8103
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Funny how you are only concentrating on Iran but ignoring this



    like i said earlier it is fascinating to see Trumpists get all "concerned" about election meddling at this hour while completely ignoring that Trump is on record requesting a foreign country to meddle and his people are in courts/jail for collusion in past.

    I watched the press conference. You didn't. The FBI specifically stated Russia did nothing with the data.


  • Options
    #8104
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,811 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    stefanovich wrote: »
    I watched the press conference. You didn't. The FBI specifically stated Russia did nothing with the data.


    Ohh that makes it okay then.....


  • Options
    #8105
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Water John wrote: »
    What did Trump do about for the last 4 years having been repeatedly warned?

    He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.


  • Options
    #8106
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,189 ✭✭✭paul71


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Do you have any facts to prove your statement or only posting to spread fud and confusion?

    I had a quick look, it was not even an FBI conference, it was Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe who is a politician in the Trump administration.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8107
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    paul71 wrote: »
    I had a quick look, it was not even an FBI conference, it was Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe who is a politician in the Trump administration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eYQwNcnYFY


    Big FBI sign in the background.

    Director of the FBI speaks in the second half.


  • Options
    #8108
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,811 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    stefanovich wrote: »
    He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.


    If he was as concerned about it as he claims he could be and would be able to do quite a lot about it, but like with everything he pretends to care about nothing ever comes of it.


  • Options
    #8109
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    VinLieger wrote: »
    If he was as concerned about it as he claims he could be and would be able to do quite a lot about it, but like with everything he pretends to care about nothing ever comes of it.

    Democrats fighting tooth and nail against it.


  • Options
    #8110
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Director of the FBI speaks in the second half.

    Trump should take note:
    Christopher A. Wray wrote:
    "You should be confident that your vote counts. Early unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism."


  • Options
    #8111
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,811 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Democrats fighting tooth and nail against it.


    Yeah its the democrats fighting against election security....


    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8112
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    stefanovich wrote: »
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

    Nope, they got the information from the insecure online voting systems as I had suggested earlier.

    Where exactly does the linked WaPo article say that?


  • Options
    #8113
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

    And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

    How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

    She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?


  • Options
    #8114
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Did anyone see the FBI press conference last night?

    Iran has hacked voter data and are sending threatening emails to voters.

    This is my favourite post in this entire thread.


  • Options
    #8115
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    This is my favourite post in this entire thread.

    Why?


  • Options
    #8116
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Wow, so voter email addresses are available to everyone?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-press-conference-on-election-security-watch-live-stream-2020-10-21/

    Seems the Iranians were sending threatening emails to democrats pretending to be from right wing pro trump groups.

    Not sure who they are hoping to help or whether they just want to stoke unrest.

    The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.


  • Options
    #8117
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,572 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    amandstu wrote: »
    Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

    And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

    How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

    She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?

    It's in Woodward's personal interest that Trump remains in the White House.

    He's already gotten two books out of it.


  • Options
    #8118
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It's in Woodward's personal interest that Trump remains in the White House.

    He's already gotten two books out of it.
    Thanks for changing the subject.


  • Options
    #8119
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    amandstu wrote: »
    Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

    And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

    How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

    She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?

    Cant say for sure without hearing exactly what he said, but he may be referring to a lead in GOP new voter registrations in some states, or about enthusiasm.

    For the former - there's very little evidence that new voter regs are correlated with significant margins in presidential elections, for the latter, there was some indications over the summer that Reps were more enthusiastic than dems, and then again in September when lack of Latino enthusiasm would affect Biden. As it stands, there's no evidence of an enthusiasm gap and both sides are doing extremely well with 80% of Democrats and 75% Republicans saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year and independents polling about 20% lower.

    Given current levels of early voting, I think it's fair to say that things are going well for the dems right now. Whether this continues is another question, but my impression is that there are an awful lot of people hellbent on getting Trump out.


  • Options
    #8120
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.

    You'll have to spell it out


  • Options
    #8121
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    droidus wrote: »
    Cant say for sure without hearing exactly what he said, but he may be referring to a lead in GOP new voter registrations in come states, or about enthusiasm.

    For the former - there's very little evidence that new voter regs are correlated with significant margins in presidential elections, for the latter, there was some indications over the summer that Reps were more enthusiastic than dems, and then again in September when lack of Latino enthusiasm would affect Biden. As it stands, there's no evidence of an enthusiasm gap and both sides are doing extremely well with 80% of Democrats and 75% Republicans saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year and independents polling about 20% lower.

    Given current levels of early voting, I think it's fair to say that things are going well for the dems right now. Whether this continues is another question, but my impression is that there are an awful lot of people hellbent on getting Trump out.

    With 40 million having already having voted with the polls showing what they do has this early voting made Trumps task harder as those votes are presumably "cemented in" with a pro Biden bias?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8122
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,222 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    stefanovich wrote: »
    He is not responsible for individual state's crappy voting systems.

    Yes but guess what party leader in the senate has been sitting on a bill to prevent this kind of stuff?


  • Options
    #8123
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    amandstu wrote: »
    Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

    And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

    How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

    She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?

    RTÉ's reportage on the election the last while, and especially Brian O'Donovan's, has been remarkably soft on Trump and in fact, has sought to dampen down a lot of pro-Biden, or apparent pro-Biden reporting. It's weird.

    Bob Woodward discussing things like that would not surprise me.


  • Options
    #8124
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    amandstu wrote: »
    Listened this morning to Bob Woodward ,with Ryan Tubridy saying that the Repubs have an edge over Dems in their likelihood to turn their voting preference to actual votes cast.

    And so he was sceptical about the latest polling where,of course Biden leads fairly comfortably (and steadily)

    How valid is this?Did the same not apply to Clinton at the time (or did it?)

    She actually won the majority of the total votes and Trump squeezed in via small margins in swing (rustbelt) States


    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?

    The statistical evidence says that Trump could lose the Popular vote by up to about 4% and still have a shot at the Electoral college.

    Bidens' national lead is roughly twice that right now.

    At the State level - If you look at 2016 and today , where he won he closed the gap and over took Clinton by taking the undecided voters.

    So , anywhere the gap between the Two candidates is less than about 80% of the available undecided votes (excluding about 1.5% for the 3rd party candidates) Trump is in the hunt , if it's outside that range , he probably isn't in the running.

    So take Arizona for example.

    Biden is on 48.8% , Trump is on 45.4% so the gap is currently 3.4%

    There's 5.6% not choosing those two , leaving about 5.6% available.

    Subtract the 1.5% for the 3rd party and you have about 4.1% left on the table.

    In 2016 , Trump gathered about 80% of the undecided vote on average so if he performed at a similar level again he'd gain an extra ~3.3%.

    With Biden picking up the other 20% of the undecideds , that would leave it a narrow Biden win.

    Biden 49.6% , Trump 48.7%

    However , that assumes that the undecideds break heavily for Trump again. They could but it's hard to see it.

    A large element of that break was down to a "Give it a go, what have we got to lose" reaction.

    Not convinced that there's many that are going to make that call in Trumps favour this time


  • Options
    #8125
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    amandstu wrote: »
    Why?
    amandstu wrote: »
    You'll have to spell it out

    Ah come on now? Really? You can't see anything humorous or hypocritical in stef's posts?


  • Options
    #8126
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,987 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    This is my favourite post in this entire thread.
    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    The level of "the lady doth protest too much" in this post is just breathtaking.
    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Ah come on now? Really? You can't see anything humorous or hypocritical in stef's posts?

    No more of nonsense please. These silly comments are adding absolutely nothing to the thread.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #8127
    froog
    Registered Users Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭froog


    most main polling companies have adjusted their models etc since 2016.

    also as others have pointed out, 2016 polling was a lot more accurate than what some would have you believe.

    trump is legitimately in big trouble right now.


  • Options
    #8128
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭amandstu


    froog wrote: »
    most main polling companies have adjusted their models etc since 2016.

    also as others have pointed out, 2016 polling was a lot more accurate than what some would have you believe.

    trump is legitimately in big trouble right now.


    Yes,I was extremely disappointed but not equally surprised in 2016.


    Clinton did in fact get most votes but her campaign was damaged by the reopening of the investigation into her emails immediately before the election.

    (Faulty) perception counted for too much.


  • Options
    #8129
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    amandstu wrote: »
    How much softness might there actually be in the Biden support compared to Trumps?

    1%? 2%?.... more?less?

    Nobody knows. The pollsters have updated their methods since 2016 to correct various errors. The 2018 polls were pretty accurate.

    But maybe there is some new error. Thats why you see lots of people writing "Even if we knock 5% off Bidens lead for polling errors" stuff.

    What you seldom see is people saying maybe the pollsters have corrected too far, and Biden is really further ahead, and will win 400 EVs. There is no reason to suppose polling errors will fall Trumps way this time.


  • Options
    #8130
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,172 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    OS_Head wrote: »
    Ha, you mean asking Ukraine and China to investigate the Biden family of corruption. It's not the first time a President has asked a foreign power to investigate someone. The Senate believe that he acted in good faith by requesting an investigation. That is all that matters with this. Now did Pelosi et al impeach in good faith or was it just for political gain. I think after they loose the election, there will be some Democrats in the firing line, and it's about time.

    A year later and Biden's laptop has surfaced. Turns out, what Trump knew on the Grapevine was true and the Bidens are as corrupt as they come.

    You’re very confused about what’s actually happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8131
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    amandstu wrote: »
    Yes,I was extremely disappointed but not equally surprised in 2016.


    Clinton did in fact get most votes but her campaign was damaged by the reopening of the investigation into her emails immediately before the election.

    (Faulty) perception counted for too much.

    That absolutely contributed to the heavy break to Trump from the undecided voters.

    It didn't really change any Clinton voters minds , but the undecided vote took the "give him a shot" route.

    That cohort don't really exist in sufficient numbers in enough places this time around.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement