US Presidential Election 2020

amandstu · 22-10-2020 2:34pm

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater?

(if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

Christy42 · 22-10-2020 2:38pm

amandstu wrote: »

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater (if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

I reckon most early voters are fairly safe voters anyway.

Still probably helps a bit. Stops people from suddenly being busy on the day or losing motivation. It helps but future proof is probably overselling.

Any uptick in voting will favour the Democrats massively.

amandstu · 22-10-2020 2:54pm

Christy42 wrote: »

I reckon most early voters are fairly safe voters anyway.

Still probably helps a bit. Stops people from suddenly being busy on the day or losing motivation. It helps but future proof is probably overselling.

Any uptick in voting will favour the Democrats massively.

See what you mean but would early voting have swung it for Clinton in 2016?

The unfortunate effect of the last minute reopening of the email investigation would have been somewhat lessened probably .....

Same dynamic might work in Biden's (the current "leader") favour this time around.

Is Obama going to be an asset for Biden now?

Do those drive-in rallies take from his shine if there is so little give and take with the audience?

Wonder what input he has to the electoral strategy

TomOnBoard · 22-10-2020 3:07pm

Quote: stefanovich
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.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Where exactly does the linked WaPo article say that?

So, I'll take it from your failure to provide evidence that you're just making stuff up and trying to further the 'widespread voting fraud' BS narrative that Trumpland is spreading to get ahead of a historic defeat of a sitting POTUS.

Colour me shocked!!!

droidus · 22-10-2020 3:08pm

amandstu wrote: »

Have the 40 million or so early votes cast "futureproofed" the election in Biden's favour since the opinion polls at the time of casting were significantly in his favour and any late Trump surge would need to be that much greater?

(if the gap is large at what point I wonder might it become unassailable?)

Thats the prevailing wisdom, yes.

Looking at the numbers today. 45 million votes so far. Dems ahead in all swing states where party is recorded.

TomOnBoard · 22-10-2020 3:11pm

droidus wrote: »

Thats the prevailing wisdom, yes.

Looking at the number today. 45 million votes so far. Dems ahead in all swing states where party is recorded.

So, is that around 5 million votes a day? If so, over a hundred million will have voted before Nov 3. Awesome!

droidus · 22-10-2020 3:13pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, is that around 5 million votes a day? If so, over a hundred million will have voted before Nov 3. Awesome!

Im not sure it will continue at the same rate, but yes, that would be good.

Foxtrol · 22-10-2020 3:41pm

I think many analysts including Woodward are just covering their asses after 2016. Despite how they should know better they also hear the noise about how wrong the polls were in 2016, a claim that has been proven to be untrue in most cases. They don't want to say what nearly every metrics is pointing to as the most likely scenario incase it is used against them post election, as an example how wrong they were again.

It is a far easier and safer position to underestimate a Biden win than overestimate a Trump loss, despite how cowardly that is.

weisses · 22-10-2020 3:51pm

stefanovich wrote: »

The rallies are pointless. Makes him look like a joke.

Im saying that for the last 4 years.

spacecoyote · 22-10-2020 3:53pm

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?

I would have said that given the voter enthusiasm levels that those who say they're going to vote are voting.

As mentioned Clinton actually outperformed her polling of Democrats, so I wouldn't fully agree with Woodward. Trump won by taking the lions share of the undecided, which is a much smaller set of voters this time around

everlast75 · 22-10-2020 3:58pm

https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1319289623089016832?s=19

This is quite something

is_that_so · 22-10-2020 7:20pm

Slightly left field but a study on how people in the US respond to hot button words.

How can the partisan divide be bridged when conservatives and liberals consume the same political content, yet interpret it through their own biased lens?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201020150509.htm

BonnieSituation · 22-10-2020 7:26pm

What time is the debate on at tonight?

Judging by the walk out from the Stahl interview it will be a cracker.

TomOnBoard · 22-10-2020 7:42pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What time is the debate on at tonight?

Judging by the walk out from the Stahl interview it will be a cracker.

2 AM Irish time AFAIK

Water John · 22-10-2020 8:03pm

Enthusiasm among his supporters voting for Trump is higher than those of Biden. That doesn't say anything about the numbers. Many voting for Biden with grim determination.

Foxtrol · 22-10-2020 8:09pm

Water John wrote: »

Enthusiasm among his supporters voting for Trump is higher than those of Biden. That doesn't say anything about the numbers. Many voting for Biden with grim determination.

From what I've seen enthusiasm has depended on how the question has been asked.

'Enthusiasm for candidate x' has Trump leading but they are quite close for supporters of both when the question is asking their 'Enthusiasm to vote in the election'. The latter is all that really matters.

duploelabs · 22-10-2020 11:07pm

Wasn't there a trumpet here recently saying trump supporters weren't engaging in voter suppression?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7aqaw/armed-men-who-claimed-to-be-hired-by-trump-showed-up-at-a-florida-polling-place

"Pinellas County elections supervisor Julie Marcus, a Republican, said that the men, dressed like security guards, arrived at an early voting site in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, pitched a tent, and told sheriff’s deputies they’d been hired by the Trump campaign, according to WFLA, NBC’s Tampa affiliate. They also said they’d be back on Thursday."

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 8:49am

More intimidation of voters by trump supporters

https://www.krwg.org/post/report-trump-supporters-obstruct-and-intimidate-voters-albuquerque

" A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location"

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:06am

duploelabs wrote: »

More intimidation of voters by trump supporters

https://www.krwg.org/post/report-trump-supporters-obstruct-and-intimidate-voters-albuquerque

" A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location"

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 10:25am

Physical intimidation at polling stations is the actions of a tinpot dictatorship; equivocating over an online portal leveraging public data - this conversation was literally just had re. America's lax primacy laws - hardly rings true. Especially when the messaging over "poll watching" comes from the President himself. Playing a game of tit for tat doesn't reveal truth rather an attempt to ignore the context of what's happening. Trump is - however knowingly - trying to undermine the most basic of democratic principles. To safely, easily cast a vote.

VinLieger · 23-10-2020 10:35am

stefanovich wrote: »

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

Are you capable of actually discussing any of trumps actions without using whataboutery?

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:38am

pixelburp wrote: »

equivocating over an online portal leveraging public data

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:39am

VinLieger wrote: »

Are you capable of actually discussing any of trumps actions without using whataboutery?

A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location in predominantly ethnic-minority neighborhoods last weekend in the Albuquerque area.

Focus on the words in bold. That's to avoid lawsuits because none of it is substantiated.

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 10:41am

stefanovich wrote: »

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

How many of them have been hit? Or are generally terrified of antifa at all times. Can you provide proof it is an antifa hitlist? You point out a lack of complete proof for one side but have no issue with a lack of proof on the other.

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 10:42am

stefanovich wrote: »

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

That's just a list of public trump donors that can be found through a simple Google search.

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Completely different to armed trump supporters showing up at polling stations in various locations to intimidate voters

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:45am

duploelabs wrote: »

That's just a list of public trump donors that can be found through a simple Google search.

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Completely different to armed trump supporters showing up at polling stations in various locations to intimidate voters

Yes, it is publicly available but requires a lot of time and effort.

You need to find name and zipcode on one database, then fine the actual address on another. Then display it using google api.

A lot of money was put into doing this.

Antifa have already attacked private homes.

Stop defending the indefensible.

It's likely a violation of federal law.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:46am

duploelabs wrote: »

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Shot down?

You've all defended the indefensible before alright.

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 10:50am

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes, it is publicly available but requires a lot of time and effort.

You need to find name and zipcode on one database, then fine the actual address on another. Then display it using google api.

A lot of money was put into doing this.

Antifa have already attacked private homes.

Stop defending the indefensible.

It's likely a violation of federal law.

If publicly available data is a violation of federal law they should possibly be a little more careful with public data.

Man you are defending armed men at polling stations standing around for wholly unofficial reasons. Why do you think they are there? Those guns aren't for self defense. No one is expecting an attack.

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 10:53am

stefanovich wrote: »

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

Feel free to back up this prickling of your thumbs with incidents relating to this ANTIFA "hit list". Shouldn't be hard. I know they're a triggering organisation but again. You're drawing moral equivalence between known attempts to interfere with the democratic basics and your personal spitballing over a personal distaste for a cultural boogeyman. It's literal whataboutery.

That website is crude and divisive and who knows who made it, doubtful it was done out of generosity of spirit. Doesn't change the reality of purpose.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 11:12am

pixelburp wrote: »

Feel free to back up this prickling of your thumbs with incidents relating to this ANTIFA "hit list". Shouldn't be hard. I know they're a triggering organisation but again. You're drawing moral equivalence between known attempts to interfere with the democratic basics and your personal spitballing over a personal distaste for a cultural boogeyman. It's literal whataboutery.

That website is crude and divisive and who knows who made it, doubtful it was done out of generosity of spirit. Doesn't change the reality of purpose.

The article posted quoted someone else, used words like "appeared".

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments