nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Who thinks Trump will win?

whiskeyman

Hope the mods don't mind a new thread, but I just want to see how many of us think Trump will beat Biden in Nov?
I think he just has so much of a populist ground swell and I wouldn't be surprised if 'external' participants get involved in the process.

Do you think he'll get reelected?
Where will that leave America?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ha Long Bay

theguzman wrote: »

As I said a few times, Trump can't lose, Amy Coney Barrett will be on the Supreme court before Nov 4th, worst case scenario Trump will challenge the postal votes, ends up in the Supreme court, 4 more years and bye bye Biden.

The bet we were discussing before the re-reg got removed was a bet on the popular vote.

None of what you just posted in that made up scenario has any bearing on what we were talking about.

Spanish Eyes

I admit defeat. I just cannot get my head around the Electoral College system in a Prez Election.

No matter how many times I have listened to its explanation, or read about it even, I still don't get it.

So it seems to me that certain States will be Red or Blue. But Swing States will call it, depending on the EC call. Honestly talk about making a drama out of a crisis. But it is not my country so will always be baffled by it.

gmisk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I admit defeat. I just cannot get my head around the Electoral College system in a Prez Election.

No matter how many times I have listened to its explanation, or read about it even, I still don't get it.

So it seems to me that certain States will be Red or Blue. But Swing States will call it, depending on the EC call. Honestly talk about making a drama out of a crisis. But it is not my country so will always be baffled by it.

I like this site
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

I could be totally wrong.
But for the presidential election basically whoever wins the popular vote in each state get a defined number of electoral college votes that assigned to that state. To win you need to hit 270 over the whole country.

You can lose the popular vote and still win the election like Trump did in 2016.

There has been talk of changing it for a long time.

Panrich

theguzman wrote: »

As I said a few times, Trump can't lose, Amy Coney Barrett will be on the Supreme court before Nov 4th, worst case scenario Trump will challenge the postal votes, ends up in the Supreme court, 4 more years and bye bye Biden.

More commonly referred to as a coup.

Bass Reeves

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I admit defeat. I just cannot get my head around the Electoral College system in a Prez Election.

No matter how many times I have listened to its explanation, or read about it even, I still don't get it.

So it seems to me that certain States will be Red or Blue. But Swing States will call it, depending on the EC call. Honestly talk about making a drama out of a crisis. But it is not my country so will always be baffled by it.

It quite simple just like TD's and MP's elect the toiseach and PM in the US people do not directly vote for there president.
They vote to elect people who will elect the president. Electors stand and pledge themselves to vote for there sponser.Most states have a winner take all whereby which every presidential candidate received the most votes the. His electors are sent to Washington to vote for him. The number of electors per state is equivalent to the number of congressional seats in the state and senate seats(two senators/ state) on the state. The minimum any state can have is three electoral votes

theguzman

Panrich wrote: »

More commonly referred to as a coup.

Justified to protect the country from terrorism and a leftwing takeover.

Spanish Eyes

Thank you for your help. Still puzzled and baffled. But that is not unusual for me either! I won't pretend to understand things I don't get.

How can someone win with the most votes and still lose please?

I am not stoopid lol, but I often wonder if the average US voter can understand the system either. Seems quite opaque and difficult to me anyway. But I am probably an outlier there.

gmisk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thank you for your help. Still puzzled and baffled. But that is not unusual for me either! I won't pretend to understand things I don't get.

How can someone win with the most votes and still lose please?

I am not stoopid lol, but I often wonder if the average US voter can understand the system either. Seems quite opaque and difficult to me anyway. But I am probably an outlier there.

You can win the vote by massive margins in some states (e.g. Hillary in california with massive number of voters) and still lose.

The popular vote doesn't matter it's about winning each state vote and getting to 270.
The margins were pretty tiny in some states in 2016.

MoonUnit75

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thank you for your help. Still puzzled and baffled. But that is not unusual for me either! I won't pretend to understand things I don't get.

How can someone win with the most votes and still lose please?

I am not stoopid lol, but I often wonder if the average US voter can understand the system either. Seems quite opaque and difficult to me anyway. But I am probably an outlier there.

It's actually a very clever system. A larger part of the population of the US is concentrated in big cities along the coast, the states with lower populations in the centre of the continent will always be at a disadvantage. Small town America would always be dominated by politicians elected by the big cities with massive populations. Their needs and preferences would be completely drowned out. The electoral college system gives the less populated states a fairer say in national politics by evening up the playing field.

Spanish Eyes

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It's actually a very clever system. A larger part of the population of the US is concentrated in big cities along the coast, the states with lower populations in the centre of the continent will always be at a disadvantage. Small town America would always be dominated by politicians elected by the big cities with massive populations. Their needs and preferences would be completely drowned out. The electoral college system gives the less populated states a fairer say in national politics by evening up the playing field.

Thank you. So what does the EC base their votes on? Is it transparent or what.

Tony EH

Five Eighth wrote: »

Marxism is an over-used and vaguely understood term. It has many definitions and branches. Is it realistic to assume that Communism, as articulated by Marx and Engels is about to instigate a 'Marxist takeover' in the US? The McCarthy era revisited?

Reality doesn't matter to Trump worshipers.

Just like facts and evidence don't matter.

It just all comes down to "belief" and baseless "opinion".

MoonUnit75

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thank you. So what does the EC base their votes on? Is it transparent or what.

That's where it gets a bit murkier. My understanding is they are supposed to vote the same way the popular vote goes in their state. But, apparently they don't have to. As far as I can make out, there were concerns that factions could form that would destabilise the authority of the regional governments so the electoral college is a kind of safeguard. If the electors feel there was organised vote buying or some organisations were using undue influence, they could vote against them.

Well, there goes Saturday night, off to Wikipedia I go....

[Deleted User]

I wonder if in 2004 Kerry had won Ohio, lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College would the people who love the Electoral College so much would still love it. I'm sure they'll say they will.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if in 2004 Kerry had won Ohio, lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College would the people who love the Electoral College so much would still love it. I'm sure they'll say they will.

Did you not see the shift in narrative when it came to nominating a new justice for the supreme court?

Lindsey Graham, when refusing to consider a candidate for Obama during his final year as President, said specifically that if a position opened up in the last year of Trumps first term, people could hold Grahams word against him.

A position opened up in the last year of Trumps term. Lindsey said; 'Sike!!'

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if in 2004 Kerry had won Ohio, lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College would the people who love the Electoral College so much would still love it. I'm sure they'll say they will.

Ah they were great days. I still have my Michael Moore and Al Franken books on the shelf here somewhere. I think one of the Michael Moore chapters was 'how to talk to your conservative brother-in-law' or something like that. Mad stuff in it, like 'don't try to persuade them with facts, explain how it will benefit their wallet.' I lapped it up at the time.

I still think it's a great system!

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if in 2004 Kerry had won Ohio, lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College would the people who love the Electoral College so much would still love it. I'm sure they'll say they will.

It's only bad when certain people benefit.

But when others do, it's "...actually a very clever system".

YFlyer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thank you for your help. Still puzzled and baffled. But that is not unusual for me either! I won't pretend to understand things I don't get.

How can someone win with the most votes and still lose please?

I am not stoopid lol, but I often wonder if the average US voter can understand the system either. Seems quite opaque and difficult to me anyway. But I am probably an outlier there.

Its winner takes all.

Outlaw Pete

Nauseating to watch this liar at work. CNN/MSNBC will ignore his mask slipping though of course.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1319790457560379393
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1320126033866215424

Kermit.de.frog

Trumpers trying to get a moral high ground over masks. lolololol

The goon they support tells people not to wear masks.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Trumpers trying to get a moral high ground over masks. lolololol

The goon they support tells people not to wear masks.

Trump was seen mocking a reporter in the Oval Office, yesterday, for wearing a mask.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mocks-reporter-wearing-largest-mask-us-reports-71000-daily-covid-cases-1541827

Outlaw Pete

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Trumpers trying to get a moral high ground over masks. lolololol

The goon they support tells people not to wear masks.

You read my post as my attacking Biden for not wearing a mask, when outdoors? Seriously? Ha!

I'm (quite obviously) highlighting how the man's full of it. Says one thing (for political purposes) does another.

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You read my post as my attacking Biden for not wearing a mask, when outdoors? Seriously? Ha!

I'm (quite obviously) highlighting how the man's full of it. Says one thing (for political purposes) does another.

Trump couldn't mention a single passage he liked from the Bible as he used it as a prop for a photo-shoot after having tear gassed people practising their first amendment rights.

Do you even stop for a micro-second before you post and ask yourself the question, 'Will this be a valid point, or is it going to make people think I have that poster of Trump as Rocky sellotaped to my bedroom ceiling. '

Mad_maxx

Tony EH wrote: »

A President is just a figurehead. He's like a front man in a large band. Everyone is focused on the front man and largely ignore the rest. In fact, most people don't even know what the bass sounds like or the name of the guy playing it.

America is really a one party country, that has two slightly different flavours. But in the end they're both in favour of keeping the status quo intact and aren't truly interested in changing things to any real degree. The ridiculous notion that the Democrats and Republicans are the polar opposites of each is laughable, when both are quite conservative in their outlook.

Largely true

newhouse87

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

"Beats the polls again" is you saying you're adamant that there was a silent vote in 16, you just simply can't comprehend the argument you are putting forward because there is no bases for it..

Opinions are based on facts, your opinion is based on a belief that it happened in 16..

for the umpteenth time IF IF IF, your comprehension needs serious work, if the polls are right this time it suggests in 16 it was undecideds but IF the polls are wrong again it suggests shy voters, nothing too complex in what im saying.

AlphaDelta1

A lot of betting money moving towards Trump in the last 48 hrs. I don't get it. Are the polls as inaccurate as 2016 again? I thought the pollsters had built in for the shy Trump vote also?

vojiwox

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says one thing (for political purposes) does another.

Welcome to politics :pac:

gmisk

AlphaDelta1 wrote: »

A lot of betting money moving towards Trump in the last 48 hrs. I don't get it. Are the polls as inaccurate as 2016 again? I thought the pollsters had built in for the shy Trump vote also?

Fools and their money I would say.

In a two horse race people probably think it's worth a shot.

The below is a decent article on the supposed shy trump vote.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-arent-shy-but-polls-could-still-be-missing-some-of-them/

I think its more telling there hasn't been a massive shift in the odds.
Plus polls show biden with a pretty clear lead.

Igotadose

AlphaDelta1 wrote: »

A lot of betting money moving towards Trump in the last 48 hrs. I don't get it. Are the polls as inaccurate as 2016 again? I thought the pollsters had built in for the shy Trump vote also?

Sigh. This again.

Feel free to look through this thread on the polling and betting. The polls weren't innacurate in 2016. The shy voters are accounted for. The money moving appears to be sucker bets (big odds on a longshot)

Hope that helps, oh new poster to this forum.

newhouse87

gmisk wrote: »

Fools and their money I would say.

In a two horse race people probably think it's worth a shot.

The below is a decent article on the supposed shy trump vote.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-arent-shy-but-polls-could-still-be-missing-some-of-them/

I think its more telling there hasn't been a massive shift in the odds.
Plus polls show biden with a pretty clear lead.

to clarify im not saying there is shy trump vote just that if he wins again against the polls it would have to be considered, i think biden wins myself.

gmisk

newhouse87 wrote: »

to clarify im not saying there is shy trump vote just that if he wins again against the polls it would have to be considered, i think biden wins myself.

Oh yeah I don't disagree.
I just think a lot of the polling companies have changed their practices to account for that possibility.
I also think (and hope!) Biden will just about win, but we will see!