The 2020 Presidential campaign.

FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics polling averages both showing Biden at about a 10% lead. 2-3 weeks ago (maybe even less), they were at 6-7%. The debate, Trump's covid diagnosis, his behavior since getting covid, etc., are all working against him.

Yes, of course, that's national and national doesn't matter that much. But I think it's been posted here the chances of Biden winning the electoral vote based on various percentages of the popular vote, and IIRC anything over 6% in the popular vote was like a 97%+ chance that Biden wins. Polls in enough swing states continue to be strong for Biden (not sure of the averages), not to mention Red states like Texas, Iowa, and Georgia have become virtual toss ups. People gotta turnout, though.

Listen to the NYTimes Daily Podcast today in Pennsylvania.

If you think Joe Biden’s gonna win this thing. Don’t stop giving money to dem campaigns of you can. This thing is going to be a fucking slog.

I drove the Chesaning MI yesterday. Probably 30+ trump signs... 2 Biden. I live in the "better" neighborhood in my shitty town, 8 trump signs to 2 biden.

I don't "believe" in polling. (People lie... And people are stupid. And trump will cheat like a motherfucker.)

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I drove the Chesaning MI yesterday. Probably 30+ trump signs... 2 Biden. I live in the "better" neighborhood in my shitty town, 8 trump signs to 2 biden.

I don't "believe" in polling. (People lie... And people are stupid. And trump will cheat like a motherfucker.)

I'm not shocked that Chesaning is pro-Trump, but signs also aren't much of an indicator, especially with the cult-like love for Trump. It's a weird mentality, but it doesn't add votes.

The polls are usually pretty accurate. It's just the undecideds that swing things. When people say Hillary was winning in the polls, that assumes an even split in the undecideds. Hillary still got a higher percentage of the votes than the polls showed headed into the election, both nationally and in swing states. But she was still only in the mid-40s in the polls, and Trump overwhelmingly won the undecideds. That isn't the case this year, as Biden is consistently over 50% nationally, and near or over 50% in the swing states.

I'm kind of a right brain, stats and data kind of guy, though, so I'm probably quicker to blow a little sunshine when it comes to the data.

I think that's left brain.

I'm so confident in a Biden win I wrote in Steve on my ballot.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm so confident in a Biden win I wrote in Steve on my ballot.

Fucking Steve...

Cameron wrote:I think that's left brain.

I never could keep those straight.

Pompeo says he's going to release Hillary's emails. No word if he's also releasing Kushner and Ivankas.....

kingstonlake wrote:Pompeo says he's going to release Hillary's emails. No word if  he's also releasing Kushner and Ivankas.....

Does anyone other than hardcore Trumpsters even care about Hillary's emails any more? I'm sure Hannity does as that's what he bases 90% of his show on, but beyond that who GAF?

Jake from State Farm wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Pompeo says he's going to release Hillary's emails. No word if  he's also releasing Kushner and Ivankas.....

Does anyone other than hardcore Trumpsters even care about Hillary's emails any more? I'm sure Hannity does as that's what he bases 90% of his show on, but beyond that who GAF?

If he can't beat Biden, at least he can beat Hillary again.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Does anyone other than hardcore Trumpsters even care about Hillary's emails any more? I'm sure Hannity does as that's what he bases 90% of his show on, but beyond that who GAF?

If he can't beat Biden, at least he can beat Hillary again.

I am sure its all about muddying the water and aligning whatever "it" is with Dems as corrupt and putting Obam-muh in jail. Also, remember one of his campaign promises was "lock her up"... promises made, promises kept, amirite?

MattyFresh wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:


If he can't beat Biden, at least he can beat Hillary again.

I am sure its all about muddying the water and aligning whatever "it" is with Dems as corrupt and putting Obam-muh in jail. Also, remember one of his campaign promises was "lock her up"... promises made, promises kept, amirite?

I read some Washington Post article where this lady wrote about her experiences of canvasing in Michigan she said that most of the people that were voting for Trump were guided more by their feelings than fact. A lot of them believed in fabricated internet BS and she noted that people she talked to thought the Clintons were running everything. Might be an explanation while he's been ramping up attacks against the Clintons.

Found the link - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/24/michigan-undecided-voters-democrats/

I guess it was one person but still - "Someone said he refuses to vote for Clinton. I said Clinton’s not running, and he countered I must be extremely naive if I don’t understand that the Clintons are “behind all of this.”"


Also, SMDH

“I used to vote Democrat, my whole life,” a man said. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, he was frustrated with his choices in 2016, switched to Trump then, and has not been disappointed so far. I suggested Sanders might have a better shot at a leadership position in a Biden administration than he would in a second Trump term. This voter thought otherwise."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html

Michigan people were the only ones to get this ad huh? I remember thinking "no way did Fauci ok this" when I first saw it.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html

Michigan people were the only ones to get this ad huh? I remember thinking "no way did Fauci ok this" when I first saw it.

On ABC News Sunday, Jon Karl, who was guest hosting "This Week," said he requested Fauci for an interview, and although he was willing to come on, the White House blocked the appearance. Karl said other medical experts on the task force were also requested, but the White House did not offer anyone.

Of course they blocked him.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html

Michigan people were the only ones to get this ad huh? I remember thinking "no way did Fauci ok this" when I first saw it.

I saw it today. Since it was a TV interview, does Fauci get a say in whether it is used any more than Biden gets a say in Trump using clips of him and vice versa? But the out of context thing is wrong (though not illegal) and something the Trump campaign has been doing quite a bit of.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html

Michigan people were the only ones to get this ad huh? I remember thinking "no way did Fauci ok this" when I first saw it.

On ABC News Sunday, Jon Karl, who was guest hosting "This Week," said he requested Fauci for an interview, and although he was willing to come on, the White House blocked the appearance. Karl said other medical experts on the task force were also requested, but the White House did not offer anyone.

Of course they blocked him.

They sent Eric trump instead of Fauci.

InTenSity wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:



Of course they blocked him.

They sent Eric trump instead of Fauci.

Oh, now I have to watch that to see how he tried to spin it. Nevermind, it would probably make my skin crawl.

As soon as I saw it I googled "fauci couldn't have handled it better" and I was not shocked at what turned up.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
They sent Eric trump instead of Fauci.

Oh, now I have to watch that to see how he tried to spin it. Nevermind, it would probably make my skin crawl.

He started off by calling the rally or whatever yesterday, a protest. I think. I don't know. It was weird.

We are going to see a lot of 2nd amendment types "guarding" polling places in the inner city on 11/3, aren't we?

I can't believe that Trump is threatening to steal the election, won't commit to the peaceful transition of power, has invited foreign hostile powers to meddle in our elections and is doing everything he can to steal the election but the mainstream media is outraged that Biden might pack the courts.

steveschneider wrote:I can't believe that Trump is threatening to steal the election, won't commit to the peaceful transition of power, has invited foreign hostile powers to meddle in our elections and is doing everything he can to steal the election but the mainstream media is outraged that Biden might pack the courts.

I know, the media never mention any of that stuff that Trump does/has done/threatens to do. Well, I mean, outside of the 23 hours and 55 minutes of each day where they do talk about all that, they never say a word! Ridiculous!

That "Packing the Courts" horse left the starting gate the day Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate.

With the way Trump has manipulated quotes from Biden and Fauci, I thought this is a good response.
[tw]1315768958742491136?s=09[/tw]

Noam Chomsky is on board with voting for Biden. Let's just hope the radical left listens.

I would like to have a realistic discussion about what may play out on and after 11/3. I know Miami has talked about the vote going to the House. This article is probably fear-mongering a tad, but it raises some good points. It's worth a read or a skim. The article makes the point, and I think it's pretty fair, that we already know that Trump is going to contest the results. Not only has he already told us, but this is who he is. So we shouldn't still be asking "if", it's more of a "when". Fear monger rating - 3/10 (10/10 being total fear mongering, never going to happen A few takeaways.

There are 3 basic potential stages to this thing.

1. Voter suppression
2. The period in between 11/3 and inauguration
3. Next

Stage 1 has already started obviously. And it bleeds into Stage 2. But I do suspect that we will see some forms of things mentioned in this article. "Proud Boys" types showing up at polling places with ARs to "prevent fraud". This could lead to a lot of chaos, and polling places shutting down. Fear monger rating - 5/10. How widespread will it be? Probably not very. But ballot boxes being taken away, one per county, etc - we know that shit is happening. The more people that vote, the worse it is for the R party, that is basically acknowledged by both parties.

Stage 2 involves the fight to not count/invalidate ballots that come in after 11/3 and/or mail in ballots from some places. This is going to be a prolonged fight. This stage also involves some state legislatures trying to appoint their own electors, which you've probably seen mention of. They can do this if they believe the ballots are invalid and according to this article, the Constitution does not require that the electors reflect the popular vote of the people. 6 battleground states are mentioned, and if some of those states have R led legislature, and R Governors, there is a path to actually accomplishing this from what I'm taking away.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?”

States attempting to appoint their own electors/state results being held up in litigation - Fear monger rating 2/10. Going to happen.

So then what comes next? The article describes a 'labyrinth' of different possibilities. Basically it could become a game of chess. It makes the point that we could have headed down this route in Florida in 2000 if Gore hadn't conceded 2 days before (something - can't remember). DJT will not concede (when, not if).

It seems like the only way to avoid this is:

1. Election Day results overwhelmingly favor Biden getting to 270, thus both parties knowing that any additional ballots that come in are only going to run in his favor.

OR

2. Dems win the Senate and keep the House

If Democrats win back the Senate and hold the House, then all roads laid out in the Electoral Count Act lead eventually to a Biden presidency. The reverse applies if Republicans hold the Senate and unexpectedly win back the House. But if Congress remains split, there are conditions in which no decisive outcome is possible—no result that has clear force of law. Each party could cite a plausible reading of the rules in which its candidate has won. There is no tie-breaking vote.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

I would be curious to hear thoughts on what happens in Stage 3 from those of you guys who are smart about this stuff.

lol @ "accidental"

[tw]1316035887831175170[/tw]

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I would like to have a realistic discussion about what may play out on and after 11/3. I know Miami has talked about the vote going to the House. This article is probably fear-mongering a tad, but it raises some good points. It's worth a read or a skim. The article makes the point, and I think it's pretty fair, that we already know that Trump is going to contest the results. Not only has he already told us, but this is who he is. So we shouldn't still be asking "if", it's more of a "when". Fear monger rating - 3/10 (10/10 being total fear mongering, never going to happen A few takeaways.

There are 3 basic potential stages to this thing.

1. Voter suppression
2. The period in between 11/3 and inauguration
3. Next

Stage 1 has already started obviously. And it bleeds into Stage 2. But I do suspect that we will see some forms of things mentioned in this article. "Proud Boys" types showing up at polling places with ARs to "prevent fraud". This could lead to a lot of chaos, and polling places shutting down. Fear monger rating - 5/10. How widespread will it be? Probably not very. But ballot boxes being taken away, one per county, etc - we know that shit is happening. The more people that vote, the worse it is for the R party, that is basically acknowledged by both parties.

Stage 2 involves the fight to not count/invalidate ballots that come in after 11/3 and/or mail in ballots from some places. This is going to be a prolonged fight. This stage also involves some state legislatures trying to appoint their own electors, which you've probably seen mention of. They can do this if they believe the ballots are invalid and according to this article, the Constitution does not require that the electors reflect the popular vote of the people. 6 battleground states are mentioned, and if some of those states have R led legislature, and R Governors, there is a path to actually accomplishing this from what I'm taking away.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?”

States attempting to appoint their own electors/state results being held up in litigation - Fear monger rating 2/10. Going to happen.

So then what comes next? The article describes a 'labyrinth' of different possibilities. Basically it could become a game of chess. It makes the point that we could have headed down this route in Florida in 2000 if Gore hadn't conceded 2 days before (something - can't remember). DJT will not concede (when, not if).

It seems like the only way to avoid this is:

1. Election Day results overwhelmingly favor Biden getting to 270, thus both parties knowing that any additional ballots that come in are only going to run in his favor.

OR

2. Dems win the Senate and keep the House

If Democrats win back the Senate and hold the House, then all roads laid out in the Electoral Count Act lead eventually to a Biden presidency. The reverse applies if Republicans hold the Senate and unexpectedly win back the House. But if Congress remains split, there are conditions in which no decisive outcome is possible—no result that has clear force of law. Each party could cite a plausible reading of the rules in which its candidate has won. There is no tie-breaking vote.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

I would be curious to hear thoughts on what happens in Stage 3 from those of you guys who are smart about this stuff.

I've been saying for months he won't leave and he's going to do everything he can to steal the election. I believe that article accurately outlines how they'll do it. The whole appoint electorates is exactly what they'll do and is on brand for the entire problem- the president has a lot of power and our system is reliant on the president to follow 'norms' that aren't laws.

FWIW, a week ago 538 was giving the Democrats a 19.1% chance of taking a Senate majority. I've seen two other forecasts this morning (that I'm not trying to find) where the Democrats will have 51 or 52 seat majority depending on the Peters/James race because that one is too close to call.

[tw]1315991309526720513[/tw]

2020

[tw]1316234509868625920[/tw]