Not at all. Though Trump just winning the election legitimately and pushing for the elimination of term limits legitimately (a which point Obama comes back to run against him) is much more likely then the decent into civil war.
538 has that between 10-15%.
Why worry about the radical scenario when a 5% polling error at the state level is still sufficient to give Trump a legal victory.
Civil war or mass civil uprisings won’t happen immediately. It’s going to take a bit more anger and a unifying message and voice before people get to the point they want their own country but it’s coming. As soon as Trump trampled all over all the American institutions and checks and balances with no repercussions, as soon as he was impeached with no recourse and soon as soon as he demonstrates that American democracy is his to manipulate- these are the beginnings of the end for that country as we knew it. I forget the post or video but as soon as laws don’t matter anymore you’ve lost, and that’s what’s happened in both Canada and the United States.
A decisive Biden landslide is the only way to put an end to this crap. If the results are close at the end of the night on Nov. 3rd, it'll very likely end up in the Supreme Court which will of course hand the Presidency to Trump on a silver platter. People need to get out there and vote like crazy and create a blue wave so overwhelming that Republicans have no choice but to accept defeat.
No doubt the GOP will jump ship and immediately throw Trump to the wolves if he loses. Whether or not they win the presidency in this election cycle, it doesn't really matter, as they've already gotten everything they wanted with the Barrett confirmation. They've basically won the war.
A decisive Biden landslide is the only way to put an end to this crap. If the results are close at the end of the night on Nov. 3rd, it'll very likely end up in the Supreme Court which will of course hand the Presidency to Trump on a silver platter. People need to get out there and vote like crazy and create a blue wave so overwhelming that Republicans have no choice but to accept defeat.
No doubt the GOP will jump ship and immediately throw Trump to the wolves if he loses. Whether or not they win the presidency in this election cycle, it doesn't really matter, as they've already gotten everything they wanted with the Barrett confirmation. They've basically won the war.
This is not true...the justices can be removed and the court can be "stacked" They confirmed her 8 days before the election...there is certainly a basis to "fight back"
From what I understand those in punk rock support anarchy, so why vote?
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
A 12 year with a physch book could diagnose punk rockers.
Generally real or imagined they found the authority figures in their youth overly oppressive, and the rhetorical ideal of anarchy appeals to the idea that those oppressive figures should not be able to tell anyone what to do, but in reality they have never grappled with the true implications of anarchism, the fact that true anarchy would/has/does lead to the very strongman tactics that annoyed them so much in the first place. Their outward expressions of displeasure with the system are routed in a sense of unfairness, and they would never support the embodiment of an unfair world like an incompetent bankrupt moron stumbling his way to the highest levels through some combination of shamelessness and luck.
**there will always be exceptions, but generally speaking.
Most of these kids start to see the value of the rules they chafed against as they age, but there is a committed group that isn't in to think, they are in it for the team sport of being an anarchist, punk rock.... And these guys hold on to the ideals of but rarely live by them.
Why did Biden not remind everyone that Trump was impeached? I forgot to ask this back in the debate days last week. Seems like a huge oversight not to remind everyone about that.
Also in general. Considering what a constant barrage and #### show Trump has been, looking back after watching those debates... Biden really did an awful job. He had soooooooooo much material, and didn’t unload any of it. Pretty brutal actually because there was a lot to go after and I don’t have any memorable Biden moments or comments that hit home. How was that possible when he was up against the worst leader in western democracy of all time?
I think the Biden strategy is to get Democrats and independents voting while keeping the Republican leaning independents at home. I am speaking very much with a broad brush here, but if you are generally centrist, but Republican leaning, you may sit this one out or even vote Democrat due to all of the other holes that Trump has dug and the fact that Biden is pretty centrist anyways. However if you bring up highly polarizing spectacles that show that the democratic party is just as partisan as the Republicans (and not above giant spectacles instead of governing), you risk bringing in emotional voting for these people. Biden has taken very much a "I am the logical vote, let Trump bury himself with his emotional tirades" approach.
PS: I am not questioning the validity or non validity of the outcome of the impeachment hearings. However from the beginning this was a 1 month spectacle where the outcome was known from the beginning and they spent over a month on it anyways rather than governing.
The fact that we are sitting around joking about what bands political stripes are is a sad reflection of where we are at when you just had the Republicans ram through a new Supreme Court justice for life.
You then also have on the same page a current sitting judge write about how Trump is going to win the election no matter what and it’s a bit surprising the calm and jovial reaction in here given this was probably the proverbial nail in the coffin for the United States.
Joking? Punk Rock is serious. Talk minus action = zero.
I can't see Trump gaining voters from where his number was in 2016. The people who voted for him as a joke aren't going to do the same. There are plenty who voted for him because they didn't want a "politician" but they haven't found any difference in a Trump presidency, so they're disillusioned yet again and are unlikely to vote this time around.
I don't think too many people who didn't vote in 2016, or who voted for another candidate, are going to change over to vote for Trump. I think 2016 was his threshold.
Given the higher turnout expected, I'm very curious how that's going to turn out. Some predict 150 million voters this time around (126 million last time). Trump had 62 million votes last time which I believe was the most any Republican president has ever had.
He can probably win the election with about 46% of the vote. Can he find 7 million more votes?
Or maybe more accurately, he had 2.9 million votes in Pennsylvania last time. Pennsylvania had 6.1 million voters. This time around, Pennsylvania has 9 million registered voters. Assuming 8 million of those vote, can Trump find another million voters in Pennsylvania?
Given the higher turnout expected, I'm very curious how that's going to turn out. Some predict 150 million voters this time around (126 million last time). Trump had 62 million votes last time which I believe was the most any Republican president has ever had.
He can probably win the election with about 46% of the vote. Can he find 7 million more votes?
Or maybe more accurately, he had 2.9 million votes in Pennsylvania last time. Pennsylvania had 6.1 million voters. This time around, Pennsylvania has 9 million registered voters. Assuming 8 million of those vote, can Trump find another million voters in Pennsylvania?
I’ve been thinking about this a bit too (though 2016 turnout was closer to 137 million). Another example is Texas, where turnout is huge right now and there are some (not super strong) indications that Biden is currently leading among people who have already voted. Beto O’Rourke famously said that Texas isn’t a “red state” it’s a “non-voting” state, because turnout among registered voters is typically so low. There are 17 million registered voters in Texas. If 12 or 14 million vote, are there enough rural Trump votes to counteract more Biden voters in urban/suburban areas?
Just to make that guessing game extra fun, El Paso is under lockdown due to a COVId surge and there is a Hurricane that is set to make landfall on the US gulf coast soon—two things that may lower turnout after it has been through the roof for the early voting period.
I’m sure 538 will have a detailed discussion of early voting numbers and what they mean but if I remember correctly from last year early voting spreads are not predictive as generally displace Election Day voting. Ask that a doubling of advanced voting does not mean a doubling of turnout.
While the absence of a strong early vote turnout might be troubling I don’t think much can be gleaned from it in a pandemic year.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Sure but when he said great for American conservatives everything you listed was implied.
Yeah, I thanked that post because it was both true and succinct.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
I’m sure 538 will have a detailed discussion of early voting numbers and what they mean but if I remember correctly from last year early voting spreads are not predictive as generally displace Election Day voting. Ask that a doubling of advanced voting does not mean a doubling of turnout.
While the absence of a strong early vote turnout might be troubling I don’t think much can be gleaned from it in a pandemic year.
I think it depends. You have to be very cautious about the early voting numbers where votes are reported by party. That includes places like Florida, Georgia and North Carolina where the party registration of voters is part of their voter file (which... is bananas, but that’s another point).
The problem is there are tons of easy but wrong conclusions to draw from that kind of data. Many people (especially in the South) are so called “Dixiecrats” who have historically registered as Democrats but for the past few election cycles typically vote Republican up and down the ticket. In other cases party registration lag behind party preference. As an example of that, the incumbent’s party usually builds ups a registration advantage due to registration of new voters as part of their GOTV over the last election cycle—but some of those voters might have been late deciders, less reliable voters or swing voters, so those gains can be illusory.
The other problem is the number of independent voters (a group that includes leaners on both sides) is enough to tip the result even if the party registration numbers can give you a ballpark. To get a sense of that you can look at Florida where they are basically 1/3 of the probable electorate, so without knowing who they are it’s impossible to get any sense of who is “winning.”
In Ohio the party registration data is literally useless. It actually reflects the primary election that voter last voted in, not a voter’s election to be identified with a given party. This year, that would mean many Ohioans are registered as Democrats because they participated in the primary, but.. there basically was no Republican primary, so you won’t see the same effect on the Trump side. What that means is it’s highly likely some Republican voters are “registered” as Democrats in their Ohio voter file—and they may never have voted for a Democrat in a general election.
So it’s probably not wise to draw too many conclusions from the party registration data (and many very important states with tons of voters don’t register voters by party at all). The one exception is Nevada, but it’s a bit unique because it has very predictable voter behaviours on this basis, and 67% (I think) of the population is in a single, heavily democratic county (Clark), and the remaining counties are rural, conservative and very sparsely populated. Jon Ralston, a Nevada journalist, tracks early voting and can usually calculate the point where there are no longer enough rural votes to offset the Democratic advantage in Clark.
With that said, I do think there are some things to glean from early voter data. One important thing to look at is who is voting: what areas of the state is turnout highest in, what is the demographic breakdown of voters (where that is available).
I’ll give one example, which is a State I know pretty well (because I used to live there): Iowa.
Obama won Iowa twice, and it’s classically known as a bellwether—it has voted for the winning candidate in 4 of 5 presidential elections since 2000. The exception is 2000 when it went for Al Gore.
Iowa isn’t quite as simple as Nevada, but there are some key similarities. There are a whole bunch of very conservative rural counties that will reliably vote Republican. There is a much smaller number of reliably blue counties that are way more populous (nothing like Harris County TX but in relative terms). Those can easily be listed: Polk (Des Moines), Johnson (Iowa City), Linn (Cedar Rapids), and Scott (Quad Cities, and that includes parts of a few of the neighbouring counties as well). Then there are a pile of medium populated swing areas that have a mix of both kinds of voters.
The key to winning Iowa if you’re a Democrat is keeping the swing counties close enough, and holding down the rural margin (or even better hoping rural turnout is low) and jacking up turnout in the four general areas where Democrats are pretty strong. Obama got 52% of the vote in 2012, but actually that only means he won by about 72,000 votes. He got that margin by basically tying Romney in the urban/suburban mixed counties like Boone, and won 66% of Johnson County, 58% of Linn, and 56% of Polk and Scott. Of his statewide total of 814,000 or so votes, about 300,000 came from those four counties. It’s 335k if you include Black Hawk county.
In 2016, Clinton only won SIX counties in Iowa: The four I listed above plus Story (Ames) and Black Hawk. Her margins were down everywhere except Johnson County—she only won 51% of Polk (never going to cut it). Trump got fewer votes than Obama (800K) and won by 9 points.
So fast forward to today, where we know quite a bit about the Iowa early vote. Around 740,000 have voted by mail already, which is likely a bit less than half of the eventual electorate. Of those 740,000 almost 300,000 (rough math) is from the four counties I noted above (Polk, Johnson, Linn, and I Scott) plus Black Hawk—all counties Clinton and Obama both carried. In 2016, the total two party vote from those four counties was less than 450,000 (again, rough math).
All of which is to say it’s hard to deny the early vote numbers in Iowa look good for Biden—but it’s only part of a story that needs Election Day turnout figures to round it out. But to my eye it’s an indication Biden is doing what he needs to in the key areas of Iowa to win, and I think we can glean all of that from the “early vote”.
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Man, that is a long post that only a few people will want to read. Sorry about that folks.... sometimes I get myself going and don’t know when to stop!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
I think if there's one thing that's really been underestimated about the Biden campaign, it's been how well run it is. They have a strong, experienced group who knows how to win and are pushing the right buttons to get this across the line. Also doesn't help that Parscale was a debacle for Trump and put them in a huge hole, but you still gotta be in position to take advantage of opposition errors.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Given the higher turnout expected, I'm very curious how that's going to turn out. Some predict 150 million voters this time around (126 million last time). Trump had 62 million votes last time which I believe was the most any Republican president has ever had.
He can probably win the election with about 46% of the vote. Can he find 7 million more votes?
Or maybe more accurately, he had 2.9 million votes in Pennsylvania last time. Pennsylvania had 6.1 million voters. This time around, Pennsylvania has 9 million registered voters. Assuming 8 million of those vote, can Trump find another million voters in Pennsylvania?
46% is incredibly low. He had one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote for a winning president.
I think he'll need a higher percentage.
I'm nervous about him winning, but when I think it about it, it's difficult to imagine he's gained a lot votes, and if more people are coming out it seems like it can't be good for Trump, but the United States is insane, so I have no clue.
Last edited by AFireInside; 10-27-2020 at 10:20 AM.
Thank you for asking. I appreciate the request and will do my best to explain the situation as the information available dictates.
Based on the information available, no, Trumps ground game is pretty well non-existent. The ground game is usually reliant on infrastructure and people getting out to convert the swing or uncommitted voter. There is a marked difference between what the Biden and Trump campaigns are doing. Biden is all about traditional electioneering tactics of knocking on doors and talking to the people. Trump is all about the big rallies and hoping the media will cover them. Different tactics, but one that doesn't really reach undecideds, as those undecideds are unlikely to go to a big rally, especially in the time of COVID. Trump just doesn't have the infrastructure, and it is showing.
The Trump campaign is trying to put on a brave face, but they have pulled ads in Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire. Once that happens campaigns normally kill off the ground game as well, closing up offices and re-assigning key people. It only makes sense to pull them in NH, because they are getting beat up pretty badly. Ohio and Iowa are both coin toss races right now, but traditional red states, so unless they have internal polling showing a certain win, this is really push the envelope. These two are must win states and they have closed up shop, relying strictly on low cost and low impact web buys.
Trump has also pulled way back on ads in Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. The only race in these states that is close is Nevada, and not as close as Georgia and Texas, where the races are way too close for comfort. The reality is that Trump is out of money and no one is coming in to give him any more. The benefactors are putting money into races that look winnable or have strategic purpose. So Trump's ability to maintain a ground game is all but evaporated and they are really reliant on the web buys or using digital means to encourage his supporters to go have small "flag waving" rallies, which have been popular here in AZ.
One thing that is missing in AZ from the last election is the prevalence of yard signs, which is a great indicator of a ground game presence. Our area was flooded with Trump signs in 2016, and I would say we are at 30-40% of what they were. The number of Biden/Harris signs is almost equal, and we're in a very "Trumpy" area. So his ground game hasn't been very effective. Having said that, I'm getting pounded by web ads and flyers. Every second page I go to has a Trump or McSally (senate) add, and every day I get 8-10 pieces of election propaganda, so they (Trump and the Republicans) are pouring the money into the directed marketing.
The strategy seems to be throwing anything and everything at the wall in hopes of something sticking. Their "rally" campaigning does not convert hard to reach votes. They increase the enthusiasm of the already true believers, so the investment of this much time and energy is not about converting undecideds, its about the dear leader's ego and generating enthusiasm within the cult. In this current environment, people are not going to rallies unless they are already part of that social group.
He's using the inly script he has. It worked last time, so he's trying it again. Problem is, this is a different time and the attacks don't work against Biden. Trump is playing the greatest hits and hoping people don't recognize that his best days are behind him and the songs don't sound like they did on the album.
Funny enough, this podcast gets into these concerning issues. They seem confident (but add caveats - about no precise data yet) if people actually get out and vote that shenanigans won't matter.
Also meant to reply to Wittynickname's post with this video
Man, that is a long post that only a few people will want to read. Sorry about that folks.... sometimes I get myself going and don’t know when to stop!
I just want to know your take on the powerhouse Poweshiek county?!?!?!?!
Its super rural but does have super liberal Grinnell College.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
