By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

Fox News doesn't seem to think much of the Hunter Biden story.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions

This makes sense. As biased and gross as Fox News is, they do not often, to my knowledge, report straight up falsehoods, which they apparently believe it is. 

Taking everything reported to be on the laptop at face value, and the claims of Bubulinski, I'm not sure what exactly Joe Biden is being accused of. 

Buboliski's claim is that in 2015 he met with Joe Biden for about 10 minutes in a hotel bar and did not discuss business, and that the meeting was arranged by Hunter Biden. At some other point, Hunter was engaging in a deal that allocated 10% to "the big man". Bubolinski also says that other texts mentioning "chairman" refers to Biden, but Fox News has determined from other emails that "chairman" refers to the Chinese government. 

With all that, it's a bit hard to figure what Joe Biden is being accused of. He clearly didn't install Hunter at the job, or they wouldn't need Hunter to set a meeting with Joe. The "10% for the big man" if it was indeed referring to Joe was after he left office. At best you could argue that this was in consideration for some future benefit if Joe Biden became president, but that's a fairly large investment considering that it isn't even clear now that Biden will be president, much less in the early days of the Trump administration. It seems likely that the company hired Biden for his family name and possibly intended to influence Joe, but it's not clear that Joe Biden in any way influenced government policy towards China in a significant way. Also, let's keep in mind, Biden is the vice President. His only official power is to break ties in the Senate. His powers were limited to persuasion.

As for the Burisma stuff, nothing new seems to have come out regarding that. Again, it's not clear what Joe Biden actually did there. He pushed for a prosecutor to be ousted, but there was no active investigation of Burisma. This move was also supported by the EU... So, either there was some legitimate reason for his ouster besides Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden is really fucking persuasive and/or has leverage over the entire EU. In which case... idk. It's morally dubious, but getting everyone in the US and EU to agree to support his private agenda? That's the art of the fucking deal right there. If he's that damn good, maybe he should be president.

The last thing is that Joe is maybe forcing his son to give money to other members of the family? Hunter texted his daughter (again we're just assuming all texts are legitimate) saying he was made to give "half his money" to Joe and he "paid for everything for the family". Even taking this literally, I doubt he's paying for everything, it's unclear what crime is being alleged, beyond maybe being a shitty dad. The best argument is that Joe was securing Hunter jobs for these companies who then pay him large salaries which Joe gets a kickback from... but that doesn't make a ton of sense. If Joe Biden is the one getting Hunter these jobs, then Joe Biden already owes them. Why would they need Hunter Biden to set up meetings if Joe already was so ingrained that he could demand they hire his son?

Again, even ignoring the sketchy details of the story (just going to leave my laptop with this shop, filled with pictures of underage girls and incriminating information, and make sure I put a Biden sticker on it, and I'll never ask for it back... Whoops! The legally blind guy working at the shop knew it was Hunter Biden because we all know what he looks like so well that we can identify him without the benefit of fully functioning eyes. At least I got lucky and the store's security cameras were broken that day so the guy can't prove it was me) I'm still not sure what exactly is being alleged against Joe Biden.

Kind of seems like what they have is that Hunter Biden was doing business with foreign countries, and Joe Biden was Vice President. And they're trying to argue 1+1=100. But, unless nobody in a political figure's family can have international business dealings (Trump's companies which are not in a blind trust do business internationally), I'm not sure what exactly happened here. 

That's probably why Fox News is focusing less on the claims themselves and more on the news coverage, or lack thereof.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 October 2020

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

Fox News doesn't seem to think much of the Hunter Biden story.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions

This makes sense. As biased and gross as Fox News is, they do not often, to my knowledge, report straight up falsehoods, which they apparently believe it is. 

Taking everything reported to be on the laptop at face value, and the claims of Bubulinski, I'm not sure what exactly Joe Biden is being accused of. 

Buboliski's claim is that in 2015 he met with Joe Biden for about 10 minutes in a hotel bar and did not discuss business, and that the meeting was arranged by Hunter Biden. At some other point, Hunter was engaging in a deal that allocated 10% to "the big man". Bubolinski also says that other texts mentioning "chairman" refers to Biden, but Fox News has determined from other emails that "chairman" refers to the Chinese government. 

With all that, it's a bit hard to figure what Joe Biden is being accused of. He clearly didn't install Hunter at the job, or they wouldn't need Hunter to set a meeting with Joe. The "10% for the big man" if it was indeed referring to Joe was after he left office. At best you could argue that this was in consideration for some future benefit if Joe Biden became president, but that's a fairly large investment considering that it isn't even clear now that Biden will be president, much less in the early days of the Trump administration. It seems likely that the company hired Biden for his family name and possibly intended to influence Joe, but it's not clear that Joe Biden in any way influenced government policy towards China in a significant way. Also, let's keep in mind, Biden is the vice President. His only official power is to break ties in the Senate. His powers were limited to persuasion.

As for the Burisma stuff, nothing new seems to have come out regarding that. Again, it's not clear what Joe Biden actually did there. He pushed for a prosecutor to be ousted, but there was no active investigation of Burisma. This move was also supported by the EU... So, either there was some legitimate reason for his ouster besides Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden is really fucking persuasive and/or has leverage over the entire EU. In which case... idk. It's morally dubious, but getting everyone in the US and EU to agree to support his private agenda? That's the art of the fucking deal right there. If he's that damn good, maybe he should be president.

The last thing is that Joe is maybe forcing his son to give money to other members of the family? Hunter texted his daughter (again we're just assuming all texts are legitimate) saying he was made to give "half his money" to Joe and he "paid for everything for the family". Even taking this literally, I doubt he's paying for everything, it's unclear what crime is being alleged, beyond maybe being a shitty dad. The best argument is that Joe was securing Hunter jobs for these companies who then pay him large salaries which Joe gets a kickback from... but that doesn't make a ton of sense. If Joe Biden is the one getting Hunter these jobs, then Joe Biden already owes them. Why would they need Hunter Biden to set up meetings if Joe already was so ingrained that he could demand they hire his son?

Again, even ignoring the sketchy details of the story (just going to leave my laptop with this shop, filled with pictures of underage girls and incriminating information, and make sure I put a Biden sticker on it, and I'll never ask for it back... Whoops! The legally blind guy working at the shop knew it was Hunter Biden because we all know what he looks like so well that we can identify him without the benefit of fully functioning eyes. At least I got lucky and the store's security cameras were broken that day so the guy can't prove it was me) I'm still not sure what exactly is being alleged against Joe Biden.

Kind of seems like what they have is that Hunter Biden was doing business with foreign countries, and Joe Biden was Vice President. And they're trying to argue 1+1=100. But, unless nobody in a political figure's family can have international business dealings (Trump's companies which are not in a blind trust do business internationally), I'm not sure what exactly happened here. 

That's probably why Fox News is focusing less on the claims themselves and more on the news coverage, or lack thereof.

I thought this was an obvious ploy to throw some mud in the water with 2 weeks left for the elections.  Meaning that this story really do not need to tie anything together just like a lot of stuff about Clinton, it only need to allege about something to give doubt concerning something that could happen.  The key is the president and fox entertainment host can play this up to election without having anything remotely confirmed because its all just opinion at this point.  The president and his administration is pretty much trying to use the same play book from 2016.



Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:

Fox News doesn't seem to think much of the Hunter Biden story.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions

This makes sense. As biased and gross as Fox News is, they do not often, to my knowledge, report straight up falsehoods, which they apparently believe it is. 

Taking everything reported to be on the laptop at face value, and the claims of Bubulinski, I'm not sure what exactly Joe Biden is being accused of. 

Buboliski's claim is that in 2015 he met with Joe Biden for about 10 minutes in a hotel bar and did not discuss business, and that the meeting was arranged by Hunter Biden. At some other point, Hunter was engaging in a deal that allocated 10% to "the big man". Bubolinski also says that other texts mentioning "chairman" refers to Biden, but Fox News has determined from other emails that "chairman" refers to the Chinese government. 

With all that, it's a bit hard to figure what Joe Biden is being accused of. He clearly didn't install Hunter at the job, or they wouldn't need Hunter to set a meeting with Joe. The "10% for the big man" if it was indeed referring to Joe was after he left office. At best you could argue that this was in consideration for some future benefit if Joe Biden became president, but that's a fairly large investment considering that it isn't even clear now that Biden will be president, much less in the early days of the Trump administration. It seems likely that the company hired Biden for his family name and possibly intended to influence Joe, but it's not clear that Joe Biden in any way influenced government policy towards China in a significant way. Also, let's keep in mind, Biden is the vice President. His only official power is to break ties in the Senate. His powers were limited to persuasion.

As for the Burisma stuff, nothing new seems to have come out regarding that. Again, it's not clear what Joe Biden actually did there. He pushed for a prosecutor to be ousted, but there was no active investigation of Burisma. This move was also supported by the EU... So, either there was some legitimate reason for his ouster besides Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden is really fucking persuasive and/or has leverage over the entire EU. In which case... idk. It's morally dubious, but getting everyone in the US and EU to agree to support his private agenda? That's the art of the fucking deal right there. If he's that damn good, maybe he should be president.

The last thing is that Joe is maybe forcing his son to give money to other members of the family? Hunter texted his daughter (again we're just assuming all texts are legitimate) saying he was made to give "half his money" to Joe and he "paid for everything for the family". Even taking this literally, I doubt he's paying for everything, it's unclear what crime is being alleged, beyond maybe being a shitty dad. The best argument is that Joe was securing Hunter jobs for these companies who then pay him large salaries which Joe gets a kickback from... but that doesn't make a ton of sense. If Joe Biden is the one getting Hunter these jobs, then Joe Biden already owes them. Why would they need Hunter Biden to set up meetings if Joe already was so ingrained that he could demand they hire his son?

Again, even ignoring the sketchy details of the story (just going to leave my laptop with this shop, filled with pictures of underage girls and incriminating information, and make sure I put a Biden sticker on it, and I'll never ask for it back... Whoops! The legally blind guy working at the shop knew it was Hunter Biden because we all know what he looks like so well that we can identify him without the benefit of fully functioning eyes. At least I got lucky and the store's security cameras were broken that day so the guy can't prove it was me) I'm still not sure what exactly is being alleged against Joe Biden.

Kind of seems like what they have is that Hunter Biden was doing business with foreign countries, and Joe Biden was Vice President. And they're trying to argue 1+1=100. But, unless nobody in a political figure's family can have international business dealings (Trump's companies which are not in a blind trust do business internationally), I'm not sure what exactly happened here. 

That's probably why Fox News is focusing less on the claims themselves and more on the news coverage, or lack thereof.

I thought this was an obvious ploy to throw some mud in the water with 2 weeks left for the elections.  Meaning that this story really do not need to tie anything together just like a lot of stuff about Clinton, it only need to allege about something to give doubt concerning something that could happen.  The key is the president and fox entertainment host can play this up to election without having anything remotely confirmed because its all just opinion at this point.  The president and his administration is pretty much trying to use the same play book from 2016.

Lock him up.



You guys don't get it; Tucker Carlson had all the receipts but the Deep State stole the only copy while it was being delivered between offices. They totally had the smoking gun but now we'll never know...



TallSilhouette said:
You guys don't get it; Tucker Carlson had all the receipts but the Deep State stole the only copy while it was being delivered between offices. They totally had the smoking gun but now we'll never know...

I feel like I need to clarify here, because some people might thing you are being snarky here.

He is not. This is exactly what Tucker Carlson is claiming.

They had documents allegedly in NY that proved... something? I'm still not sure what the claim is, but Carlson says it proved some wrong doing by Joe Biden.

The documents were in NY, and Carlson asked it to be mailed to him in LA. Despite the importance of the documents, and the many ways to back up information in modern times, or the ability to instantly send copies of the documents via fax... no copies were made and snail mail was how the documents were sent.

According to Carlson, the package was found opened in the carrier's facility, and the documents were gone.

I mentioned a few posts ago that Fox News generally doesn't peddle outright falsehoods, but Carlson proved me wrong. Literally unbelievable. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
TallSilhouette said:
You guys don't get it; Tucker Carlson had all the receipts but the Deep State stole the only copy while it was being delivered between offices. They totally had the smoking gun but now we'll never know...

I feel like I need to clarify here, because some people might thing you are being snarky here.

He is not. This is exactly what Tucker Carlson is claiming.

They had documents allegedly in NY that proved... something? I'm still not sure what the claim is, but Carlson says it proved some wrong doing by Joe Biden.

The documents were in NY, and Carlson asked it to be mailed to him in LA. Despite the importance of the documents, and the many ways to back up information in modern times, or the ability to instantly send copies of the documents via fax... no copies were made and snail mail was how the documents were sent.

According to Carlson, the package was found opened in the carrier's facility, and the documents were gone.

I mentioned a few posts ago that Fox News generally doesn't peddle outright falsehoods, but Carlson proved me wrong. Literally unbelievable. 

Well we do know that nothing said by Carlson has to be true as per the lawsuit against Fox and Carlson.  So yeah, he can pretty much peddle whatever he wants stating someone mail an item and it just so happens that someone knew what it was and snagged the evidence without any copies being made or anything.  Lol, it really gets funny but you would not believe how many soak it up like WWE.



I've been following Texas early voting numbers and the patterns I outlined a few days ago have largely held. Of the top ten counties with the highest voter registration totals, the two Republican counties continue to lead in early voting, though that lead has slightly diminished. If Fort Bend continues it's trend, it may be the new number one by the end of early voting.

At this point, 4/10 counties have surpassed the total vote from 2016 and it is likely two more will cross that threshold with today's vote.

Of the 7 Dem counties plus the 1 Swing county, they are currently at 96.8% of their vote total from 2016. Comparatively, every county outside of the top 10 is currently at 93.0% of the vote total from 2016. This isn't a huge difference, but any difference here is good news for Democrats who tend to take a lead from the biggest counties and lose it because of all the small ones. We'll see if this holds up come election day proper.



JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

I believe I read that if they control for the composition of the electorate, that 17 turns into a 12, which makes a lot more sense.

I thought that was something most polls did by default?

I remembered slightly wrong. Here is the exact quote:

"While the Wisconsin poll indicates Biden has gained ground in the state, some of the shift may be due to variation in random sample surveys. Slightly more registered voters in the current poll report having voted for Clinton than Trump in 2016, whereas the previous survey showed voters essentially split. If the survey is adjusted to match the 2016 election result, Biden maintains a 12-point lead."

I don't believe most polls usually control for past voting trends (though in theory, this should largely be accounted for by other controls) so this may have slipped through, but I don't fully understand it myself to be honest...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/28/wisconsin-michigan-poll-post-abc/?arc404=true



Lots of polls today, which is to be expected as we're closing up.

The Meh News

The national race is closing up... a teensy bit from 9.0 to 8.8 according to 538. If that trend continues, then Biden's lead could be 7.8 on election day, which would still be really good. Of course, there's no guarantee that will happen. HarrisX, also right leaning, has the race at 6 for Biden. 

Part of the change is due to Rasmussen who you can take or leave. Their numbers have been varying from the norm, but moreso, they seem to vary wildly from poll to poll. They now have Biden up by 1 nationally.

IBD/TIPP is still middling as far as the reputable polls go. They have Biden trending upwards, at 6 head to head, and 5 with third parties. Suffolk University has Biden at 8 head to head, and 7 with third parties. Yougov has Biden up by 9.

There are a bunch of newcomers joining the fray at the last minute, and I've no idea how reliable they are or are not. The Winstop Group shows Biden by 5 among registered voters, similar to AtlasIntel. Tufts, which is at least on the up and up, has Biden by 7.

Nationally then, the race is the same. Unless you feel the polls are just all wrong, except for Rasmussen, then you would expect a Biden win.

The Bad News

Speaking of Rasmussen and their wildly swinging polls, they have Trump up by 4 in Arizona. As I mentioned before this is far below the norm. More sketchy though, this is a 6 point swing from their last poll. Assuming there hasn't actually been a huge change in the last week, those are at the very edge of margin of error from eachother. So take that as you will.

Gravis Marketing has Trump up by 9 in Alaska and 2 in Ohio. Considering that Gravis has been giving Biden higher numbers than average, that's good for Trump... Although, bear in mind, these are states that were won by 15 and 8.

University of Massachusetts have Trump up by 1 in Texas, and tied in North Carolina. So, that's goodish for him...

As for what else is possibly good for Trump... well, he has a 19 point lead in Alabama. Although he won that by 28 last time around... so...

The Good News

Survey USA has been giving Biden some meh results, but they give him some nice figures in Maine. They have Biden up by 19 in ME1, and 3 in ME2. Overall, that balances out to a 13 point lead. This is a state that Trump lost by only 3 points in 16.

NY Times has Biden up by 3 in North Carolina, which is an important state as it counters a loss in one of the midwest states.

American Research Group has Biden up by 19 in New Hampshire, which is kind of bizarre. University of New Hampshire is more in line with the Average, with Biden up by 8. The University of Massachusetts Lowell has Biden up by 10. 

New Hampshire probably doesn't matter, but it could lead to a Trump victory in very odd circumstances. If Biden wins back the three rustbelt states he lost last time, and Trump wins all of the states he won last time plus Nevada and New Hampshire, then Trump can just get to 270 (or 269 where he'd probably win). 

More importantly though, NH was actually the closest state last election in terms of the number of votes (tied with Michigan in percentage). So, if the closest state has shifted so heavily towards Biden, it's hard to imagine Michigan or Pennsylvania not shifting 1%. Conversely, if Trump wins New Hampshire, his chances of winning go up to 44, because it would mean Biden is likely being overrated heavily in PA, 

Citizen data has Biden up by 7 in NC, 4 in TX, and 4 in GA!!! But, before you pop the champagne, consider that they also have Jorgenson with 9% of the vote in PA.

Rutgers has Biden up by 24 in New Jersey. There was never any doubt he'd win New Jersey, but in 2016, Clinton won by 14. In Virginia, Biden is up by 12 compared to Clinton's 4 point win. This is the inverse of what we're seeing in states like AK and AL where the winner's lead is closing by similar amounts.

Gravis has Biden up by 6 in Nevada. In line with the average and 4 points or so above what Hillary did. If there is going to be a shocking Trump win in 2016, then Nevada is the most likely state for that. I'm not saying this will happen, but Nevada has been polled far less often than other states that were competitive in 16, so the data is most likely to be off there. Not saying it's likely though.

Quinnipac has some odd results, showing Biden up by 7 in PA, 5 in Ohio, and down 1 in Iowa. None of these are necessarily shocking in isolation, but when taken together, they're strange. Ohio and Iowa voted similarly in 16, and both were about 8 points right of PA. You would expect the gap to be somewhat similar this year. 

Most likely the Ohio poll is the outlier, and the race is closer there. But, PA has not shifted quite as far towards Biden as WI, MI, or MN. So... it's possible that Ohio really will end up with a 3-5 point Biden lead. But... probably not. At any rate, 538 now predicts Biden to win there (although it's still more or less a coin toss). 

The Better News

I've been waiting for some high rated polls in FL, and we got some. Quinnipac has Biden up by 3 there, Marist has him up by 4, and Monmouth has him up by 5. These numbers are better than Biden's seen in the state for a while. Florida is a state that may get called on election night. If it gets called for Biden, it's basically over. All he would need from there would be Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, or Texas (or Iowa + ME2 and NE2). 

My Prediction

It's important to look at multiple datapoints. State level polling may be off in some regions, national polling could be off, and so on.

But when you look at all the data, it all points in the same direction. Blue states like VA, NJ, CO are going from single to double digit leads for Biden. Traditionally deep red states like Alaska, Montana, and South Carolina have gone from double digit to single digit leads for Trump. NC, PA, AZ, TX, GA, PA, OH, IA, NH, and ME are all shifting towards Biden by about 5-8 points. Some states, Florida and Nevada, are moving in the same direction, but by a slightly smaller margin. And the national margin shows a 6+ point swing towards Biden.

Personally, I think the shift may be even larger. There are really a few pollsters that are shifting the average towards Trump, mainly in the swing states. And, as I've discussed, Rasmussen and Trafalgar's polls show some really bizarre things. Like Biden polling at 80% with Democrats but winning independents, black approval of Trump doubling within a week, and just overall wild swings. They also have some strange results.

According to Trafalgar, Biden is polling about as well in Michigan as he is in NC. In PA Trump swung 6 points in 2 weeks according to Insider Advantage. Susquehanna has a swing of 5 points in Arizona in 4 days. Susquehanna had a 9 point swing in a month in Florida. Of course, these things do happen (Wapo had like an 11 point swing in Wisconsin recently), but when we're talking about polls that are funded by very openly conservative groups all swinging big and all in the same direction... Well, it gives one pause. Especially when, unlike 2016, other polls do not show a tightening race. 

In the national average, these polls get drowned out. In non-battleground states, where these guys aren't polling, Biden is universally improving, even in deep red states. If you look at their polls, it's 2016 again. Anyone else's, and it's a much different race. Which, considering how much has gone down in the past 4 years and especially in this one, it should be. Insider has Biden tied in Iowa but down by 2 in Pennsylvania.

The caveat of course is that these polls were, at least in certain states, more accurate than most, and predicted Trump wins where everyone else did not. If these pollsters really did stumble onto some magic formula uncovering poor Trump supporters who are being silenced by their big bad liberal neighbors... Then 2016 may be repeated.

If I'm right though, and these polls are either consciously manipulating data, or are adjusting their sampling methods based on their legitimate belief in hidden Trump supporters, then Biden could actually be doing far better than the data suggests, and it could be a true blowout. 

I've cooled off a bit on my Texas hype, mainly because I have no idea what to make of the absurd surge of voting there. But, I'm still confident that Biden will win a pretty sizable victory overall. 


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 October 2020

Georgia senator gets shredded on the debate stage:

This may put his challenger over the top.