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

COKTOE said:

The Trump poll numbers should be at around 0.01%, heading into his live execution on pay per view.

Now, if this was Romania.......



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Herman Cain is dead.

https://youtu.be/9a_3wQHcm_Y



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

That's not correct, the polls were quite accurate. Hillary actually won the vote by 2.1% which is very close to all of these polls. Less than 1% for most of them. It's how the votes are weighted by region in the US that caused Trump to win. In July, Trump was actually closer, at 

UPI/CVoter[4] November 1–7, 2016 49% 46% 3 1,728 ± 3.0%
YouGov/The Economist[5] November 4–7, 2016 49% 45% 4 3,677 ± 1.7%
Bloomberg News/Selzer[6] November 4–6, 2016 46% 43% 3 799 ± 3.5%
ABC News/Washington Post[7] November 3–6, 2016 49% 46% 3 2,220 ± 2.5%
Fox News[8] November 3–6, 2016 48% 44% 4 1,295 ± 2.5%
IBD/TIPP[9] November 3–6, 2016 43% 42% 1 1,026 ± 3.1%

The US economy has collapsed, there's chaos in the streets, unmarked vans kidnapping people, brutalizing children at the border, and federal troops gassing American citizens with weapons banned in international warfare. The US is a mess right now because of Trump's incompetence. He's trying to cancel the election now because of Covid-19 at the very same time as trying to push kids back into schools to spread it further. The GDP in the US is 32.9% down, and the deficit has ballooned to 3.7 trillion USD and is projected to hit 4.215 trillion USD next quarter. What makes you think this is going to lead to a swing for Trump support? He's going down, hard.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

James Comey also reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails right before election and then didn't say anything till two days before election that she was clear of charges.  The damage was done and Trump's crooked Hillary projection worked.  Also she is by far one of the most hated politicians by the Republicans.  Now Trump is one of the most hated politicians among the Democrats.  Trump makes Bush Jr look like a golden child.



Around the Network
forest-spirit said:

More like "Delay the election until I have a better chance at winning".

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

Apparently Trump later tweeted out that he said this as he did, to bring it to light, knowing the msm would take the bait, since he didn't believe it was being covered by them enough. Is this correct?

0:01 - 0:45

59:05 - 1:00:25

For a proclaimed liberal, Eric calling Trump a genius is quite unexpected. Especially when it comes to Trumps tweets. Though the term genius is used in both a positive and negative fashion, as Eric seems to be one of a select few intellectuals legitimately trying to find middle ground.

Who and what to believe?



EricHiggin said:
forest-spirit said:

More like "Delay the election until I have a better chance at winning".

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

Apparently Trump later tweeted out that he said this as he did, to bring it to light, knowing the msm would take the bait, since he didn't believe it was being covered by them enough. Is this correct?

0:01 - 0:45

59:05 - 1:00:25

For a proclaimed liberal, Eric calling Trump a genius is quite unexpected. Especially when it comes to Trumps tweets. Though the term genius is used in both a positive and negative fashion, as Eric seems to be one of a select few intellectuals legitimately trying to find middle ground.

Who and what to believe?

The fox news clip was a joke.  Dude stated the Dems cheated during the 2016 election without anything to back it up.  He basically just tarnished the whole process right from the get go.  Second, the President is trying to say corruption is in the process with absolute no proof.  There are states that have been doing mail in voting for years but you have the current president at a time when his favorite news station is saying he is losing, thing to throw doubt into the process.  It makes him look very bad and there is no way to shake it.  Come January, if he isn't still President and tries to continue to undermine the process because he doesn't like to lose or he loses big, he will look very stupid when they force him out of the white house.  I doubt it will come to that as he probably would just quite.



Jumpin said:
forest-spirit said:

More like "Delay the election until I have a better chance at winning".

No one saw THAT one coming........

Well, except for the millions of people who put 2 and 2 together when he started bashing "mail in votes" WHILE trying to spread Coronavirus.

Even Biden did see that one coming in April.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-donald-trump-delay-election

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/in-april-joe-biden-predicted-trump-would-try-and-delay-election-89187909744

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

Trump and Biden poll quite differently then Trump and Hillary did back in 2016:

Biden is polling much higher than Hillary ever did, both in general and in in several key states.

Meanwhile, Trump is polling much lower than ever he did in 2016.

Hillary was also very inconsistent in her numbers, varying very wildly between 38% and 50% between polls in the same timeframe. The lowest Biden is getting is 45%, and is generally very consistently in the 48-50%, with some spikes up to 55%

Finally, if you look at the polls from 2016, a Hillary victory was far from guaranteed. While Hillary was leading in most polls, the difference was within the margin of error and Trump had some wins along the way, especially in September where he was outright winning in the polls.

The statewide polls also showed that Hillary's victory was far from guaranteed, with Trump right behind her. That said, he made some big upsets here with Wisconsin (where polls were 8% in favor of Hillary), and maybe Pennsylvania (pollsters and polling aggregators warned the results were closer than the raw numbers showed due to the countryside being underrepresented. And nobody took the poll from Alaska seriously in the first place (Hillary winning and Gary Jonson at 18%).

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 31 July 2020

Nautilus said:
I'll just leave this here:

Never trust polls, especially when it's still this far off the election. Most polls pointed to Trump defeat in 2016, and look what happened. Same thing happened in Brazil, and I bet the same thing happens in most countries.Hell, if you look at other US elections, you will probably see the same pattern.

It has nothing to do if Trump is winning on them or if he is losing. Polls are historically unaccurate, especially in these past 5 or 6 years.

Clinton never had the lead Biden has or as consistently. This will not be a repeat of 2016 which outside of Wisconsin state polls, most were actually within margin of error.



In qualitatively more serious campaign news, Barbie has recently declared her seventh presidential run. National Public Radio recently interviewed Barbie, her campaign manager, her fundraiser, and the one voter in Mattel's election, concerning her seventh defeat. What went wrong?

I recommend the linked parody interview because there's more truth therein than I've yet heard in any actual politician's concession speech or post-loss/victory interviews. For example, consider this part:

-----------------------------------------------------------

CANDIDATE BARBIE: Shatter the glass ceiling? At this point? There's about as much chance as there is of a real woman having this figure. [motions to her own DD-cup breasts and 22-inch waist]

CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I'm so sick of that joke.

VOTER: Candidate Barbie isn't married. That's weird, right?

CANDIDATE BARBIE: [draining scotch] Ok, I take it back. Girls can do anything. I know this. Please make sure to print that: "girls can do anything." [glares] Make. Sure. You print that.

VOTER: I'll be honest: I just wasn't a hundred percent sure she was electable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's not that much of an exaggeration of what people's attitudes really are in my observation. Barbie can get away with saying the depressing truth 'cause she ain't real. Lots more amusingly sad truths are contained in NPR's fabricated interview. Read.