Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

Ka-pi96 said:
coolbeans said:

"Less options in order to help my candidate is good, actually."

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

By that logic, you could just as well outlaw all parties or independents who aren't the democrats or the GOP to run for the presidential election.

An option is an option, no matter their chances in the end.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
coolbeans said:

"Less options in order to help my candidate is good, actually."

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning?  Yes, you can.  This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes.

Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions.  That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you.  It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties.



September 2020 Articles: 

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445274/through-the-darkest-of-times-xone/ (Through the Darkest of Times Review - 7/10)

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6161/Windbound/ (Windbound Review - 8.0/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445393/battletoads-xone/ (Battletoads Review - 7/10)

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

By that logic, you could just as well outlaw all parties or independents who aren't the democrats or the GOP to run for the presidential election.

An option is an option, no matter their chances in the end.

It was meant as a pop at America's broken electoral system in which only 2 parties actually have a chance to win and it's a case of win or get absolutely nothing...

So I'd much rather they change the laws so that all parties and independents could actually benefit and have some say, even if they don't win the election.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

coolbeans said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning?  Yes, you can.  This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes.

Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions.  That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you.  It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties.

See above. I'm not suggesting anything. Just mocking the broken electoral system.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
coolbeans said:

Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning?  Yes, you can.  This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes.

Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions.  That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you.  It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties.

See above. I'm not suggesting anything. Just mocking the broken electoral system.

I see.  Still a strange *way to go about that, but whatever.

Yeah, yeah.  Although I empathize with some of the bigger comments on here that've dissected systemic issues with winner-take-all, I'm just tired of that being a "well...guess I gotta get with the program then."  I'm just not quick to care about wider policy solutions in this respect when seemingly no effort has been made with the cards we've been dealt.  Reaching for the independent votes isn't a fools errand all by itself.  Even reaching 5% of the vote nets you "minority party" status with the FEC, resulting in their next run's nominee getting a lump sum of cash.  Even if it's not much $$$ on hand, the concomitant effects from that could actually get them on national stages and make them publicly known.

Someone may find these types of results pitiful.  Whatever.  But it's objectively not nothing either.  This ruling seems to further harm the hand Americans have been dealt. 

Last edited by coolbeans - 5 days ago

September 2020 Articles: 

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445274/through-the-darkest-of-times-xone/ (Through the Darkest of Times Review - 7/10)

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6161/Windbound/ (Windbound Review - 8.0/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445393/battletoads-xone/ (Battletoads Review - 7/10)

Around the Network
coolbeans said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning?  Yes, you can.  This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes.

Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions.  That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you.  It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties.

Every presidential election is the most important one.

Other countries have solutions for the problem though. May it be ranked choice voting (like in Australia) or a runoff voting (like in France). But the abscense of such solutions is no reason to block third-parties to run.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

An analysis from 538 gives Pennsylvania a great importance in the election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvania-could-decide-the-2020-election/



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

EnricoPallazzo said:

JWeinCom said:

Not only can he stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot people, he can also lie to people about a coming plague and not lose any voters.

I honestly think this should be considered criminal behavior. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater if there's no fire. By the same token, you shouldn't be able to scream "no fire" when there actually is a fire. 

This is a false statement made with knowledge of its falsity that has undoubtedly caused harm and death. It is not protected by the first amendment. He should be jailed, and there should be a deluge of civil lawsuits. 

Of course, there is a question of presidential immunity...

Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.

This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".

You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.

NightlyPoe said:
JWeinCom said:

To give a bit of context...

The Green Party candidate needed 2000 signatures to appear on the ballot. She submitted those, but many of the signatures had the wrong address for the candidate. The candidate said that it was because she moved recently.

Accordingly, her application was rejected on August 20th. She filed a lawsuit on September 3rd. Statutes require ballots to be sent out by September 16th.

The court did not address whether or not the claim of Walker, the candidate argued the election committee fucked up by not counting the signatures, were valid. Instead they ruled that because she did not raise the objection in a timely fashion, waiting about two weeks from notification, in a time sensitive matter they would not accept the case. Because the only way to address the complaint would be to miss the deadline for sending out ballots, or send out duplicate ballots which could lead to confusion.

For the conservatives who take issue with that decision, election deadlines tend to be very strict. Bush v. Gore which essentially decided the presidency was largely decided because a recount could not be feasibly done before the results had to be certified. So, to argue that the process should be delayed to get the green party candidate on the ballot seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent (which doesn't necessarily govern the matter, but seems like it should hold water nonetheless).

As a practical matter, this is good for Biden, and I'd argue, generally good for democracy. There is a legitimate problem that a candidate who maybe should have been on the ballot will not be. But, the only possible answer, mainly due to that candidate's delay, would be to delay ballots getting to voters and send out at least some duplicate ballots. Neither option was perfect, but the second I think was more problematic as putting more stress on the mail in ballot system can lead to votes not being counted before the deadline (which would be a huge constitutional kerfuffle) and potential confusion in general. And, let's be real, it's a party that was to receive very little support. It's unlikely the amount of green party voters will sway the election. Although, it did in 2016, so if Biden wins by less than 30,000 or so, that would be interesting...

This is all Wisconsin law, not federal law.  Other examples of courts deciding to put a person on the ballot after the time has passed can be found, including explicit state laws to the contrary.  Most infamously in 2002 when the New Jersey Supreme Court said that Lautenberg could be put on the after the previous Democrat had simply dropped out (ethics issues in New Jersey, I know you're shocked) and party bosses decided Lautenberg should fill the role about 35 days before the election in direct violation of New Jersey law.

SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

Yes... which is why I said the Supreme Court case doesn't govern. But courts can refer to any other court they like for guidance, provided that doesn't conflict with a higher court in their jurisdiction. Most courts will look to the Supreme Court before any state courts. The court declining a case does not mean they approve of the result. The Lautenberg case is probably distinguishable anyway, but that's irrelevant. 



JWeinCom said:

EnricoPallazzo said:

Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.

This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".

You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.

Whataboutism at its finest. Like, so many people act like Trump's transgressions aren't significant just because nobody's perfect. Biden might very well be a shitty person (he kind of is from what I can tell), but he's still leagues better than Trump in literally every way. Like, holy shit, there's a world of difference between 'kinda creepy, kind of a hypocrite, kind of unreliable' and 'actively lies every time he opens his mouth, blatantly brags about sexual assault, almost comical levels of arrogance and narcissism, and a list of scandals big enough to fuel a network crime drama for 30 years'. Neither candidate is perfect, but holy shit Trump is so much worse.

It's like stepping in a pile of dog shit while barefoot vs being thrown into a river of steaming hot raw sewage that's being churned around you. Both will make for a bad day, but the degree in which it's a bad day is on a whole other ballpark, representing another sport, that we haven't heard of before, on an alien planet. 



Going to post poll updates, because this whole thing stresses me out and this maybe makes me feel less stressed.

Some new results came in and they are mostly good for the Biden campaign.

Quinnipiac is the first decent pollster in a while to poll Maine's second district and found Biden with a pretty solid lead of 9 points. It's not great to rely on one poll, but as this is a one electoral vote district, not a lot of people are polling it. Despite it being such a small prize, there are a lot of scenarios where Trump will need either ME-2 or NE-2 to break an electoral tie, and both to win.

Washington Post (A+ rating) has Biden up by 6 amongst likely voters in Wisconsin and up by a whopping 16 in Minnesota. The results in Minnesota are surprising, and should be taken with a grain of salt despite the quality of the source. But, other highly rated polls have had Biden up by about 10, so while 16 is probably not accurate (there's a margin of error) it seems Minnesota is pretty safe for Biden. Wisconsin is somewhat more vulnerable, but still looks likely for Biden. If that's the case, Trump would probably need wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Speaking of Florida, Monmouth has Biden up by 4. That's a decent foundation, especially as Mikey B is prepared to barrage the state with 100,000,000 dollars in advertising. If Biden wins Florida, then the election is over for all practical purposes.

Last, polls show Trump with a 6 point lead in South Carolina. This is only one poll, albeit by a B+ rated pollster, but it's still got to be a little bit concerning considering this was a state that Trump carried by about 14% in 2016. If that polling is correct, Trump is about as vulnerable in SC as Biden is in Wisconsin. Losing SC would be a blow. Moreover, if South Carolina is so close, that doesn't bode well for Trump in its neighbors, North Carolina and Georgia, both of which were very competitive in 2016 and competitive now. If Trump actually only wins SC by 6% then he'll very likely lose GA and NC, and the election.

In non polling news, Trump is pulling TV ads from certain states (for now at least) including Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. This means one of two things. Either Trump is confident in those states, or he is running out of money.

In the case of Nevada confident would mean confident of a loss. Iowa and Ohio could mean confident of a win. But, the polls don't give much reason for confidence. More likely this is running out of money, and wanting to spend it during the end of the election. But, we're already near the end, and people are already starting to vote via mail in ballots and early voting. Ohio is especially striking as losing Ohio would mean losing the election. Theoretically, Trump could make up for Ohio by winning Pennsylvania or some combination of two other rust belt states, but Trump won Ohio by 9 points, while winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by about one point each. So, it's hard to see a scenario where Trump loses in Ohio and wins the election.