Would that not be the case though?

In PA Johnson got 2.4% of the vote. So, 3% for Jorgenson wouldn't be that unlikely as a Jorgenson may be getting Trump protest supporters. I.e. right wing people who are not down with Trump's rhetoric and tempermant. And younger people tend to vote more for third parties in general. Especially because younger voters are less likely to support Trump. So 6% doesn't seem crazy to me. I'm kind of hoping it is, because if they don't stick with Jorgenson, I feel they'll more likely going Trump. 

Mindblowingly about 40% of people said they trusted Trump more on handling Coronavirus... wonder if any changed their mind.

Surprisingly maybe, Biden narrowly won on the law and order issue in Florida. Trump won among men but Biden's lead among women outweighed that. That's not a great sign, as this was really the issue where Trump has been trying to hammer Biden, and it doesn't seem to be working. Biden also beats him in mental sharpness (although it's close) so that attack isn't working. And, Biden wins out in honesty, so trying to tie him to any potential Hunter Biden shenanigan isn't working either. The only issue Trump wins on is slightly on the economy and very slightly in "being a strong leader"

Also, Biden wasn't helped by the debate, but it seems like Trump was hurt. About 35% said they were more likely to support Biden after compared to 29 who said less. For Trump it was 20% said more (dafuq?) vs 48%. 

It is worth noting though that in the poll, which republicans were more represented, 39% of people polled voted for Hillary, and 38% Trump. Which was a little different than what actually went down.

And therein lies the problem with modern politics. Facts don't matter, just beliefs. 

I tried getting through to him with blunt force. It didn't work. Torillian tried getting through to him with well-reasoned arguments. It didn't work. Jweincom tried getting through to him using logic and reason. It didn't work. you tried getting through to him using counterpoints and more reason. It didn't work. 

IT's clear he has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to apply logic and reason, he has no interest in finding the truth or bettering himself, and he's absolutely convinced of his own superiority despite there being no evidence to back that up. 

There's a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that calling someone that is grounds to get banned even if all evidence points to it being true. 

It might be time to give up on him. In time he'll go away mumbling about having right-wing voices silenced and how its all censorship and how no snowflake cuck leftists are willing to listen to him even if, time and time again, he's proven he has nothing of value to say. I tried, man. I really tried. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Willfully ignorant people are that way for a reason, and no logic or rationality will change that. 

He eventually said he was wrong. So, we can probably move on. The issue relating to US politics was resolved. Epistemology may be worth discussing, but it's off topic here.

I will never run out of people like you. Its just too easy to get you going.

This has come up in a couple of threads, so this isn't towards you only.

But when a mod jumps in and tells people to move on, that should be a clear signal for both parties to drop it. If I tell Runa to drop it, and then you respond in this manner, it's defeating the purpose at best. At worst it's using the fact that a mod already posted a warning as an excuse to get in one last dig since Runa at this point should be moderated if they continue.

I think my last post was pretty clear. If those kinds of in thread warnings aren't sufficient, then we have to go to actual moderation which believe it or not we generally want to avoid when possible.

We're not really in the realm of politics anymore, so anything further should be directed towards me via PM. Or, if you both want to you can PM each other. Seems like it wouldn't be worth it, but I'm not going to tell you how to live your lives.

You weren't talking to me here, but this post implicitly addressed me (second paragraph) and also commented on a topic I haven't really voiced my opinion on very clearly as yet that maybe I should -- Antifa -- so I just wanted to respond:

Regarding Antifa: I've had my own run-ins with people calling themselves antifa on the social medias and on a certain level I actually agree with you: they're "just an idea" like Al Qaeda or ISIS was/is "just an idea". They're very real people and they're legitimately scary and dangerous. I really do think their whole "anti-fascism" hook is an exercise in projection because their entire purpose is to harass and attack (sometimes physically) really anyone who disagrees with their aggregate worldview in any way. I mean I know from first-hand experience that these people will gang up on you in huge numbers and collectively threaten your life over and over and over and over again, try and hack your web accounts, and will not leave you alone once they learn you hold one view they expansively define as "fascist". And you don't have to be a "Nazi" or even a Donald Trump supporter or a conservative at all for this to happen to you, you can be assured. Most of the antifa people call themselves anarchists in terms of their broader politics, but frankly they act more like the tyrants they claim to be fighting. I would denote in particular their fetish for Jacobin-inspired imagery, like their cutesy cardboard guillotines they often carry around. This is a serious psychological problem that much of the like "democratic socialist" left in this country has, in my observation. Like the Democratic Socialists of America, similarly, runs a newspaper called Jacobin. The main thing the historical Jacobins have been known for was publicly beheading their critics. ...There's just something interesting implied there about the crux of what these people's goals are and it has nothing to do with making the world a better place or freer or more socialistic or whatever. There is something that's legitimately hateful about it.

These things said, it also isn't truly fair to suggest that antifa people, as they call themselves, are actually, literally analogous to like ISIS or to white supremacist organizations or others that have a body count because, at the end of the day, Antifa doesn't have a direct body count (...so far anyway). Like for example, a recent study of 893 terrorism incidents in the U.S. since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to antifa people or other self-identified "anti-fascists" while, by contrast, 329 deaths were attributed directly to right wing perpetrators. These are also facts, to which end I don't know that "terrorist" is necessarily the right descriptor for Antifa. I'd characterize them more as simply a political hate/crime network. They're also not "highly organized" like President Trump claimed in the debate. Antifa is decentralized network of anti-right activists. So I mean like when President Trump infamously compared the people protesting the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville to the "Jews..will not..replace us! Jews..will not..replace us!" people on the other side of that event who shot at people with live ammunition and of course conducted an ISIS-style car attack that killed Heather Heyer and injured more than a dozen other people, even if he were specifically and exclusively condeming the antifa activists on the counter-protest side and not anyone else there (like Heather Heyer!), the comparison still wasn't a truly fair one. It was still a false equivalency just objectively. To be clear, it's precisely because (unlike antifa people) I legitimately believe in freedom of speech that I'm against any terrorism designation that's not truly earned. Crimes should be punished, but people should be allowed to hold whatever opinions they want, in my view; even hateful ones. I don't believe in treating them the same way they would treat me. I'm better than they are.

All this said, I am human myself. To that end, it's fair to say that I legitimately hate Donald Trump. I have already said that I hope he dies from this covid infection and I maintain that position. That's NOT the same thing as saying that I hate you or conservatives in the abstract or just people who support President Trump in the abstract or wish harm on any of you. Your actions haven't killed anyone (to my knowledge)! And I mean, living where I do on the map, I know enough Donald Trump enthusiasts to know full-well that many Trump supporters really are well-intentioned in their own way and are by no means all a bunch of racists and whatnot. Like I'm not broad-brushing here. And yeah, I can understand why my aggressive way of condemning President Trump could be hurtful to you and other such well-meaning people who perhaps really just wish for America, or for their particular communities, to have more respect or at least acknowledgment as being of value in the world and not just forgotten or disrespected. I get that. But look...this president has the highest body count of any like almost in the whole history of this country to date, has utterly disrespected me as a woman as well my family and what it represents to me, and just caused me untold volumes of very real trauma ever since entering upon the political stage more than five years ago now, and I really, really don't think he's well-intentioned at all or has a soul or is even loyal to this country. He makes fun of people like my dad for dying! I reserve the right to be human and wish ill on such a person. I don't think that's unfair. I'm sorry if you feel indirectly hurt by that, but I really can't help seething with hate whenever I think about this man. I'm human! I ask simply that you allow me to be human instead of politically correct.

I don't think so, since there was a number of factors back in 2016 that contributed to a high number of third party voters that you aren't going to see in a highly contested election where an incumbent is running.

6% is just too much for a state that has no significant third party tradition and a candidate who didn't even come first in the primaries, struggled to beat Vermin Supreme, and has overall a significantly lower profile than Gary Johson. Even within a favorable demographic, as you correctly point out.

The size of the subsample will have a very high margin of error, anyway, so yeah.

In polling news, nothing major. But the Wall Street Journal has a poll where Biden is up by a massive 14%. This is a pollster that has been fairly accurate.

Does this mean Biden is up by 14? Most certainly not. But, seeing where outlier results are gives us a good idea of the range of possibilities. This poll is most likely within the margin of error in Biden's favor. The margin of error was 3.4% and the results were 53 to 39. So... the if the poll was off by the max in favor of both candidates, the actual results could be something like 49 to 43 (margin of error I believe applies to each candidate not the total). 

The main point is that if the actual difference in the race is somewhere around 7-9% in favor of Biden then we should mostly have polls around there, but we SHOULD also being some polls like this one in the low teens, and a few polls that are around 4%. This is exactly what we're seeing for the most part. 

As for state polls, not much going on. Yougov has Ohio as even, and Biden up by 7 in PA. Which is pretty much the status quo, but showing a notable trend towards Biden in PA. Ohio is mostly an irrelevancy except insofar as it shows the overall trend in the area. Last election, Trump won PA by about 1% and Ohio by 9%. So, if Biden is increasing by 9% in Ohio, and 7% in PA, those results kind of reinforce one another. Actually winning Ohio would be nice, but probably irrelevant, because if Biden is even close in Ohio, he already won Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and the election.

I think Jo Jorgenson might do better than you think. While it's a tight race with an incumbent running, it's a very unpopular incumbent. I can see a significant number of republicans casting protest votes for her.

Who the fuck is Jo Jorgenson? Oh she is a libertarian. lol. Gary Johnson got about 1 percent of vote. She will get zero. Because she is a female and from a fringe party.

In an April 2014 "Ask Me Anything" session on Reddit, Johnson stated that he hoped to run for president again in 2016.[105] On whether he would run as a Libertarian or a Republican, he stated: "I would love running as a Libertarian because I would have the least amount of explaining to do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#2016_presidential_campaign

That is the problem with libertarians. They have less plans than republicans.  Granted it might be better than republicans who only want to give tax cuts to the rich.