Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

Bofferbrauer2 said:
TallSilhouette said:

Holy Hell...

First he's saying the numbers are all wrng, but then he confirms the 421M$ debt. And then he's calling 421M$ in debt peanuts due to all his other properties.

Also, the guts to have to say that 400 million dollar are "a very small amount of money" in face of normal Americans who can hardly face a 400$ surprise expense...

Pretty sure he will have to sell many of those just to cover his rising debt.

He was right when he said before the election that he'll run the country like a business. He ran it like his businesses: Into the ground!

Strictly speaking, he can pay this off easily... if he liquidated most of his assets, the vast majority which are actually running at a loss and are more valuable as property instead of a business. 

I think he forgot a real estate tycoon makes money by moving properties and not running them! 

It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS! 

    Around the Network

    More people watched the Biden town hall on ABC than Trump on NBC, MSNBC and CNBC combined.

    Trump is now also saying that China will pay for our stimulus much like how Mexico was supposed to pay for our wall. Between this, trying to make Hunter's emails into a scandal like Hillary's, and all the rhetoric acting like he hasn't been president the last four years, he really is rehashing as much of his 2016 campaign as possible, isn't he?

    Last edited by TallSilhouette - on 16 October 2020

    JWeinCom said:


    On polling news. Same old same old, but a few tidbits.

    Monmouth University has Biden up by an average of 4.5 in Arizona. Monmouth hasn't been as positive towards Biden so that's a decent figures. What's worth noting is that their study is based on two different turnout models. One showing Biden up 2 and one up 7.

    Two polls out in Virginia show Biden up by 13 and 15. Biden is projected to win by 13.6%. In 2016 Clinton was up by 5 did in fact win by about 5%. In Colorado, Clinton was expected to win by 4 and won by 5. Biden is up by 11.4%. 

    This speaks to the "polls were off in to 2016 argue". In Colorado we're seeing a swing of 8 points, and about 7%. So then, based on only that, what should we expect in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, traditionally purple states where Trump won by about 1%? Well, we'd expect Biden to lead by about 4-6%. What we see is Biden up by 6 in Pennsylvania, 7.6 in Michigan, and 7 in Wisconsin. This is also what we should expect with a national swing about 8 points. How to explain these numbers? Two possible explanations. 

    a) Numbers in the rust belt are still just as off as they were in 2016. In addition, the national polls, polls in Colorado and Virginia, and other states like Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. have also gotten about as bad as the rust belt polls in 2016.


    b) The national polls, and polls in those states are still about as good as they were in 2016, and the errors in the few states that were way off have been corrected.

    Second seems more likely to me, but believe what you will.

    One also needs to consider some states are more or less elastic than others, in response to election swings, and almost all of them are continuously trending blue or red at varying speeds. You also have places like Manhattan or Washington DC where an 8 point shift towards Biden would be mathematically impossible, so the swing must be happening somewhere else.






    Iowa's Republican Senator makes one of the biggest whiffs I've ever seen that could be fatal to her campaign if it gets enough air time:

    That was brutal.

    TallSilhouette said:

    Iowa's Republican Senator makes one of the biggest whiffs I've ever seen that could be fatal to her campaign if it gets enough air time:

    That was brutal.

    Democratic candidate shows they are knowledgeable about the topic. Republican has no clue, rambles about China, and talks about how Trump will make America great again.

    The party really is following Trump...

    Around the Network
    TallSilhouette said:

    Iowa's Republican Senator makes one of the biggest whiffs I've ever seen that could be fatal to her campaign if it gets enough air time:

    That was brutal.

    Nice way to own yourself, Joni!

    Thankfully for Greenfield, she has enough cash to put that into every Iowa TV.

    Moren said:
    Thankfully for Greenfield, she has enough cash to put that into every Iowa TV.

    And even without that, Joni Ernst doesn't look good anymore. Greenfield is currently polling 4% ahead of her and hasn't lost a poll since early September anymore:

    So, one more state that's likely getting flipped. The Republicans thought they were safe in keeping their majority, and now the question is more if the democrats get 50,51,52 or even 53 seats.

    Warnock looks like he's running away with Georgia's special election with about 40% of the votes (the republican vote is split between 2 candidates while the other 2 democrats are polling pretty low now), and even in the regular election they could flip that seat.

    I'll be very interested at the results from Maine in this presidential election. This is the first one where they (or any US state at this level for that matter) are using a ranked choice voting. Seeing what the first choices of the people in Maine really are will certainly be interesting, as now voting for your preferred candidate instead of one of the big 2 as your first choice shouldn't be considered a wasted vote there anymore (though probably many still have that mentality).

    Just for the funzies, let's look at how elections turned out since the last great realignment, compared to where they stood about now:

    Presidential national average lead, 17 days before E-day:

    1992: Clinton +11.1*
    1996: Clinton +13.8*
    2000: Bush +3.1*
    2004: Bush +3.4
    2008: Obama +5.6
    2012: Obama +0.1
    2016: Clinton +6.4
    2020: Biden: +10.6

    * for the month of October as a whole.

    Final stats, popular vote:

    1992: Clinton +5.6 (5.5 toward Rep)
    1996: Clinton +8.5 (5.3 toward Rep)
    2000: Gore +0.5 (3.6 toward Dem)
    2004: Bush: +2.5 (0.9 toward Dem)
    2008: Obama: +7.3 (1.7 toward Dem)
    2012: Obama: +3.9 (3.8 toward Dem)
    2016: Clinton: +2.1 (4.3 toward Rep)

    Average shift: +0.85 toward Rep
    Predicted Biden margin: +5.1 to +14.4 (median +9.75)
    Predicted EVs, assuming the same partisan lean as 2016: 308-230 to 422-125

    Conclusions: October polls are a strong indicator of the end result and either a) the Clintons always underperform their polls badly; or b) stronger third-party voting correlates with Republicans making up some ground.