Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Antiganon]

Yeah the no enforcement thing is pretty screwy I do agree, I just don't trust future president's, well future republican presidents, to not abuse the hell out of it.

Laws can be passed dictating that FEC must always have a quorum, and that if positions are unfilled by the President for X amount of time, Congress gets to nominate someone.

Laws can also be passed giving the FEC far sharper teeth in terms of investigative and enforcement power. Maybe have an FBI white collar crime task force assigned specifically to election security and fraud - given federal elections from 2016 to now, it's clearly warranted.

The nomination rules could also be changed, perhaps have the President nominate individuals well in advance, for positions they wouldn't fill until after the next general election, to prevent nominating people with the intent that they find in your favor when you are campaigning for reelection.

[beanman12345]

That's what the GOP pollsters kept saying. Seriously, what else are they going to say at this point.

Maybe there will be a hurricane and major power outages on November 3. Then they are stuck with whatever votes they have at that time.

as long as we have more then the abysmal 55% turnout of 2016 republicans are screwed imo.

[PhaelixWW]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-w...=hp_opin_pos_1

WSJ Op-ed for anyone with a sub, but -

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...m_npd_ms_fb_ma

Truth be told, I am a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, small-government, strong-defense and a national-anthem-standing conservative. But, I also believe that black lives matter, that the Dreamers deserve a path to citizenship, that diversity and inclusion are essential to our national success, that education is the great equalizer, that climate change is real and that the First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy. Most important, I believe that America must lead in the world with courage, conviction and a sense of honor and humility.

He added, "I voted for Joe Biden."

Retired Adm. William McRaven, former commander of the US Special Operations Command and the SEAL that oversaw the raid that killed Bin Laden.

If only those views were the core ideology of the GoP. I dream of a future where political opponents can act like that.

[cubby]

Laws can be passed dictating that FEC must always have a quorum, and that if positions are unfilled by the President for X amount of time, Congress gets to nominate someone.

Laws can also be passed giving the FEC far sharper teeth in terms of investigative and enforcement power. Maybe have an FBI white collar crime task force assigned specifically to election security and fraud - given federal elections from 2016 to now, it's clearly warranted.

The nomination rules could also be changed, perhaps have the President nominate individuals well in advance, for positions they wouldn't fill until after the next general election, to prevent nominating people with the intent that they find in your favor when you are campaigning for reelection.

It would be possible to have them stem from the Judicial Branch - they are the only part of the federal government that isn't elected. If their oversight came directly from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rotating three judges every sit months to sit in on any cases/warrants/etc, it would keep the politicians out of it as much as possible.

Who selects the head of that "division", however, would be tricky.

[Rasulis]

Trump loses bid to block deadline extension for North Carolina ballot

In a 12-3 decision, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a bid to halt the North Carolina State Board of Elections from tallying ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 that arrive before Nov. 12.

Is the administration going to appeal to SCOTUS? Although time is getting short.

[PhaelixWW]

as long as we have more then the abysmal 55% turnout of 2016 republicans are screwed imo.

55% is actually quite standard.

[Rasulis]

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...ntage/2348441/

Somehow the Trump campaign has managed to blow a BILLION dollars and are running low on cash as the election nears.

We don't know where over $300M went due to limited liability companies providing plenty of cover for their spending. But it's insane that they've managed to waste that much money with so little to show for it.

If you can't manage campaign finances, how are we supposed to believe he'll handle national finances?

That's why he is going to spend this Sunday fund raising in commie hell hole California.

[beanman12345]

55% is actually quite standard.

hmm that run's pretty contrary to CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/polit...016/index.html

[PhaelixWW]

hmm that run's pretty contrary to CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/polit...016/index.html

Their numbers appear to be wrong.

[beanman12345]

Their numbers appear to be wrong.

I'll trust them, thanks though.

[PhaelixWW]

I'll trust them, thanks though.

Let's check 2008 numbers. The population pyramid for the US in 2008 shows us that roughly 24.92% of the US population of 303.5m were under the age of 18, leaving a VAP of 227.9m. There were 129.5m votes cast in the 2008 election. That amounts to 56.8% VAP turnout, which is very near the 57.1% listed by wikipedia and far from the 63.7% quoted in the CNN article.

[Zaydin]

Oh...well reposting since I guess we're on the other end of that gushing. Also, because I'm god-damned fucking furious as all hell about it and wish there was something I could do.

Yep. It's definitely enraging.

Gave me snark for Qtards that we found the cabal of elitist child traffickers and it turned out to be the man they worship.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...ntage/2348441/

Somehow the Trump campaign has managed to blow a BILLION dollars and are running low on cash as the election nears.

We don't know where over $300M went due to limited liability companies providing plenty of cover for their spending. But it's insane that they've managed to waste that much money with so little to show for it.

If you can't manage campaign finances, how are we supposed to believe he'll handle national finances?

“You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn’t have burned through it as stupidly.”

Still one of my favorite lines from that article.

[Rasulis]

Heh! ABC7/Union Tribune poll shows that Biden is ahead of Trump by three points in CA District 50. My district. Unless you live here, you have no idea how crazy that is. This district is so red that it elected Duncan Hunter even when he was under indictment in 2018.

[beanman12345]

Let's check 2008 numbers. The population pyramid for the US in 2008 shows us that roughly 24.92% of the US population of 303.5m were under the age of 18, leaving a VAP of 227.9m. There were 129.5m votes cast in the 2008 election. That amounts to 56.8% VAP turnout, which is very near the 57.1% listed by wikipedia and far from the 63.7% quoted in the CNN article.

yeah the problem with the numbers you are giving is they are including blank, spoiled and otherwise null ballots, so that's probably why your numbers seem pretty skewed. here ya go. https://history.house.gov/Institutio...on-Statistics/ it's pretty wonky tbh

[PhaelixWW]

Let's check 2008 numbers. The population pyramid for the US in 2008 shows us that roughly 24.92% of the US population of 303.5m were under the age of 18, leaving a VAP of 227.9m. There were 129.5m votes cast in the 2008 election. That amounts to 56.8% VAP turnout, which is very near the 57.1% listed by wikipedia and far from the 63.7% quoted in the CNN article.

Some of the confusion appears to be that the wikipedia article is measuring turnout as a percentage of VAP, while the CNN article is measuring it as a percentage of VEP. Using VEP gives numbers closer to 60%. But the other problem is the fact that the CNN article was written only days after the election in 2016, before the full amount of ballots had been properly tabulated. It would appear that, after the votes were all counted, that the final turnout rate of 2016 was closer to 60%, which is higher than any election going all the back to 1968, barring a relative tie with the first election after 9/11 in 2004 and the election of the first black president in 2008.



So... yeah. Turnout in 2016 was not low. At least not compared to other presidential elections.

[beanman12345]

Some of the confusion appears to be that the wikipedia article is measuring turnout as a percentage of VAP, while the CNN article is measuring it as a percentage of VEP. Using VEP gives numbers closer to 60%. But the other problem is the fact that the CNN article was written only days after the election in 2016, before the full amount of ballots had been properly tabulated. It would appear that, after the votes were all counted, that the final turnout rate of 2016 was closer to 60%, which is higher than any election going all the back to 1968, barring a relative tie with the first election after 9/11 in 2004 and the election of the first black president in 2008.



So... yeah. Turnout in 2016 was not low. At least not compared to other presidential elections.

It was updated nearly a month after the election... but okay.

also 2016 was now closer to 60% wasn't your original post saying it was 55.5? as I said, I'll trust CNN thanks.

[PhaelixWW]

yeah the problem with the numbers you are giving is they are including blank, spoiled and otherwise null ballots, so that's probably why your numbers seem pretty skewed.

I mean... that would have the opposite effect, you know.

here ya go. https://history.house.gov/Institutio...on-Statistics/ it's pretty wonky tbh

I mean, these are just the results, they don't calculate VAP or VEP. But just based on total population, those support my post.

2016 had 136.8m successful votes cast for the presidency. That's 42.3% of the 2016 population of 323.1m.

2012 had 129.1m successful votes cast for the presidency. That's 41.1% of the 2012 population of 313.9m.

I could do a deeper breakdown of the percentage of the population 18 and over, but there's zero possibility it changed sufficiently between those elections.

[beanman12345]

I mean... that would have the opposite effect, you know.



I mean, these are just the results, they don't calculate VAP or VEP. But just based on total population, those support my post.

2016 had 136.8m successful votes cast for the presidency. That's 42.3% of the 2016 population of 323.1m.

2012 had 129.1m successful votes cast for the presidency. That's 41.1% of the 2012 population of 313.9m.

I could do a deeper breakdown of the percentage of the population 18 and over, but there's zero possibility it changed sufficiently between those elections.

k, I'll trust CNN thanks.

[PhaelixWW]

It was updated nearly a month after the election... but okay.

For chrissake, no. The article may have been updated, but the graphic wasn't. It even says "*2016 vote totals are as of November 10, but they will be higher by the time all vote-counting is complete in mid-December." as well as "Sources: CNN.com, preliminary election results as of November 10, 2016"

And the article clearly wasn't updated all that much, either, considering that it's quoting a total of 126m votes, compared to the actual total of 136.8m votes per the government report that you later linked.

Simple math would translate that 55.4% into a 60.1% just through the 126m/136.8m discrepancy, which would put it at least on par with 2012 and above 1996 and 2000 even on CNN's graph.

also 2016 was now closer to 60% wasn't your original post saying it was 55.5? as I said, I'll trust CNN thanks.

Already explained as a VAP vs VEP discrepancy.

Why the heck are you clinging to this so hard?

[Rasulis]

I am looking at several California Congressional District races that were supposed to be close. However, the early numbers are pretty one-sided.

District 8 - Paul Cook district. Dem is ahead by 3 pts.

District 21 – TJ Cox and David Valadao. Cox was caught in some financially compromising situations. So most people were expecting that he will lose this race. Right now Dem voters are ahead by 31 pts. It is possible that those Dem voters are voting for Valadao. However, that seems unlikely.

District 25 – Mike Garcia and Christy Smith. It does not like the GOP will hold on to this district. Dem voters are ahead by 20 pts.

District 38 – Gil Cisneros and Kim Young. Dem voters are ahead by 13 pts.

District 22 – Nunes district. GOP is ahead by 3 pts with 6.3% NAV. So maybe Christmas will come early.

District 23 – McCarthy district. Looks like he is pretty save.

District 48 - Rouda district. Dem ahead by 5 pts.

If we can flip Cook, Garcia, Rouda and Duncan districts, that's 4 additional congressional seats from California. With Nunes, maybe it will snow in Central Valley, that would make 5 seats.