Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Belize]

On topic: So let's talk about Ted Cruz.

He's fucked.

Wow, an obviously fabricated story didn't fool anyone that wasn't already a fool themselves.

[Breccia]

If you disagree, let us know. If you don't respond, I'll take that as an admission that you agree with my assessment.

High five.

On topic: Biden launches a blitz of ads aimed at cementing the Latino-American vote. He is, of course, not asking people to vote illegally, such as by voting twice, that's more of a Trump thing.

Of note: one of the ads is mostly in Spanish except for two words: "criminal" and "rapist".

[PACOX]

Yes. YES

Do the chilean strategy

All this talk about 'we need to pack the courts here' and 'we need to rewrite this there' are reactionary fantasies.

Any changes to SCOTUS can and will be used against the Democrats.

1. Biden was placed on the ballot because he is an easy choice that does not require much effort. Not one that will in much change that requires much political involvement from the citizen. That way people can sit at home and feel good about themselves. Reverting to 2015 is not change.

2. Many people want 'change' don't understand what it takes to get their or what they actual want/are asking for. They just want a partisan victory.

If the Democrats were actual a party capable of getting to the ballots to punish politicians stepping out of bounds, it would have happened in 2016 after McConnell upheld a head. The same cards were on the table back then and the future of SCOTUS was clear as day. And yet the GOP coasted into controlling all 3 branches. It took 2018 for any sort of movement and even then it was rather light. The party as a whole is lazy, shortsighted, and and reactionary. Which leads into my next point.

3. You cannot suddenly make grand changes to a major institution with a narrow majority. Imagine for a second if the GOP expanded SCOTUS in 2016 when they were fully capable of doing so. How do you think the country would have reacted? Legally they could have done in easily. Practically? Everything would turned as blue as the sky in a heartbeat, and that's the bare minimum. The President that signed off it is getting impeached. Democrats would see an equal and opposite effect. Its not happening.

The short term gains aren't worth the long term problems. All that's achieved is a weak SCOTUS and a massive power gain shift to the President. What happens if if another Trump gains office, worse, a competent Trump and a number of seats go vacant? 3 seats now is OP. 5 seats out of 11...welcome to the Supreme Court of that President instead of Supreme Court of the United States. Even after said President is gone their administration virtual exists in a completely different branch of government. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Breccia]

does Biden know who he is running against?

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Outright lie detected.

No, Biden did not confuse George W. Bush and Donald Trump

The “I Will Vote” concert was hosted by comedian George Lopez and political commentator Ana Navarro. The segment begins with what looks like a fancy Zoom call. Navarro and Lopez are each in a separate frame, as are the Bidens and a sign language interpreter.

Lopez asks Biden why undecided Americans should vote and vote for him. As Biden begins his answer, the frames of Navarro and Lopez are dropped from the screen.

“First of all, the reason they should vote is there is a lot on, on the ballot this year. This is the most consequen — not because I’m running but because of who I am running against — this is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time and the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot,” Biden responds. “What kind of country are we going to be?”

Then, he stutters, “Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh, are going to find ourselves in position where if uh Trump gets elected uh we are going to be uh, going to be in a different world.”

Or was it: “Four more years, uh, George, uh, George, uh, we, uh.” It’s hard to tell.

With his caption, Guest answers an unspoken question of just who is the “George,” suggesting that Biden confused President Trump with former president George W. Bush. His evidence is this exact clip with one important tweak. The clip Guest tweeted begins when Biden says, “This is the most,” but after Navarro and Lopez were dropped from the screen, making it appear as though Biden is simply addressing the audience.

By beginning the clip after the moderators were removed from the screen, viewers have no idea that Biden could have been referring to George Lopez, who had originally asked the question.

Aww, did someone get caught using an edited video to spread misinformation?

The Pinocchio Test

As we have documented this campaign season, the Trump campaign and the RNC are eager purveyors of misleading and out-of-context clips. They earn lots of clicks, which is perhaps the point, but it’s pretty childish behavior. After all, Trump makes plenty of verbal slips, too. (Just ask his former national security adviser, “Michael Bolton.”)

Guest’s tweet is a classic example of the isolation, according to The Fact Checker’s Guide to Manipulated Video. Starting the clip when the moderators were no longer on the screen, he eliminated key context by removing the most obvious George that Biden could be referring to — George Lopez — and filled in the gap with an answer better suited to the Trump campaign’s unproven narrative of Biden’s faltering mental acuity.

Guest earns Four Pinocchios for his efforts.

I think you'll find Politifact and others said the same. Shame on people who intentionally spread misinformation from out-of-context or edited clips. Shame. That's lying. Shame.

[DingDongKing]

Wow, an obviously fabricated story didn't fool anyone that wasn't already a fool themselves.

Huh? I'm confused.

[unfilteredJW]

Huh? I'm confused.

The story was bullshit and only morons believed it.

[Breccia]

Huh? I'm confused.

He's saying that Team Trump tried desperately to create a story out of this supposed laptop thing, and it fell flat, because it felt so forced and contrived.

The only people who said "Yeah! That laptop story is enough to make me vote Trump!" were actually already voting Trump.

[Adam Jensen]

Complaining he, the POTUS, remains the ultimate victim in all things? Awwww yis.

Literally every rally since 2015.

[DingDongKing]

He's saying that Team Trump tried desperately to create a story out of this supposed laptop thing, and it fell flat, because it felt so forced and contrived.

The only people who said "Yeah! That laptop story is enough to make me vote Trump!" were actually already voting Trump.

The story was bullshit and only morons believed it.

Yeah, but he was quoting the Ted Cruz/Axio Interview article, so I'm like...you what mate?

[Breccia]

Yeah, but he was quoting the Ted Cruz/Axio Interview article, so I'm like...you what mate?

True, but Cruz was talking about the laptop story.

That one's my fault, I could have added more context.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally every rally since 2015.

Although it did change from "why is everyone picking on me, the billionaire who doesn't pay his employees or taxes?" to "why is everyone picking on me, the man who destroyed jobs, the economy, health care, global trust in the US, and arguably my own marriage?"

You're right, Trump needs to portray himself as the underdog so that actual underdogs would support him. But that'd be like me saying "I'm the strongest fighter in the world, just hand me the title belt". I weigh maybe 75 kilos. Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense should look at both claims and dismiss them both immediately.

[Milchshake]

Is the Third Covid Surge the October surprise?


A rise in coronavirus-related deaths in a given community tends to reduce support for Republicans.




These states are also suffering among the worst mail-delays. Remind friends in those places to vote early, and get those ballots directly to their election agencies.

[Breccia]

Is the Third Covid Surge the October surprise?

I'm not convinced we should call it a "surprise".



The NYTimes has been looking at, amongst other things, deaths increasing per capita the most. These are the worst offenders.

- - - Updated - - -

This CNN article is about Texas.

While not even CNN expects Texas to back Biden, they do point out how state and local officials are likely going to be affected as downballot casualties of Trump's plunging popularity. And it's Austin's fault.

Whether or not Biden wins the state, or even precisely meets that prediction, a shift of anything approaching that magnitude would provide Democrats a formidable foundation from which to challenge the Republican hegemony over Texas -- a foundation that will only grow stronger through the 2020s as these urban and inner suburban counties across what's known as the "Texas triangle" drive the vast majority of the state's population and economic expansion.

"If the explosive growth in the urban centers and suburbs continues [for Democrats] that will be the whole ballgame," says Richard Murray, a longtime political scientist at the University of Houston who has forecast the 1 million vote metro advantage for Biden.

While Trump and other Republicans are consolidating crushing advantages in small-town and rural communities, Murray says, the stagnant or shrinking population in those places means Republicans "just can't keep pace with this big [metro] vote."

Downballot casualties are something else to keep an eye on this election. Texas is seeing a flood of early voting.

[DingDongKing]

As of now 48.4% of the 2016 vote count has voted early = at least 66.4 million have so far voted early. I have no idea how many Dems will vote in person on the day itself, since safety is paramount, but it's really vital that voting continues. ACB become a Justice is yet another battle.

[Somewhatconcerned]

He was being interviewed by George Lopez and this talking point about Biden mixing Trump up with Bush was already debunked.

So instead he mixed him up with the interviewer. That's much better.

[alexw]

You know when a man who supports a white supremacist posts a link from the Sun, he's very much part of the fascist brigade.

Hey, don’t be mean. The supporter of a white supremacist and fascist leader is only trying to keep us informed! He doesn’t care about what he thinks, and is only focused on teaching his kids some good values. I’m sure those values don’t include supporting politicians that are criminals, misogynists, racists, rapists, potential pedophiles, incompetent and happy to let people die. Surely not. Or maybe. I’ve heard some things.

Trump undermining the rule of law, being a racist and white supremacist, being someone who's actions have directly led to the avoidable deaths of over one hundred thousand Americans, who has encouraged and incited terrorism among his republican supporters (see multiple kidnap plots of sitting governors), etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes, is not a deal breaker for Ghostpanther.

However a manufactured faux pax that didn't even occur is an absolute dealbreaker for Ghostpanther when it comes to voting for Biden.

[CastletonSnob]

290 + 163 does not = 538.

Yes, 290 is enough to win but not nearly enough, but you're forgetting the 85 EV's that are toss ups.

I'm saying that in a sane country, Biden would win in by more.

[Somewhatconcerned]

All this talk about 'we need to pack the courts here' and 'we need to rewrite this there' are reactionary fantasies.

Any changes to SCOTUS can and will be used against the Democrats.

1. Biden was placed on the ballot because he is an easy choice that does not require much effort. Not one that will in much change that requires much political involvement from the citizen. That way people can sit at home and feel good about themselves. Reverting to 2015 is not change.

2. Many people want 'change' don't understand what it takes to get their or what they actual want/are asking for. They just want a partisan victory.

If the Democrats were actual a party capable of getting to the ballots to punish politicians stepping out of bounds, it would have happened in 2016 after McConnell upheld a head. The same cards were on the table back then and the future of SCOTUS was clear as day. And yet the GOP coasted into controlling all 3 branches. It took 2018 for any sort of movement and even then it was rather light. The party as a whole is lazy, shortsighted, and and reactionary. Which leads into my next point.

3. You cannot suddenly make grand changes to a major institution with a narrow majority. Imagine for a second if the GOP expanded SCOTUS in 2016 when they were fully capable of doing so. How do you think the country would have reacted? Legally they could have done in easily. Practically? Everything would turned as blue as the sky in a heartbeat, and that's the bare minimum. The President that signed off it is getting impeached. Democrats would see an equal and opposite effect. Its not happening.

The short term gains aren't worth the long term problems. All that's achieved is a weak SCOTUS and a massive power gain shift to the President. What happens if if another Trump gains office, worse, a competent Trump and a number of seats go vacant? 3 seats now is OP. 5 seats out of 11...welcome to the Supreme Court of that President instead of Supreme Court of the United States. Even after said President is gone their administration virtual exists in a completely different branch of government. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

Agree with all that's said here. They just don't have majority support for such a big move like this - it WILL backfire on them.

[alexw]

So instead he mixed him up with the interviewer. That's much better.

So let me get this right.

Trump undermining the rule of law, being a racist and white supremacist, being someone who's actions have directly led to the avoidable deaths of over one hundred thousand Americans, who has encouraged and incited terrorism among his republican supporters (see multiple kidnap plots of sitting governors), etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes, is not a deal breaker for you?

However a manufactured faux pax is an absolute dealbreaker for you when it comes to voting for Biden?

[Milchshake]

So instead he mixed him up with the interviewer. That's much better.

I'm not sure if you work. But have you been on Zoom/Teams/BlueJeans?

I mean 8 months into this, people at work still get gaffled by these interfaces. "Am I sharing my screen now?" "Are you seeing my spreadsheets yet"

[Grapemask]

I'm not sure if you work. But have you been on Zoom/Teams/BlueJeans?

I mean 8 months into this, people at work still get gaffled by these interfaces. "Am I sharing my screen now?" "Are you seeing my spreadsheets yet"

Like everything conservatives argue this election cycle, we don't need to really refute them. We can assume they're right and they still lose the argument.

We can assume Joe Biden is senile. But by the same metric, the guy who says doctors were amazed that he was able to repeat 5 words, and who complains that "Democrats want to take away your windows," must clearly be at least as senile.

In a battle of the senile, knowing America is a two-party system in which a vote for any other candidate makes you a fucking idiot, Joe Biden is clearly the least senile or at least the most put-together of the senile candidates. If I'm going to assume both of my choices are losing their mind, I'll take the one who isn't running around yelling about toilets and dishwashers like he just escaped from an institution without his meds.