Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Endus]

You guys sure have mastered the art of being able to read context only when it suits you.

She doesn't have to outright say it, it's in the logical deducation of anyone that comprensibely listens and understand what she means when she answered: "It was a debate!" to Colbert's question.

Other than that, it's really not worth more than 3 of my comments.
(Bonus question: Does that mean I'll not comment further, even if I did not literally say that? :thinking: )

Nope. You're misrepresenting what she said. You are ignoring the context.

The context that, to quote Harris in the very clip we're talking about; "it was a debate!"

That's why she was combative. That's how you act, in a debate. It doesn't mean you aren't friends outside of the scope of the debate.

I'm starting to wonder if some of you have any actual understanding of what debates actually are.

[Theodarzna]

Lol. Good point. They also where not very accurate in the 2018 midterms.

I did find this poll today interesting....https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/mn-pres-0820/

Which has Biden and Trump tied for Minnesota. But I do not have any ideal who this Trafalgar Group pollster are.

Honestly, no polls matter other than how people feel about the Pandemic, the Economy and basically the future. If the Democrats botch this one, basically that is a party that functionally shouldn't exist.

Plus Trump has lost a compelling vision of the future, where as Dems have simply adapted to a kind of Blue MAGA, with Return to Normalcy, basically envisioning a return to 2005-2008 in Joe Biden.

Of-course I am unsure how compelling any of that is. All in all this will be a brutally low turnout election, so it might still just be whose dedicated base is motivated and whose base is geographically in the right spots.

[eschatological]

It's weird how Stephen Colbert, to the far left, is an establishment hack who cheerleads centrist Dems and wrongfully mocks Trump over "fake" issues like Russia......


....until he asks a question that they can take out of context and read into.

You don't think Joe Biden attacked Obama in 2008? Come off it.

[Edge-]

You guys sure have mastered the art of being able to read context only when it suits you.

She doesn't have to outright say it, it's in the logical deducation of anyone that comprensibely listens and understand what she means when she answered: "It was a debate!" to Colbert's question.

Other than that, it's really not worth more than 3 of my comments.
(Bonus question: Does that mean I'll not comment further, even if I did not literally say that? :thinking: )

Yes...and? Again, former debate opponents have run together on the same ticket before. Biden and Obama being a recent example.

Do y'all like, not get what debates are or how they work?

Because you seem to be engaged in that exact "art" you accuse of of being engaged in because we're just literally listening to her words.

You said you "straight up heard" her say she was lying. Provide the receipts.

[wunksta]

I think it's the first time I straight-up hear a politician saying they were just outright lying at a debate.

She doesn't have to outright say it

lol ok then

[alexw]

Isn't it a tad hypocritical for someone like you to be calling out the Democrats over this particular topic? Don't you believe that climate change is a hoax, and any attempts to address it secretly an attempt to disenfranchise the poor?



Yes, we're well aware that you don't actually give a damn about any of this, and are really only here to get off on people's reactions to your bullshit.

The thing about Theo is that he/she is a right wing concern troll. So Theo will attack Democrats for not being left wing enough when they themselves are an alt-right ethno-nationalist Trump supporter. Theo will deliberately lie and deceive and has a known history of doing this. Not a single word they post can be trusted.

I very much expect something similar is true for all the self-proclaimed "concerned" left wingers posting here who have suddenly appeared to relentlessly attack Biden. The aim being, as someone else has rightly pointed out, to dissuade potential Biden voters from voting for him.

In the case of Theo, he/she did exactly this for the 2016 elections as well and is merely repeating that. I'm willing to bet too this isn't the only online forum where Theo is actively doing this.

[crejack]

But again, the "Uber-Democrats" don't care and just sass you back, and for the rest of us, you're just preaching to the choir.

While you're definitely the worst, since it comes off like you're just here to get your yucks, my biggest problem with you, Jettisawn, Arch-Angel, JohnBrown,etc. is while you're real great at throwing out criticism and sitting in judgment, you're not exactly offering any practical alternatives or solutions.

I've also noticed that while reading this thread, that jettisawn and theo that when people put any criticism on them, they cry they are victims.

[Edge-]

She didn't literally say it, indeed. She also doesn't have to.

Of course not, because you're choosing to hear what you want to hear that reinforces your biases. While claiming that she literally said something she did not say.

[Endus]

And what is the difference with your approach? Where you choose not to hear the obvious something which she did say, even if not literally?

The difference is that nothing she said suggested she was lying during the debates.

That's an idea you made up, based solely on your desire that she said such a thing, and you're pretending, based on nothing, that there's some super secret shady interpretation you can make of her statement there that somehow implies it.

And it doesn't.

The only way you can even try to push those ideas together is to willfuly disregard what a debate is and how it works, entirely. Which, to be clear, is why Harris thought the question was so colossally stupid and ignorant she decided the reasonable response was straight-up laughter and mockery.

[Rasulis]

Seeing how their was a 25% viewership drop off with the DNC and from what little I could stand of it. I don't think the virtual convention are going to be a big boost for either campaign. They seemingly brought out more Republicans or former republicans at one point.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/a-to...ight-1/452538/

Yes. Television rating is down. However, online streaming is up. Which is not measured by Nielsen.

CNN Digital reported nearly 31 million unique visitors and more than 9 million video starts on its desktop on the first night, mobile or other streaming device. Digital visitors were up 19% compared to the first day of the 2016 convention and digital streaming was up 28%, according to CNN Digital.

Add to that NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, Reuter, PBS, YouTube, and even freaking Hulu has streaming access to the convention. For the actual number we'll have to wait until Warner Media comes out with their analysis. Then you have people like me that listen to it on NPR radio on the background.

[Edge-]

And what is the difference with your approach?

That I don't make up words on her behalf.

That I understand how debates work?

[Rasulis]

Polls don't predict winners, they predict likelihood of winning. They often have a small sample size and tend to show who is polling better for a particular subset of voters. I've only ever tried to us them to see where things are trending. From the polling I remember in 2016 Trump had a 1/3 chance, decent chance to win a presidential election, and he managed to win. Right now Trump isn't sitting with the same odds. IMO

It favors Biden, but he isn't running away with winning the elections. If anything the race is closer and we could see a similar dynamic with Biden being a 2/3 favor to win. That however gives Trump a lane, but after abandoning the rust belt I think they will go with Biden. I just wouldn't be betting on the election given the odds.

My bet is that as both the US economy and pandemic get worse, the advantage will keep shifting toward Biden. There is a limit to how much you can hide or fudge the numbers.

[Theodarzna]

Polls don't predict winners, they predict likelihood of winning. They often have a small sample size and tend to show who is polling better for a particular subset of voters. I've only ever tried to us them to see where things are trending. From the polling I remember in 2016 Trump had a 1/3 chance, decent chance to win a presidential election, and he managed to win. Right now Trump isn't sitting with the same odds. IMO

It favors Biden, but he isn't running away with winning the elections. If anything the race is closer and we could see a similar dynamic with Biden being a 2/3 favor to win. That however gives Trump a lane, but after abandoning the rust belt I think they will go with Biden. I just wouldn't be betting on the election given the odds.

My prediction is a low turnout election. Biden is running an implausible, if hard to believe, campaign that promises literally nothing, in fact a return to all the policies nobody liked about the Bush-Obama years. We now have austerity, nothing against petro fuels, Wall Street and the Financial Services industry celebrating, and already Democrats are promising Aetna and Blue Cross and such that nothing substantive will change about health insurance laws.

I think it is more likely people just don't vote. Neither candidate has a vision of the future. Trump is offering "Vote for me or the Dems will kill you" which might keep the base sold on it, fear works. Biden is running entirely on 2005-2009 nostalgia, and offering "Return to normalcy" which means nothing. There is no future in any of these campaigns. And what they offer is something only the most ardent partisan cheerleader could possibly believe is good.

This is a base election, whose base lives in the right spots and will they vote.

[Blur4stuff]

Biden wasn't my first choice, but the notion that he and the people in his administration won't work to move the country forward on several fronts is ridiculous.

Meanwhile with another four years of Trump the country very well may cease having anything to do with democracy.

[Rasulis]

My prediction is a low turnout election. Biden is running an implausible, if hard to believe, campaign that promises literally nothing, in fact a return to all the policies nobody liked about the Bush-Obama years. We now have austerity, nothing against petro fuels, Wall Street and the Financial Services industry celebrating, and already Democrats are promising Aetna and Blue Cross and such that nothing substantive will change about health insurance laws.

I think it is more likely people just don't vote. Neither candidate has a vision of the future. Trump is offering "Vote for me or the Dems will kill you" which might keep the base sold on it, fear works. Biden is running entirely on 2005-2009 nostalgia, and offering "Return to normalcy" which means nothing. There is no future in any of these campaigns. And what they offer is something only the most ardent partisan cheerleader could possibly believe is good.

This is a base election, whose base lives in the right spots and will they vote.

I predict record breaking turn out. We have Trump, the pandemic and 28M plus unemployed. Lots of unhappy people. They will turn out.

[D Luniz]

lol ok then

Its funny, they've gone from doing "what he ment was" for Trump to trying to do it for Harris.

[Edge-]

My prediction is a low turnout election.

Well, if this was March you'd be a bit closer to this appearing to be true - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...20-not-so-far/

Not "historic", but their chart still shows upticks compared to primary elections last time (with exceptions for the states switching from caucuses to primaries).

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/...gh/5608297002/
https://vtdigger.org/2020/08/12/unof...rnout-records/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...voter-turnout/

However almost all the more recent data, even accounting for the pandemic, is pointing towards turnout that will be as high, if not higher, than the last election.

[Theodarzna]

I predict record breaking turn out. We have Trump, the pandemic and 28M plus unemployed. Lots of unhappy people. They will turn out.

Given the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, even among erstwhile supporters, I'm not so sure. Biden isn't selling anything to vote for. Plus with austerity already being talked about, the Dems already saying they will cave on any health insurance reforms and that the environmental stuff already being yeeted, the bleed out of voters just not showing up will be a problem.

But I do think the winds still at Biden's back. How any president could recover from this level of unemployment, this level of just sheer misery and a depression that will likely last a decade.

Trumps only saving grace could be that Biden plans to handle this as Obama handled the 2008 crisis, so screw over most people. But even then, Trump can't credibly capitalize on that given he has done nothing but a payroll tax cut, the worst idea in response to mass unemployment, and his whole party reverting to Tea Party brains save for a few. The only move I could see saving Trump's presidency is if he did something wildly unorthodox like take a Bernie Sanders idea and run on it, or just by decree/EO cancel student loan debt, some wild idea like that at the very least would put Biden's camp into a confused place. But it doesn't seem like that is Trumps strategy. His seems to be pure Culture War now and focusing heavily on the message "The Democrats will come for you and your family if they get power". If the RNC speaking lineup is any indication, that is his angle.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if this was March you'd be a bit closer to this appearing to be true - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...20-not-so-far/

Not "historic", but their chart still shows upticks compared to primary elections last time (with exceptions for the states switching from caucuses to primaries).

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/...gh/5608297002/
https://vtdigger.org/2020/08/12/unof...rnout-records/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...voter-turnout/

However almost all the more recent data, even accounting for the pandemic, is pointing towards turnout that will be as high, if not higher, than the last election.

Some of these articles suggest I might be dated on turnout, though I might also be dated in granting Biden an advantage.

Such as the first link:

But even with the higher-than-usual turnout, there may be some warning signs for Democrats heading toward November.

In most of Florida’s urban counties, where Democrats are heavily concentrated, turnout fell slightly short of the state’s rate. Broward, Duval, Hillsborough and Palm Beach all reported under the 28% mark, while Miami-Dade, where a county mayor’s race heightened interest, came in slightly above the state level.

By contrast, smaller, more Republican-leaning counties tended to top state turnout by a little, or sometimes, by a lot.

The second was a wash, and the third article is pay walled so IDK what it says.

Well, then turnout might not be low as people have free time. So, then its a question of where these voters are. My gut still says come election day it'll be lower than some expect. But I could be wrong. As for advantage? I guess I'll switch from Advantage Biden to Advantage Who the Hell Knows. I still cannot imagine a president recovering from this sort of carnage, not that I believe Biden has any ability to do anything or desire to do anything but austerity, foaming the runway and ensuring Blackrock is okay. However, how Trump could possibly get re-elected in such a time with unemployment worse that the Great Depression and a literal plague burning through the country?

[PhaelixWW]

Of course not, because you're choosing to hear what you want to hear that reinforces your biases.

You mean like providing as gospel some Breitbart dolt's "article" that Biden lost 21 points among non-white voters, and yet when confronted with direct proof of the bullshit, refusing to admit the error because that goes against their bias?

Something like that? Because, yeah, that rings a bell.

My prediction is a low turnout election.

The only way you'll see low turnout is through voter suppression.

You're severely underestimating how many people will vote on nothing more than a fear of just how much damage four more years of Trump's systematic dismantling of the US would entail.

[Theodarzna]

That's my guess as well, even if the pandemic improves in the numbers I don't think that would help Trump. The one I am worried about is wither or not voters will be depressed from showing up to vote because of the Pandemic. The polling that I had seen was that a plurality of people preferred in-person voting. Vote by mail was going to have issue in a lot of states before Trump's post master general started fucking with shit. Now it'll be even worse. Luckily my state's been doing mail in voting for awhile so I'm not overly concerned, but New York had some district through out like 25% of their Absentee ballots. That's insane. Now how will that play out in a General Election with a lot more ballots?

If The Donald actually get's re-elected, the man has like the greatest run of luck for any mortal person. If so, then he really is Teflon Don.

- - - Updated - - -

The only way you'll see low turnout is through voter suppression.

You're severely underestimating how many people will vote on nothing more than a fear of just how much damage four more years of Trump's systematic dismantling of the US would entail.

@Edge- gave me some links suggesting my turnout take is a bit dated. Suppression could be a factor too.

I have no idea what four more years of Trump is like. I do recall how Obama-Biden dealt with the 2008 crash, and seeing the Biden people's talk so far, I expect nothing out of Biden presidency except a taken care of stock market and a depression that will consume the next decade for everyone else.

As well as the looming possibility that I will be close to forty when the constant depression/recession of my entire adult life MIGHT end. Which is a startling thought to consider.