• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remius said:
Never say never

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/democrats-stressed-election/index.html

I think that's a pretty reasonable response. If Biden wins, I think they will be near panicking right up until he is sworn in.

The GOP governors and state politicians are pretty busy doing all kinds of sneaky things to actively make it hard/impossible for people to vote, and if it wasn't the US there might be a push for foreign observers to help keep the voting fair. It's not even like they are being subtle; deliberately sabotaging the USPS when they know a lot of people are trying to vote by mail was kind of mindblowing in it's naked grasping at power. Even Trump's lapdogs are having a hard time defending that kind of shenanigans. If Trump wins fair and square, that's one thing, but they are now doing banana republic kind of things to rig the voting, and can see the country burning as a result if he grabs some states where they are actively suppressing the black vote and other Democratic friendly demographics.
 
>they have seen almost no Biden signs, but lots of Trump signs

Republicans were telling themselves comforting anecdotal tales of sign-dominance in 2012.  Not a reliable marker.
 
>The GOP governors and state politicians are pretty busy doing all kinds of sneaky things to actively make it hard/impossible for people to vote

What things, besides openly talking about the constitutionally and legally valid processes for resolving highly unusual indeterminate election outcomes?

>deliberately sabotaging the USPS

Proof?  I'm already familiar with the not-nefarious plans to reform the USPS that started before the election, so don't bother citing any of those.
 
California Republican officials have erected their own unofficial and unauthorized ballot drop boxes, trying to confuse some people to drop their ballots there instead of the ones from the state election officials:

California officials clash with state Republican Party over ballot drop boxes

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-california/california-officials-clash-with-state-republican-party-over-ballot-drop-boxes-idUSKBN26Y001

California orders GOP to remove unofficial ballot boxes

https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-fresno-elections-california-santa-ana-be803bfe99f5eb35e17a6ee56315deb0
 
Meanwhile in Texas:

U.S. Appeals Court Sides With Texas On One-Per-County Ballot Drop-Off

Texas can limit absentee ballot drop-off spots to one per county, a federal appeals court says, reversing a lower court's ruling from days ago. Democrats say Gov. Greg Abbott's order could suppress voters; the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagrees, saying, "one strains to see how it burdens voting at all."

The appeals court says District Judge Robert Pitman – who on Friday blocked the Texas plan to limit counties to one drop-off location – had "myopically" focused on voter restrictions in Abbott's Oct. 1 proclamation.

The court issued its opinion late Monday, solidifying a temporary stay it placed on Pitman's order over the weekend. It concludes that Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs is likely to prevail on appeal in defending election rules changes.

Even with the drop-off limit, Texas voters have many options to cast their ballots, the court says. It notes that Abbott's emergency orders have expanded the state's early voting period by six days: Tuesday marks the first day of in-person early voting in Texas. The orders also give 40 days to hand-deliver absentee ballots — an option, the court notes, that is normally available only on election day.

"These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world," the court says. "The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one's right to vote."

The governor has said he made the change to ensure ballot security. Texas Republicans — and President Trump — have said that expanding mail-in voting could increase the risk of voter fraud. There is no data to support that claim.

[More on link]


https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923216392/u-s-appeals-court-sides-with-texas-on-one-per-county-ballot-drop-off
 
OceanBonfire said:
California Republican officials have erected their own unofficial and unauthorized ballot drop boxes, trying to confuse some people to drop their ballots there instead of the ones from the state election officials:

From the links:

Barajas said doing so was legal under Democratic-supported state laws allowing third-party individuals to collect and deliver ballots for other voters with their consent - a process Republicans have disparaged as “ballot harvesting.”

“Democrats are now upset because organizations, individuals and groups are offering an opportunity for their friends, family and patrons to drop off their ballot with someone they know and trust,” Barajas said in a statement. “California Republicans would be happy to do away with ballot harvesting.”
 
Colin P said:
From the links:

Barajas said doing so was legal under Democratic-supported state laws allowing third-party individuals to collect and deliver ballots for other voters with their consent - a process Republicans have disparaged as “ballot harvesting.”

“Democrats are now upset because organizations, individuals and groups are offering an opportunity for their friends, family and patrons to drop off their ballot with someone they know and trust,” Barajas said in a statement. “California Republicans would be happy to do away with ballot harvesting.”

And then the article continues . . .

Padilla and Becerra disputed such arguments as beside the point in their briefing to reporters.

While California voters are permitted to designate someone else to physically submit a ballot on their behalf, a memorandum to county election officials from Padilla’s office cited the state election code defining a lawful drop box as “a secure receptacle established by a county or city and county elections official.”

The memo also says state regulations include extensive requirements for the design and security of the containers, which must be clearly marked as “Official Ballot Drop Box.”


During the previous mid-term election, the Democratic "ballot harvesting" consisted of individuals going door to door, meeting with voters and offering to submit their completed mail-in ballot on their behalf.  Thus, it met the then recent changes to California voting regulations.  The current Republican attempt of placing "collection boxes" similar to official ballot boxes does not get individual permission to submit the ballots.  The Republicans could harvest ballots in the same manner as the Dems did in 2018, but they would likely have a much higher "go **** yourself" response rate.
 
Colin P said:
From the links:

Barajas said doing so was legal under Democratic-supported state laws allowing third-party individuals to collect and deliver ballots for other voters with their consent - a process Republicans have disparaged as “ballot harvesting.”

“Democrats are now upset because organizations, individuals and groups are offering an opportunity for their friends, family and patrons to drop off their ballot with someone they know and trust,” Barajas said in a statement. “California Republicans would be happy to do away with ballot harvesting.”
... and elsewhere in the same links ...
In a news release, the California Republican Party said state law does not specifically ban them from collecting ballots in a box. They say the law only prevents tampering or forging ballots and that people collecting the ballots cannot be paid for doing it.

In California, state law says voters who can’t return their ballots themselves can ask anyone else to do it for them. Previously, people who returned a ballot for someone else also had to sign it and list their relationship to the voter. But a separate law passed in 2018 eliminated that requirement.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said official drop boxes are clearly recognizable and carry official county elections logo. He said it wasn’t clear how many voters had used unofficial boxes but after receiving reports about them, he notified the state and district attorney’s office, which is investigating.

“Unofficial, unauthorized drop boxes are not permitted in the state of California,” said (California Secretary of State Alex Padilla) Padilla, whose office oversees election regulations and enforcement in the state.
I don't know the letter of the law in question, but this'll be interesting to see unfold - maybe even in the courts?

:pop:
 
What's at issue is that individual permission might not actually be needed, regardless what people say was intended.

Section 3011

See (a)(9) through (a)(11), and then (c).  There's no way to enforce permission, authorization, or collection - chain of custody - that would disqualify the vote.  There are also no limits on how many ballots a person may collect and return.  If someone returns a bunch of ballots without the (a)(9) through (a)(11) info, the ballots will not be disqualified, and there is no way of proving how they were collected (which is paramount regardless how the fight over the meaning of s3025 is resolved).

Also in dispute (over interpretation) is that s3025 describes boxes established to return ballots to election officials, and doesn't say anything about boxes as a means of collection by persons who might return subsequently return the collected ballots.  I suppose there might be a statutory point somewhere about unofficial collection boxes, but so far no-one - including the officials who object - seems to have cited it directly, except to object to labeling boxes as "official".
 
Another discussion about polling. One question which should be looked at is how much of this behaviour can be inferred from Canadian polling data?

https://spectator.org/shy-trump-voters-pollsters-and-the-appeal-to-ignorance/

Shy Trump Voters, Pollsters, and the Appeal to Ignorance
Pundits resort to a hoary logical fallacy to explain away this very real voter bloc.
by David Catron
October 16, 2020, 1:20 AM

In October 2015 the most venerable name in public opinion polling, Gallup, announced that it would no longer conduct horse-race election surveys or predict the outcomes of presidential contests. Gallup had been the gold standard for such polling since the 1930s, but, after calling the wrong winner in 2012, the organization’s leadership decided that capturing a representative voter sample during the final volatile phase of a national election had become all but impossible. Gallup was thus spared the humiliation endured by many pollsters in 2016. Most of its counterparts, however, remain in denial about the limitations of their obsolete methodology and are consequently producing wildly inaccurate 2020 results.

The most obvious symptom of this intransigence is their refusal to consider the possibility that their models should contain some mechanism to account for the “shy Trump voter.” The latest excuse for failing to do so involves a rhetorical device that uses the defining characteristic of these voters to “prove” they don’t exist. Geoffrey Skelley, for example, writes at FiveThirtyEight that a recent Morning Consult poll “found little sign of shy Trump voters.” He reinforces his point by quoting another report from the American Association for Public Opinion Research that also found no evidence that such voters exist. This is a classic “appeal to ignorance” (i.e., the absence of proof is proof of absence).

Shy Trump voters are, by definition, hidden. Many are people who rarely answer calls or texts from numbers they don’t recognize. These voters are very real but quite invisible to pollsters. Some shy Trump voters are willing to participate in some public opinion surveys, yet remain reluctant to level with pollsters. A recent IBD/TIPP poll found the following: “Overall, 20% of registered voters say they’re uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate.” This isn’t the only survey to reveal such reticence. A recent Cato Institute poll found that the reluctance of conservatives to share their political views has increased from 70 percent to 77 percent since 2017. CloudResearch asked specifically about shy Trump voters:

    Such concerns were more often than not expressed by Republicans and Independents, and also by those who said they would vote for Donald Trump.… 11.7% of Republicans say they would not report their true opinions about their preferred presidential candidate on telephone polls.… 10.5% of Independents fell into the “shy voter” category, just a percentage point lower than how Republicans react to phone polls.… 10.1% of Trump supporters said they were likely to be untruthful on phone surveys — double the number of Biden supporters.… The results could have implications in terms of the true accuracy of phone polls.

Indeed they could. Are October 2020 polls that purport to show former Vice President Biden ahead of President Trump significantly different than the mid-October 2016 surveys that indicated Hillary Clinton had all but won the election? For the comparable polls, there is little difference. The NBC/WSJ poll, for example, had Clinton up by 11 points on October 10, 2016. The NBC/WSJ poll showed Biden up by 11 points on October 12, 2020. Clinton was up by double digits in five polls between October 9 and October 16 of 2016. Biden has been up by double digits six times during the same seven-day period this year. At about this point in October 2016 Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers began their fatal decline.

and from the comments:

Ian Chapman Kitty Myers • 9 hours ago

Exactly, In principle a poll is like any other sample of a larger population in statistics. Getting good results using what statisticians call the 'Central Limit Theorem' only applies if the sampling is representative, i.e. every member of the larger population has the same chance of being sampled (no matter how small). If that is not true (and it generally isn't in political polling), then the central limit theorem no longer applies and you are forced to add in weights....which in effect is making assumptions and models of what you are trying to measure. At this point you've left science and entered into the realm of witchcraft.

What's more most people (80-90%) don't answer polls! This is why Gallup stopped doing horserace polls. For a poll to be valid, you have to assume that those that did not respond show the same overall population tendencies as those that did, but again there is no reason to believe this is true. If the "do not respond" rate for Trump supporters is even as little as 5% more than for Biden supporters, then you get a massive skew in the polls.
[/quote
 
I guess one has too look closer at those states where Trump was able to flip the college vote.  In those states the races were within the margin of error.

Are they now?  Probably but some States that Trump led by solid margins last time are in contention now.  You would think that Florida by now would have been a lock.  But it isn’t hence his campaigning there right now which normally he could be somewhere else. 

Also the margins in key demographics like women are widening far more than they were with Clinton.

Other differences are that there are far fewer undecided voters this time, Trump has a record (and this election will be a referendum on that record), Biden is far more liked than Clinton was.

Are there shy Trump supporters?  Sure but judging by the last election it wouldn’t be hard to factor that in.

I’ve mentioned this before.  Look at the betting houses.  They probably have a more accurate prediction on odds. 
 
Remius said:
I guess one has too look closer at those states where Trump was able to flip the college vote.  In those states the races were within the margin of error.

Are they now?  Probably but some States that Trump led by solid margins last time are in contention now.  You would think that Florida by now would have been a lock.  But it isn’t hence his campaigning there right now which normally he could be somewhere else. 

Also the margins in key demographics like women are widening far more than they were with Clinton.

Other differences are that there are far fewer undecided voters this time, Trump has a record (and this election will be a referendum on that record), Biden is far more liked than Clinton was.

Are there shy Trump supporters?  Sure but judging by the last election it wouldn’t be hard to factor that in.

I’ve mentioned this before.  Look at the betting houses.  They probably have a more accurate prediction on odds.

There are also likely shy Trump detractors within the Republican establishment, too. Enough prominent Republicans - people who have been conservative much longer than Trump has claimed ton- who have been open in their despair for what he’s doing to their party and credibility. That signals to me the likelihood that there are plenty of others who will never admit voting anything other than Republican, but who in the privacy of filling out their ballot, May fee a need to defend the GOP’s future by trying to oust Trump. Four years under him have greatly damaged their credibility among the younger demographics. How much would another four years cement that? One term can be written off as a drunken hookup with one hell of a hangover. A second term is a conscious choice, and an endorsement that “this is what our party truly is”. That could be damaging long term. Demographics have a major strategic import in the long term health of a party.
 
That’s a good point Brihard.

Senator Bass said as much.  He is worried that Trump and Trump Republicans are going to push the US hard left and the GOP may never recover.
 
Remius said:
Senator Bass said as much.  He is worried that Trump and Trump Republicans are going to push the US hard left and the GOP may never recover.

Who is Senator Bass?

Do you mean Ben Sasse?
 
>I’ve mentioned this before.  Look at the betting houses.  They probably have a more accurate prediction on odds. 

What factors are the bettors assessing?  Polls?  It'd be better to look at measures that are more clearly independent of polls.

A second Trump term won't mean the Republican party has become the Trump party.  It might just mean Republicans and independents dislike what Democrats are offering more than they dislike Trump.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>I’ve mentioned this before.  Look at the betting houses.  They probably have a more accurate prediction on odds. 

What factors are the bettors assessing?  Polls?  It'd be better to look at measures that are more clearly independent of polls.

A second Trump term won't mean the Republican party has become the Trump party.  It might just mean Republicans and independents dislike what Democrats are offering more than they dislike Trump.

They aren’t always accurate but generally they are considered by some better indicator because they actually do use more than just polls. Things like fundraising and “events”.

 
Brihard said:
One term can be written off as a drunken hookup with one hell of a hangover.

I have no doubt he will get his second term.

But, he  may have doubts. Yesterday, at a rally in Georgia, he said he "will leave the country" if he doesn't get re-elected.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=pP6KX9nMMIim_QbUwqjABA&q=trump+georgia+leave+country&oq=trump+georgia+leave+country&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DQrQFY-9QBYO3aAWgBcAB4AIABswGIAboOkgEEMS4xM5gBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjZrrig6rvsAhUIU98KHVQhCkgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1602944707223

That is understandable, considering,
The legal reckoning awaiting Donald Trump if he loses the election
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/trump-election-legal-reckoning/index.html

At any rate, I don't believe Trumpism is going anywhere. I can see him continuing to call in to "the shows".

I can't see him relegated to some D-list celebrity purgatory like Sarah Palin.

He may even pull a Grover Cleveland and run again in 2024!  :)

Junior and Eric may, or may not, continue to "trigger the dems" and "own the libs". Although they would no longer be entitled to their Secret Service bodyguards.

But, as I said,

I have no doubt he will get his second term.













 
mariomike said:
But, he  may have doubts. Yesterday, at a rally in Georgia, he said he "will leave the country" if he doesn't get re-elected.

...maybe, to a country without extradition treaties with the US...  :whistle:

Also, if someone is confident at winning something, they won't publicly say (even in jest) "this is what I'll do if I lose". 

Finally, why is he campaigning in GA anyway?  Trump needs to secure the undecideds (whatever miniscule amount is left undecided) so he should be campaigning in swing or even Blue states.  His base is voting for him anyway, so why bother at this point in the campaign?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top