Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Chairslinger]

23 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Harris was probably the safest pick for sure.  Good for Biden.  

 

They haven't won me over though.  They'll have to earn my vote.  I won't to be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

I am the exact opposite.

 

I am fucking ecstatic to vote for the lesser of two evils! I would vote for a ticket of 2 out of the 10 plagues of Egypt if it got Trump off my fucking news feed for the next four years.

 

The only hope of reversing the damage Trump has done is to beat him so resoundingly that the Republican party decides the long term damage is not worth possible short term gain with any future celebrity, populist, authoritatians(it still feels weird applying that label to a politician, let alone a president, but I can't think of a better way to sum him up).

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

I am the exact opposite.

 

I am fucking ecstatic to vote for the lesser of two evils! I would vote for a ticket of 2 out of the 10 plagues of Egypt if it got Trump off my fucking news feed for the next four years.

 

The only hope of reversing the damage Trump has done is to beat him so resoundingly that the Republican party decides the long term damage is not worth possible short term gain with any future celebrity, populist, authoritatians(it still feels weird applying that label to a politician, let alone a president, but I can't think of a better way to sum him up).

 

When has the GOP ever responded to losing by moderating itself?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

The only hope of reversing the damage Trump has done is to beat him so resoundingly that the Republican party decides the long term damage is not worth possible short term gain with any future celebrity, populist, authoritarians...

 

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

If The Imbecile loses in November, you're going to get an actually competent fascist (i.e. Josh Hawley) in 2024.

[Comet]

Or Tom Cotton 2024

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Comet said:

Or Tom Cotton 2024

 

That's the other "competent fascist" that will be waiting in the wings.

[marioandsonic]

I'm counting on climate change to hopefully kill us all by 2024.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

I'm counting on climate change to hopefully kill us all by 2024.  

[mclumber1]

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

When has the GOP ever responded to losing by moderating itself?

 

They actually produced a post-2012 election post mortem report.  Below are the takeaways from their loss that year.  I've compiled a handy list of the party's goals and given them a 1 to 5 rating on the  scale.

 

1. Pass immigration reform 

2. Listen to minorities

3. Gays aren't going away

4. Listen to dissenting voices within the party 

5. Look to GOP state governors for guidance 

6. Stop being the rich guys 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Thanks for proving why the actual African-American activist community keeps its distance from you, Shaun:

 

 

[outsida]

13 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Thanks for proving why the actual African-American activist community keeps its distance from you, Shaun:

 

 

Life comes at you fast!

[thewhyteboar]

So Bass vs. Porter for California's Senate seat?

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, thewhyteboar said:

So Bass vs. Porter for California's Senate seat?

 

ngl every time I see "Katie Porter" I initially think of Katie Hill, I've definitely been confused by some tweets I saw earlier because of this. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The story I'm most interested in hearing isn't so much what factors "qualified" Harris, but rather those that "disqualified" the other relevant candidates like Warren and Rice.

 

That story would give us some pretty good insight into Biden's priorities as a candidate and as a President.

[Jason]

 

[Keyser_Soze]

So what to republicans gain if they convince people that she's not black?

[thewhyteboar]

15 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

So what to republicans gain if they convince people that she's not black?

Republicans just love being weird, blood quantum-counting racist fucks.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 hours ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

The story I'm most interested in hearing isn't so much what factors "qualified" Harris, but rather those that "disqualified" the other relevant candidates like Warren and Rice.

 

That story would give us some pretty good insight into Biden's priorities as a candidate and as a President.

Easy... Warren was too old.You can't have a ticket with both candidates in their 70's. Rice (who was my preference)had never run for anything. We have NO IDEA how she would handle being a campaigner and how she would handle attacks from Trump and Co. Also she doesn't bring any kind of constituency... Kamala has very strong support from suburban (white) women and she blunts the attacks from Trump that Biden wants to defund the police and let crime run rampant. Kamala's pick makes perfect sense when I think of it.

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Kamala has very strong support from suburban (white) women and she blunts the attacks from Trump that Biden wants to defund the police and let crime run rampant. Kamala's pick makes perfect sense when I think of it.

 

Plus she has a bus!

 

 

[thewhyteboar]

Here we go.

[Joe]

6 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Here we go.

 

 

Quote

With that said, one shouldn’t get too carried away with the comparisons to four years ago. In 2016, the reason Trump had a pretty decent chance in our final forecast was mostly just because the polls were fairly close (despite the media narrative to the contrary), close enough that even a modest-sized polling error in the right group of states could be enough to give Trump a victory in the Electoral College.

 

 

 

The uncertainty in our current 2020 forecast, conversely, stems mostly from the fact that there’s still a long way to go until the election. Take what happens if we lie to our model and tell it that the election is going to be held today. It spits out that Biden has a 93 percent chance of winning. In other words, a Trump victory would require a much bigger polling error than what we saw in 2016.

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

35 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

 

 

Like I said, the polls are predictively meaningless until right before the election. Even Silver admits it—probably without knowing he admits it—when you read between the lines.

“The polls were fairly close in 2016, close enough that a modest-sized polling error swung it to Trump...granted, three months out from the election they weren’t close at all and Clinton had a 93% chance of winning, but they still tell us something about the outcome of the election at this point—namely, ‘one of the candidates might or might not win’.  Please continue to visit the site, though, even this far out from the election, because...uh...look at the monkey!”

 

For the record, I do think Biden has a better chance than Clinton, but I’m willing to bet by Election Day it’s still going to be a nail-biter with the difference between the candidates being within the polling margin of error.

 

I’ll make an image of a man eating crow my new user icon if I’m wrong.

[SaysWho?]

Dems saw a boost after the BLM protests.

 

 

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Like I said, the polls are predictively meaningless until right before the election. Even Silver admits it—probably without knowing he admits it—when you read between the lines.

“The polls were fairly close in 2016, close enough that a modest-sized polling error swung it to Trump...granted, three months out from the election they weren’t close at all and Clinton had a 93% chance of winning, but they still tell us something about the outcome of the election at this point—namely, ‘one of the candidates might or might not win’.  Please continue to visit the site, though, even this far out from the election, because...uh...look at the monkey!”

 

For the record, I do think Biden has a better chance than Clinton, but I’m willing to bet by Election Day it’s still going to be a nail-biter with the difference between the candidates being within the polling margin of error.

 

You still dont get how polls work.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

8 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

You still dont get how polls work.

As in not understanding that they’re just a snapshot of the polled population‘s views at a given moment of time?  Or that statistically the outcome of an electoral event they’re meant to predict the behavior of the electorate in can in theory ultimately reflect either the upper or lower bound of the MOE? Or that pollsters attempt to approximate an accurate view of the polled population in an election that encompasses a large variety of distinct regional populations by ‘weighing’ certain demographics rather than relying on the plain old ‘simple random sample’ we learned about in stats class?  None of which really contradicts what I’m saying? Or are you referring to some other aspect of the process?  Explain.

[Keyser_Soze]

19 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 Explain.

 

Bernie would have won.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

7 hours ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

The story I'm most interested in hearing isn't so much what factors "qualified" Harris, but rather those that "disqualified" the other relevant candidates like Warren and Rice.

 

That story would give us some pretty good insight into Biden's priorities as a candidate and as a President.

My guess, honestly, is that she’s just better vetted than any of the others, and Biden doesn’t want any late-game surprises.

6 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

So what to republicans gain if they convince people that she's not black?

I guess they think they can argue she doesn’t reflect the ‘average’ African American because she’s not descended from American slaves?  I dunno, they tried this shit with Obama and it didn’t work.

 

Ironically, they’re unintentionally shedding light on the fact that ‘black’ is a socially constructed category that obfuscates actual genetic/ancestral differences.  Which kind of cuts against the argument that she can’t be ‘black’ due to her ancestry.

[PaladinSolo]

I think hes overestimating the tightening, Biden averaging 50% is way different than Clinton's peak average of 46%, where both candidates weren't even over 90% in polling, hes just assuming things change cause the past and thats it, while the data has shown a more polarized electorate less likely to change on Trump since his been in office.

[SaysWho?]

Far as I'm concerned, Trump has a 98% chance of winning so get to work, fuckers.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

17 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Bernie would have won.

Possibly.  Or ‘socialism’ could have proved way more toxic than anticipated and he would’ve lost by more than Hillary—and then the Republicans would be able to club the Dems with accusations of socialism for a few cycles.  We’ll never know, and you can’t poll a counterfactual universe.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Far as I'm concerned, Trump has a 98% chance of winning so get to work, fuckers.

Here, here.

[SaysWho?]

I wish I could go into an alternate universe where Sanders was the nominee in 2016 and see how it ended. We can only speculate and can never know, and I admit I was also in the, "They'll crucify him with the socialist label." And many didn't know him as well as Hillary or even Trump, so there was more potential that his high poll numbers would plummet.

 

But hot damn, was he polling really well against Trump before Hillary won. Though if you look, they were tied in December the previous year, which to me means they could tie again. Other candidates have blown 10 point leads. His strength was that he could easily say, "I'm different. If you don't like how things are going, I'm a candidate who is fighting for the working class," and it was a simple and effective platform that people could actually latch onto.

 

My guess is that he would have won and could have won this year. But that's neither here nor there; he didn't get the most votes by a long shot, and he's also all-aboard the Biden/Harris train, so it's Biden/Harris. There ain't no Bernie/Hillary drama this time; he seems to genuinely like Biden and by everything I've seen, is working much better with Biden's people behind the scenes than Hillary and Bernie's people did.

[PaladinSolo]

Bernie wasn't hated as much and could have won simply off that, theres a not insignificant number of voters that have no idea about policies and just vote for the more likable person.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

Bernie wasn't hated as much and could have won simply off that, theres a not insignificant number of voters that have no idea about policies and just vote for the more likable person.

 

I saw videos of hardcore Trump people saying, "Oh, Bernie wants to legalize marijuana? Fucking sweet," or something along those lines. Doesn't mean he would take half of Trump's voters, but shit, that kind of stuff appeals to way more people than many realize.

 

WHICH IS WHY I WISH BIDEN WOULD CHANGE THAT SHIT NOW. I guess now he has a VP who says it.

[SimpleG]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I saw videos of hardcore Trump people saying, "Oh, Bernie wants to legalize marijuana? Fucking sweet," or something along those lines. Doesn't mean he would take half of Trump's voters, but shit, that kind of stuff appeals to way more people than many realize.

 

WHICH IS WHY I WISH BIDEN WOULD CHANGE THAT SHIT NOW. I guess now he has a VP who says it.

She may say it but shit won’t change, the party has made clear where they stand on it.