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

[Jason]

Just now, Chadatog said:

But what are the Chads doing?

 

Hanging. 

[Chadatog]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Hanging. 

I prefer dimpled Chads

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

Good news

[Massdriver]

I predict Texas is going blue just barely, at least with respect to the presidency and the Texas House. Several factors are coming together. I look at the Beto election and how close it came, and combine that with the current circumstances.

 

• Polls only giving Trump a little over +1 on 538
• Voter registrations outpaced population growth by a good margin
• $$$ targeting Texas House and U.S. House elections combined with decent hauls from MJ and Biden investing a sizable amount; Bloomberg dumping $15 million in the last 2 weeks
• Record turn out
• Rural pro Trump margins will be slightly cut
• The virus has picked up again which has been correlated with less Trump support 
• Texas economy has been hit helping Biden

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

Good news

 

Just about to post this. Very happy to see.

[rc0101]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

Good news

Trumps tune going to change to “we must count all the votes!”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Firewithin]

while it would be nice to see this elections night call bullshit blow up in the orange fucks face it is still just to depressing to think it will still not matter

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

doom scrolling to pass the time here

 

[SaysWho?]

Every time I see a tweet that says, "The media isn't talking about ," I'm always blasted by CNN or NPR or WaPo on those issues.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I only see the fire fauci articles not so much the other ones on the front pages of these sites.

 

Hell, until I went looking for it I didn't realize trump was planning on a cabinet level clean out. Wray and Fauci yes, but HHS, CMS, etc I had no idea.

[SaysWho?]

We have CNN on in the newsroom and the Fauci story comes up frequently as well as what the candidates are doing. With the Cabinet, that's a second term purge which is not as concerning as FBI/Fauci to me (which he doesn't have the authority to fire in the latter's case).

[SaysWho?]

 

 

 

 

So this is 2020:

 

 

As a comparison, this was 2016:

 

[SuperSpreader]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

 

 

So this is 2020:

 

 

As a comparison, this was 2016:

 

Still worried

[johnny]

10 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

I am already worried about 2024 if Biden wins.

 

His coalition built largely on beating Trump above all else is rife with the potential to blow up the minute he wins.

 

And there are a ton of stumbling blocks that will help turn progressives against him if he doesn't go quickly or boldly enough. Overdue stimulus being the first thing on his plate despite a laundry list of progressive priorities people want. The fact that they'll probably need to blow the filibuster to get just about any of it. Court packing. Investigating Trump. There is not going to be much patience for Joe to chase down 7 Republican votes in the Senate for a modification the a bill they are trying to kill with SCOTUS.

 

And to top it off, Joe probably won't be running in 2024, so no incumbent advantage for Kamala, or whoever it is if she gets a challenger.

 

That all said, as 2016 taught us, I am a firm believer that bad is still better than disasterous.

Kamala running in 2024 would be interesting considering she’s one of the most progressive democrats, which is fucking insane. 

[Joe]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

 

 

So this is 2020:

 

 

As a comparison, this was 2016:

 

 

I like the Economist guys and it's awesome having an alternative voice, but it's definitely interesting how they went from being quite obsessed with attacking 538 in the last few weeks to kind of quiet on this front recently. Almost like they're worried about something.

[SaysWho?]

 

[SaysWho?]

12 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

I like the Economist guys and it's awesome having an alternative voice, but it's definitely interesting how they went from being quite obsessed with attacking 538 in the last few weeks to kind of quiet on this front recently. Almost like they're worried about something.

 

I admittedly didn't look at them much, if at all. Perhaps I should incorporate them next time. I mostly followed 538, NYT Upshot, RCP, WaPo and a bunch of people associated or having past associations with them. And Ralston for Nevada.

[Fizzzzle]

12 minutes ago, johnny said:

Kamala running in 2024 would be interesting considering she’s one of the most progressive democrats, which is fucking insane. 

Shit, Joe might not even make it all 4 years, so we might see it anyway.

 

Fun fact: Woodrow Wilson suffered a massive stroke in 1919 while in office. For the last year and a half or so of his term, his wife Edith basically ran the country. So we already have had a defacto woman president.

[PaladinSolo]

Rasmussen releasing a Biden +1 nationally but winning PA by 3 seems like its really obvious they have no idea what they're doing.

[Guest]

Coming back around to where we left of the discussion, @b_m_b_m_b_m and @Greatoneshere

 

I'll be quick to admit that climate stuff is not an area of 1) particular interest or 2) great knowledge for me, but I have a "reads the newspaper regularly" kind of knowledge here.

 

But my understanding of the situation is that if the US alone moved to not just net zero but actual zero carbon emissions right now, and the rest of the world continued on their current projected pace, there would be very minimal differences in global temperature increases by the end of the century. Which if true means it literally doesn't matter if Biden or Trump are in office the next four years if you also believe climate change is the end of humanity as Great believes it is.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no localized difference between their policy preferences regarding climate, but the context of this line of discussion was climate as an extinction event for humanity. If you want to talk about job creation moving forward in energy particularly, there is worthwhile discussion to be had.

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Coming back around to where we left of the discussion, @b_m_b_m_b_m and @Greatoneshere

 

I'll be quick to admit that climate stuff is not an area of 1) particular interest or 2) great knowledge for me, but I have a "reads the newspaper regularly" kind of knowledge here.

 

But my understanding of the situation is that if the US alone moved to not just net zero but actual zero carbon emissions right now, and the rest of the world continued on their current projected pace, there would be very minimal differences in global temperature increases by the end of the century. Which if true means it literally doesn't matter if Biden or Trump are in office the next four years if you also believe climate change is the end of humanity as Great believes it is.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no localized difference between their policy preferences regarding climate, but the context of this line of discussion was climate as an extinction event for humanity. If you want to talk about job creation moving forward in energy particularly, there is worthwhile discussion to be had.

 

I agree with your points, I think I'm being misunderstood. I should be clear: climate change is an extinction event for humanity, though it will happen to us gradually in waves. Am I not correct?

 

Separately, you keep assuming a Biden administration (or, down the line, other administrations) wouldn't work with other countries. I do not believe this will stay a localized problem. Countries will start trying to work together (probably too late) at some point. With Trump, that definitely won't happen. Also, don't forget, as I said, a Trump presidency means a fascistic state for the US, whereas with Biden we may come back to some semblance of normalcy.

 

I'm not suggesting Biden saves us. Only that there remains a chance if he's president vs. none with Trump. I think maybe we misunderstand each other? Because I'm not sure which one of my points you disagree with.  

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Coming back around to where we left of the discussion, @b_m_b_m_b_m and @Greatoneshere

 

I'll be quick to admit that climate stuff is not an area of 1) particular interest or 2) great knowledge for me, but I have a "reads the newspaper regularly" kind of knowledge here.

 

But my understanding of the situation is that if the US alone moved to not just net zero but actual zero carbon emissions right now, and the rest of the world continued on their current projected pace, there would be very minimal differences in global temperature increases by the end of the century. Which if true means it literally doesn't matter if Biden or Trump are in office the next four years if you also believe climate change is the end of humanity as Great believes it is.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no localized difference between their policy preferences regarding climate, but the context of this line of discussion was climate as an extinction event for humanity. If you want to talk about job creation moving forward in energy particularly, there is worthwhile discussion to be had.

 

That is true...but it's also the argument that almost all anti-action parties are using around the world. "Canada is a drop in the bucket, why even try?" etc. Except it's a situation where we have to act and rely on others to make the same, good choice. It's like the boat scene in The Dark Knight. The (probably bad) example I give is that many individual nations could have not fought the Germans/Japanese/Italians in WWII and the result would have been the same...but if you remove enough of those actors, the results would have been catastrophic. 

[CitizenVectron]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree with your points, I think I'm being misunderstood. I should be clear: climate change is an extinction event for humanity, though it will happen to us gradually in waves. Am I not correct?

 

 

 

I don't think there are any serious scientists saying it is an ELE. At worst, it will cripple global civilization due to wars/famine. Even in the doomsday scenarios, the Earth will still be cooler than it has been for much of its life-supporting history. The danger (to our civilization) is that the change is rapid, so we may not have time to change where we grow food, where people live, etc. But there is basically no scenario where we enter a Venus-like greenhouse loop, not with the chemicals involved.

 

EDIT - A chart:

 

[CitizenVectron]

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree with your points, I think I'm being misunderstood. I should be clear: climate change is an extinction event for humanity, though it will happen to us gradually in waves. Am I not correct?

 

Separately, you keep assuming a Biden administration (or, down the line, other administrations) wouldn't work with other countries. I do not believe this will stay a localized problem. Countries will start trying to work together (probably too late) at some point. With Trump, that definitely won't happen. Also, don't forget, as I said, a Trump presidency means a fascistic state for the US, whereas with Biden we may come back to some semblance of normalcy.

 

I'm not suggesting Biden saves us. Only that there remains a chance if he's president vs. none with Trump. I think maybe we misunderstand each other? Because I'm not sure which one of my points you disagree with.  

 

I'm saying that if your position is that climate change is an extinction event for humanity, Biden doesn't put a dent in that because even a US immediate move to zero emissions (something that obviously can't occur during a 4 year term) doesn't make any meaningful difference in temp increases. But I also don't think you are correct from a science perspective that climate change is the end of humanity, so I also disagree with your initial premise  

 

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That is true...but it's also the argument that almost all anti-action parties are using around the world. "Canada is a drop in the bucket, why even try?" etc. Except it's a situation where we have to act and rely on others to make the same, good choice. It's like the boat scene in The Dark Knight. The (probably bad) example I give is that many individual nations could have not fought the Germans/Japanese/Italians in WWII and the result would have been the same...but if you remove enough of those actors, the results would have been catastrophic. 

 

Note that my position isn't that we should do nothing, only that if your POV is that climate change is an ELE than it straight up doesn't matter if Biden or Trump is in office for the next four years. Since I don't see climate change as an ELE, it does matter what we do even of the next few years to best set ourselves up for a future in which the climate leads to a more hostile environment. But Great has a different set of assumptions for which we are discussing the issue.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I don't think there are any serious scientists saying it is an ELE. At worst, it will cripple global civilization due to wars/famine. Even in the doomsday scenarios, the Earth will still be cooler than it has been for much of its life-supporting history. The danger (to our civilization) is that the change is rapid, so we may not have time to change where we grow food, where people live, etc. But there is basically no scenario where we enter a Venus-like greenhouse loop, not with the chemicals involved.

 

EDIT - A chart:

 

Collapse in food supply chains are a far more immediate threat

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Collapse in food supply chains are a far more immediate threat

 

For sure! But it won't lead to extinction.

[Greatoneshere]

18 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I don't think there are any serious scientists saying it is an ELE. At worst, it will cripple global civilization due to wars/famine. Even in the doomsday scenarios, the Earth will still be cooler than it has been for much of its life-supporting history. The danger (to our civilization) is that the change is rapid, so we may not have time to change where we grow food, where people live, etc. But there is basically no scenario where we enter a Venus-like greenhouse loop, not with the chemicals involved.

 

 

 

Isn't what you just described, for all intents and purposes, an ELE? I never meant to imply Earth will turn into Venus, I only meant that climate change will be so crippling to us if we're unprepared that much of humanity will die in the scramble to survive. Floods, wildfires, starvation, etc. Is this incorrect?

 

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

I'm saying that if your position is that climate change is an extinction event for humanity, Biden doesn't put a dent in that because even a US immediate move to zero emissions (something that obviously can't occur during a 4 year term) doesn't make any meaningful difference in temp increases. But I also don't think you are correct from a science perspective that climate change is the end of humanity, so I also disagree with your initial premise  

 

 

Note that my position isn't that we should do nothing, only that if your POV is that climate change is an ELE than it straight up doesn't matter if Biden or Trump is in office for the next four years. Since I don't see climate change as an ELE, it does matter what we do even of the next few years to best set ourselves up for a future in which the climate leads to a more hostile environment. But Great has a different set of assumptions for which we are discussing the issue.

 

I never meant ELE like an asteroid will hit us. See my response above in this post. It will be crippling, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing, no? I didn't mean to imply literal extinction. I'm sure the 1% will definitely live.  

 

With Biden, I believe we have a path to reverse some of that crippling, to some degree. 

 

Edit: Guys, I'm not an idiot. Obviously climate change isn't going to turn Earth into a hellscape according to the scientists. But they are all really concerned for a reason. There's a doomsday clock for a reason.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

For sure! But it won't lead to extinction.

When it comes to billions of lives going through untold suffering it's a distinction without a difference

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

When it comes to billions of lives going through untold suffering it's a distinction without a difference

 

Precisely my point from my first post about this. We're being pedantic about what an ELE is. For all intents and purposes, if we do nothing (and Trump will do nothing), we are well and truly fucked. 

 

So the 1% in their bunkers get to live. The richest countries may survive. Yay? Sounds like I still die, or live a miserable life.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Precisely my point from my first post about this. We're being pedantic about what an ELE is. For all intents and purposes, if we do nothing (and Trump will do nothing), we are well and truly fucked. 

 

So the 1% in their bunkers get to live. The richest countries may survive. Yay? Sounds like I still die, or live a miserable life.

 

You were being hyperbolic...and still are in this post  

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

You were being hyperbolic...and still are in this post  

 

Yes, I am, to empahsize the point.  

 

My point is, with Trump it's going to be really bad, and with Biden, well, at least we get future Democratic presidents down the line (totally negated with a Trump second term) so it leaves possibilities, chances. 

 

Is this not correct?

 

Life will go on with either President, I guess, but in a much worse way with Trump, no? Essentially consigning a lot of humanity to death, not all though, is the distinction. 

[Guest]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yes, I am, to empahsize the point.  

 

My point is, with Trump it's going to be really bad, and with Biden, well, at least we get future Democratic presidents down the line (totally negated with a Trump second term) so it leaves possibilities, chances. 

 

Is this not correct?

It does not seem to be correct that there is anything that can be accomplished in the next 4 years with Biden as president that will reverse climate change. Is there a specific bit a policy that can reasonably be assumed to be brought to fruition that will reverse climate change?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

"ha, Biden can't fix climate change in 4 years so he's no better than trump in this regard" c'mon man

 

Long term problems need long term solutions and you have to start somewhere