Jump to content

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]


Patrick Bateman

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, bolverk said:

Sam Effing Elliott!

 

That's just a great closing ad.  And it's perfect for the WS.  You've got a Florida team playing against a team with a large Hispanic fanbase that spreads into Arizona and Nevada.  And the audience skews white, old, and male, which is a demographic from which Trump has been losing support.  

In that way, it's a lot like "Morning in America"--probably the best campaign ad of all time.  It isn't going to make the difference between winning and losing.  What it does do is hit the opponent right in a demographic that he needs to win in order to be competitive.  And it does so with a positive message.  "Morning in America" is credited by some professionals with turning that campaign to one in which Monday was going to lose to one in which he was lucky to take his home state.  I think this ad has potential to do that--seal this deal and make Trump uncompetitive.  

By the way--a lot of people here and on Twitter have been wringing their hands since February about the Biden campaign.  They're not hiring enough people quickly enough; they're not doing enough rallies; they're not doing the right ads.  As we get closer to Election Day, this campaign is looking to be really, really good.  Their ads are strong.  Their digital/social media game has been outstanding.  And keeping Biden away from big rallies has really highlighted Trump's irresponsibility with COVID.  They're doing a really good job. 

10 hours ago, heso said:

So the gop’s big October surprise was Guliani getting ahold of a laptop that Biden’s son supposedly left in the shop of a blind computer repairman in Delaware while living in California. Meanwhile the New York Times just keeps lobbing Molotov cocktails at the trump campaign and Trump is becoming more unhinged by the day. 

i wish I had more confidence in there not being any fuckery with the election so I could sit back and enjoy the ride a bit more. 

There's going to be fuckery.  But not at the levels that can prevent what's coming.

You need to enjoy this a bit.  We're up 21-3 at the end of the first quarter against Colorado in the Big 12 Championship.  You're just torturing yourself to sit there and say, "it's a Big 12 Championship against Colorado--we could still lose this."

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Hey wanted to circle back here. Sorry, I took a break for a few days from my hate mail. I come to the site a lot less when our football team sucks donkey dick. 
 

Mea culpa. It appears you are right. The links included in the original tweet didn’t include the updated assessment of the tax plan. Didn’t think to look for update. I’ll be more careful. 

Nope.  You can't admit that you were wrong in the Cloak Room.  That's not allowed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

@BehoId, The Underminer!, why does that 538 map stress you out? If anything, it's a good demonstration of how many paths Biden has to winning and what a needle Trump has to thread to win. 

Realistic swing states that a Biden win gives him >90% chance to win the election: MI, PA, WI, OH, FL, AZ. He holds leads in all five of those. His leads in the Rust Belt and AZ are strong. And yeah I understand that they all move together and so Biden losing PA means he probably lost MI/WI/FL too. But Arizona is a much different place than the Rust Belt; those are two very distinct paths to winning in very different ways. 

To get Trump to 90%+ with the swing states you have to give him AZ, FL, OH, and PA. 

 

What this map does do well is demonstrate the paths for an early celebration on election night. If any of PA, NC, GA, FL, or WI are called for Biden, the race is effectively over. IMO this map does a good job demonstrating how tough a Trump victory is.

I like this very, very, very much.

I don't trust math, because.....

i-was-told-there-would-be-no-math.jpg

 

But, I mean, it's an election, where it's ALL math, so...yeah.

I just have a big hole in me where "faith in our institutions and systems" used to reside.  I have always been that type.  Burn me, and I'll never fucking trust you again.

So, I will continue to fear the worst -- an outright loss, and/or fraud/suppression getting the job done, and/or a rigged SCOTUS handing Trump a win that he didn't actually get, etc.....while hoping like hell for the best.  I love that y'all feel real optimism, that it's number-driven, all that shit.  I do.

But in this environment, with our history, I'll never join you there in the land of optimism.  I'll sit here in my warm, cushy chair of pessimism with a glass of scotch for solace.  But if the result dictates celebration, I will absolutely reach my glass out for you to fill with champagne, because come on.....help a brother out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The Turtle has gone radio silent and Republican Senators are openly breaking with Trump.  His allies are abandoning ship.  To try to steal the election through the courts, he would need their help.  It's gonna be ok Brisket.

But they'll still vote with him next week to confirm a new justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I like this very, very, very much.

I don't trust math, because.....

i-was-told-there-would-be-no-math.jpg

 

But, I mean, it's an election, where it's ALL math, so...yeah.

I just have a big hole in me where "faith in our institutions and systems" used to reside.  I have always been that type.  Burn me, and I'll never fucking trust you again.

So, I will continue to fear the worst -- an outright loss, and/or fraud/suppression getting the job done, and/or a rigged SCOTUS handing Trump a win that he didn't actually get, etc.....while hoping like hell for the best.  I love that y'all feel real optimism, that it's number-driven, all that shit.  I do.

But in this environment, with our history, I'll never join you there in the land of optimism.  I'll sit here in my warm, cushy chair of pessimism with a glass of scotch for solace.  But if the result dictates celebration, I will absolutely reach my glass out for you to fill with champagne, because come on.....help a brother out.

You know where my house is.  It'll be the one on Election Night with two cases of Veuve on ice on the patio where all the neighbors are congregating.

6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The Turtle has gone radio silent and Republican Senators are openly breaking with Trump.  His allies are abandoning ship.  To try to steal the election through the courts, he would need their help.  It's gonna be ok Brisket.

And stipulating that Brisket is bad at math, let's also recognize that there are non-mathematical indicators that Biden is going to win.

John Cornyn is an enormous pussy.  Huge.  The man doesn't have a courageous bone in his body.  If he is making it a point to talk about how he has opposed Trump's policies (quietly, because doing so loudly would've required courage), that means that he has adjudged Donald Trump's chances of winning to be precisely 0.0%.

And respectfully to the Nates and G. Elliott, I trust John Cornyn's prognostication abilities more than I trust theirs.  He has been counting votes for a long time.  And his career is riding on this.  If he thinks Donald Trump is losing, I'm going to trust him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I like this very, very, very much.

I don't trust math, because.....

i-was-told-there-would-be-no-math.jpg

 

But, I mean, it's an election, where it's ALL math, so...yeah.

I just have a big hole in me where "faith in our institutions and systems" used to reside.  I have always been that type.  Burn me, and I'll never fucking trust you again.

So, I will continue to fear the worst -- an outright loss, and/or fraud/suppression getting the job done, and/or a rigged SCOTUS handing Trump a win that he didn't actually get, etc.....while hoping like hell for the best.  I love that y'all feel real optimism, that it's number-driven, all that shit.  I do.

But in this environment, with our history, I'll never join you there in the land of optimism.  I'll sit here in my warm, cushy chair of pessimism with a glass of scotch for solace.  But if the result dictates celebration, I will absolutely reach my glass out for you to fill with champagne, because come on.....help a brother out.

 

Check this out.

Let's make the very very unlikely assumption that the pollsters made no adjustments to account for the underestimation of po' white trash votes in 2016. Like literally zero, they just said "that certainly won't happen again!". I ran that analysis earlier showing what would happen if the polls missed that badly again (underestimated undecideds breaking to Trump). And Biden still wins 333 to 205. So even a 2016 disaster in polling would still end up with a comfortable Biden win.

For Trump to win, he needs the following:

- The pollsters made no adjustments (extraordinarily unlikely, they adjust constantly)
- Undecideds will break even harder for Trump in 2020 vs. 2016. This almost never happens as I think bozo has pointed out a number of times. Undecideds typically go for the challenger
- There is no counter-gravity to the po' white trash in the form of blue enthusiasm and increased voter registration/voting. Very unlikely.

Trump winning requires three ridiculously unlikely things to happen. I was on the ledge with you for awhile, but it's looking like a bit of a silly ledge at this point. Even if they cheat their way to FL/GA/NC, Biden is still in a comfortable position.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't think of anything that wouldn't be improved by Sam Elliot narrating.

"The liquid shit running down the inside of Beau Vine's legs burned, mixing with the blood pouring from his many wounds.  He cried like a girl from pain, and fear.  And the runny shit kept coming.  The world has never seen a bigger wuss."

Man, you're right -- that would still sound cool.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

And respectfully to the Nates and G. Elliott, I trust John Cornyn's prognostication abilities more than I trust theirs.  He has been counting votes for a long time.  And his career is riding on this.  If he thinks Donald Trump is losing, I'm going to trust him.

It's because Cornyn has access to GOP internal polling that Nate and G. Elliott do not. They may hear about internal polls second hand through media sources but he gets to see the raw data.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You know where my house is.  It'll be the one on Election Night with two cases of Veuve on ice on the patio where all the neighbors are congregating.

And stipulating that Brisket is bad at math, let's also recognize that there are non-mathematical indicators that Biden is going to win.

John Cornyn is an enormous pussy.  Huge.  The man doesn't have a courageous bone in his body.  If he is making it a point to talk about how he has opposed Trump's policies (quietly, because doing so loudly would've required courage), that means that he has adjudged Donald Trump's chances of winning to be precisely 0.0%.

And respectfully to the Nates and G. Elliott, I trust John Cornyn's prognostication abilities more than I trust theirs.  He has been counting votes for a long time.  And his career is riding on this.  If he thinks Donald Trump is losing, I'm going to trust him.

This is a great point.  Cornyn's cowardly I-actually-disagreed-in-real-time distancing gives me just as much solace as 538's projections or anything else.  His internal numbers must be off the charts brutal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to be convinced that Rasmussen has entirely separate polling divisions for state vs. national and that the two groups have never met or spoken with each other.

Nationally, they've got Trump at 49% approval and their national poll today will most likely be Biden ahead by no more than 2 or 3 (my guess based on approval). 

Meanwhile, in the last 48 hours, they've put out state polls of Arizona (Biden 48-46), Pennsylvania (Biden 50-47), Ohio (Biden 48-47). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

I'm starting to be convinced that Rasmussen has entirely separate polling divisions for state vs. national and that the two groups have never met or spoken with each other.

Nationally, they've got Trump at 49% approval and their national poll today will most likely be Biden ahead by no more than 2 or 3 (my guess based on approval). 

Meanwhile, in the last 48 hours, they've put out state polls of Arizona (Biden 48-46), Pennsylvania (Biden 50-47), Ohio (Biden 48-47). 

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss in regards to your post. 

That national approval and likely poll would suck. Those state polls fucking suck. It' seems to me like their state and national teams are in perfect alignment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

I'm starting to be convinced that Rasmussen has entirely separate polling divisions for state vs. national and that the two groups have never met or spoken with each other.

Nationally, they've got Trump at 49% approval and their national poll today will most likely be Biden ahead by no more than 2 or 3 (my guess based on approval). 

Meanwhile, in the last 48 hours, they've put out state polls of Arizona (Biden 48-46), Pennsylvania (Biden 50-47), Ohio (Biden 48-47). 

Yeah, I feel the same way (but the inverse) about the other polls.

 

How is Biden up 8-10% nationally but in a dead heat for Florida? He should be up by 5% in Florida if he's up 10% nationally. Fuckery abounds, I just can't figure out where.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s also interesting that Trump hasn’t really lashed out at the senators. I remember him yelling at Murkowski in the summer and he said his thing about ben sasse the other day.
 

but there’s a lot more folks doing things than just those two. I wonder if it’s starting to occur to him that yelling at higher up Rs on Twitter just points out to the public that they are not on Trump’s side.

 

Just off the top of my head we got Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, and Mitch McConnell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"The liquid shit running down the inside of Beau Vine's legs burned, mixing with the blood pouring from his many wounds.  He cried like a girl from pain, and fear.  And the runny shit kept coming.  The world has never seen a bigger wuss."

Man, you're right -- that would still sound cool.

That’s not very nice. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss in regards to your post. 

That national approval and likely poll would suck. Those state polls fucking suck. It' seems to me like their state and national teams are in perfect alignment. 

If Biden was up 2 nationally, he would be behind 6+ in OH, 4+ in AZ, and tied in PA.

It would be highly unlikely for Biden to have 2-3 point leads in those states if he only has a 2-3 point lead nationwide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eyes emoji result from Monmouth in IA.

Biden up either 50-47 ( LV high turnout) or 51-46 ( LV low turnout)

Similar numbers for Greenfield over Ernst. 

While the high/low turnout numbers might seem reversed from normal, they built their LV model assuming high DEM turnout based on how many have already voted. Therefore turnout in their model is basically just whether or not GOP turns out at an equally high level. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

If Biden was up 2 nationally, he would be behind 6+ in OH, 4+ in AZ, and tied in PA.

It would be highly unlikely for Biden to have 2-3 point leads in those states if he only has a 2-3 point lead nationwide.

 

Oh, I got that aspect. I was more commenting in a "These guys suck at their job, these other guys suck at their job, it makes perfect sense to me that they'd have lunch regularly and fuck up math and common sense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Storm the Field said:

Eyes emoji result from Monmouth in IA.

Biden up either 50-47 ( LV high turnout) or 51-46 ( LV low turnout)

Similar numbers for Greenfield over Ernst. 

While the high/low turnout numbers might seem reversed from normal, they built their LV model assuming high DEM turnout based on how many have already voted. Therefore turnout in their model is basically just whether or not GOP turns out at an equally high level. 

Yeah, I really enjoyed that aspect/slant to their model. It makes sense to me. 

Of course, there's no model assuming a certain percentage of mail in ballots get disqualified or lost or rejected...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Check this out.

Let's make the very very unlikely assumption that the pollsters made no adjustments to account for the underestimation of po' white trash votes in 2016. Like literally zero, they just said "that certainly won't happen again!". I ran that analysis earlier showing what would happen if the polls missed that badly again (underestimated undecideds breaking to Trump). And Biden still wins 333 to 205. So even a 2016 disaster in polling would still end up with a comfortable Biden win.

For Trump to win, he needs the following:

- The pollsters made no adjustments (extraordinarily unlikely, they adjust constantly)
- Undecideds will break even harder for Trump in 2020 vs. 2016. This almost never happens as I think bozo has pointed out a number of times. Undecideds typically go for the challenger
- There is no counter-gravity to the po' white trash in the form of blue enthusiasm and increased voter registration/voting. Very unlikely.

Trump winning requires three ridiculously unlikely things to happen. I was on the ledge with you for awhile, but it's looking like a bit of a silly ledge at this point. Even if they cheat their way to FL/GA/NC, Biden is still in a comfortable position.

Even in states where the count is close, Biden is near or above 50%, and steadily so. That gives Trump very little room to grow into. Hillary never even sniffed 50%.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

A summary of an investigation led by a couple of Trump bootlickers that found nothing illegal -  but did conclude there were 'potential conflicts of interest' with Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A summary of an investigation led by a couple of Trump bootlickers that found nothing illegal -  but did conclude there were 'potential conflicts of interest' with Hunter Biden and Burisma.

So how does this tie to the New York post article.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hiphopopotamos said:

A summary of an investigation led by a couple of Trump bootlickers that found nothing illegal -  but did conclude there were 'potential conflicts of interest' with Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Yep, it's basically "while we didn't find anything illegal (despite our best efforts) here are a handful of instances where we're going to insinuate that something's not on the level."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:


So how does this tie to the New York post article.

There are a couple of references to Biden meeting with Ukranian officials around the same time Hunter Biden received large sums of money from Russia/Ukraine.  They're connecting that to the section of the emails where Hunter references getting someone in contact with his dad.

The problem is that everything Joe did regarding the Ukraine was in line with the US and Europe's stated goals regarding Ukraine and corruption.  So even if Hunter was offering 'quid pro quo's' to these people - there is no evidence that Joe knew about it and there is zero evidence that Joe ever acted on any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

Ancedote time: the MN SoS tweeted yesterday that nearly 1 million ballots have already been submitted. This is slightly more than 1/3 of the total number of ballots cast in the last two presidential elections.

Having driven around MN extensively in the last few weeks, the fact that Biden signs exist in areas that Trump needs to run up the score bodes badly for him (and by extension, the rest of the GOP). Couldn't happen to a finer bunch.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

I know Dave Wasserman has been hammering this point about suburban house district polls showing bloodbaths. Good example.

MN-02 is an 80% white district SE of the Twin Cities on the WI border. Had a GOP rep from 2000-2018 but voted for Obama by ~10% both times. Clinton won by just 1.5%. Angie Craig flipped the seat with a 5 point win in 2018.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't think of anything that wouldn't be improved by Sam Elliot narrating.

 

The coup de grace would be if there was a second commercial in the can, ready to go with Morgan Freeman narrating.

 

That would take things to 11.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't given a sign update in a while. In my NW Houston (Aggie heavy and therefore Trump heavy) suburban neighborhood, at last count on a drive through most of the neighborhood there were 8 Trump signs and 4 Biden signs.

In 2016 my neighborhood seemed like one big giant Trump billboard. Even more than the merely 2 to 1 advantage for Trump what stands out is the total lack of enthusiasm for him. Only 8 signs in a neighborhood of basically 900 homes would seem to be a horrific sign for him.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

A summary of an investigation led by a couple of Trump bootlickers that found nothing illegal -  but did conclude there were 'potential conflicts of interest' with Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Sounds pretty much like what the Obama State Department concluded at the time.  The problem is that neither the State Department nor the government as a whole has the power the prevent a private citizen from serving on a board, unless you want to talk about sanctions. 

And, there are potential conflicts of interest any time you have a relative of a powerful politician working for an entity that is affected by the actions of the US government.  And it happens all the time.  I don't see either side looking to pass laws to prohibit it. 

Edited by Tuco
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Now that man is a national treasure. Unlike that giant pussy john wayne, Mel was a combat engineer and served in Europe and that other shithole, Oklahoma.

Agreed. He's pretty far up my list of favorite humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Storm the Field said:

Nationally, they've got Trump at 49% approval and their national poll today will most likely be Biden ahead by no more than 2 or 3 (my guess based on approval). 

Right on cue, they've got Biden +3 (49-46).

Biden leads with independent voters by 7, so how do they achieve a +3, you might ask. Well, just have Biden pulling 79% of the DEM vote, that's how. That's right, 21% of Democratic voters are either voting Trump or haven't decided yet!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...