|
And NYTquote:Money was supposed to have been one of the great advantages of incumbency for President Trump, much as it was for President Barack Obama in 2012 and George W. Bush in 2004. After getting outspent in 2016, Mr. Trump filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration — earlier than any other modern president — betting that the head start would deliver him a decisive financial advantage this year.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 17:34 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:48 |
|
I for one am glad that Op-Eds are reminding dem voters not to get complacent.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 17:40 |
|
Grouchio posted:I for one am glad that Op-Eds are reminding dem voters not to get complacent. indeed. that being said. i dont think they will. every indiependent and dem and moderate is worried trump will some how win again despite the polls. they will vote. hell my dad is gonna vote biden and is hoping its a blow out.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 17:43 |
|
What level of desperation is this? https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1314971390307696642
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:05 |
|
Is that… Legal?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:07 |
|
EDIT ^^^ It is super duper illegal but if the CEO does it right they can tie it up in courts for as long as they need toShimrra Jamaane posted:What level of desperation is this? Papa John tried this during the 2012 election, so honestly it's pretty normal Republican garbage all things considered
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:07 |
|
1000 businesses with 1 million employees?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:15 |
|
DarklyDreaming posted:EDIT ^^^ It is super duper illegal but if the CEO does it right they can tie it up in courts for as long as they need to quote:It is not unheard of, but is typically controversial, for a company to link a potential employee benefit to the chief executive’s preferred candidate winning an election. In 2010, after Supreme Court decisions removed restrictions on how businesses could electioneer internally, Koch Industries distributed a guide that recommended employees vote for conservative candidates, as “recent government actions are threatening to bankrupt the country.” They can't say "vote for Trump and we will give you money for that vote," but there is plenty of weasel room under the current SCOTUS to send out all-employee communications that say "if Trump is elected we expect that his business-friendly policies will allow us to give you a raise the day after Election Day, and if Biden is elected then we expect that he will destroy capitalism, so the day after the race is called for him we'd be forced to lay off half the company and cut salaries for everyone who's left. We expect that you will vote accordingly given this information."
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:16 |
|
a.lo posted:1000 businesses with 1 million employees? Looks like it's a total of 1 million employees across those 1000 businesses. Of course, wording it the way they did makes it a more shocking claim and draws more clicks, which is just right for what seems to be a halfhearted headline-grab. The PAC's spending tiny amounts of money, and only has three Google results so far, two of which are Washington Post articles about it.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:21 |
|
Pick posted:Is that… Legal? gently caress no, it is very illegal. DarklyDreaming posted:Papa John tried this during the 2012 election, so honestly it's pretty normal Republican garbage all things considered I think the key is to convince the courts that you were joking and it was never a serious attempt to pay for votes. Sorry, we got a little carried away in the spirit of it, there was a lot of hyperbole and silly gags, but as you can see in our mission statement and in our meeting minutes, we never once discussed a formal agreement to reward employees for pledging loyalty to Trump. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 10, 2020 |
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:34 |
|
Rigel posted:gently caress no, it is very illegal. see also the John Roberts "actually if you don't expressly say this money is in exchange for this outcome it's not bribery" standard the swing justice going from that guy to the guy who said freezing truckers to death is cool, good, and legal is gonna take us to fun places
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:45 |
|
With early voting already started, I made a specific voting thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3943509
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 19:43 |
|
Rigel posted:gently caress no, it is very illegal. It is not "very illegal." Thanks to Citizens United and very limited labor rights, the idea of employers offering a Trump victory raise hair-splits its way to being legal. It's illegal pretty much everywhere to offer people something of value for their specific vote. But, this isn't doing that. Employers are allowed to talk about what they expect will happen with specific electoral outcomes. It is 100% legal in most states for an employer to say "if Trump wins the presidency, we will give you a raise, and if he does not win, we will not give you that raise." It is also legal in most states for an employer to say "I believe you voted for Biden, and because of that, you're fired." Employees in the US don't have a lot of rights and political expression and behavior (outside of some specific labor organizing activities) is not protected in a lot of places in the US. It used to be illegal, pre-Citizens United, for corporations to use resources for electioneering. Putting out messages that are obviously intended to push employees to vote for a candidate in an email blast or all-hands meeting is electioneering. But, that's no longer an issue thanks to the Roberts court. The only thing stopping most major companies is that they don't want the PR that comes from associating themselves with a specific candidate or ballot issue.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:17 |
|
People keep saying 'I hope democrats don't get complacent' and I have literally never seen a single person anywhere in the country go 'oh, yeah, we have this in the bag.' Like there's people saying trump is floundering hard but nobody's doing victory laps the way they were this time last year.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:32 |
|
Polling shows that a majority of people believe Trump will win.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:36 |
|
Endorph posted:People keep saying 'I hope democrats don't get complacent' and I have literally never seen a single person anywhere in the country go 'oh, yeah, we have this in the bag.' Like there's people saying trump is floundering hard but nobody's doing victory laps the way they were this time last year. People keep talking about the damage the unexpected outcome of the 2016 election did in terms of analysis and planning, but one of its few benefits was a real feeling that nothing is in the bag until the election is over (and maybe not even then).
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:37 |
|
I don't think I've met a single voter who isn't on the side of "the polls are bullshit, we have to vote." My wife, her parents, my neighbors and friends, not a single one believes Biden has it in the bag.Shimrra Jamaane posted:Polling shows that a majority of people believe Trump will win. That makes sense, actually. His entire delusional base plus a pessimistic fraction of Biden supporters would be a majority. Xombie fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Oct 10, 2020 |
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:48 |
|
Also, generally, incumbents usually have big advantages and tend to win 2nd terms.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:50 |
|
Endorph posted:People keep saying 'I hope democrats don't get complacent' and I have literally never seen a single person anywhere in the country go 'oh, yeah, we have this in the bag.' Like there's people saying trump is floundering hard but nobody's doing victory laps the way they were this time last year. Have you read this thread any time a poll that has Biden less than 6 points up gets posted, or when somebody brings up the idea that there might be a systemic error in polling similar to or worse than 2016?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:59 |
|
Eminai posted:Have you read this thread any time a poll that has Biden less than 6 points up gets posted, or when somebody brings up the idea that there might be a systemic error in polling similar to or worse than 2016? Please stop with this gimmick - this isn't the thread for that. If your goal is try to score shots on posters, go to the GE thread. There is a difference between discussing what the polls show and becoming complacent. There has not been a single post here saying "we don't need to vote" and there is no evidence of complacency, anywhere. I am one of the most bullish posters on Biden's odds and I still have discussed at length that Trump has a chance.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:06 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Polling shows that a majority of people believe Trump will win.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:11 |
|
If you know anybody (and I mean "actually know" not "saw them making a hot take on twitter once") who doesn't like Trump who has even a remote expectation of being able to unclench until Biden has been inaugurated and in office for at least a month, I invite you to quote them in this thread because I sure don't.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:14 |
Grouchio posted:They'll think this no matter how high Biden's polls are and how incapacitated Trump will be, is what you're saying?
|
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:15 |
|
Spiritus Nox posted:If you know anybody (and I mean "actually know" not "saw them making a hot take on twitter once") who doesn't like Trump who has even a remote expectation of being able to unclench until Biden has been inaugurated and in office for at least a month, I invite you to quote them in this thread because I sure don't.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:16 |
|
Eminai posted:Have you read this thread any time a poll that has Biden less than 6 points up gets posted, or when somebody brings up the idea that there might be a systemic error in polling similar to or worse than 2016? Yes, and this isn't happening? Saying that Biden has good odds to win is not the same thing as a preemptive victory lap.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:25 |
|
Grouchio posted:They'll think this no matter how high Biden's polls are and how incapacitated Trump will be, is what you're saying? Those "people believe Trump will win" polls are way out of date. Far more still think this than they should, but a slight majority have now accepted the narrative that Trump is probably going to lose. Realistically, the election *IS* in the bag for Biden, and its no longer reasonable to believe Trump will actually win a legit vote. The benefit of the voters still collectively thinking it could be close and still being frantic to vote is that it puts hilarious blowouts into play where we can dream of Senate seats in KS, AK, and SC.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:37 |
|
mutata posted:Also, generally, incumbents usually have big advantages and tend to win 2nd terms. This is "common knowledge" that gets repeated a lot but it's actually not true. Less than half of US presidents (21 out of 44) have been reelected. It just seems that they often get re-elected due to recency bias with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:37 |
|
And W Bush and Obama could have easily lost re-election against a different candidate. They didn’t exactly blow doors. Especially Bush.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:38 |
|
Rigel posted:Those "people believe Trump will win" polls are way out of date. Far more still think this than they should, but a slight majority have now accepted the narrative that Trump is probably going to lose. People also know that not every vote against Trump will count, and a +10 victory will be harder to SCOTUS away than a +2 victory, barring truly hilarious legal calvinball, which no amount of votes will help.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:41 |
|
Seph posted:This is "common knowledge" that gets repeated a lot but it's actually not true. Less than half of US presidents (21 out of 44) have been reelected. It just seems that they often get re-elected due to recency bias with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama. This is good to know!
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:43 |
|
Seph posted:This is "common knowledge" that gets repeated a lot but it's actually not true. Less than half of US presidents (21 out of 44) have been reelected. It just seems that they often get re-elected due to recency bias with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama. Reagan and Nixon are probably the classic models that people think of there.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:47 |
|
Seph posted:This is "common knowledge" that gets repeated a lot but it's actually not true. Less than half of US presidents (21 out of 44) have been reelected. It just seems that they often get re-elected due to recency bias with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama. What are the numbers when you eliminate dead people
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:54 |
|
Seph posted:This is "common knowledge" that gets repeated a lot but it's actually not true. Less than half of US presidents (21 out of 44) have been reelected. It just seems that they often get re-elected due to recency bias with Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama. I think it goes to more than half when you exclude the ones who never had a chance to run for re-election because they died in their first term. I think its only 9 or 10 who stood for reelection and lost. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 10, 2020 |
# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:54 |
|
Eminai posted:Have you read this thread any time a poll that has Biden less than 6 points up gets posted, or when somebody brings up the idea that there might be a systemic error in polling similar to or worse than 2016? I have. It's usually followed by a calm explanation as to why such an error is unlikely to exist. Maybe you should stop casting aspersions on people who try to help calm the anxious reflexes of others.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:11 |
|
One especially encouraging thing to note here is that the judge who tossed this horseshit was actually a Trump appointee.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:15 |
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I think it goes to more than half when you exclude the ones who never had a chance to run for re-election because they died in their first term. And of the ones who run and lose re-election a large number of them got screwed by events out of their control (or not, in the case of Trump!) The economy takes a poo poo, or you decide you don't give a gently caress about stopping the plague, and you'll get tossed out. Its very rare that we go "eh, everything is doing ok, but we don't really like you anymore", the incumbency advantage is huge. The challenger often has to just hope something really bad happens to give them a real chance. Biden will need every bit of that incumbency advantage in 2024, and he may end up being one of the least talented politicians to get two terms from being handed Trump as his opponent, followed by a bounceback from plague/great depression #2.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:18 |
|
Rigel posted:Biden will need every bit of that incumbency advantage in 2024, and he may end up being one of the least talented politicians to get two terms from being handed Trump as his opponent, followed by a bounceback from plague/great depression #2. Don't forget the very real possibility that Trump or one of his offspring will be the nominee in 2024.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:23 |
|
TwoQuestions posted:People also know that not every vote against Trump will count, and a +10 victory will be harder to SCOTUS away than a +2 victory, barring truly hilarious legal calvinball, which no amount of votes will help. The more obvious and unprecedented the ratfucking the larger the backlash will be.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:23 |
|
Yes but that 21/44 figure also counts presidents who never got elected in their first term but ended up winning reelection (Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, etc.). Like you could argue while JFK never got the chance to be reelected, Johnson never would have had the chance either if JFK hadn't been assassinated, so you should remove Johnson's reelection too. It's not as simple as just subtracting the number of dead presidents out of the denominator. For instance I'd probably count Truman's reelection but probably not Johnson since Truman essentially served two full terms. But regardless of what the exact figure is, my point is that winning a second term isn't a slam dunk like some people think it is. This recent string of three two-term presidents has only happened one other time in history in the early 1800's. It's easy to get biased by recent events and assume that winning a second term is normal but the stats show that it's actually (roughly) 50/50.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:23 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:48 |
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I have. It's usually followed by a calm explanation as to why such an error is unlikely to exist. Maybe you should stop casting aspersions on people who try to help calm the anxious reflexes of others. It's very hard to stop doing something I never started doing, but I'll give it a try.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2020 23:25 |