Polliwonks: Wasserman, his eyes uncovered!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Polliwonks: Wasserman, his eyes uncovered!

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

And NYT

quote:

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.

It seemed to have worked. His rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., was relatively broke when he emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee this spring, and Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee had a nearly $200 million cash advantage.

Five months later, Mr. Trump�s financial supremacy has evaporated. Of the $1.1 billon his campaign and the party raised from the beginning of 2019 through July, more than $800 million has already been spent. Now some people inside the campaign are forecasting what was once unthinkable: a cash crunch with less than 60 days until the election, according to Republican officials briefed on the matter.

Brad Parscale, the former campaign manager, liked to call Mr. Trump�s re-election war machine an �unstoppable juggernaut.� But interviews with more than a dozen current and former campaign aides and Trump allies, and a review of thousands of items in federal campaign filings, show that the president�s campaign and the R.N.C. developed some profligate habits as they burned through hundreds of millions of dollars. Since Bill Stepien replaced Mr. Parscale in July, the campaign has imposed a series of belt-tightening measures that have reshaped initiatives, including hiring practices, travel and the advertising budget.

Under Mr. Parscale, more than $350 million � almost half of the $800 million spent � went to fund-raising operations, as no expense was spared in finding new donors online. The campaign assembled a big and well-paid staff and housed the team at a cavernous, well-appointed office in the Virginia suburbs; outsize legal bills were treated as campaign costs; and more than $100 million was spent on a television advertising blitz before the party convention, the point when most of the electorate historically begins to pay close attention to the race.

Among the splashiest and perhaps most questionable purchases was a pair of Super Bowl ads the campaign reserved for $11 million, according to Advertising Analytics � more than it has spent on TV in some top battleground states. It was a vanity splurge that allowed Mr. Trump to match the billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg�s buy for the big game.

There was also a cascade of smaller choices that added up: The campaign hired a coterie of highly paid consultants (Mr. Trump�s former bodyguard and White House aide has been paid more than $500,000 by the R.N.C. since late 2017); spent $156,000 for planes to pull aerial banners in recent months; and paid nearly $110,000 to Yondr, a company that makes magnetic pouches used to store cellphones during fund-raisers so that donors could not secretly record Mr. Trump and leak his remarks.

Some people familiar with the budget noted that Mr. Parscale had a car and driver, an unusual expense for a campaign manager. Mr. Trump has told people gleefully that Mr. Stepien took a pay cut when the president gave him the job.

Critics of the campaign�s management say the lavish spending was ineffective: Mr. Trump enters the fall trailing in most national and swing state polls, and Mr. Biden has surpassed him as a fund-raising powerhouse, after posting a record-setting haul of nearly $365 million in August. The Trump campaign has not revealed its August fund-raising figure.

�If you spend $800 million and you�re 10 points behind, I think you�ve got to answer the question �What was the game plan?�� said Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist who runs a small pro-Trump super PAC, and who accused Mr. Parscale of spending �like a drunken sailor.�

�I think a lot of money was spent when voters weren�t paying attention,� he added.

Mr. Parscale, who is still a senior adviser on the campaign, said in an interview that the Trump operation invested heavily in attracting donors to erase the large advantage that Democrats had built digitally after the Obama years. �We closed that gap,� he said, crediting early spending as �the only reason Republicans are even close� in terms of online fund-raising.

�I ran the campaign the same way I did in 2016, which also included all of the marketing, strategy and expenses under the very close eye of the family,� said Mr. Parscale, who was the digital director, not the campaign manager, in 2016. �No decision was made without their approval.�

Mr. Trump�s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has overseen the campaign from his position as a senior White House aide, had posed for a Forbes magazine cover as the person who ran the 2016 campaign soon after the election.

�Any spending arrangements with the R.N.C. since 2016 were in partnership with Ronna McDaniel,� Mr. Parscale said, referring to the party chairwoman, �who I consider a strategic partner and friend.� Mr. Parscale said on Twitter that the campaign spent less than $11 million on the Super Bowl ads, after moving one of them to the post-game portion of the telecast.

Nicholas Everhart, a Republican strategist who owns a firm specializing in placing political ads, said the $800 million spent so far shows the �peril of starting a re-election campaign just weeks after winning.�

�A presidential campaign costs a lot of money to run,� Mr. Everhart said. �In essence, the campaign has been spending nonstop for almost four years straight.�

At the top of the whiteboard in Mr. Stepien�s office are the latest numbers on the campaign budget, and Mr. Stepien has instituted a number of changes since he was promoted from deputy campaign manager. A proposal to spend $50 million in costs related to coalitions groups was cast aside. An idea to spend $3 million for a NASCAR car bearing Mr. Trump�s name was discarded.

The number of staff members allowed to travel to events has been pared back to avoid what one senior campaign official described as �sponsoring vacations.�

Trips aboard Air Force One, popular because they enable aides to get face time with the president � but which have to be compensated by the campaign � have been slashed.

�The most important thing I do every day is pay attention to the budget,� Mr. Stepien said in a brief interview. He declined to discuss budget specifics but said the campaign had enough funds to win.

Most visibly, the Trump campaign slashed its August television spending, mostly abandoning the airwaves during the party conventions. In the last two weeks of the month, Mr. Biden�s campaign spent $35.9 million on television, compared with $4.8 million for Mr. Trump, according to Advertising Analytics.

Mr. Miller defended spending money on television ads earlier this spring and summer, calling it a �tough� decision necessary to keep Mr. Trump competitive as the nation suffered through a pandemic and its economic fallout.

�We had to claw our way back,� he said.

One of the reasons Mr. Biden was able to wipe away Mr. Trump�s early cash edge was that he sharply contained costs with a minimalistic campaign during the pandemic�s worst months. Trump officials derisively dismissed it as his �basement� strategy, but from that basement Mr. Biden fully embraced Zoom fund-raisers, with top donors asked to give as much as $720,000.

These virtual events typically took less than 90 minutes of the candidate�s time, could raise millions of dollars and cost almost nothing. Mr. Trump has almost entirely refused to hold such fund-raisers. Aides say he doesn�t like them.

There is some disagreement in the extended Trump operation about the depth of any potential cash-on-hand shortage. Some officials believe that plenty more money will come in during the last two months from online donors and that cutting back on TV advertising in August was shortsighted. The campaign announced a combined $76 million haul with the party during the four days of its convention.

Others said the campaign had expected the low-dollar fund-raising to continue at the same pace, and were also counting on a significant number of $5,600 checks, the limit for direct campaign giving, that didn�t materialize; that was in part because they rely on in-person events, which was more difficult with the virus.

Some party officials defended the early spending as prudent, including money devoted to the expansive ground operation and an online network of donors that was setting fund-raising records. The G.O.P. has more than 2,000 staff members across 100 offices and claims that volunteers knock on one million doors per week; the Biden campaign has forgone door-knocking so far during the pandemic.

�The Biden campaign is hoarding money and hoping that fall TV ads help put them over the edge,� said Richard Walters, chief of staff for the R.N.C. �But when a state comes down to 10,700 votes like Michigan did in 2016, we think that direct voter contact � those millions of door knocks and phone calls we make each week � is going to be critical.�

The Trump campaign has undertaken its own financial review of spending under Mr. Parscale. Among the first changes implemented was shutting down an ad campaign that used Mr. Parscale�s personal social media accounts to deliver pro-Trump ads. More than $800,000 had been poured into boosting Mr. Parscale�s Facebook and Instagram pages; those ads ceased the day after he was removed as campaign manager.

Mr. Parscale said the Facebook page was �not my idea� and the �family�s direct approval� had been sought on the program.
�I built an unprecedented infrastructure with the Republican Party under this family�s leadership since 2016,� Mr. Parscale said in a statement to The Times. �I am proud of my achievements.�

Some Trump-pleasing expenditures
Some spending choices appear devised, at least in part, to satisfy Mr. Trump himself, including the Super Bowl ads, which were purchased as part of an advertising arms race with Mr. Bloomberg. The two ads on game day cost more than the Trump campaign spent on local television through the end of July in each of four battleground states: Wisconsin ($3.9 million), Michigan ($3.6 million), Iowa ($2 million) and Minnesota ($1.3 million).

Another Trump-pleasing expense: more than $1 million in ads aired in the Washington, D.C., media market, a region that is not likely to be competitive in the fall but where the president, a famously voracious television consumer, resides.

Mr. Trump, who once joked he could be the first candidate to make money running for president, has steered, along with the Republican Party, about $4 million into the Trump family businesses since 2019: hundreds of thousands of dollars to Mr. Trump�s club at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, lavish donor retreats at Trump hotels, office space in Trump Tower, and thousands of dollars at the steakhouse in Mr. Trump�s Washington, D.C., hotel.

Many of the specifics of Mr. Trump�s spending are opaque; since 2017, the campaign and the R.N.C. have routed $227 million through a single limited liability company linked to Trump campaign officials. That firm, American Made Media Consultants, has been used to place television and digital ads and was the subject of a recent Federal Election Commission complaint arguing it was used to disguise the final destination of spending, which has included paychecks to Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the partners of Mr. Trump�s two adult sons.

Millions more followed to firms tied to R.N.C. and Trump-linked officials, including more than $39 million to two firms, Parscale Strategy LLC and Giles-Parscale, controlled by Mr. Parscale since the beginning of 2017.

Mr. Parscale said that he had �no ownership or financial interest in A.M.M.C.� and that he had �negotiated a contract with the family for 1 percent of digital ad spend and after becoming campaign manager took no percentage.�

There is little question that Mr. Parscale helped the Trump campaign construct an unparalleled Republican operation to lure small donors online. He directed a nine-figure investment in digital ads and list-building that appears to have largely paid for itself. Some of the president�s advisers believe it will continue to pay great dividends in the final weeks, pointing to the $165 million raised by the president and his party in July � more than any month in 2016.

�You have to spend money to make money,� explained Mr. Walters, the R.N.C. chief of staff. �We have had a big increase in revenue because of early investments we made in online fund-raising and direct mail.�

Still, the costs of the G.O.P. money operation have been enormous.

Since 2019, Mr. Trump, the R.N.C. and their shared committees have spent $145 million on costs related to direct mail, almost $42 million on digital list acquisition and rentals (to expand their list of email addresses) and tens of millions more in online advertising for new donors.

At Mr. Trump�s direction, the party has taken a spare-no-expense approach to donor maintenance, with the R.N.C. spending more than $6 million in �donor mementos.� The spending has gone to stationery shops, the White House Historical Association ($538,000) and the Hershey Company, the chocolate-maker ($337,000), which cover costs for items such as the White House-branded candies given away by administrations of both parties.

Mr. Trump has also accumulated many costs that are unusual for a presidential re-election.

Republicans, for instance, have been saddled with extra legal costs, more than $21 million since 2019, resulting from investigations into Mr. Trump and, eventually, his impeachment trial. The R.N.C. also paid a large legal bill of $666,666.67 to Reuters News & Media at the end of June. Both Reuters and the R.N.C. declined to discuss the payment. It was labeled �legal proceedings � IP resolution,� suggesting it was related to a potential litigation over intellectual property.

There have been other squandered costs driven by Mr. Trump�s sometimes mercurial desires. He switched his convention plans twice, incurring many expenses along the way. In July, for instance, the R.N.C. made a $325,000 payment to the Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island near Jacksonville for the convention that never happened there. The party is not expected to get that money back.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 17:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 14:08

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

I for one am glad that Op-Eds are reminding dem voters not to get complacent.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 17:40

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

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

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

What level of desperation is this?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1314971390307696642

# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:05

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

Is that� Legal?

# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:07

DarklyDreaming: Apr 4, 2009; Fun scary

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

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

What level of desperation is this?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1314971390307696642

Papa John tried this during the 2012 election, so honestly it's pretty normal Republican garbage all things considered

# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:07

a.lo: Sep 12, 2009

1000 businesses with 1 million employees?

# ? Oct 10, 2020 18:15

Space Gopher: Jul 31, 2006; BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

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

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

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

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

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

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Rigel posted:

gently caress no, it is very illegal.

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.

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

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

With early voting already started, I made a specific voting thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3943509

# ? Oct 10, 2020 19:43

Space Gopher: Jul 31, 2006; BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

Rigel posted:

gently caress no, it is very illegal.

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.

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

Endorph: Jul 22, 2009

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

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Polling shows that a majority of people believe Trump will win.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:36

Xotl: May 28, 2001; Be seeing you.

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

Xombie: May 22, 2004; Soul Thrashing
Black Sorcery

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

mutata: Mar 1, 2003

Also, generally, incumbents usually have big advantages and tend to win 2nd terms.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 21:50

Eminai: Apr 29, 2013; I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

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

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

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

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Polling shows that a majority of people believe Trump will win.

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 22:11

Spiritus Nox: Sep 2, 2011

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

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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?

I think this is the theory that Trump is a fell sorcerer and cannot in fact be stopped, which is of course the exact image Trump and co. would like to present despite their many and repeated, often comical failures.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:15

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

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.

You're talking to one right now because I've had enough panicking for one year, and I feel much better about Biden's chances than a month ago.

# ? Oct 10, 2020 22:16

Endorph: Jul 22, 2009

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

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

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

Seph: Jul 12, 2004; Please look at this photo every time you support or defend war crimes. Thank you.

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

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

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

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

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.

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.

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

mutata: Mar 1, 2003

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

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

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

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

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

Hellblazer187: Oct 12, 2003

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

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

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

Chinese Gordon: Oct 22, 2008

marshmonkey posted:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1314947352906665984

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

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

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.

I think its only 9 or 10 who stood for reelection and lost.

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

Chinese Gordon: Oct 22, 2008

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

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

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

Seph: Jul 12, 2004; Please look at this photo every time you support or defend war crimes. Thank you.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 14:08

Eminai: Apr 29, 2013; I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Polliwonks: Wasserman, his eyes uncovered!

«‹›1049 »