Polliwonks: Wasserman, his eyes uncovered!

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

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

Welcome to the The State of the Race: News, Polls and Campaign Strategy Thread. Yes, this is our second thread about the General Election, but this thread has a distinctly different and more narrow focus: a place to debate and discuss what's happening in the 2020 race for the White House specifically, not personal voting decision or viewpoints on the candidates. The hope is this help clear up some of the acrimony in the other General Election thread.

What does that mean?

What you should post about :

* News about the race
* Polls and election forecasting models
* Campaign strategy and direction

What you shouldn't post about :

* Your personal voting choice or how you think others should vote
* The value and ethics of voting for a particular candidate, not voting, or voting third party
* Relitigating the 2020 primary or the 2016 election
* Ideological differences between wings of the Democratic party or political theory in general
* Your opinion of the candidates independent of their 2020 race - this is not a referendum on them as individuals

If you would like to discuss these topics we have many other places to do so.

Updated rules:

quote:

Also, unrelated to us over analyzing a specific poll:

*dons IK hat*

I've mentioned this before but as this thread is starting to move faster and faster as we get closer to the election, I am going to start coming down harsher on posts which are just elaborate fanfiction about the Supreme Court throwing out the election/armed chud uprisings seizing the White House, for two reasons:

1. Whenever the posts pop up inevitably people post long explanations of why the scenario isn't going to happen, causing a derail. There have been many excellent, extremely detailed posts in this thread which explore specifically what the Supreme Court can and cannot do and why that Atlantic article from a month ago is particularly loving dumb.

2. There are posters in this thread and lurkers who may have a lot of anxiety surrounding this election, and I don't want this thread to be actively harmful for them by encouraging what amounts to conspiracy theories.

If you have feedback about this or think this is the wrong approach, please PM me.

Helpful FAQ:

Will the Supreme Court steal the election?

quote:

No, it can't. And this irresponsible poo poo needs to stop. Its baseless fearmongering and will have actual negative physical/psychological consequences for those doomscrolling this thread.

The SC can only rule on actual cases brought to it. There is no case to bring to stop vote counting at 11:59 local time. It will never happen. There is no way to even pose the question to the court, let alone write such a ruling. Even Kavanaugh's own opinion that everyone is freaking out about agrees.

All of these "scary" Supreme Court rulings non-lawyers keep waiving around like a bloody shirt to scare people are rulings against judicial expansion of voting laws-- but rulings that still actually respect the written law. For instance, in PA, the statutory deadline for ballots to be received was election day. A judge extended that to three days after Election Day, based on a theory of due process rights necessitating extra time because of the pandemic. Kavanaugh wanted to reverse, because he does not believe the judiciary has the right to expand or change the statutory deadline as set down by the legislature. This goes both ways. A judge cannot overturn election laws that allow for votes to be cast by mail, and require all validly cast votes to be counted.

So, one more time-- there is no possible way for the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes after election day. It will not happen. To continue to post this is tantamount to low effort trolling.

The only way it would possibly happen is if a state legislature passed a law saying vote counting must stop at midnight. No state legislature has that rule.

Can a legislature throw out votes?

axeil posted:

*sigh* Okay let me debunk this once again. See my post about this in US-Pol from back in the summer. I didn't originally write this but the author thoroughly debunks this idea by showing how many unlikely things would have to come together for it to happen.

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3932735&&userid=92420#post507793185

I'll re-post here for folks. See below:

How Trump Could "Steal" the Election (but how he really actually can't)

Slate's Mark Joseph Stern has just published a "new" article headlined "How Trump Could Steal the Election," in which he supposes that Republican-controlled state legislatures could seize upon Election Day chaos to directly award their EVs to Donald Trump and thus hand him the election outright, or else throw it to the House and re-elect him in that way. This is hardly the first time this cycle this clickbait-y article has been written. For example, a few months ago, The Atlantic published an item with the near-identical headline "How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election" and an identical argument. Heck, this isn't even the first time Stern has published this article; he made almost exactly the same argument back in March, that time under the headline "Trump Can't Cancel the Election. But States Could Do It for Him."

Perhaps it is already clear that we don't think much of these pieces. We wonder, in particular, what the purpose is in discomfiting people with worst-case-scenario discussions. Is it to educate and warn them? Or is it to attract eyeballs? We don't know. In any event, we cannot say that this is an entirely impossible scenario. What we can do, however, is make clear that it is very, very unlikely. Here are six issues:

1. The Fog

We don't know any other way to characterize this, but what it boils down to is that there has to be some substantial ambiguity when it comes to the results. Either the balloting has to be a train wreck or the results have to be pretty close or, more likely, both have to be the case. Further, it's not enough for one or two states to have problems. The Michigan legislature can't toss that state's popular vote out because Florida had issues with its ballots. There would have to be widespread issues in many (or all) of the swing states.

2. The Math

If we assume there is enough "fog" to give cover to state legislatures to start thinking about shenanigans, that still leaves the pro-Trump forces with some daunting math to confront. Let's start with the states that have Democratic trifectas. Joe Biden is expected to win all of these, and there are not going to be any EV-stealing shenanigans in Trump's favor in these places:

That already puts us at 195 EVs. Now let's add in the states where Biden is expected to win, and the Democrats control at least one chamber of the state legislature:

We're up to 233 EVs. Biden isn't going to lose any of these due to shenanigans, either. Note, incidentally, that Minnesota is the only one of the five additional states that has a split legislature. The four others have both chambers with Democratic control.

Now, let's add states where Biden is favored to win, and where there is at least one Democrat who has to sign off on the results (either the governor, the secretary of state, or both):

Now we are up to 305 EVs. Getting into the weeds of what could happen in each state is a bit much, but several things are already evident: (1) Republican-controlled legislatures in swing states would have to be very unified to pull off this scheme; (2) they would face pushback on that, including lawsuits, in many places; and (3) their likely best case scenario, even if they are unified and they prevail in court, is to deny anyone an electoral victory (by muddying the waters until the deadline for the EC to meet has passed) and to throw the election to the House.

3. State Law

At such point that lawsuits began to be filed, the issue would likely become a matter for the state courts. Generally speaking, states have broad discretion in deciding how to run elections and award electoral votes, and are generally given the right to decide what state law does and does not say. So, Team Trump would not need to prevail in just one court case, they would probably have to prevail in half a dozen. And in some of those cases, they would run right into the teeth of a Democratic controlled state supreme court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

4. Federal Law

Maybe the Supreme Court ultimately does get involved. They did it before, after all (albeit under rather different circumstances). Still, say the disposition of one or more states' votes gets tossed to the nine justices. They are going to have two different precedents to think long and hard about. The first, as you might imagine, is Bush v. Gore (2000); in that ruling the judges said that states are specifically empowered to change the terms on which they award their electoral votes, as they see fit. That said, they also warned the ruling was not supposed to be precedential, which presents a problem for those who might hope to use it as a basis to steal the election.

An even bigger problem is Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966). While that one was specifically about poll taxes, it also established the broad principle that once the right of people to vote has been extended, the state cannot intervene to dilute the potency of that vote. Taken together, what Bush and Harper suggest is that a state might be on firm ground if they announce on, say, Jan. 1, 2020, that "this year, the state legislature is just going to award our EVs." However, once states allow people to cast actual ballots, that method for awarding EVs is locked in and cannot be altered.

So, if Chief Justice John Roberts and his four merry men wanted to hand Trump the election, they would have to stand on their heads to justify that ruling. They would also have to think long and hard about whether they are willing to suffer another giant blow to the Court's reputation, and whether they really want to sign off on four more years for a president who thinks nothing of ignoring their rulings.

5. The House

As noted, it's going to be pretty tough for chicanerous Republicans to steal 270 EVs; the more viable scenario would be to muddy up enough states' results to toss the election to the House. But that's not necessarily the promised land, either. Here's a current breakdown of the House delegations:
code:
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
| State            |  Delegation     |  Balance  |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  California      |  7 R, 45 D      |  D+38     |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  New York        |  6 R, 21 D      |  D+15     |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Massachusetts   |  9 D            |  D+9      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  New Jersey      |  2 R, 10 D      |  D+8      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Illinois        |  5 R, 13 D      |  D+8      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Maryland        |  1 R, 7 D       |  D+6      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Connecticut     |  5 D            |  D+5      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Washington      |  3 R, 7 D       |  D+4      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Oregon          |  1 R, 4 D       |  D+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  New Mexico      |  3 D            |  D+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Virginia        |  4 R, 7 D       |  D+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Iowa            |  1 R, 3 D       |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Nevada          |  1 R, 3 D       |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Hawaii          |  2 D            |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Maine           |  2 D            |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  New Hampshire   |  2 D            |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Rhode Island    |  2 D            |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Minnesota       |  3 R, 5 D       |  D+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Delaware        |  1 D            |  D+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Vermont         |  1 D            |  D+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Colorado        |  3 R, 4 D       |  D+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Arizona         |  4 R, 5 D       |  D+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Michigan        |  6 R, 7 D, 1 I  |  D+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Pennsylvania    |  9 R, 9 D       |  Tied     |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Alaska          |  1 R            |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Montana         |  1 R            |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  North Dakota    |  1 R            |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  South Dakota    |  1 R            |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Wyoming         |  1 R            |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Florida         |  14 R, 13 D     |  R+1      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Idaho           |  2 R            |  R+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Kansas          |  3 R, 1 D       |  R+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Mississippi     |  3 R, 1 D       |  R+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Utah            |  3 R, 1 D       |  R+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Wisconsin       |  5 R, 3 D       |  R+2      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Nebraska        |  3 R            |  R+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  West Virginia   |  3 R            |  R+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Oklahoma        |  4 R, 1 D       |  R+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  South Carolina  |  5 R, 2 D       |  R+3      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Arkansas        |  4 R            |  R+4      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Kentucky        |  5 R, 1 D       |  R+4      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Louisiana       |  5 R, 1 D       |  R+4      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Missouri        |  6 R, 2 D       |  R+4      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Alabama         |  6 R, 1 D       |  R+5      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Indiana         |  7 R, 2 D       |  R+5      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Tennessee       |  7 R, 2 D       |  R+5      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Georgia         |  9 R, 4 D       |  R+5      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  North Carolina  |  9 R, 3 D       |  R+6      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Ohio            |  12 R, 4 D      |  R+8      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
|  Texas           |  22 R, 13 D     |  R+9      |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
At the moment, there are 23 Democratic-controlled delegations, 26 Republican-controlled delegations, and 1 that is tied. When the next Congress (which would get to make this decision) convenes, it's entirely possible the GOP maintains its edge. They could even add a delegation or two, like Iowa or Michigan. However, there are a lot of wildcards here. The Democrats, particularly if this is a wave year, could also pick up delegations. Florida, for example, is right at the tipping point, as is Pennsylvania. North Carolina, with its new maps, could flip, and even Texas is an outside possibility given the blue team's focus on suburban districts there. There are also GOP-controlled states that could well become ties, like Wisconsin. And note that it's not enough to have a plurality here; the Constitution requires an absolute majority of state delegations, which means 26 of them and no fewer.

Even if the Republicans maintain control of the minimum 26 delegations they need, they're not out of the woods. It's not at all impossible that one or more Republican representatives would not be willing to participate in this scheme. For example, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has already pushed back against Trump in high-profile fashion, and has made a clear move to become one of the leaders of the post-Trump GOP. She might withhold her vote. As Wyoming has a delegation of one, that would make the Republicans' hill even harder to climb.

There's also one other nagging issue lingering in the background. In the event that the Electoral College cannot do its job, then the House picks the president, but the Senate picks the VP. And the Senators vote individually, not as state delegations. So, if the Democrats recapture the Senate, as they are currently favored to do, the country could end up in a situation where there is a legally elected VP, but no legally elected president. In that case, say hello to President Harris. Oh, and if the Senate is unable to pick a VP, then say hello to President Pelosi.

6. The Republicans

To build on an issue raised in the previous item on the list, Republicans would have to think long and hard if they wanted to be a part of something like this. There are actually three separate issues, we would say. The first is that, as we have outlined above, the whole scheme could go off the rails at many different points in the process. In that case, the Party would get the fallout from trying to steal an election but not the benefit.

The second issue is their own political futures. Many state legislators and, quite probably, many members of Congress, would be needed to carry it off. And the linchpins to the scheme would not be officeholders in ruby red Alabama or Mississippi, it would be officeholders in purple states like Wisconsin and North Carolina. Are they really willing to stick their necks out like this for a man who is not known for repaying favors? He may not have to face voters again, but they will.

And finally, there is the issue of Trump himself. It is clear that his authoritarian impulses are growing more and more unchecked, and could very well spin out of control if given a second term (where reelection is no longer an issue). It's probable that his mental faculties are diminishing, and possible that he could be headed for a steep decline. Those who are willing to consider cold, hard truths surely also fear that Trump is permanently damaging the Party, perhaps beyond repair. Already, there is ample evidence that many Republicans, beyond the die-hards like Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), are distancing themselves from the President. Do hundreds and hundreds of Republican officeholders really want to sign up for four more years? Especially when the alternative is the basically tolerable Joe Biden, as opposed to the hated Hillary Clinton? We doubt it.

Again, we're not saying it's impossible. But it's extremely unlikely; there are just too many moving parts. We would also advise readers, once again, to think carefully about the real purpose behind these sorts of doomsday articles. And while you're at it, maybe skip viewings of movies like Fail Safe, It Could Happen Here, and WarGames.

source: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Aug05.html#item-5

To summarize, for the GOP/Trump to steal the election there must first be some level of ambiguity about who won and there must be enough states with ambiguity that you can deny Biden 270. Then they must:

1. Get enough states to either flip their vote (almost impossible to see a legal way to do that) or send no electors (easier but not by much). They also would need to somehow have Democratic Governors or Secretaries of State or Legislatures sign-off on this.

2. Get State-level courts to sign-off. Since the US government has repeatedly ruled that states get to decide how they run their own elections this is likely the stopping point for all this, and some of the key states have judiciaries that are either Dem-controlled (PA) or not very interested in doing something like this.

3. In the event it gets appealed to SCOTUS and they take the case (unlikely) you now must get SCOTUS to agree to this farce. At the time the article was written Ginsburg hadn't died yet but even if Barrett gets on the court you still need 5 justices to vote for it. The 3 liberals definitely won't and Roberts isn't about to tie himself to the mast for Trump. It's one thing to invent legal fictions in order to implement policies you like. It's quite another to invent them to put in power someone you actively dislike and in doing so likely cause mass chaos and their own downfall.

4. Assuming SCOTUS somehow okays the state not sending electors, you now need 26 state delegations to agree to vote for Trump. This is not a given as Dems might flip enough state delegations to control at least 25 and thus deny Trump the 26 state majority he needs.

5. Oh and you also need to not have House vote result in a deadlock because if they do and the Dems take the Senate you get President Kamala Harris. Even if its a close margin in the Senate, when you're actively trying to steal the election the Joe Manchins of the world aren't going to vote for Pence or vote present.

This would take the coordination of at minimum, hundreds of people who have little to nothing to gain from it and a whole lot to lose. It just stretches the bounds of plausibility. It is not completely impossible, but to suggest it is going to happen or even might happen is not looking at the situation with clear eyes.

Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 28, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 18:39

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

I love this thread idea. Thanks for making it.

I had this open in the other tab so might as well share it since it's relevant:

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1271519427339726851

The way the Lincoln Project has been getting under Trump's skin has been remarkable, and it has gotten to a point where they have forced him to make strategic errors, such as spending $1 million on counter-ads... to run in the D.C. area. Rumor is that one of their ads might also have caused Trump and his team to sour on Parscale.

I watch all their ads and each one has been a slam dunk. Very high quality with great messaging, targeting all the areas where Trump is insecure.

Has anything like this been done in past elections, where the incumbent's own party had well-funded groups running ads attacking the incumbent?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:35

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

To get us started, with around 150 days until election day, the Trump campaign strategy so far has been... puzzling. So for it seems their focus has been:

* Running ads specifically targeted at Trump (in the DC market, specifically on the shows he watches) to make him feel like his campaign is doing something
* Running ads on Fox News for their base
* Threatening CNN with a lawsuit for publishing a poll that showed Biden up 14 points, thereby shining a bigger light on his campaign
* Holding rallies in ... red states

Is Brad Parscale even competent to run a campaign? Was Trump's success in 2016 not because of himself, but because of the people around him, who have all been run out on a rail?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:38

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

I don't think something like that has ever occurred. And I don't think any campaign before has wasted money in a market so that their canidate feels that they are winning. The fact that trump basically screamed until they decided to run ads to counter Lincoln project is unprecedented in modern campaigns.

It's the same thing as trumps lawyers as actually sending a cease and desist to cnn for airing a spot about bad polling numbers showing how bad trump is doing in so many states. It's something you'd never would think would happen.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:40

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

enraged_camel posted:

I love this thread idea. Thanks for making it.

I had this open in the other tab so might as well share it since it's relevant:

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1271519427339726851

The way the Lincoln Project has been getting under Trump's skin has been remarkable, and it has gotten to a point where they have forced him to make strategic errors, such as spending $1 million on counter-ads... to run in the D.C. area. Rumor is that one of their ads might also have caused Trump and his team to sour on Parscale.

I watch all their ads and each one has been a slam dunk. Very high quality with great messaging, targeting all the areas where Trump is insecure.

Has anything like this been done in past elections, where the incumbent's own party had well-funded groups running ads attacking the incumbent?

I don't think any group has done anything like the Lincoln Project is doing: creating ads specifically targeted at the candidate (and specifically to piss him off) instead of voters. Considering how thin skinned and sensitive Trump is, it seems very smart.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:40

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

In other news, OAN, Trump's new favorite news channel (and Kremlin mouthpiece) hyped up a poll favorable Trump ... which showed him in a 50-50 tie with Biden in Florida (when Biden and Trump were presented as binary choices). They ended up pulling the poll because it was so embarrassing.

quote:

Herring had on Wednesday pledged an upcoming poll, as the Trump campaign�s feud with CNN over its national poll was heating up. He promised that OAN would be �releasing a poll concerning the 2020 presidential race� that �looks as though it will be in favor of� the president.

Early Thursday afternoon, the poll came out. Conducted by Gravis Marketing, a pollster that earns a C in FiveThirtyEight�s ranking of pollsters, it was focused solely on Florida.

It had Trump and Biden tied in the must-win state for Trump, a state Trump won narrowly four years ago.

OAN produced a video segment on the poll, again featuring Rouz, which appeared on its website. Soon after it was published, though, the report was pulled. A tweet from Herring that apparently announced the results was also deleted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...lled-its-story/

Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:42

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

Some recent polls:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1271482303232032768

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1271206443711172608

# ? Jun 13, 2020 02:51

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Ooo this is a good idea.

Going to cross-post my VP analysis.

axeil posted:

I think the big question then is: if not Harris then who? There aren't a lot of black female politicians he can pick from. Most have the "Sarah Palin Problem" of being mostly unknown and that can blow up in your face in a big way.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-color-elective-office-2019

There are only 4 women in the Senate who aren't white: Harris, Cortez-Masto (who took herself out of the running), Duckworth and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii). There are 0 women governors who aren't white so they're out and I suspect given the environment he's not going for an Attorney General (eliminating another, Tish James) and Lt. Governor of NJ or IL (the other two) would be a really, really weird pick

This leaves House members, here's the list:

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC)
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. Val Demings (D-FL)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Rep. Robin L. Kelly (D-IL)
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL)
Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL)

Of that list the only ones who don't make me, someone who is way, way more engaged with politics than the average America, are Demings, Fudge, Lee, McBath, Omar, Pressley, Underwood and Waters. If I don't even know who they are I'm guessing they are the longshots of the longshots.

First off the bat Waters and Lee are 1000 years old so they're out. McBath, Omar and Pressley are all freshmen reps so they're out too and Underwood is only 33.

Val Demings has already been discussed. I know nothing about her and she might be a good choice but it seems awful risky.

Fudge once defended a guy who punched his wife over a dozen times and said he was "kind". yeahhh no.

It really seems like for a black woman it's Harris or nothing at this point.

AP also had an article today saying Biden is down to 6 and specifically named Harris, Warren and...Susan Rice??

https://apnews.com/cfb9f51767aeee83f1f426fb42070a9e

quote:

Biden�s VP list narrows: Warren, Harris, Susan Rice, others

WASHINGTON (AP) � Joe Biden�s search for a running mate is entering a second round of vetting for a dwindling list of potential vice presidential nominees, with several black women in strong contention.

Democrats with knowledge of the process said Biden�s search committee has narrowed the choices to as few as six serious contenders after initial interviews. Among the group still in contention: Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, as well as Susan Rice, who served as President Barack Obama�s national security adviser.

Those with knowledge declined to name other contenders and said the process remains somewhat fluid. Additional candidates may still be asked to submit to the extensive document review process now underway for some top contenders. Those familiar with Biden�s search spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the process.

The campaign dismissed the idea of a shortened list as early speculation. �Those who talk don�t know and those who know don�t talk,� said Andrew Bates, a Biden spokesperson.

Biden, who has already said he will pick a woman as his running mate, is facing increased calls from Democrats to put a woman of color on the ticket � both because of the outsize role that black voters played in Biden�s road to the nomination and because of the reckoning over racism and inequality roiling the nation following the death of George Floyd. The black Minneapolis man died after a white police officer pressed his knee on his neck for several minutes, an episode that was captured on video.

Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor and former Democratic National Committee chairman, said that while Biden�s choice was likely to be �all about personal chemistry,� it would be �exciting for the party� to have a black woman on a major party presidential ticket for the first time.

The campaign�s list includes several black women, including Harris and Rice. Advisers have also looked closely at Florida Rep. Val Demings and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, both of whom are black, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Latina.

Biden�s vetting committee had conversations with a larger group of women earlier this spring; those continuing on in the process have been asked to turn over financial records, past writings and other documentation. Biden has had various public and private interactions with many of the women his vetting committee has considered thus far, but has not yet had any formal one-on-one interviews expressly to discuss the No. 2 spot on the ticket. Those aren�t expected for several weeks.

Rice, who worked closely with Biden during his time as vice president, has emerged as a favorite among some former Obama administration officials and is personally close to the former president. She has never held elected office but has extensive foreign policy experience, including as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She�s also been an outspoken critic of the Trump administration since leaving the White House and considered running for U.S. Senate in Maine.

Rice has long been a target of Republicans, including for statements she made after the deadly 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans have also accused her of spying on Michael Flynn, Trump�s first national security adviser, though records declassified by the Trump administration show no evidence of Rice improperly accessing any information.

Harris and Warren have been seen as top contenders for the No. 2 spot since ending their own presidential campaigns.

Warren and Biden have forged a surprising bond in recent months and talk regularly about the progressive policy ideas the Massachusetts senator put at the forefront of her campaign. Biden already has adopted her proposed bankruptcy law overhaul. And now, with the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic slowdown elevating the nuts-and-bolts of governing, some Democrats see Warren�s policy credentials as an asset to the ticket.

A Biden-Warren pairing would mean both Democrats on the ticket are white and in their 70s. Biden is 77, and Warren is 70.

Harris is the lone black contender who has won statewide office, notable experience given Biden�s emphasis on wanting a partner �ready to be president.� She and Biden have also demonstrated a comfortable manner with each other in online fundraisers. Harris is an expert voice in discussions of criminal justice, but some black progressives view her background as a prosecutor skeptically.

One contender whose standing does appear to have fallen is Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis. During that period, more than two dozen people � mostly minorities � died during encounters with police.

While the people with knowledge of Biden�s vetting process did not rule Klobuchar out, she is widely viewed among Democrats with close ties to the Biden campaign as less likely to be tapped given recent events.

I really can't see the rationale for Rice given she's never held elected office. Even GHWB was a Representative for a bit before he was CIA Director.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:02

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

The Economist has posted up the first General Election Forecast: https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

As of today they have Biden with an 85% chance of winning.

Here's their explanation on how their model works: https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president/how-this-works and they are also publishing their source code and data inputs

(See thread)

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1271028181324238850

And, I have to agree with this sentiment

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1271602084111097857

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:04

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

axeil posted:

Ooo this is a good idea.

Going to cross-post my VP analysis.

AP also had an article today saying Biden is down to 6 and specifically named Harris, Warren and...Susan Rice??

https://apnews.com/cfb9f51767aeee83f1f426fb42070a9e

I really can't see the rationale for Rice given she's never held elected office. Even GHWB was a Representative for a bit before he was CIA Director.

I also don't get Rice either - she has zero national presence today and also lets Republicans harp on how she's part of the Clinton emails/Benghazi coverup/Obama conspiracy (not like they need any excuse, but, still, don't make it too easy).

I think Duckworth would offer a lot to the ticket: younger, slightly liberal female POC Senator with a clean record, veteran, good public speaker.

Another, unrelated topic I've been thinking about a lot lately (and in line with the Economist tweet I've posted above): it seems like Trump is making the exact wrong choice at every turn. I don't know if its because by now there are no adults left in the room (and his current staff is basically the end result of survival of the dumbest and most slavishly complimentary) and there's nobody to check his worst impulses, or its because he's aware that if he tacks away from the ultra-right wing, race baiting, xenophobia to try to appeal to the suburbs that he lost in 2018, he'd lose his base or depresses turnout.

Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:06

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Additionally, G. Elliot Morris published The Economist's election model yesterday. It has Biden at ~85% to win.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

The EC/Popular Vote split is continued to be extremely egregious. They only give Trump a 6% chance of winning the popular vote but he's still at 15% to win.

It's also open source so if you don't like it you can play with the assumptions/regressions.

https://github.com/TheEconomist/us-potus-model

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:07

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Do any of these models "price in" a much more horrible second pandemic wave, and turnout that might be greatly depressed as a result (and the possible/probable lack of mail-in-voting in many states)?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:07

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

enraged_camel posted:

Do any of these models "price in" a much more horrible second pandemic wave, and turnout that might be greatly depressed as a result (and the possible/probable lack of mail-in-voting in many states)?

I suspect not, that is the sort of black swan type thing you can't specifically account for other than through uncertainty and not using a specific point projection (i.e. Biden is X% to win, not Biden will win X Electoral Votes)

One thing that's interesting: when the model started making projections back in March in the pre-COVID times it actually had Trump and Biden in a dead heat. Not sure if Trump's collapse is due to COVID, Biden clinching the nomination, the BLM protests or "all of the above". Additionally, looking at the confidence interval, you can still have an outcome that gets Trump ~49% of the popular vote which is enough to win due to the inherent gerrymandering of the map. Biden at 85% by no means makes him a lock to win, but if the polling is still at Biden+8 or 9 down the stretch I struggle to see how he wouldn't win. That's enough of a national vote lead to erase the gerrymandering of the electoral college.

axeil fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:08

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

Duckworth is the dark horse canidate for vp that would be an excellent choice for Biden. Minority, fairly liberal, mother, wheelchair bound veteran who earned her purple heart being shot down in Iraq. She honestly will make a strong candidate for the presidency in the future, she also doesn't take any poo poo.

Harris is a bad pick and could easily be counted as the next generation of Hillary. She has a pretty lovely record in California and morphs her policy based on what she thinks will get her the best coverage regardless of the actual effectiveness. Her campaign was legit the worst of the primaries and she did gaffe after gaffe. Remember her student loan forgiveness plan was so badly mocked there were tools made to riff on it. She was a weak canidate for the primary and honestly doesn't add anything for the VP slot. Much more so when you consider that her track record as a prosecutor is a drag in the current climate.

Klob is doa and anyone suggesting it is more brain worms then trump at this point. By god it would be the legit worst idea after Palin to choose klob as his VP

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:17

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

UCS Hellmaker posted:

Duckworth is the dark horse canidate for vp that would be an excellent choice for Biden. Minority, fairly liberal, mother, wheelchair bound veteran who earned her purple heart being shot down in Iraq. She honestly will make a strong candidate for the presidency in the future, she also doesn't take any poo poo.

Harris is a bad pick and could easily be counted as the next generation of Hillary. She has a pretty lovely record in California and morphs her policy based on what she thinks will get her the best coverage regardless of the actual effectiveness. Her campaign was legit the worst of the primaries and she did gaffe after gaffe. Remember her student loan forgiveness plan was so badly mocked there were tools made to riff on it. She was a weak canidate for the primary and honestly doesn't add anything for the VP slot. Much more so when you consider that her track record as a prosecutor is a drag in the current climate.

Klob is doa and anyone suggesting it is more brain worms then trump at this point. By god it would be the legit worst idea after Palin to choose klob as his VP

I have to think that Harris is out of contention at this point, even if they're floating her name as part of the "final 6" (which could be anything but final, lets be real). She has huge liabilities - Biden is strong with African American voters, Harris doesn't help attract younger voters, she's from California which is a safe state, and she's already been hammered for being a cop even before the protests.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 03:55

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

She was hammered for being a cop that charged kids with truancy and prosecuted for it of all things. That's a great image right there for minority outreach

# ? Jun 13, 2020 04:01

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Seven Hundred Bee posted:

I have to think that Harris is out of contention at this point, even if they're floating her name as part of the "final 6" (which could be anything but final, lets be real). She has huge liabilities - Biden is strong with African American voters, Harris doesn't help attract younger voters, she's from California which is a safe state, and she's already been hammered for being a cop even before the protests.

She also threw Biden under the bus during one of the debates!

# ? Jun 13, 2020 04:11

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

https://twitter.com/RVAT2020/status/1271504127735062534

the trolling continues

https://twitter.com/davidplouffe/status/1271632274338000896

and yea, no way this ends well - both actively killing his supporters and wasting resources in a non-battleground state, and his speech is going to create so many soundbites for attack ads. Clearly someone gave into what were likely his constant demand for restarting his rallies, but why Tulsa?!

# ? Jun 13, 2020 04:25

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

Seven Hundred Bee posted:

https://twitter.com/RVAT2020/status/1271504127735062534

the trolling continues

https://twitter.com/davidplouffe/status/1271632274338000896

and yea, no way this ends well - both actively killing his supporters and wasting resources in a non-battleground state, and his speech is going to create so many soundbites for attack ads. Clearly someone gave into what were likely his constant demand for restarting his rallies, but why Tulsa?!

Likely it was one of the few places that would allow him to hold a rally without restrictions or masks and full seating. And where he can feel certain that it will be "sold out". Theres probably only 2 other states as blood red as ok, and it's where they feel safe that it will sell out and not have protesters outside disrupting his rally. Imagine if it had been in Minnie, or Philly as an example.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 04:33

Edward Mass: Sep 14, 2011; 𝅘𝅥𝅮 I wanna go home with the armadillo
Good country music from Amarillo and Abilene
Friendliest people and the prettiest women you've ever seen𝅘𝅥𝅮

UCS Hellmaker posted:

Duckworth is the dark horse canidate for vp that would be an excellent choice for Biden. Minority, fairly liberal, mother, wheelchair bound veteran who earned her purple heart being shot down in Iraq. She honestly will make a strong candidate for the presidency in the future, she also doesn't take any poo poo.

Tammy Duckworth was born in Thailand, so she legally can't be President.

Also, thank you for this thread Seven Hundred Bee!

# ? Jun 13, 2020 05:18

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

Edward Mass posted:

Tammy Duckworth was born in Thailand, so she legally can't be President.

Also, thank you for this thread Seven Hundred Bee!

Her parents were American citizens, even though she was born abroad. Same qualification that McCain had.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 05:25

Edward Mass: Sep 14, 2011; 𝅘𝅥𝅮 I wanna go home with the armadillo
Good country music from Amarillo and Abilene
Friendliest people and the prettiest women you've ever seen𝅘𝅥𝅮

Seven Hundred Bee posted:

Her parents were American citizens, even though she was born abroad. Same qualification that McCain had.

Really? Huh. I forgot about McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 05:29

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

I would recommend taking the AP piece with quite a bit of salt. The three main takeaways are that Rice is being considered, the field may have narrowed to "as few as" 6, and that Klob, Warren, and especially Harris are all bad picks. :thunk:

I wonder what camp "Democrats familiar with the process" are in. My favorite is:

f'real though posted:

Additional candidates may still be asked to submit to the extensive document review process now underway for some top contenders.

"It's as few as six! But some of them haven't been told yet! And we won't say who, so if you hear about someone else, it's probably one of the six. And if you hear about 5 more, well, I told you there might be additional ones!"

We saw a similar game with Klobuchar before Floyd's murder. Klobuchar (was always bad), Harris (cop), Warren (Baker) would all be awful choices for their own reasons outside of policy/ideology. My personal hell timeline includes a pair of former senators I haven't seen mentioned yet: McCaskill and Landrieu, neither of whom I like but both also have stronger resumes than some of the currently floated names. When we get to an actual shortlist of 6 I think it's Abrams (who'll end up with a cabinet or DNC spot, but you absolutely put the 46yo on the list even if you don't intend to choose her), Tammy, Tammy, Harris (probably AG if she wants it, and I think she will), Rice, and a name that we haven't heard yet. I could see Demings on the list as well.

UCS Hellmaker posted:

Klob is doa and anyone suggesting it is more brain worms then trump at this point. By god it would be the legit worst idea after Palin to choose klob as his VP

All she ever had was outrunning Obama and Clinton in outstate MN and national numberswonks assuming that it could translate to the rest of the midwest. Because who can be bothered to look up "DFL" before writing a thinkpiece?

It's been rumored and floated in opeds for a few months, but I do expect we'll see a proposed Biden cabinet before the election. The contrast with the Trump admin and the opportunity to make a few bipartisan commitments will prove too enticing for Biden, I think.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 05:39

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1271651522603110401

So parscale is insane and it also fits with the narrative that they oversell rally tickets to always make the stadiums full. But the numbers he has been posting are literally bigger then the county and definitely larger then the arena by an order of magnitude.

All of this fits with the his campaign strategy, using numbers and tactics to make you feel like you are missing out by not donating /buying in. It's the same tactics Trump uses to sell his snakeoil and it has been surprisingly good at fleecing his base for money. I hope someone has some of the emails from his donation drives where they push that you yes YOU have been selected by trump to help lead his campaign but you have to donate to save your spot. Your one of only a handful selected and you need to buy in now.

When this is all done it will interesting to have a disection of the tactics used to drive donations and attendance numbers at rallies because it is fairly similar to mlm conferences and tactics.

UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 06:46

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

The Times on the VP situation:

quote:

The search committee has been in touch with roughly a dozen women, and some eight or nine are already being vetted more intensively.

Among that group are two contenders who have recently grown in prominence, Representative Val Demings of Florida and Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta. One well-known candidate, Senator ~~Amy Klobuchar~~ of Minnesota, has lost her perch as a front-runner. And some lower-profile candidates, like Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, are advancing steadily in the search process.

Mr. Biden�s vice-presidential search has taken a bifurcated course so far, with one path unfolding in the open � joint appearances on television or in virtual events with potential running mates � and another in an environment of strict discretion

Some of the contenders who have advanced furthest in the process are well known, including Senators Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But The Times confirmed that several other women � whose names have been repeatedly floated but who have not publicly confirmed that they agreed to be vetted for the job � are under active consideration as well.

Two women with distinctive national-defense credentials have also been interviewed and asked for documents: Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war combat veteran who is Asian-American, and Susan Rice, the former national security adviser to President Barack Obama and the first black woman to serve as ambassador to the United Nations.

Nearly everyone approached answered in the affirmative; a notable exception was Senator ~~Jeanne Shaheen~~ of New Hampshire, who is running for re-election this year and declined to join a time-consuming vetting process that she believed was highly unlikely to end in her selection.

A second senator, ~~Catherine Cortez Masto~~ of Nevada, did not immediately rebuff the Biden team but removed herself from consideration late last month. Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire also agreed to be vetted, but she has not been actively pursuing the job and is not seen as a major candidate.

Condensed the article to just the names. The jist of the rest of it is that they started reaching out shortly after it became clear Biden was the nominee and are now advancing further into vetting candidates. Also that campaign staff is starting to get intentional about public interactions to tamp down the rumor mill. Crist is hyping up Demings, while Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin (the most notable Bloomberg backer of 2020) is praising Bottoms.

I still believe the Times list is not exhaustive (believe most of the sources are tied to the interviewees and not the campaign), but does give us a better picture of who has been contacted. Abrams is still apparently in the hunt as well.

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 15:34

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

Paracaidas posted:

I still believe the Times list is not exhaustive (believe most of the sources are tied to the interviewees and not the campaign), but does give us a better picture of who has been contacted.

Yeah, I feel like currently the only way to read these articles about the veepstakes is that it's a bunch of competing interests all trying to swing media in favor of their preferred candidate, and therefore there's very little news value in the numerous pieces except as a loose tally of who's still in.

Only recent significant developments are Abrams openly saying no one's called her, so she's out, and Klobb being effectively out.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 15:39

goethe.cx: Apr 23, 2014

tammy baldwin could be a good pick: first openly gay senator and could help carry wisconsin. only problem i see is that wisconsin would replace her by special election, so you run the risk of losing a key senate seat

# ? Jun 13, 2020 20:10

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

goethe.cx posted:

tammy baldwin could be a good pick: first openly gay senator and could help carry wisconsin. only problem i see is that wisconsin would replace her by special election, so you run the risk of losing a key senate seat

Shes not very well known and if shes safe in WI it would be dangerous to risk the seat. Moreso because WI doesn't have a strong pool of dem candidates after 8 years of walker and the antics of the state gop. Its hard to describe how horrible the State GOP has trashed the state over the last ten years. Unless the state gerrymander is fixed its relatively hosed for the next few years. The big thing Dems can run on though is the sheer grift of the foxconn factory and how much bullshit that whole episode was.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 20:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Biden�s gun control site is up and proving divisive along the usual lines:

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

# ? Jun 14, 2020 08:32

Craig K: Nov 10, 2016; puck

new arkansas poll out!

quote:

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing as President?

46% Approve
50% Disapprove
4% Unsure

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Tom Cotton is doing as a United States Senator?

44% Approve
47% Disapprove
9% Unsure

While partisan voters predictably cast their strong opinions in positive and negative directions, self-identified independent voters in Arkansas disapprove of Trump by a 39-54% margin and disapprove of Cotton by a 39-51% margin. Voters in this same poll gave Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson a 62-19% positive job review, with independents supporting Hutchinson by a 64-20% margin.

�Between a pandemic, high unemployment, racial strife and civic unrest, Trump and Cotton appear to be bearing the brunt of voter angst, whereas Gov. Hutchinson is benefiting from his visibility and leadership style,� said Talk Business & Politics Editor-in-Chief Roby Brock.

Trump had a 50-45% job approval rating in the November 2019 Arkansas Poll. Cotton�s job approval was 45-30% in that same poll. Cotton does not have a Democratic opponent in this cycle. He faces Libertarian Ricky Dale Harrington, Jr., while Independent Daniel Whitfield is attempting to qualify for the ballot.

In a baseline question to monitor the presidential race between now and November, Arkansas voters today only give Trump a two-point advantage over Democrat Joe Biden.

Q: If the election for President were being held today, which candidate would you support?

47% Donald J. Trump
45% Joseph R. Biden
5% Another candidate
3% Unsure

Trump won Arkansas with 60% of the vote in 2016. Again, independent voters are leaning to Biden by a 46-40% margin.

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/poll-independents-dissatisfied-with-trump-cotton-biden-competitive-in-arkansas/

um im not a fancy big city statistician, but it seems like joe biden getting to the margin of error in a state that was r+15 might not be good for the donald trump campaign

Craig K fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 14, 2020

# ? Jun 14, 2020 22:46

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Craig K posted:

new arkansas poll out!

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/poll-independents-dissatisfied-with-trump-cotton-biden-competitive-in-arkansas/

um im not a fancy big city statistician, but it seems like joe biden getting to the margin of error in a state that was r+15 might not be good for the donald trump campaign

Nah, Brad Parscale said Trump is up infinity percent so clearly this poll is just CNN FAKE NEWS!!!111

The Trump campaign is in serious trouble and I don't think there's anyone to right the ship because everyone even halfway competent has been run out. Not sure that Biden is actually within striking distance in AR but it portends absolutely dire numbers in competitive states for Trump

# ? Jun 14, 2020 22:54

Craig K: Nov 10, 2016; puck

yeah i assume it's just a weird as hell outlier but the fact remaining any resources at all that the trump campaign has to commit to arkansas is resources they CAN'T commit elsewhere, and having to commit resources to arkansas means that they're even more hosed in other states

# ? Jun 14, 2020 22:58

awesmoe: Nov 30, 2005; Pillbug

https://twitter.com/lib_crusher/status/1272192636749742081

also, unrelated, holy poo poo the trump campaign has a lot of cash
spending a million bucks on DC ads to get the candidate to shut the gently caress up doesn't seem like such a bad an investment when you have a quarter of a billion dollars on hand (or more realistically, somewhere between 100 and 255 million)

# ? Jun 15, 2020 00:24

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

Craig K posted:

yeah i assume it's just a weird as hell outlier but the fact remaining any resources at all that the trump campaign has to commit to arkansas is resources they CAN'T commit elsewhere, and having to commit resources to arkansas means that they're even more hosed in other states

yeah it's interesting but reasonably likely to be total bullshit given the polling problems

on the other hand, Anne Selzer is like the one person all the polling nerds go wild for and her firm just polled Iowa and found Biden up (swing from R+7 in march to D+5) and Ernst losing:

quote:

Statewide, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican 47% to 42% � a reversal from March, when an Iowa Poll showed 49% support for Republicans and 42% for Democrats. Nearly all respondents who made a party choice are firm with their decisions, the new poll shows. Only 2% of either side identify as only "leaning" toward one party or the other.

quote:

According to the poll, 46% of likely voters say they would back Greenfield if the election were held today, and 43% say they would back Ernst.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1271452250217553920

eke out fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 15, 2020

# ? Jun 15, 2020 00:48

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

My money is on Warren or Baldwin. They seem the most logical choices, esp. as Warren and Biden seem to have patched up whatever feud they had years ago.

# ? Jun 15, 2020 02:00

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

i think its gonna be either harris, baldwin, warren or duckworth.

UCS Hellmaker posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1271651522603110401

So parscale is insane and it also fits with the narrative that they oversell rally tickets to always make the stadiums full. But the numbers he has been posting are literally bigger then the county and definitely larger then the arena by an order of magnitude.

All of this fits with the his campaign strategy, using numbers and tactics to make you feel like you are missing out by not donating /buying in. It's the same tactics Trump uses to sell his snakeoil and it has been surprisingly good at fleecing his base for money. I hope someone has some of the emails from his donation drives where they push that you yes YOU have been selected by trump to help lead his campaign but you have to donate to save your spot. Your one of only a handful selected and you need to buy in now.

When this is all done it will interesting to have a disection of the tactics used to drive donations and attendance numbers at rallies because it is fairly similar to mlm conferences and tactics.

see in 2016, while his campaign stratigies were about making trump feel good, they were also spreading his various messages and base building and poo poo. now its not even that. its just about pandering to a shrunken base and himself and thats it. biden for all his issues is doing the right thing and letting trump hang himself with his words and deeds and trumps sounding more and more pathetic and desperate by the day. like he just posted this today. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1272286399752855552

he is trying to go the nixon route but he is too loving dim to understand how/why Nixon won and did so well in 1968. its fascinating.

# ? Jun 15, 2020 04:41

goethe.cx: Apr 23, 2014

the thing about Nixon's silent majority is that it actually was reflected in polling. most americans approved of him/vietnam despite the forceful protests. Trump seems to think he has the backing of a silent majority that is so silent it doesn't show up in any polls

# ? Jun 15, 2020 20:04

DarklyDreaming: Apr 4, 2009; Fun scary

goethe.cx posted:

the thing about Nixon's silent majority is that it actually was reflected in polling. most americans approved of him/vietnam despite the forceful protests. Trump seems to think he has the backing of a silent majority that is so silent it doesn't show up in any polls

That's been Republican talking point number 1 since Bush W, when all signs pointed to them being the very loud 49% with slowly dwindling returns. So when Trump fans talk about a silent majority they mean there's a secret village somewhere in the midwest with 100 million voters who are just waiting for the second coming of Reagan and stay home because everyone else is a dirty traitor RINO

# ? Jun 15, 2020 20:15

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

enraged_camel posted:

Do any of these models "price in" a much more horrible second pandemic wave, and turnout that might be greatly depressed as a result (and the possible/probable lack of mail-in-voting in many states)?

if any model says it does this, you should throw it right in the trash because it's not a model, it's just the author's personal predictions laundered through a spreadsheet

a black swan event like a once in a hundred year pandemic specifically recurring near the election virtually by definition cannot be foreseen by a political model

# ? Jun 15, 2020 20:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 18:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

if any model says it does this, you should throw it right in the trash because it's not a model, it's just the author's personal predictions laundered through a spreadsheet

a black swan event like a once in a hundred year pandemic specifically recurring near the election virtually by definition cannot be foreseen by a political model

What if the pollster also engineered the virus, and can thus predict/tailor its scope of impact?

# ? Jun 15, 2020 20:25

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

«‹›1049 »