US election 2020

[stui magpie]

Duh Stui. Here, I'll give you a free tutorial on the use of English to communicate stuff. No charge, be my guest.

When we have a really bad match - we drop marks, don't man up, kick it out on the full from straight in front, fumble, handball into traffic ... all those things a side does when it's having a bad hair day and, by rights ought to get thrashed, when that happens but the other side is even worse, people describe the result with a phrase like "We didn't win, St Kilda lost". It means "we didn't do enough to deserve the win, but we got it anyway", or similar.

Trump lost the popular vote, and lost it badly. He got fewer votes than the previous losing Republican. In any normal election, he would have been wiped completely out. But in 2016, there was an even worse candidate - Clinton. Democrats, the very same people who turned out to vote for Obama, and Obama before that, and Kerry and Gore, stayed at home in their hundreds of thousands. Trump didn't win. Clinton lost.

This is the lesson the Democrats have learned: don't put up a hated candidate, put up someone people will actually vote for. Don't put up someone half the party can't stand (e.g., Clinton, Sanders), put up someone everyone (bar a handful of extremist nutcases) can get behind. This is why they picked Biden. He is someone everyone can agree on. A unity candidate, and a very sensible choice.

(Disclaimer: personally, I wanted Warren. But that was never going to happen this time around. Maybe next time.)

OK, If you had said Trump didn't win the Democrats lost , I wouldn't argue even though I think that's incorrect. After 2 terms of one party the country is usually ready to swing the other way. Yes Hillary was as popular as a fart in an elevator but she also represented the establishment, and that's their problem moving forward.

I don't think Biden can or will beat Trump. He's the soft, safe choice that theoretically all the Democrats can get behind, that doesn't mean he's what the public want.

The public are sick of the status quo, career politicians, delivering same shit different arsehole, so they voted in a different arsehole to deliver different shit.

Now if Trump really goes off the rails in his second term, you may get an appetite for safety and a return to the good old days, which may be Warren although she'll be 74 then.

The brave choice would be to go for someone younger, not establishment, someone who can say "Trump has wrecked the joint. We need to fix it but not back to how it was, we're not going to restore we're going to renovate, make things better"

That aint Warren, it can't be Sanders. It may be AOC.

[Tannin]

Wokko desperately trying to lie with statistics. Again.

Sigh.

As always - yes, every single time - when comparing proportions from different-sized populations, you look at the proportions. Not. repeat not, the raw numbers, which are meaningless.

Nobody believes those bulldust charts you copy-paste from alt-right nutjob sites, Wokko. You might as well give it up.

For our convenience, Jezza has provided correctly treated, spin-free figures.

Romney: 47.2%
Trump: 46.1%

[Tannin]

OK. How, exactly, would you define "really going off the rails"?

(In your answer, be aware that you have already effectively defined "not really off the rails" as starting a trade war you can't win, getting caught in foreign corruption over and over again, with numerous cronies, employees, and lackeys in either jail or out only because you pardoned them, insulting every other country you can think of, running an administration so dysfunctional that you have to sack someone very senior every single week, and being so blind to medical science as to kill 60,000 of your own citizens and still counting?)

[stui magpie]

Those things are all part of the plan to get re-elected.

Once he enters his second term when he doesn't need to think about re-election, the chains are off.

I'm not going to try to define other than to say when it happens, you'll know it and so will everyone else.

[Tannin]

^


Blimey!

[Tannin]

Mind you, the chances of Trump having a supine, obedient Senate to shield him are poor. We are looking, on the balance of probabilities, at a Democratic majority in both houses.

[stui magpie]

^

On balance, more likely than not, but not guaranteed.

That could have it's own impacts, if the house and senate gang up to stop him doing stuff he will go nuclear on Twitter and that could actually improve his approval and damage the Democrats heading to the 2024 election.

[Wokko]

[Tannin]

^ Meaningless semantic bulldust from a Fake News serial offender.

Romney: 47.2%
Trump: 46.1%

Deal with it.

[Wokko]

^ Meaningless semantic bulldust from a Fake News serial offender.

Romney: 47.2%
Trump: 46.1%

Deal with it.

The most ironic post you've ever made.

Trump: 62,979,636
Romney: 60,933,504

Which number is fewer?

Looks like you're quite happy to look like an idiot. Nobody except you cares about percentage of the vote, it's the most useless statistic in analysing this election that I've ever seen. You've had it spelled out simply and slowly why it's useless and you keep going. It's astounding in its stubborn stupidity.

[stui magpie]

It also doesn't matter as, in the electoral college system same as our electorate system, it doesn't matter how many votes you get, but where you get them.

In 2012 Obama got 332 electoral votes with 51.1% of the vote compared to Romney getting 206 electoral votes with 47.2% of the vote

In 2016, Trump got 304 electoral votes with his 46.1% of the vote and Hillary got 227 with 48.2%

So Hillary beat Romney, but Trump won the electoral votes. More than Hillary or Romney.

A few states go all in Democrats tips the popular vote toward Hillary but that's not how their or our system works

The percentage of registered voters who voted in 2018 was also slightly higher (0.8%) than 2012. I'll be very interested to see the results this time around.

I'm still tipping a Trump win but I'll also tip a voter turnout of 52% or less as I'm expecting an increased number going "I aint voting for either of them"

[Wokko]

Joe Biden really just said:

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldJTrumpJr ... 234063803/

[David]

I watched that interview. It’s much worse than that out-of-context clip suggests.

See from 0:27 here (the host’s initial comment "you can’t do that to black media" followed one of Biden’s aides cutting in to stop him from answering a question about whether Biden would choose a black VP, incidentally):

https://youtu.be/QfZFyclAC5s

[think positive]

**** me!!! Did he just hand the election to Trump? That’s all half the count will remember!

And man I wish I took that photo

[Pies4shaw]

This could make the voting decision a lot harder for Trump’s core constituency (white, racist misogynists with IQs under 85 with no job who think the World owes them a living and that people who can read and write and count are the problem). There’s a genuine chance they won’t know which decrepit, white male bigot to vote for. I expect a lot of excess deaths from brain-bleeding in, eg, Wisconsin as a result.