US Politics, June 2020 — You have to dominate.

Weak, cowardly, caving to public pressure. The Asshole is playing defense a lot lately.

We had previously scheduled our #MAGA Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for June 19th – a big deal. Unfortunately, however, this would fall on the Juneteenth Holiday. Many of my African American friends and supporters have reached out to suggest that we consider changing the date out...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2020

Many of my African American friends and supporters

Of which he has many

re the polls, they predict Biden winning WI, MI, PA, FL.

Presumably if he does that he will indeed win the electoral college.

I note that OH is still considered undecidable.

DRAIN THE SWAMP FINALE COMING SOON!

— Greatest President Ever! (@realTrumpForce) June 11, 2020

ritual suicide a la Jonestown?

how shook does this pockmarked globule of cowardice have to be where he's actually backpedaling

(re: Juneteenth tweet, not fake Trump tweet)

wtf, how shook is this dude

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/trump-says-will-leave-office-peacefully-if-he-loses-315736

^^^ I'm telling you, he's on defense. He moved one of his rallies — and his asshole campaign manager is out there talking about how they've had 300,000 ticket requests...for an arena that holds 19,500 people (and will be about 1/4 full, is my bet). I'm wondering if the rally will even be televised, if the turnout is especially low. If it turns into one of those things where a band that had a big hit a couple of years ago doesn't realize that it's over, and books an arena tour when they really should have downsized to 1000-seat theaters.

I want to linger on this paragraph written in an American news outlet in 2020:

Though the president has never given any serious indication that he might not leave office if he were to lose reelection, his comments aired Friday appear to be the first time he has publicly committed to doing so.

Re unperson's story: Trump's satraps must have shown him terrible internal polling.

"you're at -30% in Racistville, Ohio"

satrap? where, where

Are the results in yet from the Georgia elections that were a massive fuck-up? Did the suppression favour the Republicans?

The Boy with the Arab Satrap

depends on what you mean by "win"

Did the suppression favour the Republicans?

Given that Democratic voter turnout was nearly triple that of 2016, I'm gonna go with "no."

Despite massive problems at the voting booth, Democratic turnout in Georgia's primaries skyrocketed — with three times as many votes cast in the Senate primary as in 2016.

With 91 percent of the vote in as of Friday, nearly 960,000 voters had cast ballots in the Democratic Senate primary race won by Jon Ossoff, compared to 310,000 who voted in the Senate primary in 2016.

The Democratic turnout was also higher than it was in the gubernatorial primary in 2018, which saw 550,000 ballots cast.

"This was extraordinarily high turnout for a primary — way beyond what we've seen in previous primary elections," Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Atlanta's Emory University, told NBC News.

link

xps Good summary of the Georgia voting situation:
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/election-fiasco-reveals-flaws-with-georgia-new-voting-system/FoZjtLGPYccOrHzXHiPbDL/

tl;dr the worst voting problems were concentrated in a few ATL-metro-area counties, disproportionately affecting African-American voters

the overall picture seems to be more of negligence and incompetence than active malfeasance; of course no one in the state GOP is in any hurry to fix the negligence and incompetence

I'm not aware of any election outcomes that were significantly affected by voting problems, but it doesn't bode well for November

it's worth noting that one of the governor's best buddies is a lobbyist for the company selling the gleamy new voting machines that no experts or organizations of any political stripe recommended

I would say 3x 2016 turnout (during a pandemic!) bodes well for turnout.

yes, the turnout was fantastic, and in that sense I'm optimistic for November, but when it comes to Georgia actually flipping I feel like Charlie Brown http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RL9oA8SJbus/SomfDGYVRrI/AAAAAAAAAQQ/ZAe8L9aJYmY/s320/CharlieBrownLucyFootball.jpg

Yeah. I'll believe it when I see it.

re the polls, they predict Biden winning WI, MI, PA, FL.

Presumably if he does that he will indeed win the electoral college.

I note that OH is still considered undecidable.

thanks brad and phil, that is fucking awesome

re the polls, they predict Biden winning WI, MI, PA, FL.

"the polls"

It almost feels unfair to post 2016 polls at this point.

It would feel totally fair to point how 2020 is different.

But keep acting as if every pollster and ILXer hasn't posted a variant on "National polls don't matter," "It's early," and "things can change" an whatever other caveat the brain can devise

And yet every three days there’s a new “see how good the polls are!!!” post.

dude you repeat the same posts hourly i don't think you're in a position to criticise

It almost feels unfair to post 2016 polls at this point.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, June 13, 2020 3:27 PM bookmarkflaglink

jesus, shut the fuck up. the polls were mostly within the margin of error in 2016, it's just unlike in 2012, the MOE almost entirely broke towards Trump instead of Clinton. Yeah, it was an major upset, but it isn't like the polls all predicted a 12% national vote win, and an electoral victory of 400+ EVs. these things happen. it doesn't mean polls are useless.

most of us were way wrong in our overconfidence, me included, but stop acting as if they don't fuckin mean anything or find another horse to hump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/how-much-did-polls-miss-the-mark-on-trump-and-why/

It's not that milo wants Trump to win; it's that he hopes we're wrong.

Surveys across 17 states, including key battlegrounds, found a higher error of 1.7 using the candidate error metric, which is similar to the level of error found in all state-level surveys in 2004 (1.7), 2008 (1.8) and 2012 (1.9).

While the absolute size of most errors was far from unusual, the state-by-state results show how polling systematically showed a better picture for Clinton before Election Day. The largest consequential swing from pre-election polls to results was in Wisconsin, where Clinton averaged a six-point edge in the final week but lost the state, trailing by one-point in current tallies.

dude you repeat the same posts hourly i don't think you're in a position to criticise

I didn't criticize anyone - Alfred's response to dumb Dem/Biden shit is that no one actually does/believes/says <X>. But, like, this is obviously untrue as illustrated by the very threads where it happens.

Fox News fell for a Monty Python joke on Reddit lmao pic.twitter.com/Yo34yuQvlD

— Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) June 13, 2020

I was just noting that the polls, they predict Biden winning WI, MI, PA, FL. is a completely context-free, fact-absent and unsourced statement that is worse than useless as a prompt for discussion

the pinefox obviously means well, but in practice, posting nonsense like this is functionally trolling

wait, hold on - I’m seeing now that the polls predict me winning Most Handsome ILX0r in ILM, ILF, 77, COGH, and - can this be right? - ILB. carry on!

i got what you meant, i was only bugged by milo

milo this one is for you

This feels like a little bit of a canary in the coal mine. Ernst has been considered a rising star; Iowa has trended red; she hasn't had any particular scandals or gotten in any particular trouble. If this race is competitive, the GOP is in a lot of trouble in a lot of places. https://t.co/RbXDnZvFpC

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 13, 2020

I don’t know why that would be surprising? I’ve agreed that at this point Biden probably wins. The way people point to polls is a bit of magical thinking and continues to ignore that Biden is a uniquely bad candidate to take advantage of the situation, given his reliance on old white suburban voters, who may not respond well to continued protests for the next five months.

what does the senate balance look like, if someone like greenfield can squeak out a win against ernst?

it is a very long way off but ... i the the CW is these republican senators are done for:

collins (maine)
gardner (colorado)
mcsally (arizona)

and these are at least as vulnerable as ernst:

tillis (north carolina)
daines (montana, wtf montana might have two D senators?!)
loeffler (georgia)

the other georgia seat is probably a stretch IIUC but might be interesting. kansas might be vulnerable if kobach wins the primary in august. don't get excited about mcconnell or graham, but there's low quality polling showing them both in trouble.

democrats are going to lose alabama though. assuming that happens they need to win five (or four if biden wins). more is better because they don't want to depend on joe manchin etc.

I was just noting that the polls, they predict Biden winning WI, MI, PA, FL. is a completely context-free, fact-absent and unsourced statement that is worse than useless as a prompt for discussion

the pinefox obviously means well, but in practice, posting nonsense like this is functionally trolling

I don't think it's 'trolling' to discuss or note polls about US politics on a US politics thread.

The statement was not fact-absent and unsourced: it was a response to a link to specific polls, a couple of posts above mine.

In other words I followed up what another ilxor had posted and briefly, factually commented on it.

briefly, factually commented on it.

I hadn't realised you were referring specifically to that one link with your broad plural reference, but there are 387 polls in said link.

The first one is taken of Missouri residents only.

The second one is national, but only breaks down to North East, Midwest, South and West.

The third one breaks down to the same four non-state-specific regions, asks 49.9% of the respondents questions only about coronavirus, and the other 50.1% of respondents are asked 9 out of the overall 24 questions.

The fourth one is the latter 50.1% from the third, tallying the discrete voters separately.

The fifth is specifically a poll of whom Florida voters hold responsible for the pandemic, and concludes that New Poll Shows Rare Partisan Agreement and Americans overwhelmingly blame the Chinese government for the spread of COVID-19 and believe it should be held accountable. It does note that these voters favor Joe Biden by 3 points, but caveats which is within the margin of error. It then panics and has the CEO and founder of the firm separately advise that “While the race for President is tight, Florida voters trust Trump more to protect American interests against China. And with such intense anger directed toward the Chinese government right now, that could help him in November.”

You'll forgive me if I remain sceptical about the content, subject and tone of the remaining 382 polls without reading them all individually.

This is the link I was referring to:

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

To me, its headline claims look quite clear. I didn't see in it what you have seen in it.

I did see in it that Biden was currently predicted to win WI, MI, PA and FL, though those are only light-blue 'likely'.

The page also states that Biden is far more likely to win the electoral college.

Whether any of this is true, I don't know. I do know that people said similar things about HRC in 2016 - as has already been pointed out above.

I didn't see in it what you have seen in it.

That link collates data from polls. I started to read the polls, because I regretted apparently mischaracterising your use of the term "the polls." The first five out of t h r e e h u n d r e d a n d e i g h t y - s e v e n still did not fit your characterisation of the content of the polls, and I stopped there.

As you now say that you did not even see the links to those polls, I revert in somewhat increased frustration to suggesting that it's extremely unproductive to say generally "the polls predict such and such" on here, without reference to the methodology or nature or actual subject of any polls.


I acknowledge again that you were posting in good faith, but I'm going to feel comfortable sticking to a two-word rolleye post in circs like these in the future.

Hold up - we're getting word that polling has shifted, and ILF is now a tossup on going for me or J. Swells as most handsome ILX0r. Further updates as they come, including on which ILF is in fact being polled.

Dude

Additional foreign casualties of US political adventurism.

Good morning!

in stunning upset, T✧✧@k✧✧.e✧✧ wins in come from behind victory over sic and J swells

Tim at kfc.edu goddammit!