US Politics, June 2020 — You have to dominate.

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!

daines (montana, wtf montana might have two D senators?!)

Montana had two D senators fairly recently! Jon Tester and Max Baucus overlapped in 2007-14.

I was not aware of that!

the kingmaker has spoken

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/politics/james-clyburn-defund-police-cnntv/index.html

This should help with long-term strategy, as the two parties see eye to eye.

lol Cuomo actually said "Stop protesting. You won." what

"Stop protesting. You won"??? All that tells me is that the protests make Cuomo very, very uncomfortable and unhappy, as they are intended to.

Maybe the protestors have won the argument about whether black lives are held cheap by police forces and white society in general. But winning an argument won't protect black lives. It's all still broken as hell. Fix it. Then the protests can stop.

my understanding of history is that the losers don't get to dictate the terms of surrender by the victors

Montana had two D senators fairly recently! Jon Tester and Max Baucus overlapped in 2007-14.

I was a Montana voter for a good chunk of that. Could never understand what made the House seat so unattainable, through years of Dem senators and governors.

Wau @ Iowa senate race

The Iowa Poll released Saturday night showed Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield with major momentum.

Forty-six percent of likely voters would vote for Greenfield if the election were held today compared to 43% who would vote for Republican Sen. Joni Ernst -- a within the margin of error advantage for the challenger.

While it's still early and things could change, this Iowa poll, conducted by Selzer & Co., is the latest state survey for either the race for the White House or Senate to show a clear shift toward Democrats since protests began nationwide following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer.

And:

The latest state polls imply that Biden has a double-digit advantage nationally given that Clinton won the popular vote by 2 points. These state polls are in sync with the national polls that show Biden's lead at 10 points.

Importantly, many of these polls have been conducted across states that are the heart of the 2020 battleground. States like Arizona and Wisconsin are included in this group. Polls have also been conducted in states that Biden would like to win, but aren't must wins for him, such as Ohio and Texas. Crucially, these are demographically distinct states in different regions of the country indicating that Trump is losing ground in a lot of different places.

All together, it's the latest evidence that Trump cannot count on the electoral college to save him. The leads that Biden is earning right now are well outside any potential polling miscue like the one that occurred on the state level in 2016. The former vice president, simply put, is well ahead of Trump at this time

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/14/politics/state-polls-shift-democrats-since-protests/

Also fwiw the pollster for this Iowa poll has an a+ (the only one?) at 538

“We’re suing and we’re filing another the big lawsuit I think on Friday. And I think we have a good case. Newsom announced that he’s sending out millions and millions of mail-in, what’s called mail-in ballots. And, you know — you say, who’re they sending these to? And maybe who aren’t?

“Let’s say you take a Republican district, and maybe those ballots don’t get sent there, okay? This is the craziest thing. This is — this will be a rigged election if they’re allowed to do it. We’re fighting like crazy. If you take a look — you know we’ve won the last four elections.

“We won in Wisconsin, we won in North Carolina, we won two, you know that? Big. We won a very big one in California, first time in 22 years. But we’re fighting mail-in ballots. And in those cases they had a lot of mail-in ballots, which is incredible.

“But the chance of theft, where they steal them, they hold up mailmen, they take them out of mailboxes, they print them fraudulently.”

'Also, ducks fly out of my ass, you wouldn't believe it, beautiful ducks, perfect ducks, trust me, I've seen them'

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S08E19/810709.jpg?b64lines=IE1SUy4gS1JBQkFQUEVMIEFORAogUFJJTkNJUEFMIFNLSU5ORVIgV0VSRSBJTgogVEhFIENMT1NFVCBNQUtJTkcgQkFCSUVTCiBBTkQgSSBTQVcgT05FIE9GIFRIRQogQkFCSUVT

idek what thread this goes under but the shooting in abq is....not the best thing to have happened

story here https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502879-man-shot-in-protest-over-statue-of-spanish-conquistador-in

surprised it took this long, tbh. the administration has explicitly been calling for people to "defend their second amendment rights" against the "liberal mob".