IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , donald trump , political speculation

View Poll Results: Will trump be re-elected?
Yes 28 14.51%
No 80 41.45%
Don't know, but I hope not 82 42.49%
Don't know, but I hope he does 3 1.55%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 30th October 2020, 12:57 PM   #201
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
That was a fluke. This will be a coup, and yes, the end of democracy in the USA.
Wasn't it you expecting civil war not so long ago?
All to save the country from the horrors of a Joe Biden presidency? I'm not a big fan of his to say the least, but he will be the legitimate president come inauguration day, and the notion that a lot of elected politicians or the generals would support Trump even after an election loss is silly. Didn't he just say he was going to fire the head of the Joint Chiefs after the election?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:36 PM   #202
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,717
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
one time is a fluke.

But just now Kavanaugh referenced Bush v. Gore in a vote-counting lawsuit, which means that at least for him it's Precedent (even though the literal text of the decisions says that it cannot be taken as such).

No, Florida 2000 might have been a fluke then, but it has become a blueprint.
3 SCOTUS justices were on Bush's legal team in 2000.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:37 PM   #203
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,717
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'd love to hear the Supreme Court make a legal argument that something they do isn't a precedent. I'm pretty sure that's not how like... what the law is... works.
But that's exactly what they did in 2000 to appoint Bush as POTUS.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:39 PM   #204
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,561
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
But that's exactly what they did in 2000 to appoint Bush as POTUS.
Okay. And then what happens when a future Supreme Court uses it as precedence anyway?

And what was it about 2000 that made is so unique?
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 02:00 PM   #205
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,717
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay. And then what happens when a future Supreme Court uses it as precedence anyway?

And what was it about 2000 that made is so unique?
Nothing will happen other than everyone understanding the hypocrisy of the Republican hacks that sit in the SCOTUS.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 02:00 PM   #206
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,561
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Nothing will happen other than everyone understanding the hypocrisy of the Republican hacks that sit in the SCOTUS.
Oh so that thing that we all already know that doesn't matter because they don't care.

That's reassuring.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 02:13 PM   #207
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,873
The best argument for a Biden win, IMO, is that the Trump campaign doesn't have the money to litigate the election as long as the Democrats can.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 02:15 PM   #208
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,561
I mean there is still the delicious possibility that losing the power of the Presidency is what finally makes everyone just completely turn on Trump, who quickly learns that a maybe President isn't as powerful as a definitely President.

It's like Bronn told Tyrion when he refused to fight the Mountain for him. "If and when and may."
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 03:53 PM   #209
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When a 70 + yo lifelong democrat party voter tells you he's voting for Trump because of civil unrest and doesn't trust Biden to end it, there's a problem.
There's definitely a problem if he's voting for the guy who caused the civil unrest and has already failed to end it. I think the problem lies with someone who votes for the guy who already failed because he's not sure a different guy can fix the first guy's failures.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 04:39 PM   #210
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 31,308
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When a 70 + yo lifelong democrat party voter tells you he's voting for Trump because of civil unrest and doesn't trust Biden to end it, there's a problem.
<Citation Needed>
I'm a 70+ born and raised Republican. The first two Presidential candidates I voted for were Nixon and Ford. I never left the Republican Party, it abandoned me.

Civil unrest? What the **** has Trump done about it, other than praise the police for extrajudicial killings?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 10:14 PM   #211
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,397
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
The SCOTUS already made W Bush President 20 years ago.
Except that they really didn't. They put an end to the bickering over the ballots that was going on with the limited recount and likely would have just carried on and on.

However, a number of the major papers, including the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post, the Washington Post, and Tribune Co, did a detailed study into it which also included an internet app that you could go on to and do the counting yourself, determining which ballots were valid and which weren't.

The results showed that under the ways that were being petitioned, recounting the under votes, Bush most likely would have won. The main way that Gore might have ended up with more votes was in a statewide recount including all of the overvotes, and even he wasn't asking for that, and no one is entirely sure if it would have actually given him the victory because even then he would have only won if every possible mark and dimple on the ballot were counted. If only those votes that were clearly punched were counted, even if a total over/undervote complete Florida recount, Bush still would have won by around 150-400 votes.

As much as we might hate it, on the balance of odds, Bush probably did win in Florida, and the recounts being asked for would not have changed the result. Sadly however due to a lot of issues as noted by the Maimi Herald, "limitations of the voting machinery – compounded with sometimes sloppy custody of the ballots and the slight but measurable biases of allegedly neutral human tabulators – make getting precise vote totals virtually impossible."

sources - https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/31/p...ies/index.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/th...count-of-2000/
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 30th October 2020 at 10:16 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 11:41 PM   #212
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
Almost certainly not. I am feeling more and more relaxed about this. Not much time left at all and Biden leads very comfortably.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 08:06 AM   #213
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
As much as we might hate it, on the balance of odds, Bush probably did win in Florida...

No, that's incorrect. Based on what we know, it's pretty clear more Florida voters preferred Gore, intended to vote for Gore, and thought they had voted for Gore. the reason Bush was declared the winner wasn't that more people voted for him, it's that for a variety of reasons (some legitimate, some illegitimate) a large number of votes for Gore didn't get counted -- enough to lower Gore's vote total below Bush's in the first counting.

Some of those lost votes could not have been recovered even if there had been a recount. For instance, a large number of votes which people thought they were casting for Gore were miscast because of the confusing layout of the butterfly ballot. It's pretty clear many of those votes which were recorded as votes for Pat Buchanan were actually intended to be votes for Al Gore but there's no way of knowing which so that can't be corrected. Those votes for Gore are legitimately lost and no recount will change that.

But the overcount votes are a different story. Many people voted for Gore by filling in the box next to his name, but also wrote in his name on the line which said to fill in the name of the candidate you wanted for president (i.e. the write-in line) because that's what a literal reading of the instructions on the ballot indicated they should do. That was a mistake on those voters' part -- they didn't need to write in Gore's name as well as filling in the check box -- but it's a correctable mistake because the voter intent was clear so by Florida law those were valid votes for Gore. Those votes had been discarded in the original count because the counting machines saw both a check-box filled in and the write-in line filled in and automatically discarded those ballots, but a human being rather than machine examining the ballots could easily see those were valid ballots and would have seen it if a valid recount had been done. (Only ballots where a voter checked the box for one candidate and then wrote in the name of a different candidate should get discarded as overvotes.) And there were enough of those mistakenly-discarded ballots to have brought Gore's vote total higher than Bush's, which would have reflected the actual intent of the electorate.

The Republican strategy in 2000 was to find as many ways as possible to get Gore votes discarded in order to be able to make Bush the winner -- in other words, not to win the election by convincing more people to vote for their candidate but to win the election by getting more of their candidate's votes counted and more of their opponent's votes not counted.

That kind of thinking is very harmful to a democratic system, but unfortunately it has become increasingly common in the US in recent decades. The GOP especially has engaged in many efforts to suppress votes of people they think are more likely to vote Democratic, to make voting slower and more difficult in areas that are heavily Democratic, and to find ways to discard votes which they think are more likely to be Democratic than Republican.

In 2000 the Republicans were able to get enough Democratic votes discarded at various stages of the count and recount -- and to prevent a careful recount -- because their intent was not to get an honest representation of how people had voted in the election, it was to get their candidate elected regardless of what the actual outcome had been. But the actual outcome, if we're talking about the will of the Florida electorate rather than the result of game-playing to see which side can get more of their votes counted and which side can get more of their opponent's votes discarded, was that Gore was Florida's choice for president in 2000.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 08:57 AM   #214
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,630
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
No, that's incorrect. Based on what we know, it's pretty clear more Florida voters preferred Gore, intended to vote for Gore, and thought they had voted for Gore. the reason Bush was declared the winner wasn't that more people voted for him, it's that for a variety of reasons (some legitimate, some illegitimate) a large number of votes for Gore didn't get counted -- enough to lower Gore's vote total below Bush's in the first counting.
Which raises the question: If we have better ways of knowing what voters actually want, than having them cast a ballot and then counting those ballots, why aren't we using one of those superior methods instead?

Why are we getting so worked up about voting holidays, ballot fraud, voter suppression, etc? Why don't we just run some opinion polls and give the EC the results?

I suppose we'd have to make it mandatory to actually respond to pollsters, though.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 09:20 AM   #215
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Which raises the question: If we have better ways of knowing what voters actually want, than having them cast a ballot and then counting those ballots, why aren't we using one of those superior methods instead?

You need to read more carefully (or I need to write more briefly, so that you can pay better attention to what I actually say.)

My comment advocates having voters cast their ballots and counting those ballots correctly. That often necessitates doing a recount where the ballots are examined carefully rather than trusting simply to machines. Machines often make mistakes, as exemplified in Florida 2000 when machines automatically discarded a large number of valid ballots.

We can, however, get a sense of whether there were problems with the vote counting which need to be addressed by talking with voters after the election. That's useful. It may indicate a need for a recount. It may also indicate problems worth fixing in future elections. That happened in Florida in regard to the butterfly ballots, in regard to the poorly written ballot instructions which led to overvotes, and a number of other problems.

I did not advocate using a system other than counting the ballots people cast for determining the outcome of the election (as in who gets to take office). But often there are problems with the counting -- such as, for instance, in some recent elections in Russia and Belarus -- and it's often wiser to rely on what external evidence shows us about these election outcomes rather than simply saying Well, if that's what they say the count shows it must be correct. If it's possible to do an honest recount (i.e. if the real ballots are still available for counting correctly) that's worth fighting to see done; if, as is sometimes the case in countries like those, it's not possible to do an honest recount, then it's worth speaking out against the dishonesty and working to help see that future elections are run more honestly run.

In Florida there were a number of strong indications the original count was not correct -- indications which good investigative reporting since the elections have shown to be correct. But what I see as the correct solution to the problem, which I thought was reasonably clear in my comment, was for there to be careful and accurate counting in a recount if there are indications that one is needed. And a key problem in 2000 is that attempts to have that recount were squelched -- leading to a result which we can now be reasonably sure was inaccurate.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 10:14 AM   #216
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,016
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Except that they really didn't. They put an end to the bickering over the ballots that was going on with the limited recount and likely would have just carried on and on.
....
But they didn't have to. State authorities -- led by Gov. Jeb Bush -- were functioning fine, and Bush might ultimately have won anyway. There was no urgent federal question that required Supreme Court intervention. There is no doubt that the SC short-circuited the process and handed the White House to Bush.

And given their history, there is no reason to doubt that the SC will weigh in on Trump's behalf if they get half a chance.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 10:59 AM   #217
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When a 70 + yo lifelong democrat party voter tells you he's voting for Trump because of civil unrest and doesn't trust Biden to end it, there's a problem.
Who's this 70+ yo person voting against his own interests?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 11:11 AM   #218
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,576
Someone existing only in BStrong's head, most likely.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 11:48 AM   #219
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The best argument for a Biden win, IMO, is that the Trump campaign doesn't have the money to litigate the election as long as the Democrats can.
The RNC/Trump have called my house 4 times for money today and it's not even noon. But they're greedy bastards, they may just be trying to line their pockets.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 12:17 PM   #220
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,013
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Who's this 70+ yo person voting against his own interests?

Yes, we need a name and address so we can talk to this person!!

Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Someone existing only in BStrong's head, most likely.

Is that someone living there ... "rent free"? Because if they are, that makes them squatters! And squatters get the water hose!!!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 12:23 PM   #221
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Yes, we need a name and address so we can talk to this person!!
I was rather wondering if he was coyly referring to himself. If that was so I would have to wonder what the hell happened.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 12:42 PM   #222
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,846
I’ve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 01:00 PM   #223
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,216
Electors will go 289 biden and 251 trump. You will know Friday.
__________________
I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot."

Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 01:04 PM   #224
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
I’ve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too.
Betting markets in 2016 actually expected Clinton to win.

So much that one bookmaker payed out $1 million of bets on Clinton in October 2016 because they were certain Clinton would beat Trump.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/new...ors/index.html

This year too, Biden is favoured by the betting markets, though less then Clinton was in 2016; 66/41 now on PredictIt, for example.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ntial-election
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 1st November 2020 at 01:07 PM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 01:24 PM   #225
jeremyp
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Iíve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too.
Last time out the polls predicted the popular vote mostly within the margin of error. They just got a couple of swing states wrong, and then not by much.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 03:14 PM   #226
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,934
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
The RNC/Trump have called my house 4 times for money today and it's not even noon. But they're greedy bastards, they may just be trying to line their pockets.

Did you keep them on the line to waste their time?
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 03:41 PM   #227
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
Last time out the polls predicted the popular vote mostly within the margin of error. They just got a couple of swing states wrong, and then not by much.
That is what I was seeing too. I was wondering why so many were confident that Clinton would win. The polls narrowed quite a bit up to the election.

This time the poll lead seems to be more stable and the swing states are actually moving Biden's way.

On paper that looks like a Biden victory, but I am still going with the prediction that Trump will win the EC and Biden will win the popular vote.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 12:07 AM   #228
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 31,617
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
Betting markets in 2016 actually expected Clinton to win.

So much that one bookmaker payed out $1 million of bets on Clinton in October 2016 because they were certain Clinton would beat Trump.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/new...ors/index.html

This year too, Biden is favoured by the betting markets, though less then Clinton was in 2016; 66/41 now on PredictIt, for example.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ntial-election
Paying out early is something that Paddy Power does regularly, its very good publicity for them.

Then again, for those of us who really want President Trump to lose, this is
worrying news.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
That is what I was seeing too. I was wondering why so many were confident that Clinton would win. The polls narrowed quite a bit up to the election.

This time the poll lead seems to be more stable and the swing states are actually moving Biden's way.

On paper that looks like a Biden victory, but I am still going with the prediction that Trump will win the EC and Biden will win the popular vote.
I don't think that there has been significant doubt about Biden winning the popular vote.

OTOH I was convinced that President Trump would win the EC by about the same margin as last time around but I now think that Biden will edge the EC after the initial results but that will subsequently be overturned.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 01:13 AM   #229
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Paying out early is something that Paddy Power does regularly, its very good publicity for them.

Then again, for those of us who really want President Trump to lose, this is
worrying news.
Not trying to be contrarian here, but I think it is good news.

One of the big differences between 2020 and 2016 is that, while pundits and betting markets overestimated the Clinton chances relative to the actual poll numbers, this year it's reversed. And that's where you want to be: pundits going against the data.

Obviously I'm talking about the actual results with all votes counted, not the possible "results" after Trump's expected legal shenanigans.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 01:39 AM   #230
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,337
Thereís a decent chance that pollsters are over correcting for Trump voters also.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 04:17 AM   #231
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,468
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
Thereís a decent chance that pollsters are over correcting for Trump voters also.
Does that mean giving more or less wait to Trump voters?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 05:53 AM   #232
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,337
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Does that mean giving more or less wait to Trump voters?
There's always this assumption that if there's any polling error it will be in Trump's favor, and that Biden's lead isn't actually as big as the polls indicate. I believe it's possible that, in an overabundance of caution of repeating 2016, they've adjusted their polling methods to overestimate the support for Trump.

Same thing with the shy Trump voter. Maybe there's a shy Biden voter that don't want to say that to the maniac Trump friends and family. It's just as likely to me either way.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 06:10 AM   #233
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,561
538 has dropped Trump's chances into the single digits for the first time, putting in at 9 in 100 compared to Biden's 89 and that 1 off tie scenario that keeps popping in and out of their simulations.

But again from my vantage point the discussion has largely shifted from "Can Trump win" to "Will Trump accept that he lost."
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 09:46 AM   #234
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,842
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
538 has dropped Trump's chances into the single digits for the first time, putting in at 9 in 100 compared to Biden's 89 and that 1 off tie scenario that keeps popping in and out of their simulations.

But again from my vantage point the discussion has largely shifted from "Can Trump win" to "Will Trump accept that he lost."
If Trump loses Biden needs to beg Obama to head up the transition team, not because of Obama's capability or experience just to rub it into Trump!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 10:17 AM   #235
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 25,064
This for me is pretty much the definition of a crisis. A hugely influential event is about to happen and I have no clue as to which way it's going to go.

A few other things I would place in that category:

Job interview callback
Doctor's results
Y2K
Tax audit decision
VA Health care eligibility (and reimbursement for previous services) decision

I'm actually waiting on that last one as well. Stressful week.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 10:18 AM   #236
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 31,308
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
Electors will go 289 biden and 251 trump. You will know Friday.
And then the SCROTUS will throw out any votes counted after tomorrow and declare Trump President for Life.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 10:21 AM   #237
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,630
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
And then the SCROTUS will throw out any votes counted after tomorrow and declare Trump President for Life.
I love me some testable predictions. Wanna make an avatar bet?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 10:23 AM   #238
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,561
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I love me some testable predictions. Wanna make an avatar bet?
No. Because you'd just go "Oh no you see Trump didn't technically steal the election because of B.S. reason I'm just now making up so it doesn't count..."

Just like how you acted after he actually started putting people in camps.

You love "testable predictions" because you'll just deny the results of the test if they don't go your way.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 11:32 AM   #239
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,630
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
You need to read more carefully (or I need to write more briefly, so that you can pay better attention to what I actually say.)

My comment advocates having voters cast their ballots and counting those ballots correctly. That often necessitates doing a recount where the ballots are examined carefully rather than trusting simply to machines. Machines often make mistakes, as exemplified in Florida 2000 when machines automatically discarded a large number of valid ballots.

We can, however, get a sense of whether there were problems with the vote counting which need to be addressed by talking with voters after the election. That's useful. It may indicate a need for a recount. It may also indicate problems worth fixing in future elections. That happened in Florida in regard to the butterfly ballots, in regard to the poorly written ballot instructions which led to overvotes, and a number of other problems.

I did not advocate using a system other than counting the ballots people cast for determining the outcome of the election (as in who gets to take office). But often there are problems with the counting -- such as, for instance, in some recent elections in Russia and Belarus -- and it's often wiser to rely on what external evidence shows us about these election outcomes rather than simply saying Well, if that's what they say the count shows it must be correct. If it's possible to do an honest recount (i.e. if the real ballots are still available for counting correctly) that's worth fighting to see done; if, as is sometimes the case in countries like those, it's not possible to do an honest recount, then it's worth speaking out against the dishonesty and working to help see that future elections are run more honestly run.

In Florida there were a number of strong indications the original count was not correct -- indications which good investigative reporting since the elections have shown to be correct. But what I see as the correct solution to the problem, which I thought was reasonably clear in my comment, was for there to be careful and accurate counting in a recount if there are indications that one is needed. And a key problem in 2000 is that attempts to have that recount were squelched -- leading to a result which we can now be reasonably sure was inaccurate.
Mark my words: The polls have Biden up and Trump down. If Trump somehow wins tomorrow, it will be argued - and not on the fringes - that the polls were right and the ballots were wrong.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 11:39 AM   #240
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,873
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Mark my words: The polls have Biden up and Trump down. If Trump somehow wins tomorrow, it will be argued - and not on the fringes - that the polls were right and the ballots were wrong.
which is the sensible approach: it is just not likely that millions of voters suddenly changed their mind or managed to hide their true voting intentions.

There would need to be a very credibly, utterly transparent explanation how Trump won.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.