Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Ciro wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-says-one-citizens-subjected-072724877.html

Oh yeah, old news finally getting some attention, trump's Mengele.

agip wrote:

NC has voted blue ONCE in senate races since 1966.

Ummm... I could count four.

Robert Morgan 1974.

Terry Sanford 1986.

John Edwards 1998.

Kay Hagan 2008.

Fat hurts wrote:

Ciro wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-allows-texas-governor-111038775.html

I'm not sure if that's necessarily bad news for Democrats, but it's definitely bad news for democracy.

It hurts Dems more assuming less Dems want to vote in person than Rs due to COVID. It reduces their options to deliver the ballot. No wonder the US is sliding down the democracy ratings, our country should be making voting as easy and accessible as possible. Democracies function best when a bigger proportion of the voting population actually vote. Doing anything to hinder that is simply undemocratic.

Makes me wonder, have Dems engaged in any type of voter restriction or suppression?

L L wrote:

A little more on the math:

If there are 4 Republican held states each with a 30% chance of voting Democrat, then there is a 75% that at least one of them will vote Democrat.

If they were 4 distinct, independent events then that would be true. But as someone already pointed out, that's not the case here.

If polling is off in one state then it's probably off in other states as well and it's off in the same direction. Or to put it another way, if Trump starts a late surge in North Carolina, then chances are he's also surging in Georgia and Texas.

538 takes this into account in its model.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

agip wrote:

NC has voted blue ONCE in senate races since 1966.

Ummm... I could count four.

Robert Morgan 1974.

Terry Sanford 1986.

John Edwards 1998.

Kay Hagan 2008.

And Sam Ervin 1968.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Ummm... I could count four.

Robert Morgan 1974.

Terry Sanford 1986.

John Edwards 1998.

Kay Hagan 2008.

And Sam Ervin 1968.

ack

ok this is good news.

I was misreading the Wikipedia page - I was looking only at the seat occupied by Tillis - that one has been R except for one election since 1966.

The other one has been more blue.

Ok good, this is comforting.

Sorry for the error.

agip wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

And Sam Ervin 1968.

ack

ok this is good news.

I was misreading the Wikipedia page - I was looking only at the seat occupied by Tillis - that one has been R except for one election since 1966.

The other one has been more blue.

Ok good, this is comforting.

Sorry for the error.

I suggest saying something like "I apologize unreservedly" so that you can look it up later if you need to or want to show that you actually acknowledged a mistake and apologized for it. That's what I do (searching on the word "unreservedly"). I'm sure you can come with a word that isn't used much here.

This is one of the best segments I've ever heard from any politician at a hearing. I didn't know much about Sheldon, but man he came prepared. This is a very educational dissection of the dark money scheme at play on the right. It's a long video but you can start from the 8min mark and catch most of the good stuff. Great stuff.

https://twitter.com/dandubei/status/1316075340561776640?s=20

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

A little more on the math:

If there are 4 Republican held states each with a 30% chance of voting Democrat, then there is a 75% that at least one of them will vote Democrat.

If they were 4 distinct, independent events then that would be true. But as someone already pointed out, that's not the case here.

If polling is off in one state then it's probably off in other states as well and it's off in the same direction. Or to put it another way, if Trump starts a late surge in North Carolina, then chances are he's also surging in Georgia and Texas.

538 takes this into account in its model.

I'm sorry, but all politics are local.

They are distinct independent events.

That's why Indiana went from blue to red and Arizona went from red to blue in the 2018 midterms.

The sexting scandal could hurt the Dems from gaining NC but Graham's hubris could hurt Republicans in SC.

And that Alaska race could hinge on whether people believed that Republican killed that grizzly bear or not.

Sounds like you are saying that every single leans right state will either vote Republican or Democrat in lock step.

It's possible that most vote R and a couple vote D and don't know which ones will go which way.

Look at the Democrat Senator in Alabama.

Or even the Democrat governor in Kentucky or Louisiana .

The Democrat senator AND governor in Montana.

The Dem Senator in West Virginia ...

What he pointed out is that the Federalist Society and the Donors Trust (dark money) are 80-0 in 5-4 partisan SCOTUS decisions that they want made. Their intent is to rig court decisions to keep republican minority rule in place. Gerrymandering, election interference, Roe v Wade, ACA, gay marriage. Just look up the goals of those organizations and you know exactly how Amy Covid Barrett will vote. (By the way, the look on Barrett's face during the statement by Sheldon gave her game away. She is not a straight face liar. )

More, or less the following is what Sheldon said.

Fat hurts wrote:

If polling is off in one state then it's probably off in other states as well and it's off in the same direction.

Why would it be off in the same direction?

Here is an article that does more analysis on some red states that could get blue senators.

(too many words for agip, but someone may be interested in what motivates voters besides looking at raw numbers)

No. I'm saying that it's a factor. There are many things that come into play. Some are local. Some are national.

For instance, political scientists have long acknowledged the effect of "coat tails" in presidential election years. The national ticket always affects state and local races.

Senate races this year are definitely, absolutely, positively NOT distinct, independent events.

They would be off in the same direction because pollsters tend to make the same errors. This was shown in 2016 where pollsters failed to recognize the significance of education level among white voters.

538 just had an article about that entitled, "What Pollsters Have Changed Since 2016 — And What Still Worries Them About 2020".

And as I said earlier, 538 agrees with me because they take "national skew" into account when they run their simulation. In other words, when 538 calculates its probabilities, it assumes that a late surge in the presidential race will affect many state races. That's because voters are turning out to vote for president more than anything else, and they tend to vote a straight ticket.

Here is what 538 said about its model for Senate and House races:

So the uncertainty is weighted at 75% local and 25% national. The senate races are NOT treated as distinct, independent events.

The national trend is built into the probability of each election.

So, if 4 specific red states states on average have a probability of 30% going blue, then there still is a 75% chance of at least one going blue.

Of course probability can't be proven.

If I say you will probably get heads at least once if you flip a coin twice, and you get tails twice, it doesn't mean the probability I stated was wrong. (well, Rigged would say that)

Also, those odds are based on what we know now.

Of course it will change in the future.

These are the odds if nothing else changes.

The good thing from what I see is that Trump is not doing anything right to help himself with any kind of swing voter.

And he doesn't even care about helping anyone else, such as Republican candidates.

He never tried to help raise money for them or stay out of the way when it hurt a Republican.

Notice Barrack Obama has been a bit quiet and Michelle Obama has been doing the campaigning.

That's because he is more polarizing and she has a higher approval rating than him with swing voters.

Trump thinks his endorsement is gold for every Republican. But he's really hurting a lot of them in the general elections.

Trump is only going to act crazier as we get closer and that won't help.

Enjoy your loss.

KAG2020

But but but muh debates.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-stephen-moore-crappy-debate-012509189.html

+1

I like when he went into the substance of the 80 cases, breaking them down into different categories that obviously align with the donor's goals. I haven't seen anyone so concisely explain the influence scheme. The SC is definitely not objective. What I also liked is how he tied the scheme to ACB's selection, and the look on her face.

Rigged,. I don't understand your use of KAG . In my 65 years; the country has never been in this bad of condition ! 50K Virus cases per day, horrible economy and presently our Con in Chief has NO plan for either massive problem.