agip wrote:
bottom line, Joe is up 10% in the national polls.
national polls are fairly dependable.
can't lose the electoral college when you are 10 points up. Or 7 points up. Or 6 points up.
Generally you are right but mathematically you are wrong.
The national polls are not the bottom line, the electoral votes are the bottom line.
And more specifically, the votes cast by Nov 3 are the bottom line, not the national polls on Oct 22.
NameStolenAgain wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
A message from the presidential election guru:
https://twitter.com/primarymodel16/status/1318883405245939715KAG2020
Yup, the on quality of the best analysts: they won't update their prediction no matter that the data says.
Yep. That Primary Model prediction was made before we slipped into recession, before we had so many people die of COVID due to Trump's incompetence. It was made back when the 13 keys predicted another win for Trump. Things have changed.
Rigged is SO desperate.
highhoppingworm wrote:
I’m actually interested in seeing a real wager here. Would someone actually put their money where their mouth is? At 91% certainty surely you would be willing to place a substantial wager at even money.
Betting money is low class. That's why I don't do it. Rigged doesn't bet on this election though because he's not as sure of victory as he claims to be. Low class activities are not something he avoids.
Many people seem to not fully understand the quirk (or if you believe in a direct popular vote, the flaw) of the electoral college. It does no inherently favor Republicans. It does over represent the very smallest states, but that is almost always inconsequential to the overall outcome. The electoral college functions as 51 smaller elections for who the President should be, with the outcomes of these elections deciding who a group of elite representative from each state, the electors, will cast their votes for (though that's not always the case but faithless electors have never hanged the result of an election). The issue with this comes with how every state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, chooses their electors. The candidate with the plurality wins all of the states votes, regardless of their margin of victory. In the electoral college, if a candidate wins 100% of a states vote, or only a 40% plurality of the vote, the end result is the same, all of the states votes will go to that candidate. The 2016 election was a great demonstration of how this causes the outcome of the election to diverge from nationwide results. The election had numerous close outcomes in some very important states. For example, in Pennsylvania, Trump won 2,970,733 votes, narrowly beating out Clintons 2,926,441. Clintons votes still counted towards her national total, but for the purpose of the electoral college they might as well not have been cast at all, as all of the states 20 electoral votes went to Clinton. Michigan was even closer. In California, where Clinton easily won with 8,753,788 votes, Trump still got 4,483,810 votes, which is about the same number as the total votes cast in Michigan, but for the purposes of the electoral college, a group of voters the size of the entire voting population of Michigan in California was simply irrelevant.
The 2016 election has created a perception that the electoral college favors Republicans. In reality, what is does it is makes the votes of a large portion of the nation nearly inconsequential, with the only the votes of people that live in swing states truly mattering. And in 2016, the candidate who won the most swing states was Trump.
However, the electoral college doesn't look to be in Trump's favor this year. Remember the California example? The electoral college has created states that are virtually locked, states that are practically guaranteed to give their electoral votes to one candidate. Based on historical trends, past results, and polling data, it seems to be almost certain that Biden will win the states (and districts, Maine and Nebraska are a bit different) Clinton won in 2016. That will net him 229 electoral votes. Trump has stated that are virtually locked for him as well, but they will only net him 163 electoral votes (I'm putting Texas as a lock for Trump. Polling data this year suggest that the state is in play, but historical trends, while pointed towards a gradual shift towards being competitive, still suggest that the state is a solid lock for the GOP, if just barely).
This is a map of the baselines each candidate has to build on on election night by winning swing states
https://www.270towin.com/maps/jQ0lx
As you can see, Biden has a stronger foundation to work with. To predict the rest of the nation ,the only data we have to work with are historical trends, recent results, and polling data. They will be uncertain until we know the the results of the election not too long after Nov 3rd, but based on polling data is seems very likely that in these 9 battle ground states, Biden picks up the the 41 electoral votes required to secure victory. Polling data suggest the Biden is significantly favored to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. With only those 3 states Biden passes 270 and wins the election. Trump on the other hand, is significantly favored in none of the the 9 battleground states. So when you see models predicting Biden has a high chance of winning, remember that it's because Biden has to do significantly less to win enough swing states to secure victory than Trump. Trump still has a good chance at winning, using 538s model it is about equivalent to the odds of rolling a 1 on a six sided dice
This is interesting.
In 2012 the MI PA WI triumverate also polled incorrectly....benefitting the Dems.
And remember that crazy polling error in MI when HRC was 99% supposed to win the MI primary but Bernie won instead.
None of this should make us feel any better about polling quality in those states, but we should remember that Biden might actually benefit from polling error, not be hurt by it.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1319292639921909761?s=20
Facts and Logic wrote:
Many people seem to not fully understand the quirk (or if you believe in a direct popular vote, the flaw) of the electoral college. It does no inherently favor Republicans. It does over represent the very smallest states, but that is almost always inconsequential to the overall outcome. The electoral college functions as 51 smaller elections for who the President should be, with the outcomes of these elections deciding who a group of elite representative from each state, the electors, will cast their votes for (though that's not always the case but faithless electors have never hanged the result of an election). The issue with this comes with how every state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, chooses their electors. The candidate with the plurality wins all of the states votes, regardless of their margin of victory. In the electoral college, if a candidate wins 100% of a states vote, or only a 40% plurality of the vote, the end result is the same, all of the states votes will go to that candidate. The 2016 election was a great demonstration of how this causes the outcome of the election to diverge from nationwide results. The election had numerous close outcomes in some very important states. For example, in Pennsylvania, Trump won 2,970,733 votes, narrowly beating out Clintons 2,926,441. Clintons votes still counted towards her national total, but for the purpose of the electoral college they might as well not have been cast at all, as all of the states 20 electoral votes went to Clinton. Michigan was even closer. In California, where Clinton easily won with 8,753,788 votes, Trump still got 4,483,810 votes, which is about the same number as the total votes cast in Michigan, but for the purposes of the electoral college, a group of voters the size of the entire voting population of Michigan in California was simply irrelevant.
The 2016 election has created a perception that the electoral college favors Republicans. In reality, what is does it is makes the votes of a large portion of the nation nearly inconsequential, with the only the votes of people that live in swing states truly mattering. And in 2016, the candidate who won the most swing states was Trump.
However, the electoral college doesn't look to be in Trump's favor this year. Remember the California example? The electoral college has created states that are virtually locked, states that are practically guaranteed to give their electoral votes to one candidate. Based on historical trends, past results, and polling data, it seems to be almost certain that Biden will win the states (and districts, Maine and Nebraska are a bit different) Clinton won in 2016. That will net him 229 electoral votes. Trump has stated that are virtually locked for him as well, but they will only net him 163 electoral votes (I'm putting Texas as a lock for Trump. Polling data this year suggest that the state is in play, but historical trends, while pointed towards a gradual shift towards being competitive, still suggest that the state is a solid lock for the GOP, if just barely).
This is a map of the baselines each candidate has to build on on election night by winning swing states
https://www.270towin.com/maps/jQ0lxAs you can see, Biden has a stronger foundation to work with. To predict the rest of the nation ,the only data we have to work with are historical trends, recent results, and polling data. They will be uncertain until we know the the results of the election not too long after Nov 3rd, but based on polling data is seems very likely that in these 9 battle ground states, Biden picks up the the 41 electoral votes required to secure victory. Polling data suggest the Biden is significantly favored to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. With only those 3 states Biden passes 270 and wins the election. Trump on the other hand, is significantly favored in none of the the 9 battleground states. So when you see models predicting Biden has a high chance of winning, remember that it's because Biden has to do significantly less to win enough swing states to secure victory than Trump. Trump still has a good chance at winning, using 538s model it is about equivalent to the odds of rolling a 1 on a six sided dice
Oops, I forgot to give Biden DCs 3 electoral votes. Small correction Biden has a baseline of 232 Electoral Votes and needs to pick up 38 from swing states.
Updated map:
https://www.270towin.com/maps/XNKOdFacts and Logic wrote:
Many people seem to not fully understand the quirk (or if you believe in a direct popular vote, the flaw) of the electoral college. It does no inherently favor Republicans. It does over represent the very smallest states, but that is almost always inconsequential to the overall outcome. The electoral college functions as 51 smaller elections for who the President should be, with the outcomes of these elections deciding who a group of elite representatives from each state, the electors, will cast their votes for (though that's not always the case but faithless electors have never hanged the result of an election). The issue with this comes with how every state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, chooses their electors. The candidate with the plurality wins all of the states votes, regardless of their margin of victory. In the electoral college, if a candidate wins 100% of a states vote, or only a 40% plurality of the vote, the end result is the same, all of the states votes will go to that candidate. The 2016 election was a great demonstration of how this causes the outcome of the election to diverge from nationwide results. The election had numerous close outcomes in some very important states. For example, in Pennsylvania, Trump won 2,970,733 votes, narrowly beating out Clintons 2,926,441. Clintons votes still counted towards her national total, but for the purpose of the electoral college they might as well not have been cast at all, as all of the states 20 electoral votes went to Trump. Michigan was even closer. In California, where Clinton easily won with 8,753,788 votes, Trump still got 4,483,810 votes, which is about the same number as the total votes cast in Michigan, but for the purposes of the electoral college, a group of voters the size of the entire voting population of Michigan in California were simply irrelevant.
The 2016 election has created a perception that the electoral college favors Republicans. In reality, what is does it is makes the votes of a large portion of the nation nearly inconsequential, with the only the votes of people that live in swing states truly mattering. And in 2016, the candidate who won the most swing states was Trump.
However, the electoral college doesn't look to be in Trump's favor this year. Remember the California example? The electoral college has created states that are virtually locked, states that are practically guaranteed to give their electoral votes to one candidate. Based on historical trends, past results, and polling data, it seems to be almost certain that Biden will win the states (and districts, Maine and Nebraska are a bit different) Clinton won in 2016. That will net him 232 electoral votes. Trump has stated that are virtually locked for him as well, but they will only net him 163 electoral votes (I'm putting Texas as a lock for Trump. Polling data this year suggest that the state is in play, but historical trends, while pointed towards a gradual shift towards being competitive, still suggest that the state is a solid lock for the GOP, if just barely).
This is a map of the baselines each candidate has to build on on election night by winning in swing states
https://www.270towin.com/maps/XNKOdAs you can see, Biden has a stronger foundation to work with. To predict the rest of the nation, the only data we have to work with are historical trends, recent results, and polling data. They will be uncertain until we know the the results of the election not too long after Nov 3rd, but based on polling data is seems very likely that in these 9 battle ground states, Biden picks up the the 38 electoral votes required to secure victory. Polling data suggest the Biden is significantly favored to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. With only those 3 states Biden passes 270 and wins the election. Trump on the other hand, is significantly favored in none of the the 9 battleground states. So when you see models predicting Biden has a high chance of winning, remember that it's because Biden has to do significantly less to win enough swing states to secure victory than Trump. Trump still has a good chance at winning, using 538s model it is about equivalent to the odds of rolling a 1 on a six sided dice
Ok I think I fixed all the mistakes lol
agip wrote:
but we should remember that Biden might actually benefit from polling error, not be hurt by it.
Absolutely.
I hope he benefits to the tune of 400 electoral votes.
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
No civil war is going to happen. Sadly, we may see some domestic terrorism and hate crimes but, no full blown conflict. The military will follow the lawful orders of the duly elected President. The cops will also toe the line.
This ^
Hunter Biden is trash ... even worse than Trump
Inside the life of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s scandal-plagued son
By Emily JacobsOctober 14, 2020 | 5:34pm | Updated
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad
Close
MORE ON:
HUNTER BIDEN
Senate subpoenas social media CEOs over handling of Post's Hunter Biden story
Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden's push to make millions from China: Goodwin
Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money-laundering probe
Donald, focus on biting Joe Biden off the dust, not Hunter: Devine
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Hunter has been back in the news since his father announced his 2020 run last year.
Hunter Biden made headlines again on Oct. 14 when The Post exclusively reported on emails between him and Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings.
The emails reveal the possibility of a previously unreported meeting between the elder Biden and an official from Burisma, any involvement with which the Democratic presidential nominee has adamantly denied without going into detail.
Here’s what we know about Hunter Biden before he found himself swept up in yet another scandal.
Early life
Born on Feb. 4, 1970, Robert Hunter Biden and his older brother Beau’s lives were rocked when their mother, Neilia Biden, and sister, Naomi, were killed in a car accident in December 1972.
Just one month later, Hunter and Beau found themselves surrounded by reporters as their father was sworn in as the youngest-ever member of the US Senate.
Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, Beau Biden, Joe Biden Sr.
12
Hunter Biden (center) with his father, Jill Biden and brother Beau at a campaign event in 1988.AP Photo/Sen. Biden's office
The two boys continued growing up in Wilmington, Del., with their widowed father commuting back and forth each day by train to be with them at night.
The Biden brothers encouraged their father to date in the years after their mother’s passing, and he eventually did, meeting Dr. Jill Jacobs, who later became his wife and took his name.
They had a daughter, Ashley, born in 1981.
Love life
Hunter Biden met and married Kathleen Buhle in 1993. The two divorced in 2017 after a 22-year marriage that produced three daughters. In divorce papers, Kathleen accused her ex of blowing family funds on drugs and prostitutes.
The same year as the split — as was first reported by Page Six — Hunter began dating his widowed sister-in-law, Hallie Biden, who had lost her husband, Beau, to brain cancer in 2015.
The two began dating while he was recovering from a crack binge, which he explained in a New Yorker interview last July took place while grieving his brother’s death.
Enlarge ImageHunter and Kathleen Biden
Hunter and Kathleen BidenRon Sachs - CNP
Hunter had been kicked out of his marital home with then-estranged wife Kathleen over his failure to stay sober, and began spending most nights at Hallie’s house “sharing a very specific grief” over Beau.
The former vice president did not initially know of the relationship, and found out after being reached for comment by Page Six.
After being made aware, the VP and second lady offered their blessing of the relationship in a statement.
“We are all lucky that Hunter and Hallie found each other as they were putting their lives together again after such sadness. They have mine and Jill’s full and complete support and we are happy for them,” the two said at the time.
Hunter and Hallie released a similar statement at the same time, which read, “Hallie and I are incredibly lucky to have found the love and support we have for each other in such a difficult time, and that’s been obvious to the people who love us most. We’ve been so lucky to have family and friends who have supported us every step of the way.”
They dated for about two years before splitting in early 2019.
In late 2019, Hunter entered a court battle over unpaid child support for a baby he fathered with ex-stripper Lunden Alexis Roberts.
Roberts filed a suit against Hunter in November after he denied being the father of their child, born in August 2018, and subsequently declined to pay child support.
nypost_20191128_BRXP-3_001
12
The New York Post cover featuring Biden and Lunden Alexis Roberts.
In January 2020, an Arkansas judge ruled that Biden was the “biological and legal father” of the baby, noting that a DNA test had showed “with near scientific certainty” that Hunter was the parent.
The two reached an out-of-court settlement in which Biden agreed to retroactively pay child support going back to November 2018.
Hunter has since gotten remarried to a South African woman named Melissa Cohen, whom he wed just 10 days after meeting her. They welcomed their first child, a boy, in April of this year.
Drug problems
Hunter Biden has long suffered from drug problems, and it even ended his brief attempt at a military career in his 40s. He was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February 2014 after he tested positive for cocaine.
He was serving as an ensign after being given two waivers, one for his age and one for his drug use as a younger man.
“It was the honor of my life to serve in the US Navy, and I deeply regret and am embarrassed that my actions led to my administrative discharge,” he said after news of his discharge broke.
When President Trump brought the incident up at last month’s debate, Joe Biden defended his son.
“My son, like a lot of people at home, had a drug problem,” he said. “He’s overtaking it. He’s fixed it. He’s worked on it. And I’m proud of him. I’m proud of my son.”
Hunter discussed his drug use during his New Yorker interview last year, in which he admitted to almost having a brush with law enforcement after damaging a rental car in Arizona in 2016.
After the car was replaced by Hertz, the rental car company, a rental officer found a crack pipe in the car along with a white powder residue.
Police were called, but there was no evidence that Hunter had used the pipe, so narcotics charges weren’t pursued, the magazine reported.
The younger Biden’s drug problems date back far further than 2016, however.
Hunter was arrested in 1988 for drug possession, something he admitted to in a 2006 disclosure form after being nominated to serve on the Amtrak Reform Board.
“I was cited for possession of a controlled substance in Stone Harbor, NJ. There was a pre-trial intervention and the record was expunged,” he admitted.
In November 2019, Page Six exclusively reported that the former vice president’s son was suspected of smoking crack inside a Washington, DC, strip club where he dropped “thousands of dollars” during multiple visits.
Enlarge ImageHunter Biden
Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images
The incident, which took place at Archibald’s Gentlemen’s Club late last year, represents the most recent alleged drug use by Biden, who has acknowledged six stints in rehab for alcoholism and addiction.
Security worker Ranko Petrovic said Biden would routinely hole up in a VIP room and drink during his visits.
Although Petrovic said the club “had no issue with him,” former Archibald’s managing partner James Ritter said one occasion in late 2018 was marred by a “suspicion of drug use.”
He checked into rehab at the Grace Grove Lifestyle Center in Sedona, Ariz., in October 2016, but left after one week and headed to the nearby Mii Amo resort spa.
It was there that Hunter and Hallie launched their affair, he told the New Yorker.
Page Six has also spotted Biden on multiple occasions at Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Hell’s Kitchen. He was seen on each occasion with a woman who was not a dancer at the club. The two spent thousands each night on pricey booze and were joined by several strippers.
At one point, a stripper was scrambling to buy a sex toy so others could use it on him.
Ukraine
Hunter did not become a mainstay in the news until his role with Burisma during his father’s tenure as vice president became a primary focus of the Ukraine scandal surrounding Trump, an issue that led to the president’s eventual impeachment trial along party lines in the House and acquittal by the Senate.
During the hearings and subsequent trial, Democrats accused Trump of offering a quid pro quo by requesting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky launch an investigation into the Bidens while Trump was withholding nearly $400 million in aid to the country.
Republicans, meanwhile, argued that allegations against the Bidens were damning enough to merit the president asking for a probe, regardless of Joe’s candidacy for president.
Hunter has been accused of profiting off his father’s vice presidential status by earning tens of thousands of dollars per month to sit on a board for a corrupt company in an industry in which he had no prior experience.
At the time, the elder Biden led the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.
Hunter’s role with Burisma raised red flags for some in the Obama administration’s State Department, which a recent Senate Homeland Security Committee report found were raised to Biden and those in his orbit.
The 87-page report published late last month noted that two American officials — George Kent, former acting deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Kiev, and senior State Department official Amos Hochstein — “raised concerns” to Biden’s staff and directly to Biden, respectively.
“Despite the efforts of these individuals, their concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears,” the report says.
“Moreover, this investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president’s son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch.”
Enlarge ImageJoe and Hunter Biden
Joe and Hunter BidenAP
Joe Biden said last year of Hunter, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” including his reported $83,000 monthly pay on Burisma’s board.
Both he and Hunter have denied any wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine, and spokespeople for Joe Biden’s campaign have repeatedly slammed the Senate probe as biased and political.
That Senate report also found that in 2014, the younger Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow.
“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.
The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.
Just Wundrin wrote:
suree wrote:
lol you really don't get it, do you?
Enlighten me. Define "momentum".
Still waiting to benefit from your brilliance.
Flagpole wrote:
highhoppingworm wrote:
I’m actually interested in seeing a real wager here. Would someone actually put their money where their mouth is? At 91% certainty surely you would be willing to place a substantial wager at even money.
Betting money is low class. That's why I don't do it. Rigged doesn't bet on this election though because he's not as sure of victory as he claims to be. Low class activities are not something he avoids.
Flagpole - just get lost Dude. You are the most annoying person ever. No one likes you. You have been wrong about just about EVERYTHING. We get it - you are short and bald and living in Cleveland. I would be angry too! We understand that. But just get lost.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Hunter Biden is trash ... even worse than Trump
I suggest that you don't vote for either of them.
Just Wundrin wrote:
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
No civil war is going to happen. Sadly, we may see some domestic terrorism and hate crimes but, no full blown conflict. The military will follow the lawful orders of the duly elected President. The cops will also toe the line.
This ^
If Biden wins, the duly elected president will not take office until January 20.
So they would be under Trump's "lawful" orders for two and a half months.
Anything stopping him from making unlawful orders?
To what extent would they follow him?
The questions seem ridiculous but it also seemed ridiculous to have to make a debate rule of turning off a mic.
It was ridiculous for the president to withhold funds from Ukraine for political gain.
It's ridiculous to keep having government officials to stay at Trump properties.
I don't know what Trump would try to do in a two and a half month lame duck period.
We know he's not like presidents of the past.
And we get reports of these kidnapping plans and loyal followers with guns.
We may see another level of social unrest.
Calamity Joe wrote:
lots and lots of words about a completely discredited story
What a waste!
L L wrote:
Just Wundrin wrote:
This ^
If Biden wins, the duly elected president will not take office until January 20.
So they would be under Trump's "lawful" orders for two and a half months.
Anything stopping him from making unlawful orders?
To what extent would they follow him?
The questions seem ridiculous but it also seemed ridiculous to have to make a debate rule of turning off a mic.
It was ridiculous for the president to withhold funds from Ukraine for political gain.
It's ridiculous to keep having government officials to stay at Trump properties.
I don't know what Trump would try to do in a two and a half month lame duck period.
We know he's not like presidents of the past.
And we get reports of these kidnapping plans and loyal followers with guns.
We may see another level of social unrest.
We shall see
johnny99 wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Hunter Biden is trash ... even worse than Trump
I suggest that you don't vote for either of them.
Seriously, if you're so concerned about the children of the candidates, you might want to think about Trump's children. In the case of Ivanka, she's more relevant than Hunter Biden since she, and her robot of a husband, have official positions in the White House.
Did Trump's reversal of policy on ZTE have anything to do with the valuable patents that Ivanka obtained from the Chinese government a few days earlier, or is the timing just an incredible coincidence? Is Trump looking out for the interests of the United States or the interests of him and his family when he negotiates (so far unsuccessfully) a trade deal with China, at the same time that China is granting those same valuable patents?
I won't even go into the secret Chinese bank account connected to a Trump company that was supposedly inactive after 2015, except that in 2017 the company reported $17.5 million more in revenue than the prior 5 years combined, followed by a withdrawal from the secret account of $15 million by Trump.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/donald-trump-chinese-bank-accountIf Biden is elected, Trump will bluster and encourage some of his goons to do stupid violent things. He and his cronies will also try to grift as much as possible before trying to escape the country. The Joint Chiefs and military command structure will just ignore him and stonewall anything not considered an immediate threat to national security.
If Trump loses, his minions will mostly be lost and pondering what comes next. They will just go back to their lives of earning a paycheck, going to church, and watching sports. Most people get pissed off for a few hours and then just sleep it off. I don't see his hardcore 30% base going on a suicide mission because they are largely just fearful people that lack confidence. Trump made them feel like winners for a few years. If they were serious, they would have burned down the country while Obama was President because he was gun grabbing and forcing churches to have drag shows and teaching school kids that Che Guevara wrote the Declaration of Independence and...