Re: Trump Vs Biden --- The Election Thread
Posted: October 11th, 2020, 5:35 pm
-=OUR HOUSE=- A Forum for Fans of Duke Sports
https://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/
And I'm not sure how they designate these as Democratic vs Republican, but this is daunting for the Trump folks.In five states — including battleground Wisconsin and Minnesota — the number of ballots returned is more than 20% of the entire 2016 vote, according to McDonald’s tracking.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/democrat ... 55045.htmlAs of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.
McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...
A flood of mail-in ballots from Democratic voters are pouring into the mail and ballot collection boxes, overwhelming the number of GOP mail votes.
As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.
McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...
The “massive Democratic head start” makes it “much more difficult for the Trump campaign to play catch up,.” Louisiana pollster John Couvillon, who tracks voter statistics, told The Hill. The Democratic Party is armed with information to target areas with lower mail-in turnout, he noted.
Have the Ds gotten smart? It happens about every 12 years, so they're due.CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:52 amWe figured election participation would be big...but it looking massive.
And I'm not sure how they designate these as Democratic vs Republican, but this is daunting for the Trump folks.In five states — including battleground Wisconsin and Minnesota — the number of ballots returned is more than 20% of the entire 2016 vote, according to McDonald’s tracking.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/democrat ... 55045.htmlAs of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.
McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...
A flood of mail-in ballots from Democratic voters are pouring into the mail and ballot collection boxes, overwhelming the number of GOP mail votes.
As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.
McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...
The “massive Democratic head start” makes it “much more difficult for the Trump campaign to play catch up,.” Louisiana pollster John Couvillon, who tracks voter statistics, told The Hill. The Democratic Party is armed with information to target areas with lower mail-in turnout, he noted.
I expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:55 amI think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.
I doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".dudog wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 2:13 pmI expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:55 amI think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaCameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 3:21 pmI doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".dudog wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 2:13 pmI expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:55 amI think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.
Seems that I read somewhere that neither is "allowed" to declare unless so stated by media and/or the higher ups running the election. Not that candidates have every disregarded those folks before...
Might not wait til the 3rd. Why not start off Monday by saying "I've won!"dudog wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 5:11 pmhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaCameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 3:21 pmI doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".
Seems that I read somewhere that neither is "allowed" to declare unless so stated by media and/or the higher ups running the election. Not that candidates have every disregarded those folks before...
Hey Rip Van Winkle, where ya been the last 5 years?
(just messin' with ya)
Trump is going to declare victory the first red state he wins. (I'm probably not far off on that)
I was, too, partly to watch her talk about her own family. As a parent of a child with Down Syndrome, you don't often see people in high-ranked positions who are in the same boat. Two things really struck me:CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:55 amI have been listening to the ACB hearing while working this morning.
Thank you for sharing your perspective - very interesting. I wrote off the youngest not being there to the fact that my kids, who are roughly that age, would not be able to sit through something like that, so they figured it wasn't worth trying - I was surprised the ones who went did as well as they did. Perhaps she could have held up a picture of him or something.Phredd3 wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 6:01 pmI was, too, partly to watch her talk about her own family. As a parent of a child with Down Syndrome, you don't often see people in high-ranked positions who are in the same boat. Two things really struck me:CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 11:55 amI have been listening to the ACB hearing while working this morning.
1. Of her immediate family, the only one who was not there in person was Ben, the child with Down Syndrome. Now, there may be perfectly good reasons why that maybe true. But it was very striking that there was only one exclusion in the entire family.
2. She mentioned a unique characteristic about every child in the family - except Ben. Her mention of him was only that he has Down Syndrome and that he is "the favorite" of the family, which doesn't say one thing about him as an individual.
I realize that I'm one of the few people who both watched the hearing and was paying attention to that part, but I have to say it really struck me in a very negative way. I wonder, based on that, what she would say about the ADA and IDEA and about school inclusion for private schools receiving public funds, which to my way of thinking should be very related to Roe v. Wade. It was a disappointing moment, to be sure.
I hear you, and I'm just as pissed. But I do want to hear how she handles the whole thing. She's a smart lady, there's no doubt about that, and she has some admirable qualities. If we're going to be stuck with her, I want to know as much as I can.CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 12:43 pmI have not watched any of the hearing, and intentionally did not watch the news last night. I probably won't tonight, either. The idea that they are even having a hearing is laughable.
The whole thing is a sham, just go ahead and vote her in now and be done with it.
OUCH!!A pair of polls that accurately predicted in 2016 that Donald Trump would win the election have released their predictions for the 2020 US election, and it does not bode well for Mr Trump.
.....
Both polls now predict that Mr Trump will lose the election.
On 12 Oct, the IBT poll predicted that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will beat Mr Trump by 8.5 percentage points. The USC poll predicted an even stronger victory, placing Mr Biden 13 percentage points ahead of Mr Trump.
I wish Democrats would be more forceful about what appellate judging actually is. In some sense, every single case is "legislating from the bench". Determining how the law applies in certain situations is about filling in the holes in the text. If the meaning of the text is really that clear in a particular case, the case never makes it past the district court level. Absolutely any case that is worth Supreme Court review is ambiguous in some way. Deciding that there is NOT a right to abortion implied in the language of the Constitution is legislating every bit as much as deciding that there IS such a right.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 12:59 pmI commented yesterday on the legislating from the bench topic. I am noticing it even more today. Republicans keep talking about how the Dems want to legislate from the bench. Let's focus on ACA. Trump ran on getting rid of it. Most would agree that it is not perfect, but it is a very good start and it is better than nothing. He has had 3.5 years to come up with a better alternative. Rather than doing so, he is going to try to have the supreme court overturn it. That is about the most "legislate from the bench" thing I can even think of.
We aren't meeting the conditional, so I'd phrase it this way: It doesn't matter what the rest of the world does if we don't do our part and more.dudog wrote: ↑October 14th, 2020, 1:42 pmThe Great Barrier Reef has lost half it's coral in the past 25 years. Horrific.
https://weather.com/science/environment ... -its-coral
Those of you under 40, or who have children/grandchildren, this should be the only issue that matters to you. Unfortunately, even if the U.S. does its part and more, it matters little if the rest of the world does not pitch in. Especially when China and India have almost 40% of the world population.