Election 2020

[onejayhawk]

Okay, I'll give you your 2% increase and that brings Trump to around 64.5-65 million votes, and that assumes he has not lost a single voter from 2016, a dubious proposition at best. Your "simple arithmetic" states that he has maintained all of his voters from 2016 and has, in fact, added another 6 to 6.5 million supporters for this election. His "motivated, pissed off" base already voted for him in 2016, so they are not part of the additional votes that you posit are going Trump's way.

Certainly the base voted in 2016, though how fully is a separate question. However a lot of Republicans were not yet in the base. Reference, yet again, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin. Trump won them over, eg chancellor.

[umjewman]

Certainly the base voted in 2016, though how fully is a separate question. However a lot of Republicans were not yet in the base. Reference, yet again, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin. Trump won them over, eg chancellor.

Okay, so to get to your 71 million, you've got:

100% of the 62.5M who voted for Trump in 2016

Plus

100% of the approximately 4.5M who voted for Johnson in 2016

Plus

100% of the approximately 750K who voted for McMullin in 2016

Plus

a 2% increase for population growth.

Plus

I guess an additional 1-1.5M who he has won over but didn't vote in 2016 or voted for HRC. And this is all without losing a single person who voted for him in 2016.

[Gregg]

So by your twisted pretzel logic, there are 220 million eligible voters but if only 43% support Trump, then 57% do not. So by your 5th grade math, that's 125,400,000 potential Biden voters compared to just 95,000,000 potential Trump voters.

In addition, you conveniently forgot that out of these "220 million eligible voters" Trump only received ~62m of them in 2016.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that 100 million of these eligible voters sit every election out.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that he's presided over the biggest shitstorm since the 1960s and done next to nothing about it, and the Independents have taken notice to a 60%-65% ratio against him.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is the fervor to replace this ineffective and incompetent asshole is so large that Biden almost doesn't even factor into the thinking of why you should vote for him.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that the Dems win the popular vote every presidential election cycle now and your shit-feeding hero only won certain battleground states by 10,000 votes in 2016 and hasn't gained ANY support since then. In fact, he's lost a tremendous amount of support and that's backed up by not only current polls but actual elections in these states and districts where Republican support has dropped wildly.

So please stop with your asinine certainties of how this election will play out because it can go either way, but is certainly trending against your hero.

Why would you want him to do that when you and the others derive so much enjoyment of engaging with him.

Have fun with it. He seems to be.

[Gregg]

So by your twisted pretzel logic, there are 220 million eligible voters but if only 43% support Trump, then 57% do not. So by your 5th grade math, that's 125,400,000 potential Biden voters compared to just 95,000,000 potential Trump voters.

In addition, you conveniently forgot that out of these "220 million eligible voters" Trump only received ~62m of them in 2016.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that 100 million of these eligible voters sit every election out.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that he's presided over the biggest shitstorm since the 1960s and done next to nothing about it, and the Independents have taken notice to a 60%-65% ratio against him.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is the fervor to replace this ineffective and incompetent asshole is so large that Biden almost doesn't even factor into the thinking of why you should vote for him.

The real reality, not OneJay reality, is that the Dems win the popular vote every presidential election cycle now and your shit-feeding hero only won certain battleground states by 10,000 votes in 2016 and hasn't gained ANY support since then. In fact, he's lost a tremendous amount of support and that's backed up by not only current polls but actual elections in these states and districts where Republican support has dropped wildly.

So please stop with your asinine certainties of how this election will play out because it can go either way, but is certainly trending against your hero.

You seem to be correct. How many more Democratic voters would have been needed for HRC to prevent this whole thread?

It seems like all elections could have different outcomes if each side could persuade more voters to turn out.

[revo]

You seem to be correct. How many more Democratic voters would have been needed for HRC to prevent this whole thread?

It seems like all elections could have different outcomes if each side could persuade more voters to turn out.

Exactly. It's a ridiculous assertion to make.

"If Woody would have gone straight to the police, this would never had happened."

[Sour Masher]

As long as there are apple cider donuts as a reward at the end of the day, I'm good with the apple picking.

Well, yeah, obviously, the donuts are the true aim. And those are my favs too, though a good powdered ain't bad either.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Trump won over Evan McMullin?

(The answer is no, no he did not.)

[chancellor]

2016 turnout: eligible voters approximately 250M. Votes: 138M
2012 turnout: eligible voters approximately 235M. Votes: 129M
2008 turnout: eligible voters approximately 229M. Votes: 131M
2004 turnout: eligible voters approximately 219M. Votes: 122M
2000 turnout: eligible voters approximately 209M. Votes: 105M
1996 turnout: eligible voters approximately 196M. Votes: 96M.

So, there's my first quibble. You say that 100M sitting out the election has never happened. Looks like about 100M do sit out virtually every presidential election.

Is that voting age population versus actual voters? US Census had voting eligible versus actual voters at a roughly 92 million difference in 2016, good for a roughly 60% turnout. But if you're right on 112 million eligible who sat out, that likely favors Democrats more, but not certainly. That's where all this discussion about the "enthusiasm gap" comes into play - first, how many additional voters will there be if turnout increases and second, if turnout does increase, who's showing up to vote?

So if you're right on the 112 million eligible who sat out, and turnout increases significantly due to the enthusiasm of the race, OneJ's 71 million isn't out of the question. The odds of making 71 million decrease if the eligible voter pool that didn't vote is only 92 million. The bigger issue is if turnout increases to the level to drive 71 million for Trump - how many does that mean Biden gains? It does Trump no good to get 71 million votes due to higher turnout if the voter split follows the 2016 election, where Clinton received 2% more of the vote. So, for this to work to Trump's positive, the 71 million must come from both higher turnout AND a gain from his base being more enthusiastic and showing up at a higher percentage than the Biden voters.

[revo]

Trump won over Evan McMullin?

(The answer is no, no he did not.)

It doesn’t matter. If he gets all of Evan McMullen’s votes, he wins easily. See, what’s so difficult about that, duhhh?

[Sour Masher]

Trump won over Evan McMullin?

(The answer is no, no he did not.)

Here are McMullin's most recent tweets. If those who voted for him think anything at all like him, they certainly will not be voting for Trump:

Evan McMullin
@EvanMcMullin
This is a gut-wrenching account of the self-imposed limitations and failings of Mueller's probe, which left Trump free to keep welcoming foreign backing – evidence that our institutions are unready to counter threats to our democracy. Doing so is up to us.

@EvanMcMullin
·
Sep 19
If a divisive president who rose to power with the illicit backing of a foreign enemy installs three Supreme Court justices seen as partisan loyalists, it will further divide the nation and likely cause tit-for-tat partisan court packing that will destroy judicial independence.

And here is his most recent rewteet:


Heath Mayo
@HeathMayo
· Sep 19
I’m a Christian, pro-life, pro-2A conservative that has never voted for a Democrat in my life and who disagrees with much of the Dem platform. But Trump and his ilk have actively degraded the GOP & pushed conservatives like me away—& I will now vote for Joe Biden as a result.

[Sour Masher]

More fake news, I suppose, but politico has Trump taking a huge hit among white voters. Inexplicable to me, he seems to actually be doing marginally better among black and Latinx voters. But the swing toward Biden for white voters is massive is a much bigger net loss. I'm sure some will choose to believe the latter fact is credible, but the former is fake: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...support-418420

[umjewman]

Is that voting age population versus actual voters? US Census had voting eligible versus actual voters at a roughly 92 million difference in 2016, good for a roughly 60% turnout. But if you're right on 112 million eligible who sat out, that likely favors Democrats more, but not certainly. That's where all this discussion about the "enthusiasm gap" comes into play - first, how many additional voters will there be if turnout increases and second, if turnout does increase, who's showing up to vote?

So if you're right on the 112 million eligible who sat out, and turnout increases significantly due to the enthusiasm of the race, OneJ's 71 million isn't out of the question. The odds of making 71 million decrease if the eligible voter pool that didn't vote is only 92 million. The bigger issue is if turnout increases to the level to drive 71 million for Trump - how many does that mean Biden gains? It does Trump no good to get 71 million votes due to higher turnout if the voter split follows the 2016 election, where Clinton received 2% more of the vote. So, for this to work to Trump's positive, the 71 million must come from both higher turnout AND a gain from his base being more enthusiastic and showing up at a higher percentage than the Biden voters.

Admittedly, that is voting age population, rather than voting eligible, so good catch. Of course, whether it's 92 or 112 million who sat out, if you're starting from 220 million eligible voters with your calculations (as OneJ did), that is in error since he does not account for the substantial number of people that simply will not vote. Even with increased enthusiasm, how many people are going to vote in this election? 150M? Of those 12M additional votes, Trump is going to take them on a 2/3-1/3 basis? And this is also granting the premise that he has not lost a single voter from 2016 or that each voter he has lost has been cancelled out by a voter who voted for someone else. I just don't see it. But, I have no quarrel with thee. You actually make sense when you're posting, rather than posting cryptic, mysterious gibberish.

[Sour Masher]

Admittedly, that is voting age population, rather than voting eligible, so good catch. Of course, whether it's 92 or 112 million who sat out, if you're starting from 220 million eligible voters with your calculations (as OneJ did), that is in error since he does not account for the substantial number of people that simply will not vote. Even with increased enthusiasm, how many people are going to vote in this election? 150M? Of those 12M additional votes, Trump is going to take them on a 2/3-1/3 basis? And this is also granting the premise that he has not lost a single voter from 2016 or that each voter he has lost has been cancelled out by a voter who voted for someone else. I just don't see it. But, I have no quarrel with thee. You actually make sense when you're posting, rather than posting cryptic, mysterious gibberish.

Yeah, Chance knows his stuff. In fact, though I respect his intellect and patience in this forums, the existence of folks like Chance depresses me, at least politically (no offense, Chance). It would be much easier for me if I could think that all Trump supporters were closer to 1jay in being flippant with facts and seeming disconnected from reality, and simply did not comprehend who Donald Trump is and what he represents, or refuse to see it head on (like refusing to see how unrepresentative he is of traditional Republican values, like his lack of respect for the law, when it does not favor him). Sadly, people like Chance remind me that is not the case. Some bright, informed people know exactly who he is, make all the calculations, and decide to still support him.

ETA: On the other end of things, the Lincoln Project gives me hope for the future of a two party system in this country. I'm sure Trump supporters would just dismiss those Republicans coming out against Trump as deep state insiders fighting to preserve the status quo, but I prefer to see them as fighters for the soul of their party. I'm sure someone like Chance, with more historical knowledge of elections than I have, could tell me if TLP is unprecedented. The passion and effectiveness of their opposition to the leader of their own party seems to be so to me.

[chancellor]

Admittedly, that is voting age population, rather than voting eligible, so good catch. Of course, whether it's 92 or 112 million who sat out, if you're starting from 220 million eligible voters with your calculations (as OneJ did), that is in error since he does not account for the substantial number of people that simply will not vote. Even with increased enthusiasm, how many people are going to vote in this election? 150M? Of those 12M additional votes, Trump is going to take them on a 2/3-1/3 basis? And this is also granting the premise that he has not lost a single voter from 2016 or that each voter he has lost has been cancelled out by a voter who voted for someone else. I just don't see it. But, I have no quarrel with thee. You actually make sense when you're posting, rather than posting cryptic, mysterious gibberish.

Thanks - if I wasn't clear about it being unlikely, I apologize. 71 million is highly unlikely in my POV. But impossible? No. Beneficial for the Trump campaign? Not necessarily.

[chancellor]

ETA: On the other end of things, the Lincoln Project gives me hope for the future of a two party system in this country. I'm sure Trump supporters would just dismiss those Republicans coming out against Trump as deep state insiders fighting to preserve the status quo, but I prefer to see them as fighters for the soul of their party. I'm sure someone like Chance, with more historical knowledge of elections than I have, could tell me if TLP is unprecedented. The passion and effectiveness of their opposition to the leader of their own party seems to be so to me.

I think their visibility is unprecedented, party splits like this are not. My lifetime has seen more "battles for the soul" of the GOP than Voldemort had horcruxes