HanoiVillan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: I still wouldn't completely rule out (3) some sort of mass voter intimidation / suppression / ballot destruction/ martial law declaration. He's that nuts after all and when he accepts that he's likely going to get a hammering there are probably unimaginable levels of crazy he could resort to. Fortunately the margin is looking like it might be wide enough that even that wouldn't work though. There's a range of actions in your list there, from I think the guaranteed (Republicans attempt to suppress the vote in every election) through to the unlikely-but-possible (ballot destruction/not counting certain votes) to what I would consider essentially impossible (martial law). Shenanigans like losing boxes of ballots or having heavies 'monitoring' polling stations could do some damage at the margins, but as you say, the race would probably need to tighten for that to be effective in changing the result. There is a question about how he acts on election night, which in turn depends on how quickly states get called (many won't be ready to call on the night itself). So it could yet get messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: There is a question about how he acts on election night, which in turn depends on how quickly states get called (many won't be ready to call on the night itself). So it could yet get messy. I think the hope is that Florida is called for Biden - they count all their early ballots quickly and if the on the day voting margin is wide enough to call it for him (and unless it's 2000-style close then it should be known within a day of the election) - then I think that problem goes away as there isn't really a viable route for Trump, regardless of how long other states take. If it's called for Trump or goes to recounts, then that will be a trigger for a shit-show across numerous other states and probably the Supreme Court getting involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayk Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, bickster said: I didn't say that you did say that. You understand the concept of a question? So it's just Trump that was faking it amongst the many others that weren't? I take it you don’t understand the concept of a genuine question and a rhetorical one. Quote You think the rest of the WH staffers that have it is fake too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayk Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bickster said: So it's just Trump that was faking it amongst the many others that weren't? On this particular point......absolutely! He denigrates genuine news as fake news so knows how to work fake news as genuine news. Surely that should come as NO surprise to anyone? Oh and by the way, he has the most to lose. Edited October 13, 2020 by rayk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 13, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, rayk said: I take it you don’t understand the concept of a genuine question and a rhetorical one. Being as I was attempting to elict an answer, clearly I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayk Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, bickster said: Being as I was attempting to elict an answer, clearly I do! That’s nice hindsight....the question was more to make a point so still rhetorical buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 13, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, rayk said: On this particular point......absolutely! He denigrates genuine news as fake news so knows how to work fake news as genuine news. Sureley that should come as a surprise to anyone? Oh and by the way, he has the most to lose. OK, here's my 2p worth. Trump got Covid. But he had it MUCH earlier than he let on, either wasn't tested or the tests were ignored and it's only when his symptoms became "obvious" did they declare it, meaning he and / or many of his close staff also spread the virus to lots of other people, needlessly. Trumps ego and his poll ratings were far more important to him than the safety of others. I have no doubt he got Covid, the conspiracy is more about WHEN he got it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 13, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, rayk said: That’s nice hindsight....the question was more to make a point so still rhetorical buddy. What point was it making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayk Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, bickster said: What point was it making? That it was nigh on impossible for Trump not to have COVID-19 IF WH staffers do have it. Of course you can have a situation where Trump remains Covid negative even if WH staffers do have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayk Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, bickster said: OK, here's my 2p worth. Trump got Covid. But he had it MUCH earlier than he let on, either wasn't tested or the tests were ignored and it's only when his symptoms became "obvious" did they declare it, meaning he and / or many of his close staff also spread the virus to lots of other people, needlessly. Trumps ego and his poll ratings were far more important to him than the safety of others. I have no doubt he got Covid, the conspiracy is more about WHEN he got it. The question is IF he had it and the symptoms were clearly mild (for him as FACT given the all clear so quickly) why was it even revealed? The ONLY reason for it to be made public is that Trump and his advisers believe there is political capital for him to have / had Covid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, rayk said: The ONLY reason for it to be made public is that Trump and his advisers believe there is political capital for him to have / had Covid. He had to go to hospital, in the middle of an election campaign. It would have been pretty hard to keep it a secret. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted October 13, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, rayk said: The question is IF he had it and the symptoms were clearly mild (for him as FACT given the all clear so quickly) why was it even revealed? The ONLY reason for it to be made public is that Trump and his advisers believe there is political capital for him to have / had Covid. Less than a week before his taxes were released. No one is talking about that anymore. It’s like it never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancvillan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: I think the hope is that Florida is called for Biden - they count all their early ballots quickly and if the on the day voting margin is wide enough to call it for him (and unless it's 2000-style close then it should be known within a day of the election) - then I think that problem goes away as there isn't really a viable route for Trump, regardless of how long other states take. If it's called for Trump or goes to recounts, then that will be a trigger for a shit-show across numerous other states and probably the Supreme Court getting involved. For at least the last twenty years I've uttered the phrase "**** Florida" at some point during every election. They've managed to (administratively) **** up every election in living memory, so I wouldn't count too heavily on them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 13, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2020 39 minutes ago, rayk said: That it was nigh on impossible for Trump not to have COVID-19 IF WH staffers do have it. Of course you can have a situation where Trump remains Covid negative even if WH staffers do have it. That really wasn't the point I was making. I was asking you a question because the timelines of events don't really add up and there's been complete obfuscation to the question of when Trump tested positive. Hope Hicks was the first to be announced iirc, then maybe a couple of others before Trump. The rest of the staff/politicians were announced as positive after Trump and given Trump went to hospital a very short time after being announced positive, it suggests that he'd had it for some considerable time before the announcement. It's far more likely that Trump was at the centre of spreading the outbreak and not him avoiding catching it from other staffers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 not sure if that's true. I can't imagine Trump sharing anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Yeah, he's in a much better position than Clinton was. Basically, two ways Trump can still win: A very large polling error, one of the largest in history; The polls tighten over the next 3 weeks, then a more realistic sized polling error such as 2016 Nothing can be counted out, and a 13% chance of winning (per that forecast) is not the same as a 0% chance of winning, but obviously it's not looking great for him at the moment. Not quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, villakram said: Not quite. Hopefully the difference this time is that in '16 there was still an element of jumping into the unknown with Trump, people who were tired of the status quo and willing to say 'what the hell, he can't be that bad'. Surely there can't be that many people out there who by now don't have a firm opinion on him either way so logically the polls should reflect that shouldnt they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancvillan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 46 minutes ago, villakram said: Not quite. So what Trump would need is: 1. Biden suffering something as devastating to his numbers as the Comey letter and 2. The same polling error as in 2016. Which was the second option @HanoiVillan gave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 13, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2020 55 minutes ago, villakram said: Not quite. Not disputing what it says as I'm not up on it that much but the source at the bottom... RCP is very right of centre in American politics (usually) and erm how much does Trump owe Deutsche Bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 19 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: Hopefully the difference this time is that in '16 there was still an element of jumping into the unknown with Trump, people who were tired of the status quo and willing to say 'what the hell, he can't be that bad'. Surely there can't be that many people out there who by now don't have a firm opinion on him either way so logically the polls should reflect that shouldnt they? There are far fewer undecided voters this time. For comparison: 2016 Clinton 46 Trump 40 2020 Biden 52 Trump 42 It makes a huge difference that Biden is at a higher level of support, over 50%, and that there are half the proportion of undecided voters than in 2016. 37 minutes ago, villakram said: Not quite. My understanding of the difference between RCP averages and eg 538 is that RCP don't weight the pollsters for accuracy. I can see both sides of the argument on the value of doing so, but I think it makes more sense to distinguish between higher- and lower-quality pollsters. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts