Among the names being floated for possible Biden Cabinet posts are Meg Whitman, the CEO of Quibi and former CEO of eBay, and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, both of whom spoke at August’s Democratic National Convention. Massachusetts GOP Gov. Charlie Baker and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have also been mentioned, as has former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who resigned from Congress in 2018 and became a lobbyist.
eh, this seems like a nothingburger. It's not shocking that he's considering some moderate Republicans for posts. Seems reasonably likely that there will be one or two that get nominated. That's fairly standard.
It'll only be a big deal if he nominates a Republican for something like AG.
What I worry about is that the record levels of early voting don’t translate in to increased overall voter participation. Obviously it wasn’t at these levels, but I remember hearing about how early voting turnout and demographics boded well for Clinton, but obviously that did not turn out to be the case.
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:46 pm
What I worry about is that the record levels of early voting don’t translate in to increased overall voter participation. Obviously it wasn’t at these levels, but I remember hearing about how early voting turnout and demographics boded well for Clinton, but obviously that did not turn out to be the case.
Odds are good that voter participation will be higher in 2020 than in 2016 (and probably higher than quite a few other years too). The voting isn't indicative of particular results at this point, as far as I'm aware - doesn't suggest anything that we don't know from current polling.
Yeah, it’s way too early of course to say anything other than that it seems like Dems are dominating in the early voting so far. But if that just is counteracted by day of voting, it doesn’t tell us a much.
It took me about 50 minutes to vote. I was something like the 1100 person to cast a ballot at that location, but I’m not sure if that number resets each day. If so, that a pretty impressive total for five hours, especially considering there are three other voting locations nearby.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:07 pmThis morning we crossed over 25% of the total 2016 vote count already cast in this election. Foregone conclusion that 2020's early voting count will set a new record by a wide margin. It'll be interesting to see the total including election day and how that total compares to 2016.
Yeah looks like we'll coast in around 35-40% early voting levels overall. It also means that the actual election day is incredibly important still.
In terms of voter suppression, there's a potential irony insofar as it seems like there's a real chance that the people left to vote on election day may be overwhelmingly Republican / Trumpist. Which means that if there's hugely long lines on election day, it could be Republicans who are disproportionately discouraged from voting as a result.
Oh, sweet Karma.
Doubt it. If that is indeed the case, you can bet Trump/GOP will be calling shenanigans somehow or some way. It'll be ugly. What we want is smooth voting for everyone on EDay. Probably won't happen but it would be the best outcome.
Well, Trump's going to be calling shenanigans regardless (don't forget that he called shenanigans in 2016, when he *won*). But people who get discouraged from voting because of the length of the lines are disqualified regardless - there's no way to cause them to be counted after the fact.
Now, this is speculative, and I doubt that any impact from that would be greater than the impact of intentional GOP suppression shenanigans, but it's one effect that could point the other direction.
But if red voters had to wait in lines for hours, missed voting, etc, they'll be more apt to get off their asses to back him up. If all goes well and he's howling for...whatever, they won't have as much motivation.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "“I like taking the guns early...to go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” -President Donald Trump. "...To guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." - Frederick Douglass MYT
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:07 pm
Yeah, it’s way too early of course to say anything other than that it seems like Dems are dominating in the early voting so far. But if that just is counteracted by day of voting, it doesn’t tell us a much.
It took me about 50 minutes to vote. I was something like the 1100 person to cast a ballot at that location, but I’m not sure if that number resets each day. If so, that a pretty impressive total for five hours, especially considering there are three other voting locations nearby.
If that was the number on your ballot, I don't think it resets each day. Mine was 1475 and I know there weren't that many processed before I got in there on that day. It was the 5th day of voting, so averaging 350/day before me is about right.
I dunno know what's up but shame on Lesley Stahl, irrespective of whatever shakes out or is much more to come or is from the interview. OTOH, Trump gets no kudos from me for pointing out her shame.
stessier wrote:
If that was the number on your ballot, I don't think it resets each day. Mine was 1475 and I know there weren't that many processed before I got in there on that day. It was the 5th day of voting, so averaging 350/day before me is about right.
If that’s the case then it seems like the location I went to had ~730 people yesterday. Seems pretty good but I’m sure it’ll slow down in the next few days.
LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:30 pm
I dunno know what's up but shame on Lesley Stahl, irrespective of whatever shakes out or is much more to come or is from the interview. OTOH, Trump gets no kudos from me for pointing out her shame.
I'm reluctant to credit anything that Trump says at this point, but it would be bizarre if Stahl went into the White House and chose not to wear a mask. I have to think there's an explanation for this.
LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:30 pm
I dunno know what's up but shame on Lesley Stahl, irrespective of whatever shakes out or is much more to come or is from the interview. OTOH, Trump gets no kudos from me for pointing out her shame.
I'm reluctant to credit anything that Trump says at this point, but it would be bizarre if Stahl went into the White House and chose not to wear a mask. I have to think there's an explanation for this.
My guess is that is right after a take and the PA hasn't yet come over with her mask yet.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "“I like taking the guns early...to go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” -President Donald Trump. "...To guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." - Frederick Douglass MYT
She was supposed to continue with the interview (where they were supposed to do a walk & talk with Mike Pence). She didn't expect Trump to walk away and not return for the final segment. It's hard to tell where they are in the White House, but it looks like she is literally still in the room where she was interviewing him, and others came in basically to tell her that Trump wasn't coming back.
Plus, she's had COVID earlier this year. So, according to Trump's own theory, not only is she immune now, but also cannot possibly be contagious.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:07 pmThis morning we crossed over 25% of the total 2016 vote count already cast in this election. Foregone conclusion that 2020's early voting count will set a new record by a wide margin. It'll be interesting to see the total including election day and how that total compares to 2016.
Yeah looks like we'll coast in around 35-40% early voting levels overall. It also means that the actual election day is incredibly important still.
In terms of voter suppression, there's a potential irony insofar as it seems like there's a real chance that the people left to vote on election day may be overwhelmingly Republican / Trumpist. Which means that if there's hugely long lines on election day, it could be Republicans who are disproportionately discouraged from voting as a result.
Oh, sweet Karma.
Doubt it. If that is indeed the case, you can bet Trump/GOP will be calling shenanigans somehow or some way. It'll be ugly. What we want is smooth voting for everyone on EDay. Probably won't happen but it would be the best outcome.
I've been spreading the word that Republicans vote on Wednesday the 4th. No crowds then!
I got my little sticker today. At least I can laugh that I canceled one evil doer out.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
All the recent polls I've seen have Biden with between an 8% and 15% lead (yeah, that's a huge variance) and all have him with over 50% of the vote. Now all of these were before the Hunter Biden laptop story, so we'll see how that shakes out but at this point, I do not that think is going to do that much. I'm not seeing that big a push on it from my Trumpy FB friends which is how I measure this stuff
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
After Democrats’ great midterm election, the 2020 election could be a second consecutive Democratic wave. According to FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts, Joe Biden has an 84 in 100 chance of winning the presidential election, Democrats have a 68 in 100 chance of flipping the Senate and the party has a 94 in 100 chance of keeping the House.1 Altogether, there’s a 65 in 100 chance that Democrats will have full control of the federal government next year.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
After Democrats’ great midterm election, the 2020 election could be a second consecutive Democratic wave. According to FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts, Joe Biden has an 84 in 100 chance of winning the presidential election, Democrats have a 68 in 100 chance of flipping the Senate and the party has a 94 in 100 chance of keeping the House.1 Altogether, there’s a 65 in 100 chance that Democrats will have full control of the federal government next year.
Seems a little out of date, since it's currently 87, 75 and 95 respectively (under the deluxe model, which gives the lowest percentages for Democrats).
You can pick the winner of each state and see how that pick correlates with the outcome odds of other states (e.g., if you say Biden wins Tennessee (currently Biden odds ~4%), then most of the map turns blue. If you give Oregon to Trump, most of the map turns red (though the effect isn't as dramatic as I would have thought).
As a side note it won't let you award a state to someone if their odds there are 1% or less. Tried to give MA to Trump, but the model basically said no we won't even entertain that. And as a side side note, having grown up with VA as a reliably red state, it's still weird to me that Trump's odds there are <1%.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:07 pmThis morning we crossed over 25% of the total 2016 vote count already cast in this election. Foregone conclusion that 2020's early voting count will set a new record by a wide margin. It'll be interesting to see the total including election day and how that total compares to 2016.
Yeah looks like we'll coast in around 35-40% early voting levels overall. It also means that the actual election day is incredibly important still.
I would take the over on that estimate, though your point (and Guap's, awesomely) stands.
I gave Co to Trump and Fl to Biden, and it gives Biden a better than 50% chance of winning MS and LA, which is a higher chance of Biden winning MS and LA than if Biden wins FL and Co.
I'm guessing that that's the case because they're accounting for the national polling numbers (if Biden is doing better than expected in one place, he's got to be doing worse than expected somewhere else), but it strikes me as a little weird (since I would think the maps under which Biden wins MS and LA are ones where he's winning a landslide).
Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:55 am
I gave Co to Trump and Fl to Biden, and it gives Biden a better than 50% chance of winning MS and LA, which is a higher chance of Biden winning MS and LA than if Biden wins FL and Co.
I'm guessing that that's the case because they're accounting for the national polling numbers (if Biden is doing better than expected in one place, he's got to be doing worse than expected somewhere else), but it strikes me as a little weird (since I would think the maps under which Biden wins MS and LA are ones where he's winning a landslide).
Guessing that's a result of this:
How this works: We start with the 40,000 simulations that our election forecast runs every time it updates. When you choose the winner of a state or district, we throw out any simulations where the outcome you picked didn’t happen and recalculate the candidates’ chances using just the simulations that are left.If you choose enough unlikely outcomes, we’ll eventually wind up with so few simulations remaining that we can’t produce accurate results. When that happens, we go back to our full set of simulations and run a series of regressions to see how your scenario might look if it turned up more often.
I think basically there are so few scenarios where Biden wins FL but loses CO that it basically tosses aside the existing model and runs new regressions to fit the new conditions. E.g., it builds a new world that basically asks "what does the world look like if Biden's winning FL and Trump's winning CO?" I assume if that's the case then the Biden and Trump coalitions look a lot different demographically, so the states that you would expect each candidate to be competitive in change significantly.
Last edited by El Guapo on Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
The very serious people are saying we'll see a reversion to mean on the national polling and that it doesn't necessarily much. I agree to a point on this. However, they've been consistently high so a reversion to mean is still pretty high potentially. In addition, Trump isn't doing anything to change the story. In fact, he has pressed the gas pedal on all the negative elements that haven't polled well.
That said we're still inside margin of error on many of these races so uncertainty is very high here. The reality is Biden doesn't have this in the bag though we have reason to expect that the ball will bounce in a good direction. Senate races margins are razor thin as well. Risks to our way of life are still sky high so I will probably have high anxiety...probably until mid-November at this point. Especially since the most likely Trump wins scenario with current data is a heavily lopsided popular vote in favor of Biden and a razor thin EC victory for Trump. It's low percentage but it's possible and it'd be ruinous.
malchior wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:04 amIn addition, Trump isn't doing anything to change the story. In fact, he has pressed the gas pedal on all the negative elements that haven't polled well.
Which, well, I can't disagree that he likely has a better shot in a debate that focuses on that rather than America itself. But yegads, man. America's standing in the world has fallen so precipitously these past four years.
Zaxxon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:11 am
I mean, his campaign is pushing for a foreign policy debatechance to bleat about their completely nonsensical Hunter Biden "corruption" scandal.
FTFY.
Let's not think for a single second that Trump actually wants to discuss anything about foreign policy. Every reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Skinypupy wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:07 amEvery reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Zaxxon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:11 am
I mean, his campaign is pushing for a foreign policy debatechance to bleat about their completely nonsensical Hunter Biden "corruption" scandal.
FTFY.
Let's not think for a single second that Trump actually wants to discuss anything about foreign policy. Every reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
True. Though at the same time, this would also give Biden a chance to highlight to the public a number of things which are not well understood by the public, e.g., Trump's secret Chinese bank account, that Trump owes >$400MM over the next four years to unknown counterparties, etc.
Zaxxon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:11 am
I mean, his campaign is pushing for a foreign policy debatechance to bleat about their completely nonsensical Hunter Biden "corruption" scandal.
FTFY.
Let's not think for a single second that Trump actually wants to discuss anything about foreign policy. Every reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
Yup. The 60 Minutes Trump meltdown yesterday began according to some reports when Stahl began to challenge him about the fever dream.
Zaxxon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:11 am
I mean, his campaign is pushing for a foreign policy debatechance to bleat about their completely nonsensical Hunter Biden "corruption" scandal.
FTFY.
Let's not think for a single second that Trump actually wants to discuss anything about foreign policy. Every reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
True. Though at the same time, this would also give Biden a chance to highlight to the public a number of things which are not well understood by the public, e.g., Trump's secret Chinese bank account, that Trump owes >$400MM over the next four years to unknown counterparties, etc.
Yeah, they definitely didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
I agree that a foreign policy discussion could be a large net win for Biden (depending on how well he handles it), but let's not kid ourselves on why Trump is making the request.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Yeah, I get it. I pointed it out because it's pretty much unpossible that this gambit would work out well for Trump on the net. But I guess backs are firmly placed against walls at this point.
Zaxxon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:11 am
I mean, his campaign is pushing for a foreign policy debatechance to bleat about their completely nonsensical Hunter Biden "corruption" scandal.
FTFY.
Let's not think for a single second that Trump actually wants to discuss anything about foreign policy. Every reputable news source has passed on Rudy's flailing Hunter Biden smear attempt, so Trump wants a national megaphone to broadcast his fever dream to the rubes.
True. Though at the same time, this would also give Biden a chance to highlight to the public a number of things which are not well understood by the public, e.g., Trump's secret Chinese bank account, that Trump owes >$400MM over the next four years to unknown counterparties, etc.
Yeah, they definitely didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
I agree that a foreign policy discussion could be a large net win for Biden (depending on how well he handles it), but let's not kid ourselves on why Trump is making the request.
Yup. I mean, it's not like Trump has any *good* options as to the debate. I think it's at least arguable that a foreign policy debate is his least bad option, though.
For Biden, I really think the main driving factor should be COVID risk. Given the position he's in there's zero reason to accept even a fairly low risk of COVID transmission in exchange for having a debate.
Among the names being floated for possible Biden Cabinet posts are Meg Whitman, the CEO of Quibi and former CEO of eBay, and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, both of whom spoke at August’s Democratic National Convention. Massachusetts GOP Gov. Charlie Baker and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have also been mentioned, as has former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who resigned from Congress in 2018 and became a lobbyist.
Among the names being floated for possible Biden Cabinet posts are Meg Whitman, the CEO of Quibi and former CEO of eBay, and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, both of whom spoke at August’s Democratic National Convention. Massachusetts GOP Gov. Charlie Baker and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have also been mentioned, as has former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who resigned from Congress in 2018 and became a lobbyist.
Whitman would be a disaster
Yes. Speaking to the article - while I laud Biden's peacemaking motive there is likely no governing coalition with both AOC and John Kasich in it. However, it potentially could work since there will be so many distractions. They are going to be picking up the pieces of Trump's malpractice, dealing with a pandemic, economic issues, figuring out how to salvage the international situation, etc. It'll be quite a feat if he pulls it off.
Among the names being floated for possible Biden Cabinet posts are Meg Whitman, the CEO of Quibi and former CEO of eBay, and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, both of whom spoke at August’s Democratic National Convention. Massachusetts GOP Gov. Charlie Baker and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have also been mentioned, as has former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who resigned from Congress in 2018 and became a lobbyist.
Whitman would be a disaster
Yes. Speaking to the article - while I laud Biden's peacemaking motive there is likely no governing coalition with both AOC and John Kasich in it. However, it potentially could work since there will be so many distractions. They are going to be picking up the pieces of Trump's malpractice, dealing with a pandemic, economic issues, figuring out how to salvage the international situation, etc. It'll be quite a feat if he pulls it off.
A lot depends on the details - who it is, for what post. Also, obviously I don't have any insight into the compilation of the list, but I think it's reasonably likely that at least a couple people are on here because they've endorsed Biden, and there would be some risk of offending them if they weren't on the list on being at least 'considered'.
