"received and verified!"
Does that guarantee that it will be counted can't be tampered with?
Are you sure or do politically-motivated people still have control of the process after that point ?
"received and verified!"
Does that guarantee that it will be counted can't be tampered with? Are you sure or do politically-motivated people still have control of the process after that point ?
The most vulnerable point is possible shenanigans by whoever counts the votes, but there's nothing an individual voter can really do about that.
One of the (many) things that varies between American states is how early they process and count the mail-in vote*. (What is meant by "process" and "count" also varies from state to state.) Here's a handy link outlining when each state will start processing mail-in ballots and when they'll start counting them.
A lot of ink has been spilled over the possibility that because of the surge in mail-in voting this year we might not know the winner of the 2020 presidential race on Election Night. That's possible, but I will note that Florida and Ohio both start counting their mail-in ballots well before Election Day (though they don't release the results until after the polls have closed). It's possible that the outcome in these two swing states may be known on the evening of November 3. If Donald Trump wins neither of them I don't think there's a realistic path to victory for him. Even if he wins both that wouldn't necessarily guarantee a Trump win, but it would likely mean a very long counting process elsewhere.
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, three other possibly decisive states, don't start processing their mail-in vote until Election Day.
*This is distinct from early voting, where a voter shows up in person at a polling station that has been opened prior to election day. Early votes are treated the same as ballots cast in person on Election Day.
Arizona, where Miss Amanda and I both live, will start counting all ballots received beginning next Tuesday.
We've had a very active Permanent Early Voting List for many years (I haven't voted at a polling place in at least 20 years), so the people running the election should know what they're doing. We've been known pretty much as a Red State, but we're turning purple and polls show that we may well be blue this year -- Biden is ahead in Arizona, as is our Democratic Senate candidate, former astronaut Mark Kelly (who is married to former Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot almost fatally a number of years ago).
Biden is ahead in Arizona, as is our Democratic Senate candidate, former astronaut Mark Kelly (who is married to former Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot almost fatally a number of years ago).
I think Mark Kelly has run a very lackluster campaign, though, compared to his opponent, the despicable Martha McSally. McS.'s TV ads have been vicious, nasty, full of half-truths and outright lies. Her campaign last year against opponent Kyrsten Sinema was equally hateful. She lost the election to Sinema, but our almost equally despicable governor appointed her to fill John McCain's seat after he died.
So just curious, am I the only person here planning on voting in person on Election Day? I'm doing that because my polling place is very, very close to my apartment, even closer than the mailbox where I would mail an absentee ballot, and much closer than my early voting site. I figure with all the early voting and absentee voting, there shouldn't be too bad a wait at the poll place.
Early voting started in North Carolina yesterday, and over 225,000 people voted yesterday, some waiting over 3 hours to do so. (The weather here was beautiful, so there were worse things to do than wait in line.) As of 1:30 today, 468,020 people had voted in person and 570,019 people had mailed absentee ballots in.
I voted this afternoon. Waited in line about 35 minutes. Not bad at all, and a relief to have it done.
So just curious, am I the only person here planning on voting in person on Election Day? I'm doing that because my polling place is very, very close to my apartment, even closer than the mailbox where I would mail an absentee ballot, and much closer than my early voting site. I figure with all the early voting and absentee voting, there shouldn't be too bad a wait at the poll place.
I plan to vote in person. I decided a long time ago that this was too important to risk a screw-up with mail-in votes or whatever. I am going in person to a voting booth to cast my vote. And if I get sick doing it, at least it was for a good cause.
I went in Wednesday (to the county board of elections!) and voted there. The place was hopping.
I also just overnighted my kid's ballot to him at college. He's been waiting for this day for four years.
As I started to see the magnitude of stir in our area re this election (unusual in a red red red state! I wonder hopefully what it portends), I decided I didn't want to wait in a six hour line during a pandemic.
I lived in San Francisco the year of the election that GK is recalling. There was little on the ballot as I recall -- basically only a measure authorizing public money for our local NFL team, who were perpetually looking for cash to build a new stadium.
There was a new and unexpected change in the system. We had been using punch-card ballots like the ones made infamous for hanging chads a few years later. For this election we had different cards that we voted by detaching a punched circle in the card. Anybody with reasonably sharp eyesight might have read the card from across the room.
It was also a little disconcerting to arrive at the polling place to find all the workers dressed in 49er togs.
So just curious, am I the only person here planning on voting in person on Election Day? I'm doing that because my polling place is very, very close to my apartment, even closer than the mailbox where I would mail an absentee ballot, and much closer than my early voting site. I figure with all the early voting and absentee voting, there shouldn't be too bad a wait at the poll place.
Voting in person is not an option in this state. We did away with physical polling places some years ago.
Voting is different downunder because everybody has to do it. There are various methods. Voting in person on the day is kind of a community celebration thing. Often, church and school groups are raising money for various purposes. If your polling place doesn't have a sausage sizzle, you feel ripped off. They call it the Democracy Sausage!
Its great to hear of the buzz in the US. It feels like there is a steely determination to get rid of this disgraceful man.
Yeah, Slate, why don't you just put up a big banner headline telling Democrats that they don't need to bother voting?
I'm not particularly worried about that. The election is already happening. It's eighteen days until "Election Day" and 21.4 million Americans have already cast their ballots. (Probably more, given delays in state reporting.) That's ~15% of the 2016 vote total, and today is the first day all states have early or mail-in voting available. (Washington state is supposed to send out the ballots for their all-mail-in election today.)
I'd feel more sanguine about this if US presidents were elected by popular vote. As things stand, however, all it would take to upset the Democratic apple-cart is a couple of swing-state nailbiters tipping to the GOP.
If I understand your previous posts on the EC correctly, assuming the rest of the 2016 electoral map remains the same, either an Ohio/Pennsylvania package, or Florida alone, would be enough to swing the College to Biden.
A Democratic loss in all three of those states strikes me as well within the bounds of plausibility.
Voting is different downunder because everybody has to do it. There are various methods. Voting in person on the day is kind of a community celebration thing. Often, church and school groups are raising money for various purposes. If your polling place doesn't have a sausage sizzle, you feel ripped off. They call it the Democracy Sausage!
Its great to hear of the buzz in the US. It feels like there is a steely determination to get rid of this disgraceful man.
In Canada that's illegal. Says so in poll worker training books. This applies to both to poll workers and candidate observers. As party colours are deeply entrenched in Canada (far more so than in the US) this does make dressing on election day a bit of a challenge. That's why there are so many poll workers on black pants and white shirts.
I'm disturbed by some of the issues Martha the Despicable raised in her ads against him. Issues that Kelly hasn't addressed in his own ads. Not that they would disqualify him per se from holding office, but some of them do seem rather damning of his past activities and proclivities.
What bothers me more is that in his ads, Kelly has stressed his service as an astronaut. As if that was enough to qualify him for office.
I voted for him anyway. I'd vote for the Pillsbury Dough Boy before I'd vote for Martha the Despicable.
And yes, Gabby is a saint. But judging from Martha the Despicable's ads, in the same way that Hillary is a saint vis-a-vis her husband's behavior.
I don't watch television (except the first Presidential debate, and one half hour of the Vice Presidential debate), so my choices are never based on television ads, or actually any sort of ads.
I don't watch television (except the first Presidential debate, and one half hour of the Vice Presidential debate), so my choices are never based on television ads, or actually any sort of ads.
I don't base my choices on ads, either, because I'm the kind of person who has already decided long before the campaign even starts who he's voting for(basically, I always support the left, and almost always a socialist party).
However, as far as ads go, these days you don't really need a TV to follow them. My semi-educated guess would be that of all the people who see a given ad, the percentage who have encountered it on the internet or social media(with or without also seeing it on TV) is WAY into the double-digits.
I don't base my decisions on ads either, and much less on those ubiquitous roadside signs. (Speaking of which, those for you-know-who and his toady are especially obnoxious.) But it pains me to think that there are voters who do base their decisions on them, and are swayed by the lies and half-truths they promote.
If I understand your previous posts on the EC correctly, assuming the rest of the 2016 electoral map remains the same, . . . .
That's a pretty big assumption. Here's a list of states (and two Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska*) carried by Trump in 2016 that are currently polling a Biden advantage:
. . . either an Ohio/Pennsylvania package, or Florida alone, would be enough to swing the College to Biden.
Assuming Donald Trump wins all the states where he's currently polling a lead (far from certain, but it would grant him Ohio where he's currently leading by 0.2 pp) he would have to win enough states off the list above to total at least 83 electoral votes. It's doable, but it's a heavy lift. Trump would have to win (working our way up from the bottom of that list) Georgia North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida plus any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin + Congressional Districts.
* Maine and Nebraska subdivide their electoral vote by Congressional District. They are the only states that currently do so.
Decision. If humans actually made decision the way they think they do, we'd have fewer problems.
We are far more susceptible to manipulation than we think we are, make far fewer decision based on reason than we think we do and are far less open to change than nearly anyone accepts.
Even those who stop and think and weigh issues are not immune to our unconscious impulses.
Adverts work. To some extent on almost everyone.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
I had a look at 538 website to pick up on their always interesting view of polls. They run lots of simulations based on data to hand and currently see the probability of a Biden win as about 88%. They forecast 347 electoral college votes for Biden and a popular vote majority of over 8%.
Paddy Power are offering odds of 8/15 for Biden, 6/4 for Trump. Translation. Bet 15 on Biden and get 8 plus your stake if he wins. Bet 4 on Trump and get 6 plus your stake if he wins.
I think I might have a little bet on Biden. Those look like good odds. Based on the 538 data the odds for Biden should be 1/8! In other words you should have to wager 8 to win 1!
Paddy Power are offering odds of 8/15 for Biden, 6/4 for Trump. Translation. Bet 15 on Biden and get 8 plus your stake if he wins. Bet 4 on Trump and get 6 plus your stake if he wins.
I think I might have a little bet on Biden. Those look like good odds. Based on the 538 data the odds for Biden should be 1/8! In other words you should have to wager 8 to win 1!
The main problem here is that the gamblers aren't betting on Trump winning on the basis of Trump winning the vote, or even on the basis of Trump winning the electoral college. The reason Trump has the odds he does is the gamblers' assessment that he'll be able to successfully cheat. In other words, the idea that Biden has a 7-in-8 chance of winning the presidency is dependent on the idea that the 2020 presidential election will be conducted fairly.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
That’s plausible I guess. The other factor is the Trump ground game and his potential success in getting out the vote of far right citizens who don’t normally vote.
Van Jones (CNN) was making this contrarian argument recently, reckoning the election could be a lot closer than the current polls suggest. I thought that might be fear talking or maybe a means of advising against complacency. Trump is certainly getting big crowds at his rallies, the great majority of whom seem totally committed to his raucous craziness. So maybe there are grounds for Van Jones’ concerns.
Currently the polls give Biden a bigger lead in the popular vote than Obama obtained in 2008. If that is maintained it would have to be a monumental cheat strategy.
A bet on Biden at current odds still looks a pretty good one. That’s not the same as ‘counting my chickens’. I’m not complacent purely on the basis of the polls.
The Beastie Boys have never licensed their work for use in a political ad . . . until now.
Given the theme of the ad, the use of Sabotage is inspired.
Aren't bars all over the world going broke as a result of covid-19?
Depends. Bars in countries that have committed to relief payments for shuttered businesses are getting by. The funds from the initial relief bill in the U.S. have long ago dried up and further relief is currently stalled in the Senate.
The Beastie Boys have never licensed their work for use in a political ad . . . until now.
Given the theme of the ad, the use of Sabotage is inspired.
Aren't bars all over the world going broke as a result of covid-19?
Depends. Bars in countries that have committed to relief payments for shuttered businesses are getting by. The funds from the initial relief bill in the U.S. have long ago dried up and further relief is currently stalled in the Senate.
Okay, good point. I think the ad could have done a better job of making those connections, though perhaps the point is obvious to the target audience.
The Beastie Boys have never licensed their work for use in a political ad . . . until now.
Given the theme of the ad, the use of Sabotage is inspired.
Aren't bars all over the world going broke as a result of covid-19?
The businesses suffering most are in areas with the worst response. That is the point of this ad, that the US would be in a better position if the leadership had been better.
The Beastie Boys have never licensed their work for use in a political ad . . . until now.
Given the theme of the ad, the use of Sabotage is inspired.
Aren't bars all over the world going broke as a result of covid-19?
Depends. Bars in countries that have committed to relief payments for shuttered businesses are getting by. The funds from the initial relief bill in the U.S. have long ago dried up and further relief is currently stalled in the Senate.
Okay, good point. I think the ad could have done a better job of making those connections, though perhaps the point is obvious to the target audience.
The target audience is Americans. No nuanced global context needed there.
The ad is more than a tad misleading -- this Michigan bar owner, portrayed as struggling to keep his business afloat during the pandemic, is actually a wealthy tech investor who made contributions to Biden's campaign and praised Gov. Whitmer's stay-at-home order.
Full rundown on the Fox News website.
The ad is more than a tad misleading -- this Michigan bar owner, portrayed as struggling to keep his business afloat during the pandemic, is actually a wealthy tech investor who made contributions to Biden's campaign and praised Gov. Whitmer's stay-at-home order.
Full rundown on the Fox News website.
Forgive me if I don't trust anything that Fox News says.
The ad is more than a tad misleading -- this Michigan bar owner, portrayed as struggling to keep his business afloat during the pandemic, is actually a wealthy tech investor who made contributions to Biden's campaign and praised Gov. Whitmer's stay-at-home order.
So the guy in the ad claiming to support Joe Biden . . . actually supports Joe Biden in real life. What a deception!
The ad is more than a tad misleading -- this Michigan bar owner, portrayed as struggling to keep his business afloat during the pandemic, is actually a wealthy tech investor who made contributions to Biden's campaign and praised Gov. Whitmer's stay-at-home order.
I'm not sure why supporting a stay-at-home order, would preclude criticism of the economic support (or lack of) accompanying that order.
I'm not sure why supporting a stay-at-home order, would preclude criticism of the economic support (or lack of) accompanying that order.
Well, quite. I'm supportive of the stay-at-home orders, think they generally didn't go far enough, and oppose the lemming-like rush to "look like normal" that many colleges attempted. I am fortunate that I can work from home. I hope I would have the courage to have the same opinions if I was a bar or restaurant owner, and so my livelihood depended on people not staying at home.
And I'm certainly of the opinion that the cost of stay-at-home should be borne by the public as a whole, rather than entirely by those people who work in hospitality.
So the guy in the ad claiming to support Joe Biden . . . actually supports Joe Biden in real life. What a deception!
No. The deception, if true, is that a wealthy investor is pretending to be a poor family business owner with one foot through the front door of the poor house.
If, as I say, true . . . then shame on Uncle Joe for condoning it.
So the guy in the ad claiming to support Joe Biden . . . actually supports Joe Biden in real life. What a deception!
No. The deception, if true, is that a wealthy investor is pretending to be a poor family business owner with one foot through the front door of the poor house.
If, as I say, true . . . then shame on Uncle Joe for condoning it.
Did he explicitly say he personally was going to end up poor, or just that his beloved bar was going to go bankrupt?
If it's the latter, then the ad might not be guilty of deception per se, but just sort of allowing the audience to draw unwarranted conclusions amicable to the interests of the Biden campaign..
So the guy in the ad claiming to support Joe Biden . . . actually supports Joe Biden in real life. What a deception!
No. The deception, if true, is that a wealthy investor is pretending to be a poor family business owner with one foot through the front door of the poor house.
If, as I say, true . . . then shame on Uncle Joe for condoning it.
I'm sorry this is bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. It wouldn't matter if the bar in the advert were owned by Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. There are many business that are closed and many more in Jeopardy because of Trump's poor leadership.
If, IF, Fox portrayal is accurate, then it is a tactical mistake, but the message is true regardless.
No. Amanda is spot on, (I can't see the ad in Croesos' link) if the ad portrays someone who is struggling to keep their business afloat, when the guy is actually wealthy. There are a couple of reasons for that, the most important being:
1. It plays to the idea of class warfare that Trump and Fox have exploited so well: The libs are a rich elite who don't give a stuff about the struggles of salt of the earth white people and are trying to pull the wool over "our" eyes.
2. see 1
3. see 1
4. My objection: The whole problem with unregulated capitalism is you can set up these discrete towers, called businesses. If the business does well, you mint money, siphoning it off to another of your towers so you can use it to build another stream of wealth. But if the business starts doing badly, you don't have to reverse the flow of cash and use it to support the ailing tower. Instead, you can leave suppliers, employees and other stakeholders in the lurch and walk away with money you made off the business in the past and used to become a wealthy IT investor.
No. Amanda is spot on, (I can't see the ad in Croesos' link) if the ad portrays someone who is struggling to keep their business afloat, when the guy is actually wealthy.
The ad can be seen here. The script seems to be worded carefully to me, and I think it arguably falls more on the side of speaking for all bar/small business owners and of the general economic situation/lack of leadership from on Trump than on the side of “I’m a poor business owner about to go under,” but it’s also probably very close to the line—probably close enough that I likely wouldn’t argue with anyone who sees it as being on the other side of the line.
But it seems like a distraction that could and should have been avoided with a different bar owner.
The only two lines where he implies his own business might be at stake...
"I don't know how long we can survive, not having any revenue."
But of course, if he is wealthy, he can probably keep the bar open for some time, if he really wants to, at a loss. Sorta like the Hefners have kept Playboy magazine going through decades of red ink, as a flagship.
Then he says at the end "My only hope for my family, my business, and my community, is if Joe Biden wins this election." Which doesn't explicitly state that his business could disappear, but sorta implies it.
Apart from that, a pretty good ad, one of the very few ones from any election that I've seen targeting hipsters in an effective manner. (Well, aging hipsters to be more precise, but given that Biden himself is too old even for Boomer status, still pretty impressive.)
My son owns a bar in a rural town in Northwestern Washington. When Washington State closed down, he was really afraid he was going to lose everything. But they were able to muddle through. I can say he really wants to see another stimulus shot, but he thinks Biden will be better for small businesses like him than the current person
The only two lines where he implies his own business might be at stake...
"I don't know how long we can survive, not having any revenue."
. . . .
Then he says at the end "My only hope for my family, my business, and my community, is if Joe Biden wins this election." Which doesn't explicitly state that his business could disappear, but sorta implies it.
Yes, those are the two borderline lines, it seems to me.
As to the first, the question might be “who is ‘we’?”—his business or small business owners generally. And is he speaking of the business having to be closed, or of the lack of aid from the federal government?
As to the second, it does sort of imply his business could go under, but it can also be interpreted as “Trump is bad for my family, my business and my community.”
At the very least, they should have chosen a business owner who really is headed for the poor house. Surely they should have realized that choosing someone whose financial well-being is secure regardless of what happens to the business would expose them to a charge of hypocrisy, to say the least, should it be discovered.
No. Amanda is spot on, (I can't see the ad in Croesos' link) if the ad portrays someone who is struggling to keep their business afloat, when the guy is actually wealthy.
The ad can be seen here. The script seems to be worded carefully to me, and I think it arguably falls more on the side of speaking for all bar/small business owners and of the general economic situation/lack of leadership from on Trump than on the side of “I’m a poor business owner about to go under,” but it’s also probably very close to the line—probably close enough that I likely wouldn’t argue with anyone who sees it as being on the other side of the line.
But it seems like a distraction that could and should have been avoided with a different bar owner.
Thanks Nick. The problem is the messenger, not the message, IMHO. They needed someone heavily geared, and who needs massive cashflow to stay afloat. Hmmmm, I wonder who fits that bill... thinking, thinking....
Maybe bar owners they contacted were afraid to do the ad, thinking T might retaliate somehow? Either against them, or bar owners in general. Just a thought.
Interesting article from the AP detailing how the Trump campaign managed to burn through a billion dollars to (apparently) very little effect.
“They spent their money on unnecessary overhead, lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous activity by the campaign staff and vanity ads,” said Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant who advised John McCain and Jeb Bush and is an outspoken Trump critic. “You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn’t have burned through it as stupidly.”
Any political analysis involving flamethrower-wielding monkeys automatically catches my interest, even if they're only metaphorical. My favorite bit of info was the fact that the campaign spent $1.6 million on TV ads in the Washington, DC, media market (an expensive market where Trump is currently polling in the single digits) just so Trump could see his own ads when he tuned in to Hannity.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Obama laid into Trump big time. And effectively.
It is now looking as though the last few days of the campaign will be played out against surging new cases and deaths from COVID-19. “He claims to protect the people but he has not taken even basic steps to protect himself”. That from Obama captures the time.
And Melania Trump is keeping her head down.
And Giuliani, the sleazy purveyor of Biden scandal claims, gets caught in a Borat honey trap.
And Trump’s thin skin has him lashing out at many people.
And US voters are voting early in record numbers.
Biden needs to keep a clean pair of heels tonight. Has Trump got a last hurrah in him?
We’ll see.
Bookies now have Biden at 8 to 15 (15 to 8 on in UK speak) and Trump has slipped to 7 to 4. 538 simulations have Biden winning 87% of the time and getting 346 seats in the Electoral College, with over 8% advantage in the popular vote.
I want Trump gone, for the sake of the world, not just the USA. I think he has been an absolute disaster. But I’m not uncrossing my fingers yet. Many a slip between cup and lip.
Comments
Does that guarantee that it will be counted can't be tampered with?
Are you sure or do politically-motivated people still have control of the process after that point ?
The most vulnerable point is possible shenanigans by whoever counts the votes, but there's nothing an individual voter can really do about that.
One of the (many) things that varies between American states is how early they process and count the mail-in vote*. (What is meant by "process" and "count" also varies from state to state.) Here's a handy link outlining when each state will start processing mail-in ballots and when they'll start counting them.
A lot of ink has been spilled over the possibility that because of the surge in mail-in voting this year we might not know the winner of the 2020 presidential race on Election Night. That's possible, but I will note that Florida and Ohio both start counting their mail-in ballots well before Election Day (though they don't release the results until after the polls have closed). It's possible that the outcome in these two swing states may be known on the evening of November 3. If Donald Trump wins neither of them I don't think there's a realistic path to victory for him. Even if he wins both that wouldn't necessarily guarantee a Trump win, but it would likely mean a very long counting process elsewhere.
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, three other possibly decisive states, don't start processing their mail-in vote until Election Day.
*This is distinct from early voting, where a voter shows up in person at a polling station that has been opened prior to election day. Early votes are treated the same as ballots cast in person on Election Day.
We've had a very active Permanent Early Voting List for many years (I haven't voted at a polling place in at least 20 years), so the people running the election should know what they're doing. We've been known pretty much as a Red State, but we're turning purple and polls show that we may well be blue this year -- Biden is ahead in Arizona, as is our Democratic Senate candidate, former astronaut Mark Kelly (who is married to former Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot almost fatally a number of years ago).
I think Mark Kelly has run a very lackluster campaign, though, compared to his opponent, the despicable Martha McSally. McS.'s TV ads have been vicious, nasty, full of half-truths and outright lies. Her campaign last year against opponent Kyrsten Sinema was equally hateful. She lost the election to Sinema, but our almost equally despicable governor appointed her to fill John McCain's seat after he died.
I voted this afternoon. Waited in line about 35 minutes. Not bad at all, and a relief to have it done.
I also just overnighted my kid's ballot to him at college. He's been waiting for this day for four years.
As I started to see the magnitude of stir in our area re this election (unusual in a red red red state! I wonder hopefully what it portends), I decided I didn't want to wait in a six hour line during a pandemic.
There was a new and unexpected change in the system. We had been using punch-card ballots like the ones made infamous for hanging chads a few years later. For this election we had different cards that we voted by detaching a punched circle in the card. Anybody with reasonably sharp eyesight might have read the card from across the room.
It was also a little disconcerting to arrive at the polling place to find all the workers dressed in 49er togs.
Voting in person is not an option in this state. We did away with physical polling places some years ago.
Voting is different downunder because everybody has to do it. There are various methods. Voting in person on the day is kind of a community celebration thing. Often, church and school groups are raising money for various purposes. If your polling place doesn't have a sausage sizzle, you feel ripped off. They call it the Democracy Sausage!
Its great to hear of the buzz in the US. It feels like there is a steely determination to get rid of this disgraceful man.
I'd feel more sanguine about this if US presidents were elected by popular vote. As things stand, however, all it would take to upset the Democratic apple-cart is a couple of swing-state nailbiters tipping to the GOP.
If I understand your previous posts on the EC correctly, assuming the rest of the 2016 electoral map remains the same, either an Ohio/Pennsylvania package, or Florida alone, would be enough to swing the College to Biden.
A Democratic loss in all three of those states strikes me as well within the bounds of plausibility.
In Canada that's illegal. Says so in poll worker training books. This applies to both to poll workers and candidate observers. As party colours are deeply entrenched in Canada (far more so than in the US) this does make dressing on election day a bit of a challenge. That's why there are so many poll workers on black pants and white shirts.
I VOTED.
COLOR ME
BLUE.
From what I've seen of Gabby and Mark, I like them both as people.
Me too. Well, actually, I've never met Gabby, but I've met Mark. I'm quite impressed with both of them.
What bothers me more is that in his ads, Kelly has stressed his service as an astronaut. As if that was enough to qualify him for office.
I voted for him anyway. I'd vote for the Pillsbury Dough Boy before I'd vote for Martha the Despicable.
And yes, Gabby is a saint. But judging from Martha the Despicable's ads, in the same way that Hillary is a saint vis-a-vis her husband's behavior.
I don't base my choices on ads, either, because I'm the kind of person who has already decided long before the campaign even starts who he's voting for(basically, I always support the left, and almost always a socialist party).
However, as far as ads go, these days you don't really need a TV to follow them. My semi-educated guess would be that of all the people who see a given ad, the percentage who have encountered it on the internet or social media(with or without also seeing it on TV) is WAY into the double-digits.
That's a pretty big assumption. Here's a list of states (and two Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska*) carried by Trump in 2016 that are currently polling a Biden advantage:
Assuming Donald Trump wins all the states where he's currently polling a lead (far from certain, but it would grant him Ohio where he's currently leading by 0.2 pp) he would have to win enough states off the list above to total at least 83 electoral votes. It's doable, but it's a heavy lift. Trump would have to win (working our way up from the bottom of that list) Georgia North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida plus any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin + Congressional Districts.
* Maine and Nebraska subdivide their electoral vote by Congressional District. They are the only states that currently do so.
We are far more susceptible to manipulation than we think we are, make far fewer decision based on reason than we think we do and are far less open to change than nearly anyone accepts.
Even those who stop and think and weigh issues are not immune to our unconscious impulses.
Adverts work. To some extent on almost everyone.
Paddy Power are offering odds of 8/15 for Biden, 6/4 for Trump. Translation. Bet 15 on Biden and get 8 plus your stake if he wins. Bet 4 on Trump and get 6 plus your stake if he wins.
I think I might have a little bet on Biden. Those look like good odds. Based on the 538 data the odds for Biden should be 1/8! In other words you should have to wager 8 to win 1!
The main problem here is that the gamblers aren't betting on Trump winning on the basis of Trump winning the vote, or even on the basis of Trump winning the electoral college. The reason Trump has the odds he does is the gamblers' assessment that he'll be able to successfully cheat. In other words, the idea that Biden has a 7-in-8 chance of winning the presidency is dependent on the idea that the 2020 presidential election will be conducted fairly.
Van Jones (CNN) was making this contrarian argument recently, reckoning the election could be a lot closer than the current polls suggest. I thought that might be fear talking or maybe a means of advising against complacency. Trump is certainly getting big crowds at his rallies, the great majority of whom seem totally committed to his raucous craziness. So maybe there are grounds for Van Jones’ concerns.
Currently the polls give Biden a bigger lead in the popular vote than Obama obtained in 2008. If that is maintained it would have to be a monumental cheat strategy.
A bet on Biden at current odds still looks a pretty good one. That’s not the same as ‘counting my chickens’. I’m not complacent purely on the basis of the polls.
Given the theme of the ad, the use of Sabotage is inspired.
Aren't bars all over the world going broke as a result of covid-19?
Depends. Bars in countries that have committed to relief payments for shuttered businesses are getting by. The funds from the initial relief bill in the U.S. have long ago dried up and further relief is currently stalled in the Senate.
Okay, good point. I think the ad could have done a better job of making those connections, though perhaps the point is obvious to the target audience.
There's a little bit of nuance. I don't think the selection of a famous bar/concert venue in Michigan (a swing state) is entirely coincidental.
Full rundown on the Fox News website.
Forgive me if I don't trust anything that Fox News says.
So the guy in the ad claiming to support Joe Biden . . . actually supports Joe Biden in real life. What a deception!
I'm not sure why supporting a stay-at-home order, would preclude criticism of the economic support (or lack of) accompanying that order.
Well, quite. I'm supportive of the stay-at-home orders, think they generally didn't go far enough, and oppose the lemming-like rush to "look like normal" that many colleges attempted. I am fortunate that I can work from home. I hope I would have the courage to have the same opinions if I was a bar or restaurant owner, and so my livelihood depended on people not staying at home.
And I'm certainly of the opinion that the cost of stay-at-home should be borne by the public as a whole, rather than entirely by those people who work in hospitality.
No. The deception, if true, is that a wealthy investor is pretending to be a poor family business owner with one foot through the front door of the poor house.
If, as I say, true . . . then shame on Uncle Joe for condoning it.
Did he explicitly say he personally was going to end up poor, or just that his beloved bar was going to go bankrupt?
If it's the latter, then the ad might not be guilty of deception per se, but just sort of allowing the audience to draw unwarranted conclusions amicable to the interests of the Biden campaign..
I'm sorry this is bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. It wouldn't matter if the bar in the advert were owned by Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. There are many business that are closed and many more in Jeopardy because of Trump's poor leadership.
If, IF, Fox portrayal is accurate, then it is a tactical mistake, but the message is true regardless.
1. It plays to the idea of class warfare that Trump and Fox have exploited so well: The libs are a rich elite who don't give a stuff about the struggles of salt of the earth white people and are trying to pull the wool over "our" eyes.
2. see 1
3. see 1
4. My objection: The whole problem with unregulated capitalism is you can set up these discrete towers, called businesses. If the business does well, you mint money, siphoning it off to another of your towers so you can use it to build another stream of wealth. But if the business starts doing badly, you don't have to reverse the flow of cash and use it to support the ailing tower. Instead, you can leave suppliers, employees and other stakeholders in the lurch and walk away with money you made off the business in the past and used to become a wealthy IT investor.
But it seems like a distraction that could and should have been avoided with a different bar owner.
The only two lines where he implies his own business might be at stake...
"I don't know how long we can survive, not having any revenue."
But of course, if he is wealthy, he can probably keep the bar open for some time, if he really wants to, at a loss. Sorta like the Hefners have kept Playboy magazine going through decades of red ink, as a flagship.
Then he says at the end "My only hope for my family, my business, and my community, is if Joe Biden wins this election." Which doesn't explicitly state that his business could disappear, but sorta implies it.
Apart from that, a pretty good ad, one of the very few ones from any election that I've seen targeting hipsters in an effective manner. (Well, aging hipsters to be more precise, but given that Biden himself is too old even for Boomer status, still pretty impressive.)
As to the first, the question might be “who is ‘we’?”—his business or small business owners generally. And is he speaking of the business having to be closed, or of the lack of aid from the federal government?
As to the second, it does sort of imply his business could go under, but it can also be interpreted as “Trump is bad for my family, my business and my community.”
If, as I say, it is true . . . .
Thanks Nick. The problem is the messenger, not the message, IMHO. They needed someone heavily geared, and who needs massive cashflow to stay afloat. Hmmmm, I wonder who fits that bill... thinking, thinking....
Any political analysis involving flamethrower-wielding monkeys automatically catches my interest, even if they're only metaphorical. My favorite bit of info was the fact that the campaign spent $1.6 million on TV ads in the Washington, DC, media market (an expensive market where Trump is currently polling in the single digits) just so Trump could see his own ads when he tuned in to Hannity.
It is now looking as though the last few days of the campaign will be played out against surging new cases and deaths from COVID-19. “He claims to protect the people but he has not taken even basic steps to protect himself”. That from Obama captures the time.
And Melania Trump is keeping her head down.
And Giuliani, the sleazy purveyor of Biden scandal claims, gets caught in a Borat honey trap.
And Trump’s thin skin has him lashing out at many people.
And US voters are voting early in record numbers.
Biden needs to keep a clean pair of heels tonight. Has Trump got a last hurrah in him?
We’ll see.
Bookies now have Biden at 8 to 15 (15 to 8 on in UK speak) and Trump has slipped to 7 to 4. 538 simulations have Biden winning 87% of the time and getting 346 seats in the Electoral College, with over 8% advantage in the popular vote.
I want Trump gone, for the sake of the world, not just the USA. I think he has been an absolute disaster. But I’m not uncrossing my fingers yet. Many a slip between cup and lip.