-
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
@Godder Perhaps. I'm not discounting any of that.
I just can't believe these numbers. They reek of bullshit. Sorry.
I know this was a few pages back and someone has probably said it already but there is nothing unusual in the situation that you find questionable. Large population areas like Philly are NOT recording unusual results. They DO usually come in at 75-85% in favour of the Dems.
You could see that the gap would close from a long way out simply because the actual number of votes to be counted sat mainly in pro Dem counties. That is why pundits were calling PA a close one even when Trump was well ahead.
Those that have the regular patterns of voting and compute it by county saw this coming their prediction models using previous election data. How is that irregular ?Even Trump knew months ago that because much of the Dem vote would come in by post he would be in a winning situation before postal votes were counted, hence his strategy to question their legitimacy before it even happened AND tell his supporters not to use postal voting so he didn't throw out his own votes if his argument succeeded.
Then there was the shenanigans with the USPS.
He tried everything he could to stop the obvious. To claim that what happened is unusual only holds water in so far as the proportion of votes using postal. -
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
@Godder Perhaps. I'm not discounting any of that.
I just can't believe these numbers. They reek of bullshit. Sorry.
I'm waiting for your rationale as to why. Is it fraud?
No, you are waiting for me to some thing ludicrous so you can laugh at my silliness and put me in the tin foil hat brigade. Thats what you are waiting for.
You're not going to get it, as I'm not arguing any single thing social.
I believe mail in voters will swing towards Biden
I believe Trump has really dug his own grave regarding these claims due to his own behaviour
I believe MSM is 100% against Trump and is unlikely to bother to really investigate any of these claims with analysis.Finally, I believe the sheer scale and direction of these swings means that, in my opinion, Trumps claims deserve investigation. I've outlined why using Pennsylvania as an example.
@canefan said in US Politics:
Then I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You can't believe the swing? Trump led early because they count on the day votes first, and he encouraged his people to vote on the day because he's not afraid of covid19. Urban Democrats appeared to be more fearful of covid19 and large numbers voted by mail, those votes are counted last
Close. I find the sheer scale of the swing extremely suspicious.
Again, probably some truth in your reasoning, although that does seem to buy a bit into the Democrats are smarter than Republicans narrative. In isolation, a narrative which I completely disregard.
Unfortunately I suspect that your logic is based on faulty numbers. I don't have them to hand but I was doing the calcs a couple of times a day and never saw a situation remotely like the one you describe.
From memory, at about 85% count of expected total (remember that the real total isn't known at that point) there was a gap between the count %s of the blue and red areas. The Red counties were very strongly red and vice-versa. What I couldn't tell without spending ages was the population disparities between the few Blue counties and the many Red ones.That became much clearer as the Red ones started to fizzle out in votes left to count and you could clearly see 100s of thousands of votes to be counted in Blue areas that were strongly (75-85%) blue.
I get your argument but think it is based on a faulty start point.
-
FFS Just get a recount done by Diane Abbot and there can be no further argument.
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus however, Yang makes a good point here:
The progressive political parties in Australia are suffering a similar crisis; what makes them any different from the other lot?
How come if that guy was running did the Dems end up with Biden? One and a half minutes of coherent articulate talking. Already an improvement...
Because he was poor in the debates. Hes great in these situations though
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus however, Yang makes a good point here:
The progressive political parties in Australia are suffering a similar crisis; what makes them any different from the other lot?
How come if that guy was running did the Dems end up with Biden? One and a half minutes of coherent articulate talking. Already an improvement...
Because he was poor in the debates. Hes great in these situations though
How was Joe?
-
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
We have officials from both sides saying that they are following the rules and observers are allowed yet 'anecdotal' stuff saying that observers are being turned away.
There is no knowing who these so called observers being turned away are. Are they extras? Party members hearing that there are no observers so volunteering themselves and being turned away because the 'real' ones are in place?
Another case of facts being ignored because the conspiracy theory is what they want to hear.
I'm pretty sure that if official observers were being turned away and not allowed to do their job there would be clear evidence of such. Haven't seen any yet.
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus however, Yang makes a good point here:
The progressive political parties in Australia are suffering a similar crisis; what makes them any different from the other lot?
How come if that guy was running did the Dems end up with Biden? One and a half minutes of coherent articulate talking. Already an improvement...
Because he was poor in the debates. Hes great in these situations though
How was Joe?
Asleep.
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus however, Yang makes a good point here:
The progressive political parties in Australia are suffering a similar crisis; what makes them any different from the other lot?
How come if that guy was running did the Dems end up with Biden? One and a half minutes of coherent articulate talking. Already an improvement...
Because he was poor in the debates. Hes great in these situations though
How was Joe?
Joe was poor too. He only won when the other contenders all stepped down (for some strange reason). Bernie and Tulsi were the best
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
-
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
Fuck yes. I think it is hilarious that he's turned into a giant bitch-baby, quite frankly.
Then don't get in a debate about validity of counting, as your opinions are clouding your judgment of what I'm debating.
My opinions on Trump don't cloud the ability to calculate percentages and inquire about your assumptions.
I don't see your point here. I'm not discussing at any point a 10% counted lead.
I understand that from your subsequent post. I'm just trying to understand how you get 10% lead on total votes with only ~64% of stations counted. I am asking this because voting in the US isn't compulsory and even registering to vote doesn't mean you'll turn out. e.g. @Godder put above for PA nearly 9.1M registered voters, but only about 6.8M votes so far and maybe ~7M votes to be counted in total.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus however, Yang makes a good point here:
The progressive political parties in Australia are suffering a similar crisis; what makes them any different from the other lot?
How come if that guy was running did the Dems end up with Biden? One and a half minutes of coherent articulate talking. Already an improvement...
Because he was poor in the debates. Hes great in these situations though
How was Joe?
Joe was poor too. He only won when the other contenders all stepped down (for some strange reason). Bernie and Tulsi were the best
Why is everything 'for some strange reason'?
Biden was selected for an obvious tactical reason. He may not be a good option but they saw it as their best chance to try and project calm among the craziness. Bernie would have added to it and others didn't have the chops.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court. -
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Crucial but Newt Gingrich says it's true!
Tho Trump would probably refer to him as a loser for never having won presidency.
Newt Gingrich says 'we have heard....'
That isn't evidence OR proof and you don't go to court to find either, you go to court to present it once found.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Biden was selected for an obvious tactical reason.
But selected by whom?
His party. That is how politics works.
The GOP fell in line behind Trump once they realised the offerings they had in schmucks like Ted Cruz were A. vanilla morons but B. not near as useful as Trump's "I'm not a politician drain the swamp build a wall" rhetoric.
It has changed US politics in a lot of ways, so if the Democrats get up this time, it will be interesting to see if that change stays or is mutated in some way.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Biden was selected for an obvious tactical reason.
But selected by whom?
His party. That is how politics works.
The GOP fell in line behind Trump once they realised the offerings they had in schmucks like Ted Cruz were A. vanilla morons but B. not near as useful as Trump's "I'm not a politician drain the swamp build a wall" rhetoric.
It has changed US politics in a lot of ways, so if the Democrats get up this time, it will be interesting to see if that change stays or is mutated in some way.
Not really. In theory it should be the voters (shouldn't it). As it was with Trump. Yet all the other contenders just happened to step down at the end. Joe was fading and then he suddenly came back. maybe I'm wrong but it seemed like a fix to me with pressure from the aprty rather than letting the voters find the winner (like maybe last time too)
And Hillary is being slagged off now but only because she lost. My view she was a far and away better candidate than Joe
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
US Politics