Poll

Who do you think will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Donald Trump
105 (29.6%)
Joe Biden
230 (64.8%)
3rd-Party Candidate or Black Swan Event (e.g., Trump or Biden dies)
20 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 353

Author Topic: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?  (Read 138330 times)

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1650 on: November 11, 2020, 05:20:21 PM »
No. I was talking about you extrapolating about the chances of one thing, based on an unrelated thing. As I quoted you very specifically to make that clear.

So it's posts like this that make me feel gaslit.

The ONLY time I talked about extrapolation is here:
So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

So you're accusing me of the exact opposite of what I said!  Did you even read or do you just hate me because I don't smear all Trump voters like other posters?

Your full post, including the "very specific" relevant quote:

chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes

I am laughing uproariously at the rich irony that the person who posted this absolutely perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy -- which is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy -- has a user name you couldn't make up.

I've admitted the problem with "chances are", but there is nothing extrapolatory here.  It's a classic problem with a low-probability event with a lot of opportunities to happen.  This is a problem of assumptions, not extrapolations.  You're really, really reaching to find your ironic connection to gambler's fallacy and it's coming off a lot like a personal attack.


I literally quoted the part of your post that I was responding to.
You did not include that in any of your responses to me. So let me first post that.

chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes

I am laughing uproariously at the rich irony that the person who posted this absolutely perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy -- which is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy -- has a user name you couldn't make up.

And let me now quote what came just before what you wrote, and just after what you wrote, for a little more context.

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

You said you are not talking about one or two people committing an individual act. You're talking about an entire polling location deliberately doing something fraudulent.

So. Now that we've established that, I’ll try this one more time, and then I’m done.

Fallacy.

There either is intentional voter fraud being committed by poll workers, or there is not.

The existence of polling place B through Z and beyond does not impact whether there is fraud being committed by polling place A. Thus it is not logical to say “chances are” there is voter fraud being committed, and cite the reason as being because there are X number (in your case, 100,000) polling places.


Montecarlo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1651 on: November 11, 2020, 05:23:29 PM »
Your last part is a clear misunderstanding of a simple probability.  The more opportunities for fraud there are, the higher likelihood a case of fraud will occur.  There is no extrapolation.

Edit: and, uh, yeah, I relayed the quote exactly as your screenshot has it, so not sure what the beef is, miss gaslighter.

Edit: I think I see where you misread me.  Sentence B is a supporting statement for sentence A, not a conclusion.

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 05:33:52 PM by Montecarlo »

Montecarlo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1652 on: November 11, 2020, 05:28:56 PM »
Let me help you here.  Let's take coin flips.  A fair coin, 50% chance of heads, 50% chance of tails.  Assume that each flip is an independent event with zero correlation.

The chances of at least 1 heads in a series of 1 flip is 50%
The chances of at least 1 heads in a series of 2 flips is 75%
The chances of at least 1 heads in a series of 10 flips is 99.9%

A calculator so you can verify yourself: https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 05:31:19 PM by Montecarlo »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1653 on: November 11, 2020, 05:36:34 PM »
I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

I don't know if I should wade into these waters...

I think the basic problem here is that you've assumed too high of a percentage.

If we define "major case of fraud" as let's say > 1000 votes, then we should be able to estimate a pretty good percentage. And let's say that to steel man your argument that 50% of all major fraud are caught.

The Heritage Foundation (Super Right-wing group) has a voter fraud database going back to 1979. They have a total of 1,300 instances of fraud. However, not all of these are "major fraud", it's a lot of "this guy voted twice". There's no easy way to find out the size of these kinds of fraud through the website, but reading through a handful of them I think a fortiori we can say that 20% of them represent major fraud.

So we have 100,000 locations running on average 15 elections at once over 40 years (so 20 elections) with our estimated count of 250 counts of uncaught fraud.

250 / (100,000 * 15 * 20) = .0008% chance of fraud happening in a single election in a single district in a given year at best. The actual number is probably much smaller given that we have much better barriers today at catching fraud.

If we instead use a more moderate estimate of 80% of major fraud cases are caught, then our chances fall to .00017% for all elections throughout the entire country.

And that's based on all elections that are run throughout the country. Committing fraud on the presidential ballot would be one of the stupidest, most pointless crime that anyone could commit. Since 1. the # of votes you'd have to fraudulently cast is extremely high. 2. You'd have to have a large number of people in on it in order to flip just one state. 3. It's the most analyzed and thoroughly checked election in our country, the risk of being caught is extremely high.

If you look through the Heritage DB, even they can't find anything major beyond local Ballot Initiative Fraud and Sheriff races. And voter fraud really doesn't scale well. So unless there is even a single example of major presidential election fraud, then our assumption then is that the chance of Presidential Voter Fraud is 0.

Montecarlo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1654 on: November 11, 2020, 05:39:17 PM »
I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

I don't know if I should wade into these waters...

I think the basic problem here is that you've assumed too high of a percentage.

If we define "major case of fraud" as let's say > 1000 votes, then we should be able to estimate a pretty good percentage. And let's say that to steel man your argument that 50% of all major fraud are caught.

The Heritage Foundation (Super Right-wing group) has a voter fraud database going back to 1979. They have a total of 1,300 instances of fraud. However, not all of these are "major fraud", it's a lot of "this guy voted twice". There's no easy way to find out the size of these kinds of fraud through the website, but reading through a handful of them I think a fortiori we can say that 20% of them represent major fraud.

So we have 100,000 locations running on average 15 elections at once over 40 years (so 20 elections) with our estimated count of 250 counts of uncaught fraud.

250 / (100,000 * 15 * 20) = .0008% chance of fraud happening in a single election in a single district in a given year at best. The actual number is probably much smaller given that we have much better barriers today at catching fraud.

If we instead use a more moderate estimate of 80% of major fraud cases are caught, then our chances fall to .00017% for all elections throughout the entire country.

And that's based on all elections that are run throughout the country. Committing fraud on the presidential ballot would be one of the stupidest, most pointless crime that anyone could commit. Since 1. the # of votes you'd have to fraudulently cast is extremely high. 2. You'd have to have a large number of people in on it in order to flip just one state. 3. It's the most analyzed and thoroughly checked election in our country, the risk of being caught is extremely high.

If you look through the Heritage DB, even they can't find anything major beyond local Ballot Initiative Fraud and Sheriff races. And voter fraud really doesn't scale well. So unless there is even a single example of major presidential election fraud, then our assumption then is that the chance of Presidential Voter Fraud is 0.

I'm out of time to kill, but imho you are 100% correct on every point.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1655 on: November 11, 2020, 06:10:25 PM »
Caracarn, as someone who identifies with the democratic party more than the republican one but still doesn't like the direction the party appears to be headed sometimes, thank you for being willing to cross over and vote for Biden last week. Sincerely.

Don't Trump's election results indicate that you as a reasonable Republican (who doesn't want to support a woefully incompetent person in office simply because he carries your teams flag) are very much in the minority on the right?

Could you expand on your reasoning here, GuitarStv? Since we don't have data on the counterfactual scenario of what would have happened if the Dems had nominated Sanders or Warren I don't see what the 2020 election can tell us about how many people there are out there like caracarn (willing to vote for Biden but not willing to vote for Sanders/Warren).

I was expecting that there would be many reasonable Republicans voting against Trump this year.  That doesn't seem to have been the case.  Biden's pretty centrist.  Republicans seem to have overwhelmingly continued to support Trump though . . . which makes me think that my assumption about there being many reasonable Republicans was wrong.
I feel there are two main drivers.  Christians (a group I also am part of and which I think stuck with Trump for the shallow pro-life reason) and non-college educated whites who I believe just want to blow the whole things up.  Somewhere on this board I saw a post by @WhiteTrashCash  that summed up the thinking of the rural voter in what is their "world". 

I have been asking any Christian I can, including leaders in my church, if the blind allegiance to a pro-life candidate does more harm than good.  In my opinion it does without question.  Biden is also a Christian, and more importantly one who is active, unlike Trump.  More importantly the key "test" many Christians follow is the fruit in someone's life, i.e. does what they do and how they act fall in line with Christian mores.  I pray I do not need to explain to anyone how Trump fails that barometer miserably.  So my point to my fellow Christians is really two fold.  1) Is electing a pro-life president that important that we look the other way on literally everything else in his behavior? and 2) Why do we think removing Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortion as a choice is the right thing to do?  I will say I have gotten some people thinking especially on the last point.  Legislating morality, which is what making abortion illegal would be, is a dead end street in my opinion and one the Prohibition is the poster child for showing.  Christians wanted to ban alcohol for the same reasons that want to ban abortion, because it is "bad" while failing to give thought that it is "bad" to a Christian but not necessarily to someone else.  Therefore why are we trying to force (legislate) a choice onto someone?  My argument is a Christian will not go get an abortion, so having it legal is not more harmful to me as a Christian than the fact that we have bars that serve alcohol is or that I can buy it at the grocery store.  I have had Christians during this election go down the path of "Biden will be aborting babies at birth!  Biden will create more abortions" to which I say, "How?  Is he going to do door to door and drag pregnant women to abortion clinics when they do not want one?"  I try to explain abortion is already legal.  Electing a pro-choice president will not make it MORE legal!  And it also will not result in abortions being performed on those who do not want them, which is amazing to me that I even have to explain this, but sadly I do.  As I said, I have gotten thanks from people for pushing back and challenging their position in a rational way.  Biden is Catholic, but not pro-life from a legislative standpoint, similar to me.  It does not make him any less Christian, it just makes him more rational on the realities of what we are talking about, understanding that banning abortions will likely be much more harmful and leaving things as they stand does nothing to those who are against them.

Biden is a practicing Catholic, but while that means he believes life begins at conception, it doesn't mean that he's going to impose his religious views on others. That's because there is separation of church and state and Catholics are glad for that, because we've had problems in countries where the state and church were not separate. (Like Catholics getting killed kinds of problems.) As far as Biden is concerned, the legality of abortion is a state matter and he does not support legislation to change its status. Some other Catholics have a problem with him because of that, but there is diversity of opinion between Catholics since there are so many different groups within the Faith.

As bad as this past election cycle was, I think we should take heart that Biden is only the second Catholic ever to be elected President (since 1960 when John F. Kennedy was elected as a Democrat) and nobody made an issue out of it. Back in 1960, crazy people thought that electing Kennedy would mean that the Pope would rule the USA. That's crazy because Catholic clergy aren't even allowed to run for political office. That's how much the Church wants to stay separate from government. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Mark 12:17

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1656 on: November 11, 2020, 06:52:13 PM »
Going to a straight national popular vote means California, New York, and a few other places decide for the whole country. Basically coastal states with large urban populations. This year it came down to Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, etc. A lot more representative of the country than running up the vote totals in large coastal cities.

This is often repeated, by you and others, and I think always nonsensical. What would happen if we had a national popular vote is that the people would decide who the president is. Not Californians and New Yorkers, all the people.

Republicans in California would suddenly matter. Democrats in Alabama would suddenly matter. Heck, even Democrats in California and Republicans in Alabama would suddenly matter; right now they don't really because it's a foregone conclusion about which way their state is going to vote.

And there are a lot of people who don't vote because "my vote doesn't really matter". And if they're talking about the presidency and they're not in a swing state, they're absolutely correct. A national popular vote would make everyone's votes matter.
Sherr I agree, and am surprised given what we are talking about in this election it is not more evident.  The Republicans, besides the Democrats owning the big cities only lost by single digit percentages nationwide in two elections.  How many California or Illinois or New York Republicans did not vote.  How many Ohio, or Tennessee or Georgia Democrats did the same?  We have no idea is this boogeyman of Republicans would never win would happen.  I believe it would also force each party to be more moderate, which works for me as I think both parties are far too fringe right now.

Regarding "but the small states will already be ignored!" That's already happening. There's a reason we have consistent "battleground" or "swing" states. A lot of states are solidly one party or the other.  Some states are still being counted while others were called the moment the polling stations closed. The latter were foregone conclusions for both parties and they represent all shapes and sizes of the electorate.

Originally, the Presidential election wasn't really "the will of the people." We've been a representative construct since Day 1. The House represents us. The Senate represents the states and was chosen originally by the state legislatures. The presidential election votes are officially cast by a separate group of folks chosen by the state legislature to represent the people.  I suppose you could call eliminating the EC just cutting out the middle man. Would it be more beneficial to one party? Maybe. The EC wasn't designed to make it fair for political parties.  Are there more Democrats than Republicans? Barely. The number of folks who identify as independent is nearly a third of the electorate. May the best candidate court their vote. 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 07:48:26 PM by Travis »

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1657 on: November 11, 2020, 07:38:29 PM »
I would like one person to explain to me why their particular vote should count less than another person's, based on geography. Why exactly are you, as a citizen, less important than someone else? Why are you suddenly more worthy of a voice when you move somewhere else? Please explain, using history circa 1950-2020 and the associated post-WWII Western society framework of representation in government. Still acceptable, but less so, is a framework based on circa 1865-1939 thinking of representation in government. Most importantly, for this thought experiment, is a focus on yourself. Not a theoretical person in another state, but you and your situation in particular.

As a second thought experiment, explain why a loved one in another geographic location should not have as much representation, using the same framework.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 07:42:56 PM by Abe »

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1658 on: November 11, 2020, 08:16:14 PM »
+1 - you'd think this goes without saying, but it seems that these days everything has to be explained in excruciating detail. Even then they won't agree because it doesn't fit their world view.

Another “tolerant” liberal writing people off as hopeless.

Ha, I never claimed I was endlessly  tolerant. Only moderately tolerant, and only moderately liberal. :)

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1659 on: November 11, 2020, 08:33:59 PM »
I would like one person to explain to me why their particular vote should count less than another person's, based on geography. Why exactly are you, as a citizen, less important than someone else? Why are you suddenly more worthy of a voice when you move somewhere else? Please explain, using history circa 1950-2020 and the associated post-WWII Western society framework of representation in government. Still acceptable, but less so, is a framework based on circa 1865-1939 thinking of representation in government. Most importantly, for this thought experiment, is a focus on yourself. Not a theoretical person in another state, but you and your situation in particular.

As a second thought experiment, explain why a loved one in another geographic location should not have as much representation, using the same framework.

The United States isn't and has never been a pure Democracy.

You can disagree that this is "fair" under whatever you define "fair" to be but the USA has never been this.

And, while the responsibilities of the office aren't exactly the same, the president of the EU is elected in a similar fashion as the electoral college in the United States (a representative chosen by the EU). California as a state would fit in #6 in the EU by total population.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1660 on: November 11, 2020, 09:00:47 PM »
I would like one person to explain to me why their particular vote should count less than another person's, based on geography. Why exactly are you, as a citizen, less important than someone else? Why are you suddenly more worthy of a voice when you move somewhere else? Please explain, using history circa 1950-2020 and the associated post-WWII Western society framework of representation in government. Still acceptable, but less so, is a framework based on circa 1865-1939 thinking of representation in government. Most importantly, for this thought experiment, is a focus on yourself. Not a theoretical person in another state, but you and your situation in particular.

As a second thought experiment, explain why a loved one in another geographic location should not have as much representation, using the same framework.

The United States isn't and has never been a pure Democracy.

You can disagree that this is "fair" under whatever you define "fair" to be but the USA has never been this.

And, while the responsibilities of the office aren't exactly the same, the president of the EU is elected in a similar fashion as the electoral college in the United States (a representative chosen by the EU). California as a state would fit in #6 in the EU by total population.

To clarify: I understand all of that, but I'd like someone explain why that shouldn't be changed. History is littered with countries that were governed in certain ways, and that isn't relevant to the question. Unless your reasoning is "that's just how it is", which I grant is a position that can be taken.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 09:03:44 PM by Abe »

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1661 on: November 12, 2020, 03:53:03 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1662 on: November 12, 2020, 04:44:11 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yep. It's as if they don't understand the concept of "absentee ballot," even though Dear Leader himself voted in Florida via absentee ballot, and it would have been postmarked Washington DC, where he lives...

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1663 on: November 12, 2020, 05:47:00 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yep. It's as if they don't understand the concept of "absentee ballot," even though Dear Leader himself voted in Florida via absentee ballot, and it would have been postmarked Washington DC, where he lives...

I'm sure if my vote was physical (sent mine online), somebody on his team would claim the Koreans were trying to vote in the election.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1664 on: November 12, 2020, 06:23:38 AM »
Statistically, the chances of fraud impacting the outcome of this election is zero. Trump is just crying a lot because he's never lost at anything before in his entire life.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm, but didn't he go bankrupt multiple times?

His investors lost their shirts. He came out of it just fine. He has said so. He said he made a lot of money from Atlantic City despite his business going bankrupt there multiple times.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1665 on: November 12, 2020, 06:24:56 AM »
I've appreciated caracarn's thoughts in this thread.  I am a moderate Democrat myself but grew up in a red, religious area of the country in a military + Christian family and am close to many Republicans (and many now former Republicans who dumped the party in 2016).  As to those dismayed that reasonable Republicans didn't go Biden in the numbers they expected - they may no longer be affiliated with the Republican party.  I'd be curious to see how many people dropped from the Republican party and became either Independent or re-registered as Democrats, but I still think the numbers of moderate Republicans who voted for Biden in this election are a significant contributor to his victory.  Just in my small circle, I know one formerly lifelong Republican who is now an independent and voted for Biden, one formerly lifelong Republican who is now registered Democrat and voted for Biden, and at least four other members of my immediate family who are registered Republicans but voted for Biden. 

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1666 on: November 12, 2020, 06:37:06 AM »
I've appreciated caracarn's thoughts in this thread.  I am a moderate Democrat myself but grew up in a red, religious area of the country in a military + Christian family and am close to many Republicans (and many now former Republicans who dumped the party in 2016).  As to those dismayed that reasonable Republicans didn't go Biden in the numbers they expected - they may no longer be affiliated with the Republican party.  I'd be curious to see how many people dropped from the Republican party and became either Independent or re-registered as Democrats, but I still think the numbers of moderate Republicans who voted for Biden in this election are a significant contributor to his victory.  Just in my small circle, I know one formerly lifelong Republican who is now an independent and voted for Biden, one formerly lifelong Republican who is now registered Democrat and voted for Biden, and at least four other members of my immediate family who are registered Republicans but voted for Biden.

I suspect you’re right. I don’t know for sure, but my in-laws are most likely in that group. They’re old-school Republicans who were disgusted by Trump’s behavior. My MIL never, ever talks politics but let slip an angry comment about all of Trump’s lies when we last saw them. My FIL has a great deal of respect for government and the Constitution. I also have several very Catholic friends who normally vote Republican because of “pro-life” but switched and voted for Biden out of absolute disgust at Trump’s actions and rhetoric.

PhilB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5700
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1667 on: November 12, 2020, 06:39:14 AM »
I'm hoping this will help calm matters rather than inflame them further, but if you just add a couple more steps to Montecarlo's model it may help everyone realise that we are all just arguing about definitions of zero.

If we accept Montecarlo's initial assumptions - which I don't think are particularly unreasonable - then you get a 0.63% chance that 1 or your 100,000 counts has 'significant' fraud in it.  With 150 million votes cast the average count has 1,500 votes.  Let's say that (generously) you could fix 40% of the votes in a count without it being glaringly obvious.  That gives an estimated impact across the whole election of 600 votes in one state.

Is that estimate right?  No, of course not, it's just a very rough estimate.  Could Montecarlo's assumptions be so wrong that the real figure is orders of magnitude lower?  Possibly given all the safeguards, but who cares as the answer is already totally immaterial?  Does anyone really believe that Montecarlo's assumptions are so wrong that the real answer could be 2 or 3 orders of magnitude higher?  And just happen to have taken place in one of the very few states where it would make a difference?  I doubt that.

So Montecarlo's analysis is a pretty reasonable way of showing that although you can never entirely rule out fraud, you can be very confident indeed that any count fraud there is actually has zero impact.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1668 on: November 12, 2020, 06:40:12 AM »
Statistically, the chances of fraud impacting the outcome of this election is zero. Trump is just crying a lot because he's never lost at anything before in his entire life.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm, but didn't he go bankrupt multiple times?

His investors lost their shirts. He came out of it just fine. He has said so. He said he made a lot of money from Atlantic City despite his business going bankrupt there multiple times.

Well... I mean, if Trump said so then it must be true, right?
/s

FWIW, most investigations of his businesses have shown that he's repeatedly lost a fortune.  It seems his 'great talent' is getting lenders and partners to keep investing in his businesses even after multiple bankruptcies and very bad deals.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1669 on: November 12, 2020, 06:43:57 AM »
I've appreciated caracarn's thoughts in this thread.  I am a moderate Democrat myself but grew up in a red, religious area of the country in a military + Christian family and am close to many Republicans (and many now former Republicans who dumped the party in 2016).  As to those dismayed that reasonable Republicans didn't go Biden in the numbers they expected - they may no longer be affiliated with the Republican party.  I'd be curious to see how many people dropped from the Republican party and became either Independent or re-registered as Democrats, but I still think the numbers of moderate Republicans who voted for Biden in this election are a significant contributor to his victory.  Just in my small circle, I know one formerly lifelong Republican who is now an independent and voted for Biden, one formerly lifelong Republican who is now registered Democrat and voted for Biden, and at least four other members of my immediate family who are registered Republicans but voted for Biden.
A humble thank you for your appreciation.

Ohio does not require you to declare a party except in the primary as you are voting in the party primary, so party affiliation listed in the voter record is how I voted in the last primary, therefore if you looked me up you'd see Democrat, though I never registered that way.  So I did not have to "drop" from anything because of how my state does things, but I typically find Democratic policies pressed by the progressives too much, and as the party wars over which way to go, if that is the result they will lose me as well.

I agree that I do believe a lot of moderates went for Biden, and I think it is foolish for the Democratic party for certain to not realize that there has not been a home for moderates for a long time. 

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.  For me a divided government is a good thing because it limits the radicalization.  While my frustration with the Republican party certainly had me in a scorched earth mood when voting, now that the prospect of not gaining the Senate is out there, I find myself feeling that will be better.  It will allow Biden to stand against the far left wing of the party and simply say "I cannot get the Cabinet members or the legislation through that you want so sorry" versus having instead to stand firm to avoid losing moderates in the future.  The sooner the party understands that Joe Biden should not be a dying breed the better off they will be if they can get young Democrats to run on a moderate slate with the promise of embracing the one or two pressing issues that need a progressive laser on them right now, but a broad brush is too much for me.  There are too many unintended consequences that any legislation causes due to the complexity of governing a diverse nation.  This is similar to the concundrum the Republicans face in ever getting voters like me back.  The sooner the Republicans realize that anyone like Trump from a temperament AND policy standpoint needs to be a dying breed, the sooner they have a chance I will vote their way.  A nicer racist, white supremacist is not going to earn my vote either.  It's not just about the boorish behavior.  It is about the policies favoring  a single group over another that has me disgusted with the party as well and the lack of backbone to say it is wrong.  Joe Biden admits he makes mistakes and that is not a weakness.  Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham and the other Trumpists do not.  That is extremely off putting. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1670 on: November 12, 2020, 06:47:14 AM »
So Montecarlo's analysis is a pretty reasonable way of showing that although you can never entirely rule out fraud, you can be very confident indeed that any count fraud there is actually has zero impact.
If that is what he was trying to say then he did a terrible job of it, and it was not a reasonable way of showing it because if was far too complex.

If that is what he was trying to say, then your simple sentence of "although you can never entirely rule out fraud, you can be very confident indeed that any count fraud there is actually has zero impact" was much more clear and easy to agree with.

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Location: Midtown
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1671 on: November 12, 2020, 08:23:12 AM »
Statistically, the chances of fraud impacting the outcome of this election is zero. Trump is just crying a lot because he's never lost at anything before in his entire life.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm, but didn't he go bankrupt multiple times?

His investors lost their shirts. He came out of it just fine. He has said so. He said he made a lot of money from Atlantic City despite his business going bankrupt there multiple times.

Well... I mean, if Trump said so then it must be true, right?
/s

FWIW, most investigations of his businesses have shown that he's repeatedly lost a fortune.  It seems his 'great talent' is getting lenders and partners to keep investing in his businesses even after multiple bankruptcies and very bad deals.

I'm sure it's true that some of Trump's business deals have gone sideways on him and he's lost shit tons of money, but I think it's also the nature of his main business, i.e., real estate, that lends itself to easily showing big paper losses, while at the same time generating significant income. Over the years, I've known people who operated what they claimed to the IRS were money losing ventures, but, at the same time, they were always flush with money: fancy vacations, cruises, luxury cars, vacation homes, etc. One guy I used to work for literally stole thousands of dollars in cash from his own business, on multiple occasions. He would always call the police and report the missing cash as supposed employee theft, which allowed him to get reimbursed by insurance. Mysteriously, the thefts always seemed to happen on a Friday afternoon and, then, the boss would always disappear for a long weekend trip full of fancy hotels and debauchery at Korean hostess bars on Oahu. I think Trump probably falls into this category of sleazy business owners who intentionally structure their business deals, so that it appears to the IRS and, sometimes, their insurance companies, ex-spouses, etc., that they are losing money, hand over fist, but their intention is to avoid taxes and, maybe, alimony, etc., and they are often quite successful at doing that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1672 on: November 12, 2020, 08:34:09 AM »
Statistically, the chances of fraud impacting the outcome of this election is zero. Trump is just crying a lot because he's never lost at anything before in his entire life.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm, but didn't he go bankrupt multiple times?

His investors lost their shirts. He came out of it just fine. He has said so. He said he made a lot of money from Atlantic City despite his business going bankrupt there multiple times.

Well... I mean, if Trump said so then it must be true, right?
/s

FWIW, most investigations of his businesses have shown that he's repeatedly lost a fortune.  It seems his 'great talent' is getting lenders and partners to keep investing in his businesses even after multiple bankruptcies and very bad deals.

I'm sure it's true that some of Trump's business deals have gone sideways on him and he's lost shit tons of money, but I think it's also the nature of his main business, i.e., real estate, that lends itself to easily showing big paper losses, while at the same time generating significant income. Over the years, I've known people who operated what they claimed to the IRS were money losing ventures, but, at the same time, they were always flush with money: fancy vacations, cruises, luxury cars, vacation homes, etc. One guy I used to work for literally stole thousands of dollars in cash from his own business, on multiple occasions. He would always call the police and report the missing cash as supposed employee theft, which allowed him to get reimbursed by insurance. Mysteriously, the thefts always seemed to happen on a Friday afternoon and, then, the boss would always disappear for a long weekend trip full of fancy hotels and debauchery at Korean hostess bars on Oahu. I think Trump probably falls into this category of sleazy business owners who intentionally structure their business deals, so that it appears to the IRS and, sometimes, their insurance companies, ex-spouses, etc., that they are losing money, hand over fist, but their intention is to avoid taxes and, maybe, alimony, etc., and they are often quite successful at doing that.
Even by the standards of people within RE, Trump has done spectacularly poorly.

The NY times did a pretty thorough deep-dive through his businesses back in October.  They concluded: The tax returns for Mr. Trump and hundreds of his businesses reveal the hollowness, but also the wizardry, of the self-made-billionaire image honed through 'The Apprentice. They demonstrate that he was far more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life.
Similar analyses of his Taj Majal casino concluded that he overpaid and was sold for about 4¢ on the dollar during a time when there was an economic boom and most of the other casinos reaped record profits.  It seems he's currently in a similar boondoggle with the Trump Internatinoal hotel in DC, the Dural resort in Florida and his Aberdeen golf course in Scotland.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1673 on: November 12, 2020, 08:51:32 AM »
Donald Trump has also claimed a Net Worth of 7 Billion back in 2012. Probably a lie, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was at 3.5-4B. Forbes had him at about 3B last year, and then with the revelation of his 500MM in debt, they've lowered it again to 2.5B.

Trump is burning through cash quickly. And when he leaves office and NY finally sues him for his past fraud, he again likely have to settle for large sums of money.

Trump has been burning through cash and assets for years now. Based on how much his father left to him, even if he was even just a middling investor, I guess that he likely would be worth > 10B today.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1674 on: November 12, 2020, 09:11:04 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal. 

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1675 on: November 12, 2020, 09:13:50 AM »
Statistically, the chances of fraud impacting the outcome of this election is zero. Trump is just crying a lot because he's never lost at anything before in his entire life.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm, but didn't he go bankrupt multiple times?

His investors lost their shirts. He came out of it just fine. He has said so. He said he made a lot of money from Atlantic City despite his business going bankrupt there multiple times.

Well... I mean, if Trump said so then it must be true, right?
/s

FWIW, most investigations of his businesses have shown that he's repeatedly lost a fortune.  It seems his 'great talent' is getting lenders and partners to keep investing in his businesses even after multiple bankruptcies and very bad deals.

I'm sure it's true that some of Trump's business deals have gone sideways on him and he's lost shit tons of money, but I think it's also the nature of his main business, i.e., real estate, that lends itself to easily showing big paper losses, while at the same time generating significant income. Over the years, I've known people who operated what they claimed to the IRS were money losing ventures, but, at the same time, they were always flush with money: fancy vacations, cruises, luxury cars, vacation homes, etc. One guy I used to work for literally stole thousands of dollars in cash from his own business, on multiple occasions. He would always call the police and report the missing cash as supposed employee theft, which allowed him to get reimbursed by insurance. Mysteriously, the thefts always seemed to happen on a Friday afternoon and, then, the boss would always disappear for a long weekend trip full of fancy hotels and debauchery at Korean hostess bars on Oahu. I think Trump probably falls into this category of sleazy business owners who intentionally structure their business deals, so that it appears to the IRS and, sometimes, their insurance companies, ex-spouses, etc., that they are losing money, hand over fist, but their intention is to avoid taxes and, maybe, alimony, etc., and they are often quite successful at doing that.
Even by the standards of people within RE, Trump has done spectacularly poorly.

The NY times did a pretty thorough deep-dive through his businesses back in October.  They concluded: The tax returns for Mr. Trump and hundreds of his businesses reveal the hollowness, but also the wizardry, of the self-made-billionaire image honed through 'The Apprentice. They demonstrate that he was far more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life.
Similar analyses of his Taj Majal casino concluded that he overpaid and was sold for about 4¢ on the dollar during a time when there was an economic boom and most of the other casinos reaped record profits.  It seems he's currently in a similar boondoggle with the Trump Internatinoal hotel in DC, the Dural resort in Florida and his Aberdeen golf course in Scotland.

His investors are really on the hook for it. He plays with other people's money and then gets out the situation relatively cleanly. That's why he said he "made a lot of money" in Atlantic City even though the businesses were terrible and went bankrupt.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6720
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1676 on: November 12, 2020, 09:14:42 AM »
I wonder if his business career is like his political career. A small group gets stars in their eyes - makes deals with him, joins his clubs, frequents his establishments to be near him or his brand while the overwhelming number of people are not impressed and avoid him. He takes their money, knows there are always more suckers.

I can't stand him on TV. I suspect in person my reaction would be even worse.
He'd start his BS within seconds of meeting him and I'd need to leave immediately lest I speak my mind.
I have a hard time with the basic salesman. This guy's BS is magnitudes worse.

I don't want this outcome: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=woman+flips+off+motorcade+gets+fired&t=vivaldi&atb=v204-1&ia=web

I had a dream of Trump visiting our house with the press corps in tow. The question was how to send him away without becoming a target of his supporters or losing my job?
I hate troubleshooting dreams. I have them more than other types of dreams. Prob related to career choices.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1677 on: November 12, 2020, 09:19:41 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1678 on: November 12, 2020, 09:26:07 AM »

His investors are really on the hook for it. He plays with other people's money and then gets out the situation relatively cleanly. That's why he said he "made a lot of money" in Atlantic City even though the businesses were terrible and went bankrupt.

The latest evidence doesn't really support this, though.  According to the investigative reporting of the NYT he's got $421MM of personally guaranteed loans coming due in the next few years.

It's a sharp divergence from 1990 when he left investors on the hook for loses in Atlantic City and managed to still earn millions. It's still not a ringing endorsement that a businessman had his marquee Casino declare bankrupty and go into liquidation during a decade when other casinos recorded record profits.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1679 on: November 12, 2020, 09:28:47 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

He's dead in the water and absolutely nothing he does is going to work out in his favor.  Maybe, maybe some of his suits will actually have merit and get a small number of ballots tossed for technical reasons, but it won't matter to the overall vote count and won't flip a single state.  And even if he does somehow miraculously succeed and actually flip a state, he'll have to repeat that feat in another 2-4 states each with increasingly unlikely odds of success.

Quote from: Mr. Burns
Unless, of course, my nine all-stars fall victim to nine separate misfortunes and are unable to play tomorrow. But that will never happen. Three misfortunes, that's possible. Seven misfortunes, there's an outside chance. But nine misfortunes? I'd like to see that!"

jinga nation

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2696
  • Age: 247
  • Location: 'Murica's Dong
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1680 on: November 12, 2020, 10:30:25 AM »

His investors are really on the hook for it. He plays with other people's money and then gets out the situation relatively cleanly. That's why he said he "made a lot of money" in Atlantic City even though the businesses were terrible and went bankrupt.

The latest evidence doesn't really support this, though.  According to the investigative reporting of the NYT he's got $421MM of personally guaranteed loans coming due in the next few years.

It's a sharp divergence from 1990 when he left investors on the hook for loses in Atlantic City and managed to still earn millions. It's still not a ringing endorsement that a businessman had his marquee Casino declare bankrupty and go into liquidation during a decade when other casinos recorded record profits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/11/trumps-election-challenge-looks-like-scam-line-his-pockets/

Grifters gonna grift till the very end.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1681 on: November 12, 2020, 10:36:44 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

Actually the same MT poll showed that veterans under age 55 were more likely to vote for Biden, and presumably this would hold for active personnel too. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/

He's dead in the water and absolutely nothing he does is going to work out in his favor.  Maybe, maybe some of his suits will actually have merit and get a small number of ballots tossed for technical reasons, but it won't matter to the overall vote count and won't flip a single state.  And even if he does somehow miraculously succeed and actually flip a state, he'll have to repeat that feat in another 2-4 states each with increasingly unlikely odds of success.

Quote from: Mr. Burns
Unless, of course, my nine all-stars fall victim to nine separate misfortunes and are unable to play tomorrow. But that will never happen. Three misfortunes, that's possible. Seven misfortunes, there's an outside chance. But nine misfortunes? I'd like to see that!"

It's a fundraiser and not a serious challenge. Apparently the first $8000 of a donor's contribution to his "legal fund" won't go to the fund, but instead to the Trump "Save America" PAC and the RNC. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4560
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1682 on: November 12, 2020, 11:10:36 AM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

Actually the same MT poll showed that veterans under age 55 were more likely to vote for Biden, and presumably this would hold for active personnel too. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/


That is interesting: the veterans my age that I know (under 55, but not by that much) are all ardent Trump supporters, while the Vietnam Era ones I know are mostly very anti-Trump. For some, one of his worst offenses was getting them to vote for Clinton...

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1683 on: November 12, 2020, 05:24:26 PM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

Actually the same MT poll showed that veterans under age 55 were more likely to vote for Biden, and presumably this would hold for active personnel too. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/


That is interesting: the veterans my age that I know (under 55, but not by that much) are all ardent Trump supporters, while the Vietnam Era ones I know are mostly very anti-Trump. For some, one of his worst offenses was getting them to vote for Clinton...

I can't think of a single service member in our circle (spouse is active duty) who supports Trump.  Granted it's a limited circle (officers from O-3 to O-6), but there seems to be overwhelming support for Biden, and that makes some sense.  Biden has more support among college-educated people, and that's this group.  If one accepts that you can probably extrapolate from the poll demographic numbers what his support might look like with service members, then likely it would be the younger, not-college educated service members (and among them, not the POC), and the older ones who would support Trump. 

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1684 on: November 12, 2020, 07:38:16 PM »
At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

Yes, ballots legally cast by service members who were in Nevada, and then got transferred elsewhere because military.  He's suing to throw out those legal ballots.  On Veterans Day.  This timeline is so fucking surreal.

Given the tendancy of military personnel to vote GOP, would this even work out in the President's favor?  IIRC the Military Times released a poll a few weeks before the election showing support pretty much evenly split.  Even if they tilted slightly towards Biden, throw out 1k votes for a net-pickup of 50 or so in a state you are losing by over 16,000?  And disenfranchise that many service members?
That's  not robbing Peter to pay Paul, that's stabbing him, and then defiling his grave.

Actually the same MT poll showed that veterans under age 55 were more likely to vote for Biden, and presumably this would hold for active personnel too. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/


That is interesting: the veterans my age that I know (under 55, but not by that much) are all ardent Trump supporters, while the Vietnam Era ones I know are mostly very anti-Trump. For some, one of his worst offenses was getting them to vote for Clinton...

I can't think of a single service member in our circle (spouse is active duty) who supports Trump.  Granted it's a limited circle (officers from O-3 to O-6), but there seems to be overwhelming support for Biden, and that makes some sense.  Biden has more support among college-educated people, and that's this group.  If one accepts that you can probably extrapolate from the poll demographic numbers what his support might look like with service members, then likely it would be the younger, not-college educated service members (and among them, not the POC), and the older ones who would support Trump.

My personal observations reflect military support falling in line with the national trend. College educated, urban-born soldiers seem to lean towards Biden. They're also legally required to bite their tongues about most of Trump's shenanigans and you can see most of them delicately express their opinions on the things we cover in the "outrage" thread.  Watching the COVID saga play out in the US compared to how we're playing the game here has been disheartening and puts us in a difficult position sometimes. Mask wear, distancing, and quarantine are mandatory in the DoD, whereas the CiC is basically calling us all fools for doing it.  Trump supporting military leaders have used that as an excuse to be openly reckless.  Most of my coworkers and subordinates looked absolutely in pain when the fraud accusations started coming. We watched his election night speech live and couldn't hold it in any longer. "What the fuck was that?" was on everybody's minds and a few lips.  Republicans probably still enjoy a slight majority on the military vote, but the younger generation is going more Democrat and Trump's indefensible opinions and positions the last couple years have made it difficult for Republican soldiers to say anything good about him in good conscience. 

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1685 on: November 12, 2020, 08:15:19 PM »
I would guess my Infantry unit in the Army National Guard is at least 80/20 Trump/Biden. I can't recall anyone who openly discussed supporting Biden.

I did overhear a conversation last weekend and a couple of my guys were discussing voting for Libertarians - at least down the ticket.


Even with that military.com poll I would strongly suspect most of the military still leans Republican.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1686 on: November 12, 2020, 08:23:00 PM »
I would like one person to explain to me why their particular vote should count less than another person's, based on geography. Why exactly are you, as a citizen, less important than someone else? Why are you suddenly more worthy of a voice when you move somewhere else? Please explain, using history circa 1950-2020 and the associated post-WWII Western society framework of representation in government. Still acceptable, but less so, is a framework based on circa 1865-1939 thinking of representation in government. Most importantly, for this thought experiment, is a focus on yourself. Not a theoretical person in another state, but you and your situation in particular.

As a second thought experiment, explain why a loved one in another geographic location should not have as much representation, using the same framework.

The United States isn't and has never been a pure Democracy.

You can disagree that this is "fair" under whatever you define "fair" to be but the USA has never been this.

And, while the responsibilities of the office aren't exactly the same, the president of the EU is elected in a similar fashion as the electoral college in the United States (a representative chosen by the EU). California as a state would fit in #6 in the EU by total population.

To clarify: I understand all of that, but I'd like someone explain why that shouldn't be changed. History is littered with countries that were governed in certain ways, and that isn't relevant to the question. Unless your reasoning is "that's just how it is", which I grant is a position that can be taken.

If you want a more reasonable answer, don't ask the question in a way that begs the question.

Your entire premise is that your individual vote is how you are "important" as a person. Does the fact that ~600 people total vote on all the bills in the USA mean all of us who are not in Congress don't matter, because our input on them doesn't matter? Of course not.

I don't believe we live in a full blown democracy nor frankly do I want to live in a democracy (vs a democratic Republic).

The United States is not a homogenous country and I do not think it's wise to treat it as such from a government perspective. In many ways, we are a collection of small countries organized into a federal republic (those small countries don't necessarily mean states, but that's a good starting point). Many countries - in fact most outside of Africa - are a lot more homogenous than the collective United States is. But many of the aforementioned "small countries" in the USA are individually heavily homogenous.

I think it's a mistake to think the United States is on the whole remotely homogenous and the American republic that is our federal government should be abolished in favor of a much more pure democracy. It is much more akin to the EU as a whole, which established after your 1865-1939 dates is fairly federal in function.

There is inherent tension in a country as large and diverse as the United States. Personally, I don't think that there's really a solution that will make everyone happy because of the above. This inherent tension exists because the house, senate, and president are all elected in slightly different ways and apportioned differently.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1687 on: November 12, 2020, 08:39:08 PM »
Ok, you are correct that voting power isn’t a person’s worth. I’m not sure what you mean about how I phrased the question otherwise.

Your response hasn’t answered my question about why a non-democratic system is better. It further raises the question of why the president should be chosen in an undemocratic manner when all other elected officials in the federal government are?

Regarding the first point: why should states define the electoral boundaries? It seems rather arbitrary to have them as the units for deciding electors, especially given how heterogeneity within states is more than between states (demonstrated by the number of closely divided states in recent elections).

The EU argument for this isn’t great for several reasons related to the structure of the US and EU executives and judicial systems:
European countries are in fact actual different countries that did not allow free movement of various groups amongst themselves until recently. Thus their populations are more homogenous than US states, which rarely restricted movement of non-slaves between themselves.
This is because our states are not individual nations. The only state that was a separate nation, Texas, stopped being one in order to join the US. The states have, since the constitutionally created government system was made, been under binding federal governments of varying strength over the last 200+ years. The EU has not: it has no formal constitution, thus its trans-national government enforcement is much weaker than the US government’s (it exists only by treaty between nations, has no enforcement power independent of the nations, and has no federal police with authority within member nations). Also, membership is not binding upon citizens of the various nations (see Brexit).
Additionally, the EU executive has much less power than the US president, especially in terms of international treaty negotiations, police power, and military power. It cannot appoint a justice system that supersedes individual nations’ laws (member states appoint judges to the EU courts).
For these reasons I don’t think the US system is similar to the EU.

Your point about the rest of the US government and voting influence via congress: the people voting on those bills are elected in a much more proportional manner. No House district has an electoral college made up of precinct officers, for example. People in a given large town do not have less individual voting influence on the representative’s election than a less populated town within the district. No senator is elected by an electoral college of state districts, as another example. The president is the only elected official in the federal government elected in a non-democratic way. All other members are elected by a majority of the area they represent. Are those methods fundamentally flawed, then? If so, why?

One clearly obvious option would be proportional assignment of electors within a state, which would then better represent citizens of that state and avoid the current problems of the electoral college.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 09:36:32 PM by Abe »

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1688 on: November 12, 2020, 09:08:36 PM »

I don't believe we live in a full blown democracy nor frankly do I want to live in a democracy (vs a democratic Republic).


I don't think we're in any danger of anyone seriously proposing a literal democracy (in which every governmental decision is directly voted on by all the millions of citizens) instead of a democratic republic.

I think what Abe is proposing is the same thing that I and probably many others support: direct election of the President.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 09:24:46 PM by BicycleB »

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1689 on: November 12, 2020, 09:23:30 PM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1690 on: November 12, 2020, 09:30:23 PM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

Were not going to meet climate goals without something on the level of the GND, so not sure what you're hoping can be accomplished without something like it.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4560
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1691 on: November 12, 2020, 09:31:52 PM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

What about the GND do you oppose?

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1692 on: November 12, 2020, 09:43:02 PM »
Wasn’t directed at me, but I think the green new deal tries to tie too many things into a sloppy soup, making it unpalatable for the groups that most need to embrace it: private sector companies and conservative states. If they pursue the economic stimulus part without the social justice part, the former is more likely to succeed based on market forces, and the latter will come to some extent as new jobs open up. Or they may not. That’s the risk we have to take, but we can’t tie the whole world’s climate future to grievances within our society, legitimate or not. Those need to be sorted out separately and not slapped onto everything with the hope it somehow isn’t immediately ripped out by conservatives and libertarians. It’s about marketing, and the customers we are trying to entice aren’t shopping for social justice. They do have the option of just not buying at all.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 09:46:01 PM by Abe »

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1693 on: November 12, 2020, 10:20:19 PM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

What about the GND do you oppose?

Primarily the parts that aren't about climate change. Guaranteeing a job to all people in the United States. Economic security, high quality health care, and affordable housing for all people of the United States. These are outcomes I would love to see, but putting them all in one bill would probably guarantee that none of them gets accomplished. To me it seems wise that Biden chose more focused climate planks for his platform.

Re the election outcome, it seems that some key voters (reluctant Biden voters who are dubious about how far left Democrats will go) have views of what progressive is that I had not realized - important views. I'm not trying to argue for/against GND right now, I'm asking what one or more of those voters thinks a progressive might advocate for. Understanding their views might help me understand the election outcome and be a more responsible citizen the next four years. Maybe even recognize what circumstances might sustain a future electoral coalition that could grow out of this year's one.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 10:54:34 PM by BicycleB »

Montecarlo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1694 on: November 13, 2020, 02:48:12 AM »

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1695 on: November 13, 2020, 07:12:56 AM »
Your response hasn’t answered my question about why a non-democratic system is better. It further raises the question of why the president should be chosen in an undemocratic manner when all other elected officials in the federal government are?

The reason I mention we as individuals don't directly vote on laws - Congress does - is because of the impact on me as voter.

You are correct that individual officials are elected via direct popular vote, in each respective area. But that translates to a collective Congress which is what actually votes on and enacts policy as a result. We, as voters, do not directly vote on those (except for state/local related initiatives which are on ballots). The presidency is different, because as you've said, in that the president has a lot more personal influence than any individual congressperson.

In other words, for the results of Congress, we vote for people who collectively make decisions on behalf of the individual voters. So voting for a president would actually be different in some ways from this because the impact would be a single person directly elected by individual voters (where bills passed in Congress are not).


Quote
European countries are in fact actual different countries that did not allow free movement of various groups amongst themselves until recently. Thus their populations are more homogenous than US states, which rarely restricted movement of non-slaves between themselves.
This is because our states are not individual nations.


... duh?

My point, which you've missed, is that areas of the United States are dramatically different from each other similar to European countries. Unless you're going to tell me people in San Francisco/CA can empathize with the concerns of people in Nebraska etc?

Quote
Additionally, the EU executive has much less power than the US president, especially in terms of international treaty negotiations, police power, and military power. It cannot appoint a justice system that supersedes individual nations’ laws (member states appoint judges to the EU courts).
For these reasons I don’t think the US system is similar to the EU.

Currently? Yes. Historically? Much less so. The federal government has been increasing in power/scope pretty consistently for decades, regardless of party.

That being said I do not particularly expect any Republican or Democrat party candidate to run on a platform of "I will, actually and for real and not just making campaign promises, work on reducing the scope of the executive branch."


Quote
One clearly obvious option would be proportional assignment of electors within a state, which would then better represent citizens of that state and avoid the current problems of the electoral college.

This is entirely in the hands of states to determine and in fact several states do already this (Maine and Nebraska, though it's worth pointing out that gerrymandering is a major concern depending on how a state actually implements this).

A better solution is to recognize the primary problem with electoral voting and disproportionate representation is that the number of representatives in the House of Representatives has been capped for over 100 years, making the impact of population and electors from HoR disproportionately small vs each state's two senators. And for areas that have representatives and no senators, even moreso.

But really, with winner takes all approach, this results in a different problem - even if the electoral college is fair and reasonable itself, it means that states that have "clear" winners (say California or Wyoming, both of whom had massive margins in favor of Biden/Trump respectively) are basically irrelevant from the election perspective.

I have speculated a hybrid approach would be better - maybe the EC plus an additional number of guaranteed electoral votes which reflect the national popular vote? So a candidate who wins the popular vote receives say 50 free votes to be added to their state totals.

I also think that much of the problem we have with voting for president is the winner takes all approach basically guarantees a two party system. Or, more cynically if you prefer, a "lesser of two evils" situation. Because in a real sense, if you cast your vote for a non-R and non-D candidate your vote is rather irrelevant in almost all states. In fact, the only reason your vote even becomes relevant when it is relevant it is because you didn't vote for the Democrat/Republican candidates.

A national popular vote without ranked choice voting exacerbates this problem for obvious reasons - it becomes even more meaningful to only vote for the candidates who have a chance at winning and all other votes are "pointless." I use quotes there because people vary in mindset on voting from pragmatic to idealistic/philosophical, which impacts the strength of a non-R/D vote being "pointless" or not. Regardless, ranked voting seems the only solution to get around that and personally, without it I do not think that national popular vote will make the general political situation better but worse.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1696 on: November 13, 2020, 07:49:57 AM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?
So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1697 on: November 13, 2020, 07:56:16 AM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

What about the GND do you oppose?
The fact that it is another progressive item without a clear way to pay for it.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1698 on: November 13, 2020, 08:08:06 AM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?
So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Are you sure your perspective is not biased here? You are basically attacking the "progressive" agenda as "fiscally irresponsible", while implying that a conservative agenda ("business-person" etc) is fiscally responsible. To me, it appears that history and numbers show the exact opposite reality.

We have many examples of "progressive" legislations:
1. Emancipation proclamation radically altered the concept of property rights, and reduced Mississippi from highest concentration of "millionaires" per capita to probably the lowest overnight.
2. New Deal was a massive overhaul in the jaw of great depression.
3. Medicare, likewise.
4. And then the (in)famous Obamacare.

In all these cases, the "so called" progressives actually put together a plan to address the fiscal side of things. e.g. New Deal legislation and regulation was happening all the way up to Nixon administration. After that, good faith politics and the consequent concept of compromises departed America, and we are where are now!!

Contrast that to any number of "conservative" legislations from Regan onwards. It seems to me they one common thread to them is how to give handouts to the rich, while stiffing the next generation by increasing the debt burden on the society.

Given this history, why exactly this claim that somehow the "progressives" need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude, and the implication that no such proof is necessary from the habitual and repeat offenders - the conservatives?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 08:23:20 AM by ctuser1 »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1699 on: November 13, 2020, 08:43:29 AM »

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?
So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!