traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Absolutely not, for two reasons:

1. Trump probably will be dead in four years.

2. He never wanted to be POTUS, he wanted free publicity for the Trump News Network.

I am starting to think that he will lose, actually concede, and then move ahead with making bank.

No chance in hell. Any speech he gives election night, God-willing following his monumental loss, will be to mobilize his supporters, cry how the election was stolen from him, he was never treated fairly, yada, yada, yada and, as noted above, to make a major announcement (like, as mentioned, he [or one of his kids] is running in 2024 or the start of Trump TV or some such shit). I think there is perhaps a very real chance that he resigns just prior to leaving office so that Pence can pardon him.

MoBettle wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Some sort of election security announcement from the FBI incoming

Russian and Iran have election registration information on people. Iran has apparently sent some spoof emails trying to intimidate voters.

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:whoops, just saw this thread. I'll repost here.



Yes, he just needs to win one of them and I really think he will win PA because it will go to SCOTUS. It's already set up.

But even without cheating, if he's got a 15% chance at all 3, then he's got a 45% chance to win one of them. If we get a 3% swing towards Trump with bad polling or GOP voters coming home to roost (which they almost always do), all those states propping up Biden's win % will disappear and we'll be down to the same 3 states again. It's hard to replace PA electoral votes without winning FL or needing multiple red states to turn blue. With his unpopularity on the coasts being off the charts, he could lose the popular vote by 5% and still sneak out the electoral win.

And I’ll just repeat that’s not how it works. Silver explains this in one of the first questions on the 538 podcast on Friday last week.

Thanks, this business about state legislatures or the SCOTUS stealing the election for Trump is just misinformed fear porn imo.

**ring** *ring*

It's 2000 on the phone. They want to speak with you.

I usually don't listen to podcasts because I'm easily distracted with two kids and being up all night. I find I lose attention and then have to rewind to try to find where I left off. Despite being an auditory person, I prefer to read the news because I can just stop and then come back to it more easily.

That said, I'll try to take a listen to the podcast if I have the time tonight.

I think anyone scarred from the mental gymnastics the SCOTUS showed in 2000 is rightly nervous about this election and what seems to be clearly a scramble to get her on the court before the election. She was involved in 2000 and they will steal it for him if they get the chance. Maybe they won't get the chance.

Well you want you can just read the explainer behind the model: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... -covid-19/

Here's something more directly on point (ironically in an article a month before 2016 explaining why 538's model was more optimistic about Trumps chances than others) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/el ... -on-trump/

Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
In 2012, Obama beat his polling by 2 or 3 percentage points in almost every swing state. The same was true in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide — instead of the modest lead that polls showed a few days before the election — and claimed 489 electoral votes by winning almost every competitive state. You also frequently see this in midterms — Republicans beat their polling in almost every key Senate and gubernatorial race in 2014, for example.

Basically, this means that you shouldn’t count on states to behave independently of one another, especially if they’re demographically similar. If Clinton loses Pennsylvania despite having a big lead in the polls there, for instance, she might also have problems in Michigan, North Carolina and other swing states. What seems like an impregnable firewall in the Electoral College may begin to collapse.

What if we changed this assumption? If we assumed that states had the same overall error as in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model but that the error in each state was independent, Clinton’s chances would be … 99.8 percent, and Trump’s chances just 0.2 percent. So assumptions about the correlation between states make a huge difference. Most other models also assume that state-by-state outcomes are correlated to some degree, but based on their probability distributions, FiveThirtyEight’s seem to be more emphatic about this assumption, accounting for both the possibility a significant national polling error and other types of correlations, such as between states in different regions.

But this kinda supports my argument, doesn't it? If things slide 3% towards Trump, they'll slide everywhere and he'll easily win the red states that are now in play and we'll be down to those last 3-4 states, almost the same states as 2016. And if PA get's close enough, assuming he has a way to steal it, he could steal the election by just picking off one of those 3 states from last time. Him winning PA would be a killer. Biden can replace WI with AZ and ME2, but PA is hard to replace.

Gimpy wrote:

traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Absolutely not, for two reasons:

1. Trump probably will be dead in four years.

2. He never wanted to be POTUS, he wanted free publicity for the Trump News Network.

I am starting to think that he will lose, actually concede, and then move ahead with making bank.

No chance in hell. Any speech he gives election night, God-willing following his monumental loss, will be to mobilize his supporters, cry how the election was stolen from him, he was never treated fairly, yada, yada, yada and, as noted above, to make a major announcement (like, as mentioned, he [or one of his kids] is running in 2024 or the start of Trump TV or some such shit). I think there is perhaps a very real chance that he resigns just prior to leaving office so that Pence can pardon him.

I doubt he even addresses anyone the night he loses. He’ll probably be super pissed off and not take the stage. I’d give even odds that he starts tweeting while his party is still going on.

06hawkalum wrote:What’s going on with Moscow Mitch’s hands?

https://twitter.com/anastasiakeeley/sta ... 09475?s=20

Looks like he has been six feet under for quite some time.

Alternatively, maybe he took out with anger about Trump on a concrete wall.

JFLNYC wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Absolutely not, for two reasons:

1. Trump probably will be dead in four years.

2. He never wanted to be POTUS, he wanted free publicity for the Trump News Network.

I am starting to think that he will lose, actually concede, and then move ahead with making bank.

No chance in hell. Any speech he gives election night, God-willing following his monumental loss, will be to mobilize his supporters, cry how the election was stolen from him, he was never treated fairly, yada, yada, yada and, as noted above, to make a major announcement (like, as mentioned, he [or one of his kids] is running in 2024 or the start of Trump TV or some such #$!&@). I think there is perhaps a very real chance that he resigns just prior to leaving office so that Pence can pardon him.

I doubt he even addresses anyone the night he loses. He’ll probably be super pissed off and not take the stage. I’d give even odds that he starts tweeting while his party is still going on.

I’d give better odds he never stops tweeting in the first place.

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:whoops, just saw this thread. I'll repost here.



Yes, he just needs to win one of them and I really think he will win PA because it will go to SCOTUS. It's already set up.

But even without cheating, if he's got a 15% chance at all 3, then he's got a 45% chance to win one of them. If we get a 3% swing towards Trump with bad polling or GOP voters coming home to roost (which they almost always do), all those states propping up Biden's win % will disappear and we'll be down to the same 3 states again. It's hard to replace PA electoral votes without winning FL or needing multiple red states to turn blue. With his unpopularity on the coasts being off the charts, he could lose the popular vote by 5% and still sneak out the electoral win.

And I’ll just repeat that’s not how it works. Silver explains this in one of the first questions on the 538 podcast on Friday last week.

Thanks, this business about state legislatures or the SCOTUS stealing the election for Trump is just misinformed fear porn imo.

**ring** *ring*

It's 2000 on the phone. They want to speak with you.

I usually don't listen to podcasts because I'm easily distracted with two kids and being up all night. I find I lose attention and then have to rewind to try to find where I left off. Despite being an auditory person, I prefer to read the news because I can just stop and then come back to it more easily.

That said, I'll try to take a listen to the podcast if I have the time tonight.

I think anyone scarred from the mental gymnastics the SCOTUS showed in 2000 is rightly nervous about this election and what seems to be clearly a scramble to get her on the court before the election. She was involved in 2000 and they will steal it for him if they get the chance. Maybe they won't get the chance.

Well you want you can just read the explainer behind the model: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... -covid-19/

Here's something more directly on point (ironically in an article a month before 2016 explaining why 538's model was more optimistic about Trumps chances than others) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/el ... -on-trump/

Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
In 2012, Obama beat his polling by 2 or 3 percentage points in almost every swing state. The same was true in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide — instead of the modest lead that polls showed a few days before the election — and claimed 489 electoral votes by winning almost every competitive state. You also frequently see this in midterms — Republicans beat their polling in almost every key Senate and gubernatorial race in 2014, for example.

Basically, this means that you shouldn’t count on states to behave independently of one another, especially if they’re demographically similar. If Clinton loses Pennsylvania despite having a big lead in the polls there, for instance, she might also have problems in Michigan, North Carolina and other swing states. What seems like an impregnable firewall in the Electoral College may begin to collapse.

What if we changed this assumption? If we assumed that states had the same overall error as in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model but that the error in each state was independent, Clinton’s chances would be … 99.8 percent, and Trump’s chances just 0.2 percent. So assumptions about the correlation between states make a huge difference. Most other models also assume that state-by-state outcomes are correlated to some degree, but based on their probability distributions, FiveThirtyEight’s seem to be more emphatic about this assumption, accounting for both the possibility a significant national polling error and other types of correlations, such as between states in different regions.

But this kinda supports my argument, doesn't it? If things slide 3% towards Trump, they'll slide everywhere and he'll easily win the red states that are now in play and we'll be down to those last 3-4 states, almost the same states as 2016. And if PA get's close enough, assuming he has a way to steal it, he could steal the election by just picking off one of those 3 states from last time. Him winning PA would be a killer. Biden can replace WI with AZ and ME2, but PA is hard to replace.

It supports your argument that it's possible. It doesn't support your argument that there's a 45% chance of it happening (based on the model that we're talking about).

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:whoops, just saw this thread. I'll repost here.



Yes, he just needs to win one of them and I really think he will win PA because it will go to SCOTUS. It's already set up.

But even without cheating, if he's got a 15% chance at all 3, then he's got a 45% chance to win one of them. If we get a 3% swing towards Trump with bad polling or GOP voters coming home to roost (which they almost always do), all those states propping up Biden's win % will disappear and we'll be down to the same 3 states again. It's hard to replace PA electoral votes without winning FL or needing multiple red states to turn blue. With his unpopularity on the coasts being off the charts, he could lose the popular vote by 5% and still sneak out the electoral win.

And I’ll just repeat that’s not how it works. Silver explains this in one of the first questions on the 538 podcast on Friday last week.

Thanks, this business about state legislatures or the SCOTUS stealing the election for Trump is just misinformed fear porn imo.

**ring** *ring*

It's 2000 on the phone. They want to speak with you.

I usually don't listen to podcasts because I'm easily distracted with two kids and being up all night. I find I lose attention and then have to rewind to try to find where I left off. Despite being an auditory person, I prefer to read the news because I can just stop and then come back to it more easily.

That said, I'll try to take a listen to the podcast if I have the time tonight.

I think anyone scarred from the mental gymnastics the SCOTUS showed in 2000 is rightly nervous about this election and what seems to be clearly a scramble to get her on the court before the election. She was involved in 2000 and they will steal it for him if they get the chance. Maybe they won't get the chance.

Well you want you can just read the explainer behind the model: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... -covid-19/

Here's something more directly on point (ironically in an article a month before 2016 explaining why 538's model was more optimistic about Trumps chances than others) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/el ... -on-trump/

Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
In 2012, Obama beat his polling by 2 or 3 percentage points in almost every swing state. The same was true in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide — instead of the modest lead that polls showed a few days before the election — and claimed 489 electoral votes by winning almost every competitive state. You also frequently see this in midterms — Republicans beat their polling in almost every key Senate and gubernatorial race in 2014, for example.

Basically, this means that you shouldn’t count on states to behave independently of one another, especially if they’re demographically similar. If Clinton loses Pennsylvania despite having a big lead in the polls there, for instance, she might also have problems in Michigan, North Carolina and other swing states. What seems like an impregnable firewall in the Electoral College may begin to collapse.

What if we changed this assumption? If we assumed that states had the same overall error as in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model but that the error in each state was independent, Clinton’s chances would be … 99.8 percent, and Trump’s chances just 0.2 percent. So assumptions about the correlation between states make a huge difference. Most other models also assume that state-by-state outcomes are correlated to some degree, but based on their probability distributions, FiveThirtyEight’s seem to be more emphatic about this assumption, accounting for both the possibility a significant national polling error and other types of correlations, such as between states in different regions.

But this kinda supports my argument, doesn't it? If things slide 3% towards Trump, they'll slide everywhere and he'll easily win the red states that are now in play and we'll be down to those last 3-4 states, almost the same states as 2016. And if PA get's close enough, assuming he has a way to steal it, he could steal the election by just picking off one of those 3 states from last time. Him winning PA would be a killer. Biden can replace WI with AZ and ME2, but PA is hard to replace.

It supports your argument that it's possible. It doesn't support your argument that there's a 45% chance of it happening (based on the model that we're talking about).

Oh, right, I see what you're saying. They aren't independent events.

Bucky wrote:finally convinced my neighbor to vote for the D nominee for the first time in his 82 years

he didn't need too much convincing, he hates trump with a passion

threecount wrote:Do you believe that Trafalgar poll guy who predicts a Trump win?

Says pollsters are again not counting on the Trump voter who won't answer the poll...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5220 ... ly-missing

threecount wrote:Do you believe that Trafalgar poll guy who predicts a Trump win?

Says pollsters are again not counting on the Trump voter who won't answer the poll...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5220 ... ly-missing