2020 Political Chatter

[deano]

Some cold water for those who think Biden is a lock to win: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-behind-trump/.

History doesn't always repeat itself, but it does rhyme (2020 magical thinking with 2016's, in this case).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/polit...air/index.html

TLDR: the interviewee, who runs a gambling analytics enterprise, thinks liquid betting markets outperform polls based on their accounting for both available public and the nonpublic data of the betting market, and have historical precedent on their side versus polls and pundits.

Or, if you prefer, "Better bettor bets Trump."

[ides1056]

A tree is best measured when it's down.

[Too Tall]

A tree is best measured when it's down.

I want that tee shirt.

[snotrockets]

TLDR: the interviewee, who runs a gambling analytics enterprise, thinks liquid betting markets outperform polls based on their accounting for both available public and the nonpublic data of the betting market, and have historical precedent on their side versus polls and pundits.

Yes, because as we all know, markets are rational (for those that need the joke explained: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ec...ahneman/facts/)

[BBB]

Justice Dept. Intervenes to Help Trump in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Lawsuit | New York Times

"The Justice Department moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private legal team with government lawyers to defend him against a defamation lawsuit by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

In a highly unusual legal move, lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

Though the law gives employees of the federal government immunity from most defamation lawsuits, legal experts said it has rarely, if ever, been used before to protect a president, especially for actions taken before he entered office.

“The question is,” said Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, “is it really within the scope of the law for government lawyers to defend someone accused of lying about a rape when he wasn’t even president yet?”

The motion also effectively protects Mr. Trump from any embarrassing disclosures in the middle of his campaign for re-election. A state judge issued a ruling last month that potentially opened the door to Mr. Trump being deposed in the case before the election in November, and Ms. Carroll’s lawyers have also requested that he provide a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress that Ms. Carroll said she was wearing at the time of the encounter.

Ms. Carroll’s lawyer said in a statement issued Tuesday evening that the Justice Department’s move to intervene in the case was a “shocking” attempt to bring the resources of the United States government to bear on a private legal matter.

“Trump’s effort to wield the power of the U.S. government to evade responsibility for his private misconduct is without precedent,” the lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, said, “and shows even more starkly how far he is willing to go to prevent the truth from coming out.”

Ms. Carroll herself accused the president of siccing Attorney General William P. Barr against her. “TRUMP HURLS BILL BARR AT ME,” she wrote on Twitter."

It is truly a carnival of the bizarre. Something that is alleged to have happened decades before the man gets elected and government lawyers need to intervene to act on his behalf. The person making the accusation responds CAPS LOCKED on social media. That'll fix 'em.

Meanwhile Bill is overheard asking the government to refund his legal bills for something he did actually do while in office...

[deano]

Yes, because as we all know, markets are rational (for those that need the joke explained: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ec...ahneman/facts/)

That's a good point - one of the achilles' heels of a market, which the interviewee acknowledges (he has a doozie of a name - Rufus Peabody, which I think is a nom de ploom). I think the claim is interesting, though. It will be interesting to see if the sportsbooks or the pollsters are vindicated.

[snotrockets]

That's a good point - one of the achilles' heels of a market, which the interviewee acknowledges (he has a doozie of a name - Rufus Peabody, which I think is a nom de ploom). I think the claim is interesting, though. It will be interesting to see if the sportsbooks or the pollsters are vindicated.

Mind you, the pollsters were right in 2016. What they failed at (and still do,) is communicating the results.
p% change of a given candidate winning the election doesn't mean they'll get p% of the vote, like headlines would suggest.

[GrantM]

Mind you, the pollsters were right in 2016. What they failed at (and still do,) is communicating the results.
p% change of a given candidate winning the election doesn't mean they'll get p% of the vote, like headlines would suggest.

The thing that bothers me about people saying "the polls" were wrong in 2016 like it was proof of the total breakdown of sampling opinion,
when most people were talking about national polls that showed Hilary ahead, which was indeed the case. It's only when you drill into
a few swing state votes that made the EC difference go in the Orange One's favour. 2016 was not proof of a massive failure in polling,
it's more like what you're saying - the failure is in the reporting and headlines. Personally, i don't even understand the relevance of national
polls, or why they get top line reported so often, like they mean anything. All that matters is the EC. The only polls worth watching
are those in swing states.

-g

[bigbill]

fifty-two individual elections with one overall result. National polls mean nothing.

[vertical_doug]

Just take the Las Vegas odds state by state, then assign electoral delegates, and you have the best forecast.

However, in 2016, some crazy delegates voted differently from state results which is why some states are legislating a requirement all delegates vote the state result. I can see Trump telling delegates they need to vote for him at the electoral college.

[Bruce Day]

So out of about half the voting eligible citizens who are democrats and anti Trump, and who hope to vote him out in November , how is it that you ended up with Biden and Harris as your best shots ? Are these really your best people ?

[Too Tall]

So out of about half the voting eligible citizens who are democrats and anti Trump, and who hope to vote him out in November , how is it that you ended up with Biden and Harris as your best shots ? Are these really your best people ?

Lame duck question, no offense. This is what the voters backed.

[vertical_doug]

So out of about half the voting eligible citizens who are democrats and anti Trump, and who hope to vote him out in November , how is it that you ended up with Biden and Harris as your best shots ? Are these really your best people ?

Funny how that works. I am amazed so many evangelicals can rationalize voting for a liar and adulterer.

I think maybe we need to get rid of the republican and democrat duopoly for the sake of American Democracy. Democracy can't be you can vote for whoever is on the menu, but the menu is rigged with the same old same old.

[guido]

Is trump the best available republican?

[Bruce Day]

And Democrats such as former presidents and highly placed donors and political commentators are above reproach ?

[Bruce Day]

I was and am a Cruz guy, and I considered voting against Trump , but I saw how a good man was treated by Democrats led by Harris during Supreme Court nomination hearings, how Democrats created an impeachment process out of nothing , the Russian probe , the speech ripping by Pelosi after a perfectly nice speech, the riots in the streets, the burnings and lootings , the covid responses when I don’t think the Democrats would have done anything different , all that and more , and I have reconsidered.

Have you thought about why half of voters nationally and the majority of voters in the majority of states , went for Trump and mostly only the urban voters support Democrats?

[mjbabcock]

I was and am a Cruz guy

Well I can tell right there we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. Most of what you wrote is against what I believe.

[72gmc]

I was and am a Cruz guy, and I considered voting against Trump , but I saw how a good man was treated by Democrats led by Harris during Supreme Court nomination hearings, how Democrats created an impeachment process out of nothing , the Russian probe , the speech ripping by Pelosi after a perfectly nice speech, the riots in the streets, the burnings and lootings , the covid responses when I don’t think the Democrats would have done anything different , all that and more , and I have reconsidered.

Have you thought about why half of voters nationally and the majority of voters in the majority of states , went for Trump and mostly only the urban voters support Democrats?

Hi, fellow voter. We’re all biased in our own way, but we all also have access to many sources of information. I respectfully submit that we owe it to ourselves and each other to use a wide variety of sources to question what we’re told by politicians, and to distinguish between journalism and editorial commentary when we’re choosing what to believe.

I hope you vote in good health!

[theflashunc]

I was and am a Cruz guy, and I considered voting against Trump , but I saw how a good man was treated by Democrats led by Harris during Supreme Court nomination hearings, how Democrats created an impeachment process out of nothing , the Russian probe , the speech ripping by Pelosi after a perfectly nice speech, the riots in the streets, the burnings and lootings , the covid responses when I don’t think the Democrats would have done anything different , all that and more , and I have reconsidered.

Have you thought about why half of voters nationally and the majority of voters in the majority of states , went for Trump and mostly only the urban voters support Democrats?

I continue to be baflled by the support any politician who calls Nazis fine people gets. And yet here we are.

[jimcav]

I was and am a Cruz guy, and I considered voting against Trump , but I saw how a good man was treated by Democrats led by Harris during Supreme Court nomination hearings, how Democrats created an impeachment process out of nothing , the Russian probe , the speech ripping by Pelosi after a perfectly nice speech, the riots in the streets, the burnings and lootings , the covid responses when I don’t think the Democrats would have done anything different , all that and more , and I have reconsidered.

Have you thought about why half of voters nationally and the majority of voters in the majority of states , went for Trump and mostly only the urban voters support Democrats?

Uh, over time we will learn even more about the Russian interactions with the campaign, and I'd agree so far nothing public points to Trump himself, but it wasn't nothing that started the Russian probe, it was dozens of high-level contacts between the campaign and Russian intelligence. It wasn't like they were talking to a consulting firm, it was RUSSIA.

Impeachment arose from the situation with Ukraine, and for those of us who have served our country, had to get security clearances, and had to learn and abide by the rules governing foreign contacts and conduct with said foreign contacts: what the president did isn't okay--he isn't above the same rules of conduct, but congress decided it didn't rise to being removed, and that is okay because it is how our system works.

As someone who actually participated and managed public health response for my navy commands during swine flu and ebola, your statement that you don't think democrats would have done anything different is ridiculous, and just means you had no insight into what occurred then, and SHOULD occur during any pandemic (or even local epidemic) response. You might as well say you don't think the democrats would have done anything different with the 2017 tax bill.

I only know a few folks who voted for trump, and plan to again. They so far are mainly focused on one thing, the bottomline impact for their business, but I live in an affluent area, and doing well financially is key to being able to live here. One guy has some immigration concerns, but when I actually talked to him, it turns out they aren't real concerns about the process or reforms, just fear, where he believes lawless hordes are coming. Once you get to actual facts, such as how the current admin reversed efforts to combat the actual corrupt conditions in Gautemala, as a prime example, that drive the migration toward the USA, then it just comes back to his bottomline.

I've had to take a few oaths, "to not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those that do", "well and faithfully serve the constitution", and "first do no harm", so even though there were aspects of republicanism that I think have merit, I can't support the current pres--he routinely violates all the tenets underpinning my oaths.