[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[wonkeytonk]

In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.

But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore

 

[TheCasualties]

Presidential nominees using forged votes to get an advantage...where have I heard that one before?

So they remove voters if they didn't vote in the previous election? What kind of crap is that? Shoudn't they actually check if the person is alive instead of assume they are dead and call it a fake vote?

Sorry, but pretty much everything you've said in this thread seems like a joke made by my 15 yo cousin who's addicted to fortnite and twitter.

 

[notimp]

Easy version of the US voting and governing system - you dont have a central body for most governmental decisions.

Meaning, you have a few dozen different voting systems (the 'how to set up' part), and ways you decided to tackle COVID-19 (f.e.).

This means, that the US is very "free", but that also means, that you can have idiots up until the top at quite a few places, because no one especially cares, if that system breaks, since its mostly local anyhow.

For the "political argument" in here this means, that most people posting opinions based on feels act especially stupid, because - whats true for you isnt true for the next guy over. Not just by feels, but literally.

So its the ideal environment to strew doubt and distrust in. As Trump you just vaguely scatter doubt and fear ("there is a danger looming") and everyone fills in different blanks on their own, then goes on the internet and tells others that they themselves are right.

The instances, that actually factor in different systems in different states in the US (MIT f.e.), are telling us there is no higher voting fraud potential if this year voting by mail increases.

And we know, that structurally Trump, likely, is going to use the argument to force cutting off counting votes earlier - because the more mail in ballots get counted, the lower his numbers get (statistically, roughly - republicans believe). For this there needs to be a "public story" of "mail vote could be fraudulent, so we dont want too much of it - especially not, if Trump already declared himself a second time winner."
-

Advanced simple class:

Yes US is stupidly free (also means, that there will be many different approaches to a thing, and then you can pitch them against each other for a winner - meaning, very compatible with the economic system), but there needs to be a corrective, a "hand" that can make things right. In most countries its government actually governing through institutions. ("Making good decisions 'for our country'".)

In the US - at least according to Chomsky (again, I watched many of his talks lately), its a country backed guarantee of creating demand in important branches.

See f.e.:

(He actually named those branches, individually in the past citing examples, but I didnt note down that source and forgot. His point there basically is 'no one would vote for giving all those subsidies to industry knowingly - so this part is something you dont vote on, you just dont tell people, that it is a thing (IT sector coming out of years of public sector funding, military industrialized complex being publically funded, how the financial crisis of 2008 was handled... I'd have to find his full list and examples.. There are quite a few. )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore

Politicians.

To rule the governed.. Or not.

For the respective ideologies, watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares and All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

Short version: Modern politics if not 'ideology driven' (f.e.: populist), is mostly run by polling. The idea is, that you keep yourself an opinion research industry at hand, throughout the year, and you poll public opinion all throughout the year - that you pick popular topics from to say or do something about... (And also what ('Should I be for or against a thing?').

"Power of nightmares" concept you basically use in recession/depression years, where you cant do much, but have to distract. Populism, also falls in the same category.

Roughly.

Polling works. If you want to find out the opinion of 'masses'.

Polling doesnt work in cases people dont tell the truth ('i.e. for some reason not saying into a TV camera that you are planning to vote for Trump), or in cases where there are big sudden shifts in mass opinion. But there hardly are.


Polling also doesnt work if you are millennial on a forum wanting to know 'whats best', because you arent taking into account popular being unrelated to best, biases, poll size, ... pollsters do take those things into account, so their 'finger on the pulse' is more reliable.

Their predictions maybe arent, but predictions are hard (you dont know all factors).

Polling very much is an active part of "what do my voters think/what should I say".

edit: Also polling got less accurate the last few years as societies segmented more - but people work on better sampling to combat that. See f.e.:

On the other hand, there IS also a rise in populism.

 

[FAST6191]

In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.

But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore

Without digging deep into sampling methods, how well they bias things (see the "I am not going to cop to voting conservative" problem) and how well it fits to recent past data (fortunately the US seems to have an election every other week) before ploughing that into the relevant grounds for the system in place then no, with all that then yeah polls can tell you things.

Not really a voting poll, and you can always get more granular*, but if you want a start down the interesting stats and modelling approaches path then
https://hiddentribes.us/about
It serves as a nice jumping off point. More fun than the usual left-right-swing, tempered by how the electoral college works to reduce it to those that matter and maybe a few others if it is not an all or nothing state, and maybe account for those that like politicians but can't be arsed to go vote when the time comes (so young people to varying degrees).

* https://web.archive.org/web/2018080...ns/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters for example.

As mentioned above then yeah politicos do look at them as well and plan/act accordingly. How rational/reflective of actual reality these actions might be varies somewhat. Or if you prefer go look up a political pollster salary and requirements. Get attached to a decent pac or serious bid/region that matters to a serious candidate and that number goes way north.

 

[Lacius]

Presidential nominees using forged votes to get an advantage...where have I heard that one before?

1. Forged signatures are different from forged votes.
2. Forged votes are different from alleged ineligible registrants.

 

[notimp]

• Forged signatures are different from forged votes.

• Forged votes are different from alleged ineligible registrants.

Main point being, that to forge signatures is extremely inefficient. To forge elegible registrants, and then having to 'vote as them' (f.e. with a forged ID, or them having proven to live at one place), is extremely inefficient.

So inefficient, that if you want to manipulate the outcome of an election, you would ignore those options.

Its easier to jigger with other part is the system (ballot stuffing (thats the same logic as 'manipulating voting machines'), manipulating with how and when a winner gets announced (having 'your' TV station announce you as a winner), manipulating the electorate (attack ads, false advertising, FUD, ...).

Doesnt mean that in certain states most of the black people are missing from the voter registries, or there are a high percentage of dead people still listed. BUT.

Black people (f.e.) that dont vote, know that they dont vote. So the argument for where its unfair there is 'behavioral'. ("People are stupid, give them a chance, make it easier for them...")

Dead people that are still in the voter registry dont vote. (Or get mail delivered 'to their name' at the same living address where they formally lived, that you could easily pool for ballot stuffing.)
(edit: Unless you keep lists of your dead people still listed, and then do ballot stuffing, which is masked by there being more dead people in your lists, so 'more votes' wouldnt stand out (but if you 'add votes' couldnt you also throw away a bunch?). But that leaves out the main question: How do you achieve the ballot stuffing? (Thats the hard part.))

So those 'vectors of attack' are weak. Hence no high manipulation risk.

 

[Lacius]

In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.

But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore

Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.

That being said, if one were to attempt to do that, it should be noted that GBATemp was off by 9.9 points with regard to the 2016 popular vote (GBATemp went for Trump by 7.8 points, and Clinton won by 2.1 points). As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points. If we add 9.9 points to that, then we should expect Biden to win the 2020 popular vote by 11.3 points. For context, the RealClearPolitics average right now is +7.6 for Biden, and the FiveThirtyEight aggregate right now is +8.4 for Biden.

You be the judge.

 

[FAST6191]

Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.

You really seem to be less than keen on sarcasm, silliness, exaggeration, hyperbole and jokes for this topic.

That said I already went on what polls are useful for.

Mind you with poll results like that it, though I may have to pull myself up there for not recognising sarcasm, does rather put some kind of paid to the notion behind the "why are so many gamers liberals in gaming" threads that were all the rage a little while back.

 

[Lacius]

You really seem to be less than keen on sarcasm, silliness, exaggeration, hyperbole and jokes for this topic.

That said I already went on what polls are useful for.

Mind you with poll results like that it, though I may have to pull myself up there for not recognising sarcasm, does rather put some kind of paid to the notion behind the "why are so many gamers liberals in gaming" threads that were all the rage a little while back.

I typed the bolded part of my post after I typed the rest of it.

 

[Hanafuda]

Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.

That being said, if one were to attempt to do that, it should be noted that GBATemp was off by 9.9 points with regard to the 2016 popular vote (GBATemp went for Trump by 7.8 points, and Clinton won by 2.1 points). As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points. If we add 9.9 points to that, then we should expect Biden to win the 2020 popular vote by 11.3 points. For context, the RealClearPolitics average right now is +7.6 for Biden, and the FiveThirtyEight aggregate right now is +8.4 for Biden.

You be the judge.

I agree. GBATemp doesn't emulate the electoral college, just a popular tally. And popular vote is meaningless in the Presidential election.

Also just my hunch but I expect GBATemp is also overwhelmingly young vs. the total population, while in the real world older persons tend to vote at a higher rate than young. I'm one of the oldest people still semi-active here afaik, and I'm 53. But there are millions out there decades older than me who vote.

As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points.

I went ahead and fixed that. 50-50 again. I wasn't even going to pick one, but what the hell, more interesting that way.

 

[x65943]

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of Jo Jorgensen voters

JoJo GoGo - also it rhymes with Ho-Oh

 

[Hanafuda]

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of Jo Jorgensen voters

JoJo GoGo - also it rhymes with Ho-Oh

 

[x65943]

TBH this year I think you could use that meme on both major party candidates as well

 

[Hanafuda]

TBH this year I think you could use that meme on both major party candidates as well

Just my opinion, but that's true of every election that's taken place in my lifetime, actually. Last really decent Democrat JFK, last really decent Republican Eisenhower. I'm not saying they were perfect, mind you ... just decent and relatively earnest/sincere, as candidates and citizens.

 

[x65943]

Just my opinion, but that's true of every election that's taken place in my lifetime, actually. Last really decent Democrat JFK, last really decent Republican Eisenhower. I'm not saying they were perfect, mind you ... just decent and relatively earnest/sincere, as candidates and citizens.

I would rather be choosing between Romney and Obama right now

 

[Xzi]

I would rather be choosing between Romney and Obama right now

Obama already had his two terms though, and was quite a bit more centrist than advertised. Realistically we could've been staring down an election of Romney (incumbent) vs Sanders right now, and people on both sides would be able to have enthusiasm for their chosen candidate without any of the shame/guilt to accompany it.

Hell, I would've even voted Romney myself in 2016 if it was Hillary against him.

 

[IncredulousP]

Hell, I would've even voted Romney myself in 2016 if it was Hillary against him.

Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?

 

[FAST6191]

Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?

It is a thing I often wondered about.
I took a look and saw bog standard and utterly unremarkable career politician. Would probably have made for the same in a presidency as well (interesting times we live in so would rather have had a good one but eh, not to mention the potency of the presidential office is debatable).

However the dislike seemed to be both fairly deep rooted and coming from both sides of the aisle and more besides so I went further. Still got back nothing that normally bothers people, or are easily overlooked, in these sorts of discussions.

Being around the block a bit she towed the party line on various would be "progressive" issues, which is to say dragged her feet when it comes to allowing the gays to marry back in the 90s. I would note she is apparently life long and not just for the cameras god squad, methodist in this case and while they are probably the most welcoming of the major sects that does not mean accepting (especially not back in the day).
Likewise she is hardly going to ever be held up as a great proponent of free speech either. Most of that is her opposition to the Citizens United ruling and that in turn becomes a debate. The background though is a film critical of her was financed by a group noted as being in opposition to her and financed accordingly, she attempted to get it shut down by dint of its finance and the courts said "yeah, not doing that and chucked out a law in the process". If that is to be her position then a bit hypocritical at times as well, or see Clinton foundation. Not to mention "too much money in politics" is hardly a hard to sell notion to most normal people, especially not the US left wing, and the right wing is not exactly unconcerned about "undue" influence either... maybe the swing voting centrists are free speech purists.

She is something of a power player. Her camp's treatment of the DNC (others playing along the thing that picks the democratic nominee for president, among other things) to get the nomination was perhaps not the most fair, however I rarely see minor political hardball get people that disliked, and for the most part she did get it.

Her email server thing. She had a private email server which she used to conduct government/public office business, it got hacked and things got deleted rather than archived for posterity. Far from ideal, and cause to investigate and possibly get slapped, but techno clutz in a politico and backchannel comms have rarely bothered people. FBI and state department both said yeah not ideal but have no evidence of mishandling, albeit some of those results only came down in fairly recent times.

Some seemed to take issue with her work as a defence lawyer back in the day. In doing so she represented some fairly reprehensible people. That was it. No claims of misleading courts, professional misconduct or the like, just the whole being a zealous advocate for their client thing that lawyers are, you know, professionally bound to do. Granted I have never had a particular issue with the "how do you defend a guilty person?" thing for lawyering any more than a doctor might have to sew someone back up they dislike, or a train driver gets to transport someone they dislike, but I do recognise it is something some everyday folks have an issue with.

The Benghazi embassy incident. Anyway after Libya went off the rails in 2011 then in 2012 some terrorists attacked the embassy there and ultimately killed the ambassador, and then also attacked a CIA outpost nearby. Later it was found that the places in question had asked for extra security. She was the politico ultimately in charge of the department (secretary of state, the state department then being what does foreign affairs) when it went down so yeah buck stops with her, however any number of investigations in the years since (including by those helmed by the other party, though I will generally note politicians do stick together) have seemingly cleared her of wrongdoing. Likewise yeah the buck stops with a CEO in a company but in say a tech company you would look to failings within research and development, quality control and all the rest as well when a company falls over while also coming for the big boss' scalp.

Several of those major failings as a person and would not be my friend. Never met or seen a politician I would piss on if they were on fire but at the same time I can't get to the point of active dislike, much less to the level some seem to exhibit, in this case.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Independent voters are handing their vote to Trump or Biden whether they like it or not, and it goes to whichever of the two they dislike the most. NONE of the independents stand any chance of winning whatsoever. So if you don't want Trump to win you should be voting for Biden and vice versa. Voting independent is a complete waste of a vote. May as well not vote at all because it has the same effect. I'd be interested to know where the 32 (thus far) votes on this poll would go if there were only the two options.

 

[FAST6191]

Independent voters are handing their vote to Trump or Biden whether they like it or not, and it goes to whichever of the two they dislike the most. NONE of the independents stand any chance of winning whatsoever. So if you don't want Trump to win you should be voting for Biden and vice versa. Voting independent is a complete waste of a vote. May as well not vote at all because it has the same effect. I'd be interested to know where the 32 (thus far) votes on this poll would go if there were only the two options.

There is an argument that in doing so they either have a protest vote (more so than spoiling or not voting), or are indicating where they would like the policies to head as a general concept (if you notice a decent chunk say vote libertarian rather than yours and you happen to be going down another path it might either see a shift in direction to try to keep them on side).

That said throwing away is not entirely invalid either, mind you if it is a single vote does it matter?