Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You don’t consider certifying false electors in direct contradiction of the state’s voters to be a coup?
This isn’t a Florida 2000 scenario being proposed, it’s a 1876 scenario.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Redmess Trump starting a war would be very counter-productive. Going by the reaction all the Iran drama early this year, that would be unfathomably unpopular. Besides, it's abundantly clear that he has no interest in actually being involved in that kind of mess.
Right now, he's just interested in playing stratego with protesters.
Just Having FunSupreme Court isn't a fight. Trump is going to select his nominee and the Republican Senate will approve them, and not a single Democrat has any ability to do anything to stop it. Don't go into that thinking it's a fight, or you're just setting yourself up for a crushing emotional defeat when the unstoppable inevitable occurs.
The important thing to focus on right now is November 3rd, period. The only thing anyone can do right now about the Supreme Court is brace for impact.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 23rd 2020 at 7:30:29 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
x4 And for the Democrats to get ready to drag the court back into our favor. That should include not only adding a Justice or two, but also removing Clarence Thomas due to the actions of his wife from earlier this year trying to get Trump to purge the White House of dissenters (no way in hell Thomas didn't know). Basically, start punishing the conservative Justices for stepping outside their bounds.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Sep 23rd 2020 at 10:39:37 AM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"Polling only has Trump leading in either safe Republican states (some of which aren’t looking so safe right now) or swing states that lean heavily republican.
The polling is looking good for Biden, it’s a reason to feel confident, not break out.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIf the GOP tried to subvert a lost election after the verdict came in, I'd honestly be surprised if there wasn't a mass uprising of some kind. Trump is simply not popular enough to carry himself through something like that; as has been established countless times, his actual would-cheer-him-on-as-he-starts-a-civil-war base is a minority. If they weren't, his re-election would be a foregone conclusion.
I think the GOP knows this, deep down, and most of this hoo-hah they've been making over subverting the election is empty threats and bluster designed to intimidate or de-motivate blue voters into not showing up to the polls (in person or otherwise). Though from Trump in particular, who knows what he knows. It's a toss-up as to whether or not he's actually in on this or he's just pushing his 'tough guy who never loses' image to feed his base (and ego).
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!That may well be the best defence against any elector shenanigans, massive public protests demanding the result be respected and carrying the implicit threat of direct action against anyone who tried to ignore that result.
Republican state-level Reps might be willing to loose their jobs for Trump, but if they’d have to risk their personal safety? That’s probably be a bridge to far.
Just to note I just checked 538, the closest to swing states that Trump leads in are Ohio, Iowa, Georgia and Texas.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 23rd 2020 at 2:54:52 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAn insanely good sign, they’re an entire order of magnitude more Republican than the Republican leaning states that Trump must win to even have a chance (Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Florida and North Carolina for anyone curious).
Edited by Silasw on Sep 23rd 2020 at 3:01:24 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yeah, Ohio, Texas, Georgia and Iowa are closer for Biden than any of the 6 major swing states for Trump.
Look at the averages because even reliable polls by trustworthy pollsters have margins of error.
If you, or anyone else, are looking for a pollster that will be 100% accurate, that's not polling, that's magic. Real world scenarios have some degree of uncertainty, which is why it's not impossible that Trump wins. Of course at this poiint, it is highly implausible.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:10:56 AM
Don’t look at singular polls, 538 have polling averages (they also have predicted vote amounts that are partly based on the polls), Real Clear Politics have a polling average (though they don’t adjust for pollster bias), look at one of them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTo perhaps make it a bit more assuring, it could help to look at which states Biden can afford to lose. I recall one scenario on 538 shows that if Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania plus all states Clinton won in 2016, he gets 270 electoral votes, and it won't matter if he loses Florida, Arizona and North Carolina. Unfortunately I can't check now as 538's list of outcomes on a map isn't displayable on mobile.
Election forecast.
In the broad sense, the tall clusters in the top section (the 77/100) thing show the more likely specific outcomes and you can hover over them to see the state map. If you scroll down to see the rolling average thing, you can see the peaks in predicted Electoral Votes as various states flip one way or another.

Calling Electoral College games a coup feels like unnecessary hyperbole on the part of Vanity Fair, especially considering that the Atlantic article they’re using as a source frames this question more in the context of what this challenge means for the machinery of democracy going forward rather than some sort of “Trump might take over the country” BS.
They should have sent a poet.