I Don't Know If Joe Can Do It

[ecogen]

It isn't over till the votes are counted, get out and VOTE as if your life depended on it.....

Oh shit it probably does.

Mine doesn't. I'm on the other side of the atlantic. I will be watching the rest of this shitshow with great interest tho.

 

[nickqt]

Mine doesn't. I'm on the other side of the atlantic. I will be watching the rest of this shitshow with great interest tho.

Thousand of nuclear weapons means the US Elections always affects everyone on the planet.

 

[ecogen]

Thousand of nuclear weapons means the US Elections always affects everyone on the planet.

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, not really.

 

[ondma]

Mine doesn't. I'm on the other side of the atlantic. I will be watching the rest of this shitshow with great interest tho.

We have had many periods of time in this country troubled by serious problems, but this is the first time in my life (I am over 70) that I have been embarrassed to be an American. It is not just that Trump and his administration is a total shitshow, but that +/- 40% of the country supports him unquestioningly. It is also the first time in my life that I have felt that our "democratic" form of government is in great peril.

 

[zinfamous]

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, not really.

Over here, we've got Beaker poised over the button to launch those nuc-u-lar warheads. I would say 'yes' to "very realistically."

 

[zinfamous]

We have had many periods of time in this country troubled by serious problems, but this is the first time in my life (I am over 70) that I have been embarrassed to be an American. It is not just that Trump and his administration is a total shitshow, but that +/- 40% of the country supports him unquestioningly. It is also the first time in my life that I have felt that our "democratic" form of government is in great peril.

to be fair, every ~70 years sounds about right for the US to go through this kind of moment. D:

 

[eelw]

Thousand of nuclear weapons means the US Elections always affects everyone on the planet.

Oh come on. He could go on a roid rage fit and demand nukes get launched at Switzerland. General in charge on the actual nukes will ignore that order

 

[nickqt]

Oh come on. He could go on a roid rage fit and demand nukes get launched at Switzerland. General in charge on the actual nukes will ignore that order

I'm not just talking about Trump, every single election could put a jingoist in charge. This is an ongoing security issue.

Same with every other country with ICBMs.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thousand of nuclear weapons means the US Elections always affects everyone on the planet.

That's not really the best argument. The better argument is that if democracy falls in the US, and it may very well if Trump remains in office, then democracy is threatened everywhere. The far right has grown in Europe just as it has here already.

 

[pmv]

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, not really.

I don't think it's the direct effect of those weapons, i.e. the possibility that they will be used, it's what they signify about the general level of power and influence of the country.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally am not particularly worried about Trump and nuclear weapons - I really do think the rest of the government would ignore the order precisely because they outcome is so immediate and horrifying.

The main threat from Trump IMO is all the other things where the outcome may be long term horrible but it's not that immediate thing that really inspires people to stand up and take a principled stand.

 

[woolfe9998]

I personally am not particularly worried about Trump and nuclear weapons - I really do think the rest of the government would ignore the order precisely because they outcome is so immediate and horrifying.

The main threat from Trump IMO is all the other things where the outcome may be long term horrible but it's not that immediate thing that really inspires people to stand up and take a principled stand.

I tend to agree. But I wonder what happens if Trump legitimately loses on 11/3 and refuses to leave. Will that be the "immediate thing that really inspires people to stand up and take a principled stand?" I certainly hope so.

 

[soundforbjt]

I tend to agree. But I wonder what happens if Trump legitimately loses on 11/3 and refuses to leave. Will that be the "immediate thing that really inspires people to stand up and take a principled stand?" I certainly hope so.

Only IF it's the correct people to stand up, I'm afraid it will be the crazies.

 

[fskimospy]

I tend to agree. But I wonder what happens if Trump legitimately loses on 11/3 and refuses to leave. Will that be the "immediate thing that really inspires people to stand up and take a principled stand?" I certainly hope so.

As I think we may have previously discussed I think it depends on a lot of things - primarily his margin of defeat. If it's at the level it appears to be now I'm highly confident he either won't try to stay or people will ignore his complaints. If it's a close election I am very scared as to what he will do and how people will respond.

I think the scenario people need to focus on isn't that Trump accepts that he lost and says he won't leave, it's that he says the election was stolen through fraud and that he actually won. We already have confirmed, on the record accounts from Republican Party officials that they are looking into bypassing the voters and installing Trump anyway:

The Election That Could Break America

If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[ecogen]

That's not really the best argument. The better argument is that if democracy falls in the US, and it may very well if Trump remains in office, then democracy is threatened everywhere. The far right has grown in Europe just as it has here already.

Eh, apart from very specific situations like Belarus the far right parties have actually lost a lot of ground in most countries. A lot of that is because of the garbage fire that is Brexit.

I don't think it's the direct effect of those weapons, i.e. the possibility that they will be used, it's what they signify about the general level of power and influence of the country.

Oh, I'm not trying to downplay the influence of the US on the world stage, although it has taken a dive lately, but for most of us in the EU the outcome of the US elections doesn't really affect us significantly. Unless you're the UK lol, but the UK is fucked regardless.

 

[K1052]

Trump, the dumbest motherfucker alive, just blew up the stimulus negotiations to focus on confirming his SCOTUS pick.

 

[eelw]

Is he tempting Pence to apply the 25th?

 

[ecogen]

Is he tempting Pence to apply the 25th?

If things are electorally ass for the GOP as of right now I guess that's one way to make the situation even worse.

 

[eelw]

Yeah I have to agree with the Bernie Bros or never Bideners, he isn't the ideal candidate with a sketchy long history in Congress. But just repairing the damage done in the last 4 years, one will have to consider him one of the best presidents in history if he can just return it back to 2016 levels.

But his speech writer did a good job in this Gettysburg speech.

 

[ultimatebob]

Trump, the dumbest motherfucker alive, just blew up the stimulus negotiations to focus on confirming his SCOTUS pick.

Trump knows that people with absentee ballots are already voting NOW, right? If you're a person who's out of work who was waiting for that stimulus check to buy groceries, you pretty much guaranteed that they're voting for Biden out of spite now.

 

[K1052]

Trump knows that people with absentee ballots are already voting NOW, right? If you're a person who's out of work who was waiting for that stimulus check to buy groceries, you pretty much guaranteed that they're voting for Biden out of spite now.

Over 4 million votes are in and early voting just stared in 6-7 states. The election is now.

Maybe throw everybody off and do something popular for a change. I dunno.

 

[Blackjack200]

538 has Biden at 83%, have they ever had a presidential candidate further ahead than that? I couldn't find their 2012 or 2008 forecasts, but I gotta think 83% is the highest?

 

[manly]

538 has Biden at 83%, have they ever had a presidential candidate further ahead than that? I couldn't find their 2012 or 2008 forecasts, but I gotta think 83% is the highest?

Here's 2008 before election day:

Today’s Polls and Final Election Projection: Obama 349, McCain 189

It’s Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, Election Day in America. The last polls have straggled in, and show little sign of mercy for John McCain. Barack Obama appears…

fivethirtyeight.com

Looks like they didn't assign probabilities back then like they do now. But it would have been a very high probability. As Nate Silver explained recently, for a given polling lead, the chances of winning improve the closer you get to election day (since the time for the underdog to close the gap is depleting).

92% in 2012 (despite a close margin in national polls):

Nov. 5: Late Poll Gains for Obama Leave Romney With Longer Odds

Mitt Romney has always had difficulty drawing a winning Electoral College hand. Even during his best period of polling, in the week or two after the first presi…

fivethirtyeight.com

Keep in mind that the question isn't really if Biden wins a free and fair election (he has most pathways to victory). The question is whether any states will significantly prevent a free and fair election, and if enough states do so that could create chaos and force SCOTUS to intervene in vote counting. I believe one of Silver's recent articles discussed that he has no way of modeling this uncertainty.

 

[Blackjack200]

Here's 2008 before election day:

Today’s Polls and Final Election Projection: Obama 349, McCain 189

It’s Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, Election Day in America. The last polls have straggled in, and show little sign of mercy for John McCain. Barack Obama appears…

fivethirtyeight.com

Looks like they didn't assign probabilities back then like they do now. But it would have been a very high probability. As Nate Silver explained recently, for a given polling lead, the chances of winning improve the closer you get to election day (since the time for the underdog to close the gap is depleting).

92% in 2012 (despite a close margin in national polls):

Nov. 5: Late Poll Gains for Obama Leave Romney With Longer Odds

Mitt Romney has always had difficulty drawing a winning Electoral College hand. Even during his best period of polling, in the week or two after the first presi…

fivethirtyeight.com

Keep in mind that the question isn't really if Biden wins a free and fair election (he has most pathways to victory). The question is whether any states will significantly prevent a free and fair election, and if enough states do so that could create chaos and force SCOTUS to intervene in vote counting. I believe one of Silver's recent articles discussed that he has no way of modeling this uncertainty.

Thanks, I though Biden's recent polling had passed Obama's but I guess not.

 

[manly]

Thanks, I though Biden's recent polling had passed Obama's but I guess not.

It has, but we're still 4 weeks out.
Note that Obama had merely a 2% "national" lead over Romney on election day 2012, but 538 modeled that as 92% to win based on EC math and there being no time left for Romney to close the gap.