US Election Day 2020

[Beebo Brink]

This is what happens when the "Democratic" candidate is a neoliberal capitalist Republican Lite who utterly fails to motivate his base.

I'm no fan of Joe Biden, but this is utter hogwash.

We've had one of the largest voter turnouts in over a century, and Biden himself has won more votes than Obama did. Anyone who wasn't "motivated" to vote for Biden is just as much of a fool as the people who voted for Trump (and just as culpable). Our U.S. version of the far left may not have been enthused, but their idea of a "worthy" candidate is so far from the U.S. center that Trump would have wiped the floor with their choice. Biden, much as I don't care for him, was probably the ideal candidate to combine the majority of the Dem party with Independents and Never-Trump Republicans.

This was an election with record-breaking numbers of citizen involvement. So now we know: This is who we are.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

We've had one of the largest voter turnouts in over a century, and Biden himself has won more votes than Obama did.

More votes than any US presidential candidate ever in history, of any party. Yeah I don't see how you can read an uninspired or unmotivated base into that.

 

[Sid]

Your presidential elections are as always about getting enough electoral college voters behind you (271 or more). That is how it is agreed somewhere in the past.
All the other numbers and percentages are "interesting" at best. Have no further value at all for the outcome of the election.
At the moment Biden has 238 and Trump 214 (to many). But both are still in the race.

 

[Chalice Yao]

Republican and Democratic party members have very different mindsets and goals. <Good Stuff here>

I'm not saying that both parties breed the same kind of people - far from it, especially in recent years. However, I *do* believe that there is a big...sort of stigma associated to the concept of changing parties in the US, be it as a politcian or as an actual voter. And there is a *lot* more leeway given to your own party's candidates and statements and actions than the other's. To a degree that's human, but it is vastly amplified by the US's everywhere-but-on-paper Two Party System. I actually consider this absolute party minimalism as one of the root causes of it all. Switching parties means the only (usual) option is switching to the people you were opposed to, before.

From an outsider's perspective, US politics, even before Trump, were very, VERY aggressive and competitive fights between pretty much the two only existing teams, and the recent years just drove that absolutely to the extremes.

That said...

If by some ugly twist of fate Trump had run as the Democratic nominee, I'd hold my nose and vote for someone like Romney or Kasich, even -- God help me -- Ted Cruz. Because policy, competence and character matter to me, and Trump has always been a delusional grifter of jaw-dropping incompetence. He's completely unfit for office, regardless of party affiliation. I will vote country over party every time, but as has become glaringly obvious, most Republicans will not.

There are always people who are a bit more rational in their decisions. I think a good deal of people who actually discuss (instead of parrot) politics on forums like these belong in that group, thankfully.

But, even here on VVO (or was that near the end of SLU?) I do recall having seen posts along the lines of "Do not vote for minor parties you'd like, it won't work, vote Dem so we make sure Trump loses".

Which is literally another way of saying "Do not try to win your thing, instead make sure that guy over there does not."

P.s.
...please don't vote for Ted Cruz, ever >_>

 

[Pamela]

Looks like the post office has indeed been dumping/hiding ballots.

 

[Chin Rey]

That's interesting. It seems clear Biden won Michigan now. He's 45,000 votes ahead and there are less than 10,000 votes left to count. But Trump was even more ahead there only a few horus ago (as I write this). So obviously those absentee votes really, really made a difference there. If the same happens in Pennsylvania, it's game over for Trump.

Anyway, the results from Nevada won't be delcared until tomorrow and we can't say anything for sure until that happens and we may even have to wait for the Pennsylvania results.

---
But here's an interesting thought. Right now Biden has 238 electoral college votes and he's ahead in three undeclared states with a total of 32. If that turns out to be the end result, he'll win with the narrowest possible margin and it'll only take one faithless elector to prevent him from being elected directly. How will people react if that happens?

 

[Chalice Yao]

P.s. from CNN:

The Trump campaign says it will “immediately” request a recount in the battleground of Wisconsin. But under Wisconsin law, a campaign can’t petition for said recount until the Wisconsin Election Commission completes the canvass from county election boards

Free We might be in for 'Election WEEKS'. Plural.

 

[Beebo Brink]

But, even here on VVO (or was that near the end of SLU?) I do recall having seen posts along the lines of "Do not vote for minor parties you'd like, it won't work, vote Dem so we make sure Trump loses".

Which is literally another way of saying "Do not try to win your thing, instead make sure that guy over there does not."

Except Trump is an existential threat because he is an incompetent thug, not because he's a Republican.

This isn't "Make sure the Republican doesn't win", it's "Make sure TRUMP doesn't win" because he will severely damage this country, if not the world. This is really an election way outside the norm.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

 

[Pancake]

Except Trump is an existential threat because he is an incompetent thug, not because he's a Republican.

This isn't "Make sure the Republican doesn't win", it's "Make sure TRUMP doesn't win" because he will severely damage this country, if not the world. This is really an election way outside the norm.

I think it's going to become more and more important for both sides (sorry I know both sides is a touchy phrase) to make this distinction. Democrats need to make the distinction though, to avoid alienating moderate republicans, or at least to not energize them into voting for Trump by lumping them in the same basket. Republicans also need to start speaking out more, I'm kind of sickened that they haven't to be honest, but if they will have to start doing it more if they have any hope of keeping Trump from completely hijacking their party.

There are Trump supporters who are cult of Trump and not necessarily Republicans, or even particularly political.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I mean if we're ready to admit that a "polling analyst" can say "the data gives us a 99% chance Purple wins!" and Green ends up winning in an absolute landslide and our analyst is able to say "Actually my analysis was completely right because it recognized that Green had a non-zero chance of winning" then what I conclude from that is that "poll analysis" like this is stupid and worse than useless for any purpose beyond rhetorical, and that it shouldn't get the airtime we give it.

But that's not what happened in 2016.

As far as I can see, the major polls, and FiveThirtyEight's projections, were pretty accurate -- HRC won the popular vote by a couple of million, but nevertheless, Trump won the electoral college, which FiveThirtyEight gave him a 30% chance of (a much better chance, IIRC, than most other analysts were giving him).

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Chalice Yao]

This isn't "Make sure the Republican doesn't win", it's "Make sure TRUMP doesn't win" because he will severely damage this country, if not the world. This is really an election way outside the norm.

That, I can definitely agree on, personally.
But, that's exactly what brings me back to Cindy's bafflement, and my reaction to it: Somewhere along the line, someHOW - and I am not sure how - Trump managed to make a pile of his voters think exactly the same thing about what will happen if he loses. 48% or so of votes are Trumps - and I think nobody can seriously claim that nearly all those people are racist redneck low-education bigots. But here we are with those numbers. These are not sane times.

 

[Sean Gorham]

I'm no fan of Joe Biden, but this is utter hogwash.

And then Beebo gave me a proper dressing-down. Sigh.

I admit I'm wrong about the motivation bit. I was pretty angry when I wrote that. You're right that the numbers don't lie about this. More voters than ever, if I've read everything correctly. I guess I want to believe that the results stem from not enough people on the left voting, not from so many people deciding "no, we really do want the fascist running things because he embodies all that we believe."

I'm also not a Biden fan by any stretch of the imagination. He's a cishet rich old white dude who's also a neoliberal capitalist and I'm standing by that. But... the only other viable choice was worse, so I voted for him anyway. I am so sick of cishet rich old white dudes being our only choices for president.

Maybe if we weren't stuck with a two-party system and first-past-the-post voting and -- ARRRRGH. This is why people look at me funny when I start screaming "burn it all down!" We can't fix something so utterly broken. We need to start over.

 

[Chalice Yao]

I mean if we're ready to admit that a "polling analyst" can say "the data gives us a 99% chance Purple wins!"

 

[Sid]

248 - 214.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I'm not saying that both parties breed the same kind of people - far from it, especially in recent years. However, I *do* believe that there is a big...sort of stigma associated to the concept of changing parties in the US, be it as a politcian or as an actual voter. And there is a *lot* more leeway given to your own party's candidates and statements and actions than the other's. To a degree that's human, but it is vastly amplified by the US's everywhere-but-on-paper Two Party System. I actually consider this absolute party minimalism as one of the root causes of it all. Switching parties means the only (usual) option is switching to the people you were opposed to, before.

From an outsider's perspective, US politics, even before Trump, were very, VERY aggressive and competitive fights between pretty much the two only existing teams, and the recent years just drove that absolutely to the extremes.

That said...

There are always people who are a bit more rational in their decisions. I think a good deal of people who actually discuss (instead of parrot) politics on forums like these belong in that group, thankfully.

But, even here on VVO (or was that near the end of SLU?) I do recall having seen posts along the lines of "Do not vote for minor parties you'd like, it won't work, vote Dem so we make sure Trump loses".

Which is literally another way of saying "Do not try to win your thing, instead make sure that guy over there does not."

P.s.
...please don't vote for Ted Cruz, ever >_>

Just a clarification. If someone said "Vote Democrat" down the line, it was probably because that is essential if you want to have your President actually be able to accomplish anything.

You've seen us discussing the Senate, yes? Even if Biden wins he won't be able to do jack shit legislatively, precisely because the Senate is Republican. Once upon a time there was a thing called compromise, but that doesn't exist anymore at least on the Republican side, since Newt Gingrich. They use scorched earth tactics.

Evidence: The Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination vs the last three.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar told CNN on Wednesday that the state could end up in a recount situation once all the ballots are counted, but it’s not “inevitable.”

President Trump currently leads former Vice President Joe Biden in Pennsylvania by about 458,915 votes with about 80% of the vote reported.

“In Pennsylvania there’s an automatic recount if the race is within 0.5 percent difference between the winner and the person in second. So in 2016, I believe the final results were 0.7 percent, so there was no automatic recount. Today remains to be seen,” she said.

“I think we’ll know more by the end of the day where we see where we are,” Boockvar added.

Recount possible but not “inevitable,” Pennsylvania secretary of state says

Donald Trump and Joe Biden each need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Follow here for the latest updates on voting and election results.

www.cnn.com

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Some players just called Wisconsin for Biden.

Right now, Biden is ahead in the count in Michigan and Nevada. If he stays ahead in those two states and they get called, Biden will have exactly 270 EC votes and will win, no matter what happens in Georgia or PA. Biden's lead has gotten bigger in Michigan over the last couple of updates, so it's looking kind of okay; but he's only ahead by 8,000 votes in Nevada, and I thought I saw something saying that Nevada wasn't even going to resume counting until like tomorrow. And I don't know enough about which votes are left there to be able to say Nevada is as comfortable a prospect as Michigan has been becoming.

And honestly I have know idea what Georgia and Pennsylvania are doing. Biden is down by 80k in Georgia and 450k in PA and those are big hurdles to have to jump. North Carolina is allegedly "in play" too but I am skeptical, Biden is down by a lot there.

I think we've got this but I hate that it's so close, I really do.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Recount possible but not “inevitable,” Pennsylvania secretary of state says

Donald Trump and Joe Biden each need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Follow here for the latest updates on voting and election results.

www.cnn.com

Half a million? mmm...I am gonna say that unless those votes are in Philly, Trump takes it.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

ETA: latest Michigan numbers bring Biden back down to 20k ahead. This is nerve-wracking.