sidebar

VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 14.1%

  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 15.4%

  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 29 37.2%

  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 17 21.8%

  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 9 11.5%
  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
jetman

jetman

Federal Marshal
#4,785
Nov 27, 2004
15,002
9,354
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
#4,785
Here's the entire quote. Basically Handler is telling Fiddy to get back on the plantation and she'll even let him get some of her again if he does. Real classy. Again, a white liberal woman trying to tell a black man what to think and do.

Handler insisted the 62 percent tax hike "isn't a plan" under Joe Biden, calling it a "lie" during her interview with "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon.
Click to expand...

"So he doesn't want to pay 62 percent in taxes because he doesn't want to go from '50 Cent' to '20 Cent' and I had to remind him that he was a Black person, so he can't vote for Donald Trump and that he shouldn't be influencing an entire swath of people who may listen to him because he's worried about his own personal pocketbook," Handler said.​

Handler said she "hasn't heard back" from Fiddy but told Fallon she's willing to "seal the deal in more ways than one" in order to get her ex-boyfriend to publicly denounce Trump.

"I might be willing to go for another spin, if you know what I'm talking about," Handler added.​
Click to expand...
​

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/chelsea-handler-50-cent-trump
 
wrenhal

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
#4,786
Aug 11, 2011
10,512
4,173
743
#4,786
jetman said:
Here's the entire quote. Basically Handler is telling Fiddy to get back on the plantation and she'll even let him get some of her again if he does. Real classy. Again, a white liberal woman trying to tell a black man what to think and do.

Handler insisted the 62 percent tax hike "isn't a plan" under Joe Biden, calling it a "lie" during her interview with "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon.
Click to expand...

"So he doesn't want to pay 62 percent in taxes because he doesn't want to go from '50 Cent' to '20 Cent' and I had to remind him that he was a Black person, so he can't vote for Donald Trump and that he shouldn't be influencing an entire swath of people who may listen to him because he's worried about his own personal pocketbook," Handler said.​

Handler said she "hasn't heard back" from Fiddy but told Fallon she's willing to "seal the deal in more ways than one" in order to get her ex-boyfriend to publicly denounce Trump.

"I might be willing to go for another spin, if you know what I'm talking about," Handler added.​
Click to expand...
​

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/chelsea-handler-50-cent-trump
Click to expand...
That's just sick

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Midnight Toker

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
#4,787
May 28, 2010
9,015
1,770
1,743
#4,787
cableok said:
He is not going to lose.

What I can’t wait is to see the end of the Infofe ads and the Broyles ads. Both of them seem to only make negative TV ads targeting the other. I understand why Broyles does it. But why does Inhofe? Her name recognition is low and near non-existent on the east side of the state. I think his negative ads just help her.

However, he will still win in a landslide. He is old, but 1) very well known; 2) extremely consistent with his conservative voting record.
Click to expand...
We will find out soon if he will win or not, but it will be closer than it was last time. There were some very slim margins by which he won handful of important states that biden polls well in.

I am voting to fire inhofe, time to get some fresh blood in there. The negative ads are pretty blase and boring and i usually tune out 98% of it. I like how the two guys running for utah governor made that nice positive video together.

snuffy said:
With less than two weeks until Election Day, more than 50 million people have already voted, and elections experts predict historic rates of turnout this cycle.


More than 257 million people in the U.S. are 18 or older, and nearly 240 million citizens are eligible to vote this year, according to Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who runs the U.S. Elections Project. Eligible voters include people living overseas but not non-citizens or people convicted of a felony, depending on state law.

It's possible that 85 million people could vote before Nov. 3, with 150 million voting in total, according to McDonald. That would mean an eligible voter turnout rate of more than 62%.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/6006793002
Click to expand...
Record voter turnout doesnt usually benefit the incumbent party.
 
Cimarron

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
#4,788
Jun 28, 2007
53,297
17,930
1,743
#4,788
Midnight Toker said:
We will find out soon if he will win or not, but it will be closer than it was last time. There were some very slim margins by which he won handful of important states that biden polls well in.

I am voting to fire inhofe, time to get some fresh blood in there. The negative ads are pretty blase and boring and i usually tune out 98% of it. I like how the two guys running for utah governor made that nice positive video together.



Record voter turnout doesnt usually benefit the incumbent party.
Click to expand...
Really?

Since 1932 there have been 11 Presidential Elections with an incumbent. Of those 11 only 2 have lost, Carter and Bush.

Turnout ranked based on % Turnout of those eligible to vote.

The first five (highest turnout) the incumbent won.
Then # six the challenger won.
Then the next 3 the incumbent won.
Then the next 1 the challenger won.
Then ranking #11 the incumbent won.

So no, record turnout typically favors the incumbent.

In fact there have been 22 Presidential Elections since 1932.

Again based on ranking by % turnout of those eligible to vote.

The 1992 election the incumbent lost, it ranked #12 in voter turnout.
The 1980 election the incumbent lost, it ranked #17 in voter turnout.

So, you didn't even make the top half.

These statistics aren't difficult to find.

Those marked in yellow are the years the two times the challenger beat the incumbent.


1603565010762.png
 
Midnight Toker

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
#4,790
May 28, 2010
9,015
1,770
1,743
#4,790
Cimarron said:
Really?

Since 1932 there have been 11 Presidential Elections with an incumbent. Of those 11 only 2 have lost, Carter and Bush.

Turnout ranked based on % Turnout of those eligible to vote.

The first five (highest turnout) the incumbent won.
Then # six the challenger won.
Then the next 3 the incumbent won.
Then the next 1 the challenger won.
Then ranking #11 the incumbent won.

So no, record turnout typically favors the incumbent.

In fact there have been 22 Presidential Elections since 1932.

Again based on ranking by % turnout of those eligible to vote.

The 1992 election the incumbent lost, it ranked #12 in voter turnout.
The 1980 election the incumbent lost, it ranked #17 in voter turnout.

So, you didn't even make the top half.

These statistics aren't difficult to find.

Those marked in yellow are the years the two times the challenger beat the incumbent.


View attachment 86534
Click to expand...
That looks suspiciously like something you'd find on wikipedia which is only citing voting age population instead of voting eligible population as it claims. i.g. in 2016, there were 250 million people over 18, yes, but only 230 million of them were eligible to vote. So, 55% of adults voted, but actually over 60% of eligible voters voted in 2016. And in 2008, what you posted above of 229 million eligible votes is also just the voting age population, but the voting eligible population was closer to 213 million. The sources i used is the US Elections project and another presidency project by UCSB which has nearly the exact same numbers.

Just looking at the last 50 years the two highest are 2008 at 61.65% and 2016 at 60.1%.

So that was forefront on my mind. Lately it has not helped the incumbent party. 3 of the top 5 highest voter turnouts by eligibility went against the incumbent party. Those being 08, 16, and 92. But it's happened 6 times out of 10 elections. So me saying 'not usually' is more accurate than the sentiment you are projecting in your post though.

For posterity the top 10 highest voter turnout elections, as a percentage of eligible voters

  1. 2008: Barack Obama v John McCain (61.65%)
  2. 2016: Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton (60.1%)
  3. 2004: George W. Bush v John Kerry (60.1%)
  4. 2012: Barack Obama v Mitt Romney (58.6%)
  5. 1992: Bill Clinton v George W. H. Bush (58.1%)
  6. 1972: Richard Nixon v George McGovern (56.2%)
  7. 1984: Ronald Reagan v Walter Mondale (55.2%)
  8. 1976: Jimmy Carter v Gerald Ford (54.8%)
  9. 1980: Ronald Reagan v Jimmy Carter (54.2%)
  10. 2000: George W. Bush v Al Gore (54.2%)
 
Cimarron

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
#4,795
Jun 28, 2007
53,297
17,930
1,743
#4,795
Midnight Toker said:
That looks suspiciously like something you'd find on wikipedia which is only citing voting age population instead of voting eligible population as it claims. i.g. in 2016, there were 250 million people over 18, yes, but only 230 million of them were eligible to vote. So, 55% of adults voted, but actually over 60% of eligible voters voted in 2016. And in 2008, what you posted above of 229 million eligible votes is also just the voting age population, but the voting eligible population was closer to 213 million. The sources i used is the US Elections project and another presidency project by UCSB which has nearly the exact same numbers.

Just looking at the last 50 years the two highest are 2008 at 61.65% and 2016 at 60.1%.

So that was forefront on my mind. Lately it has not helped the incumbent party. 3 of the top 5 highest voter turnouts by eligibility went against the incumbent party. Those being 08, 16, and 92. But it's happened 6 times out of 10 elections. So me saying 'not usually' is more accurate than the sentiment you are projecting in your post though.

For posterity the top 10 highest voter turnout elections, as a percentage of eligible voters

  1. 2008: Barack Obama v John McCain (61.65%)
  2. 2016: Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton (60.1%)
  3. 2004: George W. Bush v John Kerry (60.1%)
  4. 2012: Barack Obama v Mitt Romney (58.6%)
  5. 1992: Bill Clinton v George W. H. Bush (58.1%)
  6. 1972: Richard Nixon v George McGovern (56.2%)
  7. 1984: Ronald Reagan v Walter Mondale (55.2%)
  8. 1976: Jimmy Carter v Gerald Ford (54.8%)
  9. 1980: Ronald Reagan v Jimmy Carter (54.2%)
  10. 2000: George W. Bush v Al Gore (54.2%)
Click to expand...
On your list of 10 the incumbent lost #5 and #9........ below average...
 
Rack

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
#4,799
Oct 13, 2004
24,278
10,130
1,743
Earth
#4,799
Binman4OSU said:
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1320225663958351872?s=19
Click to expand...
He test, I believe, every day...he will stop if he test positive. He's negitive...he also appears to be a picture of good health. Shutting down society to contact trace every last exposed person would be worse for America than the virus already is.

"Do NOT go gently into that good night."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.