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 15.3%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 27 37.5%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 15 20.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • Total voters
    72

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,069
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
The most in any POTUS staff ever I think.
Does this statement include the 25 mentioned by slvrbk? Also, what is the comparison of number of people investigated/questioned vs other administrations. I honestly don't know. If it's much higher here then more charges would make sense.

Sometimes you catch a lot of fish when you go on a fishing expedition.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
15,236
5,537
1,743
Katy, TX
Found this interesting

I tracked electoral votes for George W. Bush. Beware of 2020 forecasts.

Mike Shannon, The Washington Post
Published 12:03 pm EDT, Wednesday, September 23, 2020


The deluge of national polls makes it hard to remember that U.S. presidential elections are about a map.

Twenty years ago, I was the keeper of the George W. Bush campaign map - our color-coded projection of electoral college votes based on our private state-tracking polls. Last week, I dug one of those maps out of the archives. Dated Nov. 1, 2000, it reads "Bush 305, Gore 171, Toss-Up 62." Florida, where our nightly polls had shown us holding a five-point lead, is labeled "Lean Bush."

That map proved wrong just six days later.

New Mexico ("Solid Bush"), Michigan (Lean Bush) and Wisconsin (Lean Bush) were ultimately won by Al Gore, as were all the "toss-up" states. Florida (Lean Bush) became the focus of a historic 36-day recount. What happened? Undoubtedly there was some polling error (we lost Michigan by five points) and some category error (we should have classified New Mexico as Lean Bush based on our final polling).

But a big culprit, in Florida and many other states, was our losing a majority of so-called late deciders in the final days of the race. This 11th-hour swing toward Gore was revealed in election-eve surveys commissioned by our team's polling and media chief, Matthew Dowd, who worried about the impact of an unwelcome November surprise that had seemingly reversed our momentum going into the final weekend - the revelation of Gov. Bush's three-decades-old DUI arrest.

The map is a prime example of the uncertainty in projecting presidential races when there is a deeply divided electorate and the potential for late-fall surprises. It has also strengthened my conviction about predicting the 2020 outcome, which can be summed up in three words: Nobody knows anything.

That's hyperbole, of course. We do have helpful directional data, including polling, economic indicators, state demographic trends and historical patterns. They suggest an edge for former vice president Joe Biden over President Donald Trump. We should be skeptical, however, of how this data is translated into outright predictions, widely circulated financial analyses and models of comical precision. (Biden's chance of victory is 77%, 80.7% or 85%, according to FiveThirtyEight, the New Statesman and the Economist, respectively.) All the data - and every model and prediction based on them - are overshadowed by unusual factors that create enormous uncertainty.

First, we've had no real general election campaign yet. Most of the season has been postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic. Trump has had just a handful of his beloved rallies. Biden has mostly stayed at home. The in-person conventions were canceled, replaced by virtual conventions that recorded a collapse in voter interest (only 28% said they watched at least some of the 2020 Republican National Convention, compared with 64% four years ago) and that were virtually bounceless, the first time in modern history when neither candidate appeared to get a bump. In this campaign-less campaign, Trump has been the only player on the field, which has been to his detriment. This will change with the debates, which could be the most consequential of our lifetime and should provide a better sense of the race.

Second, to continue the sports metaphor, even as an abbreviated season gets underway, a dense fog is covering the playing field, making both the ground game and scoring difficult: No one knows how the pandemic will affect voter turnout or the actual casting of ballots. This is a big deal for forecasting and polling - an everything deal when swing-state poll margins are within five points, which is where most are today. Moving turnout share just a few points here and there among Republicans and Democrats could have changed three of the past five presidential outcomes. A measurable disparity in whose supporters' votes are actually counted - because of higher rates of disqualification of mail-in ballots, pandemic-related difficulties at the polls or even partisan malfeasance - could have a similar effect.

Now, a Supreme Court nomination fight has burst onto the campaign playing field with less than two months to go. With it comes a new layer of unpredictability. There's no modern precedent to help us forecast how this will affect the contest.

Finally, there is an additional significant factor of uncertainty unrelated to the pandemic or the Supreme Court - the dimensions of the playing field itself. That was the story of 2016. The out-of-bounds markers were ignored, with election interference by a foreign power, the FBI director's disregarding of long-standing bureau policies to report on Hillary Clinton's use of emails, and the unauthorized release of some of Trump's tax records. Who knows whether similar surprises will happen in the next eight weeks, but Microsoft's recent report about foreign cyberattacks targeting the campaigns certainly raises the possibility. The Justice Department is at least as unsettled and unpredictable now as it was in 2016.

Even more important in 2016, reliably Democratic states made big leaps toward becoming Republican, and vice versa, even as the national polling and results suggested stability. Clinton's national margin (+2.1 points) was just 1.8 points below President Barack Obama's 2012 margin (+3.9 points). But in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she underperformed Obama's 2012 margins by 6.1 points, 7.7 points and 9.7 points, respectively. These huge swings cost Clinton all three states and the presidency. All three were part of the so-called Blue Wall states that had voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections. Historical patterns lose their predictive value in times of political, informational, economic and cultural disruption.

We will know more about 2020's contours after the debates. And once the Election Day fog clears, it's possible we'll look back with hindsight and think it was all so obvious. Until then, view each prediction and forecast skeptically. Many of the maps drawn today will be just as wrong as my own from 20 years ago.

- - -

Shannon directed media buying for the 2004 George W. Bush presidential campaign and coordinated polling for the White House in 2001 and 2002.

https://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/I-tracked-electoral-votes-for-George-W-Bush-15591041.php
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,632
2,031
1,743
Oklahoma City
I have two separate Bible study/small groups where my wife and I are the only non -Trumpers. We just keep our mouths shut when politics eventually comes up. The perceptive ones in the group notice and tone down. Unfortunately, they are vastly outnumbered. It’s just not worth creating a wall there (ironically) that may be kore permanent than the political strife.

Still, if anything’s a cult, it’s QAnon. Antifa is a close second.
As Christians we believe in absolutes...we believe there is a truth...we bellieve there is a life...we believe there is a way as Jesus said. If we believe that we must always be able to openingly discuss that with anyone openly and without rancor or any kind of anger or name calling.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,246
2,055
1,743
46
DFW
As Christians we believe in absolutes...we believe there is a truth...we bellieve there is a life...we believe there is a way as Jesus said. If we believe that we must always be able to openingly discuss that with anyone openly and without rancor or any kind of anger or name calling.

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist that.

So, what are you saying? Is there a scripture that says “thou shalt openly discuss politics?” I don’t remember that in the Ten Commandments or the Beattitudes. I think Jesus is okay with us holding our tongues.

and what does absolute truth have to do with any of this? Sorry, I’m just not following that part.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
8,119
4,835
1,743
Somewhere
As Christians we believe in absolutes...we believe there is a truth...we bellieve there is a life...we believe there is a way as Jesus said. If we believe that we must always be able to openingly discuss that with anyone openly and without rancor or any kind of anger or name calling.
This is the longform of saying nothing at all.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,069
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
How many people have we seen try to campaign on the notion that they are Washington outsiders? This is proof positive that Trump is exactly that.
As I've said previously, I personally don't think it's possible for Trump to drain the swamp. But the actions and attitude of so many career bureaucrats and establishment politicians towards him make me wonder if maybe THEY think it's possible.
 
May 31, 2007
1,895
452
1,713
Edmond, OK
As I've said previously, I personally don't think it's possible for Trump to drain the swamp. But the actions and attitude of so many career bureaucrats and establishment politicians towards him make me wonder if maybe THEY think it's possible.
He can’t drain the entire swamp but he can certainly get the ball rolling in the right direction and that’s what they fear.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
8,608
6,131
1,743
Piedmont, OK

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist that.

So, what are you saying? Is there a scripture that says “thou shalt openly discuss politics?” I don’t remember that in the Ten Commandments or the Beattitudes. I think Jesus is okay with us holding our tongues.

and what does absolute truth have to do with any of this? Sorry, I’m just not following that part.
Not about what you're saying, but that line in the GIF has always puzzled me. By stating "only a sith deals in absolutes" wouldn't Obi then have to be sith according to his own definition??

Sorry, not trying to derail but man that's always bothered me...
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
7,475
6,426
1,743
Tulsa
Not about what you're saying, but that line in the GIF has always puzzled me. By stating "only a sith deals in absolutes" wouldn't Obi then have to be sith according to his own definition??

Sorry, not trying to derail but man that's always bothered me...
Because the line was a slap at Georg W.'s phrase after 9/11 that "you are either with us or against us" The inference was that Bush/Cheney were sith. And remember Cheney's nickname was Darth Vader to the left.

Hollywood gonna Hollywood