2020 General Election

[Ibanez]

The historian who is known affectionately as the granddaddy of presidential prediction models says that Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden is a shoo-in to win the 2020 presidential race.

The American University historian Allan Lichtman’s predictions are worth paying attention to because he has accurately forecast every election since 1984, including President Donald Trump’s stunning victory in 2016 over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

In an op-ed video in the New York Times published on Wednesday, Lichtman’s model, per usual, outlines his 13 keys to the White House that now lead him to believe that Biden is on track to secure a victory on Nov. 3.

This time around, Lichtman’s prognostication should come as little surprise given national polls indicate that Biden commands a substantial lead over the incumbent.

Biden, polling at 49.1%, holds a 6.4 percentage-point lead over Trump at 42.7%, according to a national poll average compiled by Real Clear Politics.

Lichtman says Biden leads Trump on seven of the 13 true-or-false criteria he looks at to assess the winner of a race to the White House, which includes factors such as the economy, foreign policy, scandals, social unrest and even the charisma of the candidate.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/histo ... =home-page

[JoltinJoe]

I would start with reforming Congress.

House and Senate rules reward seniority -- encouraging voters in states to send back the same people over and over, because voters can benefit under this system as their representatives gain more seniority.

This creates a wide pool of what you've called (quite accurately) "mediocre political careerists."

I haven't figured out all the specifics, but I'd say we need a constitutional amendment that either imposes terms limits (unlikely) or radical changes to the House and Senate rules so that a representative begins to lose power with more seniority.

Give present "seniority" status to representatives in their second and third term. Take it away once they start their fourth term. No committee chairs; no ranking member status for Reps. after their third term.

Give "seniority" status to Senators in their second term. Take it away in a third term.

Giving voters less incentive to create political careerists, and this will result in fewer political careerists.

I know you're not a fan of President Obama. Candidly, I have some issues with him but I don't think of him as "mediocre." I'd like to see career arcs like Obama's -- although I think he probably would have actually benefited (and been a better President) he had spent a second term in the Senate. He was still green politically, and got led around early in his tenure by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

I'm usually not in favor of term limits but that's an interesting perspective.

I find your rigidity on the infallibility of both the Catholic Church and the NY Yankees to be asinine but I can overlook that if it means someone with a brain stem and moral compass occupies the Oval Office.

Spoiler: show

Today, I have signed three Executive Orders.

The first Executive Order declares the New York Yankees 1994 and 2001 World Series champions, and 2017 and 2019 AL champions.

The second Executive Order directs the deportation of 1B and Capn' Cat to the nation of Vatican City, where they will be tried for heresy before the Inquisition.

The third Executive Order relegates the Philadelphia Phillies and Boston Red Sox from the MLB to the International League.

It is SO ORDERED.

[GannonFan]

I'm usually not in favor of term limits but that's an interesting perspective.

I find your rigidity on the infallibility of both the Catholic Church and the NY Yankees to be asinine but I can overlook that if it means someone with a brain stem and moral compass occupies the Oval Office.

Spoiler: show

Today, I have signed three Executive Orders.

The first Executive Order declares the New York Yankees 1994 and 2001 World Series champions, and 2017 and 2019 AL champions.

The second Executive Order directs the deportation of 1B and Capn' Cat to the nation of Vatican City, where they will be tried for heresy before the Inquisition.

The third Executive Order relegates the Philadelphia Phillies and Boston Red Sox from the MLB to the International League.

It is SO ORDERED.

Danny Tartabull was probably juicing.

[Winterborn]

The historian who is known affectionately as the granddaddy of presidential prediction models says that Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden is a shoo-in to win the 2020 presidential race.

The American University historian Allan Lichtman’s predictions are worth paying attention to because he has accurately forecast every election since 1984, including President Donald Trump’s stunning victory in 2016 over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

In an op-ed video in the New York Times published on Wednesday, Lichtman’s model, per usual, outlines his 13 keys to the White House that now lead him to believe that Biden is on track to secure a victory on Nov. 3.

This time around, Lichtman’s prognostication should come as little surprise given national polls indicate that Biden commands a substantial lead over the incumbent.

Biden, polling at 49.1%, holds a 6.4 percentage-point lead over Trump at 42.7%, according to a national poll average compiled by Real Clear Politics.

Lichtman says Biden leads Trump on seven of the 13 true-or-false criteria he looks at to assess the winner of a race to the White House, which includes factors such as the economy, foreign policy, scandals, social unrest and even the charisma of the candidate.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/histo ... =home-page

Hillary in a landslide.

Spoiler: show

[BDKJMU]

The historian who is known affectionately as the granddaddy of presidential prediction models says that Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden is a shoo-in to win the 2020 presidential race.

The American University historian Allan Lichtman’s predictions are worth paying attention to because he has accurately forecast every election since 1984, including President Donald Trump’s stunning victory in 2016 over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

In an op-ed video in the New York Times published on Wednesday, Lichtman’s model, per usual, outlines his 13 keys to the White House that now lead him to believe that Biden is on track to secure a victory on Nov. 3.

This time around, Lichtman’s prognostication should come as little surprise given national polls indicate that Biden commands a substantial lead over the incumbent.

Biden, polling at 49.1%, holds a 6.4 percentage-point lead over Trump at 42.7%, according to a national poll average compiled by Real Clear Politics.

Lichtman says Biden leads Trump on seven of the 13 true-or-false criteria he looks at to assess the winner of a race to the White House, which includes factors such as the economy, foreign policy, scandals, social unrest and even the charisma of the candidate.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/histo ... =home-page

Picking 9 straight is impressive (although majority are gimmies). One thing to note Lichtman isn't making the predictions at the same time each election cycle, or at leas the last 2. The above link you posted is dated 8/5/20- someone posted it on here a couple weeks ago.

9/23/16:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ction.html#!

Now my question is, who was Lichtman predicting to win on 8/5/16?

[GannonFan]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/histo ... =home-page

Picking 9 straight is impressive (although majority are gimmies). One thing to note Lichtman isn't making the predictions at the same time each election cycle, or at leas the last 2. The above link you posted is dated 8/5/20- someone posted it on here a couple weeks ago.

9/23/16:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ction.html#!

Now my question is, who was Lichtman predicting to win on 8/5/16?

It's not really that hard - other than 2016, have we ever really had a surprise winner in the past, say, 50 years? Going into election day there's a high probability of who the winner should be.

[BDKJMU]

the Primary Model, a political forecasting method which predicts the ultimate outcome of White House races on voting patterns from presidential primaries.

The model has a laudable track record. Established in 1996 by Stony Brook University political science professor Helmut Norpoth, the Primary Model correctly picked the victors in multiple presidential elections — including the last one.

On March 7, 2016, it predicted then-candidate Donald Trump had an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. Will the president also vanquish Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden?

“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91% chance of winning in November. This model has picked the winner in all but two elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced, including, of course, Trump’s victory in 2016,” Mr. Norpoth tells Inside the Beltway in a statement.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ialnetwork

https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-fin ... nia-michi/

[BDKJMU]

Picking 9 straight is impressive (although majority are gimmies). One thing to note Lichtman isn't making the predictions at the same time each election cycle, or at leas the last 2. The above link you posted is dated 8/5/20- someone posted it on here a couple weeks ago.

9/23/16:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ction.html#!

Now my question is, who was Lichtman predicting to win on 8/5/16?

It's not really that hard - other than 2016, have we ever really had a surprise winner in the past, say, 50 years? Going into election day there's a high probability of who the winner should be.

The last 2 midterm elections W/Kerry and Obama/Romney were pretty neck and neck heading into election day according to the "polls". Both incumbents did better than the polls predicted, as I recall.

[JohnStOnge]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/histo ... =home-page

Hillary in a landslide.

Spoiler: show

That guy predicted Trump winning well ahead of time. Having said that, I'm not sold on his process. I think he may have just been lucky. Like I think he was lucky last time because he'd made his prediction then later Comey dropped his last minute bomb.

But it'd be great if he turns out to be right this time at least one more time because this country really needs Trump out of there.

[JohnStOnge]

It's not really that hard - other than 2016, have we ever really had a surprise winner in the past, say, 50 years? Going into election day there's a high probability of who the winner should be.

The last 2 midterm elections W/Kerry and Obama/Romney were pretty neck and neck heading into election day according to the "polls". Both incumbents did better than the polls predicted, as I recall.

I don't know if 538 did its thing back in 2004 but on election eve 2012 they had 90% confidence based on polls that Obama would win. In contrast they only had Clinton as a favorite against Trump at 71% confidence. That's not a high enough confidence level to make a call. It's roughly 2:1 odds. Just one more thing about how people think the polls said Hillary was a lock to win when they did not. The public perception with respect to how big an upset Trump winning was given the polling as it was just prior to the election greatly exceeds the reality. It was an upset. But it was, in probability terms, along the lines of Clemson beating Alabama in the 2017 CFP championship game. In terms of statistics, the polls did not provide sufficient evidence to make a call either way for the 2016 election.

[Skjellyfetti]

The last 2 midterm elections W/Kerry and Obama/Romney were pretty neck and neck heading into election day according to the "polls". Both incumbents did better than the polls predicted, as I recall.

Obama and Bush were both around 50% approval rating on election day.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bar ... roval.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/pre ... -bush.aspx

Trump has never been >= 50% in Gallup. Pretty doubtful he will by November.

[Ivytalk]

Joe is a solid thinker. I’d support him for POTUS.....if he agrees to retire to coastal MD or points South.

Sorry. Just the other Joe from Delaware.

Him too! (But he’s not a solid thinker. Hasn’t been for a long time. If ever.)

[BDKJMU]

The last 2 midterm elections W/Kerry and Obama/Romney were pretty neck and neck heading into election day according to the "polls". Both incumbents did better than the polls predicted, as I recall.

Obama and Bush were both around 50% approval rating on election day.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bar ... roval.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/pre ... -bush.aspx

Trump has never been >= 50% in Gallup. Pretty doubtful he will by November.

Hard to tell with the W graph, but at the time of the 04' election, looks like W was mid to upper 40s, below 50%.

Gallup Trump was at 42% on the last poll taken on 8/12, trending up. And he's been at 49% 4 separate times earlier this year (1/29, 2/16, 3/22, 5/13). Could very hit upper that again before the election. They've had him 35% to 49% during his presidency.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/tru ... eekly.aspx

RCP avg is 43.7%

Gallup no longer does a daily tracking, so Rasmussen is the last one still doing one. Their daily tracking has Trump at 51% (they''ve had him from 38% to 53% during his presidency). So Rassmussen has ranged 3-4 points higher than Gallup.

[kalm]

550K ballots were rejected from the primaries this year. That’s up from 318K in 2016. Maybe enough to turn some swing states.

Over under on when this thing is decided?

[∞∞∞]

550K ballots were rejected from the primaries this year. That’s up from 318K in 2016. Maybe enough to turn some swing states.

Over under on when this thing is decided?

I'm shocked that voters of color are being disproportionately affected.

[Baldy]

550K ballots were rejected from the primaries this year. That’s up from 318K in 2016. Maybe enough to turn some swing states.

Over under on when this thing is decided?

I'm shocked that voters of color are being disproportionately affected.

I'm not. Voters of color have grifters like Stacy Abrams representing them and cooking the books.

[Pwns]

Am I the only one that thinks it's super cringey to attach "of color" to every noun there is?

Two signs I've learned to look for to know you're dealing with an intersectional liberal quack on Twitter....they've got pronouns on their profile and don't have an androgynous appearance or they attach "-of color" to any noun when referring to non-whites.

[∞∞∞]

Am I the only one that thinks it's super cringey to attach "of color" to every noun there is?

Two signs I've learned to look for to know you're dealing with an intersectional liberal quack on Twitter....they've got pronouns on their profile and don't have an androgynous appearance or they attach "-of color" to any noun when referring to non-whites.

People of color: "The election process disproportionately affects people of color."

Baldy: "Of color is so cringey!" (ignores actual cringey part: "disproportionately affects")

[UNI88]

Am I the only one that thinks it's super cringey to attach "of color" to every noun there is?

Two signs I've learned to look for to know you're dealing with an intersectional liberal quack on Twitter....they've got pronouns on their profile and don't have an androgynous appearance or they attach "-of color" to any noun when referring to non-whites.

People of color: "The election process disproportionately affects people of color."

Baldy: "Of color is so cringey!" (ignores actual cringey part: "disproportionately affects")

Why are they being disproportionately affected?

- Are they being targetted?
- Is there suspected fraud and ballots should be rejectedt?
- Are there errors on the ballots that cause them to be rejected (which could point to educational issues)?

I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it's nefarious without more information.

[CID1990]

People of color: "The election process disproportionately affects people of color."

Baldy: "Of color is so cringey!" (ignores actual cringey part: "disproportionately affects")

Why are they being disproportionately affected?

- Are they being targetted?
- Is there suspected fraud and ballots should be rejectedt?
- Are there errors on the ballots that cause them to be rejected (which could point to educational issues)?

I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it's nefarious without more information.

“Black people can’t figure out how to get an ID/find a polling place/read a ballot/not be intimidated/use the mail/use a computer/drive a car/catch a ride/use GPS in 3.... 2.... 1....

Ever notice how the people who have the lowest expectations of minorities are progressive white people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

Why are they being disproportionately affected?

- Are they being targetted?
- Is there suspected fraud and ballots should be rejectedt?
- Are there errors on the ballots that cause them to be rejected (which could point to educational issues)?

I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it's nefarious without more information.

“Black people can’t figure out how to get an ID/find a polling place/read a ballot/not be intimidated/use the mail/use a computer/drive a car/catch a ride/use GPS in 3.... 2.... 1....

Ever notice how the people who have the lowest expectations of minorities are progressive white people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's shameful, but it sounds like Trip is a firm believer in 'the soft bigotry of low expectations'.

[93henfan]

Joe Biden goes on the record last night on ABC that he will absolutely not raise any taxes on people making less than $400K/year.

That's what I'm holding him to, should he win.

[CID1990]

Joe Biden goes on the record last night on ABC that he will absolutely not raise any taxes on people making less than $400K/year.

That's what I'm holding him to, should he win.

Ya think he’s lost the GHWB era of his memory yet, or is that part still intact?

But then... does anybody really think Biden would be standing for reelection anyway? I mean, the dude could lie his ass off right now... he’s just trying to win one term really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Winterborn]

About time the asteroid gets here.

NASA reported Saturday that an asteroid is headed toward Earth one day before U.S. Election Day this year, though the chances of an impact are less than 1 percent.

Scientists labeled the asteroid 2018VP1, and data reveals its diameter is 0.002 kilometers, or about 6.5 feet, CNN reported.

The celestial object was first discovered at the Palomar Observatory in California in 2018.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/51324 ... e-election