2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Aidan]

Trump: Black voters aren't as loyal as the progressives would like to believe.
Progressives: *Autistic screeching*

These things just write themselves.

Where is the actual recording?

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Sorry if someone else already mentionned in this thread or elsewhere but Kamala Harris was pranked in a phone call. Both RT and the Daily Mail mentionned it.
And if you want to avoid clickbait go to the archived versions. http://archive.vn/ypxu5 http://archive.vn/9wRRB

It seems pranksters Vovan and Lexus have successfully duped another politician, with audio suggesting Democrat VP nominee Kamala Harris was eager to accept a fake recording of Donald Trump, believing the caller was Greta Thunberg.
Vovan and Lexus, whose real names are Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, posed as the teenage climate activist and her father Svante to make a phone call in January to Harris, just months before she became Joe Biden’s running mate.
“Congratulations on all your leadership. I’m so inspired by your courage and your voice,” Sen. Harris (D-California) tells the pranksters, in the audio clip obtained by The Sun.
The duo then claim they have “dirt” on Trump that could prove helpful to Harris, in the form of a recording of the president telling Thunberg “you will never achieve your goal.”
“I’m so terrified of what Trump is doing, I even cannot eat or sleep when I see him on TV. That terrible meeting in the UN building in September – I have nightmares. I saw him in the corridor and shouted to him to sign the Paris climate agreement. He came over and he said softly to me, ‘You will never achieve the goal,’” the fake ‘Greta’ says.

When the DNC will be defeated, we could said, we dodged a bullet and a really big one bullet.

 

[Someone Awful]

Where is the actual recording?

Fair point. Trump has a fair point if he really did say this, which makes me wonder what he seeks in the black vote that we aren't. Still not expecting double digit turn out from them though but I will be pleasantly surprised if we get like 15%+ for him.

Sorry if someone else already mentionned in this thread or elsewhere but Kamala Harris was pranked in a phone call. Both RT and the Daily Mail mentionned it.
And if you want to avoid clickbait go to the archived versions. http://archive.vn/ypxu5 http://archive.vn/9wRRB


When the DNC will be defeated, we could said, we dodged a bullet and a really big one bullet.

First, we have to get to November 3rd first. Also, might be fair to note that unless I'm not looking deeply enough, we do not have the audio to back this up. Daily Mail is a right-leaning source after all.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Found this interesting video on elections being called however this video was posted November 8, 2016.

 

[RockPaper]

Found this interesting video on elections being called however this video was posted November 8, 2016.

The Brokaw thumbnail for that video has to be 1988. Red-GOP and Blue-Dem wasn't agreed upon by everyone back then. For some strange reason I've committed to memory the 10 states that Dukakis won. Gotta be '88.

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

>all this autism to justify limiting voting
Jesus Christ, just admit you want a Stratocracy already. It's completely fine, we both know the average pleb can't make good decisions.

Watching you military types (I assume you're military) mentally twist yourselves into pretzels trying somehow justify your views while not violating the at-this-point-byzantine constitution is just sad.

The Constitution once had a limited franchise. To vote one needed to be a taxpaying landed white man. I want a return to the spirit of that. Not everybody needs to vote and not everybody should.

That said, the metric to determine who retains franchise should be something different. Being able to pass a basic American civics test should be the lowest bar; if you can't be bothered to learn how the government works then you need not vote. Every election year you should be expected to take and pass the voter registration exam if you want to vote in that election.
Ideally serving the nation in some effective capacity - like military, diplomatic, or other service work - for a set period of time would guarantee a more permanent franchise that doesn't need as much renewal.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

The Constitution once had a limited franchise. To vote one needed to be a taxpaying landed white man. I want a return to the spirit of that. Not everybody needs to vote and not everybody should.

I understand why, but realisticly the only way that is happening is through an actual revolution or in the aftermath of a victorious counter-revolution.

 

[heyitsmike]

The Constitution once had a limited franchise. To vote one needed to be a taxpaying landed white man. I want a return to the spirit of that. Not everybody needs to vote and not everybody should.

That said, the metric to determine who retains franchise should be something different. Being able to pass a basic American civics test should be the lowest bar; if you can't be bothered to learn how the government works then you need not vote. Every election year you should be expected to take and pass the voter registration exam if you want to vote in that election.
Ideally serving the nation in some effective capacity - like military, diplomatic, or other service work - for a set period of time would guarantee a more permanent franchise that doesn't need as much renewal.

As much as it pains me to see moron democrat sheep blindly voting team blue no matter what, instituting a test before allowing people to vote is a complete non starter.

It takes an incredible lack of foresight to not be able to imagine the kind of shit Dems would put on a test if they were allowed.

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

I understand why, but realisticly the only way that is happening is through an actual revolution or in the aftermath of a victorious counter-revolution.

A man can dream. I genuinely believe that most of America's woes stem from an ignorant and lazy electorate.

As much as it pains me to see moron democrat sheep blindly voting team blue no matter what, instituting a test before allowing people to vote is a complete non starter.

It takes an incredible lack of foresight to not be able to imagine the kind of shit Dems would put on a test if they were allowed.

You're not wrong, ideally the exam would be based on the letter of US law, not the spirit. The Democrats are masters at ratfuckery though, so that's never to be discounted.

 

[MrJokerRager]

As much as it pains me to see moron democrat sheep blindly voting team blue no matter what, instituting a test before allowing people to vote is a complete non starter.

It takes an incredible lack of foresight to not be able to imagine the kind of shit Dems would put on a test if they were allowed.

The Constitution once had a limited franchise. To vote one needed to be a taxpaying landed white man. I want a return to the spirit of that. Not everybody needs to vote and not everybody should.

That said, the metric to determine who retains franchise should be something different. Being able to pass a basic American civics test should be the lowest bar; if you can't be bothered to learn how the government works then you need not vote. Every election year you should be expected to take and pass the voter registration exam if you want to vote in that election.
Ideally serving the nation in some effective capacity - like military, diplomatic, or other service work - for a set period of time would guarantee a more permanent franchise that doesn't need as much renewal.

This country already had a history of poll tests that was used to fuck over poor whites and blacks. Some of those questions they asked were retarded and nothing to do with the constitution. Just to keep em out.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Trumps Youtube metrics are astronomical. Some of his ads are over 20 million in views. All he has to do now is stick the landing at the convention and things should go swimmingly until the inevitable October surprise.

 

[Absolutego]

Trumps Youtube metrics are astronomical. Some of his ads are over 20 million in views. All he has to do now is stick the landing at the convention and things should go swimmingly until the inevitable October surprise.

As Twitter is not the real world, neither is Youtube. I'm with you that this election is his to lose but wouldn't put my stock in his metrics on any individual website as proof of that.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Trumps Youtube metrics are astronomical. Some of his ads are over 20 million in views. All he has to do now is stick the landing at the convention and things should go swimmingly until the inevitable October surprise.

Which ones? Cause when I look at his youtube channel, they're all stuck at the 18-20k range, to the point that it's blatantly faked numbers.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

...until the inevitable October surprise.

Before the DNC I had my money on either a pseudo-false flag or a deepfake of Trump using the gamer word.
But then I saw snippets of the convention and remembered the Dems are even worse than the Republicans at reading the room of popular opinion, so more Rooshagate shit might be up on the platform.

The real question is what will Trump dish out for his own October Surprise?

 

[DrunkenDozing]

At the start of this year and about 2-3 months into COVID I was very concerned about Trumps chances but I really dont feel the same way now. This shit has gone on too long. Trump has been condemning it from the start but oh, the dems are so concerned with America burning and it's all bad orange mans fault.

So, so many people are going to stay home this year. I think Trump will win, but only by a slightly larger margin. The biggest voting group of all is going to be the sensible liberals who will either vote Trump to send a middle finger to the Dems or far more likely just stay home and not vote. I totally understand that Trump has done diddly dick to court the liberal vote but I assume at this point they would would rather have 4 more years of Trump then to pretend that they even like Biden.

Overall my prediction? Trump wins but by a margin that's just big enough to render the muh Russia angle dead. Like 59% overall. No huge victory but one that no amount of politics could spin.

 

[heyitsmike]

So, so many people are going to stay home this year.

I think turnout will be the lowest among left leaning independents.

Partisan Dems will vote against Trump no matter who is at the top of their ticket. And while those independents mostly dislike Trump, I don't think they'll show up if all they have to vote for at the top of the ticket is Biden.

That's why I'm not too worried about his poll numbers, because I know a lot of those people won't show. In a poll, they come to you, so they have no problem stating their disapproval if you already have them on the line. But in an election, you have to go out of your way and go to them. That's a whole different dynamic.

One thing though, 59% would be huge. In an American presidential election, you can basically consider 60% your theoretical maximum.

 

[RockPaper]

One thing though, 59% would be huge. In an American presidential election, you can basically consider 60% your theoretical maximum.

Yeah, not seeing that. Bush41 won 40 states against Dukakis, and he only got 53-54% of the popular vote.

If any candidate ever won 59% of the vote, it would translate to winning 49 or 50 states.

 

[heyitsmike]

Yeah, not seeing that. Bush41 won 40 states against Dukakis, and he only got 53-54% of the popular vote.

If any candidate ever won 59% of the vote, it would translate to winning 49 or 50 states.

LBJ holds the modern record with 61% and he only won 44 states.

 

[RockPaper]

LBJ holds the modern record with 61% and he only won 44 states.

I think Reagan '84 won 49 states and 58.8% of the popular vote. LBJ didn't win that many states only because the '64 election was the first one where the deep South started to rebel against Democrats and vote Republican. There were rumblings of it in '60 (Harry Byrd won electors from AL and MS), but in '64 you really started to notice it.

 

[heyitsmike]

LBJ didn't win that many states only because the '64 election was the first one where the deep South started to rebel against Democrats and vote Republican.

Are you really trying that bullshit "the parties switched"? I'm sick of the Democrats getting out of their shitty deeds by blaming it on Republicans.

The GOP won a lot of the deep south states in that one election, but it wasn't because of Goldwater somehow appealing to their racism. The segregationist George Wallace ran in the Dem primary.

Look at the electoral maps from the 1964 election and forward. Do you see a sudden switch in there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election