737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
I'm sorry, but I missed this the first time.
I know a ton of people that seem to forget that TRUMP IS ALREADY PRESIDENT!
Have I missed something? I could be wrong here, but when has Trump ever hinted that if reelected that he was taking people's health care away?
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
some groundbreaking campaign starts here
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
Yep, although South Florida encompasses a lot of suburbs, and the Arlington/Richmond corridor is a mix.
As of last census, only 19% of the country lives in rural areas. I don't view them as suddenly swinging blue for any reason, unless an honest blue-collar champion somehow pops up in the Democrats again. (No, Bernie isn't one.) So they aren't as big a predictor for the future.
This isn't really a criticism of the US Census Bureau, but I think the way they define urban vs rural is insufficient. They're doing it to objectively quantify the data, which is literally their job, so their definition works for that purpose. However I think there's a qualitative difference with the way people in sparse suburbs feel, even though they are included in a larger "urban" area.
The basic problem is urban sprawl turning into suburban sprawl. When you have an urban core and a traditional suburb outside it, the "escape the city" mindset is pretty clear. However, over the last 50 years, suburbs themselves have sprawled out, pushing into previously rural areas and turning them into semi-rural or less-dense suburb areas. This is partly because that's where the cheap land is, and partly due to the problems with a reverse move back into the cities.
You can see this in the "suburbs" of many cities: small houses on large 5 acre wooded lots, horse ranches and goat farms inexplicably next to brand new cookie-cutter McMansions, etc. The rural tracts got surrounded by developers, especially over the last 20 years, and just keep going while the chain stores and gated apartment complexes pop up in their areas.
So what is the mindset of that kind of resident? Someone who doesn't want the full rural experience, or the (relatively) closer community of the suburbs? Someone looking for more isolation, a quieter area? My theory is that they represent disenchantment with suburban homogeneity and lack of character, as the suburbs got built out in mass volumes. Maybe the desire to own some land, a proper homestead, instead of just a house and a lawn.
How do you characterize them, politically? Hard to say, since "semi-rural" isn't an accepted definition and it isn't fully studied yet. My theory is they represent a more conservative and isolationist swath of the suburban residents. If it were the opposite, they would want to move in the other direction, closer to the cities, and gentrify something.
If I'm correct, then the Census undercounts the number of people who think they are living in a quasi-rural lifestyle, because the geography includes them in some larger urban center.
The basic problem is urban sprawl turning into suburban sprawl. When you have an urban core and a traditional suburb outside it, the "escape the city" mindset is pretty clear. However, over the last 50 years, suburbs themselves have sprawled out, pushing into previously rural areas and turning them into semi-rural or less-dense suburb areas. This is partly because that's where the cheap land is, and partly due to the problems with a reverse move back into the cities.
You can see this in the "suburbs" of many cities: small houses on large 5 acre wooded lots, horse ranches and goat farms inexplicably next to brand new cookie-cutter McMansions, etc. The rural tracts got surrounded by developers, especially over the last 20 years, and just keep going while the chain stores and gated apartment complexes pop up in their areas.
So what is the mindset of that kind of resident? Someone who doesn't want the full rural experience, or the (relatively) closer community of the suburbs? Someone looking for more isolation, a quieter area? My theory is that they represent disenchantment with suburban homogeneity and lack of character, as the suburbs got built out in mass volumes. Maybe the desire to own some land, a proper homestead, instead of just a house and a lawn.
How do you characterize them, politically? Hard to say, since "semi-rural" isn't an accepted definition and it isn't fully studied yet. My theory is they represent a more conservative and isolationist swath of the suburban residents. If it were the opposite, they would want to move in the other direction, closer to the cities, and gentrify something.
If I'm correct, then the Census undercounts the number of people who think they are living in a quasi-rural lifestyle, because the geography includes them in some larger urban center.
The cities are locked down Democratic strongholds. I'm focused on them as sources of votes for the obvious reason--they are a central location with lots of people. But they're also the only reliable stronghold the Democrats have left. Every county level electoral map now looks like a population density map.
If you want to predict the future of Democratic voting, we need to see if the cities will stay blue, or start to crack and bleed red.
Given these two factors in 2020, that makes the suburbs the battleground areas. And both campaigns know it. Trump slipped up and bragged that he was going to do "really well with the suburbs", after also bragging that he was "going to protect the suburbs". Both of which might be true, but he's really dumb to say it out loud. (Romney made a similar mistake in 2012 with his 47% remarks.)
What's telling is how the Democrats pounced on it. They first called it a racist dog whistle (of course), but then they shifted into talking about how they were going to win the suburbs. Which led to COPE headlines like this:
Suburban women are rejecting Trump’s ‘"blatantly racist" appeal for their votes: report
"Disdain for Trump is widespread among suburban women — including some who voted for him in 2016"
There are many more articles along these lines. What's really happening is a classic case of "repeat the thing enough times to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy". They're still pissed about the loss in 2016, where Trump was supposed to scare off all those nice proper soccer moms in the suburbs who keep betraying their gender by voting for Republicans. But it didn't happen.
Now, especially with the riots going on, I don't think the numbers in the suburbs are predictive of electoral futures. It's a year-specific issue that will distort the vote. For now, I think suburbs will remain the battleground that will have to be fought each time. I want to see if urban flight from 2020 will change them, but we can't know that for another few years at least.
For me, this year's canary in the coal mines will be the strength or weakness of Democratic cities. The ones I picked out above are the ones I think are most likely to have the biggest swings.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
You just can't see them. There's a race of invisible people in this country and they're all there to pledge their support of Joe Biden.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
They're invisible because they are six-feet underground.
Moufang Loop
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
I happen to be very familiar with this part of the country and the fact that Democrats are completely convinced Michigan is going blue is hilarious. Back in 2016, I was very skeptical when Trunp said he would be competitive in Michigan, because Michigan had not gone red since the 80s and Obama is very popular there. However, I can say fairly confidently that the attitude and approval toward Trump is pretty much identical in Michigan as it was in 2016.
Most UAW leadership (which somehow still has a lot of influence and power in Michigan) is still very liberal and anti Trump. However, UAW workers themselves have completely turned into a solid voting block for the Republocan party. Which is crazy to think about because just 10 years ago, most UAW workers were adamant Obama supporters.
Anyway, in my opinion Michigan will be a narrow victory for Trump. However, for the election overall I have absolutely no idea. All I know is it will be closer than what most people on the left think.
WonderWino
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Yeah. Imagine that. Theres a word for situations like that: suspicious. If anything resembling that scenario happens somebody is very clearly trying to commit voter fraud
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
No they're setting the stage for Trump winning and Biden refusing to concede. Hillary already said Biden shouldn't conceed under any circumstances:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
That special House election a few months ago, way more Republicans voted by mail than predicted. It turned an expected closer finish into a comfortable GOP win.
Republican turnout is gonna be massive. That's what Michael Moore keeps pointing out. Trump will have a higher than expected mail in ballot turnout. The only question November 4th will be what percentage of uncounted mail in ballots does Biden need to win and I think there's gonna be some surprises there.
Republican turnout is gonna be massive. That's what Michael Moore keeps pointing out. Trump will have a higher than expected mail in ballot turnout. The only question November 4th will be what percentage of uncounted mail in ballots does Biden need to win and I think there's gonna be some surprises there.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
That vicious bitch. She's still assdevastated at 2016, and if she can't have her throne she feels that the plebs don't deserve to live in a peaceful country.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2016
Trump is going to win by a fucking landslide. Biden can't even finish a sentence. If Trump straight up drops dead, Pence will still wipe the floor with Biden. If Biden kicks it, Harris is going to get absolutely raped either way.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
It was HER turn, and she'll die making sure we all remember it.
legalkochi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Here, let me translate this.
This is the Democrats basically admitting that Trump is gonna win re-election in a landslide.
And there isn't enough mail-in ballot fraud to counter it.
The media is of course gaslighting by saying that "mail-in ballots" will turn the election but that requires millions of ballots in order to have a chance and it won't be enough, and that's not counting on the fact that Trump will do something about the loophole or have his DoJ be on the lookout for any kind of election fuckery.
This is the Democrats basically admitting that Trump is gonna win re-election in a landslide.
And there isn't enough mail-in ballot fraud to counter it.
The media is of course gaslighting by saying that "mail-in ballots" will turn the election but that requires millions of ballots in order to have a chance and it won't be enough, and that's not counting on the fact that Trump will do something about the loophole or have his DoJ be on the lookout for any kind of election fuckery.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
I'm not well versed in this but the short answer to your question is absolutely "yes". There's no where that I know of where you get your ballot near election day. The main difference between states that I'm aware of is how you qualify for the ballot. Some places you need to be old or cripple, some you just have to ask. I think some places even send out ballots to everyone on the roles, but citation needed there.
The stuff I've heard to justify the long turn-around on counting ballots is that it just takes a long time to properly count them all and they don't want to call numbers that are wrong, which hasn't stopped anyone before.
Pretty much everyone on the left says it's impossible to tamper with mail-in ballots and while it may not be as easy as most republicans think, downplaying reality shows their hand to me. At minimum it allows for loony leftists who accidentally get a ballot not meant for them (due to outdated voter roles) to vote twice without any evidence.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
>but it's an MTurk poll
dude, take a look at Emerson's polls for the 2020 Democratic Primaries. They all used MTurk and they were pretty much on point
Tonight, if the MA-SEN Dem Primary results are near Emerson's "prediction" of 56% Markey 44% Kennedy, that's another indication that MTurk aint so bad.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2017
I posted before about the Request for Absentee Ballot that I received from a non-profit org. I checked over the enclosures and did a search for the org, which had a bare-bones website with no information on the leaders or political stance. A bit more digging brought me to a site that gives non-partisan information on these orgs, and this one, while not pro-Dem, was 100% anti-Repub. I went to the state's Election Commission site, and they indeed listed that company as one that would possibly sending out these requests. But no hotlink or any other info. I got pissed and emailed them and let them know that by listing that org, they were essentially endorsing them without giving any other information about them. They of course denied that they were endorsing, and maybe they weren't EXPLICITLY but being listed on their website was enough for me.
Shit like that really grinds my gears. At least they know that I know and that we're not all brain-dead mouth-breathers out here.
Shit like that really grinds my gears. At least they know that I know and that we're not all brain-dead mouth-breathers out here.
ShortBusDriver
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
It mirrors what happened in Broward County where every time Democrats started losing a race they'd run back to the polling station and 'find' more voters that were 99% Democrats.
- Status