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

Status
Not open for further replies.
break these cuffs said:
Oh that's funny. Someone made an offhand comment about the police precinct being there and I thought they were just making an observation on the number of cops in the lobby. The fact that it's an actual police precinct is even more hilarious.

I hadn't paid attention to the backlash or the explanation she gave, but what you say makes perfect sense in light of that. They were giving a little reality check to Ms. Red Revolution. It's bandied about frequently that her district is going to be gerrymandered out of existence, but I wouldn't be so sure. The NY legislature changed the redistricting process to start in 2020. Instead of being handled purely in the legislature, it's now a 10 person commission with 2 being appointed by minority and majority leaders each in both chambers. The final two are appointed by those 8 commissioners. The DNC can't just do whatever it wants. I'm sure the commissioners will be scheming, but it would be interesting to know just how cucked the Republicans are and whether or not they'll play ball. AOC leaving isn't necessarily as done a deal everything thinks it is.
Click to expand...
i mean regardless of how they gerrymander, she will have to compete against another dem for that district. its in the middle of a huge ocean of blue districts and i have a feeling new yorkers on the whole spectrum want to keep the city districts separate from upstate districts. so shes fucked once 2022 happens unless this pandemic causes the census to delay results or for new york to delay redistricting. Which honestly i am 99% sure would happen. 2024 seems like a much better time for new districts just because its an election year plus a senate race happening means the several dems out of a job would primary gillibrand instead of going after cuomo or schumer's jobs. Also the media focus on the presidential election would mean the DNC can really fistfuck anyone that tries to stray from the party line, there's a reason AOC was able to get so much momentum from the NYC media during the mid-term elections.
It's HK-47 said:
That's a very common tactic for sleazy politicians, and one of the best examples of it actually comes from Biden himself. Go back and look at any of Biden's Vice Presidential debates and you'll notice that when his opponent asks him a particularly difficult question, he bursts out into laughter. It was especially bad during the 2012 debate, where he broke out into hysterics almost every time that Paul Ryan spoke to make it seem like what he was talking about was worth mocking, even if he was talking about something particularly serious.

It's a power play that assholes use because if you're not familiar with the technique, it shames you into feeling like what you just said was so absurd that it doesn't merit a legitimate reply, and that you should be ashamed for even having thought of it in the first place, or to throw you off balance and make you angry because they're laughing at you, because angry people don't debate well. Hillary tried to pull the same trick on Trump during all of their debates, too, but Trump completely ignored it and just kept cutting away at her to throw her off-balance with shit like, "Because you'd be in jail."

Laughing derisively to dodge questions is a primitive trick but it's incredibly effective if the person you're dealing with isn't aware of it. Once you're aware of it, it's actually very difficult to not notice it, and you also start to notice just how often politicians do it.
Click to expand...
we call it the Jon Libowitz
RockPaper said:
I see no real difference in Trump between now and ten years ago.

This is just "neener-neener no Trump's the one with dementia, incel!" because it's clear Biden is actually compromised.
Click to expand...
exactly, you can look up stern interviews from the 90s with trump and old speeches with biden. one sounds completely different, while trump still acts like his usual shittalking self.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Cpl. Long Dong Silver, Harvey Danger and 2 others
2020Suicide said:
i mean regardless of how they gerrymander, she will have to compete against another dem for that district. its in the middle of a huge ocean of blue districts and i have a feeling new yorkers on the whole spectrum want to keep the city districts separate from upstate districts. so shes fucked once 2022 happens unless this pandemic causes the census to delay results or for new york to delay redistricting. Which honestly i am 99% sure would happen. 2024 seems like a much better time for new districts just because its an election year plus a senate race happening means the several dems out of a job would primary gillibrand instead of going after cuomo or schumer's jobs. Also the media focus on the presidential election would mean the DNC can really fistfuck anyone that tries to stray from the party line, there's a reason AOC was able to get so much momentum from the NYC media during the mid-term elections.
Click to expand...
They don't have a say about when the new districts go into effect. Congress will start their session on January 3, 2023 and if New York doesn't have anyone elected to their allotment of seats then they just don't get representation in the House.

Making it extremely difficult for AOC to get reelected in the House in 2022 may not be in their best interest. Because at that point it would be easier for her to just primary Chuck Schumer and run for the Senate. Although if New York state shifts right like a lot of polls are suggesting, maybe a progressive can't win statewide either.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and Candlelight Desolation
Someone Awful said:
On it when it comes to tracking view counts.

Edit: Viewcounts 77 minutes in,

Fox News: 46K views
Bloomberg QuickTake News: 7.3K
NBC News: 3.7K
NowThis News: 803 views

Edit: I love how Trumps likes to joke about "this election was going to be so easy, now we have to work to win against someone who doesn't even know where it is." Love how he hits that without coming off as whiney.
Click to expand...
Total viewers as of 8:00 PM EST: 181.9k
Viewers.jpg
+ RSBN: 50K

Also, some cope from Larry Sabato and Nate Compost:
Sabeta cope.jpg
1599601134814.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Nguyen Van Phuoc and 6 others
RockPaper said:
"Precarious"? No, shit, Nate. If any usually blue state flips, Trump wins easily. Yeah, I'd call that "precarious." Yeesh.
Click to expand...
Optimistic FTFY. Typical Nate Orichalcum though...

Isn't Biden supposed to win with a historic Democratic landslide since LBJ? What is this precarious, 270-flat win nonsense?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Livecorpse and 2 others
Tathagata said:
This is just as retarded as saying to look at Nate Tinfoil for data. Look at transparent polls with communicative pollsters who are willing to discuss how they got their results. Look at crosstabs. Pollsters which oversample democrats (4% of the national electorate) do so at a rate of 7.62% on average. Proof. And this is directly about the polls used by RCP and Nate Saran Wrap.

Saying "hurr durr use aggregates" is retarded. Use polls that are trustworthy and have excellent records.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, calm down. I just mean look at the aggregate of polls which aren't oversampling +13 in one direction. It will give you a general idea of the momentum at that point in time.
 
  • Feels
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: MrJokerRager, FunPosting101, Bunny Tracks and 1 other person
AOC faced a respectable challenge in her primary from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera who raised like $3M and was previously on CNBC, and AOC destroyed her 76-18. The representatives from districts surrounding her will have similar or less incumbency than her. Bitch is mega popular and the only thing that will stop her reign is if she wants to just be a celebrity reality show princess or whatever.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Marchesa of the Vast and 2 others
CrippleThreat said:
Isn't Biden supposed to win with a historic Democratic landslide since LBJ? What is this precarious, 270-flat win nonsense?
Click to expand...

That's called Nate Aluminum not being stupid enough to think the polling is still actually good for Biden while also knowing that if he says as such, his demonic fanbase will turn on him in an instant. Look at any tweet he makes saying Trump has an actual chance. The replies are filled with dangerhairs and holier-than-thou overeducated latte liberals screaming their head off like it's a personal betrayal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Buttigieg2020 and 5 others
Tathagata said:
That's called Nate Aluminum not being stupid enough to think the polling is still actually good for Biden while also knowing that if he says as such, his demonic fanbase will turn on him in an instant. Look at any tweet he makes saying Trump has an actual chance. The replies are filled with dangerhairs and holier-than-thou overeducated latte liberals screaming their head off like it's a personal betrayal.
Click to expand...

I do feel slightly bad for some of the more moderate mainstream pundits because of this. Anyone in 2016 that even said Trump had a path to victory might as well have posted a Nazi Flag in their social media profiles. It's only gotten worse since then.

But they're still taking those paychecks, so meh screw 'em.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, MidUSA and 1 other person
I see some parallels to the 1980 election here. The country is different, and I think the incumbent/challenger have swapped places in this analogy, But I think there's something to it.

People knew Carter was a disaster in 1980, but the polls were close, so much so that Reagan winning by the margin he did on election night was surprising. The media narrative was Reagan was an unserious former actor who was kinda crazy and wanted to blow up the world if he ever got elected. People admitting beforehand that they were going to vote Reagan was more difficult to do. The country wasn't doing great, but serious, intelligent people were going to vote for Carter because they weren't going to put a crazy extremist in the White House. If you listened to the media, that is.

In this case, Trump's the incumbent but he's the crazy one you're not supposed to publicly admit you're voting for. Biden is for the serious, intelligent people.

But I think a lot of people could say the same thing inside their heads about Biden that they said about Carter: Something's not right about him, and I might publicly say I'll vote for him, but in the privacy of the booth I won't actually do it.

We'll see. Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Optimism and 6 others
Reminder for all you people reading, posting, and lurking in this thread:


"The Democrats have: tried to impeach Trump and failed spectacularly, called him a rapist, called him a racist, accused him of treason, accused him of being a rapist some more, and claimed he had a urine fetish. Oh, they accuse him of having dementia too They have no Oct surprise" - Comrade Fudge
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • DRINK!
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pope Julius IV, Cpl. Long Dong Silver and 7 others
I think LBJ-Goldwater may be the closest scenario to Trump. You were labeled a monster if you didn't support JFK's successor and Goldwater was the dangerous guy who'd blow everything up. Even though LBJ still won easily, Goldwater ended up doing at least 5% better than any polls suggested.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: The Pink Panther
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back