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.
I remember conservatives bragging about how McCain/Palin and even Boring Mitt Romney had huge rally crowds compared to Obama and yard signs everywhere. These things barely matter.
They're best at measuring enthusiasm, which there is obviously a huge divide between the two candidates. Although, you still have to win over the majority of older voters who always vote and don't bother to attend rallies or get that involved otherwise. Obama obviously had a lot of enthusiasm on his side too. Joe has less than Hillary, so it's easy to see why they're nervous.
 
They're best at measuring enthusiasm, which there is obviously a huge divide between the two candidates. Although, you still have to win over the majority of older voters who always vote and don't bother to attend rallies or get that involved otherwise. Obama obviously had a lot of enthusiasm on his side too. Joe has less than Hillary, so it's easy to see why they're nervous.

I'm not American but my perception is that Biden has relatively little enthusiasm even compared to Clinton in 2016. Obama had a massive, vocal support base in both his elections and Clinton had some pretty vocal supporters too, but Biden voters seem to be very much of the "vote blue no matter who" stripe. This election could go either way but there's noticeably less vocal support than there was in 2016, never mind 2012.
 
Anon on /pol/ makes an interesting point about the recent controversies and older ones being drudged back up.

Screen Shot 2020-09-09 at 6.54.22 PM.png
 
I'm not American but my perception is that Biden has relatively little enthusiasm even compared to Clinton in 2016. Obama had a massive, vocal support base in both his elections and Clinton had some pretty vocal supporters too, but Biden voters seem to be very much of the "vote blue no matter who" stripe. This election could go either way but there's noticeably less vocal support than there was in 2016, never mind 2012.

People wanted to see Obama become the first black president and Hillary become the first woman president. There was genuine excitement to vote FOR them and not just against the Republicans.

I've yet to hear anyone want to vote for Biden other than "not Trump."
 
People wanted to see Obama become the first black president and Hillary become the first woman president. There was genuine excitement to vote FOR them and not just against the Republicans.

I've yet to hear anyone want to vote for Biden other than "not Trump."

Biden hasn't even presented any reason to vote for him other than "not Trump." I really don't think they realize people in northern Minnesota don't care about Orange Man Bad as much as they care about economic policies helping their rusted out towns. Biden has a 50 year record. When he entered government, they were still calling black people negroes. 50 years of non-action is hard to cover up with Orange Man Bad, and their agitprop polling of only metropolises is going to come back to bite them in the ass on November 3rd.
 
Biden hasn't even presented any reason to vote for him other than "not Trump." I really don't think they realize people in northern Minnesota don't care about Orange Man Bad as much as they care about economic policies helping their rusted out towns. Biden has a 50 year record. When he entered government, they were still calling black people negroes. 50 years of non-action is hard to cover up with Orange Man Bad, and their agitprop polling of only metropolises is going to come back to bite them in the ass on November 3rd.
And this is his 3rd {4th? Info me on '08} presidential election rodeo, with this one being his best yet all because Kamala is retard with an abyssmal record, and with the Obama hype, the establishment powers up above said "Might as well?"

Look at this shit:
Screenshot_2020-09-09-20-22-06-1.png

1988 Democratic National Convention:
Annotation 2020-09-09 211021.png
 
Last edited:
Just remember not to fall into the democrat's racist Latino trap, namely that all Hispanic people are the same. This is obvious for Florida, but it holds true demographically and culturally in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Texas' hispanic population is not as young or new to the country as New Mexico's, and Arizona has suffered in recent years from immigration and Californication. Latinos in New Mexico will not vote the same way as Latinos in Texas who will not vote the same way as Hispanics in Florida.

Regardless, it's still a bad sign for Biden.
Fair point. I definitely think Trump will get over 35% of the Hispanic vote nationwide though I am going to wait and see if he reaches 40%+ like he claims it will. It's worth noting that Arizonian Hispanics voted 31% for Trump, Texans Hispanics voted 34% for Trump, New Mexico Hispanics voted 33% for Trump, and Colorado voted 30% for Trump, all better than the 29% nationwide average. Granted, that doesn't seem like much, but had they been in the low twenties like Pennsylvania (which has a small population in comparison), Texas, Arizona, and Florida would all be blue by now. If anything, it's like you said, that culture determines how they may vote in elections.

As for New Mexico's population not being as old as Texas's, 6.9% of the population was Hispanic in 1910 (archive), barely below that of 7.1% in Texas. Funny enough, Arizona's Hispanic population in that year was around the same as their population in 2012, but there was a decline until 1970. I'd imagine that even if you factor New Mexico's decline from 1940-1960, fifty years would show whenever or not second-gen natives and above vote more Republicans but I haven't come across any exit polls comparing immigrants to non-immigrants voters.

That said, you brought up a good point regarding immigration and Californication in Arizona. I still think he'll take Arizona if he gets 40%+ of Hispanics over there, but I still think it will eventually turn blue due to cultural shifts. Texas and Florida have a better chance of remaining light red or purple states, but time remains to be seen on that.

Speaking of Biden, that takes me back to when the guy who helped outreached Hispanics in Sanders campaign in California and Texas warned Democrats that they were losing the Hispanic vote. The lack of enthusiasm among Hispanics for Biden is real, espeically when the DNC went all in on Black Lives Matter.
And this is his 3rd {4th? Info me on '08} presidential election rodeo, with this one being his best yet all because Kamala is retard with an abyssmal record, and with the Obama hype, the establishment powers up above said "Might as well?"

Look at this shit:
View attachment 1584113

1988 Democratic National Convention:
View attachment 1584227
Biden ran in 2008, but dropped out during the primary. He never did very well and I'm not sure if he even made it to Iowa.
 
Speaking of Biden, that takes me back to when the guy who helped outreached Hispanics in Sanders campaign in California and Texas warned Democrats that they were losing the Hispanic vote. The lack of enthusiasm among Hispanics for Biden is real, espeically when the DNC went all in on Black Lives Matter.

Chuck Rocha? He helped Bernie perform super well among Latinos, especially in Texas, by basically just talking to them about working class issues. The dems' rejection of all things Bernie means that they refuse to even acknowledge him, even when he said after the RNC that the GOP messaging is going to work with Latinos in critical states. I doubt he would publicly bring up the black/hispanic tension since he's still a shitlib lefty, of course, but dems are retarded if they really don't think that will have an effect this election. Latino families are just normal families in the end (if they're not illegals), and I don't think Kamala hugging a black gangbanger is going over well with them. But I guess we'll see in November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Chuck Rocha? He helped Bernie perform super well among Latinos, especially in Texas, by basically just talking to them about working class issues. The dems' rejection of all things Bernie means that they refuse to even acknowledge him, even when he said after the RNC that the GOP messaging is going to work with Latinos in critical states. I doubt he would publicly bring up the black/hispanic tension since he's still a shitlib lefty, of course, but dems are retarded if they really don't think that will have an effect this election. Latino families are just normal families in the end (if they're not illegals), and I don't think Kamala hugging a black gangbanger is going over well with them. But I guess we'll see in November.
Yep, that's the guy.

Interview / archive

Rocha pointed out in this interview that Biden had a late campaign start when it came to courting Latinos compared to Trump. He even mentioned that he saw inside polls saying Biden is faring worse with Latinos than people think and that in order to win, he needs to get 70% of the Hispanic votes. I don't know if Biden needs that many - 65% might clinch the election - but we are looking at a possible scenario where Biden might get 60% or less of the Latino vote. That hasn't happened since 2004 but its clear the Biden campaign will have to work their rears off to make up for deficit they caused by starting the outreach so late.

I've said it before, but it's telling that Nevada has not had a poll released since January. Could it be that there are inside polls within the DNC that indicates Trump might take the state and they're resting on their laurels because VBM fraud will just make up the difference anyway?
 
I've said it before, but it's telling that Nevada has not had a poll released since January. Could it be that there are inside polls within the DNC that indicates Trump might take the state and they're resting on their laurels because VBM fraud will just make up the difference anyway?

I think that's definitely what's going to happen. It's such a fucking shame the democrats would rather sell out our republic than just admit Trump is electable, but I don't think it's a winning play to campaign there (beyond downballot measures, maybe). Trump should focus on Arizona, since that's really one of the states he needs to ensure he gets to 270 as easily as possible.
 
Qualtrics released the latest Nevada poll last week: Biden 44, Trump 39 (+/- 4%) Poll taken in August.
Good to know. Result doesn't surprise me although I don't buy there are that many undecided voters (17% is a lot for Others).
I think that's definitely what's going to happen. It's such a fucking shame the democrats would rather sell out our republic than just admit Trump is electable, but I don't think it's a winning play to campaign there (beyond downballot measures, maybe). Trump should focus on Arizona, since that's really one of the states he needs to ensure he gets to 270 as easily as possible.
That's what I said some time back that Trump needs to focus on getting Arizonians to vote for him one last time. If he wins that state, it will be by a razor-thin margin like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan was in 2016.

Assuming Trump and Biden get what I consider solid and likely states for them to obtain, the tossups are Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden has to get three or four states to win while Trump needs two or three. If Trump can keep Arizona, then all he needs is Pennsylvania or two of Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota to win. If he loses Arizona, then he has to either get all three of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan or win Pennsylvania and one of the three aforementioned states. Either way, this election will go down to the wire.

Also Nebraska 2nd Congressional District but I have a feeling Trump will lose that district.
 
The thing that should be noted here is that the Democrats don't really want the big rallies because they're moralfags and they want to act as if they are being virtuous during this time by not having big rallies due to COVID. However, in turn, this causes them to have less outwards support from the masses, which leaves it to the grand advantage of Trump, who is able to get big audiences of people even during the 'rona because he's better as a whole at setting up events to boost enthusiasm into the people despite the lack of moralfaggotry. The Dems trying to act as the "moral" party (and acting as if when so many times they've been shown to not be that way at all) is going to really fucking boot them in the ass.
The big rallies are known as BLM rallies if you read between the lines.
 
Good show by People's Pundit (with Barnes Law). Most notable because they spend 30+ minutes shitting on Nate Aluminum, outright calling him a fraud, and going into the history of 538's utter failure at making sports odds. Sounds like it was kicked off by Nate calling out Baris.


"If anyone wants to sue me for calling them a fraud, I'll prove it in court!"

They go into the details of what it takes to do proper election forecasting, not just modeling or poll reading. Shitting on Nate 538 starts around 15 minutes in, but the whole thing is worth listening to.
 
So... how about a potential October surprise?




Nobel Prize winners are announced on October 9th.

Apparently this nomination was done before he did the Serbia/Kosovo deal too, so there's even more justification for giving it to him. Can you imagine the everflowing salt that would erupt if he gets it? Especially right before an election?
Reading his wiki this guy sounds exceptionally based. So it could very well be a publicity stunt opposed by 95% of his peers. He's a libertarian who is bordeline ethno-nationalist.
 
Good show by People's Pundit (with Barnes Law). Most notable because they spend 30+ minutes shitting on Nate Aluminum, outright calling him a fraud, and going into the history of 538's utter failure at making sports odds. Sounds like it was kicked off by Nate calling out Baris.


"If anyone wants to sue me for calling them a fraud, I'll prove it in court!"

They go into the details of what it takes to do proper election forecasting, not just modeling or poll reading. Shitting on Nate 538 starts around 15 minutes in, but the whole thing is worth listening to.
Nate Silver likes to fall back on the fact that they gave Trump the highest chance of winning out of all the major publications. But what he always fails to bring up is how terrible he was before that point.
Ehe598vXsAEfvZu.jpeg
 
Good to know. Result doesn't surprise me although I don't buy there are that many undecided voters (17% is a lot for Others).

That's what I said some time back that Trump needs to focus on getting Arizonians to vote for him one last time. If he wins that state, it will be by a razor-thin margin like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan was in 2016.

Assuming Trump and Biden get what I consider solid and likely states for them to obtain, the tossups are Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden has to get three or four states to win while Trump needs two or three. If Trump can keep Arizona, then all he needs is Pennsylvania or two of Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota to win. If he loses Arizona, then he has to either get all three of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan or win Pennsylvania and one of the three aforementioned states. Either way, this election will go down to the wire.

Also Nebraska 2nd Congressional District but I have a feeling Trump will lose that district.
What are the Nate Tungsten calcs on the mythical Trump landslide?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back