Staggering early vote turnout boosts hopes for Biden in Texas

[TKDfella]

I watched a program a couple days ago which showed the map of the results from early 'registered' voting. It showed J. Biden very clearly in the lead by a big margin. I am not American so I don't know how this works but the narrator said there was no way of knowing what the 'unregistered vote' will turn out to be. Another point made was that Republican voters favour waiting for the stations to open since they don't trust voting by mail. Another point also made was that both Democrats and Republicans have 'middle of the road' voters that prefer to wait to last moment because of any issues they may arise which might sway their vote. So it would seem that forecasts at this point are premature.

[248900_1469958220]

3 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I watched a program a couple days ago which showed the map of the results from early 'registered' voting. It showed J. Biden very clearly in the lead by a big margin. I am not American so I don't know how this works but the narrator said there was no way of knowing what the 'unregistered vote' will turn out to be. Another point made was that Republican voters favour waiting for the stations to open since they don't trust voting by mail. Another point also made was that both Democrats and Republicans have 'middle of the road' voters that prefer to wait to last moment because of any issues they may arise which might sway their vote. So it would seem that forecasts at this point are premature.

No no no...see you got it all wrong mate....Just like last time, the polls should be trusted...those guys know how to ask questions and how to use calculators to add up. No worries, Biden has it in the bag. I FULLY trust mainstream media to give me the REAL NEWS!

[EVENKEEL]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

It's surely surely not related to the Covid 2nd wave....????

A democrat POTUS usually makes the market jittery.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

....Ok, one is a moron and the other has Alzheimer's?? 

Oh look we’re back on the unsubstantiated  ‘Alzheimer’ attack again.

 

 

 

 

 

[candide]

14 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

A democrat POTUS usually makes the market jittery.

You sure?

"Barrack Obama’s win on November 8, 2008 sent the Dow higher by more than 3%, and his second re-election on November 6, 2012 also saw the Dow rally 1%. Donald Trump’s win over Hilary Clinton on November 8, 2016, despite considered to be an upset (and a result that should’ve sent stocks lower), also witnessed the Dow rally 0.4% (figure E)."

https://www.icmarkets.com/blog/us-elections-stock-market-performance/

[Pattaya Spotter]

27 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, the people responding to being asked which way they've voted makes it true.

 

 

Why would a supposed early voter preference "boost" any candidate's hope...it just means your supporters are voting earlier than your opponent's...not that you'll end up with more votes in the end.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Tounge Thaied]

Hope is a waking dream... Biden is dust in the wind... already.

[Lacessit]

12 hours ago, meechai said:

A stiff breeze  would boost his hope as much. ????

 

Biden is done stick a fork in him it will come out clean.  The Dems for better or worse have once again shot themselves in their own foot by putting forth such a candidate as this that none want.

 

To make matters worse his running mate folks would want as president even less. The US Population know with Joe if a miracle occurred & he was elected he would most likely not last the 4 years making Kamala president....THAT is a very scary thought

Why? If you want to check out Jacinta Ardern in New Zealand, she is doing one hell of a job. 25  coronavirus deaths, 70 active cases. The virus that would just go away, according to Trump? 230,000 deaths, 2.9 million active cases and accelerating. US hospitals are overwhelmed. You think Harris would be worse?

If Americans put Trump back in, they will get everything they deserve. Trump won't give a s##t, that's what sociopaths do.

[EVENKEEL]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

You sure?

"Barrack Obama’s win on November 8, 2008 sent the Dow higher by more than 3%, and his second re-election on November 6, 2012 also saw the Dow rally 1%. Donald Trump’s win over Hilary Clinton on November 8, 2016, despite considered to be an upset (and a result that should’ve sent stocks lower), also witnessed the Dow rally 0.4% (figure E)."

https://www.icmarkets.com/blog/us-elections-stock-market-performance/

I'm waiting for market to tank pre Biden so I can get back in. I wouldn't brag about a 1% rally.

[Lacessit]

37 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

A democrat POTUS usually makes the market jittery.

Markets get jittery when the outcome is uncertain. Once the election has been decided, the markets come back. It doesn't matter if the new president is Republican or Democrat, the market prices the result in.

[DrTuner]

Biden will probably win. Then it'll be four years or until he kicks the bucket before the next try - with some hope for somebody who's not an old dinosaur.

[placeholder]

Like it 

 

8 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Biden will probably win. Then it'll be four years or until he kicks the bucket before the next try - with some hope for somebody who's not an old dinosaur.

I've never understood this beauty contest business. I guess in the case of Trump it kind of makes sense since he really doesn't have a coherent program. But Biden actually has a set of concrete proposals. If the Democrats gain the House and Senate, most likely they'll get enacted. Try focussing more on the program, less on the person.

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Why would a supposed early voter preference "boost" any candidate's hope...it just means your supporters are voting earlier than your opponent's...not that you'll end up with more votes in the end.

Please. Except that in this case a much higher percentage of  young people are voting. So the base has expanded.   Just as they participated in record percentages during the 2018 midterms.  And the consequent 9% gap between Democrats and Republicans in total votes cast. 

[Pattaya Spotter]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. Except that in this case a much higher percentage of  young people are voting. So the base has expanded.   Just as they participated in record percentages during the 2018 midterms.  And the consequent 9% gap between Democrats and Republicans in total votes cast. 

How do you know a higher percentage of young people are voting...could be just that young people are voting earlier than others. 

[DrTuner]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I've never understood this beauty contest business. I guess in the case of Trump it kind of makes sense since he really doesn't have a coherent program. But Biden actually has a set of concrete proposals. If the Democrats gain the House and Senate, most likely they'll get enacted. Try focussing more on the program, less on the person.

Not a beauty contest, it's the generational issue. While millenials are just about the most useless generation ever and I could care less about them, I'm rooting for Gen Z, my kids. I have high doubts people in their golden years represent them.

Edited October 29, 2020 by DrTuner

[DrTuner]

double ( please bring back the edit next to quote )
 

Edited October 29, 2020 by DrTuner

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, DrTuner said:

Not a beauty contest, it's the generational issue. While millenials are just about the most useless generation ever and I could care less about them, I'm rooting for Gen Z, my kids. I have high doubts people in their golden years represent them.

So, in other words, you're not going to address the specifics of the programs the democrats want to enact. Rather you're going to stick with the features of an individual. Because someone is old, he or she can't share the same values and goals as young people? Even when those values are clearly delineated? That's nonsensical. You're just evading the fact the Biden's and the Democrats' proposals are much more closely aligned with the values and goals of the majority of young people than are the Republicans.

[RoadWarrior371]

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 Try focussing more on the program, less on the person.

 

You are missing the point.  Most conservatives disagree with the Democrat (socialist) programs.  It sounds a lot like big government and wealth distribution, which this country was NOT founded upon.

[placeholder]

Just now, RoadWarrior371 said:

 

You are missing the point.  Most conservatives disagree with the Democrat (socialist) programs.  It sounds a lot like big government and wealth distribution, which this country was NOT founded upon.

The disagreemtn between Dr. Tuner and me was about whether it's rational to focus on the age of a candidate rather than on the programs he offers. It has nothing to do with the point you are raising.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

 

You are missing the point.  Most conservatives disagree with the Democrat (socialist) programs.  It sounds a lot like big government and wealth distribution, which this country was NOT founded upon.

Socialist programs, nowhere to be seen. Some would be good though.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

How do you know a higher percentage of young people are voting...could be just that young people are voting earlier than others. 

For one thing, we know that's what happened in 2018. And the motivating factors in this election are even stronger. Ya really got to get slightly acquainted with Bayesian inference and the concept of "priors." Most of us base our expectations of the future on what has happened in the past. That's what makes statistical projections possible. Without such projections business and science couldn't function. But for some, everything that happens every day is a big surprise.

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

double ( please bring back the edit next to quote )
 

 

it's there........hit the three dots for "more options," top right corner of your post.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by ChouDoufu
for testing purposes only. no posters were harmed.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

That's how you turn a state from red to blue.  You institute such horrible policies in blue states which then drive even liberals out.  Those liberals migrate to red states which are run much better and are therefore attractive  But the liberals end up bringing all their bad policies with them and destroy the red state.  Don't believe me?  Look at Colorado.  Just talked to a friend of mine over the weekend whose been living in Colorado for almost 40 years and he's described how badly the state has changed.

 

New Jersey is the 'most hated' state in America, analysis allegedly determines

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/new-jersey-most-hated-state-america-analysis-allegedly-determines

 

Of the top 10, I believe 8 are either 'red' states or where won by Trump in 2016.

Texas, btw, is the second most hated state.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Just saying so makes it true?

 

Unless you're Trump?

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

So, in other words, you're not going to address the specifics of the programs the democrats want to enact. Rather you're going to stick with the features of an individual. Because someone is old, he or she can't share the same values and goals as young people? Even when those values are clearly delineated? That's nonsensical. You're just evading the fact the Biden's and the Democrats' proposals are much more closely aligned with the values and goals of the majority of young people than are the Republicans.

Yup, that's how I roll. I ain't going to Yai to ask how to program in Erlang, either. There's a clear gap between Silent Generation and Gen Z, the world has changed enormously in the last couple of decades. Still, given the choice between Trump and Biden I'm fairly sure most millenials and younger will go for Biden. They don't have a candidate closer to their age.

[bronzedude]

Drafting dodging, comrade Donald is toast!!!!!

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

 

You are missing the point.  Most conservatives disagree with the Democrat (socialist) programs.  It sounds a lot like big government and wealth distribution, which this country was NOT founded upon.

I'm not sure you are aware how unintentionally humorous your post is.

When I was doing an environmental audit on behalf of an Australian company that was buying a manufacturing operation in California, I was gobsmacked by the number of government organizations the operation had to report to. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Chino Basin Water Authority, Federal EPA, Sacramento something,  plus a couple of others I can't remember. If that's not big government, I don't know what is.

As for wealth distribution, it certainly happened during the GFC when the Fed printed money that went straight into the pockets of bankers, and got another shot in the arm from Trump.

That dirty word socialism again. Most big reforms in Australia have been introduced by what you would call socialists. The conservative side of politics in Australia prefers to sit on its hands.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

 

You are missing the point.  Most conservatives disagree with the Democrat (socialist) programs.  It sounds a lot like big government and wealth distribution, which this country was NOT founded upon.

Well apart from distribution of the wealth of blue collar and middle class Americans into the pockets of the hyper wealthy.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well apart from distribution of the wealth of blue collar and middle class Americans into the pockets of the hyper wealthy.

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure

 

 According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month...

Price and Edwards calculate that the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. 

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

[Dart12]

People that work to take care of their family have no time for polls