ImageImageImageImageImage

2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch

Moderators: dakomish23, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, HerSports85, Deeeez Knicks

User avatar
Rasho Brezec
RealGM
Posts: 61,962
And1: 18,589
Joined: Mar 12, 2008
Contact:
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#701 » by Rasho Brezec » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:31 pm

HarthorneWingo wrote:Want some perspective on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett? How would conservatives feel if she was a Democrat and a Muslim instead?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-religion.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Spoiler:
Opinion
If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim
It’s not hard to imagine how conservatives would smear her religious beliefs.

By Wajahat Ali
Contributing Opinion Writer
Oct. 13, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET

Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has faced immense scrutiny of her religious beliefs, and we need to be vigilant against any religious bias or discrimination.

But I marvel at the hypocrisy of Republicans who are expressing shock and outrage over this, after the way the right has treated Muslims. President Trump responded to the alarm over Judge Barrett’s nomination by accusing Democrats of bias against Catholics and “basically fighting a major religion in our country.” This is rich from the man who is running against Joe Biden, a Catholic; who promoted a Muslim ban; and who told America, “I think Islam hates us.”

On Monday, the first day of the Senate hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination, Josh Hawley of Missouri accused his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee of attacking Judge Barrett for being “too Catholic to be on the bench.” He is apparently living in the Twilight Zone, because this didn’t actually happen. Mr. Biden went out of his way to say Judge Barrett’s faith shouldn’t be considered a factor in her hearing.

I can’t help wondering: How would Republicans behave if Judge Barrett were a Democrat whose strongly held religious beliefs came from Islam instead of Catholicism?

We all know how it would go.

Republicans would demand she prove that she was not “working with our enemies.” That’s what Glenn Beck, the conservative radio host and conspiracy theorist, called for when Keith Ellison was elected as the first Muslim to Congress.

They’d probably use her faith to accuse her of hoping to create a “Shariah state” through judicial activism. That what conservative bloggers did in 2011 when Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey nominated Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim originally from India, for a seat on the Superior Court of Passaic County.

If Judge Barrett wore a hijab, Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News host, would question whether her religious beliefs were in opposition to the Constitution. That’s the ugly accusation Ms. Pirro levied against Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota in 2019.

The scrutiny of Judge Barrett’ connections to the People of Praise religious community — which opposes abortion, gay rights and marriage equality, and which believes that men are leaders of their families — has been intense. It’s fair to debate whether that kind of scrutiny is reasonable, and concerns that Judge Barrett has faced bias because of her religious beliefs are understandable.

What is clear, though, is that if a little-known Muslim group made headlines in connection with the nomination of a justice, Republicans wouldn’t have the same concerns about religious bigotry.

For example, former People of Praise members told The Associated Press that women in the group are expected to obey their husbands and provide sex on demand (the group said in a recent statement that “husbands should not be domineering nor should wives be servile”). If Judge Barrett were Muslim, these former members would probably be invited to appear on “Fox & Friends” to give voice to their concerns about the judge’s regressive stances.

Judge Barrett co-wrote a 1998 law review article about the moral and legal “bind” that death penalty cases might present Catholic judges. What if she had been Muslim and had written about Muslim judges instead? Would Ben Carson call her “schizophrenic?” In 2016, that’s how he described Muslims who embrace American values like democracy and the separation of church and state.

Earlier, in 2015, Mr. Carson wrote in a Facebook post, “I could never support a candidate for president of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Shariah law.”

That happens to be the same year Judge Barrett signed an open letter to Catholic bishops saying, “We give witness that the church’s teachings — on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman — provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.”

If she were Muslim and had made these statements, Republicans would no doubt smear her as a woman oppressed by a barbaric Islamic culture that promotes misogyny.

It’s easy to imagine all of this, because it all comes from the playbook that has been used to attack Muslim elected officials, many of whom are in fact archetypes of moderation and secularism compared with Judge Barrett.

I am not critical of Judge Barrett’s nomination because of her Catholicism. I am deeply sensitive to religious bigotry and stereotypes. I’m a practicing Muslim living through an administration that campaigned for a Muslim ban. My community has endured two decades of hazing after the Sept. 11 attacks, and our loyalty is still deemed suspect. I would never wish that kind of judgment on a person of another faith.

Like most Americans, I am worried that Judge Barrett will use her seat to advance an extreme agenda that will be detrimental to the interests of a majority of people in this country. We fear that, if confirmed, she’ll help the religious right drag equal rights and progress back 50 years.

One thing is certain: If the Notre Dame law professor and darling of the religious right were Muslim, she would have had a much harder time becoming a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice.

Wajahat Ali is a playwright, a lawyer and a contributing opinion writer.

She's a woman who's about to reach the top of her career while having a family with 7 children. She's destroying all the stereotypes and prejudices. I don't see what the issue is.
Image
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#702 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 pm

Pointgod wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Crowd size doesn’t actually mean anything. Trump had large crowds in 2016 and he BARELY won by under 100000 votes across three states because millions of people who voted for Obama stayed home. That’s a fact.

What’s also a fact is that early voting has started and Democrats are outvoting Republicans in record numbers. Again the crowds aren’t really indicative of anything considering that Biden’s team is being responsible by having smaller socially distanced campaign events while Trump continues to irresponsibly have super spreader events despite having covid himself. The amount of idiocy and disregard for human life shows the difference between the two candidates.

Another difference between the two is that Trump has built a cult around him while the Democratic voters are based on a coalition of movements.

March for our lives: 1-2 million people across the country
Women’s march: 3-5 million people across the country
BLM marches: 15-26 million people across the country

All things Trump stands opposed to. If these people are as energized to vote as they are to show up for protests Republicans should be worried.

Bottom line:

Trump is ahead in the battleground states of where he was in 2016 when he won them.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/#!


Wait thought you can’t trust the polls and they’re fake?

He's ahead of where he was in 2016 when they said he would lose those battlegrounds that he wound up winning. The polls are still underestimating Trump's support that hasn't changed. They're still fake.
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 40,306
And1: 57,944
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Asheville
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#703 » by robillionaire » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 pm

re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 40,306
And1: 57,944
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Asheville
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#704 » by robillionaire » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:37 pm

Rasho Brezec wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:Want some perspective on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett? How would conservatives feel if she was a Democrat and a Muslim instead?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-religion.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Spoiler:
Opinion
If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim
It’s not hard to imagine how conservatives would smear her religious beliefs.

By Wajahat Ali
Contributing Opinion Writer
Oct. 13, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET

Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has faced immense scrutiny of her religious beliefs, and we need to be vigilant against any religious bias or discrimination.

But I marvel at the hypocrisy of Republicans who are expressing shock and outrage over this, after the way the right has treated Muslims. President Trump responded to the alarm over Judge Barrett’s nomination by accusing Democrats of bias against Catholics and “basically fighting a major religion in our country.” This is rich from the man who is running against Joe Biden, a Catholic; who promoted a Muslim ban; and who told America, “I think Islam hates us.”

On Monday, the first day of the Senate hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination, Josh Hawley of Missouri accused his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee of attacking Judge Barrett for being “too Catholic to be on the bench.” He is apparently living in the Twilight Zone, because this didn’t actually happen. Mr. Biden went out of his way to say Judge Barrett’s faith shouldn’t be considered a factor in her hearing.

I can’t help wondering: How would Republicans behave if Judge Barrett were a Democrat whose strongly held religious beliefs came from Islam instead of Catholicism?

We all know how it would go.

Republicans would demand she prove that she was not “working with our enemies.” That’s what Glenn Beck, the conservative radio host and conspiracy theorist, called for when Keith Ellison was elected as the first Muslim to Congress.

They’d probably use her faith to accuse her of hoping to create a “Shariah state” through judicial activism. That what conservative bloggers did in 2011 when Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey nominated Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim originally from India, for a seat on the Superior Court of Passaic County.

If Judge Barrett wore a hijab, Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News host, would question whether her religious beliefs were in opposition to the Constitution. That’s the ugly accusation Ms. Pirro levied against Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota in 2019.

The scrutiny of Judge Barrett’ connections to the People of Praise religious community — which opposes abortion, gay rights and marriage equality, and which believes that men are leaders of their families — has been intense. It’s fair to debate whether that kind of scrutiny is reasonable, and concerns that Judge Barrett has faced bias because of her religious beliefs are understandable.

What is clear, though, is that if a little-known Muslim group made headlines in connection with the nomination of a justice, Republicans wouldn’t have the same concerns about religious bigotry.

For example, former People of Praise members told The Associated Press that women in the group are expected to obey their husbands and provide sex on demand (the group said in a recent statement that “husbands should not be domineering nor should wives be servile”). If Judge Barrett were Muslim, these former members would probably be invited to appear on “Fox & Friends” to give voice to their concerns about the judge’s regressive stances.

Judge Barrett co-wrote a 1998 law review article about the moral and legal “bind” that death penalty cases might present Catholic judges. What if she had been Muslim and had written about Muslim judges instead? Would Ben Carson call her “schizophrenic?” In 2016, that’s how he described Muslims who embrace American values like democracy and the separation of church and state.

Earlier, in 2015, Mr. Carson wrote in a Facebook post, “I could never support a candidate for president of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Shariah law.”

That happens to be the same year Judge Barrett signed an open letter to Catholic bishops saying, “We give witness that the church’s teachings — on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman — provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.”

If she were Muslim and had made these statements, Republicans would no doubt smear her as a woman oppressed by a barbaric Islamic culture that promotes misogyny.

It’s easy to imagine all of this, because it all comes from the playbook that has been used to attack Muslim elected officials, many of whom are in fact archetypes of moderation and secularism compared with Judge Barrett.

I am not critical of Judge Barrett’s nomination because of her Catholicism. I am deeply sensitive to religious bigotry and stereotypes. I’m a practicing Muslim living through an administration that campaigned for a Muslim ban. My community has endured two decades of hazing after the Sept. 11 attacks, and our loyalty is still deemed suspect. I would never wish that kind of judgment on a person of another faith.

Like most Americans, I am worried that Judge Barrett will use her seat to advance an extreme agenda that will be detrimental to the interests of a majority of people in this country. We fear that, if confirmed, she’ll help the religious right drag equal rights and progress back 50 years.

One thing is certain: If the Notre Dame law professor and darling of the religious right were Muslim, she would have had a much harder time becoming a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice.

Wajahat Ali is a playwright, a lawyer and a contributing opinion writer.

She's a woman who's about to reach the top of her career while having a family with 7 children. She's destroying all the stereotypes and prejudices. I don't see what the issue is.


because when you look past the identity politics to the issues she's going to bring us to a theocratic nightmare
Oscirus
RealGM
Posts: 13,530
And1: 9,536
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#705 » by Oscirus » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:40 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
Oscirus wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:Was anything wrong with the facts Mike Lee presented? His opinion of course can be argued but was there anything factually incorrect? Maybe he did get something wrong, I'm willing to listen. If the Obama confirmations were on pace with the Bush ones where exactly does Reid get to claim obstruction and do away with the filibuster? Can you answer that?
As Ive said before, facts without context are cheats. Obama had a dem majority for his first term, hell had a filibuster proof majority for half of it, so comparing the numbers and not to take into account that alot of those happened after the filibuster was killed while at the same time acting like this was due to the republicans is to state disingenuous facts.

Merrick garland is proof that they were obstructionists, the fact that they were sitting on so many appointments in Obamas second term that I believe that Trump set a record for appointments. Hell mcconnells on record as saying that blocking the supreme court pick was his greatest accomplishment. Luckily for your side, you'll likely have nothing to worry about as long as that west virginian bitch remains on the senate, but it is fun to watch yall sweat even if it is only for a few short months.


https://www.rollcall.com/2019/05/08/trumps-federal-judge-pace-matches-recent-presidents-but-with-a-big-twist/

Democrats Barack Obama and Carter had the slowest starts, putting 60 jurists on the bench in their first two years with their party in control of the chamber.
  

So no, that wasn't a factor. Nice try though made me look.

According to your own article.

Senate Republicans chose to slow-roll Obama’s nominees, prompting then-Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2013 and his fellow Democrats to get rid of the supermajority requirement for limiting debate on most picks, including most federal judges. That led to a flurry of confirmations by the Democratic Senate in those first two years of Obama’s second term.

Things changed after the 2014 elections, when Republicans won back the chamber and virtually halted processing Obama’s court nominees. At the end of Obama’s term, in 2017, there were 17 circuit court vacancies, with seven nominees pending, and 86 district court vacancies, with 44 nominees pending.


Thanks for proving my point.
Jimmit79 wrote:At this point I want RJ to get paid
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#706 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:41 pm

robillionaire wrote:he piggybacked off the momentum of the obama economy and made that his biggest accomplishment now it is in shambles. this is his big economic accomplishment, taking credit for something he didn't do and then destroying it with incompetence. the virus disproportionately impacted black people and we are back to 2010 levels basically in a depression. wow he really improved so many lives. herman cain is doing great. he's still touring around the country with an active case of the virus spreading it around Florida basically trying to be Jim Jones

Image

Image

That's only your opinion though.

Gallup says people think they are better off under Trump from four years ago 56%-40%.

That's like, a big number, really big.

Gallup also says on the question of who they think their neighbor is voting for it is also Trump 56%-40%. The winner on that poll is an excellent predictor of the national vote winner if not the Electoral College.
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 24,206
And1: 24,506
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#707 » by Pointgod » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:45 pm

How completely full of **** is Ted Cruz? This guy is a slime ball and is just non stop lying.
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#708 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:46 pm

Oscirus wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:
Oscirus wrote:As Ive said before, facts without context are cheats. Obama had a dem majority for his first term, hell had a filibuster proof majority for half of it, so comparing the numbers and not to take into account that alot of those happened after the filibuster was killed while at the same time acting like this was due to the republicans is to state disingenuous facts.

Merrick garland is proof that they were obstructionists, the fact that they were sitting on so many appointments in Obamas second term that I believe that Trump set a record for appointments. Hell mcconnells on record as saying that blocking the supreme court pick was his greatest accomplishment. Luckily for your side, you'll likely have nothing to worry about as long as that west virginian bitch remains on the senate, but it is fun to watch yall sweat even if it is only for a few short months.


https://www.rollcall.com/2019/05/08/trumps-federal-judge-pace-matches-recent-presidents-but-with-a-big-twist/

Democrats Barack Obama and Carter had the slowest starts, putting 60 jurists on the bench in their first two years with their party in control of the chamber.
  

So no, that wasn't a factor. Nice try though made me look.

According to your own article.

Senate Republicans chose to slow-roll Obama’s nominees, prompting then-Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2013 and his fellow Democrats to get rid of the supermajority requirement for limiting debate on most picks, including most federal judges. That led to a flurry of confirmations by the Democratic Senate in those first two years of Obama’s second term.

Things changed after the 2014 elections, when Republicans won back the chamber and virtually halted processing Obama’s court nominees. At the end of Obama’s term, in 2017, there were 17 circuit court vacancies, with seven nominees pending, and 86 district court vacancies, with 44 nominees pending.


Thanks for proving my point.

That's the articles opinion but it doesn't provide any evidence of it. What evidence do you have they slow rolled him any more than Bush was slow rolled?
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#709 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:52 pm

robillionaire wrote:re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing

He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 40,306
And1: 57,944
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Asheville
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#710 » by robillionaire » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:57 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
robillionaire wrote:re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing

He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.


dude you're the one who posted the poll as your evidence
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#711 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:00 pm

robillionaire wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:
robillionaire wrote:re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing

He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.


dude you're the one who posted the poll as your evidence

I'm only using it to compare apples to apples at the same point in time.
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 40,306
And1: 57,944
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Asheville
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#712 » by robillionaire » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:04 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.


dude you're the one who posted the poll as your evidence

I'm only using it to compare apples to apples at the same point in time.


And I did the same thing except I'm using election day as the point in time, Hillary was up +1.1 in the exact same battleground poll, she went from +5.1 to +1.1 between now and election day, will Biden?
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 71,855
And1: 69,930
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#713 » by Clyde_Style » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:24 pm

Pointgod wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter


This is why Democrats shouldn’t believe a single Republican is unbeatable.

Look is this ****. **** McConnell laughing like empower Palpatine at 200000 dead Americans. Lincoln Project needs to get to work.

Read on Twitter


And he completely gets owned on pharmaceutical companies having him in their pocket.

Read on Twitter


Just like Lindsay Graham, once you get these guys out of their Fox News and right wing bubble they’re exposed for old, weak, pathetic slime balls that they are. The only reason they stay so long is that they’re never challenged.


Jamie Harrison is pretty good at public speaking or he's learning on the job and he made Graham look like a creep.

McGrath is pretty lame as a speaker it seems, yet by comparison she still looks like a superior candidate to Moscow Mitch who is a true super creep. Can't believe Kentucky kept this guy around for so long. If he loses, it will probably be the second biggest win after Trump's loss.
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 40,306
And1: 57,944
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Asheville
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#714 » by robillionaire » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:28 pm

I’m confident saying Mitch will win by 20-30%
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 24,206
And1: 24,506
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#715 » by Pointgod » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:46 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
robillionaire wrote:re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing

He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.


Ah so the polls are bs except for your polls that say Trump is performing better than other the majority of other polls that don’t make him look as good. But then you want to compare the polls in 2016 that were wrong to the polls this year that are still wrong?

So according to you every poll is wrong EXCEPT for the ones that have Trump up or doing better than the average of all polls?
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 24,206
And1: 24,506
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#716 » by Pointgod » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:48 pm

robillionaire wrote:I’m confident saying Mitch will win by 20-30%


Well if the sane people in Kentucky don’t bother to support his challenger then he’ll continue to win.
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 38,280
And1: 20,275
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#717 » by j4remi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm

Clyde_Style wrote:
Read on Twitter


Go to the tweet, click on the image and scroll through it to real the full quote. Chomsky is saying exactly what I was saying after Biden took a dominant lead in the primaries, but if you look at the Twitter comments it is still chock full of leftist snowflakes.


What Chomsky's getting at is s prevailing belief on the left. It was a majority opinion in 2016 (polling data shows this with Bernie to Clinton voters vs Bernie to Trump voters fitting in the norms of typical elections) and I think it's become even more prevalent post Trump. Chomsky pretty much spells it out here, vote lesser of two evils but give either side hell while they have power and changes are still necessary.

https://the.ink/p/noam-chomsky-wants-you-to-vote-for

That's the full piece with a lot of other gems and thoughtfulness. I think it's good to show the breadth of thought and nuance that takes place in lefty discourse beyond the ridiculously massive game of telephone that social media politics plays. The caricatures that most people see portrayed and magnified are more a product of the easiest ways to build up click counts than they are of anything else.
PG- Haliburton | Schroder | Sasser
SG- Grimes | Dick | Bogdanovic
SF- Bridges | George
PF- Hunter |Strus| Fleming
C- Turner | Powell | Wiseman
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 38,280
And1: 20,275
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#718 » by j4remi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:00 pm

robillionaire wrote:I’m confident saying Mitch will win by 20-30%


Booker woulda done better...Mcgrath should blow him out but she really might blow this thing. There was this weird ad controversy too.

Read on Twitter


That's the Ohio Democratic Chair asking Amy Mcgrath to pull an ad where a voter shows love for Trump but picks McGrath over Mcconnell. I get that she's targeting Republicans, but yeesh!
PG- Haliburton | Schroder | Sasser
SG- Grimes | Dick | Bogdanovic
SF- Bridges | George
PF- Hunter |Strus| Fleming
C- Turner | Powell | Wiseman
J9Starks3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,897
And1: 1,195
Joined: May 22, 2007
Location: CT
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#719 » by J9Starks3 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:22 pm

robillionaire wrote:
Rasho Brezec wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:Want some perspective on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett? How would conservatives feel if she was a Democrat and a Muslim instead?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-religion.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Spoiler:

She's a woman who's about to reach the top of her career while having a family with 7 children. She's destroying all the stereotypes and prejudices. I don't see what the issue is.


because when you look past the identity politics to the issues she's going to bring us to a theocratic nightmare


I have not researched her, but do we have any indication that she has used her personal beliefs to influence her judgements? Her opening statement was very big on being someone who interprets the letter of the law as an originalist not someone who should use their beliefs.
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,929
And1: 2,411
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread: The Homestretch 

Post#720 » by BallSacBounce » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:47 pm

Pointgod wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:
robillionaire wrote:re: that battleground poll, by the time election day came around they had hillary up +1.1, 45.4 to 44.3
right now they have biden up 49.5 to 44.5 (it's +5.0 by my math but they say 4.9 for some reason)

hard to believe he can narrow that very much in the next 20 days when unlike 2016 he's been trending in the wrong direction and as someone said people are already voting and early voting is going to be a big thing

He doesn't need to narrow anything. He's already there. The polls are BS.

Even using the fake polls he's ahead of where he was in 2016 in the battlegrounds at the same point in time.

Democratic pollster Zogby puts Biden ahead by 2% nationally and says all the other polls are over sampling Democrats. 2% nationally means you are likely losing the battlegrounds.

You're falling for the same **** as 2016.


Ah so the polls are bs except for your polls that say Trump is performing better than other the majority of other polls that don’t make him look as good. But then you want to compare the polls in 2016 that were wrong to the polls this year that are still wrong?

So according to you every poll is wrong EXCEPT for the ones that have Trump up or doing better than the average of all polls?

I'm not saying any such thing.

I'm using the same polls that say he's behind badly that showed he was behind badly last time to show how he is still polling better than last time even with those biased polls.

Return to New York Knicks