Politics The Democratic Convention Nobody Watched

[ABM]

Even knowing that you mean 'ahead of where he was in 2016', not 'ahead of Biden', that is fairly misleading. Trump got a short-lived but large bounce from the convention in 2016, which was the last week in July that year. Comparing that to the same time in 2020 isn't very meaningful.

barfo

Even knowing that you mean 'ahead of where he was in 2016', not 'ahead of Biden', that is fairly misleading. Trump got a short-lived but large bounce from the convention in 2016, which was the last week in July that year. Comparing that to the same time in 2020 isn't very meaningful.

barfo

I'm simply referring to Trump's short lead over Biden earlier this month....

 

[ehizzy3]

I'm simply referring to Trump's short lead over Biden earlier this month....

View attachment 33086

with a completely random graph that explains nothing?

 

[ABM]

with a completely random graph that explains nothing?

This was taken from the link @barfo had shared with me.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/trump-vs-biden-national-polls-2020-vs-2016/

 

[barfo]

I commented that I will wan to watch the conventions to continue to solidify my decision. I was told that I'm a nincomp[oop for being undeiced. The only way to be decided currently is by beleiving twitter and facebook.

Does that go for everything, or just politics? Are you undecided about the shape of the earth? Do you think the 'round earthers' and the 'flat earthers' are only decided on the topic because they believe twitter and facebook?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'm simply referring to Trump's short lead over Biden earlier this month....

View attachment 33086

That is NOT a Trump lead over Biden. That is a Trump lead over where he was in 2016. Read the caption on the graph. Trump hasn't led Biden, ever.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

I'm simply referring to Trump's short lead over Biden earlier this month....

View attachment 33086

That wasn't a lead over Biden, that was a lead over where he was in 2016.

This is the graph of Biden's leads over Trump:

As you can see, Biden has held a large and pretty consistent lead over Trump since about May and has been leading continuously since last year.

 

[e_blazer]

That wasn't a lead over Biden, that was a lead over where he was in 2016.

This is the graph of Biden's leads over Trump:

As you can see, Biden has held a large and pretty consistent lead over Trump since about May and has been leading continuously since last year.

Of course, Hillary had a 10 point lead over Trump at this time in 2016, so I would hope that the Dem strategists are actually taking care of business instead of poll watching.

 

[riverman]

with a completely random graph that explains nothing?

Trump can fix any graph with a sharpie pen

 

[Orion Bailey]

Does that go for everything, or just politics? Are you undecided about the shape of the earth? Do you think the 'round earthers' and the 'flat earthers' are only decided on the topic because they believe twitter and facebook?

barfo

Read the thread, see the context, then get back to me please.

 

[Minstrel]

Of course, Hillary had a 10 point lead over Trump at this time in 2016, so I would hope that the Dem strategists are actually taking care of business instead of poll watching.

Sure, I doubt anyone's getting complacent. But for us observers, it's worth noting that Clinton's leads were never consistent, they were spiking up and down. The 10 point lead was her high water mark after the convention. Also of note, even when she was up 10 points, she wasn't very close to 50% support...she was leading something like 44% to 34%. Biden has been at or above 50% most of this time, which is a big difference. In 2016, Trump could win if people who disliked them both chose him--now he has to actually pry away people who are currently on Biden's side on top of winning all the uncommitteds (and uncommitteds usually break against the incumbent rather than toward).

So, is anything guaranteed? Not at all. I wouldn't be surprised if the polls tighten before election day, as this kind of lead is historically unsustainable in this era of polarization. But his lead is meaningfully different from Clinton's.

 

[e_blazer]

Sure, I doubt anyone's getting complacent. But for us observers, it's worth noting that Clinton's leads were never consistent, they were spiking up and down. The 10 point lead was her high water mark after the convention. Also of note, even when she was up 10 points, she wasn't very close to 50% support...she was leading something like 44% to 34%. Biden has been at or above 50% most of this time, which is a big difference. In 2016, Trump could win if people who disliked them both chose him--now he has to actually pry away people who are currently on Biden's side on top of winning all the uncommitteds (and uncommitteds usually break against the incumbent rather than toward).

So, is anything guaranteed? Not at all. I wouldn't be surprised if the polls tighten before election day, as this kind of lead is historically unsustainable in this era of polarization. But his lead is meaningfully different from Clinton's.

I don't disagree with any of that, Minstrel. I do think that Hillary's campaign got too complacent because of summer poll numbers and didn't do the work that was needed in the mid-west. I would hope and assume that Biden's campaign won't make the same mistake. Only people on forums like this should take too much stock in summer polls in an election year.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't disagree with any of that, Minstrel. I do think that Hillary's campaign got too complacent because of summer poll numbers and didn't do the work that was needed in the mid-west. I would hope and assume that Biden's campaign won't make the same mistake. Only people on forums like this should take too much stock in summer polls in an election year.

I think she got complacent in a pretty specific way--which I think you're getting at too, but I thought I'd spell out because a lot of people act like she just quit working to rest on her laurels.

She assumed she was going to win, but that didn't mean she stopped working...she just started focusing on expanding the map, the way Obama did in 2008, rather than spending time trying to lock down the Midwest. The Midwest had constantly been called the "blue wall" and the "Democratic fire wall" so was taken too much for granted. She put resources into places like Texas and Arizona, states that were slight to moderate reaches but could potentially go blue in a landslide. A lot of models (notably aside from 538) made the error of assuming all the Midwest states were independent from each other, so the chances of Clinton losing ALL of them were tiny, if you assume they're each independent coin flips with a coin that slightly favored Clinton. But they weren't all independent, they had very similar types of voters--which meant if her support eroded in one, it would probably erode in all. Which is what happened and Trump managed to sneak out victories in nearly all of them by a few thousand votes.

I think Biden should really put all his focus on the "traditional" battleground states and if outside groups want to pour resources into the surprisingly competitive Georgia and Texas, let them.

 

[barfo]

Read the thread, see the context, then get back to me please.

I read the thread, and quoted the context. But I look forward to your explanation of how you didn't mean what you said.

barfo

 

[ABM]

I don't disagree with any of that, Minstrel. I do think that Hillary's campaign got too complacent because of summer poll numbers and didn't do the work that was needed in the mid-west.

That was pretty much the death knell blow it seemed. Can Biden sit back and do the same thing?

 

[barfo]

That was pretty much the death knell blow it seemed. Can Biden sit back and do the same thing?

He can, but he probably won't. If he makes mistakes they will probably be different ones.

barfo

 

[calvin natt]

If there is no enthusiasm, one may not choose to vote.

If someone is unenthusiastic at this point I’m not sure they will go find the convention on CNN and get fired up though

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If someone is unenthusiastic at this point I’m not sure they will go find the convention on CNN and get fired up though

Well, you'll just have 2016 all over again if that happens.

People believing "its in the bag".
"There's no way Biden will win."

Hillary and the dems mailing it in and assuming that she would win caused her to lose. Trump campaigned hard in battleground states and Hillary did who knows what.

People will just be whatevers about voting again, and the upset will happen again.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I read the thread, and quoted the context. But I look forward to your explanation of how you didn't mean what you said.

barfo

Then I think you missed this and then missed my green font.

Solidifying your news by twitter and Facebook is incredibly stupid.

 

[ABM]

FWIW....

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53657174

 

[e_blazer]

I think she got complacent in a pretty specific way--which I think you're getting at too, but I thought I'd spell out because a lot of people act like she just quit working to rest on her laurels.

She assumed she was going to win, but that didn't mean she stopped working...she just started focusing on expanding the map, the way Obama did in 2008, rather than spending time trying to lock down the Midwest. The Midwest had constantly been called the "blue wall" and the "Democratic fire wall" so was taken too much for granted. She put resources into places like Texas and Arizona, states that were slight to moderate reaches but could potentially go blue in a landslide. A lot of models (notably aside from 538) made the error of assuming all the Midwest states were independent from each other, so the chances of Clinton losing ALL of them were tiny, if you assume they're each independent coin flips with a coin that slightly favored Clinton. But they weren't all independent, they had very similar types of voters--which meant if her support eroded in one, it would probably erode in all. Which is what happened and Trump managed to sneak out victories in nearly all of them by a few thousand votes.

I think Biden should really put all his focus on the "traditional" battleground states and if outside groups want to pour resources into the surprisingly competitive Georgia and Texas, let them.

Agreed.

 

[Orion Bailey]

At this point if you are still waiting for a compelling argument to make up your mind then you haven't been paying attention.

If someone doesn't have an opinion about Trump at this point, either they are not paying attention, or they don't care, or they are dumb.

Thinking the DNC infomercial or the RNC infomercial is going to be some fountain of objective insight is, well, ludicrous.

you quoted yourself in response to him with an obvious sarcastic question, hence the three periods before the question mark


Stop gaslighting

@ehizzy3 I Went back and checked some things out. The reason I said what I did to The Professionsal fan is because he liked almost every post that was demeaning, condescending or straight up an insult to anyone who has not solidified thier opinion.

So I posed the question, is he part of the problem, considering he liked those posts and then posted something similar? No gas lighting here. Just keeping it real in a delusional and sidestepping forum.

And now I would pose the same to you. So... you are part of the problem...?

Because you dismissed all the demeaning comments he liked and then basically claimed I went at him out of the blue? That type of crap is what is part of the problem. Some, of you just flatly cannot admit that you do the same thing you condemn others for.

Its ssoooo blatantly hypocritical, its ridiculous.

Sooo many revisionists in this places it cracks me up.

But hey. If I said it and I believe it, its a fact!!!!!! And if you disagree, then YOU are part of the problem.



Insanity101.

 

[ehizzy3]

@ehizzy3 I Went back and checked some things out. The reason I said what I did to The Professionsal fan is because he liked almost every post that was demeaning, condescending or straight up an insult to anyone who has not solidified thier opinion.

So I posed the question, is he part of the problem, considering he liked those posts and then posted something similar? No gas lighting here. Just keeping it real in a delusional and sidestepping forum.

And now I would pose the same to you. So... you are part of the problem...?

Because you dismissed all the demeaning comments he liked and then basically claimed I went at him out of the blue? That type of crap is what is part of the problem. Some, of you just flatly cannot admit that you do the same thing you condemn others for.

Its ssoooo blatantly hypocritical, its ridiculous.

Sooo many revisionists in this places it cracks me up.

But hey. If I said it and I believe it, its a fact!!!!!! And if you disagree, then YOU are part of the problem.



Insanity101.

you must be talking about a different thread then because I don’t see any demeaning posts liked here before you called him out

But calling out someone for liking posts is not only lame but very attention seeking behavior. people like whatever post they want and shouldn’t be called out for being a part of the political problem for....wait for it......liking posts

 

[Orion Bailey]

you must be talking about a different thread then because I don’t see any demeaning posts liked here before you called him out

But calling out someone for liking posts is not only lame but very attention seeking behavior. people like whatever post they want and shouldn’t be called out for being a part of the political problem for....wait for it......liking posts

I suggest reading it again . I even quoted the post he liked before he made his comment that I quoted on.....

So your timeline is incorrect sir.....

Now as far as what you think is lame...Excuse me, but it happens in reverse here daily. AND he made a post that triggered my response. Not just his likes...

Please get your facts straight before you also demean, condescend and then call foul when the same comes back to you.

 

[ehizzy3]

I suggest reading it again . I even quoted the post he liked before he made his comment that I quoted on.....

So your timeline is incorrect sir.....

Now as far as what you think is lame...Excuse me, but it happens in reverse here daily. AND he made a post that triggered my response. Not just his likes...

Please get your facts straight before you also demean, condescend and then call foul when the same comes back to you.

check the posts again..you waited a couple hours and came up with some lame bullshit reason and you couldn’t get the facts right. That post you quoted is after you called him out

also you have the same exact tone with others and ramble to yourself all the time about how others posts so miss me with that

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Im excited for next week when we can go from the dnc cringe fest to the rnc cringe fest

 

[Orion Bailey]

At this point if you are still waiting for a compelling argument to make up your mind then you haven't been paying attention.

you must be talking about a different thread then because I don’t see any demeaning posts liked here before you called him out

But calling out someone for liking posts is not only lame but very attention seeking behavior. people like whatever post they want and shouldn’t be called out for being a part of the political problem for....wait for it......liking posts

I suggest reading it again . I even quoted the post he liked before he made his comment that I quoted on.....

So your timeline is incorrect sir.....

Now as far as what you think is lame...Excuse me, but it happens in reverse here daily. AND he made a post that triggered my response. Not just his likes...

Please get your facts straight before you also demean, condescend and then call foul when the same comes back to you.

I apologize, I was wrong., I thought I also quoted another post, but somehow the quote didn't click so it wasn't added to my post.

However I added it to this one.

So I didn't quote the one prior to my post, but the timeline is still correct, and your post is not. Its not in another thread, its in this one here.

But Ill go back to my lame corner for being called out for what sooo many people here do on a regular basis, but get away with it, because they are part of the same ole regurgitation of... IF you don't agree with me that Trump is bad, then you are the problem. If I don't have the same opinion as you, or haven't formed an opinion, then 'm the bad one.

This mentality has been kicked around here for months on a daily basis. But when one tries the reverse coming from another angle, those echo chamber folk, call foul.

Sorry i don't subscribe to the common theme of S2, but i'm tired of being ripped for it, and then those who rip turn into snowflakes when the same attitude is returned.

If your gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. Simple.

Anything else is what is truly lame.

 

[ehizzy3]

I apologize, I was wrong., I thought I also quoted another post, but somehow the quote didn't click so it wasn't added to my post.

However I added it to this one.

So I didn't quote the one prior to my post, but the timeline is still correct, and your post is not. Its not in another thread, its in this one here.

But Ill go back to my lame corner for being called out for what sooo many people here do on a regular basis, but get away with it, because they are part of the same ole regurgitation of... IF you don't agree with me that Trump is bad, then you are the problem. If I don't have the same opinion as you, or haven't formed an opinion, then 'm the bad one.

This mentality has been kicked around here for months on a daily basis. But when one tries the reverse coming from another angle, those echo chamber folk, call foul.

Sorry i don't subscribe to the common theme of S2, but i'm tired of being ripped for it, and then those who rip turn into snowflakes when the same attitude is returned.

If your gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. Simple.

Anything else is what is truly lame.

moral of the story, don’t call out posters for being part of the political problem as that is pretty rude.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I apologize, I was wrong., I thought I also quoted another post, but somehow the quote didn't click so it wasn't added to my post.

However I added it to this one.

So I didn't quote the one prior to my post, but the timeline is still correct, and your post is not. Its not in another thread, its in this one here.

But Ill go back to my lame corner for being called out for what sooo many people here do on a regular basis, but get away with it, because they are part of the same ole regurgitation of... IF you don't agree with me that Trump is bad, then you are the problem. If I don't have the same opinion as you, or haven't formed an opinion, then 'm the bad one.

This mentality has been kicked around here for months on a daily basis. But when one tries the reverse coming from another angle, those echo chamber folk, call foul.

Sorry i don't subscribe to the common theme of S2, but i'm tired of being ripped for it, and then those who rip turn into snowflakes when the same attitude is returned.

If your gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. Simple.

Anything else is what is truly lame.

check the posts again..you waited a couple hours and came up with some lame bullshit reason and you couldn’t get the facts right. That post you quoted is after you called him out

also you have the same exact tone with others and ramble to yourself all the time about how others posts so miss me with that

Huh????????

Read above. I missed quoting it, but it was liked before I made a response. So sorry, but my timeline is correct. I just failed to include the quote in my original post.


But obviously this is going to go no where because some cant admit to being wrong and or doing the very thing they bitch about.

Yes, my tone is the same to what comes at me. Or about me. There are plenty of people I disagree wit h on here and have a different ton with. Wanna know why? Because they don't insult me for disagreeing with them.

Again, People get aggressive and type with a hard tone to those who disagree with them when they Trump hate. But hen when that tone is returned... its all bout the returnee and now the originator, huh?

We can agree to disagree though, cause I dont think we will come to an agreement.

 

[ehizzy3]

Lmao you still got the timeline all messed up

what a joke

 

[Orion Bailey]

moral of the story, don’t call out posters for being part of the political problem as that is pretty rude.

Really??????? You have got to be kidding me? Its been said to anyone who doesnt hate Trump for months!!!!!

GTFO with your double standard dude!

Its been said if ytou support Trump you are part of the problem. If your still undecided you are still part of the problem....

I wouldnt expcet you to be impartial though, based onyouy calling me out impartially...


WHAT A FUCKING LAUGH FEST!

Moral is... this place is the most hypocritical place i've ever run into.