Politics Turning GA, NC, NV, and/or PA into victory (Biden vs Trump, 2020 election!) (1 Viewer)

[wizenheimer]

* " There just hasn’t been any real sign that the race is tightening. If anything, Joe Biden’s margins are expanding slightly in the Upper Midwest. And there isn’t any particular reason to expect the race to tighten when more than 90 million people have already voted and the most important news story — that the United States just set a record for the number of COVID-19 cases in a day — is a negative one for Trump.

In fact, in many states, such as North Carolina, we’ve gotten what are likely to be the final polls of the state from most of the major polling firms. The one important exception is Pennsylvania, which some high-quality pollsters seem to have kept as the last state they’re planning to poll. And those polls could matter quite a bit. Pennsylvania is the most likely tipping-point state (it delivers the 270th electoral vote around 37 percent of the time in our forecast), so any deviation from Biden’s current 5.1-point lead in the polls there — say, if Biden climbs to a 6-point lead or falls to a 4-point lead — could make a fairly big difference in our forecast.

But what we’ve seen so far in Pennsylvania doesn’t suggest much movement in the polls. We’ve gotten two live-caller polls since the debate: A Muhlenberg College poll published this morning had Biden up by 5 points, closely matching our average in the state. And a Quinnipiac University poll had Biden ahead by 7, which is not quite as good for Biden as it might seem — Quinnipiac has generally had friendly results for him this cycle and their previous poll of the state had him up by 7 as well.

And if nothing changes at all in the polls, Biden’s chances of winning will nonetheless increase slightly by Tuesday morning in our forecast. That’s for two reasons:

1. Trump is still receiving a tiny boost in our forecast based on economic conditions and incumbency, currently amounting to an 0.2-percentage-point shift. But this will fall to 0 percent by Election Day.
2. Uncertainty in the forecast will also be slightly reduced when we actually make it to Election Day.

That said, Biden’s current lead of 8 to 9 points nationally is quite large given our highly polarized political environment, so maybe a few of the remaining undecided voters will drift to Trump. Don’t be surprised if Biden drops to 86 percent — or jumps to 94 percent — in our final forecast."
**********************************************************************

" The Normal-Polling-Error Zone is a place we talked about in 2016, when we told you that Trump was only a normal-sized polling error away from beating Hillary Clinton. What did that mean? It meant that if polls were off by about the amount they’ve been off in past elections — by around 3 points, on average — and the error favored Trump, then he’d probably win the Electoral College. And that’s basically what happened, although the polling was worse in some states than others.

In probability terms, I think of the Normal-Polling-Error Zone as extending from the favorite having anything from around a 60 percent chance up to around an 84 percent chance of winning. That amounts to an error of no more than one standard deviation.Math geeks will know that one standard deviation comprises 68 percent of outcomes, not 84 percent, but since people usually only care about polling errors when the favorite loses (nobody is going to give pollsters that much crap if Biden wins Pennsylvania by 10 points instead of 5, for instance), it’s only the possibility of Trump outperforming his polls that we’re really concerned with.

">1 Or to put it another way, it’s a zone where polling errors big enough for the underdog to win are going to occur quite routinely without anything particularly special having to happen. Polling is a challenging business, and while polls get the outcome right more often than not, nailing every election to within a point or two is hard.

The Zone of Plausibility. This is where we are this year. I think of the Zone of Plausibility as extending out to reflect an error of up to two standard deviations — so, it’s a race where the favorite has somewhere from an 84 percent to 98 percent chance of winning. You wouldn’t consider the underdog winning in an election like this to be a routine occurrence. But, well, it’s plausible, and it isn’t that hard to find precedents for it.

The polls were off by more than 7 points in 1980, for instance, underestimating Ronald Reagan’s margin of victory. (That would likely be enough for Trump to win in an election where he trails in the most likely tipping-point state, Pennsylvania, by 5 points.) Harry Truman beat the final Gallup poll in 1948 by 9 points in an upset victory. And the polls missed by 5 points in 1996, underestimating Bob Dole."
*******************************************************************************



* " Now, we can debate exactly how applicable those precedents are today. There’s much more polling this year than in 1980 or in 1996. And in 1948, it wasn’t “the polling” that was off since there was just one polling firm, Gallup — maybe if there had been a Quinnipiac poll or something back then, it would correctly have forecasted Truman’s victory.

The point, though, again, is that a Trump win is plausible. And all the other models I’ve seen have Trump within the Zone of Plausibility too, although the Economist’s model, which has his chances at 4 percent, is pushing it a bit.

At the same time, though, a 2016-style polling error wouldn’t be enough for Trump to win. In the chart below — taking a page from The Upshot, which has also been doing this — I’ve taken our final polling averages in 2016 and shown how they compared to the actual results. And then I’ve shown what the results would be based on this year’s polling average if the polls were exactly as wrong as in 2016 in exactly the same states."




" Takeaway? Joe Biden would win. In fact, he’d win 335 electoral votes, including those in Florida, Georgia and Arizona. A lot of these wins would be close — he’d win by around 2 points in Arizona and Wisconsin, by and less than 1 point in Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania, so he’d have to sweat a bit, but he’d win.

Meanwhile, although there are a lot of uncertainties this year that our model tries to account for — for instance, whether pollsters are correctly blending the early vote with the Election Day vote — there are also other things that could make a big polling error less likely. For instance, the polls have been very stable so far in the race, and the large number of people who have already voted makes a last-minute shift even less likely. There are also few undecided voters: Joe Biden is polling at above 50 percent in all states that Clinton won except Nevada, plus he clears that line Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania (albeit just barely; he’s at 50.1 percent there) and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Those are enough to give him 273 electoral votes."
**********************************************************************************

" Still, Trump isn’t in as strong a position as he was in 2016. As you can see in the table above, he’s polling worse than he was against Clinton in every single battleground state. Polls can be wrong — indeed, the whole point of our probabilistic forecast is to tell you the chances of that — but they’re more likely to be wrong when a candidate’s lead is narrower. As of right now, Biden’s lead is large enough that Trump’s chances of winning are 10 percent, considerably lower than the 35 percent chance he had at this point in 2016."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ould-have-to-be-off-by-way-more-than-in-2016/

***************************************************************************************

obviously, I'm biased. But I have a memory and I remember how worried I was in 2016. I watched Clinton's lead in polls generally cut in half, or greater, after the Comey shit. She had about a 2-3 point lead nationally in polling, and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2.4%. So the polling was accurate. But she was also sinking fast in several state polls of battlegrounds, and the undecided voters in 2016 were 2-3 times more than this time, She also had high negatives. Not only had she lost momentum, she was matched up against an unknown and didn't have any approval advantage

none of those factors are working against Biden this time around and not only are his leads in various states relatively stable, he doesn't have anywhere close to the negatives Clinton had

now, trump and the R's will do everything they can to toss out as many legitimate votes as the courts will allow. That has become their number 1 option over the last 30 years. Suppress as much voting as they can before elections, and shitcan as many as they can after elections. It's an unprincipled despicable strategy, but of course when you don't have morals and don't believe in democracy, only in keeping as much power as you can, it's your go-to move.

I just don't believe it will be enough

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[wizenheimer]

I also think a lot of what caused Clinton to lose the election was the Comey email shit.

I mean, it wasn't the cause, but if something comes out now, it won't have the impact like that did, because so many people have voted already.

Still not confident Biden is winning.

I get that....impossible not to sweat a little

here's another analysis that might go to some of your worries:

* " 1. In 2016, the pollsters totally whiffed on the Great Lakes states. In 2020, they’ve changed their methods.

National polls weren’t more off in 2016 than in previous years. The problem happened at the state level. Whereas state polls underestimated Barack Obama’s support by about three points in 2012, they underestimated Trump’s support by more than five points in 2016, the largest error so far this century. The most important reason, according to a postmortem from the American Association for Public Opinion Research, was that state polls undercounted non-college-educated voters, who turned out in droves for Trump.

Here’s how that happened. Most polls are weighted surveys. That means a pollster collects a bunch of responses and then weights, or adjusts, the answers by age, gender, and political orientation so that the final count closely resembles the American electorate. For instance, if the sample is 60 percent male, the pollster will want to give the women’s responses more weight, because women actually vote more than men.

In 2016, many pollsters failed to adjust for the fact that college-educated Americans are typically more likely to respond to surveys. Another way to say this is that pollsters “under-sampled” non-college-educated voters. At the same time, the electorate split sharply along the “diploma divide” to give Trump an advantage among non-college-educated voters. In short, state pollsters made a huge, obvious mistake: Their surveys failed to account for 2016’s most important demographic phenomenon.

The good thing about huge, obvious mistakes is that they’re huge and obvious. Practically every high-quality state pollster acknowledged the non-college-educated-voter problem and committed to weighting their 2020 polls by education. The Pew Research Center now weights by education within racial groups. The Marist College and NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls now also weight by geography, in part because college-educated voters are more likely to live in urban and suburban areas.

Does this mean that the state polls in 2020 are guaranteed to be perfect? Absolutely not. In fact, they’ll almost certainly be wrong again. (They’re never exactly right.) But the polls almost certainly won’t undercount the pro-Trump non-college-educated vote by the same margin, given how many pollsters adjusted their methodologies specifically to avoid making the same mistake in consecutive presidential elections."
***********************************************************************************************

* " 2. In 2016, a ton of undecided voters broke late for Trump. In 2020, most of those voters have already decided.

Two weeks before the 2016 election, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver noted that 15 percent of voters still hadn’t made up their minds, which was roughly three times more than the number of undecideds in 2012. This statistic was the Chekhov’s gun of the last election: the ominous presence foreshadowing a final-act surprise. “One of the reasons why our models still give Trump an outside chance at victory,” Silver wrote four years ago, was that Trump could eke it out “by winning almost all of the undecided and third-party voters.”

one in seven voters in key swing states decided in the final week, and they broke for Trump by about 30 points in Wisconsin and 17 points in Florida and Pennsylvania, spelling disaster for Clinton.

But 2020 doesn’t have the same capacity for last-minute Democratic horror, because there aren’t nearly as many undecided voters. Fewer undecided voters means less volatility and a smaller chance of last-minute surprises that actually move votes.

The relative lack of undecided voters suggests another positive difference for Biden. In 2016, voters disliked both candidates, which is why so many were persuadable in late October. In 2020, voters dislike Trump, and actually like Biden—certainly more than the last Democratic nominee. Biden’s national polling has consistently been about four to six points higher than Clinton’s. His net favorability rating is 17 percentage points higher than Clinton’s was on Election Day. In short, many of 2016's undecideds have decided in 2020 to vote for Biden."
***************************************************************************************************

* " 3. In 2016, we had the mother of all October surprises. In 2020, we have the most stable race in decades.

Biden’s lead is larger and more stable than Clinton’s lead was in 2016. In fact, by one measure, it’s more stable than any presidential nominee’s lead in more than 30 years.

In every election going back to the 1980s, the loser was, at some point, ahead in mainstream polls or in the average of polls. In the summer of 1988, Michael Dukakis led George H. W. Bush by double digits. In the spring of 1992, both Ross Perot and Bush were leading Bill Clinton. In January 1996, Bob Dole held a narrow lead over Clinton in Gallup polls. In September 2000, Al Gore surged ahead of George W. Bush. In August 2004, John Kerry led Bush. In September 2008, John McCain led Obama. In October 2012, Mitt Romney inched ahead of Obama. And in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump pogo-sticked all year—from up 10 in March to tied in May, to up six in June, to tied in July.

The 2020 election has been totally different. Biden, who is currently up about eight points in the FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics averages, has led by at least four points since October of last year. Through everything—the primaries and the pandemic; 4 percent unemployment and 9 percent unemployment; the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention—Biden has led Trump by a moderate to wide margin, and Trump’s support has never exceeded 46 percent in polling averages.

People who can remember only the 2016 election are anchoring their expectations to a historically bonkers election. The Comey letter, released on October 28, likely moved the electorate several points toward Trump. In the final weeks of the election, careful poll analysts could see Clinton’s support melting in white working-class districts. But in 2020, that just isn’t happening."
**************************************************************************************

* " 4. In 2016, district-level polls indicated a last-minute Democratic collapse. In 2020, they indicate Democratic strength.

In early November 2016, several careful polling analysts started sounding the alarm for Hillary Clinton in the upper Midwest.

Six days before the election, The Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein noted that “Clinton has not visited Wisconsin since April, and appeared just twice in Michigan from June through October.” By abandoning these key states, she was acting “like a general who has sent out a large expeditionary force and left modest forces to defend their homeland.”

Five days before the election, Dave Wasserman at the Cook Political Report tweeted a poll from upstate New York that found Trump ahead by 14 points in a district where Obama and Romney had tied four years earlier. It suggested that Clinton’s support among white working-class districts was collapsing at the worst possible time. “Five days from Election Day, it’s clear who has the momentum,” he wrote. “And it’s not Hillary Clinton. This thing is close.”

This year, those congressional polls are telling a different story. Rather than illuminating surprising weaknesses for Biden, they’re reaffirming his strengths. In some cases, the district polls are pointing to an even larger Biden blowout than the national or state surveys. Most important, Trump isn’t getting anywhere near his 2016 margins in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Wasserman observed. Four years ago, there was a quiet “Trump! Trump! Trump!” alarm going off that only congressional polling analysts could hear. This year, they’re listening closely—but no Trump alarm is sounding."
**********************************************************************************************

* " 5. In 2016, there wasn’t a global pandemic. In 2020, there is a global pandemic.

It’s been four years of one “shocking but not surprising” thing after another. But this year’s October surprises have been—unshockingly, unsurprisingly—all about the plague. The president’s COVID-19 diagnosis, which overlapped with a disastrous first-debate performance, buoyed Biden at the moment when Trump needed to stage a comeback. An autumn surge of nationwide cases refocused the national media’s attention on the pandemic, which the public believes Trump has mishandled."
**************************************************************************************************

* " The most important difference between 2016 and 2020 isn’t about polling methodology or the opposing candidate. It’s this: Four years ago, Trump ran on the vague promise of success, and this year he’s running on a clear record of failure. Judging by the polls, Americans have noticed."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...to-believe-2020-wont-be-a-2016-sequel/616896/

 

[wizenheimer]

* " Few democracies these days are killed by coups. They die when aspiring autocrats get elected and subvert democracy from inside. The recipes they use are time-tested ones involving similar ingredients in varying combinations: sabotaging or rewriting constitutions in order to gut checks and balances on executive power; sidelining legislative bodies while claiming to be “the voice of the people”; packing courts and government agencies with loyalists while purging experts and civil servants; delegitimizing political opponents and electoral processes; attacking or censoring the free press; tolerating or encouraging violence on the part of supporters; threatening to take legal action against political rivals.

And it’s not just the manipulation of government levers that follows a pattern. In a 1995 essay, writer and philosopher Umberto Eco drew upon his childhood memories of growing up in Mussolini’s Italy to construct an anatomy of what he called “Ur-Fascism,” a variety of despotism, he warned, that “is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes.”

Among its features are: the fueling of us-versus-them dynamics, playing upon a “fear of difference”; the invocation of a nostalgia for a mythic past; a sense of beleaguerment manifesting itself in paranoia; and emotional appeals to aggrieved members of a middle class.

Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor and the author of “How Fascism Works,” contends this is why “fascism flourishes in moments of great anxiety.” The narrative is put forward “that a once-great society has been destroyed by liberalism or feminism or cultural Marxism or whatever, and you make the dominant group feel angry and resentful about the loss of their status and power.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-31/op-ed-democracies-around-the-world-are-under-threat

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[stampedehero]

After I saw your vid, I realized that Trump relates to his constituents like Mr. Rogers did for four year old TV audiences. Really, have you ever seen a President engage his followers like this?

 

[stampedehero]

 

[stampedehero]

Perfect. I could smell the rotting pumpkin pulp.

 

[Road Ratt]

This is a real eye opener.

 

[stampedehero]

I have my American dream because I voted for a rational thinking sincere human.

 

[stampedehero]

View attachment 34487


* " There just hasn’t been any real sign that the race is tightening. If anything, Joe Biden’s margins are expanding slightly in the Upper Midwest. And there isn’t any particular reason to expect the race to tighten when more than 90 million people have already voted and the most important news story — that the United States just set a record for the number of COVID-19 cases in a day — is a negative one for Trump.

In fact, in many states, such as North Carolina, we’ve gotten what are likely to be the final polls of the state from most of the major polling firms. The one important exception is Pennsylvania, which some high-quality pollsters seem to have kept as the last state they’re planning to poll. And those polls could matter quite a bit. Pennsylvania is the most likely tipping-point state (it delivers the 270th electoral vote around 37 percent of the time in our forecast), so any deviation from Biden’s current 5.1-point lead in the polls there — say, if Biden climbs to a 6-point lead or falls to a 4-point lead — could make a fairly big difference in our forecast.

But what we’ve seen so far in Pennsylvania doesn’t suggest much movement in the polls. We’ve gotten two live-caller polls since the debate: A Muhlenberg College poll published this morning had Biden up by 5 points, closely matching our average in the state. And a Quinnipiac University poll had Biden ahead by 7, which is not quite as good for Biden as it might seem — Quinnipiac has generally had friendly results for him this cycle and their previous poll of the state had him up by 7 as well.

And if nothing changes at all in the polls, Biden’s chances of winning will nonetheless increase slightly by Tuesday morning in our forecast. That’s for two reasons:

1. Trump is still receiving a tiny boost in our forecast based on economic conditions and incumbency, currently amounting to an 0.2-percentage-point shift. But this will fall to 0 percent by Election Day.
2. Uncertainty in the forecast will also be slightly reduced when we actually make it to Election Day.

That said, Biden’s current lead of 8 to 9 points nationally is quite large given our highly polarized political environment, so maybe a few of the remaining undecided voters will drift to Trump. Don’t be surprised if Biden drops to 86 percent — or jumps to 94 percent — in our final forecast."
**********************************************************************

" The Normal-Polling-Error Zone is a place we talked about in 2016, when we told you that Trump was only a normal-sized polling error away from beating Hillary Clinton. What did that mean? It meant that if polls were off by about the amount they’ve been off in past elections — by around 3 points, on average — and the error favored Trump, then he’d probably win the Electoral College. And that’s basically what happened, although the polling was worse in some states than others.

In probability terms, I think of the Normal-Polling-Error Zone as extending from the favorite having anything from around a 60 percent chance up to around an 84 percent chance of winning. That amounts to an error of no more than one standard deviation.Math geeks will know that one standard deviation comprises 68 percent of outcomes, not 84 percent, but since people usually only care about polling errors when the favorite loses (nobody is going to give pollsters that much crap if Biden wins Pennsylvania by 10 points instead of 5, for instance), it’s only the possibility of Trump outperforming his polls that we’re really concerned with.

">1 Or to put it another way, it’s a zone where polling errors big enough for the underdog to win are going to occur quite routinely without anything particularly special having to happen. Polling is a challenging business, and while polls get the outcome right more often than not, nailing every election to within a point or two is hard.

The Zone of Plausibility. This is where we are this year. I think of the Zone of Plausibility as extending out to reflect an error of up to two standard deviations — so, it’s a race where the favorite has somewhere from an 84 percent to 98 percent chance of winning. You wouldn’t consider the underdog winning in an election like this to be a routine occurrence. But, well, it’s plausible, and it isn’t that hard to find precedents for it.

The polls were off by more than 7 points in 1980, for instance, underestimating Ronald Reagan’s margin of victory. (That would likely be enough for Trump to win in an election where he trails in the most likely tipping-point state, Pennsylvania, by 5 points.) Harry Truman beat the final Gallup poll in 1948 by 9 points in an upset victory. And the polls missed by 5 points in 1996, underestimating Bob Dole."
*******************************************************************************

View attachment 34488

* " Now, we can debate exactly how applicable those precedents are today. There’s much more polling this year than in 1980 or in 1996. And in 1948, it wasn’t “the polling” that was off since there was just one polling firm, Gallup — maybe if there had been a Quinnipiac poll or something back then, it would correctly have forecasted Truman’s victory.

The point, though, again, is that a Trump win is plausible. And all the other models I’ve seen have Trump within the Zone of Plausibility too, although the Economist’s model, which has his chances at 4 percent, is pushing it a bit.

At the same time, though, a 2016-style polling error wouldn’t be enough for Trump to win. In the chart below — taking a page from The Upshot, which has also been doing this — I’ve taken our final polling averages in 2016 and shown how they compared to the actual results. And then I’ve shown what the results would be based on this year’s polling average if the polls were exactly as wrong as in 2016 in exactly the same states."

View attachment 34489
View attachment 34490

" Takeaway? Joe Biden would win. In fact, he’d win 335 electoral votes, including those in Florida, Georgia and Arizona. A lot of these wins would be close — he’d win by around 2 points in Arizona and Wisconsin, by and less than 1 point in Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania, so he’d have to sweat a bit, but he’d win.

Meanwhile, although there are a lot of uncertainties this year that our model tries to account for — for instance, whether pollsters are correctly blending the early vote with the Election Day vote — there are also other things that could make a big polling error less likely. For instance, the polls have been very stable so far in the race, and the large number of people who have already voted makes a last-minute shift even less likely. There are also few undecided voters: Joe Biden is polling at above 50 percent in all states that Clinton won except Nevada, plus he clears that line Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania (albeit just barely; he’s at 50.1 percent there) and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Those are enough to give him 273 electoral votes."
**********************************************************************************

" Still, Trump isn’t in as strong a position as he was in 2016. As you can see in the table above, he’s polling worse than he was against Clinton in every single battleground state. Polls can be wrong — indeed, the whole point of our probabilistic forecast is to tell you the chances of that — but they’re more likely to be wrong when a candidate’s lead is narrower. As of right now, Biden’s lead is large enough that Trump’s chances of winning are 10 percent, considerably lower than the 35 percent chance he had at this point in 2016."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ould-have-to-be-off-by-way-more-than-in-2016/

***************************************************************************************

obviously, I'm biased. But I have a memory and I remember how worried I was in 2016. I watched Clinton's lead in polls generally cut in half, or greater, after the Comey shit. She had about a 2-3 point lead nationally in polling, and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2.4%. So the polling was accurate. But she was also sinking fast in several state polls of battlegrounds, and the undecided voters in 2016 were 2-3 times more than this time, She also had high negatives. Not only had she lost momentum, she was matched up against an unknown and didn't have any approval advantage

none of those factors are working against Biden this time around and not only are his leads in various states relatively stable, he doesn't have anywhere close to the negatives Clinton had

now, trump and the R's will do everything they can to toss out as many legitimate votes as the courts will allow. That has become their number 1 option over the last 30 years. Suppress as much voting as they can before elections, and shitcan as many as they can after elections. It's an unprincipled despicable strategy, but of course when you don't have morals and don't believe in democracy, only in keeping as much power as you can, it's your go-to move.

I just don't believe it will be enough

Well Said BGD!! Well Said!!

 

[wizenheimer]

* " The Texas Supreme Court on Sunday denied a Republican-led petition to toss nearly 127,000 ballots cast at drive-thru voting places in the Houston area.

The state’s all-Republican high court rejected the request from a state representative and two GOP candidates without explaining its decision. Their effort to have the Harris County ballots thrown out is still set to be taken up during an emergency hearing in federal court on Monday.

Conservative Texas activists have railed against expanded voting access in Harris County, where a record 1.4 million early votes have already been cast. The county is the nation’s third largest and a crucial battleground in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Republicans are bracing for the closest election in decades on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen is expected to rule on the same issue on Monday. Hanen’s decision to hear arguments on the brink of Election Day drew attention from voting rights activists. The Texas Supreme Court also rejected a nearly identical challenge last month."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-supreme-court-harris-county-ballots_n_5f9f06acc5b60eefc853dace

it's not over...it rarely is when the R's are trying to shit-can D votes. But a total R Texas Supreme Court decided that actual democracy has value

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Hopefully what happened to this guy happens to the resident Entertainer In Chief...........

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/video...arthys-downfall-was-accusing-the/?jwsource=cl

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[BigGameDamian]

China's fault!

 

[Haakzilla]

...utter disgrace!

 

[kjironman1]

Excellent post but.......I remember the same people who are making fun of “Never Trumpers” losing their collective shit when Obama got elected. Things got very nasty (and very racist) until the so called “Cancel Culture” (otherwise known as “respectful Americans”) rightly called bullshit on their tantrums. Then that shit went (barely) underground until Trump tripped into office. Then it became okay to be a loud, virulent and obnoxious racist because that is obviously what makes America “great again”. And as a veteran and senior citizen who has watched all manner of goofbutts, idiots and con artists plunder our government over my lifetime, “patriot” and “patriotism” are four letter words......and dog whistles for those who see the USA as their own giant department store to be plundered. We have gone so far over to the dark side I’m not sure there is any path left back to the light. Trump and his minions have kicked this country in the nuts and have laughed all the way to the bank while doing it......

I think you are kind of missing my point of the post. I really like @Orion Bailey and respect his view. I was kind of explaining why i am where i am at.
The crazy part here is i didn't get a chance to vote in 2016. I moved from Oregon to Washington after buying property up here and was completely in the middle of remodel and move when the election happened. I was one of those "well Hillary is gonna win this anyway" type people so i have to admit i didn't push to find out how to do my absentee ballot during a move.
Point is when Trump was elected we watched 200K people protest just in Portland. Pussy hats everywhere. They converged on downtown like nothing we have seen ever in the city.
I decided to take a different path. I decided to give him a chance. I after all do agree with many of his talking points. I do support the right to bear arms. I support having strong borders. I support keeping our military strong. I support buying from American companies and building it here.
I don't agree with a number of other issues. I believe certain abortions should be allowed but it should not be used as birth control. I feel we should be working toward a greener world. I feel we should continue to curb our need for oil.

Trump almost immediately started doing things that didn't work out well. He has also done things that we were not sure of but have now found out have not worked out well. Then he shit on Veterans.

He lost my vote! He had a chance and he blew it plain and simple.

 

[kjironman1]

Certainly by January.....

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[kjironman1]

Tucker Carlson scraping the bottom of the barrel for guests?

 

[crandc]

Tucker Carlson scraping the bottom of the barrel for guests?

Who?

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Chris Craig]

This means Trump expects to lose

 

[THE HCP]

 

[RR7]

Someone bought themselves some extra minutes at the internet Cafe in town I see