hanky1 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We can thank the Electoral College for the proposition of election riots, and understandably so.

I don't know why a bunch of learned people on this site would pretend that it's ok if the American people don't get to choose their President just because of a document written in the 1700's.

---

Yeah F that document. It's stupid anyways. Let's burn it to the ground

---

dajo9 doesn't believe in anything that doesn't conform to his personal opinion. Like the Mueller Report.

Kid Quick said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We can thank the Electoral College for the proposition of election riots, and understandably so.

I don't know why a bunch of learned people on this site would pretend that it's ok if the American people don't get to choose their President just because of a document written in the 1700's.

---

Yeah F that document. It's stupid anyways. Let's burn it to the ground

---

dajo9 doesn't believe in anything that doesn't conform to his personal opinion. Like the Mueller Report.

---

Yogi sounding increasingly stressed and angry

I thought Biden was going to steamroll Trump about a month ago but he's made 2 huge unforced errors that Trump has really exploited: 1) advocate killing big oil by transitioning it out to clean energy and 2) basically advocating for another lockdown.

"advocate killing big oil by transitioning it out to clean energy"

The demise of Exon and the ascendancy of BP proves that is the future. Those that don't start retooling now are doomed...and doomed quickly.

BearForce2 said:

---

Sycasey, what's your current favorite polling sources telling you?

---

I think I've already described above: I think it will go about as FiveThirtyEight has it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Biden wins by about 8 points nationally and gets the Hillary states, plus MI, WI, PA, AZ, then (less confidently) NC, FL, GA. In a really big wave he could get IA, OH, TX. He also wins Nebraska's 2nd district. That's about a baseline of 290 electoral votes for him, with an upper bound of 400+ if he beats his polls by several points.

Polls could be wrong in either direction, but IMO it's more likely that they are wrong in Biden's favor. Why? Two reasons: (1) turnout is clearly high, which tends to favor Democrats in recent elections, and (2) Democrats have banked a ton of early votes already, pretty much across the country. That leaves Republicans needing massive turnout on Election Day to counteract the early vote. It's not impossible (see: Florida 2016) but it's a tough task with an unpopular President, COVID outbreaks happening, etc. If people haven't voted yet you can't be sure they will show up.

But what about 2016? Didn't Trump beat the polls then? Yes he did, but there are a lot of reasons why it's different now. For one thing, Biden's polling lead is bigger. The secondary indicators that might tell you an upset is brewing also aren't there this time. In 2016, the national polls tightened in the last couple of weeks. This year they are pretty static. In 2016, a lot of the close Midwestern states weren't polled much in the last week so that late movement went undetected there. In 2020 we have a lot of polls in the battlegrounds, and they are likewise pretty steady with a Biden lead (on average).

In 2016, this guy Dave Wasserman was telling everyone that he was looking at the smaller district polls run by the parties/campaigns and they were showing a lot of trouble for Hillary in white working-class districts that didn't seem to be captured in the statewide polls. This year he says he's seeing data in those districts that basically confirms a big shift away from Trump. He's saying stuff like this:

If those states are tossups that's very bad for Republicans.

There's other stuff. In 2016 neither candidate was over 50% in polls at any point, including in the major battleground states. This year Biden routinely polls above 50%, particularly in MI, WI, PA. That indicates there aren't as many undecided voters now. In 2016 late deciders broke heavily for Trump in these states, but this time he'll actually have to flip voters or get a massive surge from his own new voters to counteract that.

Most of the arguments in favor of Trump winning basically amount to wishcasting. "The polls are wrong!" "We'll see a huge surge on Tuesday!" "He's doing better with black voters!" Picking out individual polls that look good for Trump but don't represent the majority. Stuff like that.

So that's why I think Biden probably wins comfortably. Nothing is guaranteed, but there would have to be a really big polling miss for Trump to win.

golden sloth said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

I predict rioting and looting.

---

I'm not worried about most conservatives, but I am worried that some conservatives declare a fake election, grab their guns and shoot people. The right is far more likely to believe misinformation, get righteous and start killing people. This happened with Gifford, with Sayoc jr, with the vigilante militias that went to kenosha, with pizza gate, just to name a few.

I know it's a minority of conservatives that do this, but I do think it is the greater concern.

---

You can't really be serious. What about BLM and ANTIFA looking for the opportunity to commit acts of violence? What about the average Democrat who wants to defund police and say nothing about the rioters and looters? What about the lying media that provides cover for all of them?

Far more likely to believe misinformation? It's probably you.

Conservatives are more likely to distrust fake news.

Biden's blunder about the oil and gas industry may hurt him in some states and cost him the election. But if Biden loses the election, it will be because he did not present a clear vision for the country to move forward. His campaign message was entirely centered around criticizing Trump, something that the media has been doing 24/7 and voters weary of. We know clearly that Biden is not Trump and yet, he's constantly criticizing him and making comparisons.

The other reason Biden might lose is this dark winter Biden spoke of. Are Americans buying into the Covid fear? Do they want to shut down the country for an indefinite period of time after what they've been through already? There was no enthusiasm displayed in his campaign; it was such a stark contrast to Trump's who drew rock concert-like audiences at battleground states. The lack of energy was clearly evident early on when the Democratic National Convention seemed like one big uninspiring America sucks ***** fest. If Biden wins, maybe America does suck.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

"advocate killing big oil by transitioning it out to clean energy"

The demise of Exon and the ascendancy of BP proves that is the future. Those that don't start retooling now are doomed...and doomed quickly.

---

always been amused by the snarky comments about subsidies for alternatives, like it is the little organic energy company that benefits. Who gets the big subsidies: mostly big energy companies. You can give the subsides for oil or alternatives or both. For those who don't like that, the answer should be no subsides for everyone. But to say big oil is being killed because you move subsidies mostly to the same companies but for a different purpose (e.g., fracking subsidies versus subsidies for alternatives) really means the same energy companies use their workers/contractors for different projects, not that the energy company ("Big Oil")will go down the tubes.

---

One of the major points of regulated capitalism vs. unregulated capitalism is that different "products" have different impacts on our community that are not priced in to the market price. So to the extent that a product is polluting, either in production, usage, or whatever, the cost of that pollution is not borne by either producer or consumer. When costs or benefits are significant enough, it is reasonable to provide incentives to positive behavior and disincentives to negative behavior.

Subsidies for fossil fuels make zero sense. They are clearly a lobbying money grab. Subsidies for clean energy do make sense, though they also may be a lobbying money grab. I don't care that big companies get the subsidies. In fact, from a practicality perspective, that is most effective. Yes, it is nice to imagine the plucky little solar company getting it, but the primary way clean energy is going to happen is for large energy companies to decide they make more money producing it.

My daughter and I were just talking about corporate altruistic behavior in another context. There are a lot of little companies, primarily aimed at Gen Z, but also millennials, that connect their marketing to some cause. Like they will give a certain amount of sales to causes. It is well known that these types of things are very persuasive for Gen Z. She was telling me about a well known hip company that has built a brand on this type of behavior and it turns out it is a subsidiary of a well known corporate brand, specifically started by the company to go after this market. We talked and both agreed that it doesn't really matter as long as they are doing what you want them to do (and not faking it as is another tactic). Our corporate system is not set up for altruism. Whether we are talking big or small companies, we have to assume the primary objective is to make money. But as today we vote with ballots, every day we vote with dollars. If altruism is important to the consumers it will be to the producers.

So to sum up, I don't care if an "oil" company gets the benefit of clean energy subsidies. What I want is clean energy. If they provide it out of naked greed, that is fine with me.

---

Agree. Companies will ultimately provide what the public wants, even if they guess wrong from the outset. Remember when the auto companies fought mandated airbags tooth and nail? Well, once those companies found out that safety was important to consumers they started using the number of airbags in their cars as an advertising pitch.

bearister said:

---

" Your obsession with guns and blubber is getting worrisome. We're just here for fun my friend."

Just responding to hanky's threat. Hey, I can't help it if your cult leader, who is always bullying people regarding their physical infirmities (real or made up by him), happens himself to be a 300 pound tub of guts. If he and his disciples can dish it out but can't take it, then they should back the F off. Fun? Yeah, helltopay1 posts real sh@its and giggles stuff here.

Hopefully, today Bizarro World Camelot will be relegated to the dustbin of political history and assume their well deserved front row seats in criminal legal history.




tRump is practicing in the mirror:



*...and you should save your concern for your brother posters here that got banned for making death threats...that were made all in good fun, I presume.

---

I guess we all need some Cal football more urgently than I thought! When off topic gets that serious, it may be time to take a step back and regroup. By constantly pointing out peoples' appearance/infirmities, you're doing the same thing as Trump. Probably not what you want, regardless of what other posters are doing.

sycasey,

You are clueless. The reason the founders created the electoral college was to prevent the most populous states from determining who would get elected.