WaspInWales wrote:Anyone know if there has been any changes in the latest reliable polls...specifically since the super specimen master race Trump left hospital?
Just seen that a right wing protestor has been shot and killed by a private security guard hired by a local TV station in Denver.
That'll be painted as a win by the right. A law abiding, American loving patriot murdered by the Liberal media.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
This is the prediction I use: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/ It averages out the polls, weighting them on quality and previous reliability, as well as taking into account incumbency advantages, reversion to the mean, etc. They have Biden winning 345 to 193 and polls are increasingly turning against Trump. I think Trump's rhetoric and shenanigans are doing very well with his base of 35-40%, but they're driving the middle away from him and, probably worse, driving them to the polls because he's scaring them.
The polls are turning away from Trump, but they're not turning towards Biden. Which leaves the swing states in a similar position to this time in the Clinton Vs Trump campaign, and Hillary back then had a bigger lead in some states, but Hillary was subject to some less refined polls and had the FBI intervention yet to drop
To summarise Trump was losing, is losing, and looks set to continue losing. But if he can drive down voting it's not a position he can't win from
Digby wrote:The polls are turning away from Trump, but they're not turning towards Biden. Which leaves the swing states in a similar position to this time in the Clinton Vs Trump campaign, and Hillary back then had a bigger lead in some states, but Hillary was subject to some less refined polls and had the FBI intervention yet to drop
To summarise Trump was losing, is losing, and looks set to continue losing. But if he can drive down voting it's not a position he can't win from
I will note that there was also larger elasticity in the electorate last time. Trump had the benefit of, "he's a wildcard rookie and will calm down once he's in office and has proper advisers," combined with Clinton having the major disadvantage of daring to be a woman. Now Trump has shown that he does not and will never change and very much means what he says, plus the Dems have got a nice old white male in place, I don't know there's as much room for a chunk of Biden voters to switch to Trump as happened late in 2016. Plus, now every day that goes past is thousands of people who have already cast their vote.
Trump still definitely can win, especially with his inbuilt incumbency advantages and his willingness to cheat and suppress voting. However, I don't know comparisons to 2016 are that valid.
Digby wrote:The polls are turning away from Trump, but they're not turning towards Biden. Which leaves the swing states in a similar position to this time in the Clinton Vs Trump campaign, and Hillary back then had a bigger lead in some states, but Hillary was subject to some less refined polls and had the FBI intervention yet to drop
To summarise Trump was losing, is losing, and looks set to continue losing. But if he can drive down voting it's not a position he can't win from
I will note that there was also larger elasticity in the electorate last time. Trump had the benefit of, "he's a wildcard rookie and will calm down once he's in office and has proper advisers," combined with Clinton having the major disadvantage of daring to be a woman. Now Trump has shown that he does not and will never change and very much means what he says, plus the Dems have got a nice old white male in place, I don't know there's as much room for a chunk of Biden voters to switch to Trump as happened late in 2016. Plus, now every day that goes past is thousands of people who have already cast their vote.
Trump still definitely can win, especially with his inbuilt incumbency advantages and his willingness to cheat and suppress voting. However, I don't know comparisons to 2016 are that valid.
Puja
Hilary Clinton's female status was undoubtedly a factor for some, but she wasn't a likeable candidate. And the Dems also made the mistake of ignoring what became key battlegrounds. She was well ahead in the polls despite that until the FBI made its investigation public, after that the 'lock her up' slogan hurt her.
Biden just needs to stay healthy and avoid any major banana skins in the next 20 odd days. I think its more case of him not losing rather than winning this election.
WaspInWales wrote:Anyone know if there has been any changes in the latest reliable polls...specifically since the super specimen master race Trump left hospital?
Just seen that a right wing protestor has been shot and killed by a private security guard hired by a local TV station in Denver.
That'll be painted as a win by the right. A law abiding, American loving patriot murdered by the Liberal media.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
The rumours are already hitting social media that the security guard was unlicensed and that he apparently has left wing tattoos visible, having previously attended BLM marches.
Viewing what footage is available, it does look again like excessive use of force by the security guard. The protestor was a complete dick, but no worse than many other protestors of all political persuasions that I've seen. Mace isn't pleasant, but it's not an excuse to use lethal force.
Another example of the American gunging ho attitude to firearms.
WaspInWales wrote:Anyone know if there has been any changes in the latest reliable polls...specifically since the super specimen master race Trump left hospital?
Just seen that a right wing protestor has been shot and killed by a private security guard hired by a local TV station in Denver.
That'll be painted as a win by the right. A law abiding, American loving patriot murdered by the Liberal media.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
The rumours are already hitting social media that the security guard was unlicensed and that he apparently has left wing tattoos visible, having previously attended BLM marches.
Viewing what footage is available, it does look again like excessive use of force by the security guard. The protestor was a complete dick, but no worse than many other protestors of all political persuasions that I've seen. Mace isn't pleasant, but it's not an excuse to use lethal force.
Another example of the American gunging ho attitude to firearms.
I've seen quite a few photos and my immediate reaction was he'll be going away for a very long time...
But it being America, I'm not so sure.
The only sure thing is that the right, and no doubt Trump will use it to dog whistle their support.
I find it a bit troubling that so many law enforcement agencies have openly endorsed the Trump campaign.
At a time when there is so much racial, social and political division, to endorse the person who's administration has created most of the division is just shocking.
I wonder what might happen if Trump loses and his support take to the street. Will the police do their job or could they help destabilise things further, or just police one side?
WaspInWales wrote:I find it a bit troubling that so many law enforcement agencies have openly endorsed the Trump campaign.
At a time when there is so much racial, social and political division, to endorse the person who's administration has created most of the division is just shocking.
I wonder what might happen if Trump loses and his support take to the street. Will the police do their job or could they help destabilise things further, or just police one side?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
I don't think it's true to say police agencies are endorsing Trump (unless I've missed something?). It's unions and lobbying groups that represent the police.
...although I wouldn't be completely shocked if what you said came to pass.
WaspInWales wrote:I find it a bit troubling that so many law enforcement agencies have openly endorsed the Trump campaign.
At a time when there is so much racial, social and political division, to endorse the person who's administration has created most of the division is just shocking.
I wonder what might happen if Trump loses and his support take to the street. Will the police do their job or could they help destabilise things further, or just police one side?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
I don't think it's true to say police agencies are endorsing Trump (unless I've missed something?). It's unions and lobbying groups that represent the police.
...although I wouldn't be completely shocked if what you said came to pass.
Yes, sorry..you're indeed correct. But still, these unions and lobbying groups will generally echo the thoughts of their members, many of whom patrol the streets in uniform so my concerns regarding things kicking off remain.
WaspInWales wrote:I find it a bit troubling that so many law enforcement agencies have openly endorsed the Trump campaign.
At a time when there is so much racial, social and political division, to endorse the person who's administration has created most of the division is just shocking.
I wonder what might happen if Trump loses and his support take to the street. Will the police do their job or could they help destabilise things further, or just police one side?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
They should not even have an opinion or at least in the run up to an election
WaspInWales wrote:I find it a bit troubling that so many law enforcement agencies have openly endorsed the Trump campaign.
At a time when there is so much racial, social and political division, to endorse the person who's administration has created most of the division is just shocking.
I wonder what might happen if Trump loses and his support take to the street. Will the police do their job or could they help destabilise things further, or just police one side?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
I don't think it's true to say police agencies are endorsing Trump (unless I've missed something?). It's unions and lobbying groups that represent the police.
...although I wouldn't be completely shocked if what you said came to pass.
Yes, sorry..you're indeed correct. But still, these unions and lobbying groups will generally echo the thoughts of their members, many of whom patrol the streets in uniform so my concerns regarding things kicking off remain.
Yeah, agreed it's scary that anyone can support Trump, let alone legally armed people who would be tasked with removing Trump from office if he didn't go willingly.
I mean, it's clearly not written by him, as there is absolutely no way that he has the word 'iconoclast' in his lexicon, but it has his orangey little fingerprints all over it. It's not "radical activism" to note that Columbus was a) lost, b) never made it to any territory currently owned by the USA, c) more than a little bit of a slaving, murderous arsehole, and d) remained convinced in the face of all mounting evidence that the land he'd found was the east edge of Asia. There's a reason that the continents aren't named North and South Columbia and are instead named after Amerigo Vespucci.
Columbus went to the Americas to get rich; no gold, no silver? No problem: slaves.
As for the note, Columbus is the reference hero for the Italian American community here (the one that immigrated before 1920). You have to read it that way. What does history have to do with that?
gransoporro wrote:At least Vespucci was not a fake Italian...
Columbus went to the Americas to get rich; no gold, no silver? No problem: slaves.
As for the note, Columbus is the reference hero for the Italian American community here (the one that immigrated before 1920). You have to read it that way. What does history have to do with that?
And oddly John Cabot (or Giovanni Caboto) who did make the first European landing in North America (post Lief Eriksen) was actually Italian (or Venetian which became Italy). Suffered from being sponsored and supplied by the English crown though, which wasn't particularly popular in America at the time.
He is just such a cunt. So much effort to go out of his way to disparage indigenous injustice just to please the shouty white vectors for pathogens that show up at his ridiculous rallies. Fuck I am so over these small minded one-policy wankers.
gransoporro wrote:It’s not odd. Everybody knows Columbus, less know Vespucci, Caboto who? When they chose a hero, they went for the best known one.
#statuesmatter
How many statues does Vespucci (or Caboto) have? Columbus wins hands down. What does history have to do with it?
I think you've got causality switched there. Everyone knows Colombus *because* the Italian Americans selected him as a hero and perpetrated this myth of him as the discoverer of America (because Italian Americans were the Latinos of their day in terms of anti-immigration punching bags and they wanted to ingrain Italians into the myth of the founding of America). They could just as easily have selected Caboto as the face of acceptable Italians and lobbied to get his name recognised by the nascent government.
Digby wrote:Who would be the face of unacceptable Italians, Giuliani?
Well, back in the day, every Italian was the face of unacceptable Italians. It was very much like the current racism against Hispanics - these swarthy foreigners were swarming the country, refusing to learn English, bringing their weird food and customs over, and they weren't sending their best - they were sending criminals and gang members, fleeing their poverty-stricken upbringing.
Amazing how the definition of "white" has now expanded to include Italians (and following them, Poles) as well. Almost as though it's a blanket term that doesn't actually really mean anything.
Digby wrote:They're not my cup of tea, but if one were to look at people backing Biden this week rather than look at The Lincoln Project I might look at Ady Barkan, given Ady is saying he's willing to use some of the time he has left (which isn't going to be a lot) helping to endorse Biden because that legacy is important to him
I don't think I know the name, so I'm not sure why you've pivoted that way, but okay.
Ah, he's pretty well known, I suspect you'd like him
Ady, bless his cottons, is crushing it in a number of Senate races - https://beaherofund.com
And it matters because (a) the Dems will need the Senate to effect any big changes, and (b) he's showing there are big advantages politically for not being frightened of big pharma and even going after them aggressively which allows more centrist Dems to get off the fence more easily.
Mikey Brown wrote:
I don't think I know the name, so I'm not sure why you've pivoted that way, but okay.
Ah, he's pretty well known, I suspect you'd like him
Ady, bless his cottons, is crushing it in a number of Senate races - https://beaherofund.com
And it matters because (a) the Dems will need the Senate to effect any big changes, and (b) he's showing there are big advantages politically for not being frightened of big pharma and even going after them aggressively which allows more centrist Dems to get off the fence more easily.
Though why it's hard to make progress when there should in theory be so many concerns about the money behind Trump I don't know. In any sane world he wouldn't be able to run for dog catcher
