Nate Silver 538

tbergs

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."

You should email this to the Biden campaign. He could have easily won this question last night, but he didn't bring in the proper context. We all know this, but I'm sure a lot of people don't get it.

MayDay10

I thought Biden was shaky on the supreme court bit, and also missed a grand opportunity with the Pandemic topic.  His administration left a literal 'playbook' to mitigate such a disaster and Trump couldnt be bothered with it.  

Ledbetterman10

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. 

You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote. 

Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess. 

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

No person could "debate" Trump because he doesn't debate. He has no desire to and never will. He enjoys spewing bullshit at his followers because they eat it up so he uses that same strategy during the debate since he knows it's to his advantage. While Biden may have talked around a few questions, which happens in every debate when a divisive topic is brought up, he did give straight answers on the majority of questions he was asked. Sort through all of the shouting, interruptions and personal attacks from Trump and you are left with no real answers on any question he was asked, which is why chaos is where he reigns.

Really the only instance of that I could remember is him not answering the question about "packing" the Supreme Court. And while I wanted an answer on that, it's hard to complain about him not answering that when Trump doesn't answer anything. 

yes, that's a tough one to answer.  I don't think court packing will play with swing voters, but the reality is that may end up happening. 

He said “vote for me.” 

That answered the question to my satisfaction. 

HughFreakingDillon

MayDay10 said:

I thought Biden was shaky on the supreme court bit, and also missed a grand opportunity with the Pandemic topic.  His administration left a literal 'playbook' to mitigate such a disaster and Trump couldnt be bothered with it.  

one of several opportunities missed by biden. but hey, hard to gather your thoughts with a screaming baby in your ear. i know. 

The Juggler

tbergs said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."

You should email this to the Biden campaign. He could have easily won this question last night, but he didn't bring in the proper context. We all know this, but I'm sure a lot of people don't get it.

Under normal circumstances Biden missed a ton of opportunities like this. But when you're debating a fucking chimpanzee who never shuts up, I'm not sure how he could have even gotten a paragraph like this out of his mouth. 

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. 

You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote. 

Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess. 

Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice). 

For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden. 

The Juggler

Lerxst1992 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."

Trump would have shouted over Biden 2112 times before he could get a statement like that out, as well written and thought out as it is.

Unfortunately trump proved there is an element in our culture that is open to aggressive and false attacks. It doesn’t have to be “that horrible lady.” Now it’s that “**.”

** too divisive to be posted on this forum.

I think he'd have a better opportunity to say something like this in a townhall debate though. 

Ledbetterman10

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. 

You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote. 

Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess. 

Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice). 

For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden. 

Yeah it wouldn't hurt to argue that. I guess I tend to sometimes forget that the candidates aren't talking to ME specifically. Like when someone brings up the electoral college (like Hillary saying at the DNC that "Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me"), I'm like "Oh for fuck's sake." But someone else out there in TV land might be saying "right on!"

I've always felt a good system in lieu of a full-on popular vote would be allocating each state's electors based on the percentage of the state you win. Like, Trump won Pennsylvania by a percentage point or two in 2016, why should he get every elector for that? It'd give canidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Hillary couldn't win Texas outright (Biden is still within the margin of error though I think), but maybe she could pick up a few counties and get some electors for it. Same with Trump in California. When Bush won in 2004, I joked, "I can't believe the leader of the country is chosen by people that willfully cheer for the Bengals and Browns." Give everyone a voice. Either by my proposal (that would never happen), or a popular vote. 

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it.  They have an answer planned for sure.

what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?

"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?

"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"

How about:

"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. 

You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote. 

Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess. 

Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice). 

For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden. 

Yeah it wouldn't hurt to argue that. I guess I tend to sometimes forget that the candidates aren't talking to ME specifically. Like when someone brings up the electoral college (like Hillary saying at the DNC that "Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me"), I'm like "Oh for fuck's sake." But someone else out there in TV land might be saying "right on!"

I've always felt a good system in lieu of a full-on popular vote would be allocating each state's electors based on the percentage of the state you win. Like, Trump won Pennsylvania by a percentage point or two in 2016, why should he get every elector for that? It'd give canidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Hillary couldn't win Texas outright (Biden is still within the margin of error though I think), but maybe she could pick up a few counties and get some electors for it. Same with Trump in California. When Bush won in 2004, I joked, "I can't believe the leader of the country is chosen by people that willfully cheer for the Bengals and Browns." Give everyone a voice. Either by my proposal (that would never happen), or a popular vote. 

That is exactly how it should be. Popular Vote by State. 270 to Win lets you play around with this and other scenarios. I think PVS would be the best representation of the country though:
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Bush and Trump still would've won under this but it would have been much closer. And you can't really go off of that since the whole landscape of the election would be altered as far as where they campaign. 

Regarding Texas, yeah...instead of Trump getting all 38 electoral votes, it would've been 20-17. Conversely, California would've been an HRC win by 34-18 instead of 55-0. Montana would've been 2-1 instead 3-0. Every state would matter instead of a handful. 

Would be much better this way. 

Go Beavers

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

Hi! said:

static111 said:

Hi! said:

Hmmm Bryant street bridge? I really don’t remember all the street names in town as I was out in the sticks.  Northern Michigan in summer is hard to beat

Not sure, just main drawbridge in downtown area. I thought the clouds were pretty, lol. Yeah, I’ve been all over the state this year and just floored by the beauty. I almost don’t want to tell anyone, keep it a secret, lol. The UP is amazing. I must of visited and hiked 15 of the most beautiful falls you have ever seen. 

Northern Michigan is a bit of a secret, isn’t it? My dad had a cottage on Douglas Lake, just west of Cheboygan. It’s beautiful up there. If he was still alive I’d probably be there right around this time of year. I’ve got the memories of the sights, sounds, and smell of the air kept in my head, though. 

Dude I grew up on Douglas lake road.....that’s crazy.  My dad still takes care of a lot of cottages on the lake in the off season 

That is crazy. My dad’s place (now my brothers) is on Bryant road, about ten cottages down from Douglas Lake Bar. 

Lerxst1992

Good article today on the state of the race and if trump tries electoral shenanigans from Nate ,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-chances-are-dwindling-that-could-make-him-dangerous/

dignin

Lerxst1992 said:

Good article today on the state of the race and if trump tries electoral shenanigans from Nate ,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-chances-are-dwindling-that-could-make-him-dangerous/

Good stuff, thanks for sharing.

The Juggler

The Juggler

The Juggler

80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.

The Juggler

Weird and not-so-weird possibilities

The chances that these situations will crop up

Trump wins the popular voteRegardless of whether he wins the Electoral College	10 in 100
Biden wins the popular voteRegardless of whether he wins the Electoral College	90 in 100
Trump wins more than 50% of the popular voteRegardless of whether he wins the Electoral College	7 in 100
Biden wins more than 50% of the popular voteRegardless of whether he wins the Electoral College	85 in 100
Trump wins in a landslideDefined as winning the popular vote by a double-digit margin	<1 in 100
Biden wins in a landslideDefined as winning the popular vote by a double-digit margin	29 in 100
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College	<1 in 100
Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College	10 in 100
No one wins the Electoral CollegeNo candidate gets 270 electoral votes and Congress decides the election	<1 in 100
Trump wins at least one state that Clinton won in 2016	33 in 100
Biden wins at least one state that Trump won in 2016	92 in 100
The map stays exactly the same as it was in 2016Each candidate wins exactly the same states that his party won in 2016	<1 in 100
The election hinges on a recountCandidates are within half a percentage point in one or more decisive states	5 in 100

OnWis97

I'm really surprised that it indicates only a 10% chance that Biden wins the popular vote and loses the EC. Assuming we still have two parties, that's probably going to be the standard for a while. 

MayDay10

The Juggler said:

80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.

I was reading one of his columns the other day.

He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement.  For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%.  So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1311710879956819969