Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jm192 said:

There are some people on Twitter/Youtube that go through the early results, and based on the current numbers feel Trump is in play.  

I read somewhere Nate Silver has Biden at +17 in Wisconsin?  Yet the Democrats have still been stopping in.  

Trump may lose the popular vote in a "landslide" as some like to put it.  I think the Electoral College will be pretty close.  I think if Trump weren't a moron and said "Wear masks, social distance, don't go out unless you have to--he'd be favored to win at this point.  

The bolded seems extremely unlikely.  If there's one demographic that I feel confident will break hard rather than be "in-play", it's the demographic of Donald Trump himself.

Edited by Goodell's Alias
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2020 at 10:48 AM, timschochet said:

If we’re going to have this discussion we need to add the fact that in 2016 they refused to consider Garland 9 months prior to the election because they argued that the public had the right to have their vote accounted for. That position which was held by Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans until the moment RBG died, when they completely reversed themselves and shoved through an appointment in barely over 30 days, has to be part of the consideration. 

as do the mysterious circumstances under which the Scalia seat became vacant

could be sen that some group known for their dirty tricks did not want to wait for a seat to open naturally 

Senate could be seen as not wanting to reward such alleged devious actions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Obie Wan said:

as do the mysterious circumstances under which the Scalia seat became vacant

could be sen that some group known for their dirty tricks did not want to wait for a seat to open naturally 

Senate could be seen as not wanting to reward such alleged devious actions

Are you suggesting Scalia was murdered?  That's how this reads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I’ve read some Pro-Trump Californians say that Cali is in play.  
 

I don’t believe Cali or NY will flip.  I think the states are too progressive and they’re the ones fired up to get Trump gone.

0.0% chance either flips, or are even close.  I’m not confident about much surrounding this election but I am supremely confident in this.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think this is pretty much every election. It definitely was in 2016.

I'm struggling to find it, but I was looking at one of the PA polls last week and on the question of are you voting more for your candidate or against the other, Biden was around 40/60, which seemed like a high proportion of negative votes, and was definitely higher than Trump's numbers.  But to your point, I don't have 2016 to compare it to, so maybe you're correct.

I did find a poll from one of the local colleges, which while not having the for/against question, did have an enthusiasm one : How enthusiastic are you about supporting your candidate:

Very/Somewhat/Not So/Not at All:

Trump: 79/18/2/1

Biden: 51/39/5/4

Incidentally, poll was Biden 51-44, so if he's really up by 7 points he can literally have none of the 9% who are not enthusiastic vote and still win, but if Trump pulls off a repeat shocker I think things like that will be what people look back on in hindsight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Obie Wan said:

Trump is still going to win

The D's have lost their lock on the both the Black and Latino voting blocks

Your confidence is misplaced.

It's true that Democrats have lost some of their support among Blacks and Hispanics, but: A) the Black vote seems to be reverting towards the pre-Obama norm, B) the Hispanic vote has always been diverse and was not nearly as much of a "lock" to the Democrats, and C) whatever gains Trump makes here will be massively overwhelmed by Trump's losses among White voters. He's losing his lock on non-college Whites and elderly Whites.

To put it another way: Biden may lose ~9% of the Black/Hispanic vote, but he'll gladly trade that for a ~5% increase in the White vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr_Zaius said:

I struggle to think of a comparison where negative views of a candidate were a driving factor - maybe 2000 with the anti-Clinton vote?  Certainly we've seen mid-terms like 2006, 2010, and 2018 where an angry, anti-incumbent wave sweeps a party in, but I feel like we're in uncharted territory for a presidential race. 

Going back a ways, but 1988 would be a good example.  GHWB was elected with a mandate not to burn the flag and not to furlough Willie Horton.  (Also not to raise taxes -- he went 2-of-3 on these).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Obie Wan said:

as do the mysterious circumstances under which the Scalia seat became vacant

Oh, darn. I had responded to one of your previous posts based on the belief that you were a serious, thoughtful and/or rational poster. I regret making that assumption now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

I'm struggling to find it, but I was looking at one of the PA polls last week and on the question of are you voting more for your candidate or against the other, Biden was around 40/60, which seemed like a high proportion of negative votes, and was definitely higher than Trump's numbers.  But to your point, I don't have 2016 to compare it to, so maybe you're correct.

I did find a poll from one of the local colleges, which while not having the for/against question, did have an enthusiasm one : How enthusiastic are you about supporting your candidate:

Very/Somewhat/Not So/Not at All:

Trump: 79/18/2/1

Biden: 51/39/5/4

Incidentally, poll was Biden 51-44, so if he's really up by 7 points he can literally have none of the 9% who are not enthusiastic vote and still win, but if Trump pulls off a repeat shocker I think things like that will be what people look back on in hindsight.

 

What am I missing from your thoughts?

90% of 50 = 45.  45 is larger than 44.   So if none of the 9% and an extra 1% to make the math easy stay home and 100% of Trump voters for Trump and ignoring other kinds of polling error Biden still wins with those particular numbers.

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Fixed using 44 for Trump rather than 39...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

What am I missing from your thoughts?

90% of 50 = 45.  45 is larger than 44.   So if none of the 9% and an extra 1% to make the math easy stay home and 100% of Trump voters for Trump and ignoring other kinds of polling error Biden still wins with those particular numbers.

I don't think much.  I made the same calculation, and probably to be fair you should take 3% away from Trump too, which makes it 46-43 Biden. 

Again, I'm not predicting a Trump win, just saying that if there is a widespread enthusiasm gap (and I've only looked at PA, so that's an open question), it should make the D's at least a little worried.  Because if enthusiasm differences eat a few percentages into the perceived polling lead, you're starting to get into the realm of the margin of error.

Edited by Dr_Zaius
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Going back a ways, but 1988 would be a good example.  GHWB was elected with a mandate not to burn the flag and not to furlough Willie Horton.  (Also not to raise taxes -- he went 2-of-3 on these).

Yes that's back a bit, was there a lot of anti-Dukakis sentiment?  When I think of 1988, my only associations are "read my lips" and the tank photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the California and NY in play stuff. Awesome! 
Trump will  need them because he’s going to lose Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. But you guys are right, if he wins California it won’t matter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkp993 said:
4 hours ago, jm192 said:

I’ve read some Pro-Trump Californians say that Cali is in play.  
 

I don’t believe Cali or NY will flip.  I think the states are too progressive and they’re the ones fired up to get Trump gone.

0.0% chance either flips, or are even close.  I’m not confident about much surrounding this election but I am supremely confident in this.  

Fivethirtyeight won't even let you give California or New York to Trump in their election simulator. But they will let you give Alabama, Louisiana, and North Dakota to Biden. Talk about unfair bias!!

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkp993 said:

0.0% chance either flips, or are even close.  I’m not confident about much surrounding this election but I am supremely confident in this.  

Seriously, what universe do people live where California goes Trump or Alabama goes Biden? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Seriously, what universe do people live where California goes Trump or Alabama goes Biden? 

538 is actually giving Biden a better chance in Alabama (2%) than they're giving Trump in California (less than 1%).

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear there are divisions in Philly that will vote 100% in favor of trump. A total reversal from obama election.

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I hear there are divisions in Philly that will vote 100% in favor of trump. A total reversal from obama election.

What does this mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Is now attacking doctors, claiming they benefit financially from covid deaths. And his adoring crowd cheered: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/ama-slams-trump-saying-doctors-inflate-covid-death-count-money-2020-10%3famp

Just when I thought I was numb to Trump I get demoralized again. What kind of person is this? What kind of people are these that admire this behavior? 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Trump Is now attacking doctors, claiming they benefit financially from covid deaths. And his adoring crowd cheered: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/ama-slams-trump-saying-doctors-inflate-covid-death-count-money-2020-10%3famp

Just when I thought I was numb to Trump I get demoralized again. What kind of person is this? What kind of people are these that admire this behavior? 

We know what kind of person he is. There is no nuance there.

As for supporters..... well, that book is going to take years to write. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Trump Is now attacking doctors, claiming they benefit financially from covid deaths. And his adoring crowd cheered: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/ama-slams-trump-saying-doctors-inflate-covid-death-count-money-2020-10%3famp

Just when I thought I was numb to Trump I get demoralized again. What kind of person is this? What kind of people are these that admire this behavior? 

Trump himself said some years ago he could stand out on 5th avenue and shoot someone and he would still be popular.  Those are his supporters.  

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnycakes said:

Trump himself said some years ago he could stand out on 5th avenue and shoot someone and he would still be popular.  Those are his supporters.  

I only know a few. I know a lot of people who will be voting for Trump next week but most of them aren’t the “true believer” types that show up at the rallies. I know only a handful of the true believers, and the ones I know are really sweet, decent, honorable people. I can’t make the leap between what they are like  and cheering on the blaming of doctors for Covid. There’s a disconnect there for me and I can’t fathom it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

This should go in the violent protest thread.

Thanks. Didn’t see that thread.  This one is pretty active right now so assumed it would get some eyes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Thanks. Didn’t see that thread.  This one is pretty active right now so assumed it would get some eyes.  

Not saying it doesn't belong here too, just that it seems to fit that thread as well. Particularly when people seem to want to cast all the politically related violence at liberals only.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another thread, @Max Power , a Trump supporter wrote: 

“I personally don’t think Covid-19 is as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe”. 

It seems to me that here we have the root of the problem. Max, based on my experience with him in this forum, is decent and honorable gentleman who served us all in Afghanistan. Yet consider the implications of his statement. For it to be correct, we have to assume that the news media is lying, the medical and public health officials are lying, in fact the whole world is lying- apparently for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump?? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

What does this mean?

Obama carried some divisions with 100% of the vote. People were making hyperbolic satirical statements about trump getting votes after the suggestion of CA being in play for trump, since such a suggestion is absurd. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In another thread, @Max Power , a Trump supporter wrote: 

“I personally don’t think Covid-19 is as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe”. 

It seems to me that here we have the root of the problem. Max, based on my experience with him in this forum, is decent and honorable gentleman who served us all in Afghanistan. Yet consider the implications of his statement. For it to be correct, we have to assume that the news media is lying, the medical and public health officials are lying, in fact the whole world is lying- apparently for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump?? 

 

That is a perfectly reasonable statement. I dont believe it is as dangerous either. I can link thousands of tweets from "experts" that were either completely wrong or very misleading. Studies that have been retracted, studies that have never been published, studies that the accompanying articles or tweets are totally alarmist or just malarkey. 

Doesnt mean it isn't real or even deadly. It just isnt what is constantly portrayed.

Doesnt havent to be because it is a plot against trump. In fact there are many many reasons far more likely than that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In another thread, @Max Power , a Trump supporter wrote: 

“I personally don’t think Covid-19 is as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe”. 

It seems to me that here we have the root of the problem. Max, based on my experience with him in this forum, is decent and honorable gentleman who served us all in Afghanistan. Yet consider the implications of his statement. For it to be correct, we have to assume that the news media is lying, the medical and public health officials are lying, in fact the whole world is lying- apparently for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump?? 

 

I don't see how you can jump to all those conclusions by my statement. 

You also have remember that I've spent over 3 years of my life in war zones, so it's safe to say I'm less risk averse than the general population. 

I've explained my position that I believe the cure is becoming worse than the disease. 

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In another thread, @Max Power , a Trump supporter wrote: 

“I personally don’t think Covid-19 is as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe”. 

It seems to me that here we have the root of the problem. Max, based on my experience with him in this forum, is decent and honorable gentleman who served us all in Afghanistan. Yet consider the implications of his statement. For it to be correct, we have to assume that the news media is lying, the medical and public health officials are lying, in fact the whole world is lying- apparently for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump?? 

Max's statement is not inaccurate, if you look at it from the context of the liberal media hype and from the perspective of people under the age of 55.

I mean, it's selfish, callous and narcissistic, but it's not inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Max's statement is not inaccurate, if you look at it from the context of the liberal media hype and from the perspective of people under the age of 55.

I mean, it's selfish, callous and narcissistic, but it's not inaccurate.

No I’m not going to reach any of those conclusions. I don’t know Max but he doesn’t strike me as selfish or callous or narcissistic. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I don't see how you can jump to all those conclusions by my statement. 

You also have remember that I've spent over 3 years of my life in war zones, so it's safe to say I'm less risk averse than the general population. 

I've explained my position that I believe the cure is becoming worse than the disease. 

For both you and @parasaurolophus: what I wrote is the logical inference of your statement. If we have been led to believe that this disease is less dangerous than has been presented, then the whole world is lying to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

For both you and @parasaurolophus: what I wrote is the logical inference of your statement. If we have been led to believe that this disease is less dangerous than has been presented, then the whole world is lying to us. 

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.  So yeah, I don't think the US is losing 2 million people over this.

COVID is not very deadly to healthy people under 50. 

Maybe I just need to know how deadly you think this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

For both you and @parasaurolophus: what I wrote is the logical inference of your statement. If we have been led to believe that this disease is less dangerous than has been presented, then the whole world is lying to us. 

Everyone in the world is lying to us but Trump and his closes confidantes.  That's all you need to believe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.  So yeah, I don't think the US is losing 2 million people over this.

COVID is not very deadly to healthy people under 50. 

Maybe I just need to know how deadly you think this is.

Tim and I have both lost loved ones to this. I've had many more friends and loved ones get very sick. One of them just 26, and very healthy, was in the ICU for two days. Nobody knows what the long term ramifications of this are either. I've read different opinions but that's all they are right now. We won't truly know for 5+ years IMO.  I'll just leave it at that and go get drunk again. Sorry, Tim, didn't mean to muck up your thread. 

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Tim and I have both lost loved ones to this. I've had many more friends and loved ones get very sick. One of them just 26, and very healthy, was in the ICU for two days. Nobody knows what the long term ramifications of this are either. I've read different opinions but that's all they are right now. We won't truly know for 5+ years IMO.  I'll just leave it at that and go get drunk again. Sorry, Tim, didn't mean to muck up your thread. 

Sorry to hear that. Stay strong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.  So yeah, I don't think the US is losing 2 million people over this.

COVID is not very deadly to healthy people under 50. 

Maybe I just need to know how deadly you think this is.

Here’s what we should all be able to agree upon: 

1. Its a very deadly disease for those over 55 and those with certain existing conditions. Since we’re not about to segregate those people from the rest of us, it’s a very deadly disease for society as a whole. 
2. Its also a very deadly disease for society because it’s occupying far too much space and time for our medical professionals and hospitals. If this continues it will jeopardize our treatment of other medical problems (in certain places like Wisconsin and South Dakota this may already be happening. 
3. The best way to keep this disease from spreading is shutting down as much human interaction as possible, but since that price is too high for our economy, the second best way is to maintain and enforce social distancing and mask wearing. 
4. If we are to enforce social distancing and mask wearing it cannot be voluntary. 
5. We need to have testing available upon demand for the entire population. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.  So yeah, I don't think the US is losing 2 million people over this.

COVID is not very deadly to healthy people under 50. 

Maybe I just need to know how deadly you think this is.

That estimate assumed no mitigation at all.  No masks, no distancing, everyone just continued on like it was 2019.  It's entirely reasonable to think 2 million deaths would be possible in such an environment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 2 million if we'r did NOTHING AT ALL.... so tired of that as a standard. Every reasonable estimate was between 200 and 500K. They appear to be spot on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Its a very deadly disease for those over 55 and those with certain existing conditions. Since we’re not about to segregate those people from the rest of us, it’s a very deadly disease for society as a whole. 

"Hey everybody let me frame this a certain way to state a conclusion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, timschochet said:

For both you and @parasaurolophus: what I wrote is the logical inference of your statement. If we have been led to believe that this disease is less dangerous than has been presented, then the whole world is lying to us. 

You act like there is a consensus on all things covid and that all countries agree.

Just look at kids in school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.  So yeah, I don't think the US is losing 2 million people over this.

COVID is not very deadly to healthy people under 50. 

Maybe I just need to know how deadly you think this is.

From Andrew Levin, an economist at Dartmouth. IFR is infection fatality rate, using seroprevalence estimates.

>>Results Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFRs are very low for children and younger adults but increase progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. We find that differences in the age structure of the population and the age-specific prevalence of COVID-19 explain about 90% of the geographical variation in population IFR.

Discussion These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza. Moreover, the overall IFR for COVID-19 should not be viewed as a fixed parameter but as intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. Consequently, public health measures to mitigate infections in older adults could substantially decrease total deaths. <<

It's very deadly to older people, but not younger people. As we open up, how do we prevent generational spread? It's not black and white, as far as opening up, but more frequent testing and wearing masks and tracing would help. Also, some younger people who survive are left with permanent lung damage.

COVID is more deadly than the seasonal flu, it may be related to partial immunity.

• 2.9× more fatal at age 30

• 5.0× at 40 • 8.6× at 50

• 13.6× at 60

• 14.4× at 70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.

Other scientists were saying that the US would lose no more than we lose during an average flu season, in more than one estimate.

Do you think it's fair to cherry pick that estimate and then proclaim that COVID is more dangerous than we've been led to believe?

At any rate, why cite outdated estimates at all? Why not just look at the current numbers. 1000 extra people a day are dying year-over-year. Is that not dangerous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

57 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Scientists were saying the US could lose 2.2 million people to COVID in one estimate.

 

I am sure you must be aware that the 2.2 million figure was the absolute worst case scenario, and a situation in which the government did absolutely nothing to fight this pandemic and the public did not wear masks or do social distancing - in other words business as usual for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, squistion said:

I am sure you must be aware that the 2.2 million figure was the absolute worst case scenario, and a situation in which the government did absolutely nothing to fight this pandemic and the public did not wear masks or do social distancing - in other words business as usual for everyone.

This is true.  The 2.2 million deaths was only if NO ONE WORE MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCED, or SANITIZED.  Trump didn't "save millions".  He contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths because of his lack of response and continued downplaying of the virus.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The pandemic is not as bad as was predicted by people I don't respect anyway" has got to be the most disingenuous argument, ever.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a prediction that the 15 cases we had were under control and we'd be through it in a week

We could cite stupid for days on this

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

There was also a prediction that the 15 cases we had were under control and we'd be through it in a week

We could cite stupid for days on this

Like where people are uncapable of reading how dangerous something is and don't make smart choices until President Trump tells them to do something?  Because that's where those blaming him for hundreds of thousands of death are going.  I feel bad that people aren't intelligent enough to do anything without Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.