What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done (1 Viewer)

timschochet said:
but I proposed an alternative: for the purposes of Senate and Presidential elections make their vote part of Virginia- that way they would effectively have a Senator and impact on the electoral college without being an actual state. 
Click to expand...
Why Virginia?  I would think that you would shift this to Maryland since only the Maryland contribution for DC was actually used because of your enjoyment of history.  I would not think that you would be thinking in strategic terms of pushing Virginia more into the blue (with Maryland pretty much solid blue already).   The only other consideration I could think of is that you think DC is more similar to its Virginia suburbs than the Maryland counterparts.  For this I'd think it depends one where in DC (and the suburbs) one goes and I could very well have a skewed perspective that the Virginia side is just too new (again perspective) to be representative.

ETA:  And you left this at the federal level so I ignored (and still am) where the DC vote might have the most impact on the state level.  For federal level I think the "strategic" piece deals with where the DC vote would have the most impact in making VA bluer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DC already gets 3 votes in the electoral college as if they were a state, so I'm not sure why we'd have to add them into Virginia or Maryland for the presidential election.  As far as them needing more representation, isn't the DC area now the richest region in the US, and also where Congress for the most part lives?  They're doing just fine.  I'd be fine with Puerto Rico if that's what the island as a whole wants, although I thought polling on the issue was mixed.

 
Dr_Zaius said:
DC already gets 3 votes in the electoral college as if they were a state, so I'm not sure why we'd have to add them into Virginia or Maryland for the presidential election.  As far as them needing more representation, isn't the DC area now the richest region in the US, and also where Congress for the most part lives?  They're doing just fine.  I'd be fine with Puerto Rico if that's what the island as a whole wants, although I thought polling on the issue was mixed.
Click to expand...
I believe its about representation in congress...which I don't believe they have in DC.

 
sho nuff said:
I believe its about representation in congress...which I don't believe they have in DC.
Click to expand...
Right, but my point was that in addition to the very real representation they get in the presidential race, they have de facto representation by being where Congress spends all of its time.  It's not like they want to work in a hellscape.

 
Dr_Zaius said:
Right, but my point was that in addition to the very real representation they get in the presidential race, they have de facto representation by being where Congress spends all of its time.  It's not like they want to work in a hellscape.
Click to expand...
Where they spend their time...vs actual elected representatives.  I think that is a big distinction.  Having representation in one branch...but none in the legislative (and by that same token...none in the judicial as the senate confirms them)...I think its a situation that needs to be remedied in some way.  Statehood?  No, I would not really think that is necessary...but yeah, they should have votes included in a state when it comes to such things.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think despite everything, Trump would have probably won reelection if he had handled the pandemic competently.  Granted he was never going to do that because the guy just isn't wired that way, which partially explains why his administration was such a train wreck up to the covid outbreak.  But regardless this was an opportunity for Trump to score some wins fairly easily, and he blew it.
Click to expand...
I think it really has more to do with the economy (stupid) - the pandemic was just the mechanism for people to get killed financially. 

I do think it would have been super close though - I think instead of Biden having almost all the paths to victory as it appears he does today, they would have been about equal.  OH, GA, TX, FL would all have stayed Red fairly comfortably.  I do think MN, WI and MI probably go back blue.  But then the deciding states would have been AZ, NC, PA - kind of what we are thinking now but probably with Trump ahead now instead of behind on those 3.

 
My gut tells me the polls are wrong by about 3-4 points. They’re under sampling suburban women. Joe Biden is going to win by bigger margins than is currently projected. 
 

Just a hunch. I’ll be ecstatic with ANY kind of victory next week no matter how tight...but I’m thinking blowout. 

 
timschochet said:
My gut tells me the polls are wrong by about 3-4 points. They’re under sampling suburban women. Joe Biden is going to win by bigger margins than is currently projected. 
 

Just a hunch. I’ll be ecstatic with ANY kind of victory next week no matter how tight...but I’m thinking blowout. 
Click to expand...
I agree.  This won't be close.  There just isn't the same amount of undecided's this time around.  Even if Trump got 2/3's of the undecided vote right now, it still wouldn't be enough.

 
timschochet said:
My gut tells me the polls are wrong by about 3-4 points. They’re under sampling suburban women. Joe Biden is going to win by bigger margins than is currently projected. 
 

Just a hunch. I’ll be ecstatic with ANY kind of victory next week no matter how tight...but I’m thinking blowout. 
Click to expand...
Timschochet gooch mode going into hyperdrive here. ;)

 
dkp993 said:
Where are you seeing this? 
Click to expand...
Trafalgar which was the most accurate pollster in battleground states in 2016 has:

FL: Trump +3

PA: Tie

NC: Trump +3

MI: Trump +2

OH: Trump +4

AZ: Trump +4

If those polls are accurate, Trump should get around 288 electoral votes.

EDIT: If those polls are accurate and Trump picks up ME2, he could lose PA and end up with 269 electoral votes and then win on a House vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles said:
Trafalgar which was the most accurate pollster in battleground states in 2016 has:

FL: Trump +3

PA: Tie

NC: Trump +3

MI: Trump +2

OH: Trump +4

AZ: Trump +4

If those polls are accurate, Trump should get around 288 electoral votes.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.  So 1 handpicked poll. Thanks

* for the record I’m not trying to play gotcha I’m just trying to understand, I’ve stated here many times I think Trump probably wins, and in the last week I’ve flip-flopped between the two honestly. I think this is a very very close election. So I ask a question because I don’t understand where peoples confidence is coming from, on either side, about their candidate winning. 

 
dkp993 said:
Gotcha.  So 1 handpicked poll. Thanks

* for the record I’m not trying to play gotcha I’m just trying to understand, I’ve stated here many times I think Trump probably wins, and in the last week I’ve flip-flopped between the two honestly. I think this is a very very close election. So I ask a question because I don’t understand where peoples confidence is coming from, on either side, about their candidate winning. 
Click to expand...
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.  

 
timschochet said:
My gut tells me the polls are wrong by about 3-4 points. They’re under sampling suburban women. Joe Biden is going to win by bigger margins than is currently projected. 
 

Just a hunch. I’ll be ecstatic with ANY kind of victory next week no matter how tight...but I’m thinking blowout. 
Click to expand...
I do think the polls have significant problems--as we saw in 2016.  But I don't think it's an issue of Suburban women.  One poll has Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin.  But the Dems are still going there.  I don't see the suburban women showing up and Biden winning the state by 20 points.  

I think there's a very realistic chance where New York, California, etc show up in droves.  Biden wins the popular vote by an impressive margin, and still loses the election.  

 
timschochet said:
After the election, we are going to be confronted by a story which we will be asked to believe, perhaps for the rest of our lives. Here is the story: 

If not for the pandemic Trunp would have won easily. 

A whole lot of people believe this already and pretty soon everyone is going to believe it. Except that there no evidence to support it. In January of 2020 Trump’s approval rating was underwater just as it had been his entire Presidency. He had just been impeached with the approval of the majority of Americans, who also demanded that the Senate trial include witnesses; this demand was ignored by Senate Republicans. As seen in 2018, Trump had already lost the support of suburban housewives. In head to head matchups he was losing to most of the Democratic candidates. My own position was that, so long as it wasn’t Bernie Sanders, Trump would lose because the public was exhausted with him. 
Covid has made things far worse for Trump because it exposed his incompetence and hurt the economy. But he would have lost anyhow. 
Click to expand...
too bad we will never know

Trump is still going to win

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

Communist China control over Joe Biden does not inspire confidence, even in those that may hate Trump

 
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.  
Click to expand...
No doubt.  I said a few days ago, maybe here but maybe in the polling thread, that I think Trump gets crushed in the popular vote (lose by 6/7mil) and squeaks out an EC win.  This got picked apart about how it’s not possible according to some, but I can’t seem to shake that feeling.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
* for the record I’m not trying to play gotcha I’m just trying to understand, I’ve stated here many times I think Trump probably wins, and in the last week I’ve flip-flopped between the two honestly. I think this is a very very close election. So I ask a question because I don’t understand where peoples confidence is coming from, on either side, about their candidate winning. 
Click to expand...
I've gone back and forth as well.  Before the pandemic I thought Trump would probably eke out a win despite his low approval rating.  The polling makes me tend to think Biden will win, as I generally think that declaring vast amounts of polling invalid is just whistling past the graveyard.  On the other hand, there seems to be way more spread in the polls than normal (suggesting more uncertainty), and as much as people dismiss the "shy Trump" argument, if there was ever an environment where such an argument is plausible I think this is it.

The other thing that gives me pause is the enthusiasm factor.  2008, 2012, and 2016 all broke for the candidate who had more enthusiastic voters.  The Biden voters are enthusiastic about voting out Trump, but does that have the same predictive value (genuinely asking)?  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. 

 
Obie Wan said:
too bad we will never know

Trump is still going to win

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

Communist China control over Joe Biden does not inspire confidence, even in those that may hate Trump
Click to expand...
I heard one talking head say Trump may get 20% of the black vote in this election.  That sounds crazy.  I think he may get 10-12%, that should be enough to win the election.  He gets 20% and the Republicans might be able to court pack if they want to.

 
dkp993 said:
No doubt.  I said a few days ago, maybe here but maybe in the polling thread, that I think Trump gets crushed in the popular vote (lose by 6/7mil) and squeaks out an EC win.  This got picked apart about how it’s not possible according to some, but I can’t seems to shake that feeling.  
Click to expand...
I can see it.  He lost CA and NY by 6M votes in 2016.  He could lose those by 15M in 2020.  It doesn't matter, it's only 2 states.  

 
Dr_Zaius said:
I've gone back and forth as well.  Before the pandemic I thought Trump would probably eke out a win despite his low approval rating.  The polling makes me tend to think Biden will win, as I generally think that declaring vast amounts of polling invalid is just whistling past the graveyard.  On the other hand, there seems to be way more spread in the polls than normal (suggesting more uncertainty), and as much as people dismiss the "shy Trump" argument, if there was ever an environment where such an argument is plausible I think this is it.

The other thing that gives me pause is the enthusiasm factor.  2008, 2012, and 2016 all broke for the candidate who had more enthusiastic voters.  The Biden voters are enthusiastic about voting out Trump, but does that have the same predictive value (genuinely asking)?  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. 
Click to expand...
The great unknown is mail-in voting.  It could diminish the value of having enthusiasm...we'll find out.

 
Snotbubbles said:
I can see it.  He lost CA and NY by 6M votes in 2016.  He could lose those by 15M in 2020.  It doesn't matter, it's only 2 states.  
Click to expand...
due to the insanity of Cuomo and deBlasio, NY is in play

Many R's who did vote due to futilityu in 2016 will be engaged this time

Cross over from blacks and Latino's, especially in NYC, will push Trump to a win

Red wave is coming

 
Obie Wan said:
due to the insanity of Cuomo and deBlasio, NY is in play

Many R's who did vote due to futilityu in 2016 will be engaged this time

Cross over from blacks and Latino's, especially in NYC, will push Trump to a win

Red wave is coming
Click to expand...
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.

 
Obie Wan said:
due to the insanity of Cuomo and deBlasio, NY is in play

Many R's who did vote due to futilityu in 2016 will be engaged this time

Cross over from blacks and Latino's, especially in NYC, will push Trump to a win

Red wave is coming
Click to expand...
Love your optimism, but Trump is not winning NY.  

 
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.  
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 
Click to expand...
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

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think this is pretty much every election. It definitely was in 2016.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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).

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

 
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! 

 
dkp993 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.  
Click to expand...
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!!

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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? 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
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? 
Click to expand...
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.  

 
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.  
Click to expand...
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. 

 
dkp993 said:
Thanks. Didn’t see that thread.  This one is pretty active right now so assumed it would get some eyes.  
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

glvsav37
Hulu and the Political Ads Issue
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
T J
Is Trump in the wrong if he actually believes the election was stolen?
2 3
Replies
110
Views
3K
Prinefan
P
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top