Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

[JessFR]

As an example from a quick Google, published a week ago, before the election.

How to spot a red or blue ‘mirage’ on Election Night

A red mirage is expected in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and a shift the other direction in Florida and North Carolina.

www.mercurynews.com

Likely shift from red to blue

Some people call this the “red mirage” or the “blue shift,” where early results favor Trump but later ballots even things out and might even put Biden ahead once all the results are tallied.

This dynamic is expected in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where they don’t process absentee ballots before Election Day. Early waves of results will likely come from ballots cast on Election Day and from outside the state’s population centers, which are expected to favor Trump.

Or from over a month ago.

An Election Night ‘Red Mirage’ Is a Nightmare for Democrats

Evidence grows that thanks to big partisan splits in voting methods, Trump may have an Election Night lead even if mail ballots doom him to defeat.

nymag.com

Since, for the most part, Election Day in-person ballots will be counted before mail ballots, Trump and other Republicans may assume an early lead on Election Night that will inevitably be reduced and in many cases erased as mail ballots drift in. Trump being Trump, it doesn’t take much imagination to envision him claiming victory on Election Night and then attacking subsequent Democratic-leaning mail ballots as fraudulent.

Oh its such a strange phenomenon who could have guessed? 8(

Oh that's right, Sanders also guessed all of this week's ago too.



@birdup.snaildown
How do you expect me not to be rude to trump fanatics when they so transparently set things up to try and cast doubt on the election, then do EXACTLY what everyone expected them to do. Then actually claim they're the ones being cheated?

The audacity of it all, the total disrespect for the country they claim to support. The two faced dishonesty of it. Way I see it the people who are engaging in it deserve very little respect.

Maybe I should be bigger than that anyway, to not stoop to rudeness, but I'm only human. My tolerance and patience is finite.

 

[JessFR]

I don't hate people for voting trump, I don't hate people who are right wing. In fact there are people in both camps I can respect. What I hate is this kind of total in your face dishonesty trumps diehard supporters engage in, as well as trump himself.

The kind of behavior that is akin to calmly and methodically planning in front of you how to steal your car, then telling you to your face that it was their car to start with and that you are actually trying to steal it from them by saying it was ever yours!

It's so over the top and shameful that just insinuating that they're an asshole is already exercising near super human patience.

That's what dealing with these people are like.

 

[cduggles]

There seems to be an impression that not liking Trump equates to being liberal/left/Democrat. This idea is mistaken.
A number of prominent conservatives can’t stand Trump. From George Will to Bill Kristol to George Conway, the well-funded Lincoln Project (which Conway was a part of) to Republican Voters Against Trump (which Kristol was a part of), there are any number of people/groups with unquestionable conservative/right/Republican bona fides who clearly wanted Trump out of office. I’m amazed at how organized this movement within the party was against Trump.
In other words, not liking Trump doesn’t say anything about one’s political orientation.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

How do you expect me not to be rude to trump fanatics... I hate this kind of total in your face dishonesty trumps diehard supports engage in

I don't expect anything of you, but there's no way to justify hate or being rude to people. You're just pushing them further down a path you disapprove of.

There seems to be an impression that not liking Trump equates to being liberal/left/Democrat. This idea is mistaken.

Who in this thread gave you that idea?

 

[dalpat077]

The clip didn't influence you but rather it influenced you?



There is no phenomenon. You are being manipulated by right wing media.

I wasn't sure whether to give your post a "Heart" or that "Ha Ha" smiley so I gave it an in-between!

I don't have a definitive answer to either. Put another way: even this thread (as well as the other one that is chugging away on the same topic) can influence. It's damn hard nowadays (for me anyway) because everyone makes their own, and dare I say pretty good, points and observations. And obviously one is going to be influenced by, or make it that much easier to side with, those who share a similar opinion or bias. I guess this is where it comes down to stating what you as a person stand for or believe in and exclude any and all other information provided no matter from where it comes and limit yourself only to facts and statistics (as opposed to opinion and bias).

And I'm probably posting myself into a corner here too! We shall see!

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I guess this is where it comes down to stating what you as a person stand for or believe in and exclude any and all other information provided no matter from where it comes and limit yourself only to facts and statistics (as opposed to opinion and bias).

I always do my own research, because misinformation is contagious and I've discovered over the decades that most people are wrong about everything. I encourage everyone to do the same. Don't take for granted that left or right wing media is telling you the truth. Always begin with the assumption that something is incorrect. It can be exhausting applying this to everything, but it's more rewarding in the end than being a pawn in a long chain of politically manipulated chess pieces.

Having said all that, I do listen to people's opinions and consider them. You can tell (to some extent at least) if people are thinking for themselves by having a brief discussion. Most of the time people will hit walls and not be able to explain their reasoning in the same way you did with the fraud comments. This is a dead give away. If someone cannot explain why they believe something, they are not thinking independently but rather adopting the opinions of others...

 

[dalpat077]

There seems to be an impression that not liking Trump equates to being liberal/left/Democrat. This idea is mistaken.
A number of prominent conservatives can’t stand Trump. From George Will to Bill Kristol to George Conway, the well-funded Lincoln Project (which Conway was a part of) to Republican Voters Against Trump (which Kristol was a part of), there are any number of people/groups with unquestionable conservative/right/Republican bona fides who clearly wanted Trump out of office. I’m amazed at how organized this movement within the party was against Trump.
In other words, not liking Trump doesn’t say anything about one’s political orientation.

For once you and I agree on something!

For now let's assume I'm wrong and there is no phenomenon at all and that the entire election is free and fair and the people have spoken. I'll concede that's possible and that I'm mistaken and just naturally suspicious given my own experiences.

But what does one do in a situation such as this? Given that I publicly nailed my colors to America (on one of my other threads at some point) I figure it's at least acceptable for me to give an opinion.

I personally don't like Trump as a person for many reasons. So I'm not a Trump fan at all. But it's a sad state of affairs when the Democrats (which in my book equate to Liberals and Globalists) win and the GOP lose and there's no way of separating the two (Party from President) (unless there's some trick in the book that I'm not aware of) (aside from the number of seats in the House and the Senate and which is controlled by which party) (and of course the ever present Electoral Commission). And it sadly reminds me of the 2016 elections. If you cast your mind back: people voted for Trump figuring he was the lesser of two evils at the time (reminds me of a quote by "Mitch" in the movie "Waiting" i.e. "So you're the coolest guy at ShenaniganZ, big fucking deal! That's like being the smartest person with Down Syndrome!") (funny and good movie for those who have not seen it by the way).

What I would like to know is if these election results are going to be statistically analyzed by the numbers and in particular by race and ethnicity. Does that happen (serious question i.e. I've not spent enough time on this looking around for such historical data if it exists)?

While I may have stayed out here I've not been simply sitting on my hands but have been looking at a lot of census and statistical data for the USA. Makes for some rather interesting reading. And given the trend of such statistical data and future projections: I'm actually not that surprised at how this seems to be turning out.

 

[dalpat077]

I always do my own research, because misinformation is contagious and I've discovered over the decades that most people are wrong about everything. I encourage everyone to do the same. Don't take for granted that left or right wing media is telling you the truth. Always begin with the assumption that something is incorrect. It can be exhausting applying this to everything, but it's more rewarding in the end than being a pawn in a long chain of politically manipulated chess pieces.

Having said all that, I do listen to people's opinions and consider them. You can tell (to some extent at least) if people are thinking for themselves by having a brief discussion. Most of the time people will hit walls and not be able to explain their reasoning in the same way you did with the fraud comments. This is a dead give away. If someone cannot explain why they believe something, they are not thinking independently but rather adopting the opinions of others...

Alright well this post of yours is well deserving of a "Heart" (as given)!

 

[birdup.snaildown]

What I would like to know is if these election results are going to be statistically analyzed by the numbers and in particular by race and ethnicity. Does that happen (serious question i.e. I've not spent enough time on this looking around for such historical data if it exists)?

Yes, this type of information exists. Pre-election polls are broken down into various demographics and electoral data is also published (post-election) and is broken down by age / race / income / etc.

I'll concede that's possible and that I'm mistaken and just naturally suspicious given my own experiences.

Does your suspicious nature not also extend to those claiming fraud? Because, it should.

 

[JessFR]

I don't expect anything of you, but there's no way to justify hate or being rude to people. You're just pushing them further down a path you disapprove of.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps it's not justified. But I'd say it's very understandable.

I'm human, and it's not especially reasonable to expect humans to have limitless patience.

 

[dalpat077]

Does your suspicious nature not also extend to those claiming fraud? Because, it should.

It does actually (to a point I'm guessing anyway). Trump's antics of the last few days have left much to be desired and certainly unbecoming of a POTUS. As for the media: they can all go fuck themselves. I got caught out bad by our own media and wannabe YouTube celebrity journalists (that live in hope that some network is going to pickup on their bullshit and offer them a job). Lesson learned the hard way!

I guess that clip I posted really was of interest because there were figures that were being quoted (and which I assume could have been substantiated at the time). In other words: his personal opinion or bias was (should have been) irrelevant. But the so-called phenomenon to which I referred has been adequately explained away here and who am I to argue let's face it. Personally it's the bigger picture that's of more interest to me if the truth be told.

You and I have never had the pleasure of conversing and you seem to know what you're talking about so maybe you can put my mind at ease on the below.

As I said: I reckon I'm pretty well versed on the American political system as a whole but I've never really bothered with the mechanics of voting and just assumed that because it's America well there could be no problem and all has been worked out nice. And I suppose, to be honest, this is the first time I've been that interested in all of this i.e. it's the first time I've been really interested in the "nuts and bolts" as it were.

From what I gather: the signature on these mail in ballots is scanned and compared to previous signatures on file (whether it be past elections or the DMV or whatever other database is accessible and contains the voter's signature). One alarm bell for me is that I know for a fact that my signature differs constantly i.e. it's never identical (other than in terms of broad strokes). How intelligent are these machines? Or, and as I saw on one or two videos, sometimes it's left up to the people counting the vote to compare signatures. I mean: how accurate is this method/are these methods to begin with? And I have to make the assumption that once a ballot paper and signature has been matched then any subsequent ballot paper received with a VERY similar signature is thrown out or rejected? Serious questions these i.e. I'm asking because I don't know not because I'm trying to make a point (although the answers to these questions would obviously lead to a point).

One thing that did surprise me on this though: there's obviously no way that voting can be anonymous surely? Again: a real question i.e. not me taking the mickey.

 

[JessFR]

Every state has its own system. Since by and large every state runs its own independent election.

So I would suggest that a lot of these questions would perhaps be best answered by specifically looking into the process state by state.

You can seem to find each states rules and procedures easily enough when I've tried.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I don't expect anything of you, but there's no way to justify hate or being rude to people. You're just pushing them further down a path you disapprove of.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps it's not justified. But I'd say it's very understandable.

I'm human, and it's not especially reasonable to expect humans to have limitless patience.

That sounds an awful lot like justification to me

As I said, I don't expect anything of you.

We're all human. (I hope?)

 

[w01fg4ng]

 

[w01fg4ng]

If there's anyone to blame, it's the 1 percent.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

It does actually (to a point I'm guessing anyway). Trump's antics of the last few days have left much to be desired and certainly unbecoming of a POTUS. As for the media: they can all go fuck themselves. I got caught out bad by our own media and wannabe YouTube celebrity journalists (that live in hope that some network is going to pickup on their bullshit and offer them a job). Lesson learned the hard way!

I guess that clip I posted really was of interest because there were figures that were being quoted (and which I assume could have been substantiated at the time). In other words: his personal opinion or bias was (should have been) irrelevant. But the so-called phenomenon to which I referred has been adequately explained away here and who am I to argue let's face it. Personally it's the bigger picture that's of more interest to me if the truth be told.

You and I have never had the pleasure of conversing and you seem to know what you're talking about so maybe you can put my mind at ease on the below.

As I said: I reckon I'm pretty well versed on the American political system as a whole but I've never really bothered with the mechanics of voting and just assumed that because it's America well there could be no problem and all has been worked out nice. And I suppose, to be honest, this is the first time I've been that interested in all of this i.e. it's the first time I've been really interested in the "nuts and bolts" as it were.

From what I gather: the signature on these mail in ballots is scanned and compared to previous signatures on file (whether it be past elections or the DMV or whatever other database is accessible and contains the voter's signature). One alarm bell for me is that I know for a fact that my signature differs constantly i.e. it's never identical (other than in terms of broad strokes). How intelligent are these machines? Or, and as I saw on one or two videos, sometimes it's left up to the people counting the vote to compare signatures. I mean: how accurate is this method/are these methods to begin with? And I have to make the assumption that once a ballot paper and signature has been matched then any subsequent ballot paper received with a VERY similar signature is thrown out or rejected? Serious questions these i.e. I'm asking because I don't know not because I'm trying to make a point (although the answers to these questions would obviously lead to a point).

One thing that did surprise me on this though: there's obviously no way that voting can be anonymous surely? Again: a real question i.e. not me taking the mickey.

A.) I seriously doubt anybody here has the motivation/patience to dissect the electoral process at length with you.

2.) You are now arguing that all mail-in ballots across the world are fraudulent.

C.) You need to ask yourself why you are so suspicious of this particular election. You appear to be searching for a reason to justify your suspicions.

IV.) As @JessFR said, Google is your friend.

 

[andyturbo]

biden used the Chinese and russians to give a plan to fraud to the election its very obvious. Good luck america having a Chinese puppet. Trump is not out of the race yet its very very close and all these fraud votes are making biden win.

If you can show us ANY form of evidence to these claims I will gladly take it on bored with my unbiased fact-based opinion.

Untill then ALL Trump fans need to stop talking shit that is based on words and only words that have come out of the same mouth that has spilled more lies day after day the last 4 years than any other recent president.

If your going to make extreme accusations against the integrity of your democratic voting system YOU NEED TOO BRING EVIDENCE to validate such claims.

Untill then be mature enough to accept defeat gracefully if it happens.

 

[dalpat077]

A.) I seriously doubt anybody here has the motivation/patience to dissect the electoral process at length with you.

2.) You are now arguing that all mail-in ballots across the world are fraudulent.

C.) You need to ask yourself why you are so suspicious of this particular election. You appear to be searching for a reason to justify your suspicions.

IV.) As @JessFR said, Google is your friend.

Fair enough. Probably the wrong thread and too late anyways.

As for Google being your friend? Not too sure about that (speaking about bias). But again: fair enough and point taken.

For the record: I only realized after asking my questions that the answer as to whether or not statistics are provided after the fact and whether or not the voting is anonymous are mutually exclusive of each other. You cannot produce accurate statistics from anonymous ballots. So there's that.

Anyway. Have a wonderful day.

Let's see what happens and how this turns out. I think the aftermath of the result is going to be far more interesting than what's gone before.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

If mail in ballots were anonymous, there would be election fraud. Think about it.

Have a wonderful day.

You too, bro.

 

[BK38]

Hey look! Evidence of attempted (not successful) electoral fraud! Guess who was attempting to do so? Here's a hint: It wasn't coming from the left! https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/07/us/pennsylvania-convention-center-arrests/index.html