Are Republicans going to be surprised when Biden/Harris win decisively?

[wmLambert]

On the contrary, Biden is proved corrupt by that undisputed truthful laptop info. You cannot deny it by saying the deceived are oblivious to it. If you haven't noticed, the Biden camp has not denied the laptop is Hunter's.

You have an interesting definition of "undisputed."

You are  right, Let's agree to call it "proven." There is no legal dispute of any kind - only attempts to deceive a lá Adam Schiff.

[msquared]

Proven to what standard?  Legal?  Well that is not true since no charges have been brought, no arrests have been made, no trials. May want to hold off on using terms that do not apply.

[wmLambert]

Proven to what standard?  Legal?  Well that is not true since no charges have been brought, no arrests have been made, no trials. May want to hold off on using terms that do not apply.

Yes, legal standards. The chain of evidence on the hard drives are confirmed, so they are legally admissible as hard evidence. Tony Bobulinski gave sworn testimony which is also legal evidence that Joe Biden did meet with the eMailers, which proves Biden lied about his relationship with Hunter's business dealings. These are the starting points and the end points. There is no getting around them, except for Adam Schiff's strategy of outright lies in order to disinform. Since his own Intel providers have denied his statements, there is no there there.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, for there to be legal proceeding, some sort of crime would have had to occur.

What crime is it that either Biden is supposed to have committed?

[yossarian22c]

Of course, for there to be legal proceeding, some sort of crime would have had to occur.

What crime is it that either Biden is supposed to have committed?

The 2017 deal would be after Biden left office. And Biden has been explicit that no meeting took place in 2015. So unless the deal went through and Biden didn't report it on his taxes there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a crime. Just emails (assuming they are genuine) about potential business deals.

[msquared]

Well no, just because it is admissible does not mean it proves anything.  Until there is a trial and a conviction it is just evidence that only one side has had a chance to look at.  You sure want to jump to conviction with out any of the normal middle steps.  We might as well just round Biden and Clinton and Obama and just toss them in jail with no other due process.

[wmLambert]

Of course, for there to be legal proceeding, some sort of crime would have had to occur.

What crime is it that either Biden is supposed to have committed?

The 2017 deal would be after Biden left office. And Biden has been explicit that no meeting took place in 2015. So unless the deal went through and Biden didn't report it on his taxes there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a crime. Just emails (assuming they are genuine) about potential business deals.

The crime can be simply the quid pro quo from Joe to fire the prosecutor investigating his son who was giving him a cut of the graft. There are half a hundred rules against enriching oneself and ones' family by abuse of power. How can you pretend no crimes were committed? BTW, the Emails have been verified from both sides. The FBI is now tracking the actual funds as they moved through the system. Joe could save everyone a lot of effort by admitting his crimes and apologizing.

[yossarian22c]

Of course, for there to be legal proceeding, some sort of crime would have had to occur.

What crime is it that either Biden is supposed to have committed?

The 2017 deal would be after Biden left office. And Biden has been explicit that no meeting took place in 2015. So unless the deal went through and Biden didn't report it on his taxes there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a crime. Just emails (assuming they are genuine) about potential business deals.

The crime can be simply the quid pro quo from Joe to fire the prosecutor investigating his son who was giving him a cut of the graft.

The emails show nothing of the kind.

[TheDrake]

As has been pointed out a nauseating amount of times, every nation in the Western world wanted that guy fired. The prosecutor was corrupt. It would have been far easier to bribe him directly than set up some convoluted scheme.

[msquared]

George Soros likes a complicated scheme.

[wmLambert]

As has been pointed out a nauseating amount of times, every nation in the Western world wanted that guy fired. The prosecutor was corrupt. It would have been far easier to bribe him directly than set up some convoluted scheme.

On the contrary. The prosecutor who replaced him was known to be crooked. Please explain how Biden had any authority to do what he did.

Biden has admitted on videotape he forced then-Ukraine President Poroshenko to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. But Biden has steadfastly denied Shokin’s firing was due to the Burisma case. Instead, Biden said, he and other Western leaders believed Shokin was ineffective as a corruption fighter.

Shokin, however, has alleged in a court affidavit he was told he was fired because he refused to stand down his investigation of alleged corruption by Burisma and after he planned to call Hunter Biden as a witness to question him about millions of dollars in payments his American firm received from the Ukraine gas company.

Shokin has also disputed Democrats' claims he was fired because he was incompetent or corrupt, producing among other pieces of evidence a letter from the U.S. State Department in summer 2015 that praised his anti-corruption plan as Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

[Wayward Son]

As has been pointed out a nauseating amount of times, every nation in the Western world wanted that guy fired. The prosecutor was corrupt. It would have been far easier to bribe him directly than set up some convoluted scheme.

On the contrary. The prosecutor who replaced him was known to be crooked. Please explain how Biden had any authority to do what he did.

Biden has admitted on videotape he forced then-Ukraine President Poroshenko to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. But Biden has steadfastly denied Shokin’s firing was due to the Burisma case. Instead, Biden said, he and other Western leaders believed Shokin was ineffective as a corruption fighter.

Shokin, however, has alleged in a court affidavit he was told he was fired because he refused to stand down his investigation of alleged corruption by Burisma and after he planned to call Hunter Biden as a witness to question him about millions of dollars in payments his American firm received from the Ukraine gas company.

Shokin has also disputed Democrats' claims he was fired because he was incompetent or corrupt, producing among other pieces of evidence a letter from the U.S. State Department in summer 2015 that praised his anti-corruption plan as Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

OMG!  You mean the guy that almost every Western nation wanted out because he was corrupt proved them all wrong, simply by filing a court affidavit!  And proved he wasn't corrupt by displaying an old letter from the State Department about his plan to fight corruption!  In one fell stroke of the pen, he disproved half of Europe!  Amazing! 

[DonaldD]

At the risk of feeding it: The Irish Times (2016): EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

It also seems like The Independent also agrees: Viktor Shokin: The inside story on Ukraine’s ‘very good’ prosecutor at centre of Trump scandal

The Financial Times, maybe? Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden

[TheDeamon]

Is it your contention that polling companies are unaware of voter affiliation, or that they are unaware of how voter affiliation has changed and do not take voter affiliation into consideration?  Because ascertaining voter affiliation is a part of almost every single poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/23/electoral-map-is-very-weird-right-now/

You will be unsurprised to learn that, according to a poll released on Friday by the New York Times and Siena College, President Trump leads former vice president Joe Biden in Montana. Montana is almost definitionally red, part of the phalanx of Republican states that’s draped over the western Plains and Rocky Mountains.

You might be surprised, though, to learn the margin of Trump’s lead. It’s only seven points, which, if that margin were to hold until Election Day, would represent a 13-point swing away from Trump relative to his 2016 support.

...

This is one poll, of course. By now you’re likely savvy enough to know that its generally more useful to consider polling averages than individual polls. We took the most recent (as of writing) averages in each state, as compiled by FiveThirtyEight, and ordered the states by the current polling margin.

The results are striking.

...

But it doesn’t get less weird. Georgia, Iowa and Ohio — which Trump won in 2016 by five, nine and eight points, respectively — are the next three closest states. What’s more, Biden leads in the first two.

Notice where Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin land. In 2016, Trump’s narrow wins in those three states earned him the presidency. Now, Biden leads by at least six points in each. Arizona is closer than any of those three states. Alaska is closer.

We highlighted a particularly odd stretch of margins. South Carolina is closer than Michigan? Michigan is closer than Montana? Nebraska is closer than Minnesota? What is happening here?

What's funny is the author notes the irregularities, but decides to run with people have actually abandoned Trump in huge numbers everywhere, and doesn't consider the possibility that in an era where have have telephone scammers call them from phone numbers where Caller ID claims to the Federal Government numbers, wal-mart, and numerous other official widely known organizations... Would somehow be inclined to magically trust someone who cold-calls them and asks them who they're voting for, when one of the candidates has a large and (informally) organized group of people violently opposed to him.

Also where lawyers and paralegals are getting arrested in BLM riots(even trying to throw molotov's into occupied police cars), so in that vein "professional looking people" doing in-person polling can be viewed with deep and sincere suspicion too.

In which case, they may very well be dealing with voters lying to pollsters at rates sufficient to swing the poll numbers up to 10 points away from what the election results could be. (A 13 point swing in Montana? Really? Possible, Trump is repugnant, but that was a known factor for many voters in 2016)

We shall see come election day, I'm not holding my breath, but I'm certainly considering the possibility of laughing my ass off on election night if Trump "landslides" in states that Biden was supposed to carry.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/23/927181809/man-arrested-in-n-c-had-plan-to-kill-joe-biden-feds-say

When officers arrived, they looked into the van's windows and saw an array of items: an AR-15 rifle, the box for a handgun, a canister of explosive material, and a box of ammunition, according to a court document. Police say they towed and searched the van, finding more than $500,000 in cash, drawings of swastikas and planes crashing into buildings, books on survival and bomb-making, and a half-dozen firearms.

...

Now the man has been indicted by a federal grand jury on child pornography charges. And federal agents presented evidence indicating Treisman had a fascination with mass shootings and terrorist attacks — and had plotted to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

First glance puts this guy in the crazy category, not politically aligned with either side per say. But he clearly had it out for Biden, not Trump. For all the talk on the right about violence from the left it’s plots against democratic politicians we’re seeing.

Also where the hell does a loser 19 year old get $500,000? The article doesn’t come back to that detail.

[TheDeamon]

I'd guess the half-million dollars will likely lead to answers about the rest.

Also I'd be wary on early initial reporting. Could still be "false flag" (knowing that having Nazi paraphernalia at hand would immediately point people towards the right-wing) but I'm more inclined to think it's a crazy nutcase. The half-million is really bizarre though.

[DonaldD]

It looks like the White House has settled on a strategy of allowing the pandemic to rip through the population, shutting down borders with the rest of the world and hobbling the economy until the middle of next year:

Washington (CNN)White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Sunday that the US is "not going to control" the coronavirus pandemic, as cases surge across the country and nearly 225,000 Americans have died from the virus.

"We are not going to control the pandemic. We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation areas," Meadows told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

Whether this is a winning strategy remains to be seen.

[TheDeamon]

Whether its a winning strategy or not, it's probably the only one that doesn't tear the country apart. Or are you not seeing the reports about Lockdown riots starting to appear in a lot of the western world?

Not even the European Safety Net is enough to get people to comply at this stage.

[DonaldD]

Mask wearing is the number one failing of the USA right now.  It should be feasible for the president to convince large numbers of his followers to do so (as that is primarily where the resistance of masks is centred).

It was just last week (or two weeks ago?) that the CDC stated that more than 100,000 lives could be saved between now and February by just taking that one step.

Not trying to take that step is, frankly, criminal.

[DonaldD]

It's the Sunday one week before election day, and a number of observations:

• Biden's current lead over Trump is 4% higher than Clinton's at the same point in 2016 (9.2% vs 5.2%)
• There are very few undecided voters in the polls this year, and the vote share of 3rd parties is also smaller than in 2016
• In 538's average, Biden's support hasn't dropped below 50% of likely voters since the beginning of August.
• Young people seem to be motivated to vote (voting early, at the very least) this year.  The percentage of young voters (18-29) having already cast their ballots increased from 7.0% of the total at this time in 2016, to 9.2% of the votes cast so far in 2020 - an increase of ~30%. 

[TheDeamon]

I'd just point out that practically every polling indicator traditionally used to help predict potential winners, except for "who are you voting for?", points to a Trump win.

Voter Registrations and party affiliation changes point to Trump.

A number of other prediction systems not linked to opinion polling also point to Trump.

The only other non-opinion based indicator that doesn't point to Trump would be in regards to the economy, except that's in the context of Covid19, and opinion polling showing people overwhelmingly thinking Trump is the better candidate in regards to the Economy.

Yet in the opinion polling when asked who they're voting for, they say "Biden."

So the opinion polling says one thing, but the underlying data says it actually is Trump. There is a very strong case to be made that people are lying about voting Biden in very large numbers.

Edit to add:
This also ignores the other matter that if some of the polling numbers being released are right, Biden is poised to win the election with numbers not seen since FDR won re-election in 1944, and that Trump would be seeing the worst numbers for a president up for re-election since Herbert Hoover in 1932, which is also the worst performance seen for an incumbent since reconstruction. Things are very fishy about what's going on with the opinion polling, either the pollsters are manipulating the results, or the people they're polling are lying in very large numbers.

[NobleHunter]

So do any of the traditional indicators include a raging pandemic the administration has spectacularly failed at managing?

The fishy thing could be the once-in-century (one hopes) crisis we're in the middle of.

[yossarian22c]

The fishy thing could be the once-in-century (one hopes) crisis we're in the middle of.

Combined with a hopefully once in a century jackass of a president.

[DonaldD]

The only other non-opinion based indicator that doesn't point to Trump would be in regards to the economy, except that's in the context of Covid19, and opinion polling showing people overwhelmingly thinking Trump is the better candidate in regards to the Economy.

Overwhelmingly? You're at least 2 months behind the times on that:

• Sept.1: Trump polling 49 percent on the economy and Biden 48 percent.
  
• Oct. 6: Trump's lead over Biden on the economy has vanished.
  
• Oct. 16: The Democratic nominee has raked in five times as much from the finance sector as the Republican President, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
  
• Oct. 21: Biden Pulls Ahead of Trump on Handling of Economy.

Other non-polling metrics are fundraising, where large numbers of small Democratic donations are simply swamping Republicans' - to the tune of Biden having 4 times the war chest as does Trump at this point.  That certainly talks to Democrats' motivation this year, and actual intent to vote; the youth vote, which is significantly higher in early voting and which tends to skew progressive; the state of the economy - presidents get saddled with the economy in place at the time of the election, and like it or not, the USA is in a recession, with truly awful unemployment numbers; and then there is COVID-19, which is flaring up at the most inopportune time for Trump, who is generally seen as weak on the pandemic.

Then there is Trump's schedule, where, instead of expanding the electoral map, Trump has been defending states that he won previously (some easily).

I have to wonder, though: what is the rationale for believing the polls are that far off?  Pollsters get paid to be correct: once they've lost the trust of the people buying their product, that's the end of their business.  Even if you assume that the same limitations are in place today as existed 4 years ago (although pollsters have corrected a number of issues with state level polling - specifically, weighting based on population density metrics, as well as level of education) Biden is still 4% ahead of Clinton, and there is no Comey letter bringing Biden down.  So even if (and this is a big "if") Biden's numbers soften to the same extent as did Clintons, he will still have a likely 6% margin in the national vote.  Not to mention that Biden has a favourability advantage over what Clinton had of more than 10%, whereas Trump's favourability hasn't really budged; Trump has a huge gap there.

[wmLambert]

...what is the rationale for believing the polls are that far off?  Pollsters get paid to be correct: once they've lost the trust of the people buying their product, that's the end of their business.

The study of demographics is one thing. Selling political advice to buyers is another. Pollsters don't need to be accurate until right before an election, because they will just claim their earlier findings has recently changed. For very Machiavellian reasons, Pollsters get hired when their findings reinforce what their buyers want to hear. Each party has favorite pollsters. ...And they often disagree until election day, and then they fight to be "most relevant." Some have better records than others. For instance, The Trafalgar Group was the most accurate of all in 2018, and they have Trump winning. More scientific results come from academics who write algorithms to massage the data. Helmut Norpoth is the most accurate of that group, and he has Trump winning in a landslide.

This year is a mess to parse because of the Pandemic and new mail-in voting that are not absentee ballots. I don't see how tried and true algorithms can be as trusted as before, when the possibilities of delaying the vote count is so likely.

[DonaldD]

The only other non-opinion based indicator that doesn't point to Trump would be in regards to the economy, except that's in the context of Covid19, and opinion polling showing people overwhelmingly thinking Trump is the better candidate in regards to the Economy.

One more non-opinion metric that does not favour Trump - Black voters are voting en masse.  Early polling numbers suggest they are extremely motivated to turn out this election.

[wmLambert]

..One more non-opinion metric that does not favour Trump - Black voters are voting en masse.  Early polling numbers suggest they are extremely motivated to turn out this election.

Yes, and more and more of them are voting for Trump. When one is informed, one votes the pocket book.

[rightleft22]

..One more non-opinion metric that does not favour Trump - Black voters are voting en masse.  Early polling numbers suggest they are extremely motivated to turn out this election.

Yes, and more and more of them are voting for Trump. When one is informed, one votes the pocket book.

I've noted that sentiment among many living in Trumps world where everything is transnational, win lose, what's in it for me perspective on life and how we treat one another.
I think when I hear supports of Trump say things like Trump talks like me, that's what they mean. Its all about me, me, me. As long as I got mine that all that matters

But the comment explains alot about who you are and the failure of many to realized that the factors impacting ones pocket book are nuanced. Sometimes it true that the cost of being our brothers keeper is less then the cost of every man for themselves. But one must be capable of deep thought as it comes to cost.

[wmLambert]

..One more non-opinion metric that does not favour Trump - Black voters are voting en masse.  Early polling numbers suggest they are extremely motivated to turn out this election.

Yes, and more and more of them are voting for Trump. When one is informed, one votes the pocket book.

I've noted that sentiment among many living in Trumps world where everything is transnational, win lose, what's in it for me perspective on life and how we treat one another.
I think when I hear supports of Trump say things like Trump talks like me, that's what they mean. Its all about me, me, me. As long as I got mine that all that matters

But the comment explains alot about who you are and the failure of many to realized that the factors impacting ones pocket book are nuanced. Sometimes it true that the cost of being our brothers keeper is less then the cost of every man for themselves. But one must be capable of deep thought as it comes to cost.

What an ill-informed response. Trump has metrics that people can use to understand his achievements. It's not me-me-me that people look at, but what he has done that works for them and their families. If the issues coincide with what people like, then he gets their vote.

[yossarian22c]

..One more non-opinion metric that does not favour Trump - Black voters are voting en masse.  Early polling numbers suggest they are extremely motivated to turn out this election.

Yes, and more and more of them are voting for Trump. When one is informed, one votes the pocket book.

And Biden is still probably getting around 85% of the Black voters. So a high turnout still hurts Trump.

[wmLambert]

...Biden is still probably getting around 85% of the Black voters. So a high turnout still hurts Trump.

Because so few MSM outlets discuss the issues they need to understand to vote intelligently. When disinformation drives their belief systems, they get reinforced by their peers, family, and authoritarian leaders who believe the same disinformation. Even big-Tech is preventing info from reaching the people to make informed decisions.

As for higher numbers hurting Trump more, understand that the total number is higher - not just Blacks. The percentage who are coming over to Trump affects the total percentage.

[yossarian22c]

...Biden is still probably getting around 85% of the Black voters. So a high turnout still hurts Trump.

Because so few MSM outlets discuss the issues they need to understand to vote intelligently. When disinformation drives their belief systems, they get reinforced by their peers, family, and authoritarian leaders who believe the same disinformation. Even big-Tech is preventing info from reaching the people to make informed decisions.

So according to you the whole black community is just too stupid and misinformed to make an intelligent decision on who to vote for? Wow way to hit the intersection between condescension and racism. You're just like Jarad saying that if only the blacks wanted to succeed as much as the Great Leader wants them to succeed all would be well in the world.

As for higher numbers hurting Trump more, understand that the total number is higher - not just Blacks. The percentage who are coming over to Trump affects the total percentage.

Okay, you said higher african american turnout for Trump was good because he was getting a higher percentage of them. He is getting a higher percentage than in 2016, but only getting 15% of them means a really strong turnout from that group is a net negative for Trump.